Quantcast

THR Group Project - PISTOL - Advanced Reloading Concepts and Discussions

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by LiveLife, Apr 14, 2015.

  1. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    - LOADING FOR BARRELS WITH SHORT OR NO LEADE/FREEBORE/THROAT

    Definition of leade/freebore/throat with illustrations - http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/internal

    Repost from another thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/just-ordered-rmr-124grfmj.821039/#post-10545905

    OAL required to fully chamber RMR's in-house 115/124 gr FMJs depends on the leade/freebore length and start angle of rifling of the barrel.

    Picture below is my KKM 40-9 conversion barrel showing leade/freebore before the start of rifling and like my Lone Wolf 40-9 conversion barrels for Glock 22/23/27 and Just Right/PSA carbine barrels, will not only fully chamber RMR 115/124 gr FMJs loaded to 1.135" OAL but to longer OAL with .378" taper crimp loaded on Lee dies (I do not use the FCD and seat/taper crimp in the same step).

    [​IMG]

    Picture below is my newest Lone Wolf conversion barrel for Glock 23 showing essentially no leade before the start of rifling and I need to load RMR 115/124 gr FMJ to 1.125" OAL to fully chamber.

    [​IMG]

    From left to right, comparison picture below shows bullet nose profiles (ogive) of Zero 115 gr FMJ, RMR 115 gr FMJ, RMR 124 gr FMJ, Winchester 115 gr FMJ and Speer 115 gr TMJ.

    Due to more pointed nose profile, Speer 115 gr TMJ and Winchester 115 gr FMJ fully chambered in my newest Lone Wolf barrel for G23 at 1.165" OAL. Due to more rounded nose profile (which increases the bullet base length), RMR in-house 115/124 gr FMJs fully chambered at 1.125" OAL and Zero 115 gr FMJ fully chambered at 1.120" OAL.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2017
  2. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    - VERTICAL MARKINGS ON BEAM SCALES

    Repost from another thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...cale-vertical-divisions.821390/#post-10550343

    You are correct. I believe they could be used to verify the repeatability of the scale by moving the micro poise to 1.0 grain which should move the pointer to the bottom 5th marking or weigh up to 1.0 grain which should move the pointer to the top 5th marking (this is factoring your beam scale has been cleaned/tuned to repeat zero).

    On my Ohaus 10-10, I adjusted the micro drum poise for 1.0 grain and the pointer dropped to bottom 5th marking which indicates each marking is 0.2 grain. I repeated the procedure several times with the same result.

    [​IMG]

    Then I moved the micro drum poise back to zero and metered 1.0 grain of W231/HP-38 on the Ohaus 10-10 until the pointer went up to top 5th mark and Gemini-20 digital scale (with .02 grain resolution) read 1.00 grain. I repeated the test several times with the same result.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2017
  3. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    - POWDER TYPES (Shape/Burn rate/Coating)

    Continuing from post #178 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...s-and-discussions.778197/page-8#post-10163949

    Updating "relative" burn rate split from faster to slower based on Hodgdon's latest powder burn rate chart - http://www.wwpowder.com/PDF/Burn Rates - 2015-2016.pdf

    Faster burning pistol powders:

    E3 - Competition - Nitro 100 - N310 - Norma R1

    Red Dot/Promo - IMR Red - Clays - 700X - Bullseye - Vectan Ba 10 - IMR Target - TiteGroup - Vectan AS - Am. Select - Solo 1000 - WST - International - Trail Boss - N320 - Vectan Ba 9.5 - No. 2 - Clean Shot/Lovex D032.03

    W231/HP-38 - Zip - Sport Pistol - Green Dot - IMR Green

    Slower burn- ing pistol powders
    :

    Unique - Universal - IMR Unequal - Vectan Ba 9 - BE-86 - Power Pistol - N330 - Vectan A1 - Herco - Vectan A0 - WSF - N340 - 800X

    No. 5 - Auto Pistol/Lovex D036-03 - True Blue - HS6 - AutoComp - Ultimate Pistol/Lovex D036-07 - CFE Pistol - Silhouette - 3N37

    N350 - 3N38 - IMR Blue - W572 - Blue Dot - No. 7 - Major Pistol/Lovex D037-01 - Vectan Ba 7.5 - Pro Reach - Long Shot - 2400

    Enforcer - No. 9 - Heavy Pistol/Lovex D037-02 - 4100 - Steel - Norma R123 - N110 - Lil'Gun - W296/H110 - 300-MP - 11FS - Vectan Ba 6.5 - H4227
     
  4. vaalpens

    vaalpens Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,967
    All the burn rate charts I have seen lists CFE Pistol as slower than Power Pistol. My experience so far loading Power Pistol and CFE Pistol is to be careful with CFE Pistol. Most of the times it seems to act as a faster burn rate powder when compared to Power Pistol. With the same Powder Charge as Power Pistol, CFE Pistol will produce higher velocities. I don't know if the pressure is higher, but the velocity is definitely higher.
     
  5. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    - RELOADING FOR TIGHTER CHAMBER BARRELS

    Repost from another thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/plunk-every-round.826550/#post-10646402

    Depends on variables like barrel (factory or match/aftermarket), sizing of bullet (.355" - .356"+), bullet profile (RN, FN/FP, HP, SWC), case wall thickness or consistency (while most brass case wall average .011", some are thicker at .012"+).

    - I don't plunk general purpose rounds for factory barrels with looser chambers.

    - I plunk every resized brass (not finished rounds) when I am doing initial load development with a new bullet or if my QC sample of finished rounds fail to fully chamber in tightest barrel I have (to rule out brass sizing factor) until I resolve the issue.

    - I plunk every match round. After a round failed to go into battery fully during a USPSA match forcing me to rack the slide to chamber another round, I started plunking every finished match round.

    - I plunk every finished round when I am reloading for aftermarket or match grade barrels with tight chambers like my Sig 1911 with no leade, my newest Lone Wolf 9mm barrel with no leade and Lone Wolf 40S&W barrels with longer leade but tighter chambers.

    - I plunk every finished round when I am reloading with larger sized bullets (Like .356" sized Hornady 124 gr HAP, Zero 115 gr FMJ or Lead/Coated Lead bullets) as they will bulge the case wall more around bottom of bullet base area (not touched by taper crimp die depending on seating depth) and with headstamp brass known to have thicker or uneven case wall thickness as bulged area will hang on tighter chamber walls.

    - I plunk every finished round when I am using larger sized bullets and/or bullet profile that results in much deeper seated bullet base as case wall thickness increases as you go down towards case base and will bulge the case wall more around the bottom of bullet base area (not touched by taper crimp die depending on seating depth) and hang on the chamber wall.
     
  6. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    - CASE WALL THICKNESS AND CONSISTENCY

    Repost from another thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/plunk-every-round.826550/#post-10646940

    With tighter chamber barrels even with properly adjusted dies (using a random case), variation in subsequent case wall thickness or consistency (which is unpredictable with mixed range brass) can prevent some finished rounds from fully chambering in the barrel.

    After adjusting my dies for RMR 115 gr FMJ sized .3555" at 1.110"-1.115" OAL to freely chamber in my no-leade Lone Wolf barrel with Federal (.FC. headstamp) brass, I had occasional finished rounds that did not fully chamber (I was chambering every finished round in the barrel). After some head scratching investigation, I identified the causes of the "rub" on chamber wall as thicker walls bulging more around bullet base area and inconsistent thickness case wall creating oval (instead of round) shape case neck around the bullet base area where the taper crimp die could not reach.

    While headstamps like WIN, .FC., Blazer had consistent case wall thickness around .011"-.012", headstamps like CBC and some RP (Yes, this was a surprise to me too) had thicker case wall (.012"+) and headstamps like PMC, Tula were all over the place with case wall thickness being inconsistent from .0100" to over .0130" on other side of same case causing elongation of case neck (as clearly measured by calipers) where taper crimp die could not reach. (I will be starting a new myth busting thread on case wall thickness and consistency so stay tuned)

    CBC/RP cases with thicker case wall bulging more around bullet base and PMC/Tula cases with elongated bulges failed to fully chamber in my newest Lone Wolf barrel with tighter chamber. Good news was that these out-of-round elongated case neck finished rounds fully chambered in KKM and older Lone Wolf barrels with looser chamber dimensions. So now I plunk test every 115 gr FMJ round loaded shorter at 1.110"-1.115" (OAL variance range I get from my Pro 1000) and set aside those that do not fully chamber to be shot in KKM/older LW barrels or in my carbines.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2017
    jell-dog likes this.
  7. Toprudder

    Toprudder Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    Messages:
    3,025
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    I have found that 9mm cases are particularly interesting when it comes to case wall thickness.

    A while back I did a comparison of about a dozen different headstamps and found a lot of variations. (I wish I had my notes in front of me). Most had a constant wall thickness for the first ~ 0.2", then the walls start tapering in thickness down to the web. I found at least one headstamp where the wall thickness started tapering immediately from the case mouth. Some tapered more than others.

    For light 115gn bullets, the base does not go as deep in the case as heavier bullets, and I figured that with typical RN 115gn bullets I would not have any potential problems with any of the headstamps I checked. OTOH, 147gn bullets, especially ones that have to be seated deep due to their profiles (some JHP, for instance) may have issues with bulging of the case on the thicker walled brass.

    And then there are the "stepped" walls of the IMT and Ammoload headstamps. The wall thickness is pretty constant until the step. Some people assume that the step is to prevent bullet setback, but I could not find any bullet that would be seated close to the step when seated to typical COL - not even close. I have read where the internal step is merely an alternate way of manufacturing the brass while still having close to the same internal volume as the tapered wall cases. The downside to the internal step is that it concentrates stress at the step, and there is the potential (and many documented instances) of the case separating at the step, particularly on blow-back guns where the case movement/extraction starts before chamber pressure has dropped. I have started discarding all of these type cases when I find them.
     
    jell-dog likes this.
  8. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    - RELOADING FOR BARRELS WITH SHORT OR NO LEADE

    Repost from another thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/plunk-every-round.826550/page-2#post-10648125

    Here's actual "specifications" for 9mm from SAAMI - http://saami.org/specifications_and...ownload/Z299-3_ANSI-SAAMI_CFPandR.pdf#page=10

    [​IMG]

    The SAAMI specifications CLEARLY indicate for 9mm FMJ/RN profile projectile OAL/COL with minimum range from 1.000" to maximum 1.169".

    While barrels with longer leade and more gradual start angle of rifling may accommodate OAL of 1.169", barrels with shorter or no leade and sharper start angle of rifling will need shorter OAL. The ONLY way we can determine whether a finished round will fully chamber in any barrel is to drop the round in the chamber also known as the "plunk test" and well illustrated by Walkalong in this thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...rel-find-a-max-o-a-l-with-your-bullet.506678/

    Owners of Springfield XD/XDm, Walther PPQ and CZ pistols cannot use the longer OAL that work in other pistols and must use much shorter OAL. My newest Lone Wolf barrel with no leade will not chamber a FMJ/RN loaded to 1.140" (that will chamber in KKM and other Lone Wolf barrel with longer leade) and I must decrease the OAL to shorter than 1.125".

    [​IMG]

    And keep in mind that with mixed range brass, resized case length can vary by several thousandths and different amount of bullet nose will enter the bore when chambered rounds headspace off case mouth (unless the resized case was so short the finished round headspace off extractor). This reloading variable alone can prevent a finished round from fully chambering freely with a "plonk" and due to this, when I conduct my initial max/working OAL determination, I will use the average of resized case lengths and subtract .3"-.5" from working OAL to compensate for resized case length variance.

    Jacketed/plated and lead/coated lead bullet manufacturers have also changed the nose profile of 9mm FMJ/RN bullets over the years. Picture below compares more traditional "pointed" nose profile to rounder nose profile of MBC 9mm 124 gr RN "Small Ball" with shorter nose that increases the bear surface/bullet base length. Using more typical OAL of 1.125" with this bullet will result in nose hitting the start of rifling.

    [​IMG]

    As shown in the comparison picture below, you can see the longer bearing surface of MBC RN next to shorter bearing surface lengths of more traditional pointed RN bullets to the right.

    [​IMG]

    The shorter more rounder MBC RN must be loaded shorter to fully chamber in most barrels (even with longer leade) and now MBC recommends on their website using 1.080" OAL - http://missouribullet.com/details.php?prodId=51&category=5&secondary=8&keywords=

    [​IMG]
    Since you are using Zero FMJ (BTW, they are sized larger at .356"), you will notice in the comparison picture below that Zero 115 gr FMJ has shorter rounder nose profile compared to other 115 gr FMJ.

    Due to more pointed nose profile, Speer 115 gr TMJ and Winchester 115 gr FMJ fully chambered in my newest Lone Wolf barrel with no leade at 1.165" OAL. Due to more rounded nose profile, RMR in-house 115/124 gr FMJs fully chambered at 1.125" OAL and Zero 115 gr FMJ fully chambered at 1.120" OAL.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2017
    lauderdale, Toprudder and jell-dog like this.
  9. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    - SHOOTING FOR ACCURACY / GROUPS -

    Repost from another thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/best-group.842106/page-2#post-10938165

    We all have good days and bad days at the range and for me to call a load accurate, it must consistently shoot accurate on repeated range trips at all distances of 7, 15 and 25 yards.

    For my load development and accuracy range testing, I start at 7 yards from start charge until I have reliable slide cycling and spent case extraction and ejection. Then I will take identified more accurate loads and shoot at 15 yards to determine the most accurate charge then incrementally reduce the OAL to see if shot groups reduce. Then I will take the most accurate load and shoot at 25 yards (With scoped carbine testing, I start at 25 yards then 50 and 100 yards).

    For decades, I have used 1" at 7 yards, 2" at 15 yards and 3" at 25 yards as my accuracy reference as I found decent factory and consistent reloads to produce these group sizes from typical service pistols. Only very accurate loads have produced 2" or less groups at 25 yards so small groups around one inch at 7 yards won't provide much information as shot groups at 10, 15 and 25 yards (But at longer range, shooter input becomes more of a factor. My bullseye match shooting mentor even tested loads at 25 and 50 yards with his match pistols and produced smaller groups than my groups at 15/25 yards. :eek:)

    Many claim accuracy testing should be done beyond 10/15 yards and I usually start my testing at minimum of 10 yards:

    9mm Herco jacketed/plated/lead testing at 10 yards - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/9mm-and-herco-for-jacketed-lead-plated-bullets.745656/

    9mm 147 gr "light" load comparison at 10 yards - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...bullet-powder-comparison.748940/#post-9424833

    But shooting at 25 yards really will separate accurate loads from less accurate loads as sum of reloading variables and shooter input can extrapolate to larger groups on paper. So only the most accurate loads will produce smaller shot groups repeatedly at 25 yards and you may not see this at 7 yards.


    Plated bullets with rounded base leak more gas and are generally less accurate than jacketed bullets. Yet, Berry's regular plated 124 gr RN (solid base) loaded long (I was trying to minimize gas leakage) produced these groups at 25 yards - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...e-pistol-reloaders.746062/page-2#post-9382933

    [​IMG]

    And RMR 124 gr Hardcore Match RN (which has thicker plating similar to Speer TMJ) produced these groups at 25 yards. With so many reloading variables (these were done with mixed range brass) and shooter input, being able to produce smaller than 2" groups at 25 yards means these loads had to be more accurate than others - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ick-plated-bullets.761471/page-5#post-9655361

    [​IMG]
     
  10. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
  11. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
  12. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    BiknSwans likes this.
  13. fxvr5

    fxvr5 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,277
    The important variable is powder weight. Faster powders generally use less weight to reach the same speed as slower powders, and less powder weight means less gas (usually), and therefore less gas pressure to add to the recoil force, as discussed in the article.
     
    Toprudder likes this.
  14. murf

    murf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,622
    Location:
    arizona
    agreed, 25 yards separates the men from the boys! seven yards doesn't help in this situation.

    murf
     
    PhillySoldier likes this.
  15. tcoz

    tcoz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,232
    Location:
    South Carolina Lowcountry
    This thread and the similar one for rifle are two of the most information packed and useful threads that I’ve ever read on any forum. Is there a reason why they haven’t been made a sticky (pinned)?
     
  16. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    These threads were meant to be "discussion" threads. Intent was for us to discuss various topics and concepts (beyond the basics) then test them using objective measurements that were repeatable.

    Objective measurements that are repeatable were to be tested using the "Myth Busting" thread process.

    Once verified by measurable and repeatable data, THEN plan was to compile conclusions (we are still working on collecting data).

    Perhaps the compiled conclusions could go into a new thread that could be stickied for reference use.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  17. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    To better quantify reloading variables, I have broken down the variables to these measurable and repeatable factors:
    • Pending - Primer performance (Which primer produces smallest groups? The myth busting thread after Powder charge variance thread)
    • Pending - Powder performance (Muzzle velocities/SD vs group size - The "holes on target", the end result I am working towards ... smallest group combination with mixed/sorted range brass)
    Before rcmodel passed, I promised him that I would try to contribute to THR in a manner that clarified/organized our practice of reloading, pushed the limits/boundries of our tools/components (managed .001" OAL variance from a "humble" progressive), and raise our standards of reloading (that were measurable and repeatable) so as to benefit not only THR members/guests but the reloading community with hard facts and practical data for useful reference (truthful data and not opinions).

    Ultimately, isn't our primary purpose of combined posting on THR to pass on reloading knowledge and experience to the next generation of reloaders? Some of us have floated the idea of working on a "practical" (not comprehensive) reloading "reference" ebook/guide project like From Ingot to Target: A Cast Bullet Guide for Handgunners Glen Fryxell generously gifted to the reloading community - http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_Contents.htm

    As I approach retirement, I welcome such a project and these pages and various myth busting threads are rough worksheets for different chapters. Of course, long before some chapters are finalized, there must be more refined process with greater sample size. And eventually range testing with accurate/precision hard mounted test fixture like this - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/rifle-rest.458493/#post-5724026

    I have done cursory testing with different rests/bipods but leaning towards building a test fixture like the one posted by Bart B. for eventual standardization of range testing of pistols/carbines. I have Just Right carbine with 9mm/40S&W/45ACP barrel conversions to use for hard mounted testing.

    So let us continue our discussions and pondering of reloading concepts. If you have any comments to work I have done so far (Please limit them to above measurable/repeatable measurement threads - I have only one lifetime :)), post away (Longer I stay married to my wife, more she is convincing me that my thought process may be in question. :eek::oops::D).
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
    ATLDave and Toprudder like this.
  18. fxvr5

    fxvr5 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,277
    The question of whether a smaller standard deviation in velocity is correlated with group size has been addressed here:

    https://americanhandgunner.com/exclusive-consistent-velocity-accuracy/

    The answer, in that test with a 9mm pistol, was no correlation. Small velocity standard deviation did not result in smaller groups. Testing used multiple 15-shot groups and the gun was held in a Ransom Rest, targets at 25 yards.
     
  19. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Good article.

    With Ransom Rest testing, I was expecting smaller SD numbers producing smaller groups but test data confirms what many people have been posting - lower SD numbers don't always translate to smaller groups (which has been the case for me as well and illustrated by various load development threads).

    As the article summary states, we should focus on holes on target and less on consistency of velocity. Besides, I will be monitoring for smallest shot groups which would be the objective of the pending thread. My current guess based on my testing data is showdown between Alliant Sport Pistol and IMR Target (two powders that produced smallest 25 yard 10 shot carbine groups so far).

    Article did verify the affect of velocity and bullet drop. For my carbine testing at 50/100 yards, lower SD number loads definitely produced less vertical stringing, which translated to smaller group size.

    And the article only tested Power Pistol and True Blue. I will be testing faster powders from Bullseye to W231/HP-38, Sport Pistol and BE-86 (Which is faster than Power Pistol, canister version of BE-84) that more reloaders use for 9mm; especially for 125-130 power factor many match shooters and reloaders load at.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  20. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    But wait, there's more. :p

    My summarized information on shooting fast "double taps" anywhere on target at will - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/trying-to-double-tap.840922/#post-10920036

    If you want summarized information on shooting "action pistol" accurate and fast, check out this thread (posts #91 through #97) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-help-me-speed-up.824618/page-4#post-10902226
     
  21. PhillySoldier

    PhillySoldier Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    155
    I have ransom rest tested both of these powders multiple times and I agree I get a higher velocity from CFE Pistol compared to Power Pistol at the same charge weights. With that said though the my optimal group results from each differed largely. PP seemed to do best w a charge of 5.8 - 5.9g for me around 1,200 fps. With CFE I got best results with a charge weight of 5.0g and a velocity around 1080 fps. (testing was with 115g projectiles)
     
  22. PhillySoldier

    PhillySoldier Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    155
    Over the last half year Ive been doing a lot of ransom rest testing and getting analytical in what works the best. So far Ive tested 5-6 different types of powder; each multiple times with different factors. Today I happened to make up a summary page of all tests and ordered by Best to Worst so far for me. Reading though this thread gave me an idea to go assign burn rates to my summary page and sure enough I saw an consistent trend in that the slower the burn rate, the better the results Ive been getting.

    Id like to try testing a few more slower powders now to see if the trend continues. The slowest Ive tested so far is CFE Pistol (#45) on the burn rate charts. Can anyone recommend any powders slower than that to try?

    http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2018/08/get-latest-powder-burn-rate-chart-here/
     
  23. Toprudder

    Toprudder Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    Messages:
    3,025
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    Accurate #7. I had pretty consistent results through a wide charge range in 9mm.
     
    PhillySoldier likes this.
  24. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    When I get inconsistent results from expected, I question if some reloading variables are overshadowing others.

    That's why I systematically approached reloading variables and isolated each to determine most consistent reloading practice in post #217 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...s-and-discussions.778197/page-9#post-10940381
     
  25. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    23,376
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    - ACCURACY POTENTIAL OF DIFFERENT FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION -

    I am listing the following to reference the accuracy potential of various firearms and ammunition. If you are doing load development and conducting accuracy range testing with particular pistol, it may be beneficial to know what the accuracy potential of that pistol may be. ;)


    Repost from another thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/best-group.842106/page-3#post-10940425

    FYI, this American Rifleman link lists various pistol review articles and especially reviews with "Tested" often has 25 yard group sizes (15 yards for compacts, 50 yards for carbines) using different ammunition - http://www.americanrifleman.org/handguns/semi-auto/


    Nighthawk Custom Hi-Power (25 yards) 0.74" to 1.71" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/4/11/tested-nighthawk-custom-hi-power/

    EAA Witness Elite 1911 (25 yards) 0.82" to 1.41" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/5/5/tested-eaa-witness-elite-1911-polymer-pistol/

    Lipsey's Vickers Tactical Glock 17 (25 yards) 1.00" to 1.80" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/3/23/tested-lipsey-s-vickers-tactical-glock-17/

    Ruger PC carbine (50 yards) 1.13" to 1.42" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2018/1/2/tested-ruger-s-pc-carbine-and-security-9-pistol/

    Sig P320 X-Five/VTAC (25 yards) 1.14" to 1.97" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2018/8/10/tested-sig-sauer-p320-x-series-pistols/

    S&W M&P9 M2.0 Compact (25 yards) 1.22" to 3.64" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/11/30/tested-smith-wesson-mp9-m20-compact-pistol/

    Remington R1 M1911 (25 yards) 1.24" to 2.99" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2011/1/13/the-remington-r1-m1911/

    KRISS Vector Gen II SDP 9 (25 yards) 1.33" to 1.53" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/7/19/tested-kriss-usa-vector-gen-ii-sdp-9-mm-pistol/

    S&W M&P9 M2.0 (25 yards) 1.33" to 2.36" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/5/22/tested-smith-wessons-mp-m20-pistol/

    Sig P225 (25 yards) 1.38" to 2.43" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2018/6/22/tested-sig-sauer-p225-a1-nitron-compact-pistol/

    Ruger SR1911 Target (25 yards) 1.46" to 3.23" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/1/9/tested-ruger-sr1911-target-pistol/

    Sig P226 Legion Series (25 yards) 1.58" to 2.36" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/4/15/tested-sig-sauer-legion-series-p226-pistol/

    Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Lite (25 yards) 1.82" to 2.00" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/3/3/tested-ruger-mark-iv-2245-lite-pistol/

    FN 509 (25 yards) 1.88" to 2.06" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/6/26/tested-the-fn-509-pistol/

    H&K VP9SK (25 yards) 1.97" to 2.23" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2018/1/5/tested-heckler-koch-s-vp9sk-pistol/

    Beretta APX (25 yards) 2.30" to 2.47" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/7/25/tested-beretta-s-apx-pistol/

    CZ P-10 C (25 yards) 2.40" to 3.02" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/10/6/tested-cz-p-10-c-pistol/

    Kimber Camp Guard 10mm (25 yards) 2.41" to 2.69" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2018/1/11/tested-kimber-camp-guard-10-pistol/

    Springfield XDM 4.5" OSP (25 yards) 2.46" to 2.80" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/3/21/tested-springfield-xdm-45-osp-9-mm-pistol/

    Ruger American (25 yards) 2.48" to 2.89" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/12/29/tested-ruger-american-pistol/

    PSA 1911 Stainless Two-Tone (25 yards) 2.51" to 2.89" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...to-state-armory-1911-two-tone-premium-pistol/

    Walther PPQ M2 Q4 Tac (25 yards) 2.53" to 2.76" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2018/1/19/tested-walther-ppq-m2-q4-tac-9-mm-pistol/

    Ruger Security 9 (25 yards) 2.63" to 3.15" - https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2018/1/2/tested-ruger-s-pc-carbine-and-security-9-pistol/

    More pistol reviews and 25 yard groups at link.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice