Which powder for 95 gr bullet?
- Thread starter egd
- Start date
- Status
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Oh well I was off by a bit I was guessing about 5.3 for 1400, looks like 5.0 got you there.
Looking forward to seeing if you like the 95s or 124s better.
I really like WSF for 9mm, good stuff, seems to work well for me across it's charge range.
Looking forward to seeing if you like the 95s or 124s better.
I really like WSF for 9mm, good stuff, seems to work well for me across it's charge range.
Last edited:
OK, the verdict is in. I went out today with a fair sized batch of the 95 gr bullet load and my regular 124 and shot them both in various 'drills" I use for practice. My reaction to the 95s--meh!
The dot bounce and recoil feel was kinda different, not any better or worse, just different. And not enough different to make me switch from what has worked for me for a good while.
So, I'm sticking with my tried and true. But, oh well, nothing ventured , nothing gained.
Thanks all for the interest and advice.
The dot bounce and recoil feel was kinda different, not any better or worse, just different. And not enough different to make me switch from what has worked for me for a good while.
So, I'm sticking with my tried and true. But, oh well, nothing ventured , nothing gained.
Thanks all for the interest and advice.
Dudedog
Contributing Member
Thanks for the report.
To bad it didn't work out but you never know until you try.
To bad it didn't work out but you never know until you try.
LiveLife
Member
That's what I am thinking. I think 95 gr FMJ loaded to 140-145 PF (1450 - 1500 fps) may do better.
If the test rounds were loaded to around 130-135 PF, especially with "relative" slower burning WSF, may not have sealed the case mouth/neck with the chamber sufficiently before bolt/buffer moved back to start leaking gas.
In my testing, I found faster burning than W231/HP-38 powders pushed to near max/max load data (Keep in mind of gas leakage) at 140+ PF produced cleaner cases (less soot) and greater accuracy. I think this may be why some 3 gunners are pushing their carbine loads higher at 140+ PF with faster burning powders.
Not sure if W231/HP-38 load was tested against WSF but if not, I could certainly do comparison accuracy test as soon as I finish building the chicken house for my wife.
Last edited:
At ~20 yds top accuracy is of little importance to me. It's all about the dot bounce/recoil feel. For the gun games, uspsa mainly for me, I want that second shot as quickly as I can pull the trigger. If the dot is jumping around I have to get it back and that adds time.
And fwiw, all the loads I tested ,using a rest, pretty much tore one ragged half dollar sized hole in the target-at 20 yds.
MAYBE I could keep experimenting with faster fps, different powders, etc., etc., but from this experiment I just don't think it's worth the time and effort.
But thanks everyone for the interest and advice. There's SO much knowledge here on THR it's amazing.
And fwiw, all the loads I tested ,using a rest, pretty much tore one ragged half dollar sized hole in the target-at 20 yds.
MAYBE I could keep experimenting with faster fps, different powders, etc., etc., but from this experiment I just don't think it's worth the time and effort.
But thanks everyone for the interest and advice. There's SO much knowledge here on THR it's amazing.
JJFitch
Member
The issue with using the WSF for the 95 grain bullet means using a powder for so-so performance that might be great for a heavier bullet. One of the reasons for a variety of different powders.
Example: Making PF with a 135-147 grain bullet might create pressure issues with a faster powder (W231) but a slower powder (WSF) works great! But now you don't have any WSF! I prefer to use powders that watch my objective PF/Pressure/Accuracy/Felt recoil and Economy of scale!
Smiles,
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked