Variance in bullet weight question and other 9mm load help

[pdxrealtor]

What is the acceptable, if any, variance in lead cast bullet weight? I'm getting at advertised to -3 grain weights. Normal or not?

 

 

I got to thinking about this after looking at the powder companies reloading data for a 9mm 115g RNLC bullet then comparing that data to the Lyman 49th addition which does not have a 115 RNLC, but has a 120g RNLC. 

 

The COL between the two is .005 shorter on the 120g in the Lyman manual. 

 

The only powders used by both sources is AA #5, and the min/max loads are quite different. To be exact .5 grains on either end. So, the powder companies start load is the Lyman's max load. Again, the variable being the suggested COL and bullet weight. 

 

Going to FINALLY fire up the 650 and am starting with the 9mm. This is more of a curiosity thing. I'm just looking for others experienced input on the 'whys'. 

 

Since my powder is not mentioned in the Lyman I will lean towards the powder manufacturers load data. 

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by pdxrealtor
Added to title

[Hi-Power Jack]

Do you mean that advertised 115's measured out at 112 ?

Or that they range from 112 - 115;   or from 112 - 118?

Many bullets, esp lead, are lighter or heavier than advertised.

But, not by +/- 3 grains - that's a bit too much, IMHO.  

 

[grapemeister]

I wouldn't sweat it for now.  Plus or minus a grain or two is normal for cast lead.  For me, a 3 grain variance would maybe be a cause for concern, but if I really liked the bullet I would be willing to put up with it.   Just average everything when working up a load.  If you're working up a load for competition shooting that requires a minimum  power factor, go with the lower grain bullet when calculating the power factor with a chrono, even though there might be some heavy bullets mixed in, and you should be safe. 

[pdxrealtor]

Thanks both. 
 

I mean 115s measuring 112, haven't found any higher than the 115 advertised rate. I only weight a few out of a handful a 3k pack. 

 

So it doesn't sound like the - 3 grain variance accounts for the .5 grain powder weight difference between the powder manufacturer load data and load data book I have. Meaning the load data is different for other reasons. 

 

I  think leaning towards the powder manufacturer data is the logical thing to do, even though it is .5 grains more for each min/max load with only a .5 grain (120 vs. 115) bullet weight difference. 

How's this sound to the experienced guys out there? New loader here.... 

 

I just loaded up some dummy rounds at the 1.060 COL suggested by the manufacturer load data and they sure look short, but also cycle through my guns just fine and, of course, pass the drop in barrel test. 

 

I guess while I'm here I should ask about crimping to make sure I'm understanding what I've read. I am flaring just enough to drop the lead in without much effort. I setup crimp just enough to close the belle. Correct? 

With this short cartridge if I crimp too much I crease the brass case. 

[ChemistShooter]

Fairly new loader here too, but I'll pass along what I've seen here. And confirmed for myself, as I'm currently using coated lead.

1. You want the minimum bell. Coated lead appears to require a little more bell than copper.

2.Also just enough on the crimp die to remove the bell. Make some dummy rounds and pull them. There should be no streaks where the coating has been removed. 9mm holds by neck tension only. There should be no crimp. Cartridge width at the case mouth should be exactly the bullet width plus twice the wall thickness. For example, I'm loading .356" with .010" thick wall. Bullet width at the case mouth is .376.

[pdxrealtor]

16 minutes ago, ChemistShooter said:

Fairly new loader here too, but I'll pass along what I've seen here. And confirmed for myself, as I'm currently using coated lead.

1. You want the minimum bell. Coated lead appears to require a little more bell than copper.

2.Also just enough on the crimp die to remove the bell. Make some dummy rounds and pull them. There should be no streaks where the coating has been removed. 9mm holds by neck tension only. There should be no crimp. Cartridge width at the case mouth should be exactly the bullet width plus twice the wall thickness. For example, I'm loading .356" with .010" thick wall. Bullet width at the case mouth is .376.

The coating should be removed completely, or, the coating should be fully in tact with no streaks? 

 

 

[grapemeister]

No matter the source of the load data, start low and work your way up.   With new powders I usually start so low the gun won't cycle properly.  It's better to be safe than sorry.   A chronograph is also highly recommended to give you an idea of what kind of velocity you're getting for a particular load.  In the good old days before I had a chronograph, and when I wasn't worried about reaching a particular velocity, I would work up a load that cycled the gun, was accurate, and was towards the low end of the suggested powder charge from the published data.

I would try to go longer for your over all length.   1.060 is short for my taste, but some times you have to go that short, depending on the type of chamber and/or bullet profile.   When working up an over all length I start at 1.15 and work my way down, if needed. 

[pdxrealtor]

Thanks. The missing link for us noobs is bullet data. All other data is clearly spelled out in load books and powder manufacturer manuals. In both sources the only wildcard is the bullet. I do the logical thing and head on over to the bullet manufacturer page and get nothing. No data. 

 

I suppose it will all come with time. 

 

I was a bit off in my numbers above between the Lyman and Western Powder load data. The min/max powder charge for A#5 and the 115/120 L RN bullet is very close. The OAL from the powder supplier is 1.070, not 1.060. And, in the Lyman for the 120 grain bullet is 1.065. 

 

All data is cross checking OK now that I re-checked it. 

 

I see what you're saying. Upping the OAL is lowering the pressure using the same min/max charge numbers. I also ready, at least for 9mm, a good COL starting point is one that drops in your barrels without issue. Perhaps I'll start at a 1.090 COL and minimum charge. I think that will be safe and since all the factory ammo I've check for COL is above 1.100 I should have no issues in any gun I own, though I will drop a couple dummies in the barrel and cycle them as well. 

 

 

[CZ85Combat]

Shorter OAL cause pressure to go up.  You need to do the push test to see what OAL your barrel needs.  The link will help you out.  start with post #4

http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=34225.0

 

[pdxrealtor]

16 minutes ago, CZ85Combat said:

Shorter OAL cause pressure to go up.  You need to do the push test to see what OAL your barrel needs.  The link will help you out.  start with post #4

http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=34225.0

 

What would be a happy medium? RIght now I want to have a factory type load. Fires in anything, is perfect for nothing. These are bulk plinkers with the heavier loads aimed to mimic carry loads only in terms of feel for the purpose of accurate training. 

 

I just dialed the COL in at 1.090. No issues in all the guns I have laying around. Gives a bit more space in the case as 1.070 is suggested. 

[Beef15]

Three grains light in cast bullets just means they used a different alloy than what the mold was spec'ed with. The metals that make the alloy fill a mold better and the end product harder are all lighter than lead. Commercial casters often cast harder than necessary and customers won't be happy poor fill out, and also most want shiny bullets. If it's +/- 1.5gr that's the result of two or more different pots of alloy or big variations in mold cavities. Not really significant for safe loading, might not want to shoot them unsorted in a bullseye comp.

Are they PC or Hi-Tek coated lead?

Comparing 115gr data to 120gr data and finding the 120 a half grain lighter is not surprising.

For COAL seat long, plunk test and reseat until it passes then go another 0.005 or so to account for the variable ogive of cast. Not every cavity in a mold is cut truly identical and not every cavity will run at the same heat all the time. As long as you end up longer than the book data you can safely use their min and probably anything up to and including max powder charge.

DO check for barrel leading while testing. If they are not coated, minor changes in powder charge or crimp can make a difference in leading, or you may have to switch powders, how pressure builds matters. If they're coated as long as the coating remains intact you should be good to go.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Beef15

[CZ85Combat]

Do the push test in all of your guns, load to the shortest barrel less 0.015".  being new to reloading you want to load long, to keep psi down. what powder and bullet do you want to use?

[pdxrealtor]

The bullets are 115 grain hi-tek coated. I'm using Silhouette  

[pdxrealtor]

If my guns all like the 1.070 COL. why would I veer from that?

 

 

Sure later when I'm not trying to bang out some plinking rounds but I don't understand why I'd veer from the load data including the suggested COL, at this point. 

 

In any event it seems like a lot suggest going over the 1.070 COL, so I did. I bumped it up to 1.090 and kept with the minimum load of 5.1 grains. 

 

This brings me to my next issue. The Dillon 650 is not letting me throw a consistent 5.1 grains. It's either a 5.1 or 5.2. I can get three 5.1 throws, then pull a load random and it's at 5.2 grains. 

 

The other variable I'm having is the COL. I set it at 1.090 and tested it on a few empties to make sure it was consistent. After a couple hundred rounds I'm seeing 1.0835 - 1.093. I'm wondering if this is from a variance in the case or the lead nose of the bullet? 

 

I caught a couple that had high primers and reseated them, so it's not that. 

[Hi-Power Jack]

5 hours ago, pdxrealtor said:

1.  The Dillon 650  throws  either a 5.1 or 5.2.

 

2. The other variable is the COL. I'm seeing 1.0835 - 1.093. 

 

3. I caught a couple that had high primers and reseated them, so it's not that. 

1.  Perfectly normal

2.  perfectly normal

3.  I've heard of people "reseating" live primers - gives me the shivers.

     Especially if you have a loaded round (powder & bullet seated).

Just my humble opinion.  

[Beef15]

7 hours ago, pdxrealtor said:

If my guns all like the 1.070 COL. why would I veer from that?

Closer to mag length will generally feed more reliably, but not always. Also with lead there is a potential for the case to swage the bullet, more likely the deeper it goes, especially in 9mm but not so much with 115s, undersized bullets are almost always less accurate and may lead the bore.

Sure later when I'm not trying to bang out some plinking rounds but I don't understand why I'd veer from the load data including the suggested COL, at this point. 

Sticking within published data is fine,  but you're not, you have a different bullet. Going longer without jamming the lands lowers pressure in pistol, so with rare exceptions in feeding no harm in it.

In any event it seems like a lot suggest going over the 1.070 COL, so I did. I bumped it up to 1.090 and kept with the minimum load of 5.1 grains. 

Should be fine

This brings me to my next issue. The Dillon 650 is not letting me throw a consistent 5.1 grains. It's either a 5.1 or 5.2. I can get three 5.1 throws, then pull a load random and it's at 5.2 grains. 

I missed your powder, +/- 0.05gr is pretty good on a progressive. The better your technique and finer the powder the tighter the variance will be.

The other variable I'm having is the COL. I set it at 1.090 and tested it on a few empties to make sure it was consistent. After a couple hundred rounds I'm seeing 1.0835 - 1.093. I'm wondering if this is from a variance in the case or the lead nose of the bullet? 

COL is going to vary, generally more with cast/coated bullets, ogives aren't prefect, also the subplate of the press can only be made so perfect, and it and the press will deflect ever so slightly.

I caught a couple that had high primers and reseated them, so it's not that. 

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Beef15

[pdxrealtor]

4 hours ago, Beef15 said:

you have a different bullet.

I tried without success to find the difference, if any, between the Oregon Trail laser cast lead and the Lyman #356242 lead cast. Anyone know the difference? 

 

Thanks for the rest of the answers it clears up a lot of uncertainty for this newbie reloader. I've had this D 650 on my bench for months and part of the reason it's sat there is I've been a bit intimidated by it. As with anything once I jump in I realize just how silly I've been letting intimidation allow procrastination. 

 

I'm going to go see how these start loads shoot! 

[CZ85Combat]

People tell you to load longer because it is safer.  For a person new to re-loading it is better to error on the side of being safer.  your 115 grain hi-tek coated bullet is not the same bullet as was tested for the manual.

Silhouette is a slower burning powder and is better suited for magnum loads (357,41 & 44)  When you go looking for powder look for HP-38, W231, N320, AA NO.2. 

N320 is about the best powder you can get.  burns the cleanest and meters well, but it is on the high end $$

[pdxrealtor]

Hate to be the new guy telling others but I can't pass this one up. Silhouette is absolutely not for magnum loads, at least .357. I tried and tried to (since I have 8lbs) convince myself to use that powder for my .357 loads. Even called and spoke to the ballistician at Western Powders twice. I have recommended loads from him (which aren't published) but the problem is the powder is too position specific and won't fill the case enough in a .357 load. They turn out erratic under the Chorno.... 

 

I researched high and low for months before I bought 9mm/.45 acp powder and Silhouette was amongst the top mentioned over and over throughout the years (used to be WAP). True Blue is very close on the burn rate scale and will work very, very, well for 9mm/.45 AND .357 mid to bottom of top end velocities. I got 12lbs of it just for .357 magnum and to possibly try in 9mm. I got 4 lbs of A#9 for the .357 barn burners. 

 

Ok... apologies if I came off as the newb teaching the vet. If anything is incorrect I'm all ears. It's just that I literally JUST spent a month on this Silhouette for .357 magnum thing and prior on the ideal 9mm powder. I may not be able to load em', but I can buy the supplies!

[ChemistShooter]

When you pull the dummy bullet, the coating should be intact. The goal is for the seating and de-crimping to NOT remove any of the coating.

[pdxrealtor]

2 hours ago, ChemistShooter said:

When you pull the dummy bullet, the coating should be intact. The goal is for the seating and de-crimping to NOT remove any of the coating.

Thanks for clarifying. I pulled several bullets even before I loosened up the crimp and the coating was in tact on all but one where I had applied too much crimp. In the end I used your case thickness x2 plus bullet diameter check. All is good! .375-.376.

[pdxrealtor]

I went to the range and put my rounds through several different guns. Got the chrono going and logged a bunch of data. Pretty happy with how things turned out considering this is my first 200 rounds. 

I had a raised primer and a dud primer, a side from that even the Kimber Ultra Carry was a smooth operator. 

I have a feeling the Oregon Trail laser cast RN bullet in the Western Powder reload data is similar or the same as the Hi Tek coated LRN bullets I'm using. I started with a minimum load of 5.1 grains (Silhouette powder) and 0.020 more OAL than the manual suggested. 

I shot out of a barrel that is .6" and .9" longer (CZ 75 B and Beretta Vertec) than the load data test barrel of 4". 

To summarize - 

Suggested load data 115 grain bullet -

Barrel - 4 " ; COL 1.070 ; Start Load 5.1 grains Silhouette - Primers Winchester SP ; Start Velocity - 1126 FPS

Actual Load CZ 75 b  -

4.6" Barrel ; COL 1.090 ; Start Load 5.1 grains Silhouette - Primers Winchester SP ; Start Velocity - (Average) 1071 FPS ; Power Factor 123

Actual Load Beretta 92 FS Vertec -

4.9" Barrel ; COL 1.090 ; Start Load 5.1 grains Silhouette - Primers Winchester SP ; Start Velocity - (Average) 1065 FPS ; Power Factor 122

Actual Load CZ 75 b -*Using Federal XM9001 JHP* -

4.6" Barrel ; COL did no measure ; Start Load NA - Primers Federal ; Start Velocity - (Average) 1245 ; Power Factor 143

Do you think the above data suggests going with the longer COL could have lowered the velocity? I mean, a longer barrel with virtually everything else the same yet there's a 50-75 FPS difference. In revolver land a 1/2 inch should be good for ~50 fps, not a loss of 50 fps. 

 

If anyone is interested I have data for the 3" pistols too. 

 

See attachments for complete chorno info. I was a bit further back from the chrono than I normally am. About 8-10 feet.

 

In the end I compared back to back the Federal round with my reload and want to get closer to the Federal round. That suggests I'm going to head to the +p load data or the border between standard and +p. 5.7 grains is the end of the standard and the start of the +p.  I don't plan to shorten the COL. 

Would love to hear feedback! 

 

 

 

 

[pdxrealtor]

No one with any feed back huh? Hmmmmm.... 

[L3324temp]

A longer OAL will certainly drop velocity.

[pdxrealtor]

 

 

I'm wondering if it's possible to have lower velocity on a given load data, yet still have pressure issues. 

 

Does pressure and velocity go hand in hand? Given the fact I loaded to a longer COL, chronographed the loads and got a lower velocity is it still likely to have high pressures due to too much bullet being in the case? 

Edited August 17, 2016 by pdxrealtor