Coated 147 gr RN load workup

[Bench]

Am I thinking straight in using the:

powder load data for 147FP

with

the OAL for 147 RN jacketed

for

Coated 147gr. RN?

 

I don't have a specific data list for coated(lead) 147 RN but pulled the powder load from Lyman's 147 FP lead data and the OAL from Hornady's 147FMJ RN. My thought is that if the bullet weight is the same the powder load should be ok PLUS if the bullet profile is the same between coated and jacketed (147 RN) then there should be no issues.

 

Am I missing anything major in my thinking?

 

Thanks.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Bench

[rishii]

Coated bullets take less powder to make the same velocity than jacketed I would reduce your charge and chrono

[JayTac556]

Bench,

 

If you look at Tite groups website the put the difference between the different loads. When loading coated (polymer) bullets you use lead specs. For all coated and copper plated bullets you are to use lead specs. Hope this helps. I currently use 3.2 grains of TiteGroup under a 147 GN blue bullet. Shoots flat and accurate.

[Beef15]

Pull your barrel and plunk test a dummy round to determine COL, there really is no shortcut around this other than going stupid short, two RNs can have different requirements, FP and RN almost certainly will. Once you get that, load ten and make sure they feed before you load a whole batch.

 

Powder charge, you're ok using lead data, if the coating is good you should be ok using at least the lower end of jacketed data, but you don't need to usually. Start low and work up, when PF and accuracy are both acceptable you have your load.

[Bench]

57 minutes ago, JayTac556 said:

Bench,

 

If you look at Tite groups website the put the difference between the different loads. When loading coated (polymer) bullets you use lead specs. For all coated and copper plated bullets you are to use lead specs. Hope this helps. I currently use 3.2 grains of TiteGroup under a 147 GN blue bullet. Shoots flat and accurate.

That is where I'm headed: Titegroup and 147 RN Blues. Your post in the last sentance: ,,,"147 GN"... is that an error for GR or RN? Thanks!

[Bench]

1 hour ago, rishii said:

Coated bullets take less powder to make the same velocity than jacketed I would reduce your charge and chrono

Thanks. I'll be looking to use the coated (lead) 147 gr. powder charge...starting at the low end and then chrono.

[JayTac556]

1 minute ago, Bench said:

That is where I'm headed: Titegroup and 147 RN Blues. Your post in the last sentance: ,,,"147 GN"... is that an error for GR or RN? Thanks!

No its not a typo haha. Sorry for the confusion GN is the abbreviation for Grain, I didn't mean to type it in CAPS.  but I DO use Round Nose bullets from Bluebullets.com

[Bench]

1 hour ago, Beef15 said:

Pull your barrel and plunk test a dummy round to determine COL, there really is no shortcut around this other than going stupid short, two RNs can have different requirements, FP and RN almost certainly will. Once you get that, load ten and make sure they feed before you load a whole batch.

 

Powder charge, you're ok using lead data, if the coating is good you should be ok using at least the lower end of jacketed data, but you don't need to usually. Start low and work up, when PF and accuracy are both acceptable you have your load.

Thanks...I didn't remember to consider the plunk test in this work up...I'm underway way!!

[Bench]

Just now, JayTac556 said:

No its not a typo haha. Sorry for the confusion GN is the abbreviation for Grain, I didn't mean to type it in CAPS.  but I DO use Round Nose bullets from Bluebullets.com

LOL, just wanted to be sure...thanks.

[Bench]

1 hour ago, JayTac556 said:

Bench,

 

I currently use 3.2 grains of TiteGroup under a 147 GN blue bullet. Shoots flat and accurate.

What OAL do you load these at?

[JayTac556]

Just now, Bench said:

What OAL do you load these at?

I am using 1.15 OAL. I am way under pressure from standard specs. I get a power factor of 131 average for USPSA.

[Beef15]

1 hour ago, JayTac556 said:

I am using 1.15 OAL. I am way under pressure from standard specs. I get a power factor of 131 average for USPSA.

Very common combo. 147 coated, 3.2gr TG, 1.13-1.15. Some bullets/barrels need a different COL but the Blue Bullet RN and FP fell in that range for my Glocks. PF was right there too.

[Bench]

1 hour ago, Beef15 said:

 but the Blue Bullet RN and FP fell in that range

Did you ever have issues with that Lube Groove in the 147 Blue FN when setting or crimping the bullet?

[Beef15]

25 minutes ago, Bench said:

Did you ever have issues with that Lube Groove in the 147 Blue FN when setting or crimping the bullet?

Not at all. Most all of the early coated offerings had lube grooves.

 

Coated bullets do require you flair the case just a tiny bit more than jacketed or plated to prevent scraping. And you don't want to "crimp" any more than necessary to remove the flair. 

[Bench]

Just now, Beef15 said:

Not at all. Most all of the early coated offerings had lube grooves.

 

Coated bullets do require you flair the case just a tiny bit more than jacketed or plated to prevent scraping. And you don't want to "crimp" any more than necessary to remove the flair. 

The Blues still have the groove in 147FN  and I was a bit hinkey about that. I just may give them a try after this round of RN 147's.

[IDescribe]

Bench.  As has been said, you use lead data for coated lead bullets, so you are fine using that data.

As to OAL, load data is NOT a recipe.  It's a field report.  It's a report of what they did, in a text fixture that is not even really a gun in the sense that you and I think of a gun.  Load data in NO WAY tells you what OAL to use.  The OAL that you should use is something for YOU to determine.  There are a thousand posts on how to determine max OAL with a particular bullet in a particular pistol for you to examine.  You should do these tests and record your results with every bullet you load with every pistol you will load that bullet for.  

 

 

[IDescribe]

5 hours ago, JayTac556 said:

Sorry for the confusion GN is the abbreviation for Grain

 

I'm not saying GN is NOT an abbreviation for grain.  I'm just saying that I've never seen it used.  Meanwhile, everyone in every forum I've frequented uses gr as the abbreviation for grain, so you might want to start using gr if you wish to avoid confusion.   

[Bench]

30 minutes ago, IDescribe said:

Bench.  As has been said, you use lead data for coated lead bullets, so you are fine using that data.
As to OAL, load data is NOT a recipe.  It's a field report. Load data in NO WAY tells you what OAL to use.  The OAL that you should use is something for YOU to determine.  You should do these tests and record your results with every bullet you load with every pistol you will load that bullet for. 

I guess 'Load Data"  OAL is just a place to start. Thanks!

[lgh]

11 hours ago, IDescribe said:

Meanwhile, everyone in every forum I've frequented uses gr as the abbreviation for grain, so you might want to start using gr if you wish to avoid confusion

The scientific abbreviation for grain is gr (lower case). To avoid confusion, that should be used.

[Bench]

54 minutes ago, lgh said:

The scientific abbreviation for grain is gr (lower case). To avoid confusion, that should be used.

That's the way I've always seen it on forums and in publications so assumed that used properly it's "gr".

[cowboy85306]

On 4/17/2018 at 10:41 AM, Beef15 said:

Pull your barrel and plunk test a dummy round to determine COL, there really is no shortcut around this other than going stupid short, two RNs can have different requirements, FP and RN almost certainly will. Once you get that, load ten and make sure they feed before you load a whole batch.

 

Powder charge, you're ok using lead data, if the coating is good you should be ok using at least the lower end of jacketed data, but you don't need to usually. Start low and work up, when PF and accuracy are both acceptable you have your load.

Positively agree. One of the first criteria is the loaded round must feed in YOUR gun to run it! Ditto for the work up of specific data that will chrono where you need it in YOUR gun , with accuracy that is acceptable for power factor achieved. Take notes regarding results and go from there. I have never hit an ideal load by best guess without work up.

[Shorty4087]

On 4/17/2018 at 1:48 PM, Bench said:

Thanks...I didn't remember to consider the plunk test in this work up...I'm underway way!!

I would only add that different bullet mfr.’s and profiles can produce different plunk test results. For example, I can shoot SNS 147gr coated at 1.145 COL but a 124gr Xtreme at 1.130 will result in light primer strikes in the same platform. Both are RN profiles but I was forced to reduce the 124gr by 0.015” COL in order to run consistently. This kicked my butt for a long time as I was also able to run all factory ammo without problem and their COL varied greatly across all the different manufacturers and mostly longer than I was loading to. Admittedly I’m a reloading newbie but would’ve been identified earlier had I ‘plunk’ tested each different profile and mfr.. My lesson learned the hard way...

[Bench]

22 minutes ago, Shorty4087 said:

I would only add that different bullet mfr.’s and profiles can produce different plunk test results. For example, I can shoot SNS 147gr coated at 1.145 COL but a 124gr Xtreme at 1.130 will result in light primer strikes in the same platform. Both are RN profiles but I was forced to reduce the 124gr by 0.015” COL in order to run consistently. This kicked my butt for a long time as I was also able to run all factory ammo without problem and their COL varied greatly across all the different manufacturers and mostly longer than I was loading to. Admittedly I’m a reloading newbie but would’ve been identified earlier had I ‘plunk’ tested each different profile and mfr.. My lesson learned the hard way...

That's what I'm running into also but finding out the COAL with plunk first and then load light and work up...well, we'll see how that works since I haven't found my perfect load yet. Still deciding on bullets too, but I'm getting plenty of load data history lol!!!

[BigMoneyGrip]

I'm using a 147 coated round nose. With 3.1 gr of Titegroup at 1.165 OAL, they average 930 fps out of a Glock 34. 

[Bench]

12 hours ago, BigMoneyGrip said:

I'm using a 147 coated round nose. With 3.1 gr of Titegroup at 1.165 OAL, they average 930 fps out of a Glock 34. 

Thanks. It seems that 3.1 is the magic number for Titegroup in these loads. I'm starting out a tad lower and working up. Also, 1.165 doesn't plunk well so that is getting shortened up as well. It's range day tomorrow if the snow doesn't blow too hard.