Hammbone
-
Posts
108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Hammbone
-
-
If you are shooting Lead, use a .358" or so bullet in Beretta barrels. I have had terrific results in the M9/92 with 125 gr bullets with light loads of 231.
I'm looking at Bayou Bullets. They say they'll size any 9mm bullet to .358". My newbiness makes me nervous about this. So this is safe to do? Any additional precautions needed?
-
I've had great experience with TG(147 TC BBI Moly ) and HS-6(124 CMJ major) Very Happy with the accuracy.
BTW, Minor loads are through my 92FS
I too have had good luck with 124gr CMJ with HS-6 and Power Pistol. Power Pistol being the most accurate. ..only marginally over HS-6.
I'm not feeling the love for my 147gr Berry's plated. I can get okay accuracy with them. Probably good enough for fast paced action shooting. But I don't play in those games. I'm probably being too picky.
-
Depends on your load. Factory or hand loaded?
Each can be accurate. What are you looking for specifically?
Hand loads. I've played with both a little. Thus far 124gr with 5.8gr Power Pistol is most accurate. I'd really like to find that accuracy with 147gr bullets. Currently, my 124gr bullets are Frontier plated and 147gr are Berry's plated.
I will need to order more bullets soon. Thinking about MG or Bayou. Would like to order 147gr if I could find an accurate load with one of my powders (HS-6, TG, Power Pistol, and N340).
I'm not competing in any games, so honing in around a certain PF is not a priority. But my local indoor club has a 1000fps max velocity rule...hence why I'd like to find an accurate 147gr load.
-
What are your experiences with 124gr vs 147gr bullets in the 92/M9? Does the gun inherently shoot one or the other more accurately?
-
...the best powder for 9mm is Power Pistol, and N330 or N340. WSF is a good 9mm powder but if you are looking for repeatable accuracy 5.8 - 6.0 of Power Pistol....
THANK YOU DARRELL!! Right on the money! Based on this post alone, I went out and picked up a pound of Power Pistol. This is the target I produced:
This is 124gr Frontier Plated w/5.8gr Power PIstol at 1.155" OAL. 10 rounds at 15yds from a bench.
Very nice group, the couple of flyers may be due to plated bullets, jacketed should produce one hole like the other eight did. It did in my guns. Power pistol is great, but loud as hell. Worked up loads in Glock, M&P, and Shadow, funny how a couple of tenths of a grain makes a difference in different guns.
I didn't know there was an inherent issue with plated bullets. Why? Also, I know you shoot a lot of Bayou's...any flyer issues with those?
Yes, I noticed the PP is a bit on the noisy side. But I almost don't care, given the accuracy. These 124gr's were going 1120 on average. How does PP perform down at a lower PF (say 130, or 1050fps-ish)?
-
...the best powder for 9mm is Power Pistol, and N330 or N340. WSF is a good 9mm powder but if you are looking for repeatable accuracy 5.8 - 6.0 of Power Pistol....
THANK YOU DARRELL!! Right on the money! Based on this post alone, I went out and picked up a pound of Power Pistol. This is the target I produced:
This is 124gr Frontier Plated w/5.8gr Power PIstol at 1.155" OAL. 10 rounds at 15yds from a bench.
-
For what its worth... I wasn't having tumbling problems, but I was having horrible groups with 147gr Berry's and TG in my Beretta M9. I played with OAL and found that groups really tightened up at 1.160" OAL. (I started at 1.145"). That's with 3.3gr TG. It runs 127-129PF on a 32ºF day.
-
I thought about that after I did it. I ended up putting those two back in. ...gotta keep myself honest!
-
I found a few algorithms, but they gave me a headache. I'm just going to this:
-Delete the two farthest from the group (of 10 shots)
-Then shift the center point from the bullseye to the average of the remaining group
-Then calculate the standard deviate from the new centroid
-Then multiply stdev x 3
...that will give me a radius for 99.7% of the data points.
I am just doing this for my own personal record keeping for developing new loads.
-
JereyShoots - You'd think that, but its not true. First of all, I'm looking at group sizes for now. Ignoring relation to center of bullseye. However, I did use the bullseye as coordinate (0, 0). Then I shifted the center to the average center of the group (turns out mathematicians have multiple methods for calculating this). I quickly saw the flaw with my method, but I'm sticking with it for now.
The biggest problem with measuring the two outermost holes is that you need 3 points to calculate a circle. You can do it with a center point and two circumference points, or 3 circumference points. The problem with using the center as one point is that there is error induced by assuming the center is the average of all points (especially if there is a "flier" or two). The problem with using 3 circumference points is that I don't know how to mathematically select the optimum 3 points.
SteveRA - Is this software free? I have experience writing programming code in Fortran, m-code in MatLab, Engineering Equation Solver, and of course Excel...so I'm not affraid to get my hands dirty per say. Just trying to figure out the math behind it.
-
Perhaps I'm over analyzing this:
I just shot up 6 targets doing accuracy tests with some experimental reloads. Once I was done, I drew a verticle and horizontal centerline through the bullseye. The I measured the distace from "x" and "y" axis for each hole and created a table of coordinate points in Excel...assigning quadrants by dictating (+,+) for quad 1, (-,+) for quad 2, (-,-) for quad 3, and (+,-) for quad 4...as we're taught with the unit circle in calculus.
Here's what I can't figure out; How do I mathematically calculate the diameter of the smallest fit circle for a given set of 2D coordinate points?
-
Let me say this. I've been reloading for a whopping 6mo now. I'm an Engineer and I analyze EVERYTHING to death. Going into this I thought I was going to take the bull by the horns and really figure this thing out. Make charts, graphs, mathematical modela...etc. What I'm finding is that its much more complicated than I bargained for (mathematically speaking).
But to address your question: I think you'll find that while the absolute difference between start and max of TG and BD are greatly different, there % difference is similar... (i.e., you use more BD than TG, so on a % basis you get a bigger spread for the absolute value). In addition, almost always, you use a much lower charge with faster burning powders - hence, again contributing to the difference your seeing between say TG and BD.
A lot of "action" or "practical" shooters are opting for faster powders because the quick burst imposes less of a felt recoil. There are the gases generated and therefore less muzzle flip, and therefore its easier to get back on target. That being said, my personal experience is that slower burning powders produce more accurate loads.
-
Really NOT a "wish item" - it's really an "essential item" - only costs $75.
Amen! Someone once told me that reloading is the second half to the hobby of shooting. I totally agree! In fact, I think I have more fun with the reloading side than actually shooting (is it okay to admit that?) Well, I just purchased my chronograph after reloading for 6mo....I quickly realized that I might as well have been reloading blind folded without one!
-
I started at 5.9gr and worked up to 6.5gr. I noticed something odd with the velocities. They were the same avg at 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3gr. That's why I went with 6.2gr. If for some reason my powder measure one way or the other, I'm still in the wheelhouse.
-
Here's what I have worked up for my Beretta M9 (100% factory parts):
FMP 124gr RN plated
6.2gr HS-6
MagTech Brass
WSP primer
1.380" OAL
Makes 129PF
-
I have a mostly stock M9. This thing needs help in the accuracy department and I'm toying with the idea of an aftermarket barrel. The two I'm aware of are KKM and Bar-Sto. Is one more preferred over the other? If so, why?
In addition, I looked into WAL's conical bushing mod (from the Beretta forums). I thought it was a bit pricy when I'd still be stuck with an otherwise stock barrel. If I were to get a threaded barrel from KKM or Bar-Sto, can I purchase the cone bushing and locking nut somewhere? Or, should I forget about the conical bushing and just be happy with the advancements offered by an aftermarket barrel?
-
We touched briefly on this topic on a separate thread, here.
But I'd like to move my portion of the discussion to this thread because I think we're getting into more detail here. (Not intending to hi-jack).
I did two experiments to determine my theoretical max OAL for my Beretta M9 w/factory barrel.
1) I used the split case method. I set the dept by slowly closing the action. I repeated this a few times.
2) I measured the length of bullet, then with barrel vertical and muzzle down, I dropped the bullet it in, measured to it...yadda yadda lots of measuring and math.
Results: I got the same number with both methods. 1.3015"! That's with 147gr bullets. (I couldn't even get my 124gr bullets to touch the rifling at 1.260"...any longer and the bullet would've fallen out of the case.)
This seems a bit insane to me! Obviously, this length of round won't fit in my magazine.
I've been chasing accuracy issues with Titegroup. I got to thinking: From the max SAAMI length to what I measured here is a difference of 0.1415"! That's 14x the distance recommend. Since Titegroup is a fast powder, is peak pressure occurring before my bullet even engages rifling? I've been thinking about a KKM or Bar-Sto barrel...do they address is issue on the Berettas?
-
All good info here! I'm going to have to try one or all of these methods to see what I get.
Nosler's note was interesting:
NOTES:a. Lightweight bullets may need to be seated further from rifling. A depth of one bullet diameter inside the case neck gives good alignment and neck tension for ignition.
I haven't tried any of this yet, but it seems like this note may be contradictory to the task at hand.
-
Thus far, I've only loaded plated bullets. However, I'm very intrigued by all this talk about Bayou Bullets. I'm temped to drink the kool-aid and try it. But here's the noob question - how do you crimp them? What's the deal with the cannelure looking groves? Is a person limited to OAL's with these? Would it be sufficient to leave my dies set up for the light crimp I use on plated bullets? Do they require special treatment?
-
Ah yes, but I violate club rule #1 with that load.
I'm going to try a few different OAL's with TG and see what happens. I might even try to pick up some Bayou or Precision bullets.
-
Yes, 4" at 15 yards is BAD - I like 1.5" group much better. Is there a reason you're
not going to shoot HS6 instead? Sounds like a nice load.
Have you tried heavier or lighter bullets, or different brand bullets?
I've only been reloading for about 6mo now. I do most of my shooting at a small indoor club once a week, doing slow target shooting. There are two rules there that I'm really trying to obide by (although I'm finding most people ignore them). Those rules are:
1) Nothing over 1,000fps (due to back-stop capabilities)
2) No jacketed bullets (Crappiest rule ever - and I ALWAYS see copper jackets all over the floor)
Due to these two rules, I started loading using 147gr (bought Berry's because they're cheap) and HS-6. Why HS-6? At the time, I had read some good things about it.
Upon getting into reading post here on BE, I time and time again read about TG! So, I picked some up at a show, a long with some 124gr Frontier plated bullets.
Yes, 124gr with HS-6 is an awesome load for accuracy - which happens to be what I care about being that I only shoot at paper bullseye targets. But to get a load that works nice with that combo, I violate rule number (1). Now I have a pound of TG and would like to make it work.
I've only been into this shooting thing for about a year...but I have always had a thirst for tinkering and learning. Most of my tinkering has been on hot rods and race cars and automated manufacturing equipment. It's only a matter of time before I've tinkered with EVERY bullet and EVERY powder. This is a data collection project for me. ...and I'll drive myself nuts doing it.
-
1. I make a round long where the ogive touches the lands of the rifling.
my OAL needs to be 1.302 for the bullet to touch the rifling.
I'm working on 3.3gr TG at 1.145", 1.135
I tested accuracy at 1.145" and it was pretty bad.
1. That 1.302" must be an error??
Not a typo. But I didn't do the test exactly as prescribed. Instead, with the barrel vertical (muzzle down) I dropped a bullet in gently. Then I measured from the edge of the barrel to the back of the bullet...and did all the math accordingly to arrive at my 1.302". If I get a chance tonight, I'll load one extra long and see if I can get it to catch on the rifling. Maybe I'll start at a silly long number, like 1.180 and start getting shorter from there (provided it catches when I twist it).
2. Testing at 1.145 and 1.135 sounds like a Great Idea
3. How bad was 1.145" (What distance, how many shots and how large was the group?)
Like 4"+ groups at 15yrds on a bench (gun was not fixtured) and POI was low. At first I thought it was me doing something stupid. But I followed up with some 124gr rounds w/HS-6 and I had about a 1.5" group of 5 rounds right in the center of the bullseye.
-
1. I make a round long where the ogive touches the lands of the rifling. I take the barrel out, put the round in and try to twist it, I decrease the overall length until the round twist freely meaning that the bullet ogive isn't touching the lands, and the case is headspacing in the barrel. I then decrease the overall length another .010 inch then start my loading from there.
I did this experiment last night with my 147gr Berry's RN in my Beretta M9 (stock barrel). What I found out is that my OAL needs to be 1.302 for the ogive of the bullet to start touching the rifling. Obviously this would be WAY to long. It would give me 0.1185" of bullet in the case and 0.5515" sticking out...not to mention the OAL would be 0.142" longer than the SAAMI spec. Is this something that would be tighter on a Bar-Sto or KKM barrel?
I'm working on making a batch of test ammo of these bullets with 3.3gr TG at 1.145", 1.135"...and a 3rd OAL. Haven't figured out if I should go with 1.155" or 1.125". Perhaps I'll do both? I have already tested accuracy at 1.145" and it was pretty bad. I made more at this length just to have a comprehensive comparative study all in one batch.
-
I don't have a Dillon (I have a Lee Classic Turret with the Auto Disk powder measure). But hopefully share what I did. I purchased Lee's adjustable charge bar...looks like it works similar to what you have on your Dillon. I had similar issues.
I started by putting scotch tape on my charge bar then filing the hopper mounting bosses down until I "just" skimmed the tape. Then I sanded my charge bar with 600gr sand paper on a piece of glass to get the sliding surfaces as smooth as possible. Then I coated all sliding bearing surfaces with powdered graphite. It now operates very smooth and greatly reduced the spillage. TG was a big problem for me too....works better now.
147 gr. 9mm load data with Titegroup
in 9mm/38 Caliber
Posted
I'm also at 3.4gr with Berry's 147gr bullets. I experimented with OAL. I found 1.160" to be most accurate out of my Beretta M9.
This isn't the most accurate load I've found for "me". I'm trying to place an order with Donnie to try some of his 147gr Bayou bullets. I hope to have better luck with them.