IDescribe

Lord, no, brother. You've moved into the sport where your opponents are happy to give you everything you need to beat them. I'm personally a minimalist, so I worry about not being soft enough. In most cases, it's an "issue" that's been seen a thousand time, and so easy to solve. In your case, it's something weird, so it takes some extra time to puzzle through. We'll keep at it, and it's a benefit to all who read the whole way through. ?

Also, I load those XTreme 147gr RN to 1.16 in my CZ ShadowLine, which is short-throated. You should be able to load them to at least 1.19 in your 92, which is longer than the magazine will handle, 1.169 being the magazine limit. You should also recheck crimp measurements on your finished cartridges. If they're bigger than .380, that can produce false maximums on OAL. Make sure to zero your calipers before doing so.

Go back to an empty but sized case and insert it all the way and spin it. Does it spin 100% freely?

Picture your bullet turning. Relative to the axis around which it's rotating, it's circular. I get that there could be something in the chamber to catch something protruding laterally from the cartridge, but there are no lateral protrusions on the cartridge. Everything is circular. So if there's something contacting some part of the cartridge at some orientation, it should also be catching the corresponding spot on the cartridge at every orientation. It should be a consistent level of drag, or no drag. The only way I can see what you're describing happening is if you had a horrible degree of runout -- runout being the deviation in alignment between the axis of the bullet and the axis of the case when loaded. If you take one of your loaded cartridges, and roll it across the table, it's tapered, so it's likely to turn a little, but can you see a wobble of the bullet relative to the case? That's the only way I can see what you're describing happening -- if the bullet axis and case axis are very poorly aligned. And to be clear -- I'm not saying you're not experiencing what you're experiencing. I just don't think it is as you are interpreting it. Have you checked yet with the scotch tape or pencil mark to see if the slide and receiver line up at the same spot with the 1.045 vs the 1.11 vs the 1.13 vs the 1.15?

I no longer think you have a bullet profile issue. I think you have a testing procedure issue. If that cartridge is not descending deeper and deeper into the chamber as you seat the bullet deeper and deeper into the case (and it appears not to be in the photos), then the bullet is not contacting the rifling. I suspect you'll be fine at 1.12 or 1.13. NOW, it is also probable that that .355 diameter bullet is not going to be a good fit for your barrel, and you'll certainly be better off going to .356, and probably .357 even better, but that's a different issue, and again, that can be dealt with on the next bullet purchase.

TItegroup's issues are a bit exaggerated. There are better powders, but I wouldn't worry about that right now. That's not your root issue.

Your next step here is to see if the gun goes fully into battery with the longer bullets using the test with the scotch tape/pencil mark. And make a couple of dummy rounds at 1.12, as well. OAL 1.12 puts your seating depth somewhere in the range of .290-.295, which is the max you want it. If you're going into battery at 1.12 without putting the bullet into the rifling, and I'm pretty sure you will be, that's your new OAL. Also, with the plunk test, I don't personally plunk. If you're chamber checking a few hundred bullets for a match, that's the way to go because it's quick and easy. To check for max OAL, though, I just insert it as far as it will go, then grab it at the base with my thumb and ring finger like pincers, with the fingernails of those two fingers inserted into the extractor groove, so I can get a grip on it, otherwise it's not easy to spin it, even when it's head-spaced on the case mouth. And then I spin it. At this point, I'd also want to make absolutely sure your crimp is less than .380, and sometimes measuring crimp can be a bit tricky. The safest way to be sure it's in that range is to first -- close your caliper jaws and make sure they're calibrated to read 0.000. Then open them and use the set screw on your calipers to set the calipers to .380, and lock down the set screw there, so the calipers won't move. Will the case mouth fit in between the jaws? If not, you're not crimping to .378/.379 as you intend to. If so, you could also set to .378 and make sure the case mouth will NOT slip inside, showing it's .378 or bigger. Let us know.

I don't think that has been mentioned. I thought when Precision moved to their new coating, that it was tougher, and that powder concerns were no longer supposed to be an issue, but I see that their site still recommends against it. Definitely something for him to consider going forward, though not the root cause of his current problem.

If you haven't tested if the pistol goes fully into battery yet with the longer bullets, I was thinking a piece of scotch tape would have a finer edge and might work better than a pencil mark. Just lay a piece of scotch tape across the slide and receiver, then cut it carefully with a razor. Do cut the coating on your pistol.

This shouldn't be happening. Everything -- the bullet, the case mouth, every part of the chamber -- they're all round. The finishing reamer that set the length of the freebore -- round. Everything is round. So even if you had a single burr in there, it should make contact and cause problems no matter what rotational orientation the cartridge was in. There should be no "turns freely" then hits a point where it stops.

Well, at that low a charge of 4.2, I'd expect a late pressure seal and an inefficient burn. What velocity are you getting?

I find the difference between coated and jacketed to be about the same as Sarge and V1911 -- somewhere in the range of .2 - .4gr. Given that Blue Bullets are a little undersized at .355, I'd gamble on it being at the lower end of that range, probably .2gr

I'm curious, as well. I'll say that in my CZ ShadowLine that every single 124/125gr bullet I've loaded, regardless of powder, tends to hit best accuracy with an average velocity of somewhere between 1060 and 1080 feet/sec. Some powders are better than others, but with 124/125gr bullets, it seems there's an accuracy node with this pistol somewhere in the 1060-1080 range, so somewhere between PF 132-135, which is awfully convenient, given that that's exactly where I want to be for 9mm minor. The only 124/125 coated lead bullets I've run with WSF are the SNS 125gr RN and CN, which get into that velocity range at 4.5/4.6gr. BBI are a little bigger in diameter than SNS, a little more than a thousandth, so BBI might take a tenth or two less to get there, but I haven't loaded the 125gr BBI with WSF, so I can't say for sure. Truthfully, I find WSF to be just a little slow burning for 9mm minor, but I know plenty of people love it.

Also noteworthy, look at the top image of just an empty chamber. The "free bore" is the space between the headspacing step and the rifling of just smooth bore, larger than the diameter of the bullet. When someone talks about "reaming" a barrel, they're talking about using a reamer to cut out rifling, effectively lengthening the freebore. Personally, I find the practice unnecessary, even in short-throated pistols like CZ. But I thought I'd point out what people mean when they talk about reaming.

Also, just to make sure you're visualizing what's going on inside the chamber, I threw together a diagram.

Assuming your cartridge is headspacing properly at 1.13 or 1.12 or 1.11, what is the difference in plunk testing at those OALs vs 1.048 that led you to believe that the bullet was NOT into the rifling at 1.048 but WAS into the rifling at longer OALs? If it works out that your cartridge is fine at longer OALs, you'll need to figure out where you were going wrong with determining that 1.048 is where it started to work right. In general, if the bullet is hitting the lands, the cartridge will go in further every time you shorten it. Shorter than the length short enough that it's not hitting the lands, it will headspace on the casemouth at the headspacing step in the chamber, and it will not go in any further. NOW, that is NOT how you want to test max OAL in the future. You want to be able to test it with your fingers and by feel. But the fact that the cartridge was not going any further into the chamber once you pass 1.13 means your bullet is out of the lands. I would suggest that you need to play with the 1.045 cartridge in the chamber. Hold it in with just a little pressure and twirl it between your fingers. The 1.13 or 1.11 would feel the same if they're out of the lands. You can also take the 1.15, which we know is too long, insert that, hold the case head between your fingers, and hold it back out of the rifling a little and twirl it between your fingers to see what that feels like, then insert it a little deeper, a little deeper, until it hits the rifling and grabs, and you can feel the resistance, then press in a little harder until it grabs hard and you can't twirl the case at all. Your not being sure what to feel for may have led you astray in evaluating your max OAL.

I would suggest that your bullet is probably headspacing on the case mouth as it should at 1.13, with the bullet out of the rifling, and if not, definitely by 1.11. If you want to confirm this, assemble the pistol and chamber the round that is 1.045. Make a vertical pencil mark from the slide onto the receiver. That shows where the slide sits relative to the receiver when fully into battery. Maybe chamber that round from the magazine a couple of times to make sure your pencil mark lines up consistently each time. Then chamber the 1.13 round. Do the marks still line up? If the bullet is hitting the lands at 1.13, the marks should no longer line up. If the bullet is just barely hitting the lands, it could jam the bullet into the lands or setback the bullet a little into the case and the marks still line up, BUT if that's happening, it will stick, and you'll be able to feel it when you cycle the slide by hand to clear the dummy round. And if that is the case, if the bullet is hitting and sticking, but the marks are lining up, I'd bet the problem goes away at 1.12. Give it a shot and see what happens. And if you haven't done it already, scrub out that chamber and run this test with a clean chamber.

Okay, so those pictures actually tell us quite a bit. And it turns out to have been quite helpful you posted the pick of the case with no bullet at all. I've cut out the relevant part of each pic and combined them into one picture for comparison. The different pictures are not at precisely the same angle every time, and they're not at exactly the same distance from the lense each time, leading to slightly different scales, so keep that in mind, but the pics are very revealing. In the first pic with no bullet seated, we may assume that the case is headspacing on the casemouth at the chamber's headspacing step, as it was designed to do. Note where the top of the chamber is relative to the case. The top face of the chamber lines up with the crease/transition between the bevel in the extractor groove and the narrowest section of the extractor groove. I've noted this alignment in the first and second pics with dotted lines to show how much seating a bullet at 1.15 lifts the case out of the chamber as a result of the cartridge headspacing by the bullet hitting the rifling lands. So look at the 1.15 pic. The difference between no bullet and a bullet at 1.15 is the height of that bevel in the extractor groove. Now look at the 1.13 pic. Shortening to 1.13 seems to drop it right back to the level with no bullet at all, or VERY VERY close, suggesting it's headspacing on the casemouth again, or ALMOST on the case mouth. Now look at the 1.11 pic. It's no deeper into the chamber. Or if it is deeper, it's barely deeper, certainly not the same difference as 1.13 vs 1.15. Hard to say exactly because of slightly different camera angles, but IF there is any difference at all, it's nowhere near the difference between 1.13 and 1.15, which it would be if it were still headspacing by the bullet hitting the rifling lands. Now look at 1.09. It's the same again. No difference. Now look at 1.06. It's the same again. No difference. Now look at 1.045. It's the same again. No difference.

Blue Bullets do still come undersized (for lead) at .355. Gallant also offers 3 sizes -- .355, .356, .357. Most places will do different sizes for you, even if they don't advertise it, but often they keep a stock of their standard size, and then for over-sized orders, they have to produce new bullets and size them to your liking, which can delay getting them to you. Gallant keeps their stock unsized, then sizes to order every order, which is nice. It means those of us looking for over-sized don't have to wait for a new run of those bullets to be produced. Their estimated time before shipping is 3-5 days, regardless of sizing, then add whatever shipping option you choose to get them to your door. It's a nice option. This may become relevant for Bench because when I was looking into his OAL issue, I came across a couple of places talking about the Beretta 92 commonly having an over-sized bore. Bench, bullets that are undersized for your barrel will not shoot as accurately as those appropriately sized, and undersized will lead the barrel badly. It's not a problem going a thousandth of an inch bigger than ideal, but a thousandth smaller can be a problem.

All right, Bench. You have something else going on here other than just the bullet profile itself. I just did some searching and found plenty of threads with people loading that exact bullet longer than you are with even a CZ pistol, and you should definitely be able to load longer in a Beretta 92 than in a CZ. CZ pistols are known for being short-throated, and Beretta 92s are not. Saw people with CZs loading as long as 1.09, and people with deeper throated pistols like Berettas, Glocks, etc. loading to 1.13 and some longer. There is definitely something going on other than just the profile. So... I would suggest you clean and check visually for a defect/burr in the chamber, or some foreign object in the chamber. You need to check that out first. NEXT... It's also possible you are not doing something correctly with testing max OAL. Follow these steps to make a dummy: Resize/deprime No primer No powder Seat bullet Taper crimp to .378/.379 I would recommend you make FIVE dummy rounds: one each at 1.15, 1.13, 1.11, 1.09, and 1.045. Is the 1.045 the only one that plunks without hitting the rifling? It should plunk and spin freely so long as you're not applying inward pressure. For the record, I would not normally recommend seating five different bullets to different lengths like this to determine max OAL, just in this case where there is something funny going on. If none of the longer ones will plunk and spin freely, I'd recommend you plunk each one, stand the barrel upright with the muzzle down on a table, and get down low at eye level with a camera and take a picture level with the chamber, and the same with each cartridge, then post all five here so that we can see what's going on. What's going on isn't normal for that bullet. You're not dealing with a function of that profile vs your chamber here. Something else is going on. Good luck.

Not necessarily. When I say profile, I don't mean all 147gr truncated cone flat points, I mean those specific ones made by Precision Bullets. A truncated cone flat point from another manufacturer may work perfectly well. But your next step, seriously, should be to clean the chamber and bore with a solvent and a brass or copper brush (or a copper chore boy wrapped around a plastic brush), and look inside and make sure there isn't some defect/burr obstructing the bullet and needs to be polished out. It's also possible that simply cleaning will remove the obstruction, so after you clean it, plunk test it again. You need to load that bullet to about 1.12 to keep the base above .300.

I just checked. Those 147gr Precision Bullets are .665 in length. At an OAL of 1.048, the base of your bullet is seated .367 into the case. A depth of .300 into the case is where the case walls start to thicken and the inner diameter of the case starts to shrink. It's preferable not to seat the base deeper than that. The base typically has a bit of a bevel, so you can usually get a bit deeper than .300 before the base contacts the point where it narrows, maybe .310 or .320, but it's best to simply consider .300 the hard deck, and stay above it. You can get away with going deeper without damaging the bullet with jacketed and sometimes plated, but not lead, and as a "best practice" try to keep the bullet base shallower than .300 in general.

Just about every cast bullet maker is going to be producing bullets somewhere in the 15-18 BHN range. I know the following specifically: ACME Bullets-- 15 Gallant Bullets -- 15 BBI Bullets -- 16-17 SNS Casting -- 16-17 Blue Bullets -- Doesn't specify BHN, but the alloy suggests 16-18 Missouri Bullet Co -- 18 (most, they do have some bullets at 12) So I answered the question, but I am afraid I've led you down the wrong path -- you really don't need to spend much time thinking about this. I think I gave you the impression that you need to avoid softer leads. That's not the case. It was just a comment on the softer lead of swaged bullets making that deep seating more severely swage the bullet base than it would with a harder lead, but it still would be a problem with a harder lead. The problem isn't the soft lead -- the problem is the profile that forces you to seat that deeply with that pistol. If you had a bullet of the exact same profile at BHN 18, you'd still have to seat that deeply, and you'd still have a problem with damage to the base of the bullet. I was just trying to impress upon you how many other variables can go into tumbling so that you wouldn't increase your powder charge, see no key-holing, and think "Whoo-hoo! Problem solved!" As it turns out, you're still seeing key-holing after upping the powder charge, so you know there's something else going on. So don't think harder lead is better or more trouble-free. The truth is that it's typically better to go with a bit softer than a bit harder, but at the end of the day, you don't need to think about it a whole lot. All those manufacturers above are producing bullets of a hardness well suited to what you want to do, and so is Precision. It's the profile that is your issue, not the BHN number.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Precision. They are the only coated swaged lead manufacturer out there, and swaged lead generally shoots with more precision than coated lead. Precision is by all accounts an excellent bullet -- I suspect one of the best coated lead bullets. I just wanted to point out that as deep as you're seating, you're putting force on the base of the bullet, and swaged lead deforms all the easier relative to cast lead. And Precision's profile means that the bullet is going to seat deeply. Again, with a heavier pistol like a 92, the softer felt recoil from a 147gr bullet is sort of meaningless., so you could stick with Precision and go to 125 and be fine. Your comment about getting only one scratch when you jammed your long cartridge into the chamber makes me wonder if you have a machining defect. I'd pull the barrel, clean it well with a solvent and wire brush, and look inside with a flash light and maybe a magnifying glass to see if I could find a burr that's exaggerating the issue. Honestly, I was a bit surprised at how deeply you're needing to seat it. The Beretta 92 is not known for being short-throated. I'll ask another question -- are you crimping prior to plunk testing? Some people will seat then chamber check/ plunk test before crimping, thinking they don't want to crimp, then have to seat deeper with a crimped case mouth. To be clear, when we're talking taper crimping, seating deeper after crimping is not an issue at all, and you should definitely taper crimp before plunk testing. If you don't, you can be fooled into thinking the bullet is hitting the rifling when in fact it's the belled case mouth getting pinched by the chamber walls right before the headspacing step in the chamber. If you are crimping prior to testing, no problem, but I thought I'd mention it. Don't ask me how I know.

Precision has a BHN of 13. Most cast lead manufacturers that we're buying from are 15-18. It's a bit softer than others.