superdude

Recoil force has 4 components; bullet weight, bullet speed, gun weight, powder weight. Plugging those into a recoil formula like the one 4n2t0 posted will tell you how much recoil force is generated for each gun. Felt recoil is subjective and the subject of a different discussion.

The 9X23 chamber is wider at the rear, but narrower at the front, than the 38 Super chamber. This is due to the 9X23 being tapered and the 38 Super being straight-walled. https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ANSI-SAAMI-Z299.3-CFP-and-R-Approved-2015-12-14-Posting-Copy.pdf

Is this helpful?: https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/reloading-tips-the-plunk-test/99389

I see no one caught this, so . . . the Berry's HBRN bullet might seem long for its weight because it has a hollow base.

I've done it in a couple of guns. It depends on the chamber. However, since the 9X23 is tapered and wider at the base, the brass can get stuck in the 38 Super chamber when fired. This happened to me, and I had to pound the fired 9X23 case out. This was with factory 9X23 ammo and did not happen with every round fired, but it only takes one to get stuck to make it clear that it's a bad idea.

There is a article that looks at the accuracy of 38 different 9mm factory loads in a pistol mounted in a Ransom Rest. A side test compared the accuracy of round nose bullets to those of flat nose (flat point, hollow point) bullets and found that flat nose bullets statistically produced smaller groups than the round nose bullets. The results apply only to that gun and to the ammo tested, but some folks might find it of interest. https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2019/1/18/38-different-9mm-loads

I have to agree with Guy. I've produced nice groups (from a Ransom Rest) with all shapes (with jacketed bullets), but the round nose, as a category, seem less consistently accurate. The most consistently accurate have been flat nose designs (FMJ or JHP), and of those the conical nose seem more consistently accurate than round nose flat point. Naturally, it depends on which specific bullet is used. These have been in 1911s with 5" Kart barrels.

Search 'stepped chamber' on google and you'll see some examples. that's what the mark is from. Apparently the Walther Q5 Match has a stepped chamber. https://www.shootpointblank.com/product/wal-2846977-ppq-classic-q5-match-poly-9mm-15rd

What specific bullet? Single stack or double stack gun?

They look like they have been fired in a stepped chamber.

See the lower part of the page in green. I've slugged over a dozen 9mm barrels and only 2 of them have been less than 0.356". I also have not noticed any evidence that jacketed bullets smaller than groove diameter are less accurate. I haven't looked at this with lead bullets, so I can't comment on that. Edit: I can't get rid of the extra image!!!!

Believe it or not, 0.3565" is within SAAMI specs. The SAAMI specs for 9mm barrel groove diameter is anything between 0.355" and 0.359". https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ANSI-SAAMI-Z299.3-CFP-and-R-Approved-2015-12-14-Posting-Copy.pdf

Here's some numbers. . . I ran some calculations through QuickLoad. First, I ran Hodgdon's numbers for a 145 grain ACME RN bullet at 2.9 gr of Titegroup at 1.150" OAL. Hodgdon says that runs at 26,700 psi. QL returns a pressure of 24,177 psi. So QL is a slight underestimate of Hodgdon's data. (for simplicity, I used the same bullet length of 0.665" as noted below for a 147 BB RN) Now the calculations with BigJerm's numbers. . . 147 grain lead bullet, 0.665" long (based on my BB 147 RN bullets), 3.0 gr Titegroup. OAL = 1.125" = 30,056 psi. The shorter OAL, 2.0 gr more bullet weight, and 0.1 gr more powder has bumped up the pressure 5,879 psi. OAL = 1.075" = 43,007 psi. That's an (estimated) increase of 12,951 psi due simply to a change in OAL. For reference: standard pressure limit of 9mm = 35,000 psi 9mm +P pressure limit = 38,500 psi Here's charge weights for the 1.075" OAL and QL's estimated pressure output. velocity estimates for 5" barrel. 2.9 gr. = 39,678 psi, 917 fps 2.8 gr. = 36,548 psi, 897 fps 2.7 gr. = 33,604 psi, 876 fps 2.6 gr. = 30,838 psi, 855 fps 2.5 gr. = 28,238 psi, 833 fps 2.4 gr. = 25,797 psi, 811 fps Hodgdon's data is from their website. http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

Here's an article with lots of information about the Shell Shock cases: https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2018/6/27/handloading-shell-shock-technologies-nas3-cases/

Some, yes. But you should ALWAYS check QL's output against actual pressure tested load data from powder/bullet maker's data. If you can't find any for the bullet/powder you're using, use QL's data with caution and always work up your loads.

The head is not magnetic, the case body is. The head is aluminum, the case body is steel.

QL estimates are just that: estimates. Trying to match QL's estimated velocity and the actual velocity you get from your gun has zero value. In other words, it's a waste of time and effort. QL's estimates could be high, they could be low, they could match perfectly, but it does not matter. The only velocity that matters is what you get over your chronograph. The answer to your question of why QL's estimate is so far off from your actual speeds is that QL estimates the speed, and that estimate might or might not be close to the actual speed you get. Therefore, put no value in QL's estimates. The only velocity that matters is what you get over your chronograph. Your barrel might be fast or slow compared to other barrels. That's why the only speed that matters is what you get from your gun (barrel) over your chronograph.

And by that you mean you knew the primers were different?

I asked CCI in August 2016 whether the 400 small rifle and 550 small pistol magnum were the same. They replied: ". . . they are not the same primer, there are differences in the primer and you should follow published loading data. The web has some very dangerous information on it and anything that you use should be published and tested data. . . . primer specifications are proprietary information and not available to the public. There is differences in the mix." Justin M./Technical Service Rep. 2299 Snake River Ave. Lewiston, ID 83501 Alliant/Blazer/CCI/Speer

Part steel, part aluminum. Might be some useful information here: https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2018/6/27/handloading-shell-shock-technologies-nas3-cases/

Gotcha, thanks.

Can you refer me to the information that shows TG being slower than 244? Thanks.

Their accuracy testing method is poor. They shoot a 5-shot group at 5 yards off a bench. I would put no value in their results with that method. Accuracy testing needs to be more rigorous, longer distance (25 yards), many more shots, in a machine rest to remove the human factor.

.423" is the maximum SAAMI measurement for the crimp. Note on that page it says for the cartridge "unless otherwise noted body dia. (diameter) -.008 That means the crimp can be .008" smaller and still be within spec. Thus a crimp between .415 to .423 is within SAAMI specs. That's why the factory ammo you measured is smaller. In fact, all factory ammo should/will be under .423".

The 'Compensated 45 vs the Compensated 38' article was not a comparison to see which would shoot flatter with caliber-appropriate bullets. That comparison was already shown in the 'Compensators: Pressure or Gas?' article and is cited in the first paragraph of the 'Compensated 45 vs the Compensated 38' article. The 'Compensated 45 vs the Compensated 38' article was a comparison to see how they compared when shooting bullets of the same weight. The two articles address two different questions. I don't know how to make it clearer. You either understand that or you don't.