K-Texas

I don't know anyone who trims 9 x 19mm cases. We accept a very slight amount of difference in case-length. Not many segregate cases by brand or thickness, so again, we accept slight variations, but for thickness. Those differences in thickness in comparison to case-length may not be that much different than the variations in case-length. So there's supposed to be a one-size-fits-all solution?

I also tested 3 different loads using the SNS Casting 125 gr. Coated RN-SWC with No 2, ZIP and True Blue, all at 1.142"/29mm OACL. Got closest with with 4.0 grs. of No 2 at 1039 FPS, but the random samples I weighed were closer to 124 grs. Very light recoil.

However you choose to use it, the RMR 147 gr. TC FMJ is a good one. I don't have chamber length restrictions in the test pistol, and between my shooting partner and me, his HK VP9 probably has the shortest chamber, so we plunk tested the load. It passed while the case rim was slightly below the barrel hood as it should be. Tilting the muzzle up, it didn't readily fall out, but the VP9 has a "stepped" chamber and might be a bit tighter on the case neck.

A fair comparison of AA No 2 and True Blue at 130 PF. Trying to link to the thread isn't working like I'd want, so for those who might consider me an old fart, I won't argue. But, if I commit to a task, the results will be solid. So, I can tell Dave33 that he helped inspire this for his, and other well reasoned posts in that thread. On 2/28/20 I fired the first loads I ever made with the RMR 147 gr. Truncated Cone FMJ. I was off the mark a bit with the first attempt as far as the loads being 130 PF, or 884 FPS and before the thread that made this maybe a bit more illuminating. My estimate was that my load with No 2 was 1/10 too high, while my True Blue load was 2/10 too low. I made the exact adjustment, and today in 82 degrees at approx. 1350", I chrono'd the following. Firing from a 4.47" barrel. If anyone, anywhere, has had more experience with True Blue than I do, speak now or forever hold your peace. That goes back to 2001 and being a strong advocate ever-since. My loads sometimes depend on a a mathematical calculation requiring the ability to interpolate a powder charge. Don't let that go to anyone's head, including mine. And extrapolation is like a SWAG in terms of interpolating pressure/velocity by powder charge. If a more predictable handgun powder exists than True Blue, I want to know about it! So let's cut to the chase: with the RMR 147 gr. FMJ TC at an OACL of 1.142"/29mm, with the goal of 884 FPS/130 PF and probably too long for many so-called 9mm Service Pistols - so act accordingly - while the primers were CCI500s, 3.6 grs. of AA No 2 produced a 10 shot average of 881 FPS. At 1 grain higher, 4.6 grs. of True Blue gave a 10 shot average of exactly 884 FPS./`130 PF. So what about recoi?. Obviously, I'm jaded. I began handgunning 40+ years ago with .357 & .41 Magnums. 9mm recoil? If that's a real consideration for you I might suggest shooting more powerful cartridges for perspective, or I might wonder if you've ever shot anything more powerful than 9 x 19mm from a pistol. But, a valid point was raised in terms of no perceivable difference with loads made to the approx. same PF using AA #2 and True Blue. In chronographing 10 shot strings, I ain't gonna lie about miniscule groups. I do not care to accomplish 2 different feats at the same time, and I have not yet killed a chrono. It was hard to distinguish a difference, but recoil is best perceived when you're shooting from a rest. So as I told Dave33 I would, I tested the loads by firing off-hand, Still too close to make a discernible difference, So, I tried a mixed-fruit pudding as he mentioned with the No 2 and True Blue loads alternated consecutively in the mag, several times. If there is enough difference to cause you to believe that inaccuracy resulted from an extra grain of a slower burning powder, I can't help you. Particularly not at 130 PF. But as far as nit-pickin" to answer Dave's question, about the best I can do is to say that the recoil impulses were very similar with MAYBE the True Blue load's impulse being VERY slightly quicker. In conclusion, 130 PF feels like . . . 130 PF.

As I'm sure you're aware, only one of the major powder companies actually manufacture: Alliant Flake Handgun and Shotgun Powders. All Western and Hodgdon powders are manufactured by others like St Marks in FLA (Sphericals), and General Dynamics Canada (Flake and extruded Rifle) P.B. Clermont in Belgium (Ramshot). With the exception of the foreign brands who generate their own load data, V-V, Norma (no current handgun data) and Lovex, pressure testing is done either in their own ballistics labs, or tested by others. The reality is that Lyman's been doing it longer than anyone unless Hercules (now Alliant) was giving data back when they introduced Bullseye. Ideal (Lyman) was making hand tools even before the invention of Smokeless powder. The biggest difference you'd likely observe using data for the SPEER 147 gr. TMJ is that Jacketed bullets will be slightly higher in velocity at the same charge-weight. The Start Charge for True Blue is 5.0 grs. for 871 FPS, a CCI500 and an OACL of 1.115" generating 28,700 CUP. In other words 4300 CUP below SAAMI Max Average Pressure of 33,000 CUP. Lyman doesn't always use the bullet we'd like to see in the data, but neither are they so likely to use something as atypical as a 147 gr. Golden Saber. I'll be testing an RMR 147 gr. TC FMJ at 1.142"/29mm a little later. The charge is 4.6 grs. of True Blue which I'm hoping will be right around 884 FPS/130 PF and that's from a 4.47" barrel. If I were going to estimate the charge difference between the SPEER 147 gr. TMJ and a jacketed bullet, I'd say .2 grs. but their start charge is well under the SAAMI MAP.

They also have another powder that might be worth investigating for Minor loads called Ultimate Pistol (Lovex DO36-07). Supposedly a tad slower than Clean Shot (formerly AA No 2) but still in a pretty good/low charge range.

Bullet dia. and case thickness should be used for determining your taper crimp. Measure case-thickness within 1mm of the case-mouth. It's as simple as Case Thickness x 2 + bullet dia. - the amount of crimp you want to apply. Case thickness can vary too much to set a .002" range of case-mouth dia. after the taper crimp. The difference you'll find in case-neck thickness can be several thousandths more as in .009" - .014". WIN still consistently measures .011" for me, but there will be very slight variations even with a single brand. You'll likely want at least .001" of taper crimp and .002" is not too much. I kind of shoot for the middle with .0015". With the bullet being plated you might want to try .001" of TC and see if the bullet sets back when you press it's nose into your bench top or a block of wood. Just to illustrate what that would look like with a WIN case, .011" x 2 + .355" - .001", or .376". If the bullet sets back at all, .002" of taper crimp in this particular example would mean a finished dia. of .375" while reading between the hashmarks between .375 and .376", .3755" is generally where I'm at with cases of .011" thickness and a .355" bullet. As far as powders, I'm looking into True Blue and AA No 2 with the RMR 147 gr. TC FMJ and my current loads should be right around 130 PF. I'm a big and longtime fan of True Blue, but it doesn't quite burn as fast as shooters typically use for gun games. If you also want to load JHPs, then I'd consider it, but you have CFE Pistol for that. I'm looking at No 2 because like TiteGroup it isn't sensitive to powder positioning in the case. 3.6 grs. is what I'm using with an OACL of 1.142"/29mm for the truncated cone FMJ. It's lofty as far as spherical handgun powders go, so with a low bulk density of .635 grams/cc or 635 grams/liter, case fill is pretty good. Might as well burn the TiteGroup you have in loads with plated bullets.

AA 2230 is made in Blegium and is identical to Ramshot X-Terminator. 2460 is an American made version that was designed to have a bit slower burn rate. In the future you might want to try Ramshot TAC. It will get you the velocity you want with great accuracy without having to use Max Charges. All of these powders are spherical. You shouldn't be seeing large grain size variations with 2230/X-Terminator.

It would help if they showed the pressure ratings of the loads, but they aren't the only powder company showing higher charges for plated bullets. It's also the case in Western's data where pressure is also listed. When the various plated bullet makers said first to use cast lead data, and then some saying jacketed data is fine, slightly higher charges may, in fact, be the reality. Only pressure testing can tell us that and the smaller bullet-makers may not have that capability.

You're welcome! REDDING is like everyone else. If enough of us ask for something, they'll make it.

Before Accurate began having their pistol powders made in the USA, they came from EXplosia/Lovex who now supplies them to Shooter's World. Clean Shot is the former No 2. Auto Pistol the former No 5. Major Pistol the former No 7. Heavy Pistol being the former No 9. I can tell you that good many years ago I saw some complaints about the imported No 7 with guys claiming aluminum particles were being found as contaminants with some concern about the effects on the leade and bore. Maybe nothing to it, maybe worth a bit of research and maybe already corrected.

Then maybe I should apologize for making an assumption. With your original post being 11/30/17 and no activity on the thread except for one post between 2/28/18 and 2/6/20, I figured you had resolved the issue.

I have the REDDING standard Titanium Carbide die set and everything worked fine until I began getting thin-walled cases included when I picked up my brass at the range. It's inevitable these days. But for what you'll pay for the dual ring sizer you can buy a U or Undersize die and a Lyman M-die that will allow you to expand just enough to still get a good tight fit between the bullet and case neck.

For recreation or competition, USPSA is a good thing. I remember back to when this forum's namesake was first drawing attention and I looked forward to reading every article he wrote. IPSC gave us the power factor values without any pretension of being something there weren't. Events like the Steel Challenge or Bianchi Cup are also things I'd still like to try. I was around when IDPA got started, and the truth is that there was some contention with USPSA. IDPA offered a way to get defensive practice, but turned around and used the gaming load power factors of IPSC. Any shooting time someone can get is a positive. Shooting is a perishable skill. With the costs associated with competitive shooting, I think many would do well to consider Training at the various academies around the country as often as possible. There are some good ones. I know the point you're trying to make regarding ammo at near the same PF levels, but they're hardly the types of loads I would recommend for defensive carry. And I would encourage anyone selecting defensive ammo to verify the loads velocity by chronographing. They seldom match the advertised velocity where the exception seems to be the "boutique" ammo-makers like Double-tap, Underwoods and Buffalo Bore. I do a good bit of ballistic research and I highly recommend getting a handle on things like Momentum and Sectional density. And as far as female shooters, I would not recommend a 151 PF 165 gr. JHP .45 ACP load when they would do better to choose a 9mm 147 gr. JHP. For 151 PF, such a load would need 1027 FPS while most are loaded to 1000 FPS or less, and unfortunately, Federal dropped their 147 gr. HST +P. But the thing here is that a 147 gr. .355" bullet has greater sectional density than a 230 gr. .451" bullet. Sectional density being a great contributor to penetration. My current defense loads are handloads, and because I live in Texas where when a shooting is deemed justifiable . . . end of story. I don't advocate that for anyone else and you must know the political environment you live in. But you still have the option of some very effective "factory" loads from the smaller companies I mentioned. I happened to obtain both the 124 gr. and 147 gr. HSTs as pulled bullets. My 124 gr. load chrono's 1250 FPS while the 147 is at 1125 FPS. 155 and 165 PF respectively from a 4.5" 30 oz. pistol with both being thoroughly tested, as well as the same weight Gold Dots. Likewise to you.

Go back to your video games! If you wanted to shoot someone you could have done that in the service of your country instead of trying to be a closet commando!

What's getting to me is experience. Try this link: https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/ammunition/federal/handgun/details.aspx?id=675 and you'll see that they got 1200 FPS from their 4" test barrel. I chronographed that same load exactly 1 week ago at 1143 FPS from a 4" S&W M&P Compact. Try chronographing any of the 9mm loads you listed. Even with the SPEER 124 gr. +P Gold Dot Factory Rated at 1220 FPS, not even with barrels a 1/2" longer than their test barrel has velocity gone above 1180 FPS. Go ahead and ASSume that I've never competed. I have not and never will join the Bill Wilson Pistol association. I lost interest when he deemed the .40 S&W MINOR because Wilson Combat didn't yet make a 1911 chambered for it. No disrespect intended toward Mr. Hackathorn. Editing because you have no idea considering the mention of 165 gr. Loads with a PF of 151. Are you female?

Most popular Factory Defense loads? Maybe you need to check your facts. I was shooting and handloading the 9 x 19mm before there was a +P. Now tell me about those great .45 ACP Factory Defense loads at 165 PF?

I suppose that shooting IDPA is great fun. But as far as any meaningful training for a real life defense scenario? Not so much. I was working in Arkanstein before the 1992 election while Bill Wilson was such a non-entity as to question him being a Clintonite. A good .45 ACP JHP defense load ain't likely to be as low as 170 PF, nor a 9 x 19mm load at 130 PF. But if you're aim is a sport to increase your own sales . . . But for the subject at hand, whatever powder will get you enough power factor that when subtracting standard deviation is still at least 165. For me, I've had good results with WST and 200 gr. SWCs, but never single digit SDs. That wouldn't stop me from looking at powders with a similar burn rate. Clays hasn't come from ADI for a while now, and the Canadian version doesn't seem to excite anyone. If you like flake powders, there are some very good ones that are as old as any in the case of Bullseye. For a spherical or flattened ball type, Ramshot Competition looks like one worth investigating.

.45 ACP case neck thickness varies, and probably has for longer than the other auto-pistol cartridges. I've definitely seen brass as thin as .009". So I agree with several points like HHjr mentioned, you're probably wasting your time to set Taper Crimp with one particular case if you load mixed headstamp brass. I also agree that if you're using a single brand of cases, or if they are all the same thickness, Thickness x 2 + bullet dia. will give you the finished dia. after the flare is removed, with a straight case wall resulting. Then there's the matter of cast/coated/plated at .452" vs jacketed at .451. With the larger dia. bullets you're already getting an extra .001" of interference fit between the bullet and case-neck. Some choose not to use any Taper Crimp, and simply removing flare is not taper crimping until you turn the case-mouth into the bullet. For JHPs - I don't load FMJ - I use the simple formula mentioned and subtract .002" to get .002" of Taper Crimp, but I do segregate cases, and that's not quite as hard as it sounds. After a few times of sorting you'll learn which brands are thin, thick, or in-between. I like the in-between for JHPs, but thin cases get loaded with coated bullets due to the larger dia. of the bullet. When I see mention of over-crimping, it makes me wonder how that is defined by that individual. To over-crimp to the point that the case-mouth doesn't headspace properly would be worse than extreme, and a review of the process is in order. .002" of taper crimp is plenty for jacketed bullets, and .003" is not so much to adversely affect accuracy. For you guys that also load for revolvers with JHPs that have cannelures, you probably don't think twice about roll crimping into it. So with a proper taper crimp on a jacketed .451" bullet, all you're really doing is creating a mini-cannelure. Taper crimp dies, however, are not all the same, and I like the REDDING stand alone taper crimp dies, myself. Rather than having a slight single-angle drilled into it, it has 2. The first being the longer one that's not quite as acute as typical TC dies, then there's a second angle higher up in the die that works directly on the case-mouth itself, which you can feel when you set up the die.

All bullets at a specific weight do not share the same shank length/bearing surface. Differences can be slight enough to be moot with little or no effect on the powder charge, but a different example would be a RN compared to a SWC. With the same bullet construction and diameter, length of the bearing surface can effect pressure/velocity. A wadcutter as you mentioned is an exception because of the longer shank/greater bearing surface and typically made for revolver calibers.

They shouldn't be, they were once imported and sold as Accurate No 2 (Clean Shot) 5, 7 & 9.

Always good to speak with an open mind. The load I spoke of earlier in 5.56mm NATO was first inspired and presented to spec-ops by none other than Chris Kyle. But in testing the SIERRA 77 gr. Open Tip March bullet w/cannelure, it came apart in water jugs at 50 yards. That load was spec'd 2700 FPS at the muzzle for reliable tumbling out to 300 yards, and was a game changer considering why we went to the 5.56mm in the first place. The Hornady 75 gr. version that they use for the Tap II and their NATO Match load is really good, and any difference in accuracy between the 2 is moot, Even to the point of 1/2 MOA for 10 rounds at 100 yards from a Colt's Competition 16" model before the last bankruptcy forced them to shut down their partner, Bold Ideas in Breckenridge TX. They came with a guarantee of sub MOA at 100 yards for 3 rounds. 25.0 grs, of TAC is .8 grs. below the Max Charge and will get you 2750 FPS from a 16" barrel. For match or hunting loads with a bolt rifle, things are a bit different. I'm not in to any sporter that won't shoot the kind of groups you mentioned. But being honest, I have not yet bought the Precision Rifle I want in 6.5 CM. And as crazy as this might sound, I've already bought an 8# jug of the powder I plan to use, and I've been keeping up and giving due diligence. The powder that has impressed me most, even though H-4350 got so popular as to be unobtanium, and with RL17 being a very worthy alternate, RL16, might defy Alliants' numbering sequence because in actual handloads, charges tend to be higher. And for those who may not know, Alliant imports it from Bofor's in Sweden, while they make Norma Powders. So I bought 8# of Norma URP, which is kind of the premium grade, as is the case for RL15/N203B and RL22/MRP. But, for the finale, there's no way I won't make those 6.5 CM loads except in Single-Stage mode. And even progressives can be used that way. I just believe that the more mechanical movement that is introduced, the more it must be accounted for.

Glad it worked out for you. I failed to mention that the FIRED case I typically use for the chamber-length test are WIN. Not saying that it's better than others, it's just one of the brands where the thickness at the case-mouth is usually pretty close to .011". The FIRED case should put enough tension on the bullet that it doesn't easily slide in the case. I'd say REM as well if I didn't have 3 different varieties in my brass collection. The new style being as thick as some foreign brands like CBC, but still easily identifiable by the text and shape of the case-rim.. With SPEER and Federal being under the same ownership, you'd think they'd share brass, but they don't. Federal and Blazer are thinner. If you need to buy brass, Starline is always good, but if the price is better for WIN, they're still about as consistent as any.

I've seen that point made several times in recent years, so I simply wonder what equipment he used when he began setting records a good many years ago. Back then, about the only aspect of his handloading that got any mention were the bullets he used. And if you win enough competitions, endorsement deals tend to come your way. Mechanically speaking, there is an advantage in eliminating as much flexing as possible whether it be the press linkage, toolhead or shellplate. As long as I can remember, and probably before, REDDING has used a feature on their single-stage and turret presses known as Top-Dead-Center. A steel horizontal pin that runs through the press which the steel linkage arms contact and stop exactly at the same point every time. LEE did something similar when they introduced their Classic presses, and I do load 5.56mm NATO on a Classic Turret with minimal variations in OACL. But the powder measure is an RCBS Uniflow that will repeatedly drop exactly 25.0 grs. of TAC every time. The Top-Dead-Center addition to the Classic presses, although different from REDDINGs, is also steel-on-steel. I do not use any competition die sets or micrometer seating stems for any rifle cartridge. When you set your dies up properly, any flex of the moving parts has been eliminated. You could say that Dillon presses have the same, or a similar feature, but they are nubs on either side of the press and part of the frame casting. That's not to say that flexing can't be overcome, but it typically means custom parts as tolerances are a bit looser.

Several years back I tried to explain to them the difference between JHPs and Golden Sabers, and they didn't understand. I can tell you that there are people under the roof at Western who are aware of their poor quality data. It's a shame because some years ago they had what I thought was the best ballistician in the business in Johan Loubser whom they got in the deal when they bought Accurate Powders. There is quite a bit of difference in their data from when Johan was with them, and after he left. I typically recommend that someone else's data be used for 9 x 19mm. And as far as their +P data, why would anyone even load to +P with powders that burn faster than SIL and are unsuitable with minimal velocity gains? Makes absolutely no sense. Just an exercise to load up to the SAAMI MAP for 9mm +P. I've never had a single problem in 34 years using Lyman data, and the pressure ratings are is certainly important to me. They go up to 4.4 grs. with N340 and the 147 gr. TMJ.