K-Texas

TAC with the Hornady 75 gr. BTHP Match with cannelure. Western provides true 5.56mm NATO data. Others stick a heavier bullet into a .223 REM case and call it 5.56mm NATO. Testing the Hornady against the Sierra 77 gr. HPBT w/cannelure, both open-tip match, reproducing the Mk 262 load, the Sierra doesn't hold up well in water jug tests at 50 yards. That's at 2700 FPS. The Hornady 75 gr. at 2750 FPS, both velocities from 16" barrels, is better constructed. Sub MOA for 5 rounds at 100 yards and the load is not a Max Charge. AA 2520 is also good, but SDs are better with TAC. AA 2460 will also get 2750 FPS with the 75 gr. Hornady, but closer to a Max Charge. This load is essentially a replication of the Hornady Tap 2 factory load as well as their 75 gr. 5.56mm NATO Match load,

TiteGroup burns so hot at high pressure that it can melt the coating from poly-coated bullets. There are some cast lead/poly-coated makers that will tell you to avoid it for that reason. It does better in lower pressure rounds like the .38 Special and .45 ACP and others. If I needed to use some up, that's how I'd do it, and use something else that doesn't burn so hot in 9mm.

Still waiting to hear from the Great White North, but there is no great mystery here, Dave. I've shot the P320 X5 and I overlooked your mention of the Heavy Grip Module. Kinda forgot about that one, but SIG gives its weight has 16.6 oz. Shooting two different loads where ones PF is 135 and the other is 133, in a pistol that heavy, this gets back to a simple calculation of free recoil, and the heavier the pistol is, the less perceived difference in recoil. With the standard grip module the comparison might be a bit different, but I wouldn't expect much. I've been interested in opinions about one heavier bullet at lower velocity having less recoil than a lighter bullet at higher velocity with both generating the same Power Factor, that I plan to conduct such a test. There is however, nothing wrong with your methodology and mixing them up in the mag. Sounds more subjective to me than a software program trying to make recoil predictions based on specific powders.

So the 1.1 gr. increase of True Blue produces very similar values. Interesting. Do you mind if I ask how those values were found? Honestly, I use both powders, but much more of the True Blue, and I wouldn't have guessed that!

Just curious. Are those numbers for the chargeweights listed by dave33?

As far as spherical powders go. AA No 2 is also insensitive to powder positioning. Doesn't burn quite as fast as TiteGroup, but its bulk density is .635 grams/cc or 635 grams/liter. It is quite lofty and gives good case-fill by chargeweight. Ramshot Competition is even loftier and lower in bulk density at .510 grams/cc. WST is also quite lofty, but Hodgdon recommends against using it for 9mm. For those that load it trouble free, you won't get any complaint from me.

There are 9mm revolvers that have each cylinder cut as a 9mm chamber. I can't think of a current DA revolver, but they have been made in the past like the S&W 547. The Ruger Blackhawk would be an example for a SA revolver and cartridges headspace on the case-mouth, just the same as autos. 9mm revolvers that use moon clips headspace on the moon clip. You have crimping options, provided a die exists that would roll crimp a 9mm case. I mentioned the 9mm Federal because it was made for revolvers. It wasn't around long, and you'd have to research the dies to see what crimp it applied. Other than that, taper crimping is about the only solution. And while .355" bullets have been known to walk forward during recoil, oversized cast/coated/plated at .356" have greater neck tension on the case. Something else that might be worth trying, and always a good idea if you're gonna shoot cast lead bullets is to slug the bore to find its true groove dia. If it is .355", you could even go to a .357" cast bullet since some cast bullet makers offer different diameter bullets. Maybe poly-coated as well. And obviously, 9 x 19mm Factory ammo is taper crimped for autos, but that does not mean that there isn't a handloading solution for a 9mm revolver that uses moon clips.

The above is the same exact .38/.357 FCD that I have.

Taper crimp and REDDING makes an excellent die that can be bought separately. I would not use something like the LEE FCD because it's really intended for .355" jacketed and can swage cast/coated bullets to that dia. Since the bullet is .356" dia. That should help prevent bullets from walking forward during firing combined with a good taper crimp. There's another option that's kind of a reach, and your revolver would need to use moon clips rather than the cylinders being individually cut for chambers, and that would be a roll crimp die for the short-lived 9mm Federal.

And finding the correct OACL with a .355" jacketed bullet is rather easy. Just barely start the bullet into a FIRED case, I use WIN cases, and place the overlength "dummy" into the chamber. Push lightly on the case-rim until it stops moving forward. The leade will seat the bullet. The barrel hood should extend about 1mm beyond the case-rim, certainly no more than flush. I would do this about 5 times to ensure that you're getting the same exact length every time. That will be the Max Possible OACL. Then simply make your loads .010" shorter. That way you'll know the exact distance your bullet is from the barrel's leade/throat. I also want to commend you for seeking a mathematical solution for powder volume. One problem there is that as you go deeper into the case, the brass case-walls become thicker which kinda makes for a difficult calculation. Increasing OACL is different because you gain case volume as you lengthen due to the case walls thinning. Maybe the best way to know is by water volume for the 2 different seating depths and OACLs. Another option for just finding a safe Start Charge is to divide the shorter OACL by the longer one given in the data. Using the numbers you posted that would be 1.08" / 1.125" for .96 then just multiply that by the Start Charge listed where 4.5 grs. becomes 4.32 or 4.3 grs.

For 124 gr. JHP defense loads I'd say Silhouette. I don't load 115s, and for the 147 gr. JHP defense type loads I use AA No 7 and load them to 1125 FPS. Silhouette is not the best choice for 147s unless you want to keep the loads subsonic at say around 1000 FPS. My most recent defense load is the 124 gr. HST loaded to 1.122" with a CCI500 primer that chrono'd 1254 FPS on Monday. True Blue will do plenty good with 124 gr. JHPs and its range is in-between Silhouette and No 7 when it comes to loading 147 gr. JHPs. If however, other calibers come into play like say short-barrel .357 Magnum and target loads in multiple calibers, True Blue would have the advantage. Clear as mud right? That's why I use them both. Maybe the best solution would be to try a pound of both and see which one best fits your needs. I realize we're not talking about light loads, or even Minor PF loads. My personal practice is to practice with the same types of loads as I'll be carrying.

For 124 gr. JHPs I'll recommend what I use and that's Silhouette. I have loaded a good number of 124 gr. Gold Dots, and as far as JHP bullets for defense loads that are readily available to handloaders, there are none better. I load the 147 as well. Silhouette is chemically treated to reduce flash and there isn't a better choice for 124 gr. defense loads. IMO. The Speer factory 124 gr. +P load is easily duplicated with Silhouette, and it's doubtful that the charge would result in +P pressure. Speer might claim 1220 FPS from a 4" test barrel, but those I've chrono'd are around 1180 FPS at best. Silhouette is also a good powder for range loads as well. Low standard deviations and great accuracy are pretty easy to get. True Blue is also good for that and doesn't flash much either. Going back to the point about those 2 being very close in burn rate. In some cartridges like 9 x 19mm, Western data may show an identical charge, and that can also occur with AA No 5. But as the geometry of the cartridge changes, so do the similarities with .357 SIG and .40 S&W being good examples.

I wouldn't say essentially the same burn rate, but there in the same vicinity. And as far as +P loads and rated pressures, look at data from Lyman, SIERRA and Speer, and compare them to Western data, It don't jibe, and while SIERRA and SPEER don't list pressure while Lyman does in Copper Units of Pressure or CUP, you can bet that SIERRA and Speer are not furnishing load data that hasn't been pressure tested.

Honestly, I make more defense oriented rounds than anything else. But I do load light in some cases like bunnyfarts in .45 ACP with a 200 gr. SWC at 800 FPS, and the next article I'll post will have a 9mm Minor load with the RMR 124 gr. In-House JHP and some .38 Sp. & +P loads with 125 & 158 gr. RMR PHPs. I'm also not in the paid employ of Western Powder Co. Since around 2013 I've written a number of articles, but I got started with True Blue back around 2001. I've been advocating for it since then and getting accused of working for Western as a result. So, as far as loading light with True Blue, its ballistic uniformity is such that I won't say that it can't be used for lighter loads. But in a case like 9 x 19mm, the charges would probably be at least 1.5 grs. higher than the typical powders guys here are using. The competition load I've been dabbling with for about a year, off and on uses 4.2 grs. of AA No 2 and that was mostly for an audience like the one here at BENOS forum. Very soft shooting and accurate. I started handgunning with .357 and .41 Magnum revolvers, so my interpretation of recoil is probably not typical. So being aware that a lot of comp shooters are using 147 gr. bullets for Minor PF, I'll add one, also charged with No 2 where I will shoot both in comparison. There's actually kind of a funny story regarding True Blue. I called Western before I bought 4# sight unseen. True Blue is made in Belgium, BTW. Their ballistician at that time told me that it was the same powder as used by FN when they developed the 5.7 x 28mm. And it can also be used effectively for the 7.62 x 25mm TOK. People that load the 5.7 are likely to know that it can be very fussy about powder, pressure stability in particular. True Blue is definitely stable, but that seems to carry over to low pressure cartridges like the .38 S&W? It is in a somewhat similar burn range as AA No 5, but the comparison ends there other than No 5 also being very dense and very fine grained. But, once pressure peaks, it starts losing stability like some faster powders will do. Not that it can't be used for good 9mm loads, I just wouldn't try to use it for +P.

I load the 124 gr. HST, certainly to +P in terms of velocity, and lets face it, a +P rating for 9mm these days is more about velocity or perceived effectiveness than it is for pressure. Just earlier today in the daily Ammoland email, Blackwater is getting into the ammo biz and advertise a monolithic 124 gr. +P Hollow-point while it's velocity is rated 1100 FPS. Since I write the occasional article for the Western Powders blog, I hate to say that I do NOT depend on their 9mm data for my handloads. Those they show as +P have artificially inflated pressure, IMO, due to a tight chambered test barrel. Then you would need to ask why they would make +P loads with any faster burning powder than Silhouette. Both True Blue and Silhouette are capable of 1200 FPS with the 124 gr. HST. I've loaded it as fast as 1281 FPS that's not necessary in light of how well the HST has performed in my testing. I mention this when the question is asked about a 9mm 124/125 gr. JHP that has no data of it's own. It is completely safe to use the SIERRA data for their 125 gr. JHP for a couple of reasons . . . well make that 3. #1, it has as long a shank as you will find on any copper-jacketed 9mm hollow-point bullet at that weight. #2, SIERRA and Lyman both load it very short at 1.075" and in one manual, they tested their 9mm loads with a 4" Hi-Point. The loads I test using the SIERRA data give more than the 1150 FPS that they show as their highest velocity. Their Max Charge of Silhouette chrono's 1175 FPS from my 4.47" Canik. It is not a stretch to believe that the load could be increased by .1 or .2 grs. to reach 1200 FPS and still be under the standard pressure limit of 35,000 PSI/33,000 CUP. The cut off for pressure, even when pressure is not listed, is rarely above 34,000 PSI. Then consider that the spec for 9mm NATO is 36,500 PSI/CIP, and that before SAAMI gave us the +P designation, 9mm Standard Max Pressure was 35,700 CUP where such loads test nearly identically to the 38,500 PSI Max Average Pressure for +P. And in my mention of True Blue in the previous post I forgot to mention that it was also the most accurate powder tested by Lyman for the SIERRA 130 gr. FMJ Tournament Master, and SIERRA included that bullet in their 125 gr. data. I do not use or recommend AA No 5 for +P loads.

And the best tool you have is your chrono and a chrono can not determine pressure. Quik-load may make pressure predictions, but it's not a tool I'd rely on.

Effective and even outstanding loads from .380 ACP to .454 Casull? That's an easy one for me. Ramshot True Blue is the one handgun powder I will never run out of. It might not be the best choice for minor power factor 9mm loads in terms of low charge-weights, but 9mm range loads up to defense loads it is excellent. It is a very dense and very fine grained ball powder that would probably flow even better in an hourglass than sand. Compared to other powders that held the title or are marketed as "universal" it's no contest. In Nosler data it was the most accurate powder tested for their 124 gr. JHP. Let me make the point even finer. Open up the Lyman 49th edition manual or their Pistol & Revolver III, and turn to .38 S&W and they will tell you that True Blue excelled while none of their loads exceeded 13,000 CUP. Look at Western load data for the .454 Casull and you'll see that they have loads that go up to 54,000 PSI. Its pressure stability is unmatched by ANY other handgun powder. As well as being excellent in 9mm, it's great for target loads in calibers like .38 Super, .38 Special and +P, one of the most accurate powders for loading the .40 S&W, Target loads in 10mm, and it's what I use for 230 gr. JHP defense loads in .45 ACP and Standard Deviations below 10 are always my expectation. Another use it excels at is .357 Magnum defense loads for shorter barreled revolvers that won't lose as much velocity while having low flash from 3" and even 2" snubs. If you look in the section for loading 9mm Major you'll see that it has been used for that as well.

Your other option would be the Vectan/NobelSport powders sold in 1.1#/.5 kilo bottles. A few years back there was a labor strike at V-V in Finland and the parent company also owned NobelSport in France and had copies made. They didn't exactly duplicate N320 with Ba 9 1/2 that is slightly slower burning. Ba 7 1/2 is their equivalent of N350 and Ba 6 1/2 is their copy of N110. Vectan even used V-V data for their "copy-cat" powders. There are guys here who have had great success with some Vectan powders that burn more closely to N320.

The sleeve is definitely different from mine that was purchased in 2008 and is the only FCD I have. The only time I use the FCD is with .357" jacketed bullets. Oversize cast or plated bullets at .358"/.359" can get swaged down to .357". And my Lyman seat/crimp die came with 3 seating stems that offer good flexibility for different bullets shapes.

Shooters World Major Pistol was once sold as Accurate No 7, before the US made version from St. Marks in FLA. Same case for No 2 and Clean Shot, No 5 and Auto Pistol. A comparison of Accurate No 7 and SW Major Pistol is something I'm interested in myself. In some data it's hard to know which powder was actually used. IIRC, there was also some concern that the older No 7/Major Pistol had some abrasive ingredients that some claimed were aluminum particles. I do use the current No 7 with 147 gr. JHPs that are Major PF.

The effects of shortening and pressure are very much powder dependent.. For higher velocity loads with 124 gr. JHPs I use Silhouette quite a lot. I can hold OACL tolerances to +/- .002" in many cases, but I seat and crimp in 2 separate operations. Don't take anything for granted and trust your chronograpgh. I typically see variations in velocity when I increase or decrease OACL by .010". These are typically 1200 FPS + loads. On the other end, with light loads you may not see much change depending on the powder your using. But ask your chrono just to be sure.

Low pressure rounds like .38 Special and .45 ACP are the best way to use TiteGroup. IMO. As pressure increases, so does burn temperature and there are a good many threads here on that concerning 9 x 19mm. Like TiteGroup, AA No 2 is insensitive to powder positioning and burns much cooler, even in the case of 9 x 19mm @ 35,000 PSI give or take. Low chargeweights and low recoil are other attributes.

A few things to remember: jacket or no jacket, length of the bullet shank/bearing surface and bullet dia. If your RN is lead and .358" in dia. use data for the same weight, or for the next heavier lead bullet. 9mm is a bit easier thanks to Sierra. You won't find many, if any, at 115 & 124/125 grs. that have a longer shank/greater bearing surface, and then they loaded very short. With just about any other same weight .355" JHP the Sierra data can be used because a longer OACL is most likely. Lyman also uses the 125 gr. Sierra JHP loaded to the same OACL that Sierra uses at 1.075". Another powder you might want to consider for .38 Sp. and 9 x 19mm Target type loads is AA No 2. A lot of handloaders don't seem to be aware that it is insensitive to powder positioning like TiteGroup, but doesn't burn nearly as hot. Western provides data at blog.westernpowders.com that you can download, and they update with each new load guide. The No 7 is what they currently show, but the No 8 should be available very soon. And on the topic of using AA No 2, I'll be at the range in an hour from now testing .38 and 9mm loads charged with No 2 and True Blue for .38+P for an article in progress that I'll be finishing up in the next week and submit it to the blog's editor. The topic of RMR In-House JHP came up in another thread and I've been working with their 124 gr. JHP version aimed at 130 PF. So far Standard Deviations have been 5 or less, and I'm hoping that will be the case for the new load at 1.122"/28.5mm with 4.3 grs. of No 2 with a CCI500. For the .38 loads, the bullets will be the RMR 125 & 158 gr. Plated Hollow-Points.

Maybe the G34 wasn't affected since it's made for competitive shooting? A 160 gr. RN should have a longer and more slender ogive, kinda like the universal 124 gr. NATO FMJ that still has to work in the shorter chambered pistols. If they want NATO certification, anyway. The SAAMI Max for OACL has not changed from 1.169", but if you look at their latest spec for chambers, it will show why the stubbier JHPs have to be loaded shorter, some truncated cone shaped bullets as well. If the Max Possible OACL is 1.160" for the G34, but 1.143" for the G17, that sounds like the chamber is .017" shorter. Not terrible. With pistolmakers using short chambers while factory JHP loads are also shorter, it would seem that Glock didn't believe that there was any benefit for having chambers as long as they were, and decided to shorten the chambers to reduce the "jump" from the case into the rifling to enhance accuracy as one ingredient for their "Marksman" barrels, as they advertise them.

Seat and crimp in 2 separate operations if you want better consistency in OACL. I loaded the 147 gr. HSTs for an article at: https://blog.westernpowders.com/ might be back a few pages. Since the case is thicker at the location of the bullet's heel, it's pretty typical. The 9mm's casehead MAX DIA. dimension .200" above the rim is .391" and .380" at the case-mouth. Measure the dia. where the bulge appears and it should be about midway in-between.