Justsomeguy

You know, I sometimes wonder why someone would even consider loading brass that has not at least been cleaned by some method or other. Dirt in your dies is not a good idea and will cause wear as well as possibly scratch up your brass or at least cause a variety of other problems OAL variations included. So... step one should always be to clean the brass. Tumbling is a good method which has worked for years for many experienced reloaders. There are other more involved methods usually involving liquids of some kind that require drying as part of the process, so I don't personally use that type of cleaning, but some do. The idea is to get the stuff off the brass that can hurt you equipment and prevent the gun from functioning without drama. Tumbling seems to work for that.

Firstly, .2" is not much difference in barrel length. Even barrels from the same manufacturer will vary in land height and groove depth and produce velocity differences as great, or really, as little as you are describing here. I have several pistols equipped with aftermarket barrels from different sources and can tell you that some barrels are faster than others. This is nothing new. It has been noted by many shooters and reloaders over at least half a century, or at least as long as chronographs that were affordable have been used by a lot of shooters. Velocity differences of over twice what you listed are not uncommon for guns with the same length barrels from different manufacturers, so just know it happens and expect it.

I recently ran a test in 9mm using SNS plain ol' cast bullets with the lube groove weighing 124grns and their new coated bullet weighing 125grns (no lube groove so it's slightly heavier) but they have the same ogive shape, that is they are round nosed bullets of the same shape. I used 3.8grns of e3 which does not seem to smoke as much as some powders like TiteGroup or Unique with lead. Side by side, the lead bullet using lube would leave a small cloud of smoke, the coated bullet left hardly any noticeable smoke. Both are accurate using that loading at 1.063 OAL or so. So... my conclusion is that SNS coated bullets are going to produce little if any smoke depending on the powder. The cooler the powder, the less smoke even with lubed lead, but coated seems like it will eliminate almost all smoke with a good powder choice.

This is weird. Generally slower moving bullets will hit HIGHER on the target at moderate ranges because they spend more time in the barrel and thus recoil forces lifting the gun have more time to act on them and they shoot higher than faster bullet loadings in the same gun. Of course, if they are just barely exiting the gun, and you are shooting at a say 50 yards or so, then they will indeed be lower because now gravity can affect them more over time as they are moving slow. So... it depends on the distance. Perhaps the 147s are actually going faster? Did you chrono these? But like Rick88 says, adjustable sights are lovely things to have if you change loads all the time like most of us who reload do.

Like rdinga said, it's all about burn rates and pressure limits. Some powders are designed to operate at pistol generated pressures over a longer period of time. Fast burning powders are designed to reach their "optimal" sustained pressure and peak pressures more rapidly than slower powders, so they don't "push" for as long a time period for a given measure as slower powders do, but reach their allowable pressure limit faster. Trying to add more fast burning powder to achieve more velocity and thus pressure than they are rated for will mean a pressure spike and dangerous conditions. This is no joke. You could lose not only the gun but your fingers or eyes trying to duplicate slower or even magnum powder velocities with fast burning powders intended for mild target loads. There are reasons for both the upper and lower "load limits" listed in all the books. Lower limits denote the minimum pressure at which the powder efficiently operates and will burn properly. Below that, not enough pressure is made and the results are inconsistent and perhaps even dangerous as a rare condition called "detonation" is possible with some powders. Powders loaded too low will generally result in a lot of crud on the gun as the powder will not burn cleanly at those pressures (let alone expand the case to seal the chamber) and extreme spreads, or difference between the highest and lowest measured velocity in a string, will go up. Upper limits are based on pressures suitable for the case and guns involved and should be minded to avoid catastrophic failure of one or the other or both the cartridge case and gun. You use more powder with lighter bullets because, well, they are lighter. True, they will achieve more velocity but they have less resistance to acceleration and in order to get the pressure necessary to move them fast you need more powder to get the "optimal" pressure in the time needed to push the lighter bullet to the speeds necessary to create the same momentum as a heavier bullet with a smaller powder charge, and indeed to fit between the pressure limits required. Heavier bullets create more pressure because of their weight and resistance in the barrel, and the maximum allowable pressures, both peak and OVER TIME (or in the barrel length) are more easily achieved while using less powder. In other words, the time period needed to burn in a given length of barrel to get the same power factor or momentum energy needed, while at the same time fitting the pressure limits both high and low, is used to determine what powder speed is needed for a given bullet weight. Thus there are different speed powders manufactured. Most of us use chronographs for this, but only very sophisticated measurements can tell the exact pressure, for which we tend to rely on published data. This is why a lot of "gun gamers" use heavier for the caliber bullets to make "major" without going over pressure. It takes less powder, thus less energy is being spent, to push the heavier bullet to the power factor (which is mainly a measure of momentum which we measure using simple bullet weight times velocity figures.) and so recoil is somewhat less with the heavier bullet as less chemical energy is present. Of course the use of compensators changes the factors because those require a lot of gas to function properly and so in some instances, like 9mm major shooters require, lighter bullets going fast using a lot of powder pushing a lot of gas to operate their compensators are what is required to reach a certain momentum figure with the compensator eating some of the energy and thus some of the recoil. What we are saying here is that to achieve the same MOMENTUM force, it takes more powder with a lighter bullet than it would for a heavier one. Foot pounds of energy is a different ball game entirely. Lighter bullets will generally get more ft/lbs of energy at or near maximum loadings than heavy bullets in the same caliber because they can go so much faster for the same pressure limit and velocity SQUARED is part of the equation, and so a modest increase in velocity will greatly affect the ft/lb equation. So... if you are after MOMENTUM, or "push force" then heavier bullets will take less powder to achieve that and produce less recoil. If you are after ft/lbs of energy, then lighter bullets going faster than heavy ones can achieve in the same caliber with safe pressures, but using more powder, will be required. I hope this helped.

Though excessive "free bore" in rifles can cause a drop in accuracy, the same does not always apply to pistol rounds. Rifle bullets are under a different set of parameters than pistol bullets given the pressures and velocities of the two. Pistol chambers will almost always allow for a pistol bullet to still be in the case (when touched off) as the bullet hits the rifling no matter what you set the OAL at. One thing you don't want is for a pistol bullet to actually be touching the rifling during the chambering process as this can spike pressures as you probably already know. OAL is pretty much gun and bullet specific though, and so only experiments with YOUR pistol with the bullet and powder you are currently using can tell you what is the most accurate. I grant that free bore will have some effect, but suspect it will be less than the powder choice and load volume will make.

Just the other day I tested some SNS lead 124grn round nose which used the standard bullet lube against their new coated 125grn round nose using the same powder (e3, 3.8grns) at the same OALs. Both bullets have the same profile with the weight difference being attributed to the presence of a lube groove on the 124 vs. no groove on the 125 coated. The coated bullets were about 25fps SLOWER in 20 round strings than the plain old lead bullets were in the same 4" XD Service 9mm. I like the new coated bullets and will continue to use them as long as I can get them, though both are accurate. The coated ones are easy to handle and reload. There is noticeably less smoke (hardly any actually using coated) even though e3 does not smoke much with lead anyway.

Like BBBB said, the new coated bullets of the 124grn variety from any of several suppliers would be a good bet. As to Clays, I have no recommendations for 9mm, it being a bit on the zippy side for 9mm in my opinion. I have lately used some e3 in some testing and it is listed as fast too, but seems to work ok at about 3.6-3.8grns with 124grn bullets at various OALs in most guns depending on what your chamber will take. If Clays is all you have work up carefully and modestly as always.

As Postal Bob said, the carbide ring is really the only thing doing any sizing on your cases. If it is broken or missing you are not sizing the cases.

Though indoor ranges vary, they are supposed to be, by law, power vented to eliminate any hazard from lead dust that might be there. Having said that, some indoor ranges might not allow lead bullets, but I don't know of any around me that object to them. On the other hand, the newer "coated" lead bullets seem to retain their coating even when shot into steel and contain any lead splatter that might be a problem, so I think coated lead is now the way to go for inexpensive, accurate, and pretty much "safe" bullets. They are also a lot cleaner in the reloading process (you won't get any lead on your fingers handling them) and cleaner in the barrel too!

While de-burring may be accomplished with a chamfering tool, I would not really call it chamfering which denotes some material removal to form a reverse cone shape in the mouth of the case. Since I mostly shoot once fired brass they are pretty much de-burred from the shooting process, but I can see the need for inspection of, and the possible de-burring of new brass should it be called for. I am not getting, nor can I remember getting brass slivers in my reloading process to any degree from reloading once fired, or the occasional new brass which, for me, is always Starline brass which is of very good quality and does not seem to have, so far, any great degree of burrs on it.

I would not chamfer any auto pistol brass. Auto pistols chamber on the mouth of the case and you are just reducing the amount of metal it can seat on. Plus, unlike rifle brass that you don't bell, but still needing a way to get the bullet started you chamfer that brass. Pistol brass does not require chamfering and a slight bell is preferred and necessary. So... just bell enough to have a bullet sit unaided on the mouth of the case and taper crimp enough to remove the bell plus maybe .001 or so to insure good feeding.

Like OneTime implies, TAPER crimp is mainly used for FEEDING in auto pistols and normally only requires you to remove any bell you put on it when seating your bullets. I would differ slightly from his recommendation in that I would take the taper crimp about .001" further than the actual bullet diameter plus 2X brass thickness measured at the neck. This will insure a smoother "feel" over the bullet and enhance feeding without damaging the bullet.

This is the most complete analysis of primers I have ever seen in one place and should be "stickied" so it stays forever available. Thank you for taking the time to post this information.

Personally, I think Silhouette is a great powder with a wide load range in all the service calibers. I have never thought it recoiled any harder than TiteGroup when loaded to the same velocities and actually think it's a superior powder, especially if you use any lead bullets. It will certainly burn a lot cooler and not heat up your gun in a long string of fire like TiteGroup does.

I understand his "ejecting sooner" comment to mean that the shorter case will fall free of the cylinder more easily with a stroke to the ejector rod unlike a lot of guns using 357 brass that will barely clear the cylinders.

I agree with the others that 180grn bullets, whether lead, plated, or jacketed shoot nice in a 40cal, require less powder and thus seem to produce less recoil than the lighter for caliber bullets do.

I dunno... I've become a fan of One Shot in the last couple of years. Just throw 2-300 tumbled cases in a gallon Zip Lock bag and spread 'em out on a flat surface then spray into the bag and roll 'em around some and dump the cases in the casefeeder. No muss no fuss and they run nice a slick through the sizing die and don't pick up any grit. They are dry to the touch and I just throw the resulting rounds into an ammo box and go shoot.

@Bowenbuilt... Hi buddy. I did just buy some 9mm brass from Blamtech. Max seems like a good guy and his service was excellent. The 3000 I ordered all came nice and shiny and look ready to reload. I received the brass in only a couple of days after I ordered, so if anyone else needs some I would give them a try. On another note, I finally got to try out some of that e3 I got last fall and so far I kind of like the stuff for mid-velocity 9mm loads with 124grn bullets. In the next few days I will be trying to determine if the new SNS coated 124grn bullet is even less smoky with e3 than it is with their regular 124 RN lead bullet.

I agree that too tight a crimp can cause some problems with plated bullets as it will not only possibly cut the plating if too tight, but may also resize the base of the bullet making it smaller than the lands can bite into properly. With your very long OAL of 1.98 this is a distinct possibility. It is also possible that there just isn't enough bullet in the case to align it properly with the bore and it is launching kind of "sideways" which can't be good. An 165grn bullet is not that long anyway. Why are you using such a long OAL?

@2011... I hope to make it out there both Tuesday and Thursday. I just put some Dawson FO sights on one of my XD Service sized guns and need to test those and set them for the "current load" so that will be Tuesday most likely. Thursday I have a friend who is a new shooter but goes out of town a lot, so he is planning on being around Thursday and we will be out there again. I'll uhmm... be looking for the pink stuff you mentioned. Don't shoot me for looking at your wife!

Betcha Wiley Coyote uses ACME brass too... betcha!

@2011... Hmmm... I may myself be at TC this next Tuesday weather permitting, though Wednesday and Thursday look more promising from a weather aspect. Perhaps if you see an old guy with a beard hunkered down and shooting over a chrono you might walk up and say hello. Good luck with your new holster and the 3gun thing. I don't compete anymore 'cause running around and crawling through tubes as they are now prone to do might leave me stuck in there. I guess everything has to be more and more "extreme" nowadays or people don't feel challenged.

I'm thinking that your longer OAL than I used with a .1grn more powder in my loads may have resulted in the unburned powder as I don't remember, nor did I note any of that. Still... I don't think you will find AA7 to be unsuitable for 9mm as long as you keep the pressure/velocity up where AA7 likes to be. It's a pretty good powder when you're going more for the "maximum effort" kind of thing.

This is interesting as CFE is a new powder and the required testing is just now being done by members of this and other forums. BE86 is another new powder I am curious about and would buy if I saw any just to experiment with. It being one of those formerly "proprietary powders" ( a Bullseye derivative as are many of those) used by major reloaders there is not any data for it that I can find. Alliant has not posted any either except to say it is suitable for 9mm, 40, and 45. I wonder if anyone here has acquired any BE86 and done any testing?