Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'wac'.
Found 2 results
Lots of cracked slides these days caused by less than perfect metallurgy, hardness, fitting, etc.. compounded by high pressure 9major loads. My goal in developing a great load is to maximize performance while NOT destroying me or my gun. The common sense recommendation is to use a slower powder to reduce case pressure. OK, slower powders measured & ranked how? Powder manufacturers charts are considered 'guidelines' as to 'relative' burn rates, and should maybe be considered most accurate with their own product? Add to this, the different burn rate charts available have conflicting ranks among the most popular powders used for 9major. And now for the rule of thumb Slower powders usually require more charge weight than fast powders to achieve the same velocity (assuming same bullet, barrel, primer & cart.). More conflict. So all of this has got me thinking... (probably over-thinking) The following is compiled from my own 9major load data over the years. This is a high level comparison - not a true apples to apples, since this is with 4 different barrel configurations, different temps, etc.. The last column is the charge weight of a 100% full 9mm case. Nice for relative density comparisons.
I started working up some short OAL major loads over the weekend and have been pleasantly surprised with the results so far. No excessive pressure signs with any of my loads, and very consistent velocities around my 170PF target. Curious what experiences others have had loading with this constraint (OAL 1.100 - 1.125) ? barrel= KKM 5.5", 3 holes, CK 3-chamber comp bullet= MG124JHP OAL= 1.120" 6.7 gr WAC 1381 fps, 9 ES (171.2 PF) 8.5 gr 3N38 1379 fps, 8 ES (171.0 PF)