Open - what caliber

[lcs]

As someone who has no experience in reloading, I think I feel more comfortable starting off with 38 super. There is already a lot to learn with reloading, so I don't want to compound those issues with worrying about the high pressures of dealing with 9 major. This comes from reading a lot of posts on here about reloading and PF and pressures...

Is this reasoning valid, or am I overly concerned about the pressures associated with 9 major?

Don't worry about the pressure side of 9 major IF you follow safe reloading practices. It is almost impossible to double charge a 9 Major load. Notice I said "almost impossible". We are going to presume you are using one of the known 9 major powders.

I started on 9 major because of the brass savings. I discount brass as a factor anymore, I just like the way a 38S/SC shoots. 9 or 38S/SC, both shoot the same bullet and that is where the big expense is!

[RiggerJJ]

I have to disagree about 9 major being as safe as 38 super major. There are far less powder options because it is a far higher pressure round with most powders. It is also much more sensitive to OAL than 38 super. If you have a neck tension issue for some reason and it's intermittent and you don't realize it, you just might have a really bad day with 9 major that may have been avoided with 38 super depending on the powder you use.

One example being, you can make major power factor with 38 super and N105 and be below the minimum book load, hence, far less pressure than any 9mm major load.

Also, we've already established, real men shoot 38 super.

Here we go.

Like I said, you have to be on top of your QC. You can get set back in a mousefart 9mm load and blow up a gun.

Exactly, setback with a 38 super is much less likely to blow the gun thanks to the deviation in oal not affecting the pressure in much. I've run a .38 super with no neck tension at all through my gun and saw a finished OAL of 1.190 after starting at 1.25. With the vast majority of .38 super loads, that won't really cause too much of an issue. With the vast majority of 9mm loads, that OAL deviation from, for example, 1.155 to 1.1 or less will definitely cause an issue.

To the other issue, tell a women that you're a man because you can shoot a 9mm and she'll laugh at you. Lol...

Good theory, but it just doesn't fly in application...

Most 9mm major loads are either compressed or right on top of the powder, so setback will either just not happen or if it does it will only go to the top of the powder. Ive tried 2 loads; 3N37 (compressed) and HS-6 (which with the 124CMJ is right on top of the powder)

And if you use good loading techniques, you won't get setback...

jj

Edited November 15, 2011 by RiggerJJ

[Whoops!]

Good loading technique doesn't matter if components are unexpectedly out of spec. Also, that setback was with an N105 38 super load which is also compressed. On top of that, I used to load 9 major in both HS6 and Autocomp and even on top of 9.4 gr of HS6, setback was still possible. Just because a load is compressed doesn't mean it can't compress further.

Bottom line, it's very silly for anyone to argue that 9 major is "safe," especially with regard to 38 super which will always be safer.

[Sarge]

Good loading technique doesn't matter if components are unexpectedly out of spec.

Please explain this to me. Good QC is exactly that. Open a new jug of powder, load a few and chrono them to make sure there is nothing "out of spec" going on. Get a new box of bullets, weigh a handful and make sure they are what you ordered. Picking up brass, look at the primer, check the case over, etc....

Just because a load is compressed doesn't mean it can't compress further.

Depends on your idea of compressed. I have loaded rounds that grow over time because they are compressed so much the powder will push the bullet out. Chris Does not believe this but it's true. When you can't get a consistent oal from one round to the next that is a really compressed load. Trust me those bullets won't set back. But remember, set back is prevented by good QC more than it is by stuffing too much powder in a case.

Bottom line, it's very silly for anyone to argue that 9 major is "safe," especially with regard to 38 super which will always be safer.

Funny how you come along and spout your opinions quite freely but turn around a tell us that our opinions are silly. I think your whole thought process on the subject is silly but I would never say so.

The truth of the matter is, nothing dealing with the shooting sports is truly safe. Reloading can be quite dangerous no matter what you are loading if you are not careful. Guns can be unsafe. Shooters can be unsafe. Ranges can be unsafe. I could do this all night.

[Whoops!]

Some things are obviously more unsafe than others. Major 9 is well past the standard design threshold with regards to engineering and as a result does not have the same safety threshold as 38 super. Anyone trying to justify 9mm major is trying to justify a compromise.

Exact measurement of the bullets and brass is one of the best measurements of quality control. A step can easily be forgotten and lead to bad consequences.

Safety is always measured in relativity. When two cases have similar pressure limits and are pushed to very different pressures, one is less safe than the other.

Lastly, setback is variably dependant on measurement with powder load. An initial oal for an out of spec brass can be lower regardless of how much the load is compressed even if setback is not an issue. I also find it very hard to believe that the compressed powder is causing your longer OAL over time, I would believe it is another issue that for some reason, seems to be the powder.

Tha main point here, 9mm major is a compromise. Anyone arguing it is as safe as 38 super or super rimless just isn't making any sense. Just because a person has not had issues with it does not mean the person is not more likely to have an issue with it than with 38 super.

P.S. I never had an issue with 9mm major. My argument is solely based on the fact that it isn't as optimal a cartridge as 38 super for open. There is just no logical way to deny this. Higher safety margins and greater load accomodation are two of the main reasons why.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Whoops!

[LPatterson]

WOW heady stuff. Makes me want to go back and read Ralph Nader's book "Unsafe at any speed".

Things are only as unsafe as people make them. Reminds me of the saying "Never argue with an idiot as they will only bring you down to their level".

[Sarge]

Things are only as unsafe as people make them. Reminds me of the saying "Never argue with an idiot as they will only bring you down to their level".

Yeah, good point.

[RiggerJJ]

Things are only as unsafe as people make them. Reminds me of the saying "Never argue with an idiot as they will only bring you down to their level".

Yeah, good point.

Agreed...

Edited November 20, 2011 by RiggerJJ

[Whoops!]

Funny, I wasn't arguing with anyone, just stating the facts. It's amazing what people will try to justify simply because it's what they use because they don't want to pick up brass.

Quit arguing for compromise, it brings everyone down.

To get back to the original post, as I stated, don't compromise with 9 major. Go with 38 super rimless, the better option.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Whoops!

[ChuckS]

Ya know, I have heard of "Super Face", but never "9 Face". just saying...

[Whoops!]

:Face to Palm: That's because one sounds cooler than the other.

[remoandiris]

Major 9 is well past the standard design threshold with regards to engineering and as a result does not have the same safety threshold as 38 super.

I'm not an engineer so I'd appreciate you explaining this statement with factual data in a way an 8 year old could understand.

[Sarge]

Ya know, I have heard of "Super Face", but never "9 Face". just saying...

So the mark of a good Open gun is the size of the fireball it produces?

[Chris Keen]

Ya know, I have heard of "Super Face", but never "9 Face". just saying...

Super Face was a problem when the PF for major was 175, and guys were loading at 181~185. THAT was dangerous. But I've seen enough 9 major guns at 165 now days, that it doesn't really scare me. I just use what I use cause it works well, and my gunsmith knows how to build a great 38 Super gun.

[Whoops!]

Major 9 is well past the standard design threshold with regards to engineering and as a result does not have the same safety threshold as 38 super.

I'm not an engineer so I'd appreciate you explaining this statement with factual data in a way an 8 year old could understand.

If I remember correctly, standard loading data from factories is rated at approximately 30% less pressure than what the case can withstand at the indicated max loading. 9mm major does not have that percentage of overhead built in. Many engineers use the 30% principle for many different aspects of mechanical engineering. That's what I meant when I said that. It's meant to allow for unforeseen variables in application. One must also remember, a lot of those numbers are 30% less than what an unsupported chamber allows in the case, so open guns will have an even higher overhead.

Sorry, that's the best I can do right now for a simple explanation.

Also, to verify, 9mm major does not scare me either. I think it's a good loading, and certainly better than 40 or .45 for open. But, one must never forget, it does not have the safety factor built into it like 38 super major does with a lot of its slower powders.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Whoops!

[BlackBuzzard]

Of course powder, bullet, OAL, etc matter a lot.........but doesn't some of the Corbon self defense 9mm stuff make like 164PF?

Thats factory ammo getting very close to major.

BB

[XRe]

Ya know, I have heard of "Super Face", but never "9 Face". just saying...

Super Face was a problem when the PF for major was 175, and guys were loading at 181~185. THAT was dangerous.

AND they were doing it in barrels with an unsupported chamber. THAT was dangerous. Loading Super or Supercomp to 182 PF with a supported chamber was no more dangerous than loading 9x19 to current Major - you didn't hear about "Super Face" after the popularization of supported barrels. There was also good reason that you weren't allowed to run 9x19 at old Major, BTW... (there was 9 Face, and in supported barrels, early on in the testing of the stuff). 9x21 was loaded almost exactly the same, but generally had higher quality brass to start with, and always in supported chambers... So, bringing up the fact that "9 Face" isn't a popular expression is something of a misnomer...

In fact, Whoops is off his mark in declaring that Major 9 is somehow unsafe. I ran 9x21 at old major for a couple of years, running 540 and 3N37 in the gun (with 130s, BTW). It was really no different than a 9x19 load could/would have been (same OAL, basically the same cartridge, just a little more case). It was certainly higher pressure than what most of are running today in any caliber. I did see some folks do some pretty dangerous things back in the day (like, 115s in the original Tribrid barrels, loaded with a sick amount of 540 to still allow it to make major). But, mostly, we're not walking any sort of super dangerous line, or treading on ground that hasn't already been well paved in the past.

I do agree with Whoops that Major 9 is not as optimal for several reasons, but that in no way implies it's unsafe. In fact, I'd wager quite confidently that loading pretty much any modern race gun load is safer than loading pretty much any modern Limited gun load.... I can't recall the last time I heard of anyone having a case blow out with modern racegun ammo, but there are plenty of examples of it occurring in Limited guns, and quite a number of cases where the result was worse than that, too... I worry much less about newb reloaders if they're starting out on a racegun caliber than I do if they're starting out loading .40 (or even 9mm minor, for that matter). Far less chance of them causing a catastrophic mistake...

So, I wouldn't choose any racegun caliber based on the perception of safety (except perhaps .40 - from what I understand, you can still easily double charge most of the .40 Open loads that folks are running, so I'd call .40 less safe than the 9-ish calibers for this application). They're all roughly even in that regard, assuming a modern construction gun that's been built properly, etc.

[XRe]

Of course powder, bullet, OAL, etc matter a lot.........but doesn't some of the Corbon self defense 9mm stuff make like 164PF?

Thats factory ammo getting very close to major.

Reportedly, Winchester Ranger 127gr +P+ stuff makes major in 5" guns... I've never tried it, myself. It's a pretty stout load, though.

[BlueOvalBruin]

There’s a Winchester ranger 9mm factory load that makes major in some guns, I have no idea what kinds of pressure it builds though. Does all factory ammo need to meet SAAMI standards?

Definitely 9 major can be spicy, but most 38 super is way over pressure also. Certainly for either caliber one needs to build the gun to mitigate the risk from high pressure and a fully supported chamber is a must.

Unless you frequently shoot in a gravel pit I would say 38SC. Those rubber-cupped picker uppers and pond skimmer nets work great for recovering brass and doesn’t hurt your back.

[BlueOvalBruin]

I should refresh my browser more often, Dave beat me to the punch.

[diehli]

I should refresh my browser more often, Dave beat me to the punch.

Well, he is a GM....

[Steve RA]

9m/m Major was legal originally, I shot a lot of it through one of the first Glock 17Ls. This was before the dot sights came into the picture. It - 9m/m Major - was then outlawed and only came back when the PF for major was lowered from 175 to 165.

[Whoops!]

I said 9mm major was relatively unsafe when compared to 38 super making major and it is certainly not safe to factory standards. Once again, safety is relative and 9mm major does not allow for as much of a safety margin as 38 super. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here.

I never said, it can't be fired without a kb. I said, you're more likely to have a kb with 9 major than with 38 super major loaded to the same power factor assuming a similar firearm and chamber.

Also, I would wager the limited shooters are having more safety issues because they are trying to use super fast powders to make major since they don't have ports or comps to take advantage of it. Once again, it's all relative. If limited shooters tried using very slow powders, they could of course load their .40's to a higher power level than 9x19 with less safety issues.

Let me say this again, 9x19 is relatively less safe than 38 super when loaded to the same major power factor. Once again, I never said 9 major isn't safe, period.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Whoops!

[supreme135]

I went with the 38 super comp and never looked back. Brass isn't that more expensive