kneelingatlas Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 What about the Solo?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave33 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 What about the Solo?!? If you are asking me, my results were as follows: 3.0gr Solo 1000, 1.169 OAL, 838 ave FPS-134 PF, 12.3 SD Also shot from an XDM 5.25 Just didnt group as good as the Bullseye or Titegroup. This has been a pretty limited test though, 4 different powders and only 100 "test subjects" so I wouldnt say anything is conclusive at this point. Heck, I just threw in the 100 sample pack while I was placing a larger order for something else almost as an afterthought, but some of the recent threads regarding 160gr 9mm loads got me curious. At this point Im not sure there is enough benefit over 147gr but I will know after I get into the extreme's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garmil Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 3.0 csb-1 1.165 oal 850fps avg Shot off hand good group Cz tactical sport felt very soft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I played with some 158 gr. bullets in 9mm a couple of years ago using Win 231. They shot fine, and I was getting anywhere from 800 to 900 fps in a 10" barrel, depending on the load. These were for taking down heavy steel at subgun matches. But I ran some numbers and found I can get both higher PF and higher KE using a 147 gr. or 124 gr. bullet. I didn't try them in a handgun. But I would imagine it would be similar to running the extra-heavy bullets in the .40, as was popular 15 or so years ago. (anyone remember the D&J 220 gr .40 bullets? I might still have a few kicking around somewhere). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgj3 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I've heard that those 220gr .40's cost a few blasters here and there... Folk without some level of reloading experience beware, smaller case volume and bore of 9mm will get into over-pressure territory even faster... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcs352 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I saw Xtreme was offering 165's in 9mm .... anybody reloading these ?? I bought 500 to test, but haven't found any data when I did a search. I use Titegroup w CCI primers out of a Gen 4 Glock 34 Thanks ! I'm in the same boat looking for some good load data for the 165's, Titegroup and federal primers...Glock 34...anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mach1soldier Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Post #5. That load came from one of xtreme's sponsored shooters. He shoots a g34 and a CZ. I started at 2.4 grains at 1.140 length and worked up to 2.6 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hangin Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) I have been shooting xtreme 165 9mm for a short while. I am about 5000 in on this bullet. My chrono results are CZ SP01 with 8.5 mainspring XTREME 165 GR .355 TITEGROUP 2.6 GR 1.145 OAL *FC* BRASS FEDERAL PRIMERS #100 792 787 788 781 799 788 789 815 783 808 AVE= 793 ES=354 SD=11 PF= 130 RESULTS: I like this load as it is fairly accurate*(about 2.75 inch groups off hand at 20 yards), and the recoil is very light. The sights don't leave the target and rarely leave the 1 or C zone. They are clean and quiet. The primers are fine not flattened and strikes are deep. Edited March 8, 2015 by hangin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hangin Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) Above I posted my results with my 165 gr Xtremes with 2.6 gr of titegroup load. I have also been loading the Xtremes with 2.8 grains of Titegroup. Resluts to follow CZ SP01 with 8.5 mainspring XTREME 165 gr .355 2.85 GR TITEGROUP 1.145 OAL FEDERAL PRIMERS #100 "WIN 9 LUGER" BRASS 795 808 807 813 796 801 802 798 801 796 AVE= 801 ES= 18 SD= 5 PF= 132 Results: I like this load more than the 2.6 gr load. In my gun the accuracy is better with this load, with an average of 2.5 inches at 20 yards (off hand/ not rested). But I have noticed that the primers look a little flat with this load( pics to follow). There is a slight amount more recoil than the 2.6 gr load but still not as much as my prior go to load of 147 with 3.2 of titegroup. Shooting the 165 gr bullets and 130 power factor side by side with a 147 grain at 130 power factor is apparent. It is more apparent when I am shooting my 75B with its lighter slide and frame. This is my new load for 9mm minor load. Edited March 8, 2015 by hangin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddjob Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) I've been shooting Bear Creek 170's out of my CZ's and Glock's for years now. 3.2 of Universal @ 1.125. Very soft. I'm going to try 2.4 of tightgroup, but I ran out of Bear Creek 170's. A friend uses that load and loves it. Both have decent accuracy (can't remember the group though). Forgot...Chamber reamed out on my CZ's. Edited March 9, 2015 by oddjob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I've used 160 Bayous for some time now in 9mm loads. They are very soft and it does certainly feel "different" than 124 loads. I'm not certain how much of that impression is actual slowness of the slide vs different perceptions created with the softer recoil impulse. I couldn't get a repeatable difference between them on a timer. There are two concerns with running 160s. The first is that some powders take a dim view on pushing fatboy projectiles, usually the faster(est) powders can cause overpressure issues. The other concern is that you use such a small amount of powder that you drop below the optimal charge weight for accuracy. Be sure to check accuracy at 25Y as well as PF. All that said I like them. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_Atlanta Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Old Lyman manual had some data for 158 cast, should give you an idea where to start. I found 2.8 grains of Red Dot to work nicely with a 160 grain cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwyatt Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) I saw Xtreme was offering 165's in 9mm .... anybody reloading these ?? I bought 500 to test, but haven't found any data when I did a search. I use Titegroup w CCI primers out of a Gen 4 Glock 34 Thanks ! I'm in the same boat looking for some good load data for the 165's, Titegroup and federal primers...Glock 34...anyone? Here's the data I have from a G34 (stock barrel) 2/26/15 Federal Primers Xtreme 165 Titegroup 2.6 1.140 OAL G34 Stock Barrel 724min 792max 763avg 7shots 125.9 PF (36) degrees F. 2/26/15 Federal Primers Xtreme 165 Titegroup 2.4 1.140 OAL G34 Stock Barrel 709min 746max 726avg 5shots 119.8 PF (36) degrees F. Edited March 9, 2015 by robertwyatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriggerMeister Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I tried them in my CMMG MK9T. Worked great W/ 3.0gr Win231. Moved downrange at 880 fps with very little variation. Good accuracy at 25 yards. Good suppressor load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mach1soldier Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Anyone else think that 158 cast load data looks a little hot for use in 165's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter212 Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 What spring weight would you run with these in a sti. I have never changed it before but seems like a good idea when going this extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hangin Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Anyone else think that 158 cast load data looks a little hot for use in 165's? I cannot speak on behalf of any other powder but the bulleseye. But I have to agree with you. I'm getting 132 power factor with 2.85 grain of titegroup so I'm pretty sure you would be close the the same velocity with bulleseye. So to me this data looks a little on the high side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hangin Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 What spring weight would you run with these in a sti. I have never changed it before but seems like a good idea when going this extreme. I'm running a 10 pound recoil spring in my CZ's but I would run a 8 pound spring if I could find one that worked in my pistols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_Atlanta Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Anyone else think that 158 cast load data looks a little hot for use in 165's? Always a good idea to drop published data by 10-20% especially if you are using something slightly different. BTW, I found a reference over on Cast Boolits where a guy was getting 800fps out of 2.4 gr of Red Dot and a 158 gr. cast sized .358. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mach1soldier Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I always start low but didn't want others starting that high and not liking the results. I may experiment with some clays and these 165's here shortly. I'm not sure it can get much softer but who knows. I am shooting out of a 1911 so I can load a little longer then some can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_Atlanta Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) I always start low but didn't want others starting that high and not liking the results. I may experiment with some clays and these 165's here shortly. I'm not sure it can get much softer but who knows. I am shooting out of a 1911 so I can load a little longer then some can. I got you. I shouldn't assume anyone who is playing round with an unknown in reloading has enough experience to be extra conservative, so I will try to edit my earlier post to add a warning. I like the feel of the heavier bullet a lot. Coming from 40 odd years of shooting .45 cal 1911s, I have never like the snappiness of a light bullet 9mm. Edited March 23, 2015 by Joe_Atlanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_Atlanta Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 NOTE: Always work up loads by starting LOW. Any change (such as bullet design and/or heavier weight) should be treated very carefully. I used this data as a starting point for experimentation with a 160 gr. SWC. It was of different design and sized diameter and I started by dropping the charge weight by 30% and working up from there. Be conservative when experimenting, it just takes a bit more time and you don't blow up your gun. Old Lyman manual had some data for 158 cast, should give you an idea where to start. I found 2.8 grains of Red Dot to work nicely with a 160 grain cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_striker Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Anyone try e3 with 165's yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vixty Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 I tested 250 165's in my m&p pro 5'" and currently have3k on order. 2.7 gr of tightroup at 1.145 = 770fps. I haven't had any issues of yet and I'm gong to start experimenting with a 13lb and 15lb recoil spring to see how well I can tune the pistol to the load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlo86cj Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 If the M&P's are comparable to G34's, I'd try an 11lb also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now