Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

165's for 9mm ?


fireman489

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

  • 2 weeks later...

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

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

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

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 by hangin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by hangin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by oddjob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by robertwyatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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

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

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

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

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 by Joe_Atlanta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

1589mm.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...