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

New Gamer Load needed 135gr or 160gr?


bobapunk

Recommended Posts

So I have been shooting 125gr Bullets from SNS for a few years. I am just about out of my cache, and looking for something new.

One thing I am looking for is subsonic, so I need to move to a heavier bullet. 135gr was recommended to me, but I just today came across a recommendations for 160/165gr...

I have been using Solo1000 for the 125s (~4.4-4.5gr) and I have a bit of Solo left, but I am not opposed to changing powders (assuming I can find powder to buy...)

what are the practical differences between 135gr and 160gr sub-sonic loads? Which would you prefer for USPSA shooting? Why?

Any "magical" loads recipes?

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do a search you will find a lot of loading info in 160's. I've loaded both 147s and 160s with solo and like them both. Right now I'm running 3.5gr of solo under a 147gr Bayou bullet. When the weather gets nicer I'll work up a 160gr/solo load for my P-09.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have posted my load data with many others in the thread about 9mm 165 grain bullets. I like them as the recoil is very light and you can save powder if you are having a hard time finding it. But if you have a hard time getting bullets I would suggest buying in bulk because finding 165 gain bullets local is pretty rare ( at least around me). The recoil is noticeably different from 147s almost as much as the difference between 124s and 147. Buy a 500 box give them a try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shoot them in my Glocks and don't have any problems. Just make sure you have the recoil spring to match your ammo and you will be just fine.

Well, that is an issue with the FNS, I have not seen any aftermarket recoil springs with different spring rates...

I think I will just go with the 135s since they are only 10gr heavier than what I have been using.

So, If I have been loading with 4.4gr of Solo1000 for 125gr cast lead RN, how much should I reduce a starting load for 135gr, coated, no lube groove, bullets? 3.8gr and work up from there seem good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok,

So I loaded some 135g SNS Coated 9mm up with 3.8g Solo1000.

Chrono'd 10 of them. Got an average velocity of 978fps, which equates to 132 PF.

Looking at the min and max, I all rounds were between 129 and 136 PF.

I figured that was "good enough" for me and loaded up about 600.

My next question is, how does COAL effect accuracy?
I just checked with a case gauge to make sure that they were not too long, but is seems like people are doing specific tests with their barrel to determine an "optimal" COAL for their gun. I am assuming that this is to make as accurate cartridge as possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:cheers:

I loaded 135g SNS Coated 9mm with 3.8g Solo1000.

Chrono'd 10 of them.

it seems like people are doing specific tests with their barrel to determine an "optimal" COAL for their gun.

The Plunk Test is to determine the maximum length, not optimal

length, for your chamber.

If you've already fired 10, your OAL is probably fine - but you might load

a little longer (you'd have to run a Plunk Test, to tell), or shorter - one

MIGHT be more accurate than your current OAL. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:cheers:

I loaded 135g SNS Coated 9mm with 3.8g Solo1000.

Chrono'd 10 of them.

it seems like people are doing specific tests with their barrel to determine an "optimal" COAL for their gun.

The Plunk Test is to determine the maximum length, not optimal

length, for your chamber.

If you've already fired 10, your OAL is probably fine - but you might load

a little longer (you'd have to run a Plunk Test, to tell), or shorter - one

MIGHT be more accurate than your current OAL. :cheers:

So, the only way to determine "optimal" COAL is to load cartridges with different COALs and test them? Since I do not have a Ransom Rest, I don't think that the "tediousness" of that is going to be worth it for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:cheers:

.

people are doing specific tests with their barrel to determine an "optimal" COAL for their gun.

The Plunk Test is to determine the maximum length, not optimal

length.

you might load longer, or shorter - one

MIGHT be more accurate. :cheers:

only way to determine "optimal" COAL is to test them? I do not have a Ransom Rest, so the "tediousness" is not worth it.

Tedious? Making my ammo more accurate is The Quest, not tedious. I enjoy experimenting

with different OAL's, powders, bullets etc :bow: :bow: :bow:

Heck, that's My Hobby. I actually enjoy this stuff. A day at the range playing with loads - GREAT.

But, without a Ransom Rest, if you are unable to see differences at different OAL's (or any

other difference) you are correct - keep shooting what you've got, unless it becomes a problem. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My standard Bear Creek Moly 135 RN with WST @ 1.150 load that I developed for my Spartan 9mm works equally well in my FNS 9LS, averages 1000 fps / 135 PF.

I have had excellent results with SOLO 1000 ~ 3.8g and Titegroup ~ 3.4g at that same OAL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...