Reloading for Walther PPQ

[Foxbat]

I reload thousands of 9mm, including both Major and Minor, for several different guns, and have not seen any issues.

But I recently added Walther PPQ and suddenly there was a minor issue: something like 1 round in 150 will not chamber properly.

I ruled out the bottom bulge - all brass is roll sized, and plus, when you put it in the barrel, you can move the back of the case sideways a bit.

The round jams at its front. I measured its diameter and compared to some factory ammo - indeed it is .002"-.004" larger in diameter. And that is true of the rounds made on three different presses, using different sets of dies. Crimp dies are both Dillon and Lee FCD. This is not really the matter of crimp, though... the whole area where the bullet sits is slightly expanded.

The bullets are Precision Delta 124gr JHP.

The Walther has that stepped chamber, where the last 1/8" or so is of smaller diameter, and this is where the problem is.

Any similar experiences, or advice? Not a serious issue, since it only affects the practice ammo, but still, an annoyance.

[IDescribe]

Any chance of a photograph of the bullet itself and a photograph of a jam?

[Foxbat]

I will try to get it, but the round looks perfect, just like all others, and the gun refuses to go into battery, like a quarter of an inch.

When you barrel-check the round, it gets stuck at the end, you need to pry it out.

I suspect this might be the particular combination of brass - thicker walls, and the tight chamber, but I am surprised the round perfectly makes it through the process.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Foxbat

[Sandbagger123]

a lot of euro guns are short throated. i would make a batch of ammo that is slightly shorter that what you usually use and shoot them and see what happens.

[olstyn]

I've been lurking this forum for a long time and soaking up info, but not feeling like I had much of anything to contribute, but I at least have an idea on this one:

What's the OAL of the rounds that are failing, and which headstamp(s) are the problems occurring with? I can't speak to the PD 124s, but I have to load most JHPs to 1.08 or shorter in order to get them to pass the plunk test in my Walther P99c. Some thicker-walled brass (CBC was the big culprit for me) will wind up with a slight bulge at the base of the bullet when seated that deeply, which causes them to fail the plunk test. I started setting aside CBC brass for later use with round-nose bullets, as I'm able to load them out to 1.15, which works fine with that brass. Given that the PPQ is basically just a SAO P99, I'd expect your issue is similar, if not the same.

[Hi-Power Jack]

Betcha it's the OAL.

PLUNK TEST.

[Foxbat]

No, not OAL, it is 1.160", but the diameter right below the bullet on those rounds is larger than it should be. It is supposed to be .380", and I am measuring as large as .386".

I will check again for the rifling marks on the bullets, but I don't think there are any.

[peterthefish]

What makes you think an OAL of 1.160 is fine? Just because it's below SAAMI spec doesn't mean that it will chamber appropriately, which depends on OAL, Bullet Profile, and Leade Profile. You may not see rifling marks, especially with FMJ bullets. Do a plunk test.

Edited January 6, 2016 by peterthefish

[olstyn]

What makes you think an OAL of 1.160 is fine? Just because it's below SAAMI spec doesn't mean that it will chamber appropriately, which depends on OAL, Bullet Profile, and Leade Profile. You may not see rifling marks, especially with FMJ bullets. Do a plunk test.

^This. Like I said, I load JHPs for a Walther as well, and I have to seat them at 1.08 or shorter (1.075 for MG JHPs) in order to get them to plunk and spin properly. Depending on the brass and bullet profile in question, once you get them short enough to plunk & spin, you may run into some that give you the issue I described above.

[Sandbagger123]

if these are the ones you are using they usually need to be loaded short.

https://precisiondelta.com/index.php/products/bullet/9mm/bullets-9mm-124-jhp.html

[Foxbat]

The good rounds plunk nicely, but will do more screwing around later.

[Foxbat]

if these are the ones you are using they usually need to be loaded short.

https://precisiondelta.com/index.php/products/bullet/9mm/bullets-9mm-124-jhp.html

Yes, it is them, but I use those rounds in several different pistols with no issues, Walther PPQ is the only one complaining.

[peterthefish]

Different guns have different leades. Walthers tend to be in the short side. You may be right on the edge of a workable OAL with some chambering and some not. Could be the brass too.

[Foxbat]

Well, it was, indeed, the OAL. I lied about what it was - it was actually 1.125". I applied the black marker to the area of the bullet where the cylinder turns into a cone, and I could see marks there.

I then tried pushing the bullet in deeper, and I had to go full .040" before the rounds passed the plunk test. So for this type of a bullet 1.085" seems to be maximum, in that gun.

[RudyVey]

This is quite odd, my PPQ's eat everything I feed them. My OAL: is about 1.09-1.10, using Extreme 124 and ACME coated 125 gr, no problems with three different powders.

[peterthefish]

This is quite odd, my PPQ's eat everything I feed them. My OAL: is about 1.09-1.10, using Extreme 124 and ACME coated 125 gr, no problems with three different powders.

Not really. Your Xtreme 124s and Acme 125s have a different profile than the bullets OP was shooting and that makes all the difference in the world.

[IDescribe]

Rudy, with a chambered cartridge, the distance between the case mouth and the rifling is called the leade or "throat". Different manufacturers will produce throats of different lengths for the same caliber, though we're talking about differences typically seven or eight hundredths of an inch or less. The difference in throat between my CZ-75 ShadowLine and my VP9, for example, is right around .05.

In general, you don't want your bullet touching the rifling before the gun is fired. Now, assume that your interior barrel diameter is .354 in diameter, the bullet is going to make first contact with the rifling just forward of where the bullet transitions from shank into ogive (ogive is the section of the bullet from the shoulder to the nose/meplat) and exactly at the point forward of the bullet shoulder where the bullet diameter shrinks to .354. Anything further forward of that "engagement point" smaller than .354 will project into the rifling without making contact. And different bullets with different profiles will extend further past that engagement point than others. Since you don't want your bullet touching the rifling, the OAL at which the engagement point is just shy of engaging the rifling is considered the max OAL for that bullet. And most people try to load .010 - .015 of that "max" OAL. The ogive sections of JHP and flatpoints tend to be short and squat and don't tend to extend as far past that engagement point as round nose bullets do. This means different bullets have different max oals for a given gun. And since different guns have different length throats, the same bullet will have different max OAL's from one gun to the next. Bullet diameter and the rate at which the bullet slopes from the shoulder to nose affect all of this, too, for the record.

Because true RN bullets tend to extend so far past the above referenced "engagement point" on the ogive, a lot of round nose bullets actually end up limited by the magazine, which for 9mm will usually accept up to 1.169. Even in short-throated pistols, true round nose will often load longer than 1.12 as far as the chamber is concerned, but that's too long for the magazine, so you cut it back to 1.16 or 1.15 and call it good. Some round nose will make contact with the rifling shorter than than 1.169, though, so you need to determine your max oal, and not load long enough for the bullet to touch the rifling when chambered. Basically, when someone says something along the lines that they have OAL of 1.09 to 1.10, or that their gun does, that doesn't actually make sense. Every bullet profile will have a max OAL in a particular gun. But the gun can handle OAL's from 1.000 to 1.169 depending on bullet profile, and some even have magazines that will handle longer than 1.169. If you've loaded everything from 1.09 to 1.10, and everything has worked fine, that just means you haven't loaded a bullet that contacts the rifling at those OAL's, but I can assure there are such bullets out there, and determining max OAL for a particular bullet is the very first thing you should do when you get a new bullet. The longest 9mm cartridges I load are 1.16 and my shortest are 1.066.

If you are unsure of how to determine max OAL with a particular bullet do a search for "plunk test" or "push test". Both can be used.

[JoshuaHaderach]

Not much to add except that I just started reloading and my only pistol right now is a PPQ 9mm as well. I use 147gr Blue Bullets and they wouldn't reliably pass a plunk and turn test until downgraded the OAL to just inbetween 1.13 and 1.14. With that they feed and fire fine.

[albe1234]

PPX is even worse. I have to load the 125 and 147 blue bullets to a COAL of about 1.090" Longer than that, they will not pass plunk test. The "lead" must be quite short.

[rtp]

What makes you think an OAL of 1.160 is fine? Just because it's below SAAMI spec doesn't mean that it will chamber appropriately, which depends on OAL, Bullet Profile, and Leade Profile. You may not see rifling marks, especially with FMJ bullets. Do a plunk test.

^This. Like I said, I load JHPs for a Walther as well, and I have to seat them at 1.08 or shorter (1.075 for MG JHPs) in order to get them to plunk and spin properly. Depending on the brass and bullet profile in question, once you get them short enough to plunk & spin, you may run into some that give you the issue I described above.

Seconding/thirding - just saw the thread title and was about to post the same - my PPQ needs to be loaded shorter than my CZ does....load to ~1.07" with MG 124gr JHPs..

[ddc]

Just another PPQ data point:

My load is MG 124 CMJ/FMJ at 1.135.

I have pushed this load as far out as 1.145 and it has functioned fine.

Plunk testing out beyond 1.145 started to notice issues as I approached 1.150.

[Cole]

Thanks for sharing all. The breadcrumbs are doing me justice as I begin to handload 9mm for my PPQ.