MissionaryMike Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 My previous OAL for my Accu Shadow measured out to 1.12". That was with the older molds that had the lube groove. I just got a shipment of the new 147s that do NOT have the groove. I push tested, case gauged, plunked, spun...everything. I can't load anything longer than 1.08 to achieve consistent plunk and spins. Anyone else have a similar experience w/ BBI's new molds? -MM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haiedras Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 That's about right, I also noticed with the NLG BBIs that I had to load shorter. If you look at the bullet profile of the NLGs vs the grooved design, the grooved design has a far steeper ogive, this allows you to load longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peplow530 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 I stopped using them and switch to the 135 gr because of it. On the old 147 gr I had to load them pretty short to get the plunk/spin, with the newer style chamber space decreased dangerously before they would spin freely. I am very happy with the 135 gr out of all 5 of my 9mm CZs. I know many other guys that run the same combo that swear by it, Also last I spoke with Chandler he recommends the 135 gr for steel frames pistols. I've also had good results with them trough my two 9mm 1911s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviSS Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 I have to load them to 1.07. I'm looking at the 135s and a few other bullets now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissionaryMike Posted May 19, 2016 Author Share Posted May 19, 2016 (edited) I stopped using them and switch to the 135 gr because of it. On the old 147 gr I had to load them pretty short to get the plunk/spin, with the newer style chamber space decreased dangerously before they would spin freely. I am very happy with the 135 gr out of all 5 of my 9mm CZs. I know many other guys that run the same combo that swear by it, Also last I spoke with Chandler he recommends the 135 gr for steel frames pistols. I've also had good results with them trough my two 9mm 1911s. Just by eyeballing it, at the OAL (1.08) I need to load for the "new" profile to plunk and spin freely, I don't think the powder that I use (N320 @ 3.2 grains) is being compressed. The only reason I would use less powder is if I'm achieving an unnecessarily high PF. I talked to Chandler yesterday, and he said that it's a commonplace report for shooters to be loading this new 147 bullet to 1.09, so 1.08 isn't far off. I guess all my thoughts are for naught until I get a chance to chrono the loads, which I will do in a couple of days. I'll make sure to report back w/ the results, as well as any signs of over pressure. Edited May 19, 2016 by MissionaryMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowdyb Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 I could do 1.115 and had just a little sticking at ULSC. I reamed my barrel and now can load those bullets 1.130. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trgt Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 Happened to me also, sold the new batch to a buddy and switched to Acme 147 which work ok in my CZs at 1.125 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polymer Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 (edited) I use their 147gr and I load to 1.085 to 1.09 Edited May 20, 2016 by Polymer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Bayou 147gr TC bullets load to 1.130 in my Shadow & SP01 (0.015" off the grooves), while the BBI 147 gr has to be pushed back to 1.085. Probably because the ogive of the BBI bullet is more rounded and touches the lands of the barrel sooner. Both chrono at 130PF (with slightly less powder for the BBI) and both seem to shoot okay, but I'd rather have that little extra case volume, for safety's sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowenbuilt Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 My previous OAL for my Accu Shadow measured out to 1.12". That was with the older molds that had the lube groove. I just got a shipment of the new 147s that do NOT have the groove. I push tested, case gauged, plunked, spun...everything. I can't load anything longer than 1.08 to achieve consistent plunk and spins. Anyone else have a similar experience w/ BBI's new molds? -MM If you need your barrel throat reamed send it to me and I will do it for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wurm Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 As much as I liked BBI bullets, I too had to load as short as you with 147s for my CZ and it was causing some bulging on the random brass I was using. I eventually switched to SNS 147 flat points and I am able to load to 1.135 and get less brass issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Scott Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 I also had to load the new 147s to 1.08-1.09 vs. 1.114 with the old. Dropped the powder charge by a tenth and got the same velocities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) On 5/23/2016 at 9:31 PM, wurm said: As much as I liked BBI bullets, I too had to load as short as you with 147s for my CZ and it was causing some bulging on the random brass I was using. I eventually switched to SNS 147 flat points and I am able to load to 1.135 and get less brass issues. So I ordered a couple BBI 147's last week and I was playing around with some load data last night. I seem to get reliable cambering in both of my guns ariound the 1.09OAL mark which is obviously shorter than the 1.14 I could get out of the SNS FP bullets. I measured the OAL of the actual bullet though and found it to be shorter than the SNS 147 bullet by about .03ish. This would mean that even though it is loaded shorter, the cavity for the powder ignition isn't that much less than a longer OAL SNS bullet. Let me know if anyone else notices the same thing. Edited November 21, 2016 by Malarkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) Like others have said, I've switched to 135 BBI because of this. I'm sending my barrels to get reamed. I want to load a little longer/different profiles. Edited November 21, 2016 by B_RAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissionaryMike Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 4 hours ago, Malarkey said: So I ordered a couple BBI 147's last week and I was playing around with some load data last night. I seem to get reliable cambering in both of my guns ariound the 1.09OAL mark which is obviously shorter than the 1.14 I could get out of the SNS FP bullets. I measured the OAL of the actual bullet though and found it to be shorter than the SNS 147 bullet by about .03ish. This would mean that even though it is loaded shorter, the cavity for the powder ignition isn't that much less than a longer OAL SNS bullet. Let me know if anyone else notices the same thing. Your assessment is correct re: the volume inside the case after a bullet has been seated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDescribe Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 This can be the result of the profile, the bullet diameter, or a combination of the two. A .02 reduction isn't HUGE, probably worth a tenth of a grain or maybe two tenths worth of powder. BUT there is something else you need to look out for. The case walls of a 9mm Luger start to thicken at .300 from the case mouth. You don't want to be loading to an OAL that outs the base of the bullet deeper than .300, or the bullet will either start to bow out the case walls, or the base of the bullet will get swaged, or both, none of which is going to be good for accuracy or function. I used to load the BBI 147 WITH the lube groove a few years ago for my CZ, back before they switched to Hi-Tek. I seated to 1.12, which had the bullet base right at .300. The whole truth is that the bevel on the base of the bullet will allow you to get a touch deeper than .300 before you run into problems, but not much. My assumption is that with this new bullet being .03 shorter but the OAL needing to be shortened by .05, you guys probably have a seating depth right now of .320. That is less than ideal. That might be enough to cause problems. I've never had to seat anything deeper than .310. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullets Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 On 5/17/2016 at 11:48 PM, MissionaryMike said: My previous OAL for my Accu Shadow measured out to 1.12". That was with the older molds that had the lube groove. I just got a shipment of the new 147s that do NOT have the groove. I push tested, case gauged, plunked, spun...everything. I can't load anything longer than 1.08 to achieve consistent plunk and spins. Anyone else have a similar experience w/ BBI's new molds? -MM Switch to blue bullets. I did and won't look back. I load between 1.135 -1.140 for my shadow. they seem to load easier than the bbi and don't smoke and stink like the bbi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 22 minutes ago, Bullets said: Switch to blue bullets. I did and won't look back. I load between 1.135 -1.140 for my shadow. they seem to load easier than the bbi and don't smoke and stink like the bbi. The black crap you get all over your hands (while loading the rounds or loading mags at the match) is a real pleasure, too. BBI stinks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 To date the 147SNS FP has been my favorite, although "pending additional tests" I think that the BBI 147 "loaded to 1.09" may be on the same level. Dude blue bullets are like handling powdered smurfs. BBI's HI-Tek lube doesn't seem to come off as easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Here are some pics of some lengths Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Didn't have enough of each to really get scientific with standard errors, but this is a point estimate. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullets Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 10 hours ago, teros135 said: The black crap you get all over your hands (while loading the rounds or loading mags at the match) is a real pleasure, too. BBI stinks? Yes the hi tek coating has a terrible smell when fired. the coating on the blue seems tougher to me. I don't have to flare the case as much as I did with the bbi. the bbi shave very easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 7 minutes ago, Bullets said: Yes the hi tek coating has a terrible smell when fired. the coating on the blue seems tougher to me. I don't have to flare the case as much as I did with the bbi. the bbi shave very easily. Could that be due to Blue's are .355 and BBI are .356? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Could that be due to Blue's are .355 and BBI are .356?Possibly, smaller diameter and same mass. It would have to be longer.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Malarkey said: Possibly, smaller diameter and same mass. It would have to be longer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I'm saying that's why he's shaving the BBI and not the Blues. 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