Autocomp 9mm Major Load Data

[kneelingatlas]

...

Edited September 1, 2016 by kneelingatlas

[teros135]

On 8/25/2016 at 1:31 PM, MKitzmiller said:

No, its not the name drop game, and none of you are Brian f-ing Enos so you don't make the rules. Furthermore, keep in mind that many of you have published film of your matches.. If you don't know that Robbie, Nils, Muneki, Naim, etc. live and shoot here at our two flagship clubs you've been hiding under a rock. I'm blessed to have these guys coach and mentor me. Regardless if its a pointer or a 7 hour clinic. Only one shooter has given me load data for 147's, (147 GR FP behind 5.6 gr of CFE). If any of them wanted to share their recipes, they probably would've done so already as I started this thread months ago. The irony here is that you people talk so much theory, science, and hypothetical bullshit with regard to 147 gr loads, yet your legitimately pestering for load data. What are you guys going to do? Call the boys out when you're RO'ing them at a major? C'mon.. 

 

1 hour ago, MKitzmiller said:

You guys are so funny. I misinterpreted one fellow shooters statement and all hell broke loose. 

Yeah teros135, I'am currently a D class open shooter in USPSA. I also have only shot about 8 USPSA matches and 6 of which were with a minor gun that didn't run for shit. 

Furthermore, I began shooting 5 months ago @ 35 years of age. So my current classification is likely to be expected in the sense that I live where a solid group of GM's dominate the nation. 

Lets go a bit further.. I've barely scratched the surface of my career in the shooting games. Come one come all if you'd like to stop running your mouth and put it on the timer. 

Next major comp I'll be at is the Hard As Hell Multi Gun in UT. Looking forward to meeting all of you on this thread! 

Last but not least, my 147's shot like a damn .22 last night at a local steel match. Gun stayed flat, and aside from my own f*#kups, the match went great!

http://www.rsscaz.com/results/tue_nite.pdf

 

 

45 minutes ago, MKitzmiller said:

Agreed. No one on a forum would ever compromise my manhood bud. Nevertheless, this thread has turned toward the dark side with regard to the "we've always/never done it that way" statements. The proof is in the timer and the timer has been good to me as of late. 

This is funny!  Entertainment is good.  It keeps the day from becoming too serious. 

[MKitzmiller]

12 minutes ago, teros135 said:

 

 

This is funny!  Entertainment is good.  It keeps the day from becoming too serious. 

teros, my 147 load ran great! The world should be blessed with more folks like you! 

Edited September 1, 2016 by MKitzmiller

[BeerBaron]

I really wanna know what kneelingatlas said now and then changed his mind!! don't leave me hanging like this.

[kneelingatlas]

6 hours ago, BeerBaron said:

I really wanna know what kneelingatlas said now and then changed his mind!! don't leave me hanging like this.

It was just a double post of "sounds good".  I refuse to wallow in the mud

Edited September 1, 2016 by kneelingatlas

[Sarge]

Yep! Skin is paper thin.

[MKitzmiller]

On 8/25/2016 at 11:49 AM, teros135 said:

 

15 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Yep! Skin is paper thin.

Yep, 147 Gr bullets are cool. Thanks Kevin Sanders!

[Sarge]

54 minutes ago, MKitzmiller said:

 

You have some fascination with my name?

Thanks for the free entertainment by the way. 

 

[MKitzmiller]

18 minutes ago, Sarge said:

You have some fascination with my name?

Thanks for the free entertainment by the way. 

 

No Kevin I don't have a fascination with your name.

You're welcome.

 

[GrumpyOne]

Let's drop the attitudes and get back on topic...

http://forums.brianenos.com/index.php?/guidelines/

[Bkreutz]

47 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:

Let's drop the attitudes and get back on topic...

http://forums.brianenos.com/index.php?/guidelines/

Thank you

[MKitzmiller]

 

 

[jcc7x7]

1 hour ago, Bkreutz said:

Thank you

Thank you again for getting back on topic

[Sarge]

What was the topic again? Best WAC loads? 

124 JHP 7.2WAC @1.165 

121 IFP 7.4WAC @1.165

115 JHP 7.8WAC @1.165

[BeerBaron]

I can't believe no one has posted on the Travis Gibson HAH vid. It is quality viewing.

AND he was probably using autocomp and a 124gn pill.

[peterthefish]

That was a solid vid. Here's a question / observation.

Gas volume is based largely on charge weight. So if I use 7.2 GR of WAC behind a 124 or 7.0 GR of 3N38 behind a 147 I'm getting similar gas volume, so if I'm getting the same PF recoil should be almost indistinguishable.

Now, one of those combinations may be more expensive, but I'm not sure it would be objectively worse in a blind taste test.

[jcc7x7]

9 minutes ago, peterthefish said:

That was a solid vid. Here's a question / observation.

Gas volume is based largely on charge weight. So if I use 7.2 GR of WAC behind a 124 or 7.0 GR of 3N38 behind a 147 I'm getting similar gas volume, so if I'm getting the same PF recoil should be almost indistinguishable.

Now, one of those combinations may be more expensive, but I'm not sure it would be objectively worse in a blind taste test.

Too what end though? For minor the heavy bullets equal low charge wgt of powder and less recoil muzzle lift.

With major comp guns we want fast cycling, high gas volume loads to make comp work most effectively.

Seems like it's obvious that these are two completely different processes.

Jmtc

Neil

[kneelingatlas]

Peter,

I've tested 9mm and 38 super loads in a handful of pistols with different comps, barrel lengths, numbers/sizes of holes, bullet weights from 95gr to 135, and the following powders:

Power Pistol, WAC, CFE Pistol, Silhouette, Longshot, HS6, 3N38, SP2, N105, and Lil Gun.

WAC and 3N38 have very different burn characteristics, so 7gr of one gives very different results than 7gr of the other.  Your test would give you valuable first hand data, so I suggest you do it, but I have a pretty good idea what you'll find.

There's a large degree of personal preference in load development, and each shooter has different priorities with regards to soft vs flat, noise, flash, and peer pressure, so there is no substitute for rounds down range.

Edited September 2, 2016 by kneelingatlas

[ogiebb]

124 jhp 7.1 WAC 1.170 oal  Win Small Pistol  , mixed brass 172 PF

115 jhp 7.7 WAC 1.170 oal Win small Pistol , mixed brass 172 PF

shot from KKM 2 ports and CK Comp

[peterthefish]

Too what end though? For minor the heavy bullets equal low charge wgt of powder and less recoil muzzle lift.

With major comp guns we want fast cycling, high gas volume loads to make comp work most effectively.

Seems like it's obvious that these are two completely different processes.

Jmtc

Neil

I'm not sure if I didn't communicate clearly in my last post. If I used the same powder for two different weight bullets, then sure the heavy bullet = lower charge = less gas for the comp. But thats not what I wrote. My example was using two different powders so the same charge weight led to the same PF for each bullet. Then you would have the same amount of gas working the comp got each round.

Now there might not be an powder where you can use the same charge weight as you do with HS-6 and 115s for 147s, but a lot of folks seem comfortable with a middle ground of 124s and low 7 grains of powder. You can make the same PF with 147s and low 7 grains of 3N38.

Peter,

I've tested 9mm and 38 super loads in a handful of pistols with different comps, barrel lengths, numbers/sizes of holes, bullet weights from 95gr to 135, and the following powders:

Power Pistol, WAC, CFE Pistol, Silhouette, Longshot, HS6, 3N38, SP2, N105, and Lil Gun.

WAC and 3N38 have very different burn characteristics, so 7gr of one gives very different results than 7gr of the other.  Your test would give you valuable first hand data, so I suggest you do it, but I have a pretty good idea what you'll find.

There's a large degree of personal preference in load development, and each shooter has different priorities with regards to soft vs flat, noise, flash, and peer pressure, so there is no substitute for rounds down range.

I'm agree with your comments re: the burn characteristics, but really only think there's one part of it that matters. Running a Sim in QL, both rounds reach a similar max pressure within .02 milliseconds of each other (.00002 seconds). Both generate the same volume of gas. Where they differ is the pressure that gas is under when the bullet hits the comp and the gas starts to work, with WAC at 200 PSI and 3N38 at just over half that.

So the WAC would work the comp more efficiently. The pure recoil impulse will be indistinguishable as the momentum of the projectile and ejecta is nearly identical between loads. However, the WAC load will feel harsher and more violent due to the additional noise / pressure associated with higher pressures at the muzzle.

At the end of the day the 147 loads are more expensive and likely don't perform quite as well unless your hearing is still fully intact and the extra noise from the 124s make them uncomfortable to shoot, but I doubt I'd see any difference on the timer.

Am I close?

[MKitzmiller]

1 hour ago, kneelingatlas said:

Peter,

I've tested 9mm and 38 super loads in a handful of pistols with different comps, barrel lengths, numbers/sizes of holes, bullet weights from 95gr to 135, and the following powders:

Power Pistol, WAC, CFE Pistol, Silhouette, Longshot, HS6, 3N38, SP2, N105, and Lil Gun.

WAC and 3N38 have very different burn characteristics, so 7gr of one gives very different results than 7gr of the other.  Your test would give you valuable first hand data, so I suggest you do it, but I have a pretty good idea what you'll find.

There's a large degree of personal preference in load development, and each shooter has different priorities with regards to soft vs flat, noise, flash, and peer pressure, so there is no substitute for rounds down range.

This is the most admirable post. So true. Calculations and such in 9major only get you somewhere to start. the fine tuning is done after hours of notes and range time.. 

Very well said!

[kneelingatlas]

Peter,

The very first 9 major load I ever shot in late 2012 was SP2 under a 124gr bullet, the friend who gave them to me mentioned a desire to try 135s, so that was the first bullet weight I ever tried and the powder was HS6 (powder was tough to come by those days), in summer of 2013 I jumped on the opportunity to buy a mother load of SP2, and started loading it under 135s, but by the end of the year I started experimenting with lighter bullets:  124s, 115s and 100s.  I found that given the same PF and the same powder the lighter the bullet, the flatter the gun shoots.  Most dramatic is huge charges of powder under 100gr bullets which not only shoot flat, but surprisingly soft as well.

I've never directly compared different powders and different bullet weights at the same PF, while the two loads you propose may result in a similar level of gas volume and therefore comp performance, neither is going to compete with 3N38 under a 115.  I always recommend people try some 100/95gr bullets, even though they're not legal for major, they will show you what your setup is capable of.

I know what you're thinking:  "if lighter is better, why do so many shooters use 124s?"

Obviously I don't have a definitive answer because I cannot know the minds of others, but I can think of a handful of reasons:

- "It's what everyone else does, so it must be the best" monkey see, monkey do; not everyone is scientifically minded, nor is everyone interested in years of testing and data chasing the dragon, so they may have asked another Open shooter, or their gunsmith for a load, loaded it, and never looked back

- "I don't want to spill powder all over the place when I load" there's no getting around it, loading 9.4gr of powder in a 9x19 case pretty much fills it to the brim, so it takes a practiced technique to load on a progressive press without spilling it everywhere when the shell plate indexes although I can still load 100 rounds in under five minutes of handle pulling (loading these loads with an auto drive requires major tuning)

- "I prefer softer to flatter" a perfectly valid preference

- "It's what everyone was using back when major was 175PF" loading to 180-185PF using 115s is beyond what the slowest powders can do without loading really long, and it gets a little loud and nasty, so I can understand not a lot of people did it before the min PF was changed to 165

- "I shoot IPSC", the minimum bullet weight for major in IPSC is 120gr, not 112gr like in USPSA

- "I put it on the timer and I shoot faster with 124s" entirely possible

 

In the end, being a good shooter doesn't necessarily make you an expert on powder and loads, quite to the contrary, the good shooters I know don't waste time obsessing over the flattest load/gun because they're out there shooting, training and getting better.  I like this stuff for it's own merit, I'm sick in the head, and becoming a GM is not a primary focus in my life, so I sacrifice myself for the knowledge base of the community

[expeditiondivers]

Hey guys,

 

New to shooting 9mm major.  Just got a Tanfo elite gold team.  I picked up 2000 PD jhp 124s and some autocomp.  I am setting my dies and found that the longest oal that my gun will tolerate is 1.10

 

Is this okay or do I need to ream it?  Will I run into over pressure issues due to the short oal?  I will of course start low on the powder size and work my way up but I noticed 90% of the people seem to run long.  1.14 to 1.165.  Any advice is appreciated.

 

 

[Maximis228]

New load for a V6 5.5 inch SVI barrel gun I just picked up.

7.4 WAC, 124 PD HP, OAL = 1.160. PF = 174.014

7.4 CFE Pistol, 124 PD HP, OAL = 1.160. PF = 172.36

9.0 HS6, 124 PD HP, OAL = 1.160. PF = 171.24

Edited September 29, 2016 by Maximis228

[BeerBaron]

5 hours ago, expeditiondivers said:

Hey guys,

 

New to shooting 9mm major.  Just got a Tanfo elite gold team.  I picked up 2000 PD jhp 124s and some autocomp.  I am setting my dies and found that the longest oal that my gun will tolerate is 1.10

 

Is this okay or do I need to ream it?  Will I run into over pressure issues due to the short oal?  I will of course start low on the powder size and work my way up but I noticed 90% of the people seem to run long.  1.14 to 1.165.  Any advice is appreciated.

 

 

I would definitely get it reamed. That will give you some more flexibility in load combinations.