Bullets are keyholeing on target

[IDescribe]

10 hours ago, zzt said:

Bench, Precision bullets are not soft lead. 

 

Precision has a BHN of 13.  Most cast lead manufacturers that we're buying from are 15-18.  It's a bit softer than others.   
 

[IDescribe]

On 5/3/2018 at 10:15 AM, Bench said:

I don't know why I've settled on Precision but from what you lay out very well in the above I think I need to head in a different direction for bullet choice.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Precision.  They are the only coated swaged lead manufacturer out there, and swaged lead generally shoots with more precision than coated lead.  Precision is by all accounts an excellent bullet -- I suspect one of the best coated lead bullets.  I just wanted to point out that as deep as you're seating, you're putting force on the base of the bullet, and swaged lead deforms all the easier relative to cast lead.  And Precision's profile means that the bullet is going to seat deeply.  Again, with a heavier pistol like a 92, the softer felt recoil from a 147gr bullet is sort of meaningless., so you could stick with Precision and go to 125 and be fine.  

Your comment about getting only one scratch when you jammed your long cartridge into the chamber makes me wonder if you have a machining defect.  I'd pull the barrel, clean it well with a solvent and wire brush, and look inside with a flash light and maybe a magnifying glass to see if I could find a burr that's exaggerating the issue. 

 

Honestly, I was a bit surprised at how deeply you're needing to seat it.  The Beretta 92 is not known for being short-throated. 

 

I'll ask another question -- are you crimping prior to plunk testing?  Some people will seat then chamber check/ plunk test before crimping, thinking they don't want to crimp, then have to seat deeper with a crimped case mouth.  To be clear, when we're talking taper crimping, seating deeper after crimping is not an issue at all, and you should definitely taper crimp before plunk testing.  If you don't, you can be fooled into thinking the bullet is hitting the rifling when in fact it's the belled case mouth getting pinched by the chamber walls right before the headspacing step in the chamber.  If you are crimping prior to testing, no problem, but I thought I'd mention it.  Don't ask me how I know.  

[Bench]

34 minutes ago, IDescribe said:

 

Precision has a BHN of 13.  Most cast lead manufacturers that we're buying from are 15-18.  It's a bit softer than others.   
 

So...what manufacturers fall within the 15-18 BHN range?

 

[Bench]

25 minutes ago, IDescribe said:

 

To be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Precision.  They are the only coated swaged lead manufacturer out there, and swaged lead generally shoots with more precision than coated lead.  Precision is by all accounts an excellent bullet -- I suspect one of the best coated lead bullets.  I just wanted to point out that as deep as you're seating, you're putting force on the base of the bullet, and swaged lead deforms all the easier relative to cast lead.  And Precision's profile means that the bullet is going to seat deeply.  Again, with a heavier pistol like a 92, the softer felt recoil from a 147gr bullet is sort of meaningless., so you could stick with Precision and go to 125 and be fine.  

Your comment about getting only one scratch when you jammed your long cartridge into the chamber makes me wonder if you have a machining defect.  I'd pull the barrel, clean it well with a solvent and wire brush, and look inside with a flash light and maybe a magnifying glass to see if I could find a burr that's exaggerating the issue. 

 

Honestly, I was a bit surprised at how deeply you're needing to seat it.  The Beretta 92 is not known for being short-throated. 

 

I'll ask another question -- are you crimping prior to plunk testing?  Some people will seat then chamber check/ plunk test before crimping, thinking they don't want to crimp, then have to seat deeper with a crimped case mouth.  To be clear, when we're talking taper crimping, seating deeper after crimping is not an issue at all, and you should definitely taper crimp before plunk testing.  If you don't, you can be fooled into thinking the bullet is hitting the rifling when in fact it's the belled case mouth getting pinched by the chamber walls right before the headspacing step in the chamber.  If you are crimping prior to testing, no problem, but I thought I'd mention it.  Don't ask me how I know.  

Thanks IDescribe, that's an interesting point about a bur. I'll definitely check that out. I do crimp before plunk testing and thanks for the comment regarding seating deeper after crimp. I was kind of wondering about that but proceeded when needed. And then there's the "Don't ask me how I know"...and I'll say Don't ask me how I know...a sign of true experience!!

[Bench]

And here's todays range Keyhole report: 150 rounds of 147 Precision's with 3.2 Titegroup @1.040 OAL started by CCI 550's. Goal #1 was to get power factor and I got that in spades. 130PF so I'm good there. Key holing was at a minimum but still present.  Accuracy was probably an issue more of me than the loads with only a few FTI's but that will no doubt change with a return to a heavier (#13) hammer spring. So my loads for the match this weekend will be with the specs above but with a crimp of .379. There just might be some barrel checking for a bur and if negative then headed to a smith for some deeper work to allow for deeper seating. Thanks to all that chimed in for this post. This newbie certainly appreciates you all and your comments!!

[IDescribe]

11 hours ago, Bench said:

So...what manufacturers fall within the 15-18 BHN range?

 

Just about every cast bullet maker is going to be producing bullets somewhere in the 15-18 BHN range.  I know the following specifically:
 

ACME Bullets-- 15

Gallant Bullets -- 15

BBI Bullets -- 16-17

SNS Casting -- 16-17

Blue Bullets -- Doesn't specify BHN, but the alloy suggests 16-18

Missouri Bullet Co -- 18 (most, they do have some bullets at 12)
 

 

So I answered the question, but I am afraid I've led you down the wrong path -- you really don't need to spend much time thinking about this.  I think I gave you the impression that you need to avoid softer leads.  That's not the case.  It was just a comment on the softer lead of swaged bullets making that deep seating more severely swage the bullet base than it would with a harder lead, but it still would be a problem with a harder lead.  The problem isn't the soft lead -- the problem is the profile that forces you to seat that deeply with that pistol.  If you had a bullet of the exact same profile at BHN 18, you'd still have to seat that deeply, and you'd still have a problem with damage to the base of the bullet.    I was just trying to impress upon you how many other variables can go into tumbling so that you wouldn't increase your powder charge, see no key-holing, and think "Whoo-hoo!  Problem solved!"     As it turns out, you're still seeing key-holing after upping the powder charge, so you know there's something else going on. 

 

So don't think harder lead is better or more trouble-free.  The truth is that it's typically better to go with a bit softer than a bit harder, but at the end of the day, you don't need to think about it a whole lot.  All those manufacturers above are producing bullets of a hardness well suited to what you want to do, and so is Precision.  It's the profile that is your issue, not the BHN number.   

[StuckinMS]

On 5/1/2018 at 9:15 AM, Bench said:

Crimp was suggest to me by another shooter but I think I may hold off changes there until I see what the increased load does. Thanks.

Wise choice.  Too much crimp can cause key holes also.  As stated above you only want enough crimp to prevent bullet set back.  Use as little bell or flare as possible without damaging the bullet when seating and you will not need as much crimp to remove the bell for passing the plunk test.   You would not want to set deeper (short o.a.l.), but rather load to a longer o.a.l. for seating the bullet shallower in the case.  This puts less stress on the case and will therefore reduce the likelihood that your crimp die is swaging the entire case and bullet.  

Edited May 5, 2018 by StuckinMS
Spelling error

[Bench]

33 minutes ago, IDescribe said:

 It's the profile that is your issue, not the BHN number.   

So in considering profile change my first guess would be RN. Any thoughts there? Throat issues are still on the list too though.

[Bench]

23 minutes ago, StuckinMS said:

  This puts less stress on the case and will therefore reduce the likelihood that your crimp die is swaging the entire case and bullet.  

Thanks StuckinMS, it's my understanding that crimp is a function of the case length and not of the bullet position so that regardless if the bullet is set shallow or deep the crimp of a given number would be the same or am I missing something here? Then there is the issue of "shelf" that also helps prevent set back thus allowing for a lighter crimp...but that's another topic.

 

[StuckinMS]

I would maybe order a sample pack of rn, but I still would try a longer o.a.l first.  The less bullet in the case, the less grip the case has on the bullet, and the less energy used getting the bullet out.  It's surface area contact. Kinda like you gripping with your entire hand or just 3 fingers.

[Bench]

16 minutes ago, StuckinMS said:

I would maybe order a sample pack of rn, but I still would try a longer o.a.l first.  The less bullet in the case, the less grip the case has on the bullet, and the less energy used getting the bullet out.  It's surface area contact. Kinda like you gripping with your entire hand or just 3 fingers.

Sounds reasonable, thanks!

[IDescribe]

I just checked.  Those 147gr Precision Bullets are .665 in length.  At an OAL of 1.048, the base of your bullet is seated .367 into the case.  A depth of .300 into the case is where the case walls start to thicken and the inner diameter of the case starts to shrink.  It's preferable not to seat the base deeper than that.  The base typically has a bit of a bevel, so you can usually get a bit deeper than .300 before the base contacts the point where it narrows, maybe .310 or .320, but it's best to simply consider .300 the hard deck, and stay above it.  You can get away with going deeper without damaging the bullet with jacketed and sometimes plated, but not lead, and as a "best practice" try to keep the bullet base shallower than .300 in general.
 

Edited May 5, 2018 by IDescribe

[IDescribe]

1 hour ago, Bench said:

So in considering profile change my first guess would be RN. Any thoughts there? Throat issues are still on the list too though.

Not necessarily.  When I say profile, I don't mean all 147gr truncated cone flat points, I mean those specific ones made by Precision Bullets.  A truncated cone flat point from another manufacturer may work perfectly well.   

But your next step, seriously, should be to clean the chamber and bore with a solvent and a brass or copper brush (or a copper chore boy wrapped around a plastic brush), and look inside and make sure there isn't some defect/burr obstructing the bullet and needs to be polished out.  It's also possible that simply cleaning will remove the obstruction, so after you clean it, plunk test it again.    You need to load that bullet to about 1.12 to keep the base above .300.  

[IDescribe]

All right, Bench.  You have something else going on here other than just the bullet profile itself.

I just did some searching and found plenty of threads with people loading that exact bullet longer than you are with even a CZ pistol, and you should definitely be able to load longer in a Beretta 92 than in a CZ.  CZ pistols are known for being short-throated, and Beretta 92s are not.  Saw people with CZs loading as long as 1.09, and people with deeper throated pistols like Berettas, Glocks, etc. loading to 1.13 and some longer.  There is definitely something going on other than just the profile.

So...

I would suggest you clean and check visually for a defect/burr in the chamber, or some foreign object in the chamber.  You need to check that out first. 

NEXT...

It's also possible you are not doing something correctly with testing max OAL.  Follow these steps to make a dummy:

Resize/deprime

No primer

No powder

Seat bullet
Taper crimp to .378/.379

I would recommend you make FIVE dummy rounds:  one each at 1.15, 1.13, 1.11, 1.09, and 1.045.  Is the 1.045 the only one that plunks without hitting the rifling?  It should plunk and spin freely so long as you're not applying inward pressure.  For the record, I would not normally recommend seating five different bullets to different lengths like this to determine max OAL, just in this case where there is something funny going on.

 

If none of the longer ones will plunk and spin freely, I'd recommend you plunk each one, stand the barrel upright with the muzzle down on a table, and get down low at eye level with a camera and take a picture level with the chamber, and the same with each cartridge, then post all five here so that we can see what's going on. 

 

What's going on isn't normal for that bullet.  You're not dealing with a function of that profile vs your chamber here.  Something else is going on.   Good luck.  

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by IDescribe

[Bench]

1 hour ago, IDescribe said:

All right, Bench.  You have something else going on here other than just the bullet profile itself.

I just did some searching and found plenty of threads with people loading that exact bullet longer than you are with even a CZ pistol, and you should definitely be able to load longer in a Beretta 92 than in a CZ.  CZ pistols are known for being short-throated, and Beretta 92s are not.  Saw people with CZs loading as long as 1.09, and people with deeper throated pistols like Berettas, Glocks, etc. loading to 1.13 and some longer.  There is definitely something going on other than just the profile.

So...

I would suggest you clean and check visually for a defect/burr in the chamber, or some foreign object in the chamber.  You need to check that out first. 

NEXT...

It's also possible you are not doing something correctly with testing max OAL.  Follow these steps to make a dummy:

Resize/deprime

No primer

No powder

Seat bullet
Taper crimp to .378/.379

I would recommend you make FIVE dummy rounds:  one each at 1.15, 1.13, 1.11, 1.09, and 1.045.  Is the 1.045 the only one that plunks without hitting the rifling?  It should plunk and spin freely so long as you're not applying inward pressure.  For the record, I would not normally recommend seating five different bullets to different lengths like this to determine max OAL, just in this case where there is something funny going on.

 

If none of the longer ones will plunk and spin freely, I'd recommend you plunk each one, stand the barrel upright with the muzzle down on a table, and get down low at eye level with a camera and take a picture level with the chamber, and the same with each cartridge, then post all five here so that we can see what's going on. 

 

What's going on isn't normal for that bullet.  You're not dealing with a function of that profile vs your chamber here.  Something else is going on.   Good luck.  

 

Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty. I'll post to follow up. Thanks!!!

[GrumpyOne]

I was using a truncated cone 147 coated bullet, and was getting occasional tumbling. My load was 3.5 of VV N320 @ 1.150. Fps was around 920, PF was around 135. Not over crimped, etc. Went back to a PD 147 FMJ RN, tumbling stopped. The only thing i can attribute it to is the bullet profile.

[HesedTech]

On 5/4/2018 at 7:12 AM, Bench said:

Now that's another new learning bit. Does the process just taper the rifling back a bit? That might explain why when I pushed hard on a long set dummy round on a plunk test there would be just one scratch on the coated bullet. Thanks!

 

Just so you know, even having the barrel reamed doesn’t guarantee you will be able to run a longer OAL. The bullet profile is really the major determining factor, because some bullets taper for a longer distance than others. The round nose profile of Eggleston (and their TC) and Blues both load about the same length in my Tanfoglio with a reamed barrel. While the ACME FPs load considerably longer. 

 

The best thing to do is order a sample pack of what you are interested in and try them out. 

 

BTW not all coated lead bullets are .01 over. Eggleston gives purchasers a size choice, ACMES .356, and Blues (when I last purchased) were .355 and really consistent. 

 

While I normally don’t check it, I just ran a batch of bullets and checked the crimp to compare with yours. PD 147 FMJ RN 1.14 OAL, and crimp is consistently .379. 

Edited May 5, 2018 by HesedTech
Added crimp data.

[IDescribe]

Blue Bullets do still come undersized (for lead) at .355.  

 

Gallant also offers 3 sizes -- .355, .356, .357.   Most places will do different sizes for you, even if they don't advertise it, but often they keep a stock of their standard size, and then for over-sized orders, they have to produce new bullets and size them to your liking, which can delay getting them to you.  Gallant keeps their stock unsized, then sizes to order every order, which is nice.  It means those of us looking for over-sized don't have to wait for a new run of those bullets to be produced.  Their estimated time before shipping is 3-5 days, regardless of sizing, then add whatever shipping option you choose to get them to your door.  It's a nice option.

This may become relevant for Bench because when I was looking into his OAL issue, I came across a couple of places talking about the Beretta 92 commonly having an over-sized bore.

Bench, bullets that are undersized for your barrel will not shoot as accurately as those appropriately sized, and undersized will lead the barrel badly.  It's not a problem going a thousandth of an inch bigger than ideal, but a thousandth smaller can be a problem.  

[Steve RA]

You want two to three thousandths over bore diameter.  I have had really good accuracy with a Precision 125 gr .358 bullet in my Kart barreled 9mm.  The bullet is in the "Cowboy Bullets" section.  I'd suggest trying these bullets.

[Bench]

14 minutes ago, Steve RA said:

You want two to three thousandths over bore diameter.  I have had really good accuracy with a Precision 125 gr .358 bullet in my Kart barreled 9mm.  The bullet is in the "Cowboy Bullets" section.  I'd suggest trying these bullets.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have to rule out the barrel issue first.

[Bench]

4 hours ago, IDescribe said:

I just did some searching and found plenty of threads with people loading that exact bullet longer than y

So...

I would suggest you clean and check visually for a defect/burr in the chamber, or some foreign object in the chamber.  You need to check that out first. 

NEXT...

It's also possible you are not doing something correctly with testing max OAL.  Follow these steps to make a dummy:

Resize/deprime

No primer

No powder

Seat bullet
Taper crimp to .378/.379

 

Here you go: Cleaned and polished to 8000 down through the throat with no visual burs seen with loupes.

The barrel marked 1 is a sized case only. All others are marked with the OAL. Crimps are .378/.379.See second post for the remainder of images.

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Bench
Site won't let me post more at this time...

[IGOTGLOCKED]

On 5/1/2018 at 5:45 PM, Bench said:

The comment about CLEANER sounds intriguing. I'll have to look it up to see where it is in the burn rate charts. Just like a sage said on this forum 'heavy bullets, fast powder...."

Indeed, really like this SP!

[Bench]

Here's part 2 of the images of today's test. I added one OAL just to see the plunk results and also added an image of the little bright spot that keeps showing up.

 

[HesedTech]

Bench

 

Your pictures really don't tell us much. You have to make sure the bullets "plunk" or drop in, spin and fall out of the chamber freely. Go to this link for the best info on the subjects: https://www.egglestonmunitions.com/articles

 

Also (as the link will instruct you about) the diameter of the bullet is a function of the size of the barrel.

 

There's a lot of personal opinions in reloading, but a few ring true and MephisMechanic's info is something worth remembering.

 

At this point, personally I think you have the wrong bullet for your gun.

 

 

[lgh]

There's an old adage, "Match the bullet to the barrel and the powder to the bullet". It looks like you have the wrong bullet.