Winchester 572 Load Data

[Napalmsticks]

Hello all! New to the forums and to handgun reloading, I've been reloading .223 for about 6 months but pistol reloading seems to be a different animal completely. 

 

I'm here to ask a question about Winchester 572. I recently picked up 8 lbs of W572 and 3000 Acme 124gr coated LRN bullets to begin reloading. I chose W572 because of cost and given the fact that the Hodgdon website has numerous 9mm loads listed for the powder. There are a few loads listed for 124gr and 125gr bullets but no data for 124gr LRN. I recently posted on a different forum requesting assistance with starting loads but I received feedback that W572 is far too slow burning powder for use in 9mm at the given load data provided from Hodgdon. The load data that Hodgdon has listed are as follows:

 

BULLET WEIGHT 
124 GR. BERB HBRN TP 
MANUFACTURER 
Winchester 
POWDER 
572 
BULLET DIAM. 
.355" 
C.O.L. 
1.150" 

STARTING LOADS 
GRS.VEL.(FT/S)PRESS. 
5.3. 1,131. 27,200 PSI 

MAXIMUM LOADS 
GRS.VEL.(FT/S)PRESS. 
5.8. 1212. 32,600 PSI

BULLET WEIGHT 
125 GR. SIE FMJ 
MANUFACTURER 
Winchester 
POWDER 
572 
BULLET DIAM. 
.355" 
C.O.L. 
1.090" 

STARTING LOADS 
GRS.VEL.(FT/S)PRESS. 
4.3. 1,001. 25,600 PSI 

MAXIMUM LOADS 
GRS.VEL.(FT/S)PRESS. 
4.9. 1119. 31,600 PSI
 

My questions are as follows:

 

1 - Is W572 too slow for the loads listed above for general use in a 5" barrel? If it is indeed too slow why would Hodgdon list loads using W572 powder for 9mm? This to me is a quandary, the maker of the powder lists a load for 9mm but people on a different forum are saying that the above loads will not burn fully in a 5" barrel and will foul the firearm quickly. Is this true?

 

2 - Why is the load data for the 125gr FMJ so much lower that the 124gr Barry's hollow base round nose plated bullet? The 124gr load actually mirrors the listed 115gr W572 FMJ load data in powder grains, velocity, and pressure, I though as a general rule as bullet weight goes up powder load will go down to keep pressure below max? Is the 124gr load data a typo? How can a 124gr plated bullet over 5.8 gr of W572 produce nearly the same pressure as a 125gr FMJ bullet over 4.9 gr of W572?

 

3 - Should I use the higher powder drop from the 124gr Berry's load data or lower drop from the 125gr FMJ? Is the 124gr data higher due to the hollow base bullet?

 

4 - I have read that it is possible to use FMJ load data so long as the starting load is reduced by ~10% in the absence of lead data, is this a true and safe practice? Would starting at 4.0 grains of W572 (125gr FMJ drop minus 10%) and a coated LRN bullet be too low of a start load? I have read in my reloading manual that reduced loads can also be dangerous so I don't want to go too low. 

 

5 - I plan to reload 147gr Acme LRN bullets also in the future, would W572 be a good choice for this heavier bullet.

 

Eta: I just want to ensure I'm not doing something dumb or unsafe; at the end of the day I want to learn about handgun reloading and reduce my cost per round so I can shoot more.

 

Thanks!

 

-Rob 

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Napalmsticks

[Hi-Power Jack]

Coated bullets require LESS powder than fmj bullets -  so I'd start around 4.5 gr and

work up slowly with a chrono.

 

Be sure to determine your maximum OAL by using The Plunk Test - do that first,

and then work up your powder loads.

 

If you can get a 124 gr bullet up to 1200 fps (max load), you've a 149 PF load - you don't

even need a load that hot for USPSA minor.

 

Good luck with it.      

[Napalmsticks]

24 minutes ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

Coated bullets require LESS powder than fmj bullets -  so I'd start around 4.5 gr and

work up slowly with a chrono.

 

Be sure to determine your maximum OAL by using The Plunk Test - do that first,

and then work up your powder loads.

 

If you can get a 124 gr bullet up to 1200 fps (max load), you've a 149 PF load - you don't

even need a load that hot for USPSA minor.

 

Good luck with it.      

I absolutely will use a chrono. Start at 4.5 and use the max load and target velocities from the 124gr or the 125gr load data? For my purposes the lower the PF the better, though I might be stuck with a higher PF value due to the powder choice?

 

Eta: I was seating bullets in empty cartridges earlier, listening for the plunk then spinning in the chamber to ensure the bullet doesn't catch on the lands. Trying to stay between the max for 9mm and the min for the listed load.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Napalmsticks

[Hi-Power Jack]

1 hour ago, Napalmsticks said:

1.  use the velocities from the 124gr or the 125gr load data? 

 

2. Trying to stay between the max and the min OAL for the listed load.

 

1.  There is no practical difference between 124 and 125 (as a matter of fact,

      if you weigh bullets, you'll probably find very few are exactly 124 or 125).

      For a 9mm Minor load, they're interchangeable.

 

2.  The OAL for the bullet you selected, and your gun, will have very little

      to do with the minimum and maximum listed in any reloading book.

      Try to load them as long as possible and still pass The Plunk Test.

 

What are you using the ammo for ?   USPSA?   Steel?   IPSC?   Plinking ?

[Napalmsticks]

Actually, I'm using the loads for all of the above reasons you have specified. My main hesitance with the 124gr data is that it's for a hollow base bullet. The shape of the 125gr FMJ is much more similar to my coated lead bullets and I would assume that the extra volume from the hollow base bullet could be the reason for the higher associated powder charge. The minimum COAL of the 124gr hollow base load is also specified longer than the 125gr FMJ at 1.150" vs 1.09". Is it safe to use the higher load data from the 124gr hollow base bullet on a bullet shaped similar to a 124gr FMJ? Before I posted I was planning to use the 125gr data and reduce the start load by 10% due to the lead bullet. Just didn't want to run into unsafe reduced powder loads.

Also, just went out to the garage and did some testing. W572 seems to look like a flattened ball powder I think. A full 9mm shell casing holds 11.2 gr of W572. I pressed a bullet into one of the empty shell casings to a coal of 1.155" without sizing to mark the bullet depth in the case then pulled the bullet. I filled the case up to the mark on the inside of the case left by the bullet with W572, total case capacity with a bullet seated seems to be somewhere between ~ 7.8 to 8.2 gr so I think anything over 4.0 gr would fill the case ~ 50%.

[superdude]

37 minutes ago, Napalmsticks said:

Actually, I'm using the loads for all of the above reasons you have specified. My main hesitance with the 124gr data is that it's for a hollow base bullet. The shape of the 125gr FMJ is much more similar to my coated lead bullets and I would assume that the extra volume from the hollow base bullet could be the reason for the higher associated powder charge.

 

No. No. No.   The hollow base changes the shape of the powder chamber when the bullet is seated, but not the volume. 

 

The difference in OAL between the loads reflects that the FMJ bullet was seated deeper, and reduces the powder chamber size (assuming the nose shapes and weight are the same), and the deeper you seat a bullet, the smaller the powder chamber, and the more pressure goes up if using the same charge weight. Thus the shorter OAL requires that you reduce the powder charge to keep pressures within safe limits.

Edited November 24, 2018 by superdude

[superdude]

The purpose of the hollow base is to, according to Berrys, " The hollow base allows the bullet profile to be longer

and provides more contact area with the barrel and rifling to stabilize the bullet and improve accuracy.  

 

The bullet profile is longer but the weight remains the same and you can load these bullets using

any published load data for a jacketed bullet as long as it is the same weight bullet."

 

[Napalmsticks]

Just now, superdude said:

 

No. No. No.   The hollow base changes the shape of the powder chamber when the bullet is seated, but not the volume. 

 

 

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the explaination! So I could feasibly use either load and be safely within the pressure limits of 9mm?

[superdude]

Just now, Napalmsticks said:

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the explaination! So I could feasibly use either load and be safely within the pressure limits of 9mm?

 

Yes, just match the powder charge to the OAL. The plated and FMJ bullets might produce different pressure and velocity with the same powder charge and OAL, so work your loads up. 

[Napalmsticks]

Got it. For instances like this where no lead load data is avalible should I start below the start load? I've read to start 10% lower than the FMJ data.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Napalmsticks

[superdude]

Honestly, this question is always a little difficult to answer with confidence.

 

There are precautions about using load data from different bullet types (lead, plated, jacketed, swaged) because of differences in how pressure builds.

 

Also, some people say starting too low can be a problem with some powders. That said, many load books violate the 10% rule, such as Hornady and Sierra and Lyman whose pistol load data sometimes starts way below a 10% reduction from the max load.

 

In general, start load data is usually okay with most bullets. I would say it's okay to start below the start charge, but then someone will say that's dangerous. They might be right. I can't measure pressure to say if it's right or wrong.

 

Other factors are bullet hardness and length. And the list goes on.

 

So the generic response that is generally true is: start load data is usually okay with most bullets, as long as you're not using oddball weight for length bullets (frangible, solid copper, etc). But, always start low and work up, since different barrels have different tolerances and show pressure differently.

 

Confusing enough?

 

 

[Napalmsticks]

Just now, superdude said:

Honestly, this question is always a little difficult to answer with confidence.

 

There are precautions about using load data from different bullet types (lead, plated, jacketed, swaged) because of differences in how pressure builds.

 

Also, some people say starting too low can be a problem with some powders. That said, many load books violate the 10% rule, such as Hornady and Sierra and Lyman whose pistol load data sometimes starts way below a 10% reduction from the max load.

 

In general, start load data is usually okay with most bullets. I would say it's okay to start below the start charge, but then someone will say that's dangerous. They might be right. I can't measure pressure to say if it's right or wrong.

 

Other factors are bullet hardness and length. And the list goes on.

 

So the generic response that is generally true is: start load data is usually okay with most bullets, as long as you're not using oddball weight for length bullets (frangible, solid copper, etc). But, always start low and work up, since different barrels have different tolerances and show pressure differently.

 

Confusing enough?

 

 

LOL, yup!

 

So I looked at 115gr data LRN vs FMJ and the lead load starts lower than the FMJ load. I'm tempted to contact Hodgdon and ask for 124gr LRN load data.

[superdude]

It never hurts to ask the manufacturer. I have done so many times. 

[Napalmsticks]

Just now, superdude said:

It never hurts to ask the manufacturer. I have done so many times. 

Thanks for all of the help!

[Napalmsticks]

1 hour ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

 

1.  There is no practical difference between 124 and 125 (as a matter of fact,

      if you weigh bullets, you'll probably find very few are exactly 124 or 125).

      For a 9mm Minor load, they're interchangeable.

 

2.  The OAL for the bullet you selected, and your gun, will have very little

      to do with the minimum and maximum listed in any reloading book.

      Try to load them as long as possible and still pass The Plunk Test.

 

What are you using the ammo for ?   USPSA?   Steel?   IPSC?   Plinking ?

Thanks for the help!

[Jim Watson]

Sorry I can't provide a recipe, but I got a pound of 572 in a match goodie bag and used it for 9mm 147 gr plated. 

Velocity was erratic at anything below maximum, so I am running power factor 137 instead of 130. 

 

All I can suggest is to take a starting point and increase until it gives something usable. 

[Napalmsticks]

7 minutes ago, Jim Watson said:

Sorry I can't provide a recipe, but I got a pound of 572 in a match goodie bag and used it for 9mm 147 gr plated. 

Velocity was erratic at anything below maximum, so I am running power factor 137 instead of 130. 

 

All I can suggest is to take a starting point and increase until it gives something usable. 

I plan to work up a load for 147gr next. 137 pf is 932 fps right? That would be good for subsonic plinking.

 

Eta: erratic meaning SD and velocity spread right?

Edited November 24, 2018 by Napalmsticks

[Jim Watson]

Yes

I'm not saying to start at the maximum but the starting load was a lot slower than advertised with high SD. 

[Catmanduex]

You can use the 572 but you’re gonna be sorry you bought eight pounds of it :>)

[Napalmsticks]

11 hours ago, Catmanduex said:

You can use the 572 but you’re gonna be sorry you bought eight pounds of it :>)

 

I have that feeling also. Should have gotten W231...

[superdude]

I tried 572 with a 125 HAP at 3.9 grains, and it shot very well. 15 shot group was 1.27" at 25 yards.  It might produce wide variation in velocities at low charge weight, but the proof is on the paper. If it shoots well, that matters most. 

[Napalmsticks]

I loaded some 124gr coated LRN today at 4.2gr, 4.5gr and 4.8gr; COAL of 1.155". Heading to the range tomorrow morning. Will update with what I find.

[Napalmsticks]

10 minutes ago, superdude said:

I tried 572 with a 125 HAP at 3.9 grains, and it shot very well. 15 shot group was 1.27" at 25 yards.  It might produce wide variation in velocities at low charge weight, but the proof is on the paper. If it shoots well, that matters most. 

 

Did you shoot that today?

[superdude]

2 minutes ago, Napalmsticks said:

 

Did you shoot that today?

 

No. That was some time back. 572 has also worked well for light loads in the 38 Super for me.

 

You'll have to see if your gun likes it.

[Napalmsticks]

Well I just got back from the range, all fingers and toes intact. The W572 worked great! No malfunctions of any kind, all rounds fired flawlessly, and no over-pressure signs. The only downfall that I see currently is that the load is pretty dirty; though I haven't cleaned the pistol in over ~1,500 rounds, this shooting session seems to have left quite a bit of residue in the barrel and the frame. I plan to load up more 4.8 gr rounds, clean the gun, and make anther visit to the range this week to see just how dirty the rounds are. Data from the loads is as follows:

 

4.2 gr W572

Low velocity - 893 fps

High Velocity - 1017 fps

Average velocity - 972.8 fps

Extreme velocity spread - 124 fps

Standard deviation - 40

 

4.5 gr W572

Low velocity - 946 fps

High Velocity - 1062 fps

Average velocity - 1014.9 fps

Extreme velocity spread - 116 fps

Standard deviation - 32

 

4.8 gr W572

Low velocity - 1041 fps

High Velocity - 1110 fps

Average velocity - 1073.8 fps

Extreme velocity spread - 69 fps

Standard deviation - 17

 

The 4.8 gr load grouped the best out of all the loads tested. At 15 yards using a 5" M&P CORE with a 6.5 MOA RMR red dot and pistol supported on a rolled up piece of carpet I was able to shoot the 30 round group below. Target is printed on standard letter paper for size reference. The only issue I had with the load is that after chambering a round the slide is difficult to to pull back and eject the chambered round. At 1.155" coal if I drop a round in the barrel I get the plunk noise and I'm able to spin the round in the chamber easily, but when I chamber a round with the barrel in the gun the round seems to lodge itself in the chamber. I might try to shorten the coal a bit closer to the 125 gr FMJ specs, my velocity findings seem to be fairly close to the 125 gr FMJ load data provided above. 

 

I'm tempted to bump the powder up to 5.0 gr to see if I can get the SD to single digits. 

 

Edited November 25, 2018 by Napalmsticks