Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

looking for a next step on a 9mm load

fmiller4

By fmiller4
in 9mm/38 Caliber

 Share

Recommended Posts

fmiller4 Looks for Range

fmiller4

Posted
Posted

This is kind of long and wordy. My reasoning is that it’ll save time to tell as much as I can.
So, just to lay out the variables…
I’m working on a 9mm load with HP-38 (I have six pounds…) and 125gr moly-coated conical nose bullets from Summit City (cheap). I did a ladder test and found that 4.6 grains seemed to give me the tightest group at 25yds. I loaded up a batch with an OAL of 1.120 and did a sight-in (Canik TP9SFX with a Vortex red dot on sandbags) but was disappointed with the result.

I’ve been reloading for over 10 years and have never really gotten “The One” for 9mm. I originally got the HP-38 for .45 and while I’d like to switch, I’m kinda broke right now… And, since I’m stuck with the same powder/bullets, I’m not really sure what help you can give. But I’d really love to hear your what you can get from looking at my targets.

I guess my question really comes to "Is there anything I can do (oal change?) and/or am I expecting too much from a sub-$500 gun?” (which to be truthful is way more accurate than my pricier Tanfoglio Elite…)

A few things

- if you look at the bullets I’m using, the top of the cone is kind of convex, which may make teeny-weeny oal adjustments off a little (?)… maybe I should set up my loads with premium bullets and then switch to the cheap stuff?
- I do ‘plonk’ tests with the barrel and try to go with the longest oal where the round doesn’t need any coaxing to fall out when I upend it. That happens right around 1.124.
- my ultimate goal is to be able to shoot a little faster (well, a lot faster but I’ll settle for a little) so pinpoint accuracy isn’t really that important. But still...

So, attached are is one of my test targets. I thought the flyer was my fault ("operator error" and I go way back…), but now I’m wondering if that was the actual ‘circle’ and I just got lucky in the corner.

The color is the sight-in attempt, and the groups seem pretty inconsistent to me.

So, the upshot is; given this data - what would your next move be?

Thanks - much appreciated!

f

bullet.jpg

target copy.jpg

ladder2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarge Back From the Dead

Sarge

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, fmiller4 said:

My apologies.

 

How do I delete this post?

 

 

Don’t sweat it. I for one don’t visit the high road very often. And what exactly is internet etiquette?😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IHAVEGAS Burned Out

IHAVEGAS

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Sarge said:

And what exactly is internet etiquette?

 

As I understand it, it is when you deliberately limit your audience so you don't get as much information as you could otherwise or when you search for an hour to answer a question rather than just asking and getting up to date info.

 

I may have it wrong though. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MikeyScuba Beyond it All

MikeyScuba

Posted
Posted

I just got to the PF I needed and that was that.  To be honest I would start closer and shoot groups.

 

as for hp38/w231 I just switched to it this year from n320 for 9mm revolver shooting so I wouldn’t sweat it.  N320 is overhyped and dirty 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dtuns Sees Sights

dtuns

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, 45 Raven said:

May I ask from what Emily Post book you gathered that information? 

Never heard of such etiquette especially sense not evreyone is on all the forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dtuns Sees Sights

dtuns

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, fmiller4 said:

This is kind of long and wordy. My reasoning is that it’ll save time to tell as much as I can.
So, just to lay out the variables…
I’m working on a 9mm load with HP-38 (I have six pounds…) and 125gr moly-coated conical nose bullets from Summit City (cheap). I did a ladder test and found that 4.6 grains seemed to give me the tightest group at 25yds. I loaded up a batch with an OAL of 1.120 and did a sight-in (Canik TP9SFX with a Vortex red dot on sandbags) but was disappointed with the result.

I’ve been reloading for over 10 years and have never really gotten “The One” for 9mm. I originally got the HP-38 for .45 and while I’d like to switch, I’m kinda broke right now… And, since I’m stuck with the same powder/bullets, I’m not really sure what help you can give. But I’d really love to hear your what you can get from looking at my targets.

I guess my question really comes to "Is there anything I can do (oal change?) and/or am I expecting too much from a sub-$500 gun?” (which to be truthful is way more accurate than my pricier Tanfoglio Elite…)

A few things

- if you look at the bullets I’m using, the top of the cone is kind of convex, which may make teeny-weeny oal adjustments off a little (?)… maybe I should set up my loads with premium bullets and then switch to the cheap stuff?
- I do ‘plonk’ tests with the barrel and try to go with the longest oal where the round doesn’t need any coaxing to fall out when I upend it. That happens right around 1.124.
- my ultimate goal is to be able to shoot a little faster (well, a lot faster but I’ll settle for a little) so pinpoint accuracy isn’t really that important. But still...

So, attached are is one of my test targets. I thought the flyer was my fault ("operator error" and I go way back…), but now I’m wondering if that was the actual ‘circle’ and I just got lucky in the corner.

The color is the sight-in attempt, and the groups seem pretty inconsistent to me.

So, the upshot is; given this data - what would your next move be?

Thanks - much appreciated!

f

bullet.jpg

target copy.jpg

ladder2.jpg

How big are the groups is the squares on the target 1"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shred Back From the Dead

shred

Posted
Posted

What distance for these groups?  Off a good sandbag? half-ass rest? freehand?  Dot?  Irons?

 

I've shot a crapload of 124s and 125s (mostly JHP) with 231 over the years and accuracy has been good to great.  OAL from 1.125" down to 1.08" for the HAP and stock CZs.   I wouldn't sweat tiny OAL changes, but I might try and get hold of some different bullets to experiment with and maybe some factory ammo as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Farmer Beyond it All

Farmer

Posted
Posted

I believe many here load 231 at around 3.6-4.0. You may try backing them down and test some at 1.115 or so. The minor differences like .001-.003 don’t really make much difference unless you’re right in the rifling. I had to just recently do this with some 135’s I have. Grouped like a shotgun even off a bag. Seated them .013 deeper, backed off .3 grains and they came together like magic. I noticed those bullets have a heavy bevel base, and at times some bbl’s don’t play well with them. Also make sure your not under or over crimping. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarge Back From the Dead

Sarge

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

As I understand it, it is when you deliberately limit your audience so you don't get as much information as you could otherwise or when you search for an hour to answer a question rather than just asking and getting up to date info.

 

I may have it wrong though. 

 

:roflol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RangerTrace Back From the Dead

RangerTrace

Posted
Posted

I know you're looking for the magic with the powder you already have, but I'm telling you, N330 is the ticket for 9mm.  Just over a 1" group at 25 yards from Sig based pistols on a rest.  I love this stuff.  And it's readily available at Powder Valley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HesedTech Beyond it All

HesedTech

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, fmiller4 said:

So, the upshot is; given this data - what would your next move be?

My next move is to ask you a few things.

 

  1. What gun are you using?
  2. What is the distance?
  3. Off a bag or prop? 
  4. Velocity of bullet?
     

comments:

You will not gain much more accuracy with more expensive bullets. Yes a Tanfoglio or Shadow 2 will be more accurate than a Glock 19, but not that much different.

 

Since you really didn’t give a lot of detail, I’d say your group issues are OE and probably not the gun. But it could be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dtuns Sees Sights

dtuns

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, fmiller4 said:

I couldn't tell. The cardboard the target was stapled to was swiss cheese... 

Definitely north.

The squares are 1-inch apart.

 

 

 

Are you shooting matches with this gun or just plinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dtuns Sees Sights

dtuns

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, HesedTech said:

My next move is to ask you a few things.

 

  1. What gun are you using?
  2. What is the distance?
  3. Off a bag or prop? 
  4. Velocity of bullet?
     

comments:

You will not gain much more accuracy with more expensive bullets. Yes a Tanfoglio or Shadow 2 will be more accurate than a Glock 19, but not that much different.

 

Since you really didn’t give a lot of detail, I’d say your group issues are OE and probably not the gun. But it could be. 

Answer for you questions 1-3 are in his original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DeepFried Looks for Target

DeepFried

Posted
Posted

I get similar results with 4.3 gr of hp38 and summit 124 out of a plastic striker gun.

 

for me, it’s easy to get caught up in trying to make a PRS pistol load… But if I make power factor and can shoot the head box at 25 then I can play in the uspsa game just fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Miranda Calls Shots

Miranda

Posted
Posted

 

what you can do.

your recipe

125 gn lead conical bullet

4.5 gn hp-38

1.124 oal...

 

you target photo will not load for me...

your loading is at about the end of the book advice I have.

 

If you think more accuracy is possible...

if power factor is not an issue, try varying just the powder to 4.2 gn

one change and give em a solid run. see if you notice anything.

 

I have a very mild, most accuracy center... hp jacketed 124 gn oal 1.30 and 4.3gn hp-38 powder

more powder seemed like less control.  lead bullets can be a problem for accuracy in any case,

 

miranda

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...