New To Reloading, Question About 147gr 9mm

[glock_556]

OK,

I've recently started reloading and have started with some 147gr. 9mm loads.

My question is, my finished cartridges have sort of an hour glass shape. Not horribly disfigured, but enough to notice.

Is this normal? I thought that maybe it was from the large size of the 147 gr. bullet itself.

Thanks.

[ErikW]

Normal, even desirable.

[BigTinVA]

OK,

I've recently started reloading and have started with some 147gr. 9mm loads.

My question is, my finished cartridges have sort of an hour glass shape. Not horribly disfigured, but enough to notice.

Is this normal? I thought that maybe it was from the large size of the 147 gr. bullet itself.

Thanks.

Which dies are you using?

[glock_556]

OK,

I've recently started reloading and have started with some 147gr. 9mm loads.

My question is, my finished cartridges have sort of an hour glass shape. Not horribly disfigured, but enough to notice.

Is this normal? I thought that maybe it was from the large size of the 147 gr. bullet itself.

Thanks.

Which dies are you using?

Dillon Carbide dies

[HSMITH]

+1 for normal and desirable. I am not happy until I get that look, and will do what it takes to get there. What you see that concerns you is setback that WON'T be visiting you, enough bullet pull for all the consistency you could ever expect from that load and the knowledge that your dies are doing what they should!!!

[kevin c]

OK, folks, I've got a headache here w/ the MG CMJ 147's I'm trying to work up a load for.

I've used different brands of brass loaded with this bullet between 1.140 and 1.155, and I'm getting big bulges in the cases.

This doesn't look like the "coke bottle waist" 9mm reloads I'm used to seeing with lighter bullets, with a gentle narrowing below the base of the bullet and then a flare out to the case diameter at the extractor rim. This is more a Michelin man love handle bulge right at the base of the bullet, that actually increases a lot in diameter over the case where the bearing surface of the bullet is. I'm running 7 out of 8 no go's on a std Midway brand case gauge, and more than 50% failures to chamber in my factory G17 barrel.

These are standard Dillon SDB dies. The bullets mike out to .355, and it's happening with all brands of cases (with the same seating stem setting, it's true they load to different oal's, but they all bulge and jam when adjusted to 1.150 unless I load so long that they won't feed in a Glock mag). All the cases are lubed with OneShot prior to sizing.

What are the rest of you 147 neener users doing that I'm messing up?

(Mebbe I'll move to the 124's... )

Thanks in advance,

Kevin

edited because I can't type what I really mean...

Edited April 12, 2007 by kevin c

[revchuck]

Kevin - That's weird, but you already figured *that* out. It sounds like you're doing everything right.

I use Lee dies, and my 9x19 dies are the only ones that I don't use the FCD with, just a taper crimp die. My Beretta runs fine with 147 Precisions sized .358"; my CZ-75s work with bevel base cast bullets up to .3565". It sounds like it's the chamber...and I thought Glocks had the most "generously" sized ones. But that still doesn't explain the no goes with the case gauge.

If you have a buddy who reloads 9x19 and has a FCD, I'd try running some of your loads through his die and see if that takes care of the problem.

[kevin c]

Hmm, unfortunately, I can't use a FCD in the SDB. Also, I kinda thought that the FCD was to iron out the base of the case, the part not reached by the flared Dillon sizers, not to get rid of wrinkles halfway down the side of the case.

I'm figuring I'm loading too deep, that the case wall is beginning to thicken that far down and that the heel of the bullet is pushing it out (these bulges I'm getting are pretty much circumferential). If that's the case (literally, sorry, the pun just slipped out), and the FCD is the only way folks are loading this bullet to this OAL for a Glock mag, then I'm outta luck. But even if I had a press that could use the FCD, I'd worry the round would be getting crushed right at that bulge, with metal case wall against jacket against bullet core, bad for the round, bad for the die, no?

I was just hoping that I was missing something really simple that would solve the problem. The closest I can think of is getting thin walled cases, but I've already tried 5 common brands and they all have the problem. I could load longer, but then I'd need to buy a different gun for Production (and here I'm trying to sell Production to my wife as a cheap way of shooting )

Ah, well, anybody want to buy most of a box of MG 147's?

spelling edit

Edited April 11, 2007 by kevin c

[revchuck]

Kevin - SAAMI max OAL for 9x19 is 1.169". The Glock mags should work with that OAL. Have you tried loading to 1.16 - 1.17"?

I know Hornady 147 grain JHPs have a tapered base to avoid this problem...but they ain't cheap!

[kevin c]

1.160 to 1.170? That's longer than I heard the Glock mags will take, and longer than what I keep reading here for 147 loads. Still, at this point, I've got nothing to lose. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it a whirl and let you know.

Kevin C.

[BillGarlandJr]

+1 on loading your 9mm rounds longer. I shoot a Glock 17 in production and have been shooting the MG 147gr bullets loaded to an OAL btwn 1.160 and 1.165 with great success. The Glock mags accomodate this length of round with no problems.

[kevin c]

Well, hey there, it works! Or at least the bulge is gone. With the 147 MG's loaded 1.167, the case is now more coke bottle shaped, with only a cylindrical bulge down to the heel of the bullet, and no love handle effect. They all case gauge without problems, and hand cycle through my G17 effortlessly. Now I just have to work up the powder charge for the PF I'm shooting for.

I still don't know how others load the same bullet to 1.150. Interesting that Hornady tapered their 147 to get around the issue.

Thanks for the suggestion!

Kevin C

[Harmon]

i run berrys 147 round noses to 1.165" without problems

Harmon

[kevin c]

OOOOOOKKKKAAAAAAYYYYYYY........

Well, confession time. I found out exactly why I got Michelin Man love handle bulges on my 147 loads: it's because I was not loading to 1.150, but 1.050.

Tired eyes and brain saying: "yeah this looks good on the dial caliper..." And with that basic delusion, I simply stopped seeing the obvious - that the rounds looked not only like a brass Shar Pei, but were as about as short as a Chihuahua. that the bullet tips didn't even come close to the end of the case gauge (at SAAMI OAL max) when I supposedly was loading out to 1.169 (actually 1.069). I simply stopped looking at the main scale on the rule and went off the vernier dial to make those fine little adjustments for each brand of case. And of course, I didn't bother to check the fired brass ("of course it's OK, this is a reliable IPSC load off the most reliable shooting forum, posted by reliable people").

Yeah, so much for my OWN reliability. I'm lucky I didn't blow up a gun. I've been reloading for over ten years, and I guess I've started to get sloppy.

A lesson learned without getting burned. Since I'm supposedly safety conscious, I gonna make it sting with at least public humiliation so I hopefully won't be this stupid again (AND I'll be buying a digital caliper really soon... ).

Moderators, you might want to put this in the BEginners' loading forum as a semicautionary tale...

edited to increase my self mortification...

Kevin C

Edited April 20, 2007 by kevin c

[revchuck]

Kevin - Don't beat yourself up too bad. I've been reloading for over 20 years, and recently, while working up loads for .38 Special, screwed up using the scale I've had about forever (RCBS 5-0-5). I wanted to try two loads - 3.2 and 3.4 grains of Clays. I loaded the first batch (3.2), then had to do something else, ended up moving the scale around and re-zeroed it. When I set it for 3.4 grains, twisted the bolt on the Dillon powder measure one flat and threw a charge, the beam barely budged from the bottom. It turned out that I had set the scale without double-checking on the first batch, and ended up throwing 2.2 grains rather than 3.2. It could have been a lot worse - I could have been off by a grain in the OTHER direction. (FWIW, the 2.2 grains Clays/160 grain coated RN went about 530 fps, and recoiled about like my Ruger MK II bull barrel with standard velocity ammo.)

Sometimes we make these forehead-slapping (but otherwise harmless) mistakes just to remind ourselves that we're not quite as awesome as we think we are. Worked for me...