9mm Major

[jhgtyre]

After reading the posts about the 356 TSW I began thinking about 9mm major loads.  The question I have is can a .223 be cut down to the length of 9x19 brass and used to create major pf loads?  The advantage would be the strength of the case and the large amount of .223 brass I could pick up for free at the range.  Any thoughts?

-jhgtyre

[EricW]

My experience so far with 9mm, is that it is one of the most robust cases around.  I've been running my little compact at about 140 PF (I'm guessing that translates to about 145-150 PF out of a full size gun) and my only case "failure" so far has been one split sidewall.  I've lost count of the number of firings on my 9 brass now.  Whereas my 40 brass is showing abnormal wear and tear after the second firing.  

I know this is totally unscientific, but I'm way more skittish about my 40 blowing up than my 9.  Such efforts to make ultra-strong brass are noble, but I'm not sure it's necessary.  

E

[Carlos]

Yes, it could work. However, there are 2 reasons I can think why its not necesary: 1) the 9mm case can take the 165 PF as is. The use of modern, single base powders like VV or Vectan will deliver safe, relaible 165 velocities using published loads - certainly under European CIP safety limits if not US SAAMI limits 2) case volume would be significantly reduced, causing problems.  In addition, if its anything like my rejected plan to make .45 cases out of .308 Win, you would have to ream each case after shortening because the case mouth would be too thick to accept a bullet.

BTW, I sectioned 3 cases the other night: Starline's 9Supercomp and 38Supercomp appeared identical; a 9x23 Win case was SIGNIFICANTLY thicker. Strong stuff!!

[jhgtyre]

Thanks for the replies guys.  I hadn't thought about loosing all that case volume.  That could be an issue.

I haven't had too many problems with bulged cases in 9mm but I was worried about major PF causing them.  

Thanks,

-jhgtyre

[BrianH]

Just a little factoid....

Jeff Cooper did that many years ago; he got Barsto to make a barrel, cut down .223 cases and it called it Super 9.  I remember seeing that in an AH from 1978 or so.

Something to keep in perspective:  Anything we do, Cooper did 20 - 30 years ago......

[Clark]

I have make 10mm cases out of 30-30 brass on the lathe.

I can get higher pressures, but not higher velocities.

The 10mm case was well designed.

As Carlos says,

Hornady 147 gr HPBT XTP

Vihtavuori 1st edition:9x19mm 4" barrel, 147 gr, 1.142", 6.1 gr 3N37, 1152 fps 36.3kpsi

Vihtavuori 1st edition:9x19mm 4" barrel, 147 gr, 1.142", 5.7 gr 3N37, 1140 fps 36.3kpsi

Vihtavuori 1st edition:9x21mm 4" barrel, 147 gr, 1.161", 6.6 gr 3N37, 1227 fps 42.8kpsi

Vihtavuori 3rd edition:9x19mm 4" barrel, 147 gr, 1.142", 5.2 gr 3N37, 1066 fps max

Vihtavuori 3rd edition:9x21mm 4" barrel, 147 gr, 1.161", 5.5 gr 3N37, 1120 fps max

Majors for the 9mm are book loads, the other 9 yards is the rules.

[rkgsmith]

I just finished reading the Major 9mm will be up for vote at the Nov. BOD meeting. I for one like this cartridge. If they get rid of the 1.250 OAL rule. If they need a rule, how about min. bullet weight of 120 grs. and Min. OAL of 1.175

That would keep the round out of standard 9mm handguns. If your interested in seeing this happen, contact your area director.

[Flexmoney]

I would like to run it (Major 9) in an Open Glock...which means I need OAL of shorter than 1.165.

[BrianH]

If you're comfy with it.  One of the reasons I bailed on the short version of 9X21 was always feeling like I was running the ragged edge of pressures.  Nine years and no explosions, but still, @ a match you don't want to be thinking about your ammo....I got really sick of that.....

[Flexmoney]

Sierra seems to be ok with it.  They list three different book loads that make Major in 9x21 (standard OAL...which is the same as 9mm).

[Patrick Sweeney]

Time for me to remind the BOD of my idea, redefine 9mm Major as something (oh, say, .356 TSW) that can be marketed and that USPSA has as its proprietary cartridge.

Let  the manufacturers that feel their guns are up to it make some, and decalre only those firearms are allowed as 9mm Major.  Glock isn't cool with 9mm Major/.356 TSW?  Then you can't shoot a Glock with it.  S&W is?  Then bring on the 5906's.

We get the shooters and the glory, and avoid/limit the liability exposure.

[Chriss Grube]

Patrick,

That idea creates a whole new caliber and the needed change over of the guns. It would eliminate any cost savings and open a whole new can of worms. In short it is a bad idea! Why reinvent the wheel when there is factory loads and data that show the exisiting stuff will work? With the 165 PF and the newer powders it is safe to make major with the 9mm. You want to talk about over-pressure ammo go test some 115 major loads that are so common theses days.

[BamBam]

Hey guys and gals - I am going to put together another proposal to put before the board at this upcoming November meeting to vote for legal 9mm major with certain stipulation.  I am trying to gather factual information from gun makers and reloading manuals that I can use.  Please send me what you have that I can access and/or print out for a formal presentation.  The goal is to gather facts that prove pressures are safe and/or no different from current legal cartridges, and also to establish criteria that would not allow the bullet to chamber in a production 9mm.  Yes -- I know that second part is silly to some, but its necessary to sell the 9mm major in the USA.  There are those who apparently don't know the golden rule about not firing bullets they find lying around on the ground!  Send me the published supporting documentation at usmcbuddha@adelphia.net

[Flexmoney]

According to my Sierra manual, 9x21 will make Major (165 power factor) with listed loads.

.355 125gr. FMJ

OAL 1.165

These are max loads. Use caution. Work up to them.

1350 fps

Univ. Clays - 6.4g

HS-6 - 8.5g

Viht 3N37 - 7.5g

9mm is the same stuff as 9x21, just has a slightly longer case (9x19mm vs. 9x21mm).  OAL and all other measurements are indentical.  

We can run this in a custom Glock...just as safely as as a custom 1911.  

As for making the rounds long enough for some slak-jawed-yokel to not stick it in his production gun (unsupported chamber)...well, those guns willchamber very long OAL (though they won't feed thru the mags.

[Patrick Sweeney]

The reasons for a proprietary cartridge:

To prevent some yahoo loading up Major in his Inglis parts gun "custom" P-35 and throwing shrapnel across the range.

To shift the burden of liability to the peole who can best determine if their product is up to it.  S&W obviously thinks theirs are, as they have already done it.

To bring new shooters and new sponsors into the sport.  Sig isn't going to be interested in us if they can't get some action out of the new definition of Major.  Nor anyone else.

As for the lure of using cheap brass, the cost of brass is the least expense any of us have.  For the $20-40 a year price difference between 9mm and .38 Super, are we going to go broke.  If it is $100?

And if we want to prevent another equipment race, limit mags used for 9mm Major to 126 mm, or factory standard overall.  If its a 19 round gun, whether 40 or 9, fine.  Choose what feels good to you.

[rkgsmith]

It seems that most shooters have good common sense. For some time now there have been a group of shooters that want the major 9 legal for open class without the silly 1.250 OAL rule. The problem is to convince those who make the rules to use that same common sense. Published loading data from major bullet and powder companies indicate it's safe. I don't ever remember any company publishing data for a .38 super load to push a 115 gr. bullet to 1500+ fps! But at one time that was legal. Go figure.

[BamBam]

There are two arguments against the 9mm major, and quite frankly, they are both embarrassing to hear from people who are supposed to know this game!  The over-pressure argument is silly because none of the other cartridges in Open are restricted in any way; the USPSA doesn't monitor reloading technique so they can't specify a load formula (and would never want to start down that slippery slope anyhow); and the simple fact that the unrestricted 9x21 is "virtually identical" to the 9x19 in every way except length so it becomes a mathematical truth that with more case touching the bullet the 9x21 will always have slightly GREATER pressures than a 9x19 loaded the same way.  I'd also like to see the load/pressure data behind the current legal formula of 9x19 at 175 PF and 1.250" OAL, but I am betting that was simply a made up equation without a lot of science behind it.  Thus it becomes nonsensical to demand such proven scientific research to lower the OAL restriction to correspond in some sensible way to the new lower power factor.  But that is what is happening.  The power factor was officailly lowered and 13,000 shooters can't come up with a way to let the 9x19mm major dimensional restrictions lower, too.

There is also a separate fear that someone might pick up a hot 9mm off the ground and blow up their stock 9mm junker.  So just like with our own government we now have the BOD trying to legislate against plain stupidity!  You might as well ban every bullet from hitting the ground so some trespassing kid doesn't take one home to a fireplace!  Sheeesh!  

So even though we try to run a legitimate sport we now find ourselves crafting unnecessary restrictions to prevent frivilous lawsuits rather than to use science and fact and hold the shooter in some way personally accountable for his own actions.  Ever since that old lady sued McDonalds for a hot cup of coffee the world has been unraveling at the hands of ambulance chasing lawyers.   So we can play their game... or we can play ours the way we know how!  

America is supposed to be the land of the free, so lets  simply post a power factor and minimum diameter and leave it to the shooter to be "responsible" for getting there.  If someone has a reason for shooting 9x19mm major let it be THEIR decision because who are we (each of us) to tell them their reason is not good enough, or their brass can be found cheap enough, or that we know any better than the person making his own decision.  And unless we each reach out now to our area directors before this next board meeting we will allow this unreasonable restriction to continue and lose another piece of our shooting sport forever, the same way our government has been doing it to us for years.... here in the land of the free.  

[soap box mode off]

[Flexmoney]

BamBam,

Well said.

[3quartertime]

Wow,  good stuff BamBam.  I think we have a few members of the BOD posting here now,  I wonder if they will answer your issues.  

This would have been a good post for the hate forum!!!  Sounds like you are venting alittle.  

[Flexmoney]

I'd like to add that I have little interest in a new caliber.  I can run my Glock in Open as 9x21 if I so choose (at SAMMI length).  Going to 9mm saves me brass cost, which is important to me.  And it save me the from having to buy another set of dies and toolhead and such...or having to make extra adjustments to my 9mm dies everytime I want to switch loading from 9x19 to 9x21.

[Patrick Sweeney]

The use of 9mm Major falls into two types of guns:  1911 and 9x19 platforms

For 1911, use the Super.  Loading 9x19 long to fit a 1911 pistol does one thing, and one thing only: save some small amount of money on brass.  For those of us who can get unlimited amoutns of 9x19 free, great.  For everyone else it doesn't save much, and introduces extra reloading rpoblems.

In 9x19 platforms, taking a 9x19 and loading it to Major presents much the same problem that the old .38 Auto and .38 Super presented in 1929.  Safe in a 1911A1, but in a 1902, god help you.

By allowing 9mm Major, but requiring it in a slightly different case, we can get those who want to shooting their G-17 or 34 in major, but they have to either depend on Glock to make one or get a good barrel for the project.  The longer/different case prevents getting major nto a pistol not suited for it.  I'm not thinking so much of someone who might pick up a stray as I am the new shooter who feels they Must Shoot Major to be competitive, and loads for their currently-owned but unsuited for the project 9mm.

Yes, we allow Super and .40 and anything else to be loaded at or beyond current loading levels, but we have been saved by one thing that 9mm Major won't: almost all the pistols those rounds could go into can take the heat.  9mm includes a whole lot of marginal stuff.

Based on previous episodes of jumping in early and getting it wrong, a little reflection on this matter is called for.  And the basic question we should always ask is:

What are we trying to do here?

[Jon Merricks]

I'm hearing allot of talk in using 9x19 in a bunch of different type of guns but I thought that this issue is for Open Division only.  Of course I've only been doing this a short time but I've never seen someone pick up some junk gun out of the safe to shoot open with.  I think this issue is very silly.   So far I have not had to spend a dime on 40 & 45 brass.  Just this year that has saved me hundreds of dollars.  I don't think I'll ever shoot in open but I still think common since cannot be regulated.  Let em shoot 9 in open.

[Patrick Sweeney]

Jon,

The moment the BOD approves 9mm Major for Open, someone will stand up and ask "What about Limited?"  So, get the ducks in a row first, then vote.

[skeeter]

seems silly to me. i can find at lest 2 factory loads that make major out of a glock 17L. so how do they get around banning it?

[BamBam]

Remember, that Limited maintains the separate restriction of a .40" minimum diameter, so no ducks need to be aligned to prevent 9mm major from creeping into Limited.  Besides... all the guys who bought .40 caliber guns and made the .45 obsolete will NEVER give into those same conditions working against them!  [more anger venting?  Hmmmmmm.  HA!]  

However, this is on the table for Open only and a pivitol vote in a couple of weeks.... and the stopping points seem to be high pressure; and how to prevent the hot rounds from winding up in guns that can't take it.   I continue to work towards a solution to both issues.  Among the brain trust available here at the Enos.com sanctuary, I am sure we can solve this to the benefit of all parties involved!  Keep throwing those ideas out there!!  :-)

Skeeter, please let me know where that factory load data is printed so I can gather my facts on paper.