Jesse Tischauser Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 (edited) I am loading my 9mm, 115, 124, & 147 at 1.160 which is very close to the 1.169 in the manuals. Knock on wood, it is working just fine in my G34, XDM9 and Beretta 90-Two. Most recipes that I have found on this sight suggest shorter OAL. Is there reason to switch if my gun is running fine and making minimum power factor? Edited August 19, 2009 by jtischauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hi-Power Jack Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I am loading my 9mm, 115, 124, & 147 at 1.160 which is very close to the 1.169 in the manuals. Knock on wood, it is working just fine in my G34, XDM9 and Beretta 90-Two. Most recipes that I have found on this sight suggest shorter OAL. I load the 115 grains at 1.165" but I don't think they'll even fit into the magazine of a non-open gun (my Browing H-P, eg). Are you sure you're not loading to 1.116" instead of 1.16"? That would sound a lot closer to what will feed in my Browning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Is there reason to switch if my gun is running fine and making minimum power factor?To answer your question, NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CocoBolo Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 If your speaking of Round Nose bullet, No reason to change. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If you want to run the pressure up on the load and wear your brass out sooner well shorten them down some. LOL I think the SAMMI length on 9 mm RN is 1.140 and I generally load RN's out to 1.160 for the Wife's CZ 75b and it has the shortest mags and chamber of all the 9 mm's I own. With my Sig226 and 239 I can go longer. Flat Nose and JHP's will need to be shorter, FN's being the shortest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. Manley Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I am loading my 9mm, 115, 124, & 147 at 1.160 which is very close to the 1.169 in the manuals. Knock on wood, it is working just fine in my G34, XDM9 and Beretta 90-Two. Most recipes that I have found on this sight suggest shorter OAL. Is there reason to switch if my gun is running fine and making minimum power factor? Assuming these are RN profile, you'll be just fine. Most factory rounds are right in that area too if you check. You can obviously load shorter but if the rounds chamber fine, feed fine & make PF for you, there's no prevailing reason to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted August 20, 2009 Author Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) I have been loading to 1.160 AOL and they cycle in all 3 guns without any issues. But I said I have been getting the minimum power power factor but that was an assumption come to think of it. I just got a chronograph an I will test my ammo tonight. My guess is that I may not make PF after all and I will have to seat deeper or use more powder or both. Edited August 20, 2009 by jtischauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 I shot my loads last night through a chronograph. They made power factor but didn't hit the target worth a $hit off a rest at 25 yards. I guess i gotta go searching the forums for a better mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now