Heavy-weight .224 caliber bullets help make the most out of the .223 Remington at long range.

by Tom Badham

It was an offer I couldn’t refuse. When I walked into the Sand Mountain Shooters Club near Boaz, Alabama, a few weeks ago; I hadn’t the least idea that I would walk out with a slightly used Savage Model 10 BVSS in 223 Remington caliber. With a 24 ounce aftermarket trigger, it sported a Burris Fullfield II 6.5 X 20 scope in Burris Pos-align insert rings on a Leupold base. Also with the rifle came three targets with ridiculously small groups on them. The rifle was on consignment and the price asked was more than reasonable.

The 26 inch stainless fluted barrel had a 1 in 9 inch twist and a long chamber for shooting heavy bullets that could be seated out further than the standard 223 Remington Overall Length of 2.250 inches. Any cartridge longer than 2.260 inches would have to be single loaded since it would not fit in the magazine. I didn’t mind that.

By the time I reached home I’d decided that heavy bullet accuracy tests at 100 yards would be a great project to start the summer. Starting with a 55 grain bullet to use as a base line, I would then work up from there to 80 grains and even try 90 grains if I could find the bullets. Hopefully my new rifle would make me proud.

Due to the relatively small case size of the .223 Rem, chamber pressures can skyrocket past maximum chamber pressures with just the addition of a grain or two of powder and/or a bullet base seated too far into the case. Also ambient temperatures affect the powder burning rate. So, to be on the safe side I’d seat the flat bullet bases to bottom of the case necks and the boat tail bullets would be seated so that just the boat tails protruded past the case necks.

Never forget we are dealing with pressures up to the 55,000 PSI range contained by a thin brass gasket (the cartridge case) that are going off just a couple of inches from the shooter’s tender face. Steam locomotives used to drag great long trains using just two cylinders at 200 PSI (they were great big cylinders, though).

I was going to be seating the bullets farther out than normal, but still using all the case neck to hold the bullet. Looking at the Western Powder 5.0 Reloading Manual and seeing that Western Powders use the latest piezoelectric transducer lab setups to make accurate pressure measurements; I decided to start my testing with their top loads for the 223 Rem. With the bullets seated out, pressures should be a bit less than listed. I also decided not to exceed those loads. Accuracy was the goal, not raw velocity and skyrocketing pressures. I had a suspicion that those loads would also just happen to produce nice little groups.

Note that all the loads listed in this article are safe in my firearm. If you haven’t used any of these loads before, reduce the powder amount by 10% and carefully work upwards. Be extremely aware of high pressure signs and follow all safety procedures.

I happened to have on hand a goodly supply of Accurate 2230 powder, so that would be used. Rummaging through my reloading supplies cabinet I came up with five suitable bullets in different weights for the project. I would load up twenty rounds, chronograph five of them, then shoot three five shot groups with each bullet.

All reloading was done on my little Lee C press, using Lee Competition Dies. My old Lyman No. 55 powder measure metered the powder and the powder weights were checked with a Lyman LE 1000 electronic scale. A Midway dial caliper checked cartridge overall length.

Shooting conditions were good during my range sessions. Light breezes under 10 MPH swirling over the range with temperatures around 80° F. The only problem was the bright sunshine. Looking through the scope set at 20X, I could see some mirage boiling up. That would make things a bit interesting.

First up by weight would be the 55 grain Hornady AMAX Ballistic Tip Flat Base bullets. They would go over 23.5 grains of AA 2230 sparked by Winchester Small Rifle primers in Federal Brass. Overall Cartridge Length with the bullet base seated to the bottom of the cartridge neck averaged 2.375 inches.

According to the WP manual this load’s chamber pressure is 54,210 PSI with a muzzle velocity of 3,209 FPS. My Shooting Chrony© showed an average MV of 3,266 FPS for five shots. Okay, not too shabby for a 26 inch barrel.

Target (1) shows the three targets shot with the 55 grain Hornady AMAX Ballistic Tip Flat base load.

Studying the groups, it seemed that the rifle wanted to shoot really well. Probably with a little variation of the load, I could find what the rifle really liked. Okay, maybe the shooter needs some more practice at the bench with the rifle as well.

Next up was the 60 grain Hornady Hollow Point Flat Base over 23.2 grains of AA 2230, Winchester SRP, Federal Brass and an OAL of 2.260. WP showed the chamber pressure at 54,060 PSI with a muzzle velocity of 3,077 FPS. My Chrony showed an average velocity of 3,091 FPS. Shooting conditions still held good.

I found a box of 68 grain hollow point, flat base bullets from the Starke Bullet Company. They’ve been out of business for years, but I had them so I might as well use them too. I loaded them on top of WP’s suggested load of 23.7 grains of AA 2230 for the 68 grain bullet weight with an OAL of 2.440 inches in Federal brass using Winchester SRP. Chamber pressure for that weight was listed as 54,650 PSI with a muzzle velocity of 2,977 FPS. My Chrony showed a muzzle velocity of 3,100 FPS.

The fourth bullet tested was a 70 grain Berger VLD (Very Low Drag) Hollow Point Boat Tail. At 40¢ a piece, I didn’t want to waste even one of them. The load used was again 23.7 grains of AA 2230, Winchester SRP in Federal brass with an OAL of 2.360 inches. The WP manual showed a muzzle velocity of 2,904 FPS for that bullet weight while my Chrony gave an average of 3,012 FPS.

The heaviest bullet tested was the Sierra 80 Hollow Point Boat Tail. Using 23.1 grains of AA 2230, Winchester SRP, Remington brass (I’d run out of Federal), the cartridge had an OAL of 2.509. The manual indicated a chamber pressure of 54,440 PSI with a muzzle velocity of 2,732 FPS. My Chrony five shot average was a very nice 2,923 FPS. I think the velocity discrepancy might be due to my 26 inch barrel. If WP tested the load’s velocity in a 20 inch AR barrel, that would account for the difference.

My overall impressions are happily favorable. The Savage BVSS is what I wanted: an accurate honest rifle that will shoot sub MOA (under an inch group size at 100 yards) with various types of good ammo in decent shooting conditions. All this shooter has to do is learn not to yank its trigger like trying to start a balky Evenrude outboard motor.

Accurate’s 2230 powder is perfect for all 223 Remington loads. With my Remington 700 I’ve shot it in most of the lighter bullet weights. It is my “go to” powder in 223. Its fine spherical granules meter very accurately through powder measures, while its consistent burning rate can handle all 223 Remington bullet weights with consistent muzzle velocities. I noticed some rather neat things about the powder, bullets and rifle while wringing out the Savage.

First was that once the rifle was sighted in for 55 grain bullets, I didn’t have to adjust the scope at all. I like for my bullet strike to be a little above my aiming point, so I have a clear sight aim point. All the bullet weights hit near the same point of impact. From 55 to 80 grains with three different manufacturers and bullet styles, they all hit close to the same point.

Second is that across the board the load velocities were very similar, as were the charge weights. That probably contributed to the point of point of impact similarity. Consistency is the key to accuracy and this powder has it.

The third thing I noticed was while waiting for my barrel to cool a bit between groups. With a high powered scope, mirage off a hot barrel can be even worse than mirage across the range. So, I carefully feel the barrel from chamber to muzzle making sure that it doesn’t get too hot. If it can’t be comfortably held, it’s too hot. I noticed that the barrel was cool at the chamber, then began getting warmer near the front of the scope and then began to noticeably cool before I reached the muzzle.

I had never before noticed this exact condition. The AA 2230 powder seemed to be completely and efficiently burning inside of the barrel. In reloading I also noticed that the powder charges didn’t fill the case up to the neck, either. So, at least for the heavyweight 223 loads, you are not wasting any powder. In shorter barrels it still would be quite efficient. More powder charges per pound make me happy.

Forming 17AH Brass from 22 Hornets

By Alex Clarke 

Sitting here at my desk wondering how to pass some of the cleanups for mistakes I’ve made in forming  17AH brass from 22 Hornet brass essentially has boiled down to trying to adapt the info from a previous manuscript of mine that appeared in Small Caliber News some years ago on forming 17M4 brass from 221 Fireball stuff.  If a mistake can be made, I’ll usually find a way to make it, so writing things down seems to be a good idea.  Best way to remember anything is to try to teach it to someone else, so here goes.

Essentially, as I went through the process of making the first 17AH brass, I followed the steps I had used for doing the job for my 17M4, just slightly modified.  In both cases, it amounts to getting the cases formed without making a mess of the brass, and then getting the headspace correct.

Cooper’s diminutive M38 action is perfect for small cartridges like the .17 Ackley Hornet.

First, to get your attention, let me describe my good friend and master fox and groundhog hunter Sonny Pruitt’s experience with headspace.  Sonny had come down to our farm to go fox hunting with my cousin Bobby and me.  He was having a torrid affair with a Browning Micro Hunter in 22 Hornet, but when he arrived and saw my little Schnabel stocked Cooper Classic  M38 17AH, I thought I was going to have to wrestle him to get it back.  Long term end result was Sonny buying a TC Contender rifle and a 17AH barrel, the necessary forming dies and a Lee turret press.  He didn’t much like the way the brass came out looking, but another good friend assured him that all of his own newly formed brass looked awful but shot great.  Sonny isn’t a fan of single shot rifles, but was so impressed with his Browning Micro Hunter in 22 Hornet that he and Matt Crowder scoured the internet and found two of these little beauties (and another one for me as a result of another episode of fiscal irresponsibility on my part).  Sonny and Matt both said that their 22Hs shot so well that there was no way that they would become “donors”. The game plan was for Sonny and Matt to have Bob Green convert them to 17AH.  The process was intriguing for me to watch, but I will spare you, just this once.

Sonny had refined his forming technique while he had the Contender 17AH that his brass now looked pretty good.  Unfortunately in his new Bob Green 17AH shooting fairly light loads he was having the cases separate at one of the bends in the 22H brass, leaving about half an inch of the brass in the chamber.  When he walked into my gun playroom, I think could have bought the rifle for $75.  We took some virgin 22H brass and ran it through my die setup and loaded a few pieces of brass with my standard fire-forming load.  Sonny took the rifle outside and shot the bullet into the ground and then demonstrated extracting the piece of the case left inside of the rifle.  (At this point I think I could have bought the rifle for about $50!)

 How could this be?  That round would have shot just fine in my little 17AH that Sonny had admired so.  I was wondering if Sonny had a bad batch of brass.  We reduced the load several times and finally with a much reduced load the case didn’t separate.  Shooting that same load several times in that case finally made it form up with sharp corners.  I was pretty slow on the uptake, but using the Stony Point (now Hornady) Cartridge Base to Shoulder gauge we measured the headspace and found that his chamber was enough longer than mine that it must be a headspace problem.  I carefully marked my dies and turned them out about 10 thousandths and BINGO, with the full forming load, the cases stayed together.  Opened them a little more until the brass was hard to chamber and locked them down.

(Note here that despite the fact that the 22H cartridge is “rimmed” and folks think that it should headspace off of the rim, doing so may cause just the problem that we had with Sonny’s rifle.  Never assume that this is the right way to go as if the shoulder is pushed too far back it will overwork the cases at the shoulder and quickly result in case failure, or give the results we were having with separation on the first shot !)

The resulting brass and load in this rifle caused a sudden increase in Sonny’s demeanor,  major increase in the bux it would take to pry it out of his hands, and a rifle that is scary accurate.  Sonny went on the next year to kill 150+ groundhogs with this super piece, and the rifle has assumed “legendary” status.

With this introduction, let’s go into the particulars for acquiring and setting up to make the brass.

The very first thing you want to do is “detail” the cases.  This means you at least deburr the flash holes while the brass is still at 22 cal.  I sometimes leave uniforming the primer pockets until after the first firing.

Refer to the list at the end of this article for what you need.  Admittedly, it is a Cadillac list, and reference to the archives of Saubier.com will let you know that some guys (Daryl and/or Alan from Georgia) can form 17AH brass from 22H in just one pass through their 17AH FL die, something I have never been able to do.

Since I have both 17AH and 17M4 rifles, and occasionally have fits of fiscal irresponsibility, when I bought my first 17M4 I also bought a turret press made by Fred Moreno of Sharp Shooter’s Supply.  This handy little 3 stage press is a variation of the Lee turret press, using the Lee holders and licensed by Lee. I don’t think it is available any more, but Sonny has had good luck with the Lee version.  Using it allows you to set up the dies once and never have to do more than just put the holder for the particular caliber dies in the press and go to work.  Using a single stage press is almost as good, provided that you get the dies set once and lock the ring nuts in place.

First, set each die in the press, put the shell holder in the ram and bring the ram to the top of the stroke.  Screw the each of the dies down to contact with the shell holder, and back it off an eighth turn (the standard thread on dies is 7/8 x 14), or 0.009″, and tighten the locking ring down barely finger tight, so that after you tighten the locking ring set screw you can still remove the die from the press.

What do the dies do?  The Form die makes the first reduction in the neck diameter, and the Trim die makes the second.  Both may also move the shoulder back some.  The trim die can also be used to “trim the cases to length” by inserting the case and using a file to shorten the case to length. Supposedly you don’t file the die as well as the case.  The Full Length die makes the final reduction in the neck size, sets the shoulder back into the correct position, and forms the body to the correct shape.  In this particular case of first forming, the FL die does little other than setting the shoulder back to its final position and reduces the size of the neck.

Then, either lube the cases with Imperial Die Wax if you are going immediately into production (just a wee bit of wax on your fingers, no more than just tapping the wax in the little can with your finger), or if you are going to go into a major production, use Lee wax from a tube (this is a repackaged deep draw lubricant that dries overnight, which you can put a touch of inside the mouth of the cartridge case to lube the expanding button on the FL die).  The Lee lube dries over night and is super slick, but does not interact with the powder when you charge the case.

The progression from .22 Hornet to .17AH.

With the dies you have just adjusted and the brass you have lubed, start with the Form die.  You may have had to put the extended shell holder in the press, depending on which manufacturer’s die you are using.  Run 2 or 3 cases through the form die.  Check to make sure they aren’t too deformed, as too much or not enough wax can cause a problem (only with Imperial Die wax, but not with the Lee lube unless you don’t let it dry).

Put the Trim die into the press and repeat the process (or just rotate the shell holder in the turret press to the next position).

And last, run the brass through the FL die.

Carefully chamber the resulting piece of brass.  The bolt may not close.  If it does not, turn the FL die in as little as 1/32 of a turn and run the piece of brass through the die again.  Continue this until the test piece of brass allows the bolt to close with just a touch of resistance.  Note here that this means just a touch more resistance than if closed with no brass in the chamber.  When you find that sweet spot put a piece of cellophane tape on the base of the test piece of brass and the bolt should close with effort , or maybe not close at all (DON’T FORCE IT!) as the cellophane tape has a thickness of about 2 thousandths.

But suppose the bolt closed easily with the set of adjustments it was set with at first.  Go back and turn all of the dies out another 1/8 turn and repeat the process with a second set of brass.  This should certainly be long enough that you should be able to get the dies set to that sweet spot that they are allowing the bolt to close with just a touch or resistance more than with an empty chamber.

Last scenario is if you have screwed all of the dies down tight against the case holder and they won’t let the bolt close.  You will need to take a shell holder to your favorite smith and have him remove about 10 thou from the base of the dies or the top of the shell holder.

Note also here that you must always use the same shell holder.  They vary as much as 10 thousandths from manufacturer to manufacturer and almost as much within individual manufacturers.

Last step is to trim the case length, chamfer the outside of the mouth and bevel the inside.

At this point, make a run of 5 cases, load them with a STARTING load from a reliable source, seat the bullet just off of the lands and shoot a test target.  If you’ve done everything right and have the headspace adjusted properly, the cases should form perfectly.

The starting load may not be hot enough, however, and if the outside of the case is “smoked” and/or the angles aren’t fairly sharp, you need to increase your initial loads.  AA-1680 is dense enough that the form load and the hunting load may be the same.  Regardless, in my guns the forming load is as accurate as the full load.  If this is the case for your gun (it is for mine and that of several of the 17AH guys hereabouts) there is no reason not to just load the first batch of unfired cases and take them hunting.   Click here for 17 Ackley Hornet Data:  17 Ackley Hornet Loads

Be safe!  Shoot carefully!  Have fun!

Alex Clarke

6/24/15

I know cases can be expensive, but none cost as much a trip to a gunsmith or a ruined hunting trip. Discard suspicious brass. You will be money ahead in the long run.

Last week, a friend of ours brought in a rifle that had suffered a head separation. When manuals caution handloaders to monitor cartridges for incipient head separation, this is the event they are trying to prevent. Suffering a head separation can do more than end a hunting trip, which it does very well; it can also damage the rifle by allowing high-pressure gas to cut the chamber making extraction more difficult. The cause is almost always old, well-used brass.

In the case of our friend, this was his second trip into our shop for his .270 Winchester this year. The first had involved a cartridge head stamped .30-03 which was the original chambering for the 1903 Springfield and discontinued in 1906. No one could have seen trouble on the horizon with that one. The more current problem occurred with a comparatively newer Winchester Super Speed case that was still old enough to have voted for Nixon.

In both instances, the cartridges had exhibited the bright line ahead of the cartridge web that signals incipient separation. Case head separation is caused by the firing and resizing process which requires the case to stretch and then be re-compressed. Full-length sizing works the brass more that neck sizing by pushing the shoulder back to allow for easy chambering at the cost of more case stretch as it re-fills the chamber back to its headspace dimension.

The point of stretch is located above the solid web of the case, which when cut open, reveals a well-defined thinner ring. This ring will eventually become the fracture point of a case head separation. When the head separates, it can be very hard to remove, especially in the field.

My favorite way to remove the case body from a chamber is to use Cerrosafe. If you don’t have this in your stock of gun supplies, it is well worth purchasing. It is sold in ingots that look like a cross between lead and solder. With a melting point of between 158° to 190° F., Cerrosafe melts in boiling water in the same manner as paraffin or chocolate. During the first 30 minutes if cooling, it shrinks and then returns to 100% of its cast size within an hour. Gunsmiths and shooters use it to determine chamber dimensions and access the quality of a reamer’s cut. It also does a great job removing a headless case.

To remove the case, push a patch into the bore ahead of the case mouth. It is only necessary to seal the bore, not block it to the point that it is difficult to move the patch. The rifle steel will cool the Cerrosafe very quickly preventing it from running.

Melting with water is probably safer, but is a real inconvenience in a machine shop. Like most, we used a torch to heat the Cerrosafe until it ran freely. Once melted, it was carefully poured into the chamber with the muzzle pointing downward. After a few minutes a rod was used from the muzzle end to gently tap out the case and the chamber casting.

Once cleared and cleaned, another casting should be made of the chamber to check for any damage caused by gas cutting from the failed case. If you have a bore scope, it should also be used to make sure no permanent damage has been done to the chamber.

Case head separations are just part of handloading, but they can be avoided by thorough case examination after each firing. The visible bright line that shows a case head is about to fail is more easily seen on cleaned brass, so make sure to inspect the brass once it has emerged from the tumbler. I know cases can be expensive, but none cost as much a trip to a gunsmith or a ruined hunting trip. Discard suspicious brass. You will be money ahead in the long run.

Shooting a paper-patched bullet in your inline muzzleloader, using Blackhorn 209 powder behind it, opens up a whole new way to shoot your rifle. Your .50 caliber muzzleloader can shoot a 500 to 550 grain paper-patched bullet and in some very fast twist muzzleloader you can even shoot up to a 700 grain bullet. A .45 caliber inline muzzleloader can shoot a 325 to 400 grain paper-patched bullet .

Paper-patching Adds a New Dimension to In-Line Muzzleloaders

By Roger Johnson

My name is Roger Johnson. I am a retired Registered Nurse living in rural northwestern Nebraska. My hobby for many, many years has been building and shooting muzzleloaders. I have used all the different types of bullets a muzzleloader can shoot. I always used black powder as it was the most accurate and reliable powder out there for muzzleloaders until Blackhorn 209 came along.
All my muzzleloaders are fast twist with side locks, except one. I had an inline built for my youngest son by Smokeless Muzzleloader Inc. It is a 1 in 32″ twist and made for saboted bullets. My sidelocks all use the Mag-Spark Nipple system. Mag-Spark is a sidelock nipple that holds a 209 shotgun primer. This nipple allows me to use Blackhorn 209 powder in all of myside locks. Blackhorn 209 is as accurate consistently, as real black powder. The best thing about it is that you don’t have to clean between shots
You will see by my chronograph results that Blackhorn powder had only a slight variation in velocity from shot-to-shot. Those loads were done using poured volume and not weighing each charge. The other black powder substitutes are not going to be mentioned in this article as I feel they are not even close to real black powder or Blackhorn 209 powder in any way.

PAPER PATCHED BULLETS, BLACKHORN 209 POWDER AND THE INLINE MUZZLELOADER.

Shooting a paper-patched bullet in your inline muzzleloader, using Blackhorn 209 powder behind it, opens up a whole new way to shoot your rifle. Your .50 caliber muzzleloader can shoot a 500 to 550 grain paper-patched bullet and in some very fast twist muzzleloader you can even shoot up to a 700 grain bullet. A .45 caliber inline muzzleloader can shoot a 325 to 400 grain paper-patched bullet .
These bullets put your .50 caliber muzzleloader in the same class of gun as the .50/90 Sharps straight. With an inline .45 caliber rifle, you are in the same class as the .45/70 or .45/120. Here are the benefits of shooting paper-patched bullets in your inline:

1. Now you can cast, or as I do, swage your own bullets and shoot for a lot less cost.

2. They are very easy to load and are very reliably accurate.

3. They are hard hitting and can be used at much longer ranges.

4. You can now afford to use your inline to just have fun; target shooting out to 500 yards and beyond. Shooting store bought ammo is too expensive for most of us to use for target shooting. Making your own paper-patched bullets brings the cost way down.

HOW TO PAPER-PATCH BULLETS – A FEW POINTS

I’m going to use stats assuming everyone’s .50 and .45 caliber rifles are true .50 and .45 caliber bores. I know this won’t always be true and that all guns vary. Every one of mine does. You will have to adjust the size of the bullet to be wrapped with paper to match the top of the lands bore size of your gun.

1. The bullet size will be .492″ for the .50 caliber and .440″ to .441″ for the .45 caliber.

2. For those of you with .50 caliber 1 in 28″ twist rifles, use a bullet at least 530 grains in weight and up to 550 to 570 grains. If your rifle is a 1 in 32″ twist .50 caliber, use a 500 to 530 grain bullet.

3. If your rifle is a .45 caliber with a 1 in 28″ twist use a 325 grain to a 400 grain bullet.

4. There are a few .50 caliber inlines out there that are 1 in 22″ twist . You will have to use at least a 600 grain bullet and a 700 grin bullet will usually shoot very well in your gun also. The lighter weight ones are too small to be accurate in that fast a twist.

5. If you have a .45 in a faster twist that 1 in 28″, all the better. There are a lot of moulds for the .45 out there. I have one .45 in 1 in 18″ twist. I shoot a 500 grain bullet in that one and it drives tacks at any range.

6. Use a push through reducing die to downsize the bullet you mould to the size you want. A push through reducing die cost about 30 dollars to make and is money well spent.

7. Your bullet can be a smooth sided bullet or it can be a grease- grooved cast bullet. It can be cupped based or flat based. They will all shoot one as good as the other.

There are two ways to paper patch a bullet:

A. THE DOUBLE WRAP SYSTEM.
B. THE CHASE SINGLE WRAP SYSTEM.

FOR THE DOUBLE WRAP SYSTEM, I use #9 all wood fiber paper. There is no need to go to the extra expense of 25 percent cotton paper in this weight. Also do not wet wrap the bullet. You can wrap it real tight around the bullet with two wraps without wetting the paper, so dry wrap only. The paper to be wrapped around the bullet can be rectangular in shape or cut at a 45 degree angle on the ends. I’ve shot both and they both shoot well. You don’t have to use #9 paper for the double wrap, thinner works as well as thicker as long as the finished size of the wrapped bullet goes down your barrel easily but not sloppily. You want it to stay on the powder once it is seated. It should never go down the barrel hard either.
The best way to cut the papers is to make a template out of plastic the thickness of a credit card. Use a ruler and a pen to lay out the lines and cut it out with a good pair of scissors. Make sure your paper is long enough over the base of the bullet so you can grip it easily to twist the tails tight. Also you might want to buy a pair of curved blade cuticle scissors as this blade allows cutting closer to the base than straight bladed scissors.

Always use a fiber or poly wad between powder and the base of the bullet. Mine are .060″ thick. I used to buy them from Buffalo Arms, but now I cut my own with a cutter I bought from that same company.
You can lube or not lube your bullets. I lube some and others I don’t. They both seem to shoot the same. Lee Alox is the best lube if you’re going to lube. It doesn’t soak into the paper but just coats it nicely and dries on the paper’s surface.

THE CHASE SINGLE WRAP SYSTEM For this system I use the same diameter bullets as I would for the double wrap system. The only difference is I use thicker paper and go around the bullet only once. I wrap as I load.
The paper shape is rectangular and it is just long enough to fold over on to the base about ¾ of the way across it. To use this system, put the paper on the bullet and fold the ends onto the base. Place the wrapped bullet in the muzzle on top of a fiber or poly wad. The wad and the bullet will go down onto the powder together. The wad under the base of the bullet will hold the paper onto the bullet. I use 20 pound computer paper, 18 pound artist paper or poly coated freezer wrap. My .50 caliber bores are of different sizes so I use the paper that works best for the gun I’m shooting that day. My bullet remains a .492″ for the .50 caliber.

HERE ARE SOME STATS I PUT TOGETHER WITH PAPERPATCHED BULLET, BLACKHORN 209 POWDER IN MY GUNS USING A CHRONOGRAPH.

.45 caliber, 1 in 30″ twist, 30 inch barrel, 335 grain bullet, .440 diameter single wrapped bullet, 80 grains by volume Blackhorn 209 powder, .060″ poly wad and magspark 209 primer ignition. This load developed 1600 fps as it left the barrel.

.45 caliber 1 in 18″ twist, 36 inch barrel, 486 grain .440″ double wrapped bullet, 80 grains of Blackhorn 209 powder by volume with a .060″ poly wad between bullet and powder using a Mag-Spark primer ignition system. This load produces 1376 fps. as it leaves the barrel.

.50 caliber 1 in 23″ twist, 31 inch barrel, 670 grain .492″ single wrapped bullet, 80 grains by volume of 209 powder created 1200 fps.
.50 caliber Inline 1 in 32″ twist, 28 inch barrel, 500 grain .492″ double wrapped bullet, 90 grains of Blackhorn 209 powder measured 1458 fps at the muzzle.

.45 caliber 1 in 28″ twist, 24 ¾ inch barrel, using a 335 grain .440″ double wrapped bullet that was then down sized to .438″ so it would fit this tighter bore. 80 grains of 209 powder produced 1600 fps. 90 grains of 209 powder produced 1750 fps. 100 grains of 209 powder produced 1870 fps. 110 grains of powder produced 1970 fps.

These are all good for hunting; the .45 caliber for deer and antelope and the .50 for deer, antelope and everything else in North America.

If you want to contact me you can look up pineridgeblackpowder.com. You can find there how to contact me and feel free to ask me any questions you want. I like sharing information. We can talk by phone or email, whatever way is best for you.

Have fun, be safe and contact me for any question. Also please post your success on this Blackhorn 209 powder blog so the rest of us can learn and enjoy what you have done.
Thank you,  Roger V. Johnson

Cooper Arms M38 Custom Classic.

Handloading the 17 Ackley Hornet

By Alex Clarke

Click Here to download data for the 17 AH.  17 Ackley Hornet Loads

Last week I wrote about forming the .17 Ackley Hornet, but how about reloading the fireformed cases? Here I use Wilson dies with an arbor press. The neck sizing die requires a bushing. Daryl from the Saubier.com Small Caliber board (prime guru of the 17AH) uses .190″ for WW brass and .188″ for RP brass. I usually use 1 to 2 thousandths larger bushings. Too tight a neck may cause the tip of the bullet to be “dimpled”, causing it to be seated just enough differently for accuracy to be jeopardized as a slight difference in the dimple will make a major difference in the seating depth. The bushings are cheap enough that I recommending ordering 0.190, 0.191 and 0.192″, as the cost of shipping a single bushing is almost as much as the bushing itself.

Remember that you may need to clean and uniform the primer pockets. I use an electric screwdriver with the primer pocket uniforming tool (from Sinclair). You should also trim the brass to the proper length, especially after fireforming the brass.

I have added a micro adjusting head to my Wilson seating die, as it lets making changes in the seating depth when changing bullet types or manufacturer much easier. Normally start by seating the bullets just off the lands, but seat Hornady Vmax bullets into the lands 5 to 10 thousands, but not so deep that when you have to unload an unfired round it gets stuck in the barrel. The results of this is a chamber and an action full of powder. Not something you will enjoy while hunting. Take along a 1/16″ dowel rod to remove the stuck bullet. Do not try to use your cleaning rod! A workaround if you do have to remove the unfired round with the bullet seated long is to aim the rifle straight up while openning the bolt, something I never remember to do. Once when unloading my 17M4 and dumping the power throughout the chamber, I spent the rest of the hunt sharing cousin Bobby’s 257 Roberts. Shooting the first round off the top of the pickup cap, that sucker almost launched off the tail gate.

Micro Seater

Powder Choices

You should download the Western Powders load manual and look at the powder recommendations for the the 17HH. Several good choices are there, with AA1680 being the one most often chosen for the 17AH. It is sometimes very hard to find, but the others may be the only ones availalble. AA2200 seems to be the second choice of the lot. VV-N120 is the choice of many folks, but has become as scarce as hen’s teeth. In all cases start low and go up no more than 0.2 grains at a time. The 17HH has top loads of about 1 grain less than the 17AH, but be very careful about going higher than that.

In my Cooper M38 17AHs, with the 20 gr. Vmax, 12.6 gr of AA1680 is the a good but dirty choice for both the forming and final loads. 12.0 gr of N-120 is the max load with this bullet, and is just at the edge of being too hot. I would drop back to 11.8 or so.

Note well, that the loads mentioned here seemed safe in my rifles, with my components on the days I was shooting my them. They could be extreme overloads in your rifle, as different batches of powder may be extremely different, could be mislabeled, or your rifle may have sufficiently different specifications that could cause a problem that would result in damage to the rifle or injury or worse to you or bystanders. Start at the recommended “starting” load and work up at no more than 2 tenths of a grain. When using a load from a publication not by the powder manufacturer, reduce the published load by 20% and work up.

Do not fail to obey this admonition nor those in the Western Powders Load Manual!

AMC

Vintage Norman Rockwell recalls a simpler time and a friendly officer armed with the .38 Special.

By Jim Waddell

It’s still here.  The .38 Special is not only not dead, it’s beginning to resurge in popularity as the number of American citizens seeking concealed carry permits continues to rise.

In 1899 both the Navy and the Army placed orders to Smith and Wesson for several thousand Model 1899 Hand Ejector revolvers chambered for the .38 Long Colt cartridge, the caliber in use at the time.  With this order the Hand Ejector Model became known as the .38 Military and Police Model.  At the same time, reports coming in from the Philippines from military personnel said the .38 Long Colt was ineffective.  Smith and Wesson’s response was the introduction of a new chambering with a slightly longer case called the .38 Smith & Wesson Special (.38 Special).  The new cartridge featured a heavier 158 grain bullet and an increased powder charge from 18 to 21 grains of black powder.

Smith and Wesson 1899 Hand Ejector.

In 1902, the .38 Military and Police (2^nd Model) was introduced featuring substantial changes.  These included major modifications and simplification of the internal lockwork and the addition of a locking underlug on the barrel to engage the previously free-standing ejector rod.  Barrel lengths were 4, 5, 6 and 6.5 inches with a rounded butt.  Serial numbers for the Military and Police ranged from number 1 in the series to 20,975.  Most of the early M&P revolvers chambered in .38 Special appear to have been sold to the civilian market.  By 1904, S&W was offering the .38 M&P with a rounded or square butt with 4, 5 or 6.5 inch barrels.

A small police department near my home still has about 20 of the early M&P models still in the inventory.

Designed at the end of the black powder era, the .38 Special was intended to be a charcoal-burner, a fact attested to by its rather large powder capacity.  Its popularity took off so fast the gun manufacturers produced it in its original form and never looked back.

The .38 Special enjoyed this high popularity practically from its beginning clear up until the early to mid- 1980’s when its popularity began to decline, not because of its ballistic inferiority but because law enforcement firearms trainers and administrators were coming to realize the six- shot revolver was being defeated in gun battles at an ever increasing rate.

More and more bank and other robberies were being committed by multiple suspects, often armed with high capacity semi-auto handguns.   In addition, semi-auto rifles were becoming more popular among modern day outlaws.  One, two or even three responding police officers, armed with six-shot revolvers were no match for two or more suspects with military style assault rifles.

Just a few of the many bullet styles available for the .38 Special.

This could lead to the often heated and long lasting debate over which is the superior cartridge for defense purposes, the .38 Special or the 9mm Luger (9×19 as its known in Europe).  I will not subject myself or Western Powders to a barrage of nasty or hateful letters by declaring one or the other is better.  In most factory loadings the 9mm will edge the .38 in velocity numbers but one has to realize the 9 shoots lighter bullets for the most part.  Heavier bullets tend to penetrate better and the .38 enjoys a much wider variety of bullet styles, some with a flat meplat and sharp corners (semi-wadcutter style) that will cut and chop its way through tissue, creating a more devastating wound channel.  The 9mm or any bullet intended for use in an autoloader must have a more rounded type of bullet nose to ensure proper cycling and functioning.  This bullet style tends to push its way through tissues, creating less permanent damage in the wound channel.  There are countless tales of suspects being hit by multiple round nose bullets to the torso who kept on doing dastardly deeds long enough to take other’s lives before going down for the count.

The 158 gr. “FBI Load” has proven to be a potent fight stopper

In potential stopping power we can give the edge to the .38 Special, IF, and it’s a big if, the proper bullet is used.  If one were to rely on the age old 158 grain, round nose bullet, it has no advantage over any of the 9mm loadings.  This was about the only loading available in factory ammunition for decades until in the late 1960’s, ammunition makers such as Super Vel  (now defunct) and Remington revolutionized handgun ammunition by coming out with lighter weight, copper jacketed bullets with a hollow or soft point.

Problem solved. This bullet, built to function like big game hunting bullets will do the trick.  It will zip inside the torso of the bad guy, expand like a hunting bullet and put him down like he was hit in the head with a hammer……….  Not so fast.

Back when these light expanding bullets were coming out it was generally agreed upon by ammunition makers and ballisticians, these bullets needed to hit their targets at a minimum of 1000 feet per second to expand reliably.   And the term “reliably” can be elusive.

With most big game bullets traveling at 2.5 to 3 times faster than these pistol bullets, terminal performance is almost a sure thing.  Now we have these lighter weight bullets traveling fast enough to expand, however as usually happens in the world of guns and shooting, to get something you have to give up something.  In this case it is penetration.  It doesn’t matter how well the bullet expands into a beautiful mushroom configuration; if it doesn’t reach the vitals, it’s useless.

Hunters of dangerous game in Africa have realized this for years.   Those pursuing Cape Buffalo and elephant have mostly given up using expanding bullets in their large caliber rifles in favor of solid bullets, realizing the importance of getting it to the vitals.

Ruger’s LCR, complete with laser sight, typifies the new breed of .38 Special self defense pistols.

There were countless reports of suspects being hit with 110 or 125 grain jacketed hollow point .38 Specials that kept fighting after solid hits to the torso.  Mostly these cases were in colder weather climates where heavier clothing such as multiple layer shirts or jackets were being worn.  The bullets were performing as designed, they just expanded too early and in some cases didn’t even make it through the clothing.   If the bullet doesn’t penetrate to the vital organs, it won’t stop the fight.

My own experience with the .38 Special started when I was 17 which was over 45 years ago.  I joined the local sheriff’s department’s cadet program.  We were invited to attend one of the monthly pistol qualifications that each deputy had to attend to keep his job.  Having had experience with long guns this was my first exposure to handguns.  A long and interesting career in law enforcement followed.

At this time in history, police sidearms in the United States, with a few exceptions, was the six-shot revolver.  Primarily it was the .38 Special.  The .357 Magnum was carried by many officers but few agencies issued guns in that caliber, so it was the .38 that was the premier caliber, which it had been since early in the 20^th century.

I started with a four-inch barreled Smith & Wesson Model 15.  Oddly enough, the only other .38 Specials I’ve owned over the years was a two-inch Colt Cobra and a Smith & Wesson K-38 I bought to shoot in police pistol competition.  After the first year, I sent it to Bill Davis of the Davis Service Company who installed a one inch bull barrel with a Bo-Mar rib.  I asked him to put a gold bead on the front sight blade for more accurate shooting at the 50 yard line where we had time to aim and shoot single action.

Most of the .38 Special ammunition I loaded and shot over the years I did so from a variety of .357 revolvers.

The elegant S&W Model 15.

Having loaded my own ammunition since I got my first boyhood shotgun, I made it a practice to purchase a set of loading dies to accompany any gun purchase-if I didn’t already own a set.  So with that first Model 15, I started assembling a few hundred 38 cases I had scrounged off the sheriff’s department gun range.  This being circa 1967, the only commercially made bullets available to handloaders in .38 caliber were 148 grain wadcutters or 158 grain lead roundnose or lead semi-wadcutters.

It was right about this time, Speer Bullets came out with a copper jacketed semi-wadcutter.  The shank of the bullet was encased in copper that ended where the bullet was crimped.  The exposed portion was a rather hard, lead alloy.  This bullet came in two styles, the flat point semi-wadcutter that weighed 160 grains and the hollow point version that weighed 146 grains.  To my knowledge, these bullet designs were probably the most effective at putting down game or adversaries of any other bullet weight or style, then or now.  Sadly though, Speer discontinued these bullets last year.

Even after the lighter, jacketed soft and hollow points came out, bullets that traveled faster and looked sexier, (as in Remington’s SJHP that had a scalloped copper jacket) none of these newer bullets could be counted on to penetrate enough to do its job reliably and consistently.  The older Speer numbers did pass the penetration test and expand or not, their design would normally create a larger permanent wound channel.

Most of the commercial bullet makers such as Sierra, Hornady, Speer and Nosler are producing a large variety of .38 caliber jacketed, expanding bullets.  They can be had in 110, 125, 135, 140, 145, 150 and 158 grains.  The heavier ones, although slower in velocity and less likely to open up, will penetrate deeper than the lighter ones.  If you want to go even heavier there are jacketed bullets weighing 170 grains and maybe even higher.  These are designed primarily for silhouette shooting in the .357 Magnum and also for use in the .357 Maximum.

The little known MTR-8 in .38 Special.
http://matebafan.com/mtr8.html

Going back to lead bullets, many long-time .38 Special fans have been using cast bullets for decades.  They are still a favorite among many, including several popular gun writers.  If you prefer to cast your own bullets, there are molds from RCBS and Lyman that give unlimited choices in bullet weights and designs and you can decide on what hardness factor you want and adjust your lead to tin/antimony mixture.  Some use gas checks that will allow for loading hotter powder loads for higher velocity.

Shot loads for a .38 Special are a god-send in snake country. 

Using moderate loadings with lead semi-wadcutter bullet designs are coming back into popularity, as these bullet and load combinations were the odds-on favorites of rural lawmen and hunters who carried these guns daily and who expected to have to use them at any time for duty or for taking 4 footed grocery items.

For those who prefer to purchase lead bullets commercially, Hornady and Speer offer them as well as Oregon Trail, Belt Mountain and several other companies who specialize in lead bullets.  These bullets, driven by moderate loads of Accurate #2 and #5 and Ramshot’s True Blue make for a nice, comfortable load that won’t leave you defenseless should you get awakened in the middle of the night by an uninvited guest.

I would like to make clear the .38 Special, or any handgun for that matter, is not my first choice for a home defense weapon.  It’s still a good pump shotgun with a short barrel filled with large pellet bird shot or buckshot depending on personal preference.  You increase your hit potential in low light with this weapon.  With birdshot loads such as #4 or #6, in the short distance of a normal room in a house, they are just as effective as the bigger stuff but with a little bonus.  They are less likely to penetrate interior walls to strike family members who may be in other rooms of the house.  That said, my handgun will be right there also.

The Smith and Wesson Model 52, a semi-auto target pistol in .38 Special wadcutter.

Plated bullets are relatively new on the shooting scene but are making a favorable impression on shooters of both autoloaders and revolvers.  They don’t leave as much residue as lead bullets which makes gun cleaning easier, they are far less expensive than conventional jacketed bullets but should still be loaded to moderate velocities as the copper plating will peel if driven too fast.

Some shooters, mostly ones who favor a semi-auto, balk at the .38 claiming it has all that wasted powder space.  With modern powders, they claim, sufficiently powerful loads can be had with much less case capacity.  I won’t argue that point other than to say the .38 Special with its larger case capacity, gives the handloader more options for choosing powder.  One of the things I enjoy most about handloading is experimenting with different powders.

As I mentioned earlier, we are seeing an increase in handgun sales.  I believe this is mostly due to the increased numbers of citizens obtaining permits for concealed carry.   With the increase in gang activity in some areas, school shootings, mass shootings in theaters, churches and other places, there are more and more people looking to defend themselves.  As someone said, the average response time for police after a 9-1-1 call is 25 minutes. The response time of a .38 Special round is 900 feet per second.  Click here for a complete list of Western Powders’ .38 Special data:  38 Special and Plus P data

The resurgence of the .38 Special I believe is that some shooters, both experienced and novice, prefer a revolver over a semi-automatic pistol.  The perception that wheelers are easier to operate and less troublesome is real to lots of folks and when they choose a small frame, 5 or 6 shot revolver, the only realistic choice is the .38 Special.

Powder migration within large cases by small charges of powder accounts for many unexpected problems experienced with reduced loads. Be aware that loads using small charges often exhibit different pressures created by changing powder orientation within the cartridge.

A look at powder position and its effect on pressure within cartridges

All powders exhibit some form of positional sensitivity within a cartridge. SAAMI recognizes this by publishing strict guidelines governing the testing of ammunition. These guidelines are intended to control powder position within a cartridge by orienting it to generate the highest pressures for a given load.

SAAMI guidelines for testing require that the loaded cartridge be twirled slowly end over end to loosen the powder within the case. It is then carefully oriented with the primer end down to settle the powder rearward within the case. The technician then inserts it into the test barrel, being careful not to move the powder forward and away from the primer. This powder-rear orientation produces the highest pressure and velocity for that load combination and provides the baseline for published data.

Cartridges filled to near the top of the seated bullet have very little room for powder migration within the case, making them relatively immune to powder orientation caused pressure changes. This is one of the reasons that fuller cases have lower standard deviations. If that same cartridge is loaded with a faster powder, perhaps one that only fills 70 percent of the available case volume, powder may become oriented away from the primer which will reduce pressure and velocity. The ability for powder to migrate throughout a case is a major cause of higher standard deviations between shots.

In Handguns
Positional sensitivity is increased by unused case volume. Older cartridges designed to work with black powder and at low maximum pressures are the ones most commonly affected by this problem. The .45 Colt and .38 Special are two that fall into this category and both can have real powder position issues with lighter loadings.

Our lab was contacted by a shooter who was looking for loads in his .38 Special that would operate in the 450-500 fps range from a Ruger Vaquero using very small (he referred to them as economical) charges of very fast powder and light bullets. His goal was to create an inexpensive competition load he could use in the local cowboy action shoot. He suggested using a load far below our starting loads and wondered if it was safe. The answer was no. It was unsafe. Here is why:

A pistol carried muzzle down in a holster orients powder forward against the bullet, a situation that creates the least pressure for a bullet/powder combination. As the pistol is raised to eye level its powder charge remains forward. If the round is already under-pressured by design, it has now been subjected to an orientation that further reduces pressure. Muzzle velocity may drop to zero, as the bullet fails to emerge from the barrel.

Published data is provided with a powder-rearward orientation and the load range is calculated by regression using the maximum SAAMI pressure guidelines. The regression is based on a safe reduction of that pressure accounting for potential shifts in pressure produced by individual firearm characteristics and by positional issues that may be created by the lowered charge weights. Going beneath them risks a stuck bullet and a trip to the gunsmith.

Always treat the lowest (and especially untested lower charges) with skepticism until they prove safe in your personal handgun. There is no corner to be cut here; light loads can lead to stuck bullets. Test them carefully.

Avoiding Powder Position Issues in Handguns
Overcoming positional issues with handgun loads is not difficult, but may require a bit of research. The best solution is look for loads that come closest to filling the case up to the base of a seated bullet. When researching load data, watch for powders that have a lower bulk density like Accurate #2. This powder has BD of .635 and fills more case volume than denser powders using the same charge weight. It is a very good choice for reduced pistol loads in the .38 Special and 45 Colt cartridges.

Fillers in Pistol Cartridges
The use of fillers like Puff-Lon or Dacron usually produces higher pressures in loads that were developed by handloaders without a buffer in place. Remember, powder orientation within the case has probably run somewhere between the minimum and maximum pressure positions. Cartridges are usually stored bullet down, loaded in a revolver with the muzzle aimed downward and then brought up to eye level to fire. Each of these scenarios indicates that the powder will be orientation forward, reducing pressure and velocity. Using a buffer will force the powder rear-ward and raise the pressure potential for that combination as well as adding additional mass to the projectile.

If it is your decision to use a filler like Dacron or Puff-Lon, it important to work up loads with those components in place. Don’t try to save a step and take a pet load and add a filler to the mix. Be smart, reduce the load and work it up like you would any other handload, watching for pressure signs. When done properly, good fillers can substantially reduce standard deviations in cartridges like the .45 Colt.

Position Sensitivity in Rifles
In rifles, the two most common areas for positional issues lie with the older blackpowder cartridges and with reduced loads for large calibers. In both instances, small charges of powder within large cases can produce several distinct and reproducible pressures curves. These pressure changes are directly linked to powder orientation within the cartridge itself.

We used the .45-70 Government loaded with Blackhorn 209 to test positional sensitivity. It was chosen for several reasons, including the fact that Dacron, Puff-Lon or over-powder wads are recommended by our guide for this load.

The baseline testing was done using SAAMI methods to produce a standard load range for the powder/bullet combination that will eventually be published in our new guide. The second test used the same charge with forward-orientation and no buffer. The final test used the same charge with forward-oriented loads and a compressed buffer of Puff-Lon. The results highlight the role powder orientation can play in pressure and velocity.

The standard test, which followed SAAMI protocols for rear-oriented powder, produced a mean pressure of 17,767 psi with 26.0 grains of Blackhorn 209. The case fill was 74%. The average velocity was 1,143 fps with a standard deviation of 20 fps.

The same load, tested with its powder oriented forward against the bullet, and then placed carefully into the universal receiver, generated considerably lower numbers. The average pressure dropped to 9,000 psi and an average velocity of 950 fps. These cartridges were loaded at the same time as the test run and shot within an hour of the previous test to limit environmental changes in the data. This difference is caused by powder orientation within the case.

For the last test, we used 26 grains of Blackhorn 209 and then filled the case up to the mouth with Puff-Lon, leveling it with a straight edge. The bullet was then inserted and crimped using the same depth and crimp settings as the other loads. These loads were also tested using a powder-forward orientation like the non-buffered loads. The loads using Puff-Lon averaged 18,040 psi and a velocity of 1,134 fps with a standard deviation of 17 fps. In this case, it is clear that using a filler limited positional sensitivity within the large cased .45-70.

Overcoming Positional Issues in Rifle Cartridges
As in pistol cartridges, the best solution for rifles is to choose bullet/powder combinations that come close to filling the cartridge to the base of a seated bullet. This will typically reduce standard deviations and accounts for one of the reasons why slower powders, and their fuller cases, tend to produce the best accuracy in rifles.

In larger cartridges, especially those that were created for black powder, there may be no powders that offer a good case fill at the desired velocity. One option is to search out data using Accurate 5744.

Accurate 5744 is an unusual double-base extruded powder which ignites easily and tends to take up quite a bit of volume within the cartridge. As a double-base, it is less position sensitive and tends to produce consistent pressure and velocity in larger cases without using a buffer. Our guide has extensive data for this powder, including reduced loads for large caliber rifles. Our technicians also have access to data for antiquated or little seen cartridges that may not yet be published. The easiest step for the handloader looking for reduced rifle loads is to consult with our customer service people if the information is not available in our guide.

If you are shooting a reduced load that has been privately developed without filler or an overwad, it is important to understand that adding a buffer will orient the powder to produce the maximum pressure for that powder/bullet combination. It will produce higher pressures than the unbuffered loads and may prove damaging to the firearm. Always develop new loads intended for use with fillers with the fillers in place.

Should I use a Filler?
When handloading for cartridges designed for smokeless powder, the general answer is no. The best solution is to use bullet/powder combinations that provide good case fills and that have been tested in a laboratory environment.

When loading older rifle cartridges, load guides will stipulate when a wad or filler is used. Following this data should produce safe loads.

Utilize tested data using Accurate 5744 if available for reduced loads or antiquated cartridges.

When using fillers, develop the load from a lowered starting point and work toward the desired velocity.

For commonly used pistol cartridges like the 45 Colt and the .38 Special, which have large capacities and low SAAMI pressure guidelines, it is best to stick with published loads using the most voluminous powders available. If denser powders are used, increasing the charge weight within published guidelines will limit the differences between maximum and minimum pressures created by powder orientation within the case. The safest route is to avoid extremely light loads.

If you choose to shoot the lightest loads possible, below the guideline minimums, be sure to account for each shot fired because the threat of a squib load is very real.

Summary
Powder migration within large cases by small amounts of powder can account for many unexpected problems experienced with reduced loads. Be aware that loads using small charges often exhibit different pressures created by changing powder orientation within the cartridge. Use of a filler will control these fluctuations, but will do so by forcing powder against the primer which increases pressures. Always develop reduced loads with the filler in place if it is to be used at all. Be careful of extremely light loads, that when paired with powder-forward orientation may result in a squib load and a stuck bullet. And finally, use published data whenever possible. Let us experiment with pressure and you can enjoy the results.

Take care and good shooting.

Our ballistics lab fields many questions a day from our customers. Here are some of the questions from last week:

.458 Winchester Magnum Gopher Loads

I’m going to use my .458 Win Mag for gopher hunting. Do you have reduced loads? Thanks for your help in advance, Uncle Stumpy.

Here you go, you lunatic:: 458 Win Mag vs AP

.357 Pistol bullets for .358 Win. Plinking Loads

I would like to load 158 gr. Semi-wadcutters in my .358 Winchester for plinking loads. Do you have any data I can use? Tom T.

Sure, Tom. Click here to download the data: 358 Win 158 Semi-wadcutter

.32-20 Rifle Data

I have a Marlin 1889 Lever Action Rifle, in .32-20, that I shoot in “Cowboy Action”. It has a long barrel, with the 10 round magazine. I am looking for smokeless loading data, using a 100-115 gr. lead bullet. I have found lots of revolver data, {witch is fine}, but little for rifle. Do you have any suggestions for your line of powders? Thank you for your time. Larry Aljets PS The rifle could use a relining of the barrel; could you suggest someone? I live in the Tulsa, OK area Thanks again, Larry A.

This is data that will be out in our new, full-size handloading guide. You are getting a sneak peek. 32-20 Rifle The Lab

What is a Piezo Transducer?

Dear Labby,
Can you give a little detail to the piezo transducer and it’s operation? How does it function? Where would you screw it into on the M1 Garand. The AR-15? The 1911?
Thanks,
Bill M.

Bill,

The bottom of the piezo is cut to match a case’s body. The threaded end is connected to the pressure gauge.

The first image is of a piezo transducer in action as part of regular testing. In the American system, the transducer’s base is radiused to match the case body. When the cartridge is fired, the case expands crushing the piezo which creates a spark, the intensity of which can be directly translated into PSI. In the Garand, the lab used a modified gas plug to get the port pressure readings. For AR 15 military testing, a transducer is mounted at the case mouth and another at the point where the gas block would sit on the barrel. The 1911 , a delayed blowback, doesn’t have a gas system. Testing for that type of pistol would rely on cartridge pressure testing from a test barrel.
The Lab

50 AE Data

Hello, do you have any load data for .50 Action Express? I enjoy using your powders but this is the only caliber I have that I can’t reload with any of your powders   Hugo

Here you go, Hugo  50 AE vs AP

Keeping the 40-82 Winchester Shooting

Do you have load data for 40-82 Winchester using accurate 5744?  TK

We do:  40-82 Winchester

7.5X55 Swiss Data

I have just bought a Swiss K31 and would like more loading data for it. I have 150, 165 and 180 grain jacketed bullets and 160 grain cast. I have on hand ACC2520, ACC4350 and ACC5744 that I think should be suitable for the 7.5×55 Swiss but no data. Can you help me? Thanks, G. B.

Here is some extrapolated data to get you going.  7.5×55 Swiss AP

.45 Winchester Magnum Data

Could I get some data for the .45 Winchester Magnum? Tom H.

Here is some to get you started, Tom. 45 Win Mag
The Lab

Magpro in the 9mm Parabellum

I’ve found no data in your charts for loading 115GR FMJ 9MM with Magpro. Store I purchased from assures me that it can in fact be done. Any help?
Thanks, Dan T.

It just will not work, Dan. Magpro is currently the slowest powder available from the Accurate Powders line. You could compress the powder until you swelled the case and still not guarantee enough velocity to get the bullet out of the barrel. It is important to have an idea what powder you are looking for before you purchase. There is information on the back of each canister that will give some useful hints regarding the powder’s most common uses. If you are still unsure or want to know if there is data for your specific cartridge choice, we are just a phone call away during normal business hours 8-5 Monday through Friday with an hour break for lunch from 12 to 1. You can call 406-234-0422 and ask for customer service.
The Lab

Loads for .577-450

I am a big fan and consumer of your 5744 Powder. Do you have any load data suggestions for using 5744 in the 577-450 Martini-Henry British Army rifle? Or for that matter any smokeless powder load for the 577-450. It appears that when looking on the Internet that there are a large number of reloaders who use 5744 wanting to use it in the 577-450 cartridge, I am one of them. I relealize that the large case volume presents a challenge for other than black powder as the original loading.
Thanks, Tom P.

Here is some data to get you started. 577 450 Martini Henry 5744

Pressure Vs. Velocity

Does Higher Pressure Equal Higher Velocity? Tom H.

No, sometimes it is just higher pressure. If you fill up a 9mm Luger to the gills with a very fast powder, the pressure curve rises more steeply than the velocity increase, they do not rise in lockstep. Usually a slower powder at a lower peak pressure will beat over-pressure fast powder charges for producing velocity.
The Lab

Data for the .45 Schofield

Do you have some data on the .45 Schofield?  Louis S.

We don’t have any shot data, but here is some extrapolated data to get you started.  45 Schofield Data

LT-32 and the .22-250

Need load data for lt-32 in 22-250. Steve M.

LT-32 is too fast to be a good performer in the .22-250. I’m sorry, we have no data to offer you.
The Lab

Reduced Loads for 7.62X54R and 7.65X53 Argentine

I have a Mosin-Nagant Model 1891, 7.62X54R, and a Argentine Mouser Model 1891, 7.65X53. I would like to shoot these two rifles using 5744 powder with a lead RNGC 200 gr bullet. Keeping it at or below 1800 fps.
What is a good starting load? Can this 5744 powder be used in shotguns and pistols?
Art T.

A5744 is an excellent powder for reduced rifle loads and can be used in some large capacity pistol cartridges. It is too slow to be useful in shotgun shells. Here is your data: 7.62 x 54 Russian Reduced7.65 x 53 Arg Mauser Reduced

Accurate #2 vs. #2 Improved

What is the difference in load when using No 2 Improved v. No 2???
Is there a conversion factor?
raz

The original Accurate Arms Company changed the bulk density of #2 ostensibly to give better case fills for low pressure loadings like .45 Colt and the .38 Special. The load data is the same as Accurate #2.
The Lab

Data for the .303 Savage

I’m looking for .303 Savage data — Can you help?
T. Poss

We don’t have much but here it is 303 Savage data

Loading Information for Data Powder 68

What data should I use for Data Powder 68?

Data powders were batches of military pull-down or short runs of powder that would not typically be available as canister products. Some like A2200 were popular enough that they were later added to our line. You can find the data by going to the Accurate website and clicking on “Load Data.” Click here to get the Data Powder 68 information: DP68

.30 Carbine loads with 100 gr. bullets and A4100

I need load data for 30 Carbine rifle using 4100 powder and 100 grain jacketed JHP. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Eric T.

Here is some extrapolated data to get you going. 30Carb_A4100

Best Twist for 9mm Autopistol Barrel

What do you think is the best twist for the 9mm Luger using 115 grain bullets?
Stacy R. San Francisco CA

Ideal twists are a bit out of our wheelhouse. Schuman Barrels offers a pretty insightful pdf on how they settled on their production twists. Click here for the pdf: Webfile_Barrel Twist Rate
The Lab

Action Speed and Powder Speed Linked?

As with other locked breach semi-autos, the action of a Luger is operated by the movement of one part against another under recoil.
As you know, the 9×19 cartridge was developed in 1902, One of the arguments for the Luger’s supposed problems with modern ammunition is that the recoil of the original cartridges (circa 1908) gave “a longer, slower push” than modern cartridges. Obviously, propellants have changed since 1908, so maybe that argument is — kind of plausible.
However, it seems to me that bullets of the same weight and achieving the same muzzle velocity from a given barrel are necessarily undergoing the same acceleration and should produce nearly identical recoil forces, both in terms of total force AND the curve of the way that force distributed during the about ½ millisecond the projectile is in the barrel.
That is, if bullet weight and the resulting MV were the same, the recoil forces “felt” by the gun (and the speed with which the moving parts move) would be the same whether the propellant were a “slow” shotgun powder or detonation of an appropriately sized drop of nitroglycerin.
True or false for the recoil forces? (I suppose the nitroglycerin charge might have other effects).
Arthur B.

Within a very short time-frame, I believe your statement is correct. Pressure is pressure and Newton’s Third is alive and well. The differences I see in terms of reliability of slower powders in autopistol cartridges, especially the 9mm Para relates to the relative amount of gas that is created by the powder supply. It takes more slow powder to bring a cartridge to pressure. The increase in powder translates into more gas driving both the bullet and action, typically with lower peak pressures. Given a choice, I would always use the slowest powder that was practical for a given pistol cartridge.
The Lab

Why Use Different COL’s for the Same Weight Bullets?

In the Western Powders loading data, for the same cartridge, powder and bullet weight, you will list different COL. For example, the 223 Remington and X-Terminator powder with 55 grain Hornday bullets:
55 HDY BT-FMJ 2.200
55 HDY SPSX 2.195
55 HDY V-MAX 2.260
Why do you use different COL when the cartridge and powder are the same?
Thanks,
Daniel W

Depending on their style, bullets of the same weight can have very different shapes that effect internal ballistics.  Most manufacturers have suggested overall lengths for their bullets, which we usually try to approximate in our testing.  Some of our tests use different parameters that call for a shorter or longer COL.  Magazine length can also effect COL selection, as is often the case with the .223 Remington.
The Lab

7.5X55 Swiss

I’ve been using your powders for almost twenty years and have always been pleased with the quality and performance they provide. The PDF reloading guide is a pleasure to use!  Now if you could get a 7.5X55 test barrel and work up some loads for my old Swiss rifle I’d be elated. sincerely. J. P.
Here are some loads to get you started with your Swiss rifle.  7.5×55 Swiss
The Lab 

Fast Powder Fails to Cycle

I have a Taurus PT908 pistol in 9 mm that has a pretty rugged recoil spring
I’d like to get a lighter one but they are not available.
Many factory loads will not run this gun at all reliably
My handloads have to be well up into +P to function
Right now I’m using up a ton of 125 grain round nose lead with a stiff charge of Bullseye.
A friend who absolutely swears by Accurate Arms has suggested I ask your recommendations. He thinks that the recoil impulse of Bullseye may be too fast
Thank you for your consideration, TR

I did the same thing with the first pin gun I had built more than 20 years ago.  It just didn’t want to run until I was at very high pressure with Bullseye and even then it wasn’t terribly reliable.  I think the cure here may well be a slower powder running at higher velocity with similar or lower pressures to the ones you are getting with you fast powder choice.  I think I would try #7 first and then #5 or True Blue to see if you can make your pistol run smoother and more reliably.

The Lab 

Loads for a Pedersoli Sharps .45-70 Gov.

Dear Labby
I have a Pedersoli Sharps 45/70
I mold a 520gr .459 1:20 lead Money Bullet
AA5744 is my powder of choice for cast bullets in all my calibers I load for. Load data for Lead bullets ends at 500 gr. in the 28000 range.
Can you provide a starting point in grains for the 520 gr bullet using 5744 powder please?
Gary

Gary,
Here is data for both 18,000 psi Trapdoor Springfield loads along with higher pressure loads for modern rifles. 4570_5744_LowPressure and 45-70_5744_28KPSI
The Lab

.32 H&R Magnum Data

I don’t see any 32 H & R Mag Reloading data in the Reloading guide, Is there anyr load you can recommend.
Rex R.

Here is some extrapolated data for your very useful little cartridge.
32 H&R Magnum Data
The Lab

Wadcutter Weirdness

In the load data book Page 26 for 38 Special +P with Accurate #5 and Berrys 148P DEWC it shows a COL of 1.140 inches. The trim to length for this casing is 1.145 inches.. How can the COL be shorter than the trim to length? This is the only data that I have found for these DEWC and I do not have a lot of experience reloading, so if I am missing something please let me know. Thank you very much in advance.
David M.

.38 Special Wadcutter

Wadcutters were all the rage for bullseye competition not so long ago, but they are less common of late. The bullet is set slightly below the case mouth, which is then crimped over the bullet. They look strange but shoot quite well.
The Lab

.32 Winchester Special Data

I’m trying to find load data for .32 Winchester Special. I realise that this is an obsolete cartridge, however I still have one, and the loading dies and components are still available. Thank You.
John O.

We don’t have pressure tested data, but here is extrapolated data to get you shooting. Click here to download the pdf: 32Specialdata

More 7X57 Mauser Data

You only listed two series of loads for the 7×57 in your latest reloading data. However, I sent off a question about best loads for the cartridge and I received a reply that Big Game was an excellent choice. I used it this past fall with a Barnes 120 grain bullet and achieved spectacular humane kills at 200 yards. Why haven’t you guys listed Big Game or Hunter Powders for this superb old cartridge?
Peter D.

The data you got by request was extrapolated information developed by pressure modeling rather than test data from a pressure barrel. I have the 7X57 scheduled for another round of testing this year. Ramshot powders will be tested and included in our published guide data. We’re pleased the data worked well for you. 7X57_ramshotdata
The Lab

Why Do Shotguns Use Fast Powder

Why do shotgun shells use the fastest burning powders?
Thanks,
Daniel W.

Smokeless powders require pressure to burn properly within a cartridge. In rifled firearms the bullet acts a pressure plug that seals the bore; allowing pressure to peak and then decrease as the bore volume expands with the bullet’s travel down the barrel. Shotguns achieve pressure primarily by the powder charge acting against the weight of their shot column. The fastest powders work against the payload weight in a sudden push that gets things moving because there is little resistance once the payload leaves the chamber and moves into the smooth bore.
The Lab

.375 H&H Using A4064

Gentlemen,
I am loading for the 375 H&H using 270gr and 300gr bullets. I have an 8 lb keg of AA4064. I cannot find any data with this powder in the 375. Do you have any recommendations?
Respectfully yours,
William S.
Here is some data that might help. .375H&HA4064
The Lab

Data for 9mm Makarov and 7.62X25 Tokarev

I reload for 7.62×25 Tok and 9mm Makarov. Wish you would show some data for these two calibers. Data is skimpy for these two.
Thanks N.S.

We hope to have data from our pressure barrels for both of these great cartridges in the future. In the meantime, we have included extrapolated data that will keep your shooters shooting. Download this PDF to access data for the 9mm Makarov and 7.62X25 Tokarev.9X18Mak_7.62Tok

Shelf Life and Packaging Dates

Does powder ever get to old to use and what identifing marks does your company put on the canister for when it is made, You have helped me out a while ago when I asked about keeping my cowboy shooting under 950 fps and it works great less stress on the hand and the recoil is very minimum.
thank for you time..
Mr R.B.

Date and Lot codes are in the upper right-hand box.

This code indicates the powder was poured on January 27th, 2015 from lot 465

On one pound bottles, the number is on the corner in a silver box. If the powder was poured today, it would read 012815 followed by a lot number. The whole number would look something like 012815749. Eight pound bottles have a sticker on the bottom with an obvious date code. The lot number appears above the date.
Powder can have a very long shelf life. You need to watch for changes in smell and color. A reddish tinge, almost like rust on the powder, is a bad sign, as is a foul odor, not to be confused with a normal chemical smell. Either of these signs indicate it is time to dispose of your powder by means other than shooting.
The Lab

7mm TCU Data

Do you have any data for loading the 7mm TCU?

We don’t have tested data, but guys in the lab were able to extrapolate some loads for you.
7mmTCU
The Lab

Proper Powder Storage

I live in southern Arizona where it is very hot. I am told powders will become unstable if stored in an area not air conditioned. My wife says no powder or primers in the house. Can powder be stored in a refrigerator? What about using a fireproof safe? I would appreciate your ideas. Thanks
M.C.

SAAMI guidelines are pretty clear on issues of storage. They recommend storing smokeless powder in containers that will not allow pressure to build if the powder is ignited; ruling out gun safes and refrigerators.

In their original containers smokeless powder’s lifespan is quite long, even in your hot, arid climate, typically longer than the average handloader would need to store them. Stored safely in a garage or outbuilding, your powder should last years.

If you see the powder developing a reddish tint, or giving off a foul odor, it is time to discard it.

Click here to read SAAMI’s guidelines for powder storage.
SAAMI-storageguidelines
The Lab

Understanding Bullet Trajectory

Why does a bullet raise up? When you plug in your bullet into a computer it’s always high for a while and then low. My friend says that its spin makes it roll up above where you aim in the first fifty yards and then it drops back down. Is that right?

Trajectory tables provide very useful data for the shooter, but they do it in a way that is misleading. The data is based on where the bullet will be in relationship to your sights, but it doesn’t explain why it is there. The idea of “Bullet Rise” comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how bullets fly and how sights interact with the bullet’s arcing trajectory.

The common bullet drop tables look something like this for a rifle zeroed at 200 yards:

Muzzle: -1.5 inches
100 Yards: +2.4 inches
200 Yards: 0
300 Yards: -10.9

These numbers are very accurate from the shooters perspective which is called the Line of Sight. Looking at these numbers, it is easy to see that the bullet is describing an arc, starting 1.5 inches below the Line of Sight, which is the distance between the center of the bore and the center of the sight plane. The convergence of the Line of Sight and the bullet’s trajectory takes place at 200 yards. In other words, the bullet goes where your sights indicate it will strike. Using the Line of Sight as a reference, and as long as we are shooting on Earth, all firearms will strike to the point of aim at two places in the bullet’s trajectory.

Imagine a very powerful laser projecting out of your firearm’s muzzle. This straight line is called the Line of Departure and represents the starting point for your bullet. Relative to this line, your bullet is always dropping away from the bore subject to the effects of gravity. It does not rise above this plane.

Parallel Line of Sight and Line of Departure Planes.

The confusion comes from the idea that the Line of Sight and Line of Departure are parallel and that the bullet rises up to the Line of Sight and then drops back down. If this were the case, it would be impossible to zero a firearm. In reality, the Line of Sight is always angled downwards so it will intersect the bullet’s path. It may seem counter-intuitive at first glance, but the further out a rifle is zeroed the more sharply the Line of Sight is angled toward the Line of Departure.

A bullet fired on Earth is subject to a number of forces that will retard its motion and eventually cause it to strike the ground. Because of these forces, a bullet passes back through the Line of Sight as gravity pulls it back toward Earth. This second point of convergence is usually where a firearm is considered zeroed.

So, if you set the zero for a (fill in the blank here – let’s say a 6.5 Snorkelwacker Magnum) at 25 yards, that distance becomes the first point of convergence for the Line of Sight and the bullet’s trajectory. The bullet will pass back through the line of sight again somewhere around 200 yards. The bullet is always falling away from the Line of Departure (your bore), but because the Line of Sight is looking at an angle downward into the bullet’s arc, its trajectory seems to rise and fall.
The Lab

Are Compressed Loads Safe?

I was wondering about the 300 BLK loads listed from your site. It says I can load 19.9 grains of 5744, but when I do it comes up near the top of the brass. I heard people mention something called a compressed load, but can you help me be clear so I don’t create any risks? Thank you!
M.G.

Compressed loads always deserve careful consideration when used by handloaders. Compressed powders can exhibit unique characteristics which varies between cartridges and bullet weights. The data presented in our guide has been tested in our ballistics lab, using ammunition fired through specialized pressure barrels, and found to be within SAAMI pressure tolerances. Even though this data produced acceptable pressures in our lab, it is still necessary for all handloaders using this data to begin with the starting load and carefully work up to the maximum loads while watching for overt signs of pressure.
The Lab

Unpublished Load is Causing Problems

I am loading 42 grn ramshot magnum in a 45/70 case. the problem is after each shot there is unburned powder in the barrel. ! J.C.

The real problem is that you are using a powder that is ill-suited for the application. There are usually sound reasons why data isn’t provided for certain cartridge/powder combinations. This is one of those. Ramshot Magnum is too slow for the .45-70 Gov’t. Unburned powder is a sign of incomplete ignition caused by very low pressure. The slowest powder we have published data for is Ramshot X-Terminator, which is substantially faster than Ramshot Magnum. Sticking to published loads will prevent many problems, including the one that you are experiencing.
The Lab

Magnum Primers in the .45 ACP

I want to load some .45Auto but I only have CCI magnum large pistol primers. Can I still load using your guide? Should I lower the charges?
Primerless in Laramie
P.T.

Yes, you can use magnum pistol primers when standard primers aren’t available. They should work fine, but it is anybody’s guess whether they will create more or less pressure than the published loads. The best method when any component is changed is to reduce the charge, load a few, test them over a chronograph and compare the velocity to our printed pressure/velocity guidelines. If your loads produce similar velocity to our tested loads (given similar barrel lengths) the pressures are also similar. If you are faster, or show obvious pressure signs, then reduce the load until it approximates the published load. If slower, increase the charge weight until the desired velocity it obtained.
The Lab

A Girlfriend or My Guns

My new girlfriend is good looking, but she is liberal, hates dogs and guns. What should I do, Dear Labby?
Chris

Labby was confronted by a situation similar to this while he was in the third year of his freshman year of college. She was a liberal beauty with a figure that wouldn’t quit. During our romance I purchased a new Browning Hi-Power with great bluing, clean lines and good checkering. A recent look at Facebook reveals that her figure has quit, but the Browning still looks great. Guns keep their looks if they are well cared for, and a dog will love you forever. It’s more hit and miss with women.
Labby Himself

.22 Long Rifle Data Request

To: The Lab
From: Me
Why don’t you finally publish data for .22 LR? I mean, what is the hold-up? If we could reload our own .22’s, then the market glut would end like right now! (I’ve been saving the brass for decades, and boy! do I have a ton of it!) Of course, I suspect the reloading dies would be expensive–just how do they get those primers to stretch and form around the bullet like that without setting them off!?
Yours Truly,
Awaiting .22’s
D.E.
P.S. Yes, I’m teasing.

We are still behind on our 5mm Rimfire data, but once that is done we can get started.
The Lab

Minimum Dimension Barrels in 9mm Para.

Years before Western bought Accurate Powder Co. and while Johan Loubser was Accurate’s ballistician, he furnished me with .45 ACP +P data. It was great because the 185 & 230 gr. Golden Sabers were listed for charges using AA#5 & #7. The thing is, the data also included the same weight XTPs where the same charges produced pressure as much as 2000 PSI higher for the XTP with velocities running higher as well by at least 50 FPS over the Golden Sabers. This holds up in my experience where an equal charge of True Blue or Silhouette will yield lower velocity using Golden Sabers in comparison to XTPs. Your current data states exactly the opposite with Golden Sabers getting higher velocities with lower charges. I realize that some of your .45 ACP data is newer and includes the Golden Sabers where XTP loads haven’t really changed. The Golden Saber is, of course, brass jacketed and has much less bearing surface than the copper jacketed XTP. This has raised a couple of questions for me and I’ll get right to the next.

In 9 x19mm it’s the exact opposite in your data where the 124 gr. Golden Saber, in particular, gets higher charges than other JHPs of the same weight. The Golden Saber data is also newer than for some of the other JHPs of the same weight. I’ve also seen a downrating of your 9 x 19mm data in recent years. I witnessed the same occurence years back with Vihta Vouri powders when they started using minimum dimension test barrels to keep their American data closer in line with SAAMI than CIP. So, are your pressure ratings for 9 x 19mm and .45 ACP now being gathered in minimum dimension chambers that raise pressure higer than typical pistols? Your 9 x 19mm +P and .45 ACP +P data also appears to be rather weak which further raises my suspicions that Western has gone to using minimum dimension test barrels.
Thanks,
Kevin

Hi Kevin,
I was somewhat confused reading your questions, since some of your statements seam to contradict each other. So I will try and generalize what I believe you are asking. First off, I cannot speak for anything that was done by the Accurate Arms Company prior to Western Powders acquiring the Accurate Powder line from them. I can tell you that we have slowly been weeding out their data and that the 45 ACP data you speak of was corrected in the Accurate #2 revised edition.

Customers are always claiming that we de-rate our load data to avoid lawsuits—THIS IS JUST NOT TRUE. SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufactures Institute, INC.) sets the voluntary standards of the US gun industry. They provide specifications and tolerances for all of the SAAMI approved cartridges. There specifications cover maximum pressure ratings, dimensions, and tolerances for a given cartridge. You can easily access the cartridge drawings on their website, as well as the European CIP standards on their site. In reviewing the drawings for the 45 ACP and 9mm Luger, there is very little deviation, and if there was any, the CIP dimensions seemed to be tighter. To me, this disproves your theory of Vihtavuori reducing their load data to meet SAAMI specifications by using minimum spec SAAMI chambers.

Almost all reloading data will have a disclaimer stating to always use the most recent load data or that the new supersedes all prior data published. There are two main reasons for this:

1) If you never make a mistake—chances are you are not doing anything. Mistakes can and do occasionally happen, and when they do they need to be corrected and learned from.
2) The second and most important one: as we grow in our experience; testing equipment and procedures become greatly improved.

At Western, we use Piezo transducers to measure all of our chamber pressures. This is a more accurate and precise form of measurement compared to the old Copper Crusher style testing. There are many claims at a conversion factor from CUP (Copper Units of Pressure) to PSI, but it is not possible. As SAAMI moved from CUP to PSI, cartridges either gained or lost ground in regards to pressure and velocity standards. However, what ever specification they set—that becomes the new standard for us to abide by.

The best way to perform the most accurate comparison of bullet performance; is to use the same cases, primers, powder, firearm and to shoot them one after the other on the same day. There are just too many variables that effect performance in a loaded round. Every component of a cartridge varies from one lot to the other and can still be within their tolerance. Temperature, humidity, altitude and barometric pressure can all change how ammunition performs. We try and to control as many variables as we can when testing in the lab, but this is not an option when shooting in real world situations. You are correct in the fact that some of the JHP data is not as new as the Remington Golden Sabre data, which makes for a rough comparison. Here are some truths and observations I can share when comparing the Hornady XTP bullets to the Remington Golden Sabre bullets:

1) The GS bullets do have a shorter bearing surface reducing friction and lowering pressure. While the XTP bullets appear to have a thicker jacket as well as a much longer bearing surface.
2) The GS bullets use a longer COL than the XTP bullets; this opens up usable case capacity and also lowers pressure.
3) Since pressure is the limiting factor in reloading ammunition, the bullet that produces the lowest pressure (GS) will have a maximum charge weight that exceeds the maximum charge weight of the higher pressure bullet (XTP).
4) Powder burn rate, and velocity to pressure ratio tend to remain fairly constant. Thus the bullet running at a lower pressure will be able to achieve a higher velocity at the maximum powder charge weight.

Some of the variation between the 45 ACP and 9mm Luger XTP/GS load data is created by the difference in COL. In the 45 ACP there is a COL difference of .015”, while in the 9mm the length difference is .085” in a much smaller case running at a much higher pressure. In our conclusion, the Golden Sabre bullets should achieve more velocity at a higher charge weight for any given pressure than the Hornady XTP.
The Lab

Accuracy Poor with Lighter Bullets

I loaded up some 6.5 Swede as follows, 40 grains of Accurate 4350 with a 140 grain boattail spritzer bullet and achieved 1.5 inch groups at 100 yards with mild recoil. Next I seated 100 grain boattails spritzers on the same charge of powder. I expected increased accuracy due to higher velocity. I was surprised that I could not get better than 6 inch groups. All things being equal, doesn’t more velocity yield flatter more accurate bullet tracjectories? Rifle is a modified sporterized 6.5 Swedish Mauser with a 16 inch barrel.
Jeff

When you decreased the bullet weight, you also decreased the pressure developed in your load. Your velocity increase may have been pretty minimal. More velocity does make for a flatter trajectory (although that advantage may fade quickly depending on the ballistic co-efficients of the bullets you are comparing) but that does not make a round more accurate. Your Swede, if it is still using its original barrel, was twisted to favor heavy bullets and it still seems to be showing its affinity with the first load. I think you should accept what it is telling you and stick to longer, heavier bullets.
The Lab

Help Us Choose Cartridges to Test

We are looking for your input to help schedule testing over the next year. The top three cartridges will be added to our testing schedule. From now until October 1st, we are asking you to send us your suggestions. Just type them in and submit them through the Dear Labby Q and A section on the left side of your screen. We will announce the top three finishers in early October.
The Lab

Mining Gunpowder in Montana

Do you mine the powder right there in Miles City? Is that why you are located in Montana? Is it possible to add another shift or something to increase production?

We passed this one around a bit wondering if you were teasing us. You probably are, but it is a reasonable question. No, we don’t mine for gunpowder here in Montana, although the thought of a rich vein of Accurate #2 does tend to make us wish the idea was true. Our powders are all man-made using some very complex chemical interactions and production tools. If your question is really about powder availability, we are doing everything we can to bring as much powder to the market as possible. We hadn’t thought of mining for powder, but if it did work we would be doing it three shifts a day.
The Lab

Developing Loads for Different Seasons

I have a question about reloading in the context of seasons. I live in Las Vegas, where in the summertime it’s common to have highs around 110 F. Winter by contrast can have overnight lows around 28 F with daytime highs anywhere from 40’s to 60’s depending on the year. I read recently that changes in temperature can affect pressure. I’m currently in the early stages of developing loads for service rifle. I have some SMK 69 gr, 80 gr, and Hornady 75 gr bullets and a variety of powders. I’m going to be using Lapua .223 brass, and am currently at the bottom end of the powder weights for my loads. What should I be doing to ensure my pressures don’t go too high because of temperatures. Should I only develop loads in summer? I’m thinking a winter developed load that is safe could become unsafe if fired in summer in this climate.

All powders are affected some by temperature, but the amount of difference varies by cartridge and components used. In the .223, you shouldn’t see a dramatic change in pressure and velocity with any of our powders suitable for the cartridge. For any given cartridge, your best shot at year around accuracy would be to develop loads during your average hunting temperature. So in your case, I would recommend developing and testing loads around 69 deg. F.
The Lab

A2230 Data matches Ramshot X-Terminator

I’ve noticed on the updated data for the 7.62×39 (5.0.1) that the powder charges for Ramshot X-Terminator and Accurate 2230 are exactly the same, all entries are exactly the same. Is this correct data for these two powders?

In this case, it is correct. Ramshot X-Terminator and Accurate 2230 are the same powder used by both powder lines.
The Lab

CUP to PSI: Is there a Formula?

How do you convert CUP to PSI?

There isn’t a good mathematical conversion between Copper Units of Pressure (CUP) and PSI measurements. CUP was based on measurements taken from small cylinders of specially formulated copper after they were subjected to crushing pressures. Conversion tables were supplied with each lot of crushers to index them to the CUP scale of pressure. The system doesn’t directly correlate to measurements in Pounds/Square Inch. Any formula which purports to link the two systems should be treated with skepticism.
The Lab

Finding Maximum Cartridge Length in a Chamber

How can I find the Cartridge Overall Length for my rifle?

There are a couple of great tools made by Sinclair and Hornady (just to name a couple) that make the job quick and easy. I’ve included a quick how-to using another method it in a separate article because it is long on pictures. Look down the page to find the story.
The Lab

.357 Remington Magnum Mistake

When I was younger we always called the .357 Mag., .357 Remington Mag. After reading older books from around the time the cartridge was developed it was said to have been developed by Winchester. I see you refer to it as Remington too. Did Remington finish the development or some other reason or were the books wrong?

We did refer to the .357 Magnum as the .357 Remington Magnum in a previous “Dear Labby” answer. After researching your question, the simple answer seems to be that we were wrong to attribute this cartridge to Remington. Your suggestion that Winchester was part of the development team along with Smith and Wesson is spot on. The .357 Registered Magnum was announced by Smith and Wesson in 1935. Perhaps it is the “Reg.” abbreviation’s closeness to the “Rem.” that led to this mistake, or Remington’s later association with the .357 Maximum, 41 and 44 Magnums that bring its name rolling off the tongue. No matter the reason, Remington’s name doesn’t seem to belong with this cartridge. Its proper nomenclature is .357 Smith and Wesson Magnum or the simpler .357 Magnum which is how the cartridge is identified by SAAMI.
The Lab

Academics and Lab Staff

I had two questions; what type of schooling does a person need to be qualified for becoming a ballistics tech? Second, for the powder burn in a handgun, does it have a complete burn before the bullet even leaves the crimp? How does it show up on the timeline; the powder burn time in relationship to the bullet travel?

While there isn’t a college program dedicated to the sporting arms and ammunition field, there are a few degrees that will make life easier. A degree in Forensic Science, mechanical engineering, physics, chemistry, and or aerospace are all helpful in the ballistic world. A keen attention to detail, as well as familiarity with lab equipment, word processing, Microsoft excel; and a machining background all makes for good skill-sets in a ballistic lab.

Powder burn can vary by component selection and caliber. Generally for handgun calibers, peak pressure is reached before the bullet leaves the case, but complete powder burn may never be achieved; depending on barrel length and powder burn rate.
The Lab

What is “Muzzle Energy”

What is “Muzzle energy” and what does it mean?

Calculating muzzle energy provides a quick tool for comparing energy between various loads or firearms. It is a simple formula that uses the velocity of bullet (V) and the weight of bullet (W) divided by a constant to produce a measure of energy (taken at the muzzle) in foot/pounds. The formula is V*V*W/450240. What it means is a more difficult question. Muzzle energy is not a good predictor of terminal performance on game animals because it does not consider bullet design and performance. It simply tells you how much energy is present at the muzzle based on the weight and velocity of a projectile.
The Lab

Changes in 9mm Luger Data

I have been reloading 9mm shells using the data in the Reloading guide 5.0.
I have been using Ramshot Zip for my loads, with Frontier 115 gr CMJ bullets (I called your company when I bought the powder and bullets and was told to use the same data as the Sierra FMJ) with my Lee Pro Auto-Disk Powder Measure dispensing at an average rate of 4.0 gr of the powder (3.9 – 4-1). Everything seems to be going fine, and I have had no FTEs or FTFs.
Now, I see via the 1/24/14 update that the loads should be considerably higher (4.4 – 4.7).
Is there a problem with what I am doing?

There isn’t any problem at all. The data you are using is for standard 9mm Luger loads at an average pressure of 35,000 psi or less. The new data you saw is for +P loads which operate at about 38,000 psi as a maximum. Your loads are fine, the others just offer higher pressure and velocity for firearms rated to that level of performance.
The Lab

Same Case, Different Manufacturer, Same Pressure?

All the reloading data that I have will call for certain brands of components. I understand that primers and powder will make a difference in pressure. But how about the brass that is used, does it make a difference in pressure? Can you use Winchester brass when it calls for Remington?

Brass can make quite a lot of difference in pressure, mainly because of variations in case capacity. Our lab tests pressures using cases produced within the same lot to keep this variation to a minimum. Between manufacturers, especially on cases produced outside the United States, there are differences in capacity. You can handload with Remington brass using data that calls for Winchester, but you should always begin with the suggested starting load. If they produce reasonable velocity, you can work your way up carefully watching for obvious pressure signs.
The Lab

.223 Remington vs. 5.56 NATO

Dear Labby,
What are the differences between the 5.56mm NATO and .223 Remington cartridges?

There is a lot of confusion on this topic, and a lot of bad information being exchanged. Externally, the case dimensions between the SAAMI recognized .223 Remington and the military designated 5.56mm NATO are exactly the same. The two main differences are maximum pressure standards and the chamber dimensions.

Mil-Spec pressure measurements are taken just ahead of the case mouth and work out to a bit more than 62,000 psi using standard SAAMI pressure testing guidelines, which are measured further back on the case body. For comparison, SAAMI’s maximum pressure recommendations for the .223 Remington are about 12% lower at 55,000 psi.

Much more significantly, the leade/throat dimensions in the 5.56mm NATO are considerably longer than the .223 Remington, allowing it to safely chamber a number of different bullet designs. The mismatch between 5.56 NATO cartridges fired in the shorter throated .223 Remington chamber can produce unexpected pressures because the bullet is jammed into the rifling. Conversely, .223 Remington cartridges fired in a 5.56mm NATO chamber may produce lower-than-expected pressures and velocity because of the longer leade.
The Lab

Silhouette Lead Bullet Data for the 45 ACP

There is no listed 230gr., LRN, 45ACP loading data for Silhouette. Reading some of the forums, Silhouette is highly recommended for 45 ACP. Do you have any reloading data that you can share for this load?
Thanks in advance for your consideration. BTW, I am overwhelmed by what a good powder True Blue is, just amazing!

Sihouette would be a great powder in the 45 ACP using 230 grain lead RN bullets. It just wasn’t tested. The lab has scheduled testing using several different manufacturer’s lead bullets to fill this gap. In the meantime, the starting loads for 230 gr. plated RN bullet data can be safely used for lead round nose as well.
The Lab

Tac in the AR-10

Any TAC RAMSHOT load data on the .308 Win for use in an AR-10. Currently using it for .223 in all of my long range competition rounds. Like to use it in my .308 for the same purpose. GREAT POWDER

Ramshot Tac has a very good burn rate for both the AR-10 and M1A/M14 rifles. Any load provided in our guide that is suitable by twist rate and COL is appropriate for either rifle system.
The Lab

Changes in Older Load Data

I am new to reloading and am currently loading for a 270WSM. I am loading up 110gr Barnes TTSX using Accurate 4350. I loaded 3 rounds each of 68gr, 67.5gr, and 67gr. I am basing these loads off your 1/27/2014 updates, using the same grains as the 110gr Hornady V-Max. My question is why was there an increase in the start load and max load grains for bullets such as the 100gr Hornady from the older data?

The newer data for the 100 grain Hornady Spire Point was developed from this latest round of testing. The older data proved to be under pressure when tested in our lab and was adjusted to provide higher pressures and better velocity.
The Lab

Pressure Differences Between Plated and Jacketed Bullets

The Rem 95gr FMJ is working very well with the high end load of 3.7gr.
Less then that was jamming. I asked below on the Berry 100gr bullet RN, but these are also copper plated or what appears to be as a FMJ not bare lead. Since it is not the bare lead RN, should I still use the 3.7 gr for the 100gr bullet? I’m thinking the 3.2 will be too light and jam.
I’m using an auto loading disk system to dispense the powder so I don’t have much room to play. Basically would the 3.7gr of powder be ok with the 100gr rn FMJ?
Please let me know your thoughts…
Your help is greatly appreciated.

All other things being equal, plated bullets develop pressure faster than copper jackets. Because their plating is relatively thin, they can tend toward lead bullet pressures. In this case, the Berry’s 100 grain bullet would have been over pressure in our test barrel using a 3.7 gr. charge.
The Lab

175 gr .308 Winchester Loads Using LT-32

Concerning the .308 Winchester, I noticed that the load data stopped at the 168 SMK for the LT-32 powder. Is there further data for the 175 gr. SMK or the 178 AMAX?

We just tested the 175 gr. Berger BTTLR bullet using LT-32 in the.308 Winchester. This information should give you a starting point with the other match bullets. Here is the data:

Accurate LT-32         Starting       FPS       Max     FPS   PSI        COL      Percent Fill
175gr  BERGER         34.6           2,278     38.4    2,505  61,609   2.810    94.20%

Magnum Small Pistol Primers in Non-Magnums

I have small magnum pistol primers. Can these primers be used with pistol loads calling for the non-magnum type by reducing the powder weight by a certain or trial percentage?

The short answer is yes, you can use magnum priming in non-magnum pistol cartridges, but there is no simple equation that defines powder reduction for the primer’s extra brisance. Substituting any component in a known handload requires going back to the starting load and working up carefully while watching for pressure signs. It is possible, especially in some very high pressure, small capacity cases (9mm Parabellum leaps to mind) that pressure signs may occur even with the starting loads and magnum priming. In all instances, velocity will provide the best indicator of pressure. If the velocity of your test load is greater than the published maximum, compensating for barrel length differences, then the load is probably above SAAMI guidelines for pressure and should be reduced.

The Lab

Handloading the 5.7X28

I need some honest load recommendations for a 5.7 FN: primers, powders and bullets. Seems cases are limited in brands. Any help will be appreciated.

The 5.7X28 is an extremely finicky cartridge, especially when reloading fired cases. The case only has about 10 grains of useable case capacity and is designed to work at pressures up to about 50,000 psi. Changes of a few tenths of a grain can produce unexpected pressures.

Reloading fired cases adds two new issues. The case head and web are small and tend to allow the primer pockets to swell prematurely. When reloading, discard any cases that exhibit little primer tension. The amount of pressure required to resize 5.7 cases is very great compared to most cartridges. Make sure enough lube is used; a stuck 5.7 case is a bad experience.

We have handloading data available in our new 5.0 Reloading Guide. All of our data is based off of FN cases. The Hornady bullets in 35 and 40 grains were great perfomers. When working up loads, work up in .1 grain increments. This is a very tricky little cartridge.

The Lab

7mm Weatherby Data

I do not find any info in your gude for the 7mm Weatherby round. Any plans of adding it?

We do have the 7mm Weatherby scheduled for testing. It should be completed later this year. Once complete, it will be posted on our downloadable “Latest Updates” section located on the upper left hand side of the screen. Clicking there will show all of the data our lab has released since our 5.0 Reloading Guide was published in October, 2013.

The Lab

Can’t find .223 Remington Data

Why can’t I find load data for the .223?

We have quite a lot of loading data for the .223 Remington, as well as for the .223 Winchester Super Short Magnum. Both can be found in the downloadable version of our 5.0 Guide.

The Lab

Finding Powder

Where can I get some AA7?

When handloaders can’t find powder locally, I recommend www.gunbot.net . This site monitors store inventories and updates frequently. It is a good bet.

The Lab

Loading with an Older Powder

I have Accurate Arms powder that is a few years old. It is MR 223. Is that the same as Accurate 2230?

It is definitely an older powder, but if it has been stored well, you can load with it using Accurate 2230 data.

The Lab

Charge Volume

When I fill a volume measuring tube with 120 grains of Blackhorn 209, I can tap the tube and compact the powder and create space for an additional 5-10 grains. Should I stop at the original measure or compact the load and maximize the powder in the loader.

Loading by volume instead of weighed grains can be a bit confusing. Black powder and black powder substitutes are traditionally measured by volume, simply filling up measuring device of a known size. It should be measured loosely. Unlike smokeless powder, small charge variations make almost no difference in pressure and velocity. With Blackhorn, more precise measurements can be made by weighing the powder on a scale. The conversion from volumetric to weighed grains for Blackhorn is .7, so 100 grains by volume equals 70 grains weighed on a scale.

The Lab

LT32 in a 6mm BRDX

I am wanting to try LT-32 in a 6mm BRDX with 100 grain flat base match bullets. Do you have any suggestions for starting loads?

I think LT-32 is going to be too fast for good performance in your 6mm BRDX. A slower powder like A2495 would be a better choice.

The Lab

What is +P

In your newest reloading data, you have listed “45 Auto (ACP) +P, What is +P?

Some cartridges have a standard pressure range and a second, higher pressure range that is also recognized to be safe in pistols rated to those pressures.  Both ranges are set by SAAMI.   +P is most commonly associated with the 9mm Parabellum and .38 Special cartridges. 

Cartridge       Standard SAAMI Pressure Max         +P SAAMI Pressure Max

.38 Special       17,000 PSI                                            20,000 PSI

9mm Para        35,000 PSI                                            38,500 PSI

.45 ACP           21,000 PSI                                            23,000   PSI

Extrapolating Load Data

Is there an EASY way to make equivalent loads from my Bullseye Specs to using No. 2?

With a chronograph and our Accurate #2 load data, it isn’t hard to make comparable loads if you intend to make cartridges that have similar external ballistics.  There isn’t a way to convert grains of Bullesye to grains of Accurate #2 in a cartridge.  There are too many internal ballistic variables for a conversion to work safely and reliably. 

Finding Powder

It is very hard to find Reloader 15

I’m surprised how often we get questions about Alliant products.  Accurate and Alliant’s “A” probably makes for some confusion.  No matter the manufacturer, powder demand is simply higher than the industry’s ability to supply.  There is no secret government mandate or oppression that is keeping us from supplying canister powders.  We sold more powder last year than we have in the history of our company and this year is on track to eclipse last year’s record.  We are doing our best to get powder out to the public.

Older IMR Powder data

Accurate 4475, can it be used in .223?

IMR 4475 was an original military propellant for the .223 Remington, but we are not aware of an Accurate 4475 canister product.  There certainly hasn’t been one since the Western Powders acquired Accurate in 2004.  We do have A5744, but data cannot safely be interchanged between it and the IMR product.  Data for the .223 Remington using A5744 can be found in our new 5.0 guide, which is available for downloading on this site.

A8700 Data

 Where can I find load data for AA8700?

A8700 was a very slow powder offered by the original Accurate Arms Company.  It is most at home in the .50 BMG.  The best source for loading data is the Accurate Smokeless Powders Loading Guide, Number 2.  Although it is out of print, it is still may be found online at reasonable prices.

Older Posts

Tumbling Loaded Ammunition

Dear Sir,  In reloading ammunition at my home, is it a safe practice to use a tumbler / Vibrator with reloaded ammunition with Accurate powder after the rounds have been loaded?

 It isn’t a recommended practice.  The geometry of each grain of powder plays an important role in the overall burn rate.  As the individual grains rub against each other, they can wear away deterrents or change geometry which may cause higher than expected pressures.

Wild Boar In .243 Win.

Can you confirm that Ramshot Wild Boar is not usable with the caliber .243 W. because the table reloading takes the majority of the class except the .243.

First, Ramshot Wild Boar is not available in the United States, although it shares load data with Accurate 2520.  By class, I believe that our questioner is referring to cartridges using the same parent case.  In this case, the class of cartridges would include the .22 CHeetah, .243 Win., .260 Rem., 7mm-08 Rem., .308 Win., .338 Federal and the .358 Win.  They are all based on the .308 Winchester case.

It makes sense that a good powder in the parent case should work well across the board considering the main difference is a change in the neck diameter, but this is not the case.  As a general rule, necking down the parent case requires a slower powder and necking it up requires a faster one. So, the.243 Win. requires slower powder than the .358 Win.

Where is Accurate 2520

I haven’t seen A2520 for over a year. When will there be some?

I like A2520, too.  I just don’t know when you will see it again in your area.  The best advice I have is to watch gunbot.net which is a site that keeps track of handloading supplies for sale through a number of retailers. It is a very good resource for finding powder.

Bulk Powder Vs. Canister Products

Is it true that True Blue is the same as PCL 504?
We get this type of question quite a lot, especially since canister powders have become harder to find.  No, they are not the same powder and the data may not safely be interchanged.  There is a tremendous difference between bulk powders used by OEM’s and canister grade products.  Simply having a drum of powder with an identifiable bulk designation does not mean it meets canister pressure and velocity requirements.  Until it has been tested and certified as canister grade, no bulk powder should be trusted as safe to use with published data.    

Data Powder 2200

Is the Accurate 2200 the same as the “Data 2200″ that was for sale about 10 or 12 years ago?

Yes it is. The current Accurate 2200 is a direct copy of the military surplus Accurate Data Powder 2200.

Hornady FTX in the .357 S&W Magnum

Would the same loading data for .357 mag 140 grain bullet with Accurate #5 apply for Hornady 140 gr. Flex tip bullet.  Thank you

While we haven’t tested the FTX bullets in all the calibers, we have learned a few things.  The first is that you must follow Hornady’s recommended brass trim length which for the .357 Rem. Mag is 1.240″.  This allows use of the cannelure and keeps the over-all length from causing issues.  The FTX bullets tend to generate more pressure because of the engraving force created by its long bearing surface.  The long FTX bullet is generally seated deeper using up more case capacity, which also increases pressure.  While hard to make general statement, we suggest starting at least 1.0 grain below the XTP start load and working up from there. 

Question: Using Scoops to Measure Powder

When you were helping me the other day we decided the 3.6 gr Accurate #2.  My guestion is on the scoops i bought it shows what scoop to use for the 3.6gr with the Accurate #2 .load wich is the first scoop or the smallest. My question is, when I measure it out on the elctric scale, one scoop is less then 3.6gr.  It’s about 2.9 to 3.0.  Is that going to be ok  or should i start with the small scoop and then add to it until i get to 3.6?

The scoops are based on the VMD of the powder, which can vary from lot to lot.  Personally I do not like to use scoops for this reason.  Powder droppers are more money, but most have an adjustable thimble so you can change the volume accordingly to the powder density.  If you are going to use the scoops, find the one that drops the closest to 3.6 grains and manually adjust from there–Always check your scoops with a scale.  I am not sure if we talked before, but you can load anywhere in between the start load and max load as long as it will perform in your firearm. That being said, if a scoop drops 3.5 grains and the load works well, then by all means run with it.

The Lab

Older Powder Question

I have some Accurate 2 powder that has never been opened (was stored in a cool dry place in a sealed plastic container) that I think may be the 1st generation Accurate 2 powder, can I still use this? How do I adjust the loads? I honestly can’t afford to replace it with the new stuff (if I could find it). Any recommendations?

As long as the powder has the common ether smell and is black with no rust colored tinting, then it should be fine to use.  The Accurate #2 improved was a name change when the Accurate Arms Company had the powder produced by a different manufacturer.  As for the burn rate, Accurate #2 powder is all the same, and I recommend using our current data with your powder and start at the start loads.

The Lab

The “Same” bullet in different cartridges?

I do not understand the reason for the reduced loads in the 270 Win verse the 30-06 Win. The 270 is simply a reduced neck 30-06. The 270 neck reductions reduces useful case capacity from 4.38cc to 4.24cc or 96.8% of 30-06 capacity, but in the load data the 270 is not loaded any where near the 30-06 when using the same bullet.

This does not make since to me. The 270 should be loaded to about 96% of the same as the 30-06. For example your load data has the 150 grain SPBT using ACC 2700 powder for 30-06 at 53.1gr ~ 59.0gr with max velocity of 2932. The 270 is at 46gr ~ 51gr with max velocity of only 2840 fps. 270 powder load is 86.7% & 86.4% of the 30-06 load. Both loads are for a 1-10 twist 24” barrel.

Why is the 270 Win load not close to 96% of the 30-06 Win loads. Why would it be unsafe to use loads more in line with 96% of the 30-06 suggested loads, Am I correct that loads of Acc2700 in the 51gr~56.6gr should be safe in my 270 Winchester?

Changing the neck dimension does more than simply change the case capacity from that of the parent case.  A quick look at the pressures should begin to tell the tale.  The .30-06 Springfield case loaded with 60.5 grains of 2700 and a 150 grain Sierra SPT generates 3076 fps and 59247 psi.  This is within the SAAMI pressure limit for the .30-06 which is 60000.

 The .270 Winchester load with a 150 grain bullet loaded with 51 grains of 2700 and a 150 gr Sierra SBT generates 2840 fps and 63500 psi, which is once again within the pressure range set by SAAMI of 65000.

 It is important to understand that they are not the same bullet.  They are only the same weight.  The .308 bullet is 1.100″ in length.  The .277 caliber bullet, because it is of equal weight, must be longer.  In this case it is 1.237″.  Because of this, its bearing surface (the portion that actually engages the bore) is longer, creating more friction which in turn increases pressure. 

Bore volume plays a very significant role in the .270’s increased pressure versus the same weight .308 caliber bullet.  This is easy to understand if you consider how much easier it is to suck up water through a larger straw than a smaller one.  The smaller one takes more force to get the same amount of water.  The increased suction is an increase in pressure.  In this case, the .277 caliber bore is about 10 percent smaller than the .308 caliber bore.  Because of this, the .277 caliber bore generates more pressure than a .308 bore given the same bullet weight and velocity.

Your suggested load of 59.0 grains of 2700 will generate a bit more than 90,000 psi based on our models.  It is not a good load.

The Lab

Sometimes Magnums don’t use Magnum powders?

I bought 8 pounds of Magnum for my .458 Win.  Why can’t I find load data for this powder and cartridge?

The .458 Winchester Magnum needs faster powders to perform well.  I know this can be confusing, but magnums don’t always use slow-burning “magnum” powders.  Cartridges will give you a hint about what powder will work best simply by comparing the case mouth diameter to the cartridge diameter and length.  Imagine filling the .458 case up with fine sand and pouring it out.  It would poor out rather quickly because the case mouth is very close to the same diameter as the cartridge.  If you compare this to the .264 Winchester, which is made from the same case as the .458, the sand will pour out much more slowly.  This idea hints that the .264, an over-bore magnum, needs slower powder powders than the .458 to work up to its potential.

The Lab

Clumps in my powder?

I ordered some of your 1680 back about in December.  I just now opened it today to use it and it is full of clumps. My knowledge tells me that means moisture, am I wrong ? I just now broke the seal and it has been stored in a ammo can with desiccant packs around it and a dehumidifier running 14-16 hours a day. I can’t imagine this being my fault, if this does indicate moisture. I do absolutely everything to keep moisture away from this type of stuff as I am paranoid about it and I bought 8 lbs of it. Does this stuff just sit around in a warehouse or something. I don’t know if the pick part on the label is suppose to be red or not, but it is definitely pink, so if it was red I am wondering if I was shipped an old container.  I hope that this isn’t bad and I am stuck with it. Is this powder hydroscopic that bad ?

All powder contains a certain amount of moisture.  When the powder is stored or during shipping, it can go thru temperature cycles.  During the cycling, the moisture can be pulled to the surface and cause clumping.   Clumping can also be caused by static electricity if too dry or the powder has limited graphite content. You can break up the clumps before metering and they shouldn’t be a problem.  This will not affect the powder performance, so your product is fine.  Accurate 1680 labels are designed in Pink.  As a side note, specification for testing powder is at 70 degrees and 60% humidity.

The Lab

Do you have a question for our ballistics lab? If you have a question, please contact us.

To submit a question about Ramshot Reloading Powders, click here

To submit a question about Accurate Powders, click here

To submit a question about Montana X-Treme gun care products, click here

To submit a question about Blackhorn 209, click here

The molecules in the steel of the rifle barrel have a memory and in this type of barrel it remembers the bend. When the barrel starts to heat up from continuous shooting it moves towards the original bend. The more heat — the more the bend.

By Roger V. Johnson

Does this sound familiar? Your new rifle shoots the first round of the day where you want it but as you shoot more rounds it starts to walk right off the target. If left as it is it will never be any better. There is a reason for this problem and it can be fixed. Your gun can be made consistently more accurate.

I would estimate one out of ten barrels on factory-made (over the counter rifles) have this problem. I don’t care if they are cheaper-made rifles or high-end, if they come from a production line every tenth one may be like this. Here is the reason. The barrel was made from a bent bar stock that was straightened. It is ok to make a good rifle barrel from a bent bar stock that was straightened but it has to have stress relieving done or it will never shoot well.

The molecules in the steel of the rifle barrel have a memory and in this type of barrel it remembers the bend. When the barrel starts to heat up from continuous shooting it moves towards the original bend. The more heat — the more the bend.

There are two ways to get rid of the memory of the bend. The first option is sonic stress relieving the barrel. This is costly and it is hard to find a company that will do the work. It is 100% effective but again there is a cheaper way that is just as effective.

The second way, and the one I use, is cryogenic treating the rifle barrel. Cryo-treating also offers some other side-effects that are very beneficial that sonic stress relieving doesn’t have. Cryo-treating not only removes and memory of any bends, it improves harmonics. By changing the type of carbon in the steel, it makes the barrel a lot tougher and longer lasting. Cryo-treating also makes the bore a little more slippery. My sons Savage .270, using the same handloads in his rifle after the barrel was cryo-treated, shot 100 feet-per-second faster.

I remember a 300 Weatherby Magnum that shot the “X” out of the target on the first shot at 200 yards but after that shot, the gun walked off the paper in a straight line to the right. It was driving the owner nuts. It cost $70 to cryo the barrel. From the time it was cryo-treated it shot the “X” out of the target without fail.

There it is a simple answer for a bad problem and a simple method of fixing it. Shop around for the most reasonable price for cryo-treating your barrel. They basically use the same type of machine to cryo-treat rifles barrels and there is a lot of difference in what they charge for the same treatment.

I’ve been using the company Cry-Plus for years and the lady that runs it has been fast and very reasonable.

Now I want to give you a very simple tip on how to make your rifle shoot tighter groups no matter how good it shot in the past. I’m also talking about guns that you think you can’t improve on. It comes from the old days and just about been forgotten.

Go to your local automotive parts supply store and go to the O-Ring section. Find O-Rings rings that are thick and have a hole a little smaller than the diameter of your rifle barrel. Buy a bunch.

Slip them over the end of your barrel tightly next to each other. Starting about an inch in front of your forestock, stack them to about an inch from the end of your barrel. I know it isn’t the prettiest thing to look at on a nice rifle but it does work. My younger son has a double row, one on top of each other on his Savage .270. He has wrapped over them tightly with plastic electrical tape. We like savage .270s at our house as you can see. His gun can put three bullets very, very tightly next to each other at 300 yards.

These O-Rings take a lot of the barrel whip and vibration out of the muzzle when the gun is fired. There used to be a rubber sleeve sold in big-name magazines that did the same thing. It was expensive which is probably why it isn’t sold any more. For just a couple bucks O-Rings can do the same thing. There you go, two inexpensive ways to make your rifle into a tack-driver.

Roger V. Johnson of Pine Ridge Black Powder is a custom builder of fine sidelock muzzleloaders designed to shoot lead paper-patch bullets. To look at his guns and useful muzzleloading information go to: http://www.pineridgeblackpowder.com/index.html

HOLLAND & HOLLAND’S EVERGREEN 375 BELTED RIMLESS MAGNUM EXPRESS (AND HOW TO MASTER IT).   

By John Noak           

 The above (and original) moniker of the .375 H&H practically commands you to buy a Holland & Holland rifle in the quintessential British medium bore of the modern Nitro Express era.  That era, by the way, is fast approaching 102 years. Before delving into the nuts and bolts of the .375, let us take a few moments to review the history of what has often been called “the world’s best all around rifle, ever made.”  A review of the .375 Holland & Holland involves burying of some long perpetrated, but incorrect, beliefs that have   been passed down from gun scribe to gun writer since 1912.

The .375 Holland & Holland was not the first cartridge to be adorned with a circumferential belt just forward of the extraction groove.  That honor goes to the 400/.375 Belted Nitro Express.  The 400/.375 is wimpy by today’s standards.  It is very similar to the later 9.5 x 56 Mannlicher Schöenauer (often called the .375, 2 ¼” Nitro Express on the English side of the channel).  The 400/.375 predates the Mannlicher Schöenauer round by five years.  Both are close to the modern .358 Winchester.  The Winchester .358 in turn, has modest power suitable for medium game.  With judicious bullet placement it can take down an elk at close range.

The .375 H&H no longer uses Cordite as a propellant.  Kynoch, the major British ammunition manufacturing concern (corporation), last used cordite in the early to mid-1960s.  In its time, cordite (which resembled strings of spaghetti) was cut to length and inserted into the partly formed cartridge case. The case neck was then formed, and a bullet was seated.  Prior to WWI, Cordite was somewhat unstable in conditions of high heat and humidity.  Ammunition intended for use in Africa or India was loaded with 58-grains of propellant; that intended for use in more temperate climes was loaded with 60-grains.  As a consequence of using Cordite as a propellant, the .375 H&H cartridge case had a very shallow neck angle (14.96º).  Engineers of the time were not assured that reliable head spacing would be provided by the sloping cartridge shoulder.  Since they are, “belt and suspenders” by natural outlook, the ammunition engineers involved in the project added a “belt” circumferentially around the cartridge head (terrible pun intended).  That belt (“gurtle” for our Deutsch friends) did not look elegant, or even pretty, but it got the job done.  Later, this belt became a marketing tool to sell medium length magnum rifles (many of which had generous shoulders, and did not need a belt) in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s.  In the present day the belt is decried as an abomination before the Milan school of style.  Come on everybody, lighten up; most cartridges work fine with or without belts.

There is even nonsense circulating about the word “Magnum” itself.  It does not derive from the French word describing an extra- large bottle of wine, especially Champagne.  The truth is much less romantic.  “Magnum” is derived from the Latin word Magnus meaning large or great.  Calling a 2x sized bottle of champagne a “Magnum” is a colloquial use of the word, not theword itself.

The .375 H&H was introduced 102 years ago (in 1912) and will likely continue to perform yeoman’s duty for another hundred years.  At least we do not have to argue about the date on its birth certificate.As the POMMIES (Prisoners of Mother England) would say, the .375 H&H design is “absolutely brilliant”.  They will get no argument from me.  My mom taught me to not stand on the railroad tracks of history, design, or purpose.

The continuing success of the .375 H&H rests on three legs.  One, with modern “super” bullets, it will kill any animal on earth with one well- placed shot.  Two, it is the most powerful cartridge an average hunter can easily master.   There is no need for a muzzle brake or an excessively heavy rifle.  Third, anywhere there is hunting, .375 H&H ammunition can be purchased across the counter most any hardware store, shooting emporium, or even drugstore.

OK, enough of history – let us get into the fun stuff.  Useful bullet weights vary from 235-grains on the light end, to 300-grains on the top end.  350-grain and 380-grain bullets in .375 diameter are for rather specialized applications.  Super bullet technology has come to full bloom in the 300-grain weight projectiles.  Bullet types run the gamut from simple cup and core, bonded core, mono-metal of copper, brass, or naval bronze, partitioned designs like the Nosler Partition, partition- plus bonding as exemplified by the Swift A-Frame bullet and the gone, but still lamented, Fail-Safe design that Nosler made for Winchester in the 1990s.

In addition to mono-metal designs, there are still many classic designs for solid bullets that are characterized by a lead core with a thick steel covering and finally a very thick copper covering that allows the rifle’s lands and grooves to do their magic without damage to the barrel.

So, the brats are out of college.  You have a little extra money tucked under the mattress.  Your knees are shot, so a sheep hunt will have to wait until your next life.  You visit the Dallas Safari Club show in the dark months of winter and end up booking ten days of plains game hunting in Namibia, followed by another ten day x two Buffalo hunt in Zimbabwe.  The hunt is eighteen months away; you are filled with 50% excitement and 50% trepidation.  A .300 Win Mag feels rough in the recoil department to you.  How can you handle a .375 H&H at all, let alone shoot it quickly and accurately?  Relax!  Bring your favorite .30-06 for plains game, and start working out and working up with the .375.

Buy a quality .375 H&H rifle that fits you well, or can be made to fit you.  If you have a long neck, you will need a rifle with a decent sized Monte Carlo on the buttstock – style be damned.  If you are built like a fireplug, or just have a short neck, you will be best served with a butt stock in the straight American Classic style.  Make sure the stock is wood.  Wood can be bent in place, rasped away; more wood can be splinted in where needed. Wood is the most flexible material to use to make a well fitted stock.  Then, take it to a gunsmith who specializes in making shotguns and rifles fit their clients.  You want your rifle to fit so well that it is an extension of your will.  It can be done.

If you are built like me (17.5” neck size, 34.5” sleeves, but with a long neck), the stock fitter will bend the stock to give you 5/16” of cast off (away from right hander), ¼” of toe out at the butt, and carve out or add on a Monte Carlo.  The dimensions are similar to the Sako Hunter style stock that McMillan makes for Ruger, Remington, Sako AV-style, Browning, and Winchester stocks.  So, a long necked dude can save some money right there on the all-important topic of stock fit.  The gunsmith will make your wooden stock fit you, no matter what your build.  Fit it must; if you want to hit your targets, that is.

It does no good to be afraid of the recoil or muzzle blast of any rifle, but especially one that you will be carrying in the presence of dangerous game.  Good fit is half the battle.  The other half is following a logical and rigorous training and conditioning program.  A good first step is to start practicing with lightweight bullets at mild velocities.  A near perfect starting bullet is the Speer .375”, 235-grain, Semi-Spitzer Soft Point.  Use a large rifle magnum primer and load the 235-grain Speer over 29.0-grains of IMR SR 4759.  (This load has not been tested, nor is it endorsed by Western Powders. Please use caution if you elect to use this data.)  Since this powder is composed of large and flaky individual particles, it is best to weigh each load.  Your velocity will be ≈ 1650 fps.  That is light and very controllable.  It is also a reasonably accurate load.  Zero it at 50-75 yards.  As soon as you have a well regulated (well centered) group, get away from the bench in favor of field positions (in the future you will only visit the bench to obtain an initial zero or to evaluate the precision [smallness and roundness] of any given load).

Start practicing from the sitting position with legs not crossed, and then crossed with right ankle on top, then with left ankle on top.  Shoot five shot groups.  Those force you to concentrate on the fundamentals of marksmanship and follow through.  Twenty to twenty-five rounds down range should be the maximum shooting for any range session.  It is ok to warm up ahead of time with a .22 LR, using the same positions.

On your second visit to the range, shoot the same load.  Start with one set of sitting position shooting, and then transit to shooting kneeling.  Use a tree or a bench for extra support for your first kneeling group; then transition to shooting kneeling without extra support, just your bones (and knee and elbow pads).  Finish up your second session with one group shot from the standing position.  A coach to supervise your progress is indeed priceless.  On your third session, start out with one group sitting, one group kneeling, and all remaining groups standing.  For your last group of the session, have your shooting coach hold  a set of three African shooting sticks, Adjust them until they feel just right, and send the last five bullets down range.

Your fourth range session will be a fun change of pace.  The first feature will be Flat Nosed Gas-Checked lead bullets propelled by A5744 powder at a moderate velocity.  The second feature will be, “ball and dummy” firing.

Try Beartooth bullets or any of the many companies that advertise in Handloader Magazine. Specify a 255-grain hard cast, heat treated, and gas checked bullet.  You will want a Brinnell hardness level between 16 and 22 (the harder the better).  Load those bullets over 37.0 to 45.0-grains of A5744 powder.  A forty-grain load is a good place to start.  That will give you a velocity of about 1,900 fps.

Zero this load at a full 100 yards.  Shoot one group sitting, one kneeling, one standing unsupported, and at least two groups supported by shooting sticks.  Then, have a friend load your rifle so that you cannot see it.  He will either put a live round in the chamber – a ball, or he will put in an A-Zoom brand snap cap – a dummy.  If you have a bit of a flinch, this exercise will distinctly show it as you jerk the barrel when there is only a, “click”.  It is the perfect time to eliminate that flinch because the load is quite mild.  If you do not have a flinch, well good on ya’.

Then, go through a manual and pick a starting load for the 235-grain Semi Spitzer.  Zero from the bench at exactly 200 yards.  The load velocity should be a bit over 2,700 fps.  This is a nearly full-power deer and elk load (for moderate ranges).  Do two more range sessions just like the last two, with one addition; shoot at an 8” paper plate set out at 200 yards for your last group which will be done standing while supported by the shooting sticks.

Next pick up some 250 grain bullets; the Sierra® ..375” Game King Spitzer Boat Tail bullets are perfect.  Start shooting the starting load of A4350 (75.6-grains).  At each session increase your load by 2-grains until you reach the maximum load of 84.0-grains, or notice any sign of increased pressure.  On your drills, make sure at least two are supported with shooting sticks.  A 260-grain bullet, such as the Nosler® Accubond™ will work just as well.

Ok, we are coming around the final bend.  Try any one of the excellent 270-grain plains game bullets on the market.  The Hornady 275-grain is a dandy, as is the Speer 270-grain Spitzer Boat Tail Soft Point.  Use both starting, and full power loads with your choice of A4350, Reloder-15, H414, or Varget. Concentrate your drills on shooting at the 200 yard target from the sticks.  Practice holding the sticks yourself as you shoot.

Wow, we are now up to the 300-grain level.  Pick a (relatively) inexpensive 300-grain bullet such as the Sierra 300-grain Game King™ Spitzer Boat Tail.  Practice shooting at 25 yards, 100 yards and 200 yards, with emphasis on shooting off the sticks.

Finally, spend some time obsessing over what will be the best 300-grain bullet for your hunt.  I use North Fork softs and solids exclusively these days, but pick bullets that you have trust in.  Talk to PHs, and people who have at least two full hunts under their belt.  Whatever ammunition you take hunting, cycle each and every round through your rifle before you go.  The middle of a charge is not the time to discover that your cartridges are hanging up!

This program takes a while, but it costs only a small fraction of the overall time and money involved in a full on ten day buffalo hunt.  For a moderate expenditure of your time and energy, you will be able to confidently drill your shots at all ranges and from all field shooting positions.  You will not need a muzzle brake as a crutch.  Your Professional Hunter will love you for that alone.

Go out, practice sensibly (let your rifle’s bore cool between groups), and then enjoy a buffalo hunt with no excess drama, just the satisfaction of a job done better than well.

Once you are the master of your 375 H&H for African hunting you can simplify loading greatly.  Weigh in 67.5-grains of fine grained and consistently performing Norma N203B powder behind any 300-grain bullet you fancy (Hornady FMJ, Hornady RN, Nosler Partition, Swift A-Frame, Barnes Banded Solid, Norma Oryx, etc).  One well placed shot will send your bullet on its way at ≈ 2,550 fps; shortly your target animal will be reduced to possession.  Good Hunting

John Charlie Noak has served our nation proudly as a member of the 82^nd Airborne Division and 12^th Special Forces (ABN) as a medic. He has twelve years experience flying F-4 and F16 fighters with the 170^th Tactical Fighter Squadron, ANG and four years as a flight surgeon in the Alaska and Idaho Air National Guards. He holds a medical degree from Southern Illinois University.

How much velocity will I gain with a longer barrel is one of the common question asked by shooters interested in ballistics. As a rule of thumb, longer barrels equal higher velocity, but there are many variables that make even that simple rule confusing.

Many of our customers are looking for a linear answer, something on the order of: You will gain 50 fps per-inch of barrel longer than 5 inches. That answer is impossible to give for a number of reasons, the two most prominent of which are available gas volume and that old theory killer – friction.

The rapid change from a solid to a gas is the chemical magic that makes gun powder a nearly perfect propellant. Faster powders, like shotgun and pistol powders, come to pressure more quickly and with smaller charges than slower burning products. To shooters interested in economy, the smaller charges equate to more shots-per-pound of powder. The problem with this practice is that the smaller charges also produce less of the gas that actually drives the bullet even as it generates the same amount of pressure.

We decided to look at the effect of powder burn rate on velocity, especially as it related to barrel length from a pistol to a carbine. We tested using our load guide maximum 9mm Parabellum charges at both standard and +P pressures. Fast and slow burning powders were used to compare the velocity shift from pistol to carbine length barrels. The pistol used in this testing was our often abused Ruger SR9 with a 4.14 inch barrel. The carbine was a 16-inch-barreled Uzi Type B. When the smoke cleared at least we knew that in all cases the velocity was higher with the carbine, but sometimes not by as much as shooters might expect.

We chose to use Ramshot Competition for the fast powder portion of our testing because +P loads had already been developed and published. Using a 3.6 grain charge behind a Nosler 115 grain JHP our test barrels produced 992 fps at an average pressure of 34,700 psi. The Plus-Pressure load used 3.9 grains, increasing the velocity and pressure to 1046 fps and 37,800 psi. Already a high pressure, low velocity loading because of the powder burn rate, we had low expectations for its performance in the UZI. It was worse than expected.

The Ruger SR9 cycled without a glitch with an average velocity of 961 fps. Using the +P loads, the velocity went to 971 fps. The Uzi hated these things and never fired two shots in a row. There is a lesson here.

The little Ruger’s locked breach system doesn’t need as much recoil energy to open its action compared to the Uzi. Unlike the Ruger, the big direct blow back Uzi uses the weight of its bolt and springs to manage the cartridge’s recoil energy and cycle the weapon. Direct blow back firearms are very simple to manufacture compared to lock-breach systems and are extremely common among the older submachine gun designs. They can be finicky, however when it comes to cycling.

The downside of direct blowback is that it works within a relatively narrow performance window. With too much energy, the bolt opens hard eventually damaging the bolt and springs. With too little energy from the round, it will short stroke; failing to open far enough to eject the spent cartridge and pick a new round off the magazine. With the low gas volume generated by small charges of fast powder, even operating at maximum SAAMI pressures, there was not enough energy to cycle the Uzi’s action.

Feeding the Uzi singly, it produced 1077 fps with the standard pressure loads and 1142 fps with the +P’s. The 16-inch barrel generated 115 fps and 171 fps more velocity respectively over the handgun. The lighter loading gained 9.7 fps per-inch of barrel and heavier one added 14 fps per-inch of barrel over the Ruger. Not one of these rounds cycled the Uzi successfully.

On the other end of the spectrum were the loads using Accurate #7, a much slower pistol powder often associated with high performance 9mm Parabellum loads. Our published maximum load using 7.5 grains developed 1,127 fps at 34,000 psi using Nosler’s 115 grain JHP. The +P data at 38,200 psi produced a velocity of 1,217 in our test barrel using 8.3 grains.

The SR9 again ran like a champ and averaged 1129 fps with the standard pressures loads and 1217 with the +P ammunition. Frankly, both seemed like good loads in the Ruger. Using these loads the Uzi was transformed from an ugly, unreliable paperweight into a weapon with obvious advantages over its smaller rival.

With the standard pressure loads, the Uzi averaged 1376 fps, a 22% increase over the 4 –inch barreled SR9. Using the slower powder increased the velocity per-inch of barrel significantly; raising velocity an average of 21 fps per-inch of barrel. Muzzle energy increased 49%, to an impressive 483 ft/lbs.

The +P loads produced higher velocity and energy, but were extremely linear in comparison to the standard pressure rounds. The +P loads left the muzzle at 1481 fps, still showing a 22% speed advantage over the Ruger using the same loads. Muzzle energy was 560 ft/lbs, a 48% increase over the pistol.

With these cartridges, the Uzi ran flawlessly and accurately. If you haven’t held one of these prolific but little seen (because they were banned in the late 80’s) carbines, they are heavy as sin. The folding stock model weighs in at arm-bulging 8 ½ pounds loaded. The weight and good sights make them a pleasure to shoot. Recoil was non-existent.

Our testing confirmed a few commonly held beliefs by people who load for 9mm Parabellum carbines. It is no surprise that increasing the barrel length increased velocity. What was surprising was how much difference powder choice made in terms of the increase in velocity and reliability in the carbine.

From our testing it is clear that Accurate #5 (which was also tested, producing lower velocities than #7 but perfect cycling) or Accurate #7 are the best choices for carbine performance. As a corollary, loads that will cycle your locked breech handgun may not cycle a direct blowback carbine. Make test batches of ammunition and test them before going into full-blown production. Don’t bet your life on unproven loads just because they work in your handgun. They will go faster, but they may not cycle at all.

By Tom Badham

Synopsis: Using AA 2230 in a 26 in. barreled with one in nine twist, long chambered 223 Remington Savage BVSS Model 10, I tested 55 gr. Hornady VMAX HPFB, 60 gr. Hornady HPFB, 68 gr. Starke HPFB, 70 gr. Berger VLD HPBT and 80 gr. Sierra HPBT bullets. All bullets are varmint/match quality. They were seated out so that the bases of the flat base bullets were even with the bottom of the cartridge necks. The boat tail bullets were seated so that just the boat tails protruded below the bases of the cartridge necks. Except for the 60 grain Hornady’s, the rest of the bullets had to be single loaded due to the cartridges being longer than the 2.260 in. magazine capacity. All targets were shot at a 100 yard distance.

After I had submitted my first article to WP’s blog, I managed to get my paws on some 75 gr. Berger VLD HPBT, 75 gr. Hornady HPBT and some 85 gr. Barnes HPBT bullets. These varmint/match bullets are about as good as they come. Now I had eight heavyweights to test in the Savage rifle.
When I looked at WP’s 80 grain 223 Remington loading data listed under the Custom Long Throat section, I noticed that pressures were pretty well at maximum. Since I was going to use commercial brass, not thicker military brass, I decided to ease back on the maximum load about half a grain. Also, my bullets were seated out just a tick less than what the manual showed.
Note that all the following loads listed in this article are safe in my firearm with these components and overall lengths used. If you haven’t used any of these loads before, reduce the powder amount by 10% and carefully work upwards. Be extremely aware of high pressure signs and follow all safety procedures.

Tom’s Test Data shows the promise of .223 heavies.

First up was the 75 grain Hornady HPBT. Right off the bat I made a mistake when I loaded twenty cartridges. Miss-reading the loading data, I only put 22.2 grains of AA 2230 into the cases instead of 22.7 grains. Since I didn’t want to break down the cartridges, I decided that testing the bullets with half a grain less powder wouldn’t be a bad thing. Comparing 22.2 grain load to the 22.7 grain load would be interesting. Would it be more or less accurate? How much would the velocity drop?
I was lucky that the weather held with bright sunny skies, light breezes and 80° F temperatures. I usually got to the range around 8:30 AM before the wind picked up and it got uncomfortably hot.
Designated Target (5), the 75 grain Hornady HPBT over the 22.2 gr. AA 2230 load used a Winchester Small Rifle (WSR) primer in Federal Brass with an Overall Length (OAL) of 2.435 in. The WP 5.0 Reloading Manual showed a chamber pressure of 54,379 PSI for the 22.7 grain load. So this load would have a bit less pressure. Interestingly the manual listed the velocity for the 22.7 grain load at 2,794 FPS, but my Shooting Chrony® showed an average muzzle velocity of 2,883 FPS. I’m hoping that the Savage just has a very good 26 inch barrel and that my little chronograph hasn’t gone off the deep end.

Target (6) was the same bullet (75 gr. Hornady HPBT), over 22.7 grains of AA 2230 with WSR primers and Federal brass also with an OAL of 2.435 in. Manual muzzle velocity was listed as 2,793 FPS while my chrony showed a five shot average of 2,926 FPS. Either the load or I shot just a bit better.

Next up was the 75 gr. Berger VLD HPBT bullets. The same amount of powder, same primers and same brass as the 75 gr. Hornady load was used. The OAL averaged 2.451 in. and the average velocity changed to 2,974 FPS, about 50 FPS more. The grouping seemed a bit tighter. Maybe I was finally being able to handle the rifle better!

The last bullet tested was the most interesting of all. The 85 grain Barnes HPBT weight was not listed in the WP 5.0 manual, but 80 and 90 grain Sierra bullets were. So I took half the difference in the powder charges listed. That came to 22.5 grains of AA 2230. With the bullet seated out with just the boat tail below the base of the case neck, I finally did something intelligent. After a long squint at that long bullet I decided to make sure that the bolt would close on the cartridge.
Carefully putting the Savage’s safety to the middle position where it would just lock the trigger, I placed the cartridge in the chamber and gently tried to close the bolt. As I suspected the bullet ogive hit the leade (where the rifling starts) before the bolt closed. (I don’t like jamming the bullet ogive into the leade, pressures can get squirrelly. Besides while it looked like pressures would be within norms, I didn’t know for sure.) I then took a half turn on my Lee seating die stem and tried it again. Success. The bolt closed easily. The OAL averaged out to be 2.465 inches.

At the range, I hit almost perfect conditions, partly cloudy, very light breeze about 82°F. My chronograph averaged 2,740 FPS for the load. Now on to seeing if the bullets would hit the paper. This was going to be interesting since the Savage has a one in nine inch rifling twist. Supposedly bullets heavier than 80 grains would be too long to stabilize in the barrel. I have seen too long bullets hit the paper sideways when one did manage to get in the neighborhood of the target.
That Burris Fullfield II scope was nice and sharp on the target and there was barely any mirage. Taking a gentle breath and trying to get my heart beat nice and slow, I gently pressed the trigger. I could see the first shot hit the target about an inch to the left of the aim point. The next three shots, as best I could tell, snuggled a little to the right of the first shot.

Hot Dog! Oh Boy! Look at that!! Of course there was no one else at the range I could holler at.
One more shot and I’d have a group worthy of some serious bragging. I was definitely “chuffed” as my late Canadian friend Arthur liked to say. All I had to do was control my excitement and not foul up. Doing my best to calm down, I took the final shot of the group and pushed it a little to the right. ARRRGGGHHH!! I was still flying high during group 2, but finally got things sorta under control in group 3.

On the way home I pondered over what had occurred. One was I was getting used to the rifle. Another was that maybe this rifle liked its bullets just off the lands. Savage rifles did have a bit of a reputation for liking warm loads, too. One thing for sure, it certainly liked heavy bullets seated long. Looks like I’ll be tweaking a fair amount of load and bullet seating this summer. Yikes! That means I’m gonna have to get more bullets.
One last thing I needed to do: thank that fellow for seeing a new shiny toy that he wanted and turning loose of a fine rifle and scope that I was lucky enough to snatch up.

By Bart Herr

Over the last several years, the American shooting public has been introduced to scarcity on a scale that hasn’t been seen since the Second World War.  With feelings running high against a dictatorial presidency and the threat of war throughout the Middle East, the Ukraine and in the South China Sea, demand has outpaced production for the first time in many people’s lives.

For preppers and survivalist, these conditions were no great surprise.  These were symptoms to be expected as a system, they perceive as precariously balanced, begins to sway under its own weight.  If the system is fragile enough to be threatened by a simple increase in demand, what would happen if there was suddenly no electricity or motorized transport?  For people interested in keeping their guns working far into the future, with no more industry to feed a steady supply of components and finished goods, the answer is preparation.

Shea’s article on five guns for prepping offers reasonable choices for people who might find themselves cut off from civilization.  The subject as assigned was very limiting, but his ideas were sound, especially when they are considered from a maintenance and handloading perspective. He chose the .22 Long Rifle, the.38 Special, a .223 Remington, a .308 Winchester and a 12 gauge shotgun.  All of these are easy to handload and there is a duplication between propellants that makes powder selection an easier process.  They also lend them themselves to a number of niche performance areas that other cartridges would be hard pressed to duplicate when paired with his firearms choices.  Overall, his battery of firearms is very close to what I would have chosen as well, excepting the .38 Special revolver.

There is no solution for the .22 rimfire rifle in what survivalists call, The End Of The World As We Know It.  Once the rimfires are all fired, those guns will be silent until civilization and production capabilities return.  There may be some pseudo-witchdoctor-gunsmith that can make fulminate of mercury into rimfire priming, but for the rest of us when the cartridges are gone so are the guns.  The only real solution is to buy .22LR whenever you encounter it and squirrel it away a few hundred or a few thousand at a time.  The firearms-class they represent are too useful to ignore and cannot be readily replaced.  Buy them when you can.  Don’t be greedy.  Leave some for the next guy, too.

The Bare Necessities
If you are an absolute beginner handloading, there are a few tools that are must have items.  The less expensive items work well enough and, although typically less imprecise, the crudest options will keep a gun shooting long after it otherwise would have become an expensive club.

The Lee Loader
I started with one of these and frankly I’m surprised my slightly over-protective mother let me.  Armed with the right powder, the right primer and a mallet, Lee Loaders are all you need to reload ammunition.  They work fine. So well in fact that they were found in Afghanistan being used by insurgents to reload their rifles.  This video shows why they are the first choice in hard conditions:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeEl9wZyabc
Available for most popular cartridges, they would be the cheapest and most portable option for survivalists and preppers.

Caliper
Buy one.  It doesn’t have to break the bank, but you have to have one.

Scales
Lee’s dipper system works on known powder volume.  In a Lee Loader, a dipper is pared to limited load data sheet of powders that are appropriate to a set bullet weight and powder charge.  This system works, but to say that there are performance limits is an understatement.  A simple balance scale will give you more load options and help you wring the most performance out of your limited arsenal.

Powder Thrower
Again, Lee rules the cost-to-value scale with the Perfect Measure.  This can speed loading dramatically and limit mistakes.

Press
A simple C press for the metallic cartridges will work fine.  Again, you don’t need to break the bank to keep your guns shooting.  It just needs to be durable.  O-Frames like the RCBS Rockchucker seem to be a universal standard.

For the shotgun, there are several simple presses that work very well.  The Mech Jr 600, with its all metal construction looks more bomb-proof and durable compared to its similarly priced competitors.

Shell Holders
Two is One and One is None.  Buy two shell holders each for the .308, .223 and .38 Special. These are three very popular shell holders and will work with many more cartridges.

Western Powders has a guide for people who are interested in handloading. You can download a copy of “Getting Started” here:  Getting Started

The Propellants
For the prepper, the four centerfire cartridges described in Shea’s article can be loaded with just two powders.  If you are not going to be a hobbyist loading many types of cartridges, this simple fact will make powder selection a simple task.

Based on Shea’s calibers, I would use Ramshot Competition to feed the shotgun and .38 Special and Ramshot Tac in the .308 Winchester and .223 Remington.  These are not the only options, of course, any number of medium-burning rifle powders and shotgun powders would work for this combination, but these two fill the bill nicely.  As an addition, I would add Accurate 5744, Accurate #2 and Accurate #5 to my prepper’s bench for use in specialized loads that will be covered later.

Bullets, Pellets, and Slugs
Molds will keep you going as long as you can find lead to melt.  I have several friends who have a knee-jerk aversion to lead bullets but the plain truth is that bullets started out as lead and if society collapses into chaos, the last rounds fired by humankind will most likely be handmade lead bullets.

Lee 1-Ounce Slug

For shotguns, Lee makes a nifty gang mold that casts 18 buckshot pellets per mold.  They need to be cut from their sprues with a sidecutter, but the production value is very high compared to single cavity molds.  They also make affordable slug molds that use standard wads and shotshells with no special crimp required.   They are an ideal slug for the prepper’s arsenal.

Good gas-checked lead rifle bullets can do a tremendous amount of work for the handloader.  In reduced configurations they can easily hunt small and medium game and would very practical uses in suppressed rifles operating subsonic loads.  Because of the potential for suppression, I would look to molds that cast bullets that were as heavy as could be stabilized in my rifle.  If you can’t have velocity, choose mass.

For jacketed bullets, I would seek to standardize my bullet and powder combinations to limit re-zeroing my rifle as each new box came up for use.  Bulk bullet sales are common, but the quality waivers from sub-MOA to barn door.  If you choose to buy bullets in bulk it is important to have a firm idea of what you intend them to do.  Buying scarred up pull-downs will work fine but the accuracy will not typically put meat on the table.  Especially in the case of Shea’s hunting/sniping .308 Win., making an investment in good quality hunting bullets seems worthwhile.

Here are our Recommended Loads:

.308 Win. Bolt-action Ruger Scout Rifle

Ruger .308 Winchester Gunsite rifle.

Subsonic loads using Accurate #2

Cast Lead Loads using Accurate 5744

Hunting Loads using Ramshot TAC

.223/5.56 NATO loads for an AR-15

AR-15 Carbine in .223 Remington.5.56 NATO

Subsonic .223 Rem.

Cast Lead .223 Rem.

Hunting and Combat Loads 5.56 NATO

.38 Special

Ruger LCRx

.38 Special data using Ramshot Competition

.38 Special +P Loads

.38 Special Loads for Shot Capsules   

12 Gauge Shotgun Loads

870 Remington

Click here for complete Ramshot Shotgun Guide:  Accurate shotshell

Click here for the Lee reloading data using their slug mold:  Key Slug data

Shooting a paper-patched bullet in your inline muzzleloader, using Blackhorn 209 powder behind it, opens up a whole new way to shoot your rifle. Your .50 caliber muzzleloader can shoot a 500 to 550 grain paper-patched bullet and in some very fast twist muzzleloader you can even shoot up to a 700 grain bullet. A .45 caliber inline muzzleloader can shoot a 325 to 400 grain paper-patched bullet .

Paper-patching Adds a New Dimension to In-Line Muzzleloaders

By Roger Johnson

My name is Roger Johnson. I am a retired Registered Nurse living in rural northwestern Nebraska. My hobby for many, many years has been building and shooting muzzleloaders. I have used all the different types of bullets a muzzleloader can shoot. I always used black powder as it was the most accurate and reliable powder out there for muzzleloaders until Blackhorn 209 came along.
All my muzzleloaders are fast twist with side locks, except one. I had an inline built for my youngest son by Smokeless Muzzleloader Inc. It is a 1 in 32″ twist and made for saboted bullets. My sidelocks all use the Mag-Spark Nipple system. Mag-Spark is a sidelock nipple that holds a 209 shotgun primer. This nipple allows me to use Blackhorn 209 powder in all of myside locks. Blackhorn 209 is as accurate consistently, as real black powder. The best thing about it is that you don’t have to clean between shots
You will see by my chronograph results that Blackhorn powder had only a slight variation in velocity from shot-to-shot. Those loads were done using poured volume and not weighing each charge. The other black powder substitutes are not going to be mentioned in this article as I feel they are not even close to real black powder or Blackhorn 209 powder in any way.

PAPER PATCHED BULLETS, BLACKHORN 209 POWDER AND THE INLINE MUZZLELOADER.

Shooting a paper-patched bullet in your inline muzzleloader, using Blackhorn 209 powder behind it, opens up a whole new way to shoot your rifle. Your .50 caliber muzzleloader can shoot a 500 to 550 grain paper-patched bullet and in some very fast twist muzzleloader you can even shoot up to a 700 grain bullet. A .45 caliber inline muzzleloader can shoot a 325 to 400 grain paper-patched bullet .
These bullets put your .50 caliber muzzleloader in the same class of gun as the .50/90 Sharps straight. With an inline .45 caliber rifle, you are in the same class as the .45/70 or .45/120. Here are the benefits of shooting paper-patched bullets in your inline:

1. Now you can cast, or as I do, swage your own bullets and shoot for a lot less cost.

2. They are very easy to load and are very reliably accurate.

3. They are hard hitting and can be used at much longer ranges.

4. You can now afford to use your inline to just have fun; target shooting out to 500 yards and beyond. Shooting store bought ammo is too expensive for most of us to use for target shooting. Making your own paper-patched bullets brings the cost way down.

HOW TO PAPER-PATCH BULLETS – A FEW POINTS

I’m going to use stats assuming everyone’s .50 and .45 caliber rifles are true .50 and .45 caliber bores. I know this won’t always be true and that all guns vary. Every one of mine does. You will have to adjust the size of the bullet to be wrapped with paper to match the top of the lands bore size of your gun.

1. The bullet size will be .492″ for the .50 caliber and .440″ to .441″ for the .45 caliber.

2. For those of you with .50 caliber 1 in 28″ twist rifles, use a bullet at least 530 grains in weight and up to 550 to 570 grains. If your rifle is a 1 in 32″ twist .50 caliber, use a 500 to 530 grain bullet.

3. If your rifle is a .45 caliber with a 1 in 28″ twist use a 325 grain to a 400 grain bullet.

4. There are a few .50 caliber inlines out there that are 1 in 22″ twist . You will have to use at least a 600 grain bullet and a 700 grin bullet will usually shoot very well in your gun also. The lighter weight ones are too small to be accurate in that fast a twist.

5. If you have a .45 in a faster twist that 1 in 28″, all the better. There are a lot of moulds for the .45 out there. I have one .45 in 1 in 18″ twist. I shoot a 500 grain bullet in that one and it drives tacks at any range.

6. Use a push through reducing die to downsize the bullet you mould to the size you want. A push through reducing die cost about 30 dollars to make and is money well spent.

7. Your bullet can be a smooth sided bullet or it can be a grease- grooved cast bullet. It can be cupped based or flat based. They will all shoot one as good as the other.

There are two ways to paper patch a bullet:

A. THE DOUBLE WRAP SYSTEM.
B. THE CHASE SINGLE WRAP SYSTEM.

FOR THE DOUBLE WRAP SYSTEM, I use #9 all wood fiber paper. There is no need to go to the extra expense of 25 percent cotton paper in this weight. Also do not wet wrap the bullet. You can wrap it real tight around the bullet with two wraps without wetting the paper, so dry wrap only. The paper to be wrapped around the bullet can be rectangular in shape or cut at a 45 degree angle on the ends. I’ve shot both and they both shoot well. You don’t have to use #9 paper for the double wrap, thinner works as well as thicker as long as the finished size of the wrapped bullet goes down your barrel easily but not sloppily. You want it to stay on the powder once it is seated. It should never go down the barrel hard either.
The best way to cut the papers is to make a template out of plastic the thickness of a credit card. Use a ruler and a pen to lay out the lines and cut it out with a good pair of scissors. Make sure your paper is long enough over the base of the bullet so you can grip it easily to twist the tails tight. Also you might want to buy a pair of curved blade cuticle scissors as this blade allows cutting closer to the base than straight bladed scissors.

Always use a fiber or poly wad between powder and the base of the bullet. Mine are .060″ thick. I used to buy them from Buffalo Arms, but now I cut my own with a cutter I bought from that same company.
You can lube or not lube your bullets. I lube some and others I don’t. They both seem to shoot the same. Lee Alox is the best lube if you’re going to lube. It doesn’t soak into the paper but just coats it nicely and dries on the paper’s surface.

THE CHASE SINGLE WRAP SYSTEM For this system I use the same diameter bullets as I would for the double wrap system. The only difference is I use thicker paper and go around the bullet only once. I wrap as I load.
The paper shape is rectangular and it is just long enough to fold over on to the base about ¾ of the way across it. To use this system, put the paper on the bullet and fold the ends onto the base. Place the wrapped bullet in the muzzle on top of a fiber or poly wad. The wad and the bullet will go down onto the powder together. The wad under the base of the bullet will hold the paper onto the bullet. I use 20 pound computer paper, 18 pound artist paper or poly coated freezer wrap. My .50 caliber bores are of different sizes so I use the paper that works best for the gun I’m shooting that day. My bullet remains a .492″ for the .50 caliber.

HERE ARE SOME STATS I PUT TOGETHER WITH PAPERPATCHED BULLET, BLACKHORN 209 POWDER IN MY GUNS USING A CHRONOGRAPH.

.45 caliber, 1 in 30″ twist, 30 inch barrel, 335 grain bullet, .440 diameter single wrapped bullet, 80 grains by volume Blackhorn 209 powder, .060″ poly wad and magspark 209 primer ignition. This load developed 1600 fps as it left the barrel.

.45 caliber 1 in 18″ twist, 36 inch barrel, 486 grain .440″ double wrapped bullet, 80 grains of Blackhorn 209 powder by volume with a .060″ poly wad between bullet and powder using a Mag-Spark primer ignition system. This load produces 1376 fps. as it leaves the barrel.

.50 caliber 1 in 23″ twist, 31 inch barrel, 670 grain .492″ single wrapped bullet, 80 grains by volume of 209 powder created 1200 fps.
.50 caliber Inline 1 in 32″ twist, 28 inch barrel, 500 grain .492″ double wrapped bullet, 90 grains of Blackhorn 209 powder measured 1458 fps at the muzzle.

.45 caliber 1 in 28″ twist, 24 ¾ inch barrel, using a 335 grain .440″ double wrapped bullet that was then down sized to .438″ so it would fit this tighter bore. 80 grains of 209 powder produced 1600 fps. 90 grains of 209 powder produced 1750 fps. 100 grains of 209 powder produced 1870 fps. 110 grains of powder produced 1970 fps.

These are all good for hunting; the .45 caliber for deer and antelope and the .50 for deer, antelope and everything else in North America.

If you want to contact me you can look up pineridgeblackpowder.com. You can find there how to contact me and feel free to ask me any questions you want. I like sharing information. We can talk by phone or email, whatever way is best for you.

Have fun, be safe and contact me for any question. Also please post your success on this Blackhorn 209 powder blog so the rest of us can learn and enjoy what you have done.
Thank you,  Roger V. Johnson

Cooper Arms M38 Custom Classic.

Handloading the 17 Ackley Hornet

By Alex Clarke

Click Here to download data for the 17 AH.  17 Ackley Hornet Loads

Last week I wrote about forming the .17 Ackley Hornet, but how about reloading the fireformed cases? Here I use Wilson dies with an arbor press. The neck sizing die requires a bushing. Daryl from the Saubier.com Small Caliber board (prime guru of the 17AH) uses .190″ for WW brass and .188″ for RP brass. I usually use 1 to 2 thousandths larger bushings. Too tight a neck may cause the tip of the bullet to be “dimpled”, causing it to be seated just enough differently for accuracy to be jeopardized as a slight difference in the dimple will make a major difference in the seating depth. The bushings are cheap enough that I recommending ordering 0.190, 0.191 and 0.192″, as the cost of shipping a single bushing is almost as much as the bushing itself.

Remember that you may need to clean and uniform the primer pockets. I use an electric screwdriver with the primer pocket uniforming tool (from Sinclair). You should also trim the brass to the proper length, especially after fireforming the brass.

I have added a micro adjusting head to my Wilson seating die, as it lets making changes in the seating depth when changing bullet types or manufacturer much easier. Normally start by seating the bullets just off the lands, but seat Hornady Vmax bullets into the lands 5 to 10 thousands, but not so deep that when you have to unload an unfired round it gets stuck in the barrel. The results of this is a chamber and an action full of powder. Not something you will enjoy while hunting. Take along a 1/16″ dowel rod to remove the stuck bullet. Do not try to use your cleaning rod! A workaround if you do have to remove the unfired round with the bullet seated long is to aim the rifle straight up while openning the bolt, something I never remember to do. Once when unloading my 17M4 and dumping the power throughout the chamber, I spent the rest of the hunt sharing cousin Bobby’s 257 Roberts. Shooting the first round off the top of the pickup cap, that sucker almost launched off the tail gate.

Micro Seater

Powder Choices

You should download the Western Powders load manual and look at the powder recommendations for the the 17HH. Several good choices are there, with AA1680 being the one most often chosen for the 17AH. It is sometimes very hard to find, but the others may be the only ones availalble. AA2200 seems to be the second choice of the lot. VV-N120 is the choice of many folks, but has become as scarce as hen’s teeth. In all cases start low and go up no more than 0.2 grains at a time. The 17HH has top loads of about 1 grain less than the 17AH, but be very careful about going higher than that.

In my Cooper M38 17AHs, with the 20 gr. Vmax, 12.6 gr of AA1680 is the a good but dirty choice for both the forming and final loads. 12.0 gr of N-120 is the max load with this bullet, and is just at the edge of being too hot. I would drop back to 11.8 or so.

Note well, that the loads mentioned here seemed safe in my rifles, with my components on the days I was shooting my them. They could be extreme overloads in your rifle, as different batches of powder may be extremely different, could be mislabeled, or your rifle may have sufficiently different specifications that could cause a problem that would result in damage to the rifle or injury or worse to you or bystanders. Start at the recommended “starting” load and work up at no more than 2 tenths of a grain. When using a load from a publication not by the powder manufacturer, reduce the published load by 20% and work up.

Do not fail to obey this admonition nor those in the Western Powders Load Manual!

AMC

Vintage Norman Rockwell recalls a simpler time and a friendly officer armed with the .38 Special.

By Jim Waddell

It’s still here.  The .38 Special is not only not dead, it’s beginning to resurge in popularity as the number of American citizens seeking concealed carry permits continues to rise.

In 1899 both the Navy and the Army placed orders to Smith and Wesson for several thousand Model 1899 Hand Ejector revolvers chambered for the .38 Long Colt cartridge, the caliber in use at the time.  With this order the Hand Ejector Model became known as the .38 Military and Police Model.  At the same time, reports coming in from the Philippines from military personnel said the .38 Long Colt was ineffective.  Smith and Wesson’s response was the introduction of a new chambering with a slightly longer case called the .38 Smith & Wesson Special (.38 Special).  The new cartridge featured a heavier 158 grain bullet and an increased powder charge from 18 to 21 grains of black powder.

Smith and Wesson 1899 Hand Ejector.

In 1902, the .38 Military and Police (2^nd Model) was introduced featuring substantial changes.  These included major modifications and simplification of the internal lockwork and the addition of a locking underlug on the barrel to engage the previously free-standing ejector rod.  Barrel lengths were 4, 5, 6 and 6.5 inches with a rounded butt.  Serial numbers for the Military and Police ranged from number 1 in the series to 20,975.  Most of the early M&P revolvers chambered in .38 Special appear to have been sold to the civilian market.  By 1904, S&W was offering the .38 M&P with a rounded or square butt with 4, 5 or 6.5 inch barrels.

A small police department near my home still has about 20 of the early M&P models still in the inventory.

Designed at the end of the black powder era, the .38 Special was intended to be a charcoal-burner, a fact attested to by its rather large powder capacity.  Its popularity took off so fast the gun manufacturers produced it in its original form and never looked back.

The .38 Special enjoyed this high popularity practically from its beginning clear up until the early to mid- 1980’s when its popularity began to decline, not because of its ballistic inferiority but because law enforcement firearms trainers and administrators were coming to realize the six- shot revolver was being defeated in gun battles at an ever increasing rate.

More and more bank and other robberies were being committed by multiple suspects, often armed with high capacity semi-auto handguns.   In addition, semi-auto rifles were becoming more popular among modern day outlaws.  One, two or even three responding police officers, armed with six-shot revolvers were no match for two or more suspects with military style assault rifles.

Just a few of the many bullet styles available for the .38 Special.

This could lead to the often heated and long lasting debate over which is the superior cartridge for defense purposes, the .38 Special or the 9mm Luger (9×19 as its known in Europe).  I will not subject myself or Western Powders to a barrage of nasty or hateful letters by declaring one or the other is better.  In most factory loadings the 9mm will edge the .38 in velocity numbers but one has to realize the 9 shoots lighter bullets for the most part.  Heavier bullets tend to penetrate better and the .38 enjoys a much wider variety of bullet styles, some with a flat meplat and sharp corners (semi-wadcutter style) that will cut and chop its way through tissue, creating a more devastating wound channel.  The 9mm or any bullet intended for use in an autoloader must have a more rounded type of bullet nose to ensure proper cycling and functioning.  This bullet style tends to push its way through tissues, creating less permanent damage in the wound channel.  There are countless tales of suspects being hit by multiple round nose bullets to the torso who kept on doing dastardly deeds long enough to take other’s lives before going down for the count.

The 158 gr. “FBI Load” has proven to be a potent fight stopper

In potential stopping power we can give the edge to the .38 Special, IF, and it’s a big if, the proper bullet is used.  If one were to rely on the age old 158 grain, round nose bullet, it has no advantage over any of the 9mm loadings.  This was about the only loading available in factory ammunition for decades until in the late 1960’s, ammunition makers such as Super Vel  (now defunct) and Remington revolutionized handgun ammunition by coming out with lighter weight, copper jacketed bullets with a hollow or soft point.

Problem solved. This bullet, built to function like big game hunting bullets will do the trick.  It will zip inside the torso of the bad guy, expand like a hunting bullet and put him down like he was hit in the head with a hammer……….  Not so fast.

Back when these light expanding bullets were coming out it was generally agreed upon by ammunition makers and ballisticians, these bullets needed to hit their targets at a minimum of 1000 feet per second to expand reliably.   And the term “reliably” can be elusive.

With most big game bullets traveling at 2.5 to 3 times faster than these pistol bullets, terminal performance is almost a sure thing.  Now we have these lighter weight bullets traveling fast enough to expand, however as usually happens in the world of guns and shooting, to get something you have to give up something.  In this case it is penetration.  It doesn’t matter how well the bullet expands into a beautiful mushroom configuration; if it doesn’t reach the vitals, it’s useless.

Hunters of dangerous game in Africa have realized this for years.   Those pursuing Cape Buffalo and elephant have mostly given up using expanding bullets in their large caliber rifles in favor of solid bullets, realizing the importance of getting it to the vitals.

Ruger’s LCR, complete with laser sight, typifies the new breed of .38 Special self defense pistols.

There were countless reports of suspects being hit with 110 or 125 grain jacketed hollow point .38 Specials that kept fighting after solid hits to the torso.  Mostly these cases were in colder weather climates where heavier clothing such as multiple layer shirts or jackets were being worn.  The bullets were performing as designed, they just expanded too early and in some cases didn’t even make it through the clothing.   If the bullet doesn’t penetrate to the vital organs, it won’t stop the fight.

My own experience with the .38 Special started when I was 17 which was over 45 years ago.  I joined the local sheriff’s department’s cadet program.  We were invited to attend one of the monthly pistol qualifications that each deputy had to attend to keep his job.  Having had experience with long guns this was my first exposure to handguns.  A long and interesting career in law enforcement followed.

At this time in history, police sidearms in the United States, with a few exceptions, was the six-shot revolver.  Primarily it was the .38 Special.  The .357 Magnum was carried by many officers but few agencies issued guns in that caliber, so it was the .38 that was the premier caliber, which it had been since early in the 20^th century.

I started with a four-inch barreled Smith & Wesson Model 15.  Oddly enough, the only other .38 Specials I’ve owned over the years was a two-inch Colt Cobra and a Smith & Wesson K-38 I bought to shoot in police pistol competition.  After the first year, I sent it to Bill Davis of the Davis Service Company who installed a one inch bull barrel with a Bo-Mar rib.  I asked him to put a gold bead on the front sight blade for more accurate shooting at the 50 yard line where we had time to aim and shoot single action.

Most of the .38 Special ammunition I loaded and shot over the years I did so from a variety of .357 revolvers.

The elegant S&W Model 15.

Having loaded my own ammunition since I got my first boyhood shotgun, I made it a practice to purchase a set of loading dies to accompany any gun purchase-if I didn’t already own a set.  So with that first Model 15, I started assembling a few hundred 38 cases I had scrounged off the sheriff’s department gun range.  This being circa 1967, the only commercially made bullets available to handloaders in .38 caliber were 148 grain wadcutters or 158 grain lead roundnose or lead semi-wadcutters.

It was right about this time, Speer Bullets came out with a copper jacketed semi-wadcutter.  The shank of the bullet was encased in copper that ended where the bullet was crimped.  The exposed portion was a rather hard, lead alloy.  This bullet came in two styles, the flat point semi-wadcutter that weighed 160 grains and the hollow point version that weighed 146 grains.  To my knowledge, these bullet designs were probably the most effective at putting down game or adversaries of any other bullet weight or style, then or now.  Sadly though, Speer discontinued these bullets last year.

Even after the lighter, jacketed soft and hollow points came out, bullets that traveled faster and looked sexier, (as in Remington’s SJHP that had a scalloped copper jacket) none of these newer bullets could be counted on to penetrate enough to do its job reliably and consistently.  The older Speer numbers did pass the penetration test and expand or not, their design would normally create a larger permanent wound channel.

Most of the commercial bullet makers such as Sierra, Hornady, Speer and Nosler are producing a large variety of .38 caliber jacketed, expanding bullets.  They can be had in 110, 125, 135, 140, 145, 150 and 158 grains.  The heavier ones, although slower in velocity and less likely to open up, will penetrate deeper than the lighter ones.  If you want to go even heavier there are jacketed bullets weighing 170 grains and maybe even higher.  These are designed primarily for silhouette shooting in the .357 Magnum and also for use in the .357 Maximum.

The little known MTR-8 in .38 Special.
http://matebafan.com/mtr8.html

Going back to lead bullets, many long-time .38 Special fans have been using cast bullets for decades.  They are still a favorite among many, including several popular gun writers.  If you prefer to cast your own bullets, there are molds from RCBS and Lyman that give unlimited choices in bullet weights and designs and you can decide on what hardness factor you want and adjust your lead to tin/antimony mixture.  Some use gas checks that will allow for loading hotter powder loads for higher velocity.

Shot loads for a .38 Special are a god-send in snake country. 

Using moderate loadings with lead semi-wadcutter bullet designs are coming back into popularity, as these bullet and load combinations were the odds-on favorites of rural lawmen and hunters who carried these guns daily and who expected to have to use them at any time for duty or for taking 4 footed grocery items.

For those who prefer to purchase lead bullets commercially, Hornady and Speer offer them as well as Oregon Trail, Belt Mountain and several other companies who specialize in lead bullets.  These bullets, driven by moderate loads of Accurate #2 and #5 and Ramshot’s True Blue make for a nice, comfortable load that won’t leave you defenseless should you get awakened in the middle of the night by an uninvited guest.

I would like to make clear the .38 Special, or any handgun for that matter, is not my first choice for a home defense weapon.  It’s still a good pump shotgun with a short barrel filled with large pellet bird shot or buckshot depending on personal preference.  You increase your hit potential in low light with this weapon.  With birdshot loads such as #4 or #6, in the short distance of a normal room in a house, they are just as effective as the bigger stuff but with a little bonus.  They are less likely to penetrate interior walls to strike family members who may be in other rooms of the house.  That said, my handgun will be right there also.

The Smith and Wesson Model 52, a semi-auto target pistol in .38 Special wadcutter.

Plated bullets are relatively new on the shooting scene but are making a favorable impression on shooters of both autoloaders and revolvers.  They don’t leave as much residue as lead bullets which makes gun cleaning easier, they are far less expensive than conventional jacketed bullets but should still be loaded to moderate velocities as the copper plating will peel if driven too fast.

Some shooters, mostly ones who favor a semi-auto, balk at the .38 claiming it has all that wasted powder space.  With modern powders, they claim, sufficiently powerful loads can be had with much less case capacity.  I won’t argue that point other than to say the .38 Special with its larger case capacity, gives the handloader more options for choosing powder.  One of the things I enjoy most about handloading is experimenting with different powders.

As I mentioned earlier, we are seeing an increase in handgun sales.  I believe this is mostly due to the increased numbers of citizens obtaining permits for concealed carry.   With the increase in gang activity in some areas, school shootings, mass shootings in theaters, churches and other places, there are more and more people looking to defend themselves.  As someone said, the average response time for police after a 9-1-1 call is 25 minutes. The response time of a .38 Special round is 900 feet per second.  Click here for a complete list of Western Powders’ .38 Special data:  38 Special and Plus P data

The resurgence of the .38 Special I believe is that some shooters, both experienced and novice, prefer a revolver over a semi-automatic pistol.  The perception that wheelers are easier to operate and less troublesome is real to lots of folks and when they choose a small frame, 5 or 6 shot revolver, the only realistic choice is the .38 Special.

 By Kevin L. Newberry

The first step has to be a conscious decision concerning the possible ramifications of using your own handloads for defense. Arguments both pro and con are numerous. This is NOT a recommendation by the author, or Western Powder Company that you make and carry your own defense loads and by doing so; you personally accept all responsibility and liability. Some respected experts and trainers advise against this practice while the incidents of prosecution after a defense shooting because handloads were used are as rare as hen’s teeth. That does not mean that it can’t happen to you! You must know the legal ramifications in your own state as well as the local political climate. Here in Texas, when a self defense shooting is deemed justifiable you are protected against being sued in civil court. That may not be the case in your state and I am certainly not familiar with the statutes of each and every state. This article is simply a “how to” to make sure that the handloader is correctly following the necessary steps in developing their own loads. And for those that carry 9 x 19mm pistols in the field for small game hunting, you may find this article enlightening as well. That is my aim in writing it.

There will not be any shortcuts taken here and let me just say this up front: if you find some of these steps too complicated or extraneous for your particular skill level as a handloader, I recommend that you stick with good factory loaded defense ammo for now. I am now in my 29^th year of handloading and part of the reason why I’m writing this comes from having handloaded 9 x 19mm ammunition according to the pressure standard that existed before 9 x 19mm +P.

Now, I know that there are some great defense loads available today. As good as we’ve ever seen and largely contributable to advances in jacketed hollowpoint design. There are, however, those who believe that they can do better. I feel that you should find it incumbent upon yourself to verify any of the techniques I will provide. Not on an internet gun forum, but in your handloading manuals.9mm Para+P  9mm Parabellum data

My participation on gun forums is very limited today. Largely do to some issues I’ve mentioned in the previous paragraph and it grieves me to no end at how many supposed “experts” will offer advice where you’d be far better off consulting your manuals. In many cases those “experts” should do the same. Discouraging newer handloaders against taking the time to develop technical competency is particularly high on my list of grievances. Like a number of other writers here, there was no internet when I started handloading. I am completely self taught through the writings of true experts and I am glad for it. My background in design and related engineering disciplines was a great benefit to me, but none more so than the handloaders who preceded me whom made invaluable contributions in writing from their own experience. None of the techniques I will offer are particularly difficult. If you are reasonably proficient with arithmetic and using your precision measuring tools with a comfortable level of dexterity, you won’t have any problem using these techniques. If you have any questions about anything stated, consult your manuals. I also encourage your feedback.

As we examine some historical aspects of the cartridge it would be difficult not to consider some of the debate regarding defense load effectiveness or the elusive subject of “stopping power.” In my opinion, in just the past few years we have seen some significant achievements. In particular, some excellent research by Charles Schwartz whom I believe brings some invaluable data to the discussion with empirical evidence for those doing their own testing in regard to expansion, penetration and predicting the performance of jacketed hollowpoints in 10% ordnance gel, the perceived grail for testing defense load effectiveness these days. His book entitled Quantitative Ammunition Selection can be found at retail outlets such as Barnes & Noble or at Amazon.  http://www.amazon.com/Quantitative-Ammunition-Selection-Charles-Schwartz/dp/1475929064

Considering methods used by handloaders to test JHP effectiveness in the past, myself most definitely included, can be humorous to say the least. Some, “LOL” funny! Stuffing strips of paper into 1 gallon water jugs has been used by some fellas I know. I have fired into wet newsprint placed before the water jugs as well as after them. And of course, there are those whom you can find on YouTube who use the real thing, 10% ordnance gel calibrated to the FBI standard. In shooting thousands, if not tens of thousands of rounds to conclude his theorem of modified fluid dynamics rated 94%, “To 700 points of manufacturer and laboratory test data, the quantitative model allows the use of water to generate terminal ballistic test results equivalent to those obtained in calibrated ten percent ordnance gelatin.”

The Schwartz method is without a doubt more exacting than my method where he places a chronograph just before a series of water baggies. Using the velocity and the diameter of the recovered bullet, his formula predicts performance in ordnance gelatin. Accuracy at 94% of 700 data points was enough to convert me from being a skeptic into a believer.

This is one instance where I do use a simplified method of my own. I just line up 1 gallon water jugs touching back-to-back and fire my defense handloads into them from twelve feet after finding the average velocity of 10 rounds with their Standard Deviation firing from the bench with my chrono twelve feet from the muzzle before water testing. From my experience of testing in comparison to factory defense loads, penetration through 2 jugs into the third indicates adequate performance. Penetration through 3 jugs and into the 4^th is excellent and the goal for my own loads. What I really like to see is a JHP just barely or not penetrating into the 4^th jug. In some cases these JHPs will impact the last wall of the 3^rd jug without escaping it while bursting a hole in the 4^th jug. Penetration completely through 4 jugs is excessive and a lack of expansion will be the culprit. So, I rarely line up more than 5 jugs and sometimes just the 4. I have yet to see a JHP penetrate all 4 jugs and look like anything I would want to use in a defense load. Some bullet-makers seem to be unaware of how ineffective their JHP designs really are. That is the methodology for all of the handgun defense calibers I use personally: 9 x 19mm, .357 Magnum and .45 ACP.

Also, examine the expanded core; you don’t want to automatically assume that a bullet needs higher velocity, but when the expanded core still has a prominent dimple in its center, it can be made to perform better with additional velocity. For me, this is more of an issue with JHPs that have high mass in relation to caliber; particularly if they find their way into the 4^th jug. A recent example would be a .45 ACP load I’ve been developing with the Hornady 230 grain XTP over Ramshot Silhouette. I like the XTPs a great deal and I believe that they are very much underrated as bullets for defense. They share a common feature with Hornady’s Interlock rifle bullets with both having an internal interlocking ring that binds the core to the jacket. In short, they hold together very well. Most of the complaints come from them not expanding as large in diameter as some of the “new tech” JHP bullets. But, when safe pressure allows you to increase the powder charge for higher velocity, things change for the better. Regarding my 230 grain .45 ACP load, at 863 FPS it was barely contained by the 4^th one gallon water jug. The dimple in the center of the core was fairly prominent so I wanted to achieve two goals: decrease penetration and increase expansion which I have done to my satisfaction at around 900 FPS from my 4.5” Ruger SR45. Recovered diameter is ¾” or better while the possibility of over-penetration is significantly reduced. A 230 grain JHP with a muzzle energy of 418 Ft/lbs coming to an abrupt stop will definitely get someone’s attention. But let’s look at another aspect that I see mentioned all too rarely, momentum in its true physical form rather than expressing it by power factor. The formula is not difficult and after a shortcut it will be even easier.

M = W / (7000 x 32.174) = W / 225218

Where M is the bullet mass and W is bullet weight in grains. The factor 7000 converts grains to pounds and 32.174 Ft/second/second is the acceleration due to gravity.

Momentum = M x V where the result is expressed in lb-seconds. To simplify, I get the same result by multiplying Bullet weight multiplied by velocity then divided by 225218. Nothing so hard about that, right? In the case of my .45 ACP XTP load that’s 230 x 900 / 225218 = .919 lb-seconds. Also, if you calculate momentum in lb-seconds there is a shortcut to convert it to kinetic energy at the muzzle.

Momentum x (velocity / 2) = Muzzle Energy

By comparison, loads that are becoming too common these days, IMO, are the subsonic 147 grain JHP loads. By no means is this any .45 vs. 9mm debate. I shoot and love both but I don’t use any subsonic defense load in 9mm. I simply wanted to show the numbers for a defense bullet that has a large amount of momentum with energy above 400 ft/lbs. So when your internet gun guru states that kinetic energy is insignificant because of “new tech magic bullets,” ask them what “new tech” JHP performance parameters are most controlled by. From physics we now that energy is defined as the ability to do work. And even for the newest wonder-bullet, their performance parameters are based on necessary energy levels. My particular problem with this is the high degree of dependency on performance in ordnance gelatin and we’ll get to more of that later. I live in the real-world, the physical world with physical solutions. Regarding a subsonic 9mm 147 gr. JHP, I’ll be fair with an average velocity of 975 FPS: 147 x 975 / 225218 = .636 lb-seconds, approximately 2/3 the momentum of the 230 grain .45 ACP load. Since we now have the momentum for the 9mm 147 gr. JHP, lets use it with the shortcut I mentioned: .636 x (975 / 2) =  310 Ft/lbs. combined with .636 lb-seconds of momentum. No thank you, very much.

The momentum isn’t terrible, but with energy so low I’m just not going to count on ballistic gel performance being conclusive enough for the real world. Another example for added perspective would be a 9mm 115 grain +P+ load at 1350 FPS. Energy is 466 ft/lbs with momentum at .689 lb-seconds and higher than the 147 grain JHP load. Power factor is 155. I believe that recoil plays a major role in all of this. Some shooters just don’t want to have to deal with it whether it be for physical or fiscal reasons where you need to shoot as often as your schedule allows; not necessarily what your wallet allows. Sure, you’re wallet is a deciding factor, but low cost cast lead and particularly poly-coated lead bullets will stretch your shooting budget. Not to beat a dying horse but it’s one of the reasons we handload: so that we can shoot more frequently. The velocity limitations of poly-coated bullets are still higher than you’ll be loading with practical defense weights, 115 grains and heavier in 9mm. My personal preference is 124 grains and heavier. Load them fast enough that they can mimic the recoil of your carry load. This is not about making light paper punching loads; it’s about realistic training and learning how to deal with recoil.

Regarding my own shooting history, revolvers were seen at the range much more frequently when I started out. I was shooting .357 & .41 Magnums before I fired my first round of 9mm. I’m not a big fan of 115 grain JHPs and 124 grain JHPs are the norm for me. I feel more comfortable when momentum is above .650 /lb-seconds. 1250 FPS is safely achievable with 124 grain JHPs with proper loading techniques and I can not stress highly enough the importance of using only a few select powders for the application. This is defined somewhat similarly to the case of adequate bullets for big game by Sectional Density which we will also cover.

I recently saw the question of handgun cartridge energy come up and it was addressed succinctly by an experienced hand who simply stated ( to those who believe handgun rounds do not have enough kinetic energy to make any difference in terminal performance ) “shoot the same weight/same velocity FMJ ( or any non-expanding bullet ) and JHP into water jugs and see if you notice any difference.

As I was coming up in handloading and listening to the same old worn out debates on 9mm vs. .45 ACP I would see energy disparaged because of velocity being squared in the formula appearing to give the advantage to the faster bullet. Einstein didn’t think so with his equation of E = MC2. Not that we mind so much in our .3ZX magnum rifle load. By the same token, in the calculation of momentum, mass is the dominant factor. The heavier the bullet, the greater the momentum at a given velocity. Where does the answer lie? IMO, somewhere in the middle. I want as much of both as can be practically achieved. A little later in the article will discuss a 9mm load I’ve developed in the past and revisited recently with a different, and old favorite powder, a 9mm 147 gr. XTP that chronographs around 1125 FPS from my 4.14” Ruger SR9. For pistols with barrels of 4.5” or longer you may see an increase to 1150 FPS from your service pistol. That’s 432 ft/lbs of KE at the muzzle, and higher than that of the 230 grain .451 XTP, while its momentum of .751 lb-seconds is an appreciable increase in momentum over the subsonic load. For comparison, my 124 gr. JHP loads at 1250 FPS produce 430 ft/lbs of KE at the muzzle with .688 lb/seconds of momentum. Again, sectional density comes into play here. This is not about increasing velocity for velocities sake, or just to increase energy. In times past before bullets like the Hyda-Shok, Golden Saber and the Black Talon, some conventional cup-and-core JHPs could experience clogging of the cavity due to things like clothing and other barriers. In most cases these loads were underpowered. If we increase velocity and energy at the muzzle we also increase impact momentum, lessening the effect of potential clogging.

Another consideration? My 230 grain XTP load in .45 ACP has a power factor of 207 where the subsonic 147 grain JHP load in 9mm is significantly lower at 143. The 124 grain handload ( 1250 FPS ) is at 155 while the 147 grain handload ( 1150 FPS ) is at 169 PF. The shooting world believes that the FBI protocols for ammunition performance are the latest gospel. Many are not aware that the Texas Department of Public Safety preceded them by about 10 years with the same barrier tests when they ultimately adopted the SIGARMS P226 & P229 in .357 SIG. The newer “wonder bullets” were not out as yet and no load in .40 S&W or .45 ACP passed all of their tests required for selection. Only one other load did, a 9mm 147 grain JHP load rated +P+ that the DPS passed on it because of the negative connotations that might be associated with the +P+ label by an uniformed press. Concluding the tests, the Texas DPS found that the acceptable level of recoil for new cadets from small females to large males, expressed in power factor, is 160.

So, let’s take a look at some essential tools you’ll need, particularly if you decide to load up toward and into 9 x 19mm +P pressure levels.

1. A chronograph is an absolute necessity.

2. The caliper that you probably already own. There is one measurement we’ll be making where a micrometer can be used, where with the greater number of graduations for those mics that are accurate to and read to 1/10,000”, that’s one Ten-Thousandth, you can read changes to a more finite scale although not a necessity.

3. A fine line felt tip marker.

One of the most important considerations in making high velocity 9 x 19mm handloads is Overall Cartridge Length, whatever abbreviation you use. The one I type and write is OACL and several more are in common usage as we know. What many do not understand is that OACL recommendations given by the data provider are strictly starting points where you’ll often see it stated that the load should not be shorter. The data providers have no way of knowing what pistols the loads will be used with, and as far as pistol chambers go, you won’t see as much variation among different makes and models as you will in 9mm Luger, Parabellum or 9 x 19mm pistols. For those of you who have not started loading for rifles as yet, you may see slightly exaggerated statements regarding the difference between loading for handguns and loading for rifles. In truth, there are a good number of similarities, particularly where exacting results are the expectation. I love to save a buck wherever I can but it is not what attracted me to handloading. The ability to make better ammunition than you can buy was my particular attraction, with the cost savings being a bonus. For benchrest rifle shooters, there are additional steps often taken that are not common to loading for hunting rifles and handguns. There are, however, a number of procedures that I find common to making my hunting loads for rifles as well as my magnum revolver hunting and defensive handgun loads. Production rate is not one of them. My defense loads are crafted as carefully as my hunting loads while I’m the quality control department; usually loading single-stage or single-station with a LEE Classic Turret press. Getting back to OACL, there is a statement in my SPEER #11 printed in 1986 that when the 9 x 19mm’s pressure maximum according to SAAMI was 35,700 CUP. Don’t worry, we’ll get into that as well. The point being that with their 9mm loads (that are not quite as short as many recommendations for OACL that you see today) they state that a load rated 28,000 CUP went to 62,000 CUP when the bullet was seated .030” deeper into the case. You just don’t want to load shorter than what is given by the data provider, and in many cases, it’s just not necessary to load as short. One unique example unto itself being the Remington Golden Sabers (if you can find any) and that we’ll discuss as well as a possible solution for pistol barrels/chambers with short throats.

There are some fine measuring tools for finding the proper OACL for a load in a bolt-action rifle or an auto-loading pistol. This is one of those “crossovers” I mentioned between loading for rifle and pistol. I don’t use the tools personally because I use an older and proven technique. No pistol caliber in my experience is easier to gauge than the 9 x 19mm. It should be done for every weight/style bullet for the pistol it will be fired from! I can’t think of many precise measurements that are easier to do with jacketed bullets of nominal diameter, .355” in this case.

First you’ll need a FIRED 9 x 19mm case with the spent primer still in place as a safety precaution. I use Winchester cases by habit but others will work as well. If not, find a fired WIN case because almost anyone who picks up their brass at the range is going to end up picking up spent cases from someone who fired White-Box ammo and left their cases on the ground. Do NOT resize the case! Remove the slide from your pistol, the one you’ll be carrying the load in, and remove the barrel from the slide. Take the defense bullet you plan to use and just barely start it into the FIRED case. You want it to be longer than the SAAMI max. spec. for OACL which is 1.169”. This I’ll refer to as the “dummy” cartridge. With the muzzle of the barrel pointed down for all following procedures, drop the “dummy” into the barrel chamber. The case-rim will extend above the barrel hood, which most barrels have, which is at the top of the chamber where barrel length is measured from. Now, gently push on the case-rim until it stops forward travel. This is the point where the case-MOUTH has come into contact with the shoulder inside the chamber where the throat/leade is in the barrel, and where the rifling/lands begin. Once the case-mouth has stopped at the chambers shoulder, the rifling/lands of the barrel have seated the bullet to its “Max. Possible OACL.”

Some rifle loaders set OACL to crowd the lands as close as possible. The old rule-of-thumb is to allow .010” of freebore for the bullet to “jump” to the rifling/lands. In other words, your handloads will need to be .010” shorter than the “Max. Possible OACL” that you find from measuring the “dummy’s” OACL with your caliper. Make up 5 “dummies” or use the same one 5 times and repeat this test, what you want to see is that in each test event you’re getting the same “Max. Possible OACL.” Regardless of which autoloading handgun cartridge you load, the bottom of the case should NOT extend beyond the barrel hood. That can cause an out-of-battery condition. You may see diagrams of this at various websites or in your manuals. Ideally, the cartridge base should be flush with the barrel hood or about 1mm below it and no more.

Part of the decision on how long your handloads can be is a function of the OACL variations from your press and seating die. Do not try to seat and crimp in one operation. It will contribute to greater variations in OACL. Since different presses and dies have different tolerances I recommend that you shorten your defense loads by .010” shorter than the “dummy.” Just as in the case of your best hunting rifle load, the bullet of your handload should NOT be touching anything in the throat/leade upon cartridge ignition. This can cause an unsafe pressure condition. Also be aware that some 9mm pistols like the Ruger SR9 will allow for a longer OACL than what will function in its magazines. Obviously your handloads have to be short enough to have some travel clearance in the magazine. For pistol barrels we’re not quite dealing with the same precision of a rifle load/chamber; neither are we dealing with near the same amount of pressure in most cases. The principles are similar but you can allow for more bullet “jump” without an appreciable degradation in accuracy. To make things even simpler, you can just shorten your handloads to the next lower .5mm. Just so we’re square on that I’ll list those various lengths that I use in both SI and Standard units. The longest I load to is 29.5mm/1.161”, then 29mm/1/142”, 28.5mm/1.122” and only when you’re forced to load as short, 28mm/ 1.102”. Here is one example where maybe we can cover everything and this particular OACL will be coming up later in the article. Okay, you just barely start your JHP into the fired case and drop it into the chamber. To avoid confusion at this point we’re talking about a longer 147 grain JHP. You gently push on the case-rim until it stops, then you remove it from the chamber. With your caliper, say you measure the “Max. Possible OACL” @ 1.175”. Repeat the test 4 more times to make sure the “dummy” consistently measures 1.175” each time. This is over the SAAMI spec. for Max. OACL and may not work in your magazines. A good many brands of pistols have magazines that will not allow you to crowd the Max. spec. of 1.169”. Shortening by .010” for your loaded rounds will get you under that @ 1.165” but here I would drop down to 29.5mm/1.161” and even then, some magazines will not work with loads as long. You could shorten to 29mm/1.142” or seat the bullet shorter in finer increments until the loads will function in the magazine.

One thing I want to stress here is part of my testing procedure at the range. When I’m function testing, particularly if I have the range to myself, I’m going to rip through a few fully loaded magazines firing the pistol as fast as I can while being able to control the pistol: maybe even faster than what some might consider “Spray-and-Pray.” Something I would very much advise against save for the cause of function testing your new load in the magazines they’ll be carried in. If you have a man-sized silhouette target, firing the rounds as fast as you can keep them in the mid torso of the silhouette will suffice. Remember, your range rules may not allow you to do this. Find a place where you can. Your handloads must function with at least 100% reliability! Accept no substitute!

Okay, call me OCD at this point because I’ve heard that many times, as well as hearing that the powder charge does not have to be exactly the same in each cartridge. Maybe I’m OCD on that as well because I prefer to use dense spherical powders, ball or flattened ball in my handloads. One side benefit that can be useful is that they almost invariably give lower and less offensive muzzle-flash, which at night can rob you of your visual acuity after the first round is fired. Then there are commercial powders available such as Ramshot Silhouette that have a flash inhibitor as part of the powders chemistry. Why obsess with minimum OACL variations and exact powder charges? Well, in my case I put 10 rounds over the chrono but only fire a few in the water jug test. The more closely that each round in the magazine performs exactly the same, the more consistent you can expect the result to be at a time when you really have to put it to the test. Another misnomer, in case you don’t own a chronograph at the moment is that the only data you need is average velocity and extreme spread. Pay the $10 more for a unit that calculates and provides Standard Deviation when you want it! I want it at the time of testing and I’m too impatient to wait until I get back home to download the 10 round strings into a spreadsheet program or SD calculator. Extreme spread is simply the difference between the highest and lowest velocity round fired. That I can do in my head. My mathematical expertise is in engineering, I am NOT a statistician. If you ask a statistician about SD, Standard Deviation, you’re going to get a rather lengthy answer covering things like confidence limits, population size, etc. Just a few chronographs have an accuracy rated better than +/- 1% and that’s good enough for handgun ballistics. Chronographing 10 rounds in a string works fine for me. Some guys use 20 round strings and some as few as 5 rounds. I think you’ll find that the majority use 10 shot strings. My quick and dirty description of Standard Deviation is that it will tell you how far your velocities are spread about the norm calculated by the chronograph. The lower you can get the SD of a load the better chance you have of all 10 rounds in the string (or how ever many you fire in your strings) the more similarly those loads are likely to perform on target. You don’t have to obsess, particularly not with high pressure pistol cartridges. You’ll be running near or above the standard Maximum Average Pressure, or MAP, where with a good powder getting an SD of near 10 is not difficult. An SD below 10 is very good and if your load performs like you want it to with SD dropping down close to 5, call it good and go on to the next project. While I’m on this subject, let me touch on poly-coated bullets for a moment. Our esteemed & fearless editor knows that I’m a True Blue fanatic and if you check back a few pages here on the e-mag you’ll see that I wrote an article about it. I have found absolutely nothing that would suggest that poly-coating takes anything away from accuracy. I have a tack-driving 9mm load that I am glad to share. The only problem is that Blue Bullet’s discontinued this particular bullet style that I describe as a 125 grain RN-SWC. The nose is round, but like a SWC the shank above the shoulder/driving band is smaller in diameter. SNS Casting still sells this poly-coated style last time I checked. Do the test for OACL/chamber length for your bullet. You might be able to use my OACL in pistols that would not allow the use of a JHP as long. With the Blue Bullet’s 125 grain RN-SWC over 6.2 grains of True Blue loaded to an OACL of 29mm/1.142” with a CCI-500 primer it’s a tack-driver from my 4.14” SR9. Average velocity is 1122 FPS, extreme spread is 12 FPS with an Standard Deviation of 3!

Truth be told there aren’t many defensive cartridges I load where I can’t get standard deviation below 10 using True Blue, even with .357 Magnum loads for my 2 ¾” Ruger Speed-Six. It’s also a very undiscovered powder for .45 ACP, IMO. For carry loads with 124 gr. JHPs in 9mm I tend to use Silhouette because of its very low flash through chemical treating. Powders like True Blue, AA#5 and #7 are low flashing by a combination of their very high bulk densities and small physical size. We’ll explore this later as well. With my 124 grain 9mm loads at 1250 FPS using Silhouette the standard deviations have ran as low as 6. With 230 gr. XTPs in .45 ACP with warm charges of Silhouette I can get SD down below 10. Just keep in mind that in .45 ACP and its much lower operating pressure your Silhouette loads will run better close to or at Max. Charges.

As we get into pressure lets start by clearing up another misconception. In my Lyman 46^th edition there is a chapter titled A Limited Comparison of the Crusher and Piezo systems. Some handloaders will tell you that case expansion, or the measure of, it will not contribute any meaningful data. Near the end of that chapter the authors state, “For peak chamber pressures between 15,000 and 40,000 PSI, Figure 3-8 suggests that there is an approximately linear relationship between pressure and case expansion.” In case you don’t have this article, Figure 3-8 is a graph showing the amount of case expansion by thousandths of an inch correlating to pressures from 15,000 to 60,000 CUP. While we’re on this subject, let me state that these authors conclude that:

“The key advantage of the piezoelectric transducer is the ability to generate the complete pressure-versus-time history of the internal ballistic process, whereas the copper crusher gage is capable of measuring on the peak magnitude of the pressure pulse.”

Some will tell you that the piezoelectric transducer system (PSI) is superior to the copper crusher (CUP) method as far as consistency of the peak pressure measurements. Yet, there are those like Lyman and Hodgdon that continue to test pressure in CUP to make sure their data does not exceed established limits. Lyman’s 9 x 19mm data uses the CUP system for both Start and Maximum charges as is the case for much of their handgun data. There is no empirical evidence that the piezoelectric system measures peak pressure any more accurately than by the CUP method. Since both tests can be conducted simultaneously, some choose to do so. We’ll get into this some more when we dig into 9 x 19mm pressure. Now I’ve mentioned Lyman data several times already and I will tell you this: in my 29 years of handloading I have never had a single problem using Lyman data. In fact, in my time at various reloading sections on the various gun forums I have encouraged those who do not have a Lyman manual to get one. The reason being is to help handloaders better understand the pressure characteristics of different powders used to load the same bullet in the same caliber; especially when the pressure is listed. Unfortunately, some of the excellent articles in the 46^th have not been included in later editions. One reason I’ve never updated mine. To stay abreast of handgun powders that have come along since then, and newer pistol calibers as well, I have the Lyman Pistol & Revolver 3^rd edition. It has also helped me to gain a better understanding of the 3 most common pressure rating system we’ll encounter, SAAMI PSI, SAAMI CUP and CIP PSI. We’ll be discussing all 3 as we progress. There is another that I’m familiar with from hydraulics, but BARS is typically used only by Europeans as well as measurements in Mega-Paschals.

During some of my research in past years I had some conversations with another researcher whose main interest was the .357 SIG, but he made a lot of head-to-head comparisons to the 9 x 19mm including the +P version. He was a fervent practitioner of measuring case-head expansion as he worked toward maximum loads from data, and as he exceeded it. Trying to determine pressure or overpressure from the condition of the primer post firing is not as conclusive as some believe. Craterring is definitely one condition that is an indication of overpressure and there are others like pierced primers. Flattening of the primer is not always conclusive with handgun loads as compared to higher pressure rifle loads. As an example, if an ammo-maker loaded one of my 124 grain JHP loads at 1250 FPS you can be guaranteed that they’re gonna slap a +P label on it. Depending on the powder used, I rarely see anything close to flattened primers with those loads. I can not make the following statement definitively without empirical evidence because I honestly don’t spend a lot of time concerning myself with it. But, it may well be a function of the burn rate of the powder selected in relation to the cartridges operating pressure.

I don’t mean to bemoan the practices of my host, but not so long ago Western Powders provided 9mm +P data for every powder they sell that has application in handgun handloads including Nitro 100 and Competition. In my opinion, such data is misguided. In the Western #5 load guide we see that the data for the powders used for 9mm loads are listed by burn rate. The +P data did the same. It seemed to me as something of an exercise in futility and I strongly recommend that you do not attempt to make any 9mm +P load with a powder that has an inappropriate burn rate, i.e. fast or very fast burning powders that in some cases might even be double-charged. Make sure to examine the powder charge level in every case when developing any handload and particularly high velocity or +P loads. So from the powders listed, disregard those that are faster burning than Silhouette. Accurate #5 is a fine handgun powder, but I would not use it either. Silhouette, True Blue and Accurate #7 have the demonstrated pressure stability that is essential. This is not some exercise to get to 38,500 PSI; its about getting as much velocity as possible with acceptable pressure.

The correct location for measuring expansion of the case-head on the 9mm’s case is .200” above the rim. As an example from the Lyman graph I mentioned, there was an increase of .001” when raising pressure from 30,000 CUP to 35,000 CUP and another .001” of expansion when going from 35,000 CUP to 40,000 CUP. I don’t have the pressure testing equipment I’d like to, but from the 35,700 CUP data I’ve been using for many years none of the loads we’ll be discussing should even reach 35,000 CUP. What I do is to mark as fine of a line as possible at that location and then make a measurement before and after firing the round. I’m mainly concerned with increases of .001” so I use my Mitutoyo dial caliper. I can estimate half of that, or .0005” for test purposes. Now I’ll explain my earlier remarks about using a micrometer for this. Rather than the sharp blades on the caliper a micrometer, unless you have the blade type, will have flat probes. No big deal except that the 9 x 19mm has a tapered case. So when you measure the fine line you marked at .200” above the rim, only the bottom leading edge of the probes should be on that line with the mic. body above it. The advantage of using a mic that measures in 1/10,000^th” graduations is that you can more closely examine case expansion with each increase in powder charge. Using the dial caliper, you can wait until you near Max. charges from the data before you began taking measurements of the case-head. When you believe that your handloads are near the SAAMI standard pressure limit of 35,000 PSI (or 33,000 CUP), start measuring case-heads before and after firing to see what is normal. You may see some variation because barrel chambers are not all exactly alike. Case expansion from standard pressure loads near or at the top end will tell you what your particular chamber allows case expansion to be. If you increase powder charges from there and into the +P range, ideally, case-head expansion should not go above .001” and less is better. Rob Behr and I had a good discussion some time back about the case-head strength of the 9 x 19mm cartridge. Pound for pound, very few pistol cartridges have greater case-head strength and some of those that do were derived from the 9 x 19mm, i.e. cartridges like the 9 x 23mm Winchester.

I was one of those who jumped on the .40 S&W bandwagon very early on. I never had one single problem and the opinion I shared with others was never use a flake powder faster burning than Unique, or a spherical faster than N330 for standard pressure loads. In the case of new handloaders and loading for any handgun cartridge I’ve always advised that they use a powder that will fill at least 50% of the case. Double charges should never happen, yet we know that they do. Using a powder that gives greater than 50% case-fill is obviously going to spill over in the event of a double charge. In Lyman’s .40 S&W data you’ll notice 2 things. 1, they rated pressure in CUP, and 2, they did not exceed 24,000 CUP. This is because of pistols that may not adequately support the case-head. While they use powders faster burning than what I’d recommend for standard pressure loads, the data is perfectly safe if you’re looking to make target rounds with a faster burning powder.

Now we get to 9 x 19mm pressure levels. As I stated, when I started out in the mid-eighties, the 9 x 19mm had a SAAMI pressure limit of 35,700 CUP. There is a good bit of confusion regarding various pressure ratings for different designations. In my opinion, it started with the inception of 9mm +P. If you Google overpressure ammunition you can learn a few things on the subject. One article at Wikipedia isn’t bad but it has a few errors in regard to the 9mm. They, like some handloaders will tell you is that +P ammunition is approximately 10% over standard pressure and how the +P limit of 38,500 PSI was reached. SAAMI was testing in PSI by piezoelectric transducer by that time. This is one of those cases where the cart came before the horse because there was no PSI value to raise by 10%. In the early part of the article they mention that +P ratings were derived, in some cases, from the cartridges previous rating before being lowered. So, only having the pre-existing value of 35,700 CUP to work with it appears much more likely that when they tested in PSI it came out very close to 38,500 PSI. After reducing standard pressure to 35,000 PSI some data providers began listing pressure in both standards, 35,000 PSI and 33,000 CUP. It has been my opinion for many years that 9mm +P at 38,500 PSI is little more than those previously rated 35,700 CUP. We are not greatly affected in this country by the CIP system which is tested differently than SAAMI PSI. When Vihta Vouri powders first started appearing in the US, their data for the 9 x 19mm went up to 36,300 PSI. CIP has since lowered that to just above 34,000 PSI.

Unlike the SAAMI CUP and PSI systems where a mechanical or electronic device is pressed or crushed by the cartridge case at a location about mid-chamber, the CIP system requires a hole to be drilled in the case where the piezoelectric transducer is directly affected by the burning and expanding gasses. I was recently enlightened on the CIP method by Rob Behr. Western’s former ballistician, Johan Loubser who was with Accurate Powder Company when they were acquired by Western, once told me that the CIP system was the most accurate of the 3 and expected SAAMI to adopt it in the future. That hasn’t happened yet but there is one cartridge familiar to us that is affected by the CIP, or Commission International Permanente, and that is the 9mm NATO round. Its pressure rating was established by CIP and it is set at 36,500 PSI. In my way of thinking, everything could be made much easier if everyone used one common standard. Since most of the European pistols we buy are used by one country or another’s military, we know that many of those countries are members of the NATO alliance and it just wouldn’t make sense for them to not make their pistols robust enough for the NATO standard and then some. In years past, Ruger stated in their 9mm pistol instruction manuals that their pistols were made to be used with any ammunition loaded to industry standards, including +P and +P+. We know the pressure rating for +P, but +P+ is a bit of a pink elephant in my opinion. While no set limit exists, there is the suggestion that it not exceed 40,000 PSI. Maybe one of these days someone will show me any commercial 9mm load that would pressure test above 38,500 PSI. I’m not an engineer for an ammunition manufacturer but I would certainly hope that those who are know the dynamics well enough to select a proper powder for their defense loads. Don’t be confused when the +P designation is used as a marketing ploy. Back when Ruger introduced their first poly frame pistol, the P-95, they talked about the test pistol they used to fire 20,000 rounds of Federal +P+. That load used the same bullet as the standard pressure 9BP, but with velocity at 1250 FPS, I’d hardly call that +P+. Look at your data sources and you may find that even a +P designation was unnecessary.

Today Ruger states that “no 9mm Parabellum ammunition manufactured in accordance with NATO, U.S., SAAMI, or CIP standards is known to be beyond the design limits or known not to function in these pistols.” I point this out because of the paranoia you may have seen about 9mm +P ammunition causing accelerated wear. Well, not with the pistols designed to handle it! Keep that in mind when you select your next 9 x 19mm pistol. I’d like someone to be able to explain to me how a slightly higher pressure, or the original pressure for me, is going to wear out a quality made pistol prematurely. Using power factor as a means to look at slide velocity in recoil, it doesn’t take long to figure out that the same pistols made for .40 S&W and .357 SIG, where other than bore diameter, the greatest difference is slide mass. I mention this not only as criticism but to make a recommendation from what I’ve done with my SR9 which weighs 26.5 oz. The SR40 weighs in at 27.25 oz. The frames are identical so the weight difference is purely in slide mass. The SR9 comes with an 18# captured recoil spring while weight used in the SR40 is 20#. Earlier in this article I mentioned the velocity of my 147 grain being 1125 FPS from my SR9. That’s a power factor of 165.4 which is technically 9mm Major in power factor while I do not believe its pressure would be above 33,000 CUP/35,000 PSI. Knowing that the 147 grain supersonic load would yield higher slide velocity than say my 124 grain loads. I bought a stainless steel guide rod and 20# recoil spring from Galloway precision. Spring weight alone does not equal the playing field as was learned in the early days of the .40 S&W when some manufacturers simply put a .40 caliber barrel in their existing 9mm and increased spring weight accordingly. There were those like SIG/Sauer that spent a bit more time in development of their .40 S&W pistols and learned that increased slide mass was also required. But in this case we’re only talking about a difference in slide mass of around 3% in favor of the SR40. As far as power factor for the loads, one of the more powerful rounds commonly found in .40 S&W are the 165 grain versions at 1150 FPS. Power factor is about 190 where we see around a 13% gain over the 147 gr. 9mm.

Myself, I could live with a single pressure standard such as the NATO designation. I began using the Vihta Vouri powders when they first became available and have worked up to Max loads rated 36,300 PSI/CIP. In fact, the first time I worked up to supersonic velocity levels with the Hornady 147 grain XTP it was with 3N37 using Vihta Vouri data. Later when 3N38 was introduced I was corresponding with another handloader who was interested in my 147 grain supersonic loads and he wanted to try 3N38 because by that time they had reduced their 9mm data to around 33,000 PSI but still managed to launch the 147 grain XTP above 1200 FPS from their 4” test barrel. They had also started another practice; that of using a CIP minimum dimension barrels for testing. When my correspondent got up to the Maximum Charge of 3N38 and tried to seat the bullet to the recommended 29mm/1.142” OACL, the nose of the XTP was deformed from the powder compression. He wasn’t exactly in awe of the accuracy he got either using a Glock 34 for testing. He had a very good idea and tried using Accurate #7. I can’t remember what his powder charges were now but he found velocity comparable if not better than using 3N38. He had a definite improvement in accuracy.

Glock 34

In the “Dear Labby” section here I asked sometime back if Western used a minimum dimension barrel for their latest 9 x 19mm data. Either the ballistician at that time didn’t understand my questions, or I failed to get them across concisely enough. My questions also involved Golden Saber bullets where I know that we miscommunicated. In the response I was told that it appeared that some of my statements contradicted each other so I want to cover this in regard to the statement I made earlier about pistols with short chambers. When I owned a CZ P-01 I was mostly using the standard Remington 124 grain JHP at that time because of its accuracy, and that it could be bought in bulk quantities. When I checked for the Max. Possible OACL it turned out to be 1.127”. I made my rounds with a REDDING Boss single stage press and my Titanium Carbide die set. I could hold OACL tolerances to +/- .001” or better so I dropped down to the next .5mm at 28.5mm/1.122” which allowed for .005” of freebore. I loved that pistol but ended up selling it to my brother who needed a better carry pistol than the one he was carrying at the time. A few years ago I started using the 124 grain Golden Saber again and started load development with 3N37 and Silhouette. CZ 75 series pistols are known for their short chambers as was the case for my P-01, but the thought occurred to me that the 124 grain Golden Saber might be a solution. I’ve always loaded them as Remington does which is one thing I agree with in the Western #5 data for 9 x 19mm, their OACL of 1.145” for the 124 grain Golden Saber. The reason for that is seating the bullet to where the top of its driving band is flush with the case-mouth. Because of its driving band design, the shank above the driving band up to the ogive is smaller in diameter (approx. .347”). One simple way to find out would be with the “plunk” test by dropping a bullet into the chamber with the muzzle point downward 90 degrees. If the bullet does not touch the lands you should hear an audible “plunk” and the case should spin freely in the chamber. The things is, I have gotten away from owning any short chambered 9 x 19mm pistol and I don’t plan to buy another for 1 single defense bullet only. Another point here, when I loaded the 124 grain Golden Saber to Remington’s spec for their +P load at 1180 FPS the jacket and core separated. I thought I could prevent this with higher velocity and did using Silhouette at around 1222 FPS. Concerning my questions to “Dear Labby,” I’ve loaded enough thousands of the Golden Sabers to tell you that you’re dreaming if you expect to get the velocities in the data. Some of the data is good for other bullets and developed by a different ballistician. Even at similar OACL I have never seen a Golden Saber that didn’t require a higher powder charge compared to a JHP with a copper jacket. 9 x 19mm or .45 ACP. Before the .45 ACP Golden Saber data was developed I used the data for the 185 grain XTP: 1152 FPS with 9.9 grains of Silhouette. Working up all the way to the Max. Charge but using the 185 grain Golden Saber, the fastest velocity I was able to achieve was 1087 FPS. So if you use a Western Powder to load the 124 grain Golden Saber to a velocity at which it works great at, you won’t need to start much below what is shown as the Max. Charge and follow the steps we’ve discussed. The other part that I found rather dubious was the statement that, “our test barrels are SAAMI spec.” That’s all fine and dandy, but SAAMI allows a variation from minimum to maximum where all are technically, “in spec.” The problem with minimum dimension barrels for testing is that the rated pressures are too high for the corresponding velocity. Just sayin’! If the folks in management read this I hope they’ll consider some of my points. I also know where they could find a very good ballistician without much effort!

Okay, I know this article is rather lengthy so let’s start putting things together, except for a few things we’ll discuss in a companion article to this one. Once you’ve confirmed what OACL you need to use for your bullet and carry pistol, work up to the Max. Charge at which time you should start measuring case-head diameter before and after firing. Work up gradually and no more than increases of .2 grains. As far as Western Powder’s are concerned, for 124 gr. JHPs I would use Silhouette or Accurate #7. Obviously your velocity expectations can’t be as high as I’ve quoted for my 4.14” SR9 if your pistol has a shorter barrel. And if it does I would stick with Silhouette or True Blue. Whenever a handloader can not find data for a particular JHP I’ve always recommended the data for the SIERRA 125 grain JHP. There 2 reasons for that. Both SIERRA and Lyman load it short at 1.075” which you now know can be loaded significantly longer once you’ve found the requirements of your own barrel’s chamber as we’ve discussed. Secondly, it has the longest shank/bearing surface of any 124/125 gr. JHP that I’m aware of. The longer the bearing surface is, the more friction the bullet will have in the bore which equates to higher pressure as well. Sierra’s data runs a bit warmer than Lyman’s does.

Let’s talk about Sectional Density now and hopefully they’re given in your load manual. This is why I don’t use 115 grain JHPs except for one possible situation where I might if necessary. I’ll be quoting those for Hornady XTPs but there should be little or no difference regardless of bullet manufacturer. The 115 grain XTP has a sectional density of .130 and sectional density has a great effect on penetration. The 124 grain XTP has a sectional density of .141 which I feel more comfortable with. The 147 grain XTP has a sectional density of .167 which is higher than that of a 180 grain .40 or a 230 grain .45 by just a bit. Penetration has never been a problem for 9mm 147grain JHPs except in the early days of the bullet and subsonic velocity when because of the slow velocities there were a number of over-penetration incidents that could have easily been solved with higher velocity/greater expansion, but only one man at the time had the solution: Peter Pi of CorBon.

Scene of the Miami Shootout.

When it comes to the ballistic “authorities” remember to listen to all sides of the story and never just one. I have found that just about everyone’s pet theory has some merit. But as some of us know, one single event impacted 9mm ammunition like no other: the 1986 “Miami Shootout.” Several FBI agents were killed in a gun battle following a robbery because the latest “new tech” bullet underperformed with one perpetrator shooting several agents while a Winchester 115 grain Silvertip was lodged within 1” of his heart. The round originally struck him in the upper arm/shoulder and with its soft aluminum gilding metal in the jacket, it gave impressive expansion, but it was that rapid expansion that prevented it from penetrating deep enough to stop the perpetrator. The FBI then began using subsonic 147 grain JHP loads. At around 975 FPS the reverse occurred: too much penetration and not enough expansion. In a number of cases the subsonic 147 grain JHPs had penetrated completely through the villain without great effect then went on to strike innocent bystanders. Fackler and the FBI’s next attempt to find the best service cartridge was the 10mm “Lite.” A 180 grain .40 bullet reduced in velocity from previous loads to around 980 FPS. It did not distinguish itself as a combat round and there were flaws found with the S&W pistols chambered for it. The final solution were Glock pistols chambered in .40 S&W with varying degrees of success depending on the particular load used at the time. It appears now that the FBI is looking back towards the 9 x 19mm.

This is my own take but the only caliber I will use at subsonic velocity is the .45 ACP with a good 230 gr. JHP like the XTP. I sometimes load 185 and 200 gr. JHPs but at higher velocity, particularly in the case of the 185 grain Golden Sabers as mentioned earlier. Since I have to give an opinion on a data source I’m going to recommend one of the current Lyman manuals. Before Johan Loubser’s talents were acquired along with the purchase of Accurate Powder Company he listed the Max. Charge of Accurate #7 for the 147 grain SPEER TMJ at 7.2 grains with a Federal primer while using an OACL of 1.095” giving 1047 FPS. You’ll find that same load in the Lyman 49^th edition or the Pistol and Revolver III except that they loaded longer at 1.115” and used a CCI-500 primer to get a velocity of 1014 FPS. Considering the longer OACL I find that very consistent with the Accurate data as well as the results I get. And just as I mentioned pressure increasing with shorter OACLs, it works the same in reverse. Pressure will decrease by loading longer. The Lyman manual lists pressure for their 147 grain TMJ load at 29,000 CUP. That leaves an additional 4000 CUP to work with before the load is technically +P. Remember, these are specific cases and I’m only going to recommend Accurate #7 here because it has few peers when it comes to loading the 147 grain JHPs. My initial loads had an OACL of 29.5mm/1.161” up until I got to 7.5 grains of #7 for 1112 FPS from my 4.14” barrel. At that point, rather than increase the powder charge further and for the benefit of readers who might not be able to load as long as 29.5mm/1.161”, I shortened the OACL to 29mm/1.142” to get the additional velocity. I do use a formula of my own to find the approximate powder charge needed to maintain the same pressure when OACL is lengthened. Over the years in developing these loads I have come to very much believe that the longer burn column allows velocity to increase without a significant pressure increase by lengthening the OACL and adjusting the powder charge accordingly. As you increase OACL with the 9 x 19mm, keep in mind that the brass above the web is thinning as you get closer to the case-mouth, so case capacity increases to a slightly greater degree. For those who may not know, Accurate #7 was originally designed as a propellant for heavier 9mm bullets to be fired from submachine guns. It is ideal for this application. Be sure to chronograph and you’ll only need to line up four 1 gallon water jugs at 1125 to 1150 FPS. The 147 grain XTP expands to what looks like maybe its maximum potential. Remember when I mentioned the 230 grain .45 bullets having dimples or craters? Well the 9mm 147 grain XTP core will flatten at the top with just a tiny dimple sticking up in the center. If it goes into the 4^th jug it won’t be by much. A real world load you can make and evaluate yourself without having to depend on a “new tech” bullet, many of which are not available to handloaders.

If you feel like you’d prefer the 147 grain SPEER Gold Dot, the TMJ data will work. In a SPEER manual the data should be the same for both bullets. One more reason I like the XTP is because so far as I can tell it has the shortest shank/bearing surface of any 147 grain JHP.

As I close here, let me recommend that you read the companion article as the editor and I decided things like case-neck tension and taper crimp are worthy of their own article rather than add them to one that has already become quite long. And there will be things relevant to other autoloading cartridges as well.

Kevin Newberry

Kevin Newberry is the author of Kilroy: Kilroy Was Here, an adventure novel available from Amazon.com

By Kevin Newberry

This is the companion article to Important Steps to 9 x 19mm +P Defense Load Success. It is a separate article because of the carry over to other autoloading cartridges as well.

The Editor

One thing that the editor and I both strongly agree on is the importance of a good and proper taper crimp and I hope to enlighten as many as possible on a subject that I believe is far too misunderstood by even handloaders considered to be giving expert opinions.

I’m going to start off with a question. Its simplicity may have you wondering why I ask, but in my time in various reloading sections of gun forums, there a few topics appearing to be as misunderstood. Here we go.

1. Have you ever cut soft copper tubing with a tubing cutter? As the cutting wheel cuts deeper into the tubing, the pressure from the cutting wheel reduces the diameter of the tubing at the cut. 2. What is a taper crimp?

The handloaders that also happen to work as professional plumbers might see where I’m going with this, but go to the reloading section of your favorite gun forum and ask if your autoloading cartridge needs to be taper crimped, and by how much?

Types of Crimps.

If the answer is just enough to remove the flare left from the expanding die, you might want to ask the respondent question #1. Ladies and gentlemen, when you simply remove the flare caused by the expander to a neutral position where the case angle from head to case-mouth is the same, pardon me for saying this, BUT, you haven’t crimped anything!

The fact is, if you simply want to remove the flare added by the expander, that can easily be done while you seat the bullet without any detriment to OACL, OverAll Cartridge Length. I am one of those you will see recommending that you should seat the bullet and taper crimp the case in two separate operations, and I’m going to explain a very easy method for applying the correct amount of taper crimp as we discuss its benefits.

Most likely, you have seen or will see the statement that the taper crimp does nothing to prevent bullet setback into the case and that the only sure method for preventing setback is through adequate case-neck tension. So, again, ask the respondent how much case-neck tension is enough case-neck tension. While you’re waiting for a reply, maybe ask question #2!

It has been my unfortunate experience to see the automatic response of “just enough to remove the flare” by folks who have very little useful information to accompany their statement. Different load manuals make different statements on the subject, but universally it is accepted that a proper taper crimp can aid in reliable feeding of the autopistol cartridge. The better explanations, as is the case of the excellent little manual included in the latest Western Powders Load Guide’s Getting Started is that it can be an aid to preventing bullet setback. At this point I’d like to quote a former mentor, a WWII veteran with nothing more than a high school education who helped develop a formula to calculate friction losses in various types of pipe to four place decimal accuracy using a handheld scientific calculator while many or most engineers were still referring to charts and graphs in reference books. His axiom, “If a man tells you that he has 30 years of experience at something, but has been doing it wrong for 29, he actually has 1 year of useful experience! We don’t want to be that guy.

Case-neck tension is indeed a very important step in preventing the very dangerous possibility of bullet setback, but, it is not the only step! How much is enough. Well, in my load manuals that go back 30 years or more and reading expert opinions in the various reloading articles from beyond then, the author will explain what many of us refer to as the “push test.” That is taking the finished round and with the nose of the bullet pressed squarely into the wooden table top of your reloading bench, or a block of wood if your bench is constructed from steel. Measure OACL before the “push test” and after. Did it shorten? If so, there is not enough case-neck tension and we’re gonna discuss remedies.

While at your favorite gun forum, if they have a separate section for factory ammunition, you will or have seen recommendations for rotating rounds that you chamber in your defense pistol. The reason being that with multiple impacts with the feed-ramp, OACL is decreased. Sometimes it can shorten to dangerous conditions. In my SPEER #11 load manual from 1986, they mention taking a 9 x 19mm round that they pressure tested at 28,000 CUP, and when shortened by only .030”, pressure jumped up to 62,000 CUP which is beyond the proof testing pressure level for the cartridge and 9 x 19mm pistols. According to what I read about the European CIP test method, proof pressure is tested at 30% above Maximum Average Pressure, or MAP. Obviously, this is a very serious potential problem that can result in injury to the shooter, and/or damage to the pistol.

So, how do we prevent bullet setback? Giving credit where credit is due, I believe I first saw this recommendation given by Layne Simpson of Shooting Times years ago. He stated that what we call the expander button should be .002” smaller in diameter than the jacketed bullet you are loading. For 9mm die sets, that would mean a diameter of .353” for the nominal bullet diameter of .355”. When you perform the “push test” and find that OACL has shortened, think about the effect of that same round impacting the feed ramp during the feed cycle. That is what is occurring with factory loads being discussed in regard to rotating the top round in the magazine that gets fed into the chamber. The first thing a handloader should do is to remove the expander button from the expanding die and measure its diameter. If it is .354” but the bullet moves rearward during the “push test” then obviously it needs to be smaller in diameter. There is no magic or voodoo required to correct it. If you perceive it in that way, contact the die manufacturer and they’ll likely replace it. With confidence and a light touch with machine paper or very fine grit sandpaper, lightly tape any threads that might come into contact with the chuck of your turning machine. You could also have this done at a local machine shop where most of us don’t have milling machines in our personal shops. A high speed drill press will work and if you’re confident enough in your ability, a hand drill/driver can be used locked at its highest speed. As the expander button is rotating, just lightly touch the machine paper to the area that goes into the cartridge case. Stop at that point and measure its diameter to see if you’ve removed any metal. You should not need to reduce the expander button’s diameter to less than .002” of the jacketed bullet diameter. The next push test will demonstrate the level of your success. Other factors can be involved such as cartridge cases that have thinner case walls but we’ll get to that in a moment.

When performing the “push test” and let me just say that I’m a fairly large guy and that there’s no lack of push, if your bullet is setting back by only .001” or .002”, you may be able to correct that with additional taper crimp.

So, how much taper crimp is enough taper crimp? Usually around .002”+/-. If it’s a .45 ACP cartridge .003” of taper crimp is not going to hurt anything in the slightest way. Obviously the 9 x19mm cartridge is a good bit smaller and what I look for is at least .0015”, fifteen ten-thousandths of an inch or what a machinist might refer to as 15 tenths. Okay, your dial caliper only reads in increments of .001”, so in this case the indicator should be midway between a .001” and .002” reduction in diameter. Again though, if you use .002” you’re not going to hurt a thing. I cringe when people start talking about improperly over-taper crimping to the point of bullet deformation. I also cringe when the topic of Factory Crimp dies come into the discussion. Many are not aware that a Factory Crimp die is a post sizing die first. If one is out of spec by one thousandth to the smaller diameter, guess what diameter your .355” bullet will be after running it through that die. Learning to use a taper crimp die is not magic or voodoo, either. Most bullet seating dies incorporate a crimp function. Roll crimp for revolver rounds and taper crimp for autoloading rounds, but that was not always the case.

In this case I will tell you that I use and recommend REDDING’s separate taper crimp and their Profile Crimp dies for revolver loads. In both cases they work to perfection. Most guys that run progressive presses will have a separate taper crimp die installed in the station after the bullet seating die. If you load on a single stage press and have only the 3 die set it means that after you seat your bullets you’ll need to remove the seating stem and adjust the die to taper crimp. I have made enough measurements over the years to conclude that if you seat and crimp in one single operation you’re going to get larger variations in OACL. If it’s just blasting ammo and you’re comfortable with that, well, that’s entirely up to you. Most of my autoloading rounds have some defense application, or the practice thereof. Like my powder charges I don’t want any more variation than necessary. Unlike my hunting rifle rounds I’m not going to weigh each individual powder charge thrown because it isn’t necessary with a good powder measure like the RCBS Uniflow or another brand’s equivalent. And particularly not when using fine grained spherical powders with high bulk density like Accurate #5, #7, #9 and 4100 or Ramshot True Blue and Enforcer. Silhouette is not quite so dense at 800 grams/liter (.8 grams/cc) but it too drops very consistently.

It’s the little things like consistency of the powder-drops and OACL combined with one of these excellent powders that will help you get those single digit standard deviations from your defense loads. I use Silhouette quite often because of it being treated to yield very low flash.

Lee Turret Press

In the case of REDDING’s stand alone taper crimp die you’d really have to work hard at screwing up. First you have the inner wall of the die that is angled slightly more than the case’s taper. Many taper crimp dies operate on that principle alone. But if you look up into the internals of the REDDING taper crimp die you notice a second smaller and more severe taper angle that works directly on the case-mouth. So, with your seating die that also has a taper crimp function, raise the ram and cartridge to full height then turn the seating die without the seating stem installed until you feel the die come into contact with the case-mouth of the cartridge. Then, depending on your hand strength, you may be able to turn the die enough to remove most or even all of the flare from the expanding operation. Than set your seating-stem to get the desired OACL. As an example, with my 20 something year-old REDDING Boss that uses top-dead-center as all REDDING presses do, I can keep OACL tolerances to +/- .002” with most JHPs and those that are very uniform under +/- .001”. The LEE Classic Turret I use a lot these days also has a form of top-dead-center and I was quite surprised to find that it allows minimal OACL variations.

Now to the perfect taper crimp. If you remove the flare during the seating operation as I mentioned in my own method, the case-mouth will be at or near what I call a neutral position, or in line with the case-wall. Hey, I’m old, so I’m not ashamed to put on some reading glasses to get a good look, or you can just use a magnifying glass. There is no assurance that the case-mouth diameter will be a SAAMI spec of .380”. More than likely it will be less to say .377”. So once the case-mouth appears to be in alignment with the case-body, measure the diameter of the case-mouth. I do this with a dial caliper and in a moment we’ll discuss how much taper crimp will need and what the measurement should be when just removing the flare. You’ll need some degree of manual dexterity but if you place your off-hand in a position to support and index the caliper you should be able to get right on the case-mouth and naturally, it’s easy to find out if you are above the case-mouth. Happens to me all the time. I’m not perfect either, so I just proceed on until I get it right. Once you know the case-mouth diameter it’s time to apply the crimp. Raise the ram and cartridge again then turn the die down until it makes contact with the case-mouth. Give the die about ¼ turn then remove the cartridge and measure case-mouth diameter again. It probably won’t be exactly as much crimp as you want to apply, but it will give you a feel for how much you apply with each rotation of the die. And, each manufacturer will have their own recommendation for how much you should make that first turn of the die. Take it slow and easy and you’re gonna wonder what all of the fuss is about. Perfection is fairly easy to achieve, IMO, and I am speaking from my experience using the REDDING stand-alone taper crimp die. Back when I used 3 die sets and a single-stage press I seated the bullet while just having the crimp set to remove the flare, then I removed the seating stem and adjusted the die for the separate taper crimp, the 4^th operation. If I measured .377” before the crimp I’m going to be looking for .3755” or even .375” will only be .002” of taper crimp. Another thing the taper crimp die does, although you might need a microscope to see it, is to apply uniformity of the crimp and case-neck tension about the circumference of the case around the bullet.

Cannelure shows above belled case neck.

Now let’s talk about that bullet deformation thing. Has anyone ever seen a JHP for a revolver load? Of course you have. You know that the bullet has a cannelure for the case-mouth to be rolled into, hence roll crimp. Is the bullet deformed? Is that area of smaller diameter going to be a detriment to accuracy? Okay, then, what’s so different about an autoloading pistol bullet other than there being no cannelure. If you deform a bullet by taper crimping you obviously needed some help well before you attempted to do it! We know that many straight walled cases are not technically straight and that the 9 x 19mm has what we refer to as a tapered case. The reality is that most all autoloader cases have some taper regardless of how slight. Only .003” in the case of .45 ACP. We also know that these cartridges headspace on the case-mouth where most bottle-necked pistol cartridges headspace on the shoulder of the cartridge just like bottle-necked rifle rounds. That’s why we have a SAAMI spec for Max. Diameter at the case-mouth. If your case-mouth is too large in diameter it may not fully seat in the chamber which can not be allowed to occur either. The taper crimp dies help there as well and if you weren’t using a taper crimp, an out of spec cartridge with an oversized case-mouth could cause an out-of-battery event you might not catch otherwise. Again, potentially dangerous. The truth is, taper crimp dies have not always been around. They were coming into vogue just as I was starting out, but still, some die makers did not offer them. Hornady, as an example was the last manufacturer I can remember that didn’t offer a taper crimp die about 20 years ago, maybe less. The seating die, in fact, did remove the flare but did not reduce the case-mouth diameter. So, how did the older generation survive without taper crimp dies? Well, think about all of the different pistols you have knowledge of and think about what type of feed-ramp they have. This is funny because I have seen more misconceptions by 1911 shooters regarding taper crimp than by any other pistol type. And if I were to rate things in relation to the barrels feed-ramp I’d say that no pistol benefited more from taper crimping than John Browning’s 1911. So what did the old-timers do? They learned something we refer to as finesse! They applied a very light amount of crimp on the case-mouth using a ROLL-CRIMP die to aid feeding reliability without crimping so much as to remove the case-mouth’s ability to properly headspace.

Now onward with that cannelure/deformation thing. Even with a perfect taper crimp of say .002”, if for some reason you have to pull a bullet you’re gonna see a micro-ring on the bullet caused by taper crimping the case-mouth into the bullet. You gotta really screw the pooch to use so much taper that the case-mouth would be reduced in diameter enough that it wouldn’t properly headspace, not that you want to do that for any reason other than experimenting. The micro-groove is what I consider a mini-cannelure, so when the case-mouth is folded into the bullet causing the micro-groove, it also acts as a locking mechanism to a degree while presenting a smaller case-mouth diameter to the chamber. If you taper crimped by .005” the cartridge will still properly headspace, you just created a slightly larger groove into the bullet. There are differences of course as in the case of dies that only use the singular taper angle. The case-neck below the case-mouth will be affected to a greater degree and that distance will be determined by the difference in angles between the case and the dies internal taper angle.

Now let’s talk about lead bullets for a moment and cast bullets specifically. If you remember how I set up my dies, or you want to glance back you’ll probably understand this better. The accepted rule for loading cast bullets is that they should be at least .001” larger in diameter than your barrels groove diameter. And if you don’t know how or haven’t done it yet, familiarize yourself with the process of slugging the bore of your pistol barrel. Even if you don’t load cast or poly-coated bullets it is still beneficial to know the groove diameter of your pistols barrel as it will have some effect on pressure. Another reason we work up loads at lower levels rather than start with the Max Charge of powder. Different manufacturers have different standards for tolerances. You may find that the groove diameter in your 9 x 19mm pistol barrel is not .355”. The tighter the bore, the greater constriction on the bullet so there can be no one size fits all. Your cast bullets may need to be greater than .356” for your 9 x 19mm pistol. All of the bullet hardness in the world will not prevent leading of the bore caused by an undersized bullet and even a cast bullet of groove diameter may not completely seal in the bore. Luckily for all of us and particularly the next generation of handloaders, poly-coated bullets are here to stay! We just need to persuade the poly-coated bullet makers to give us hollow points with the proper alloy for expansion. Some of you may remember when Smith & Wesson, not Federal, originally introduced the Nyclad bullet. We might even get the jacketed bullet-makers to take notice and get some kind of reality check on JHP prices if supply and demand issues get straightened out.

The fact of the matter is that when you load an oversized cast or poly-coated bullet, you don’t have to taper crimp if you’ve removed all of the flare during the seating operation. You’ll have plenty of case-neck tension without taper crimping because the bullet is larger than nominal diameter. As an example, with my seating die set down far enough for the taper crimp function to only remove flare, I never change the depth of my die for jacketed or cast lead bullets. You’re not applying any crimp to the lead bullets so I just remove the taper crimp die from the turret when loading cast or poly-coated bullets. Jacketed bullets will go on to get taper crimped as the final operation.

Then we get to another area I that alluded to earlier: case-wall thickness. Not so much in 9 x 19mm or .40 S&W, but far too often with .45 ACP cases. I have not and will not buy dies for problems that shouldn’t exist in the first place and this is one such example. Remington brass is as thin as I’ve run across in .45 ACP. Very few are as thin. The solution? You can run out and buy a U-Die, as in undersized, but I’m not an advocate of that either. Some people do not consider the entire mechanical process. Yes, the U-die will reduce the case-neck diameter below that of a standard resizing die. But at what price? With higher pressure rounds the brass will work harden faster and reduce case life. We’re actually lucky that this is mainly a .45 ACP issue. Even still, I do not own a U-die, M-die, etc. Separate taper crimp dies are the limit for me. The .45 ACP’s lower operating pressure of 21,000 PSI/19,900 CUP is a bonus here vs. the 35,000 PSI rating for the 9 x 19mm and .40 S&W. And if you use them, the .38 Super +P, 10mm, 9 x 19mm +P, and .357 SIG are even higher in pressure in that respective order. Another bonus I’ve found with REDDING Titanium Carbide sizing dies is that when I’m resizing cases I can tell without looking at the headstamp if something is amiss. In the case of Remington .45 ACP brass, I just toss them into a separate bin and use them or other thin wall brands for cast or poly-coated bullet loads. My rule of thumb is that if a .45 ACP’s case-wall thickness (measured within about 1mm of the case-mouth) isn’t .010” or thicker it goes into the bin for cast bullet loads. Concerning 9 x 19mm brass, you’re more likely to come across cases that are thicker rather than thinner.

Silhouette by Ramshot, features a flash-reducing compound that greatly decreases muzzle signature.

Now for that simple method I mentioned. Several load manuals recommend something similar but may not get into specific dimensions. Some of us may have to do some case segregation by hand at first, but over time you’ll have a greater knowledge of what to expect from the different brands of cases. Since variations are more common with .45 ACP I’ll use it in this example. As I said, for my JHP loads, I like to see case-wall thickness near the case-mouth at .0105”. That’s between .010” and .011” on your dial caliper. The diameter of your JHP should be .451” but you should confirm that. The SIERRA manual recommends it like this. Measure case-wall thickness and double it and then add the bullet diameter to find the case-mouth diameter with no crimp applied. In my case using Winchester brass, that’s .0105” X 2 = .021”. Now add the bullet diameter of .451” and your finished case-mouth diameter with no crimp should be .472”. Remember, the dimension listed in your manual is a SAAMI Max. recommendation and the brass you use is likely to be different. In the case of the .45 ACP, SAAMI recommends .453” as the maximum case-mouth diameter, so with our example of .452” we know that we are below that. But now you know what the finished case-mouth diameter should be after removing the flare with no taper crimp. That is what I referred to earlier as the “neutral” position and the case-mouth is in line with the case body. I want .002” of taper crimp on my .45 ACP loads, so it’s a simple matter of subtracting .002” from the case-mouth diameter with no taper crimp. .472” – .002” = .470” that is the case-mouth diameter after applying .002” of taper crimp and like I said, if .003” of taper crimp is applied, your loads are far from out-of-spec in terms of proper headspace. There is no reason why should go beyond that for reliable defense loads, but still, perform the “push” test to confirm that the bullets do not setback.

Now let’s do an example for a 9 x 19mm load. My Winchester brass typically measures .011” thick. Those brands that go over .012” are going to get set aside because the amount of crimp is going to increase with thicker walled cases. Use them for plinking loads if you don’t want to readjust the taper crimp die. Here we go; .011” x 2 = .022” + .355” (bullet dia.) = .377”. So what I’m looking for is .0015” of taper crimp to get a finished case-mouth diameter of .3755” and those that measure .375” only have .002” of taper crimp and inconsequential as I mentioned above. So, the method is as simple as this. Case-wall thickness X 2 + bullet diameter = case-mouth diameter with no crimp applied. For .0015” of taper crimp you simply deduct that from the “neutral” diameter of .377” with no crimp applied .377” – .0015” = .3755”. There will be thickness variations within the same brands of brass. So if there are +/- .0005” variations, your loads after taper crimping will vary from .375” to .376” and that’s as good as you need them to be provided the cases you are using measure .011” in case-wall thickness. When any dimensions change like bullet diameter or case-wall thickness just alter the formula accordingly. I can chamber, eject and re-chamber a round many times without it shortening by even .001”.

And, to give credit where credit is due, I did not come up with this formula. A relatively new reloader posted it a good many years ago at CZ Forum and all I could think was, it don’t get anymore simple than that, and why hadn’t I thought of it before then! See, you can teach an old-dog new tricks. Good luck guys and happy taper crimping!

Kevin Newberry

Firearms expert, Kevin Newberry is also the author of Kilroy, Kilroy Was Here, which may be found on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Kilroy-Here-Kevin-L-Newberry/dp/1508511454

By Kevin Newberry

First let me say that I thoroughly enjoyed Jim Waddell’s most recent article, The Resurgent 9mm, that can be found here: http://blog.westernpowders.com/2015/11/the-resurgent-9mm/ Jim’s 40 years in law enforcement lends an invaluable perspective. After reading the article I felt inspired to write another one myself. Since I had already committed to writing on my observations regarding Accurate No. 5 & No. 7, I decided to wait and combine everything into one article.

So let’s start off by talking powders. I’ve wanted to know for some time now if the newer American made spherical powders from Accurate are the same as the older foreign made powders. I’ve had past experience with Accurate Arms No. 5, No. 7 and No. 9 (4100 as well but with the Ramshot branded Enforcer). Arms has since been dropped from the brand name we now know simply as Accurate.

Since I will be focusing on No. 5 and No. 7, I’ll make a few observations on the other two powders. I’ve been loading with Enforcer for over seven years now and I like it a great deal for full power hunting loads in .357 and .41 Magnum. Being somewhat faster burning than powders like W296/H110, that are generally regarded as the ultimate full power .44 Magnum powders, my theory is that slightly faster powders can be better paired with smaller cases like the .41 Magnum in terms of maximizing velocity and accuracy. With the .357 Magnum being smaller yet, Accurate No.9 is ideal for its case volume, IMO. Depending on whose data you’re looking at, few powders will outperform No. 9 in terms of velocity with accuracy. I began using No.9 years ago to replace Alliant Blue Dot when lot consistency issues became widespread. In fact, Blue Dot was the first powder that I used when I started handloading with the .41 Magnum. And yeah, I’m one of those die-hard .41 Magnum guys so I’ll just get that out of the way. But then again, I’ll shoot any Magnum handgun you put in front of me. Not that I will necessarily own them because my personal philosophy is that if you can’t kill it with “Contender and Ruger Only Loads” in .45 Colt, it’s time for a rifle.And that’s to include smaller Magnum handgun rounds like the .44 and .41 Magnum. If .357 Magnum is your thing, I certainly have no problem with those that hunt whitetail deer with it at proper distance load with jacketed bullets 158 grains and heavier. When I started out cast lead bullets were recommended most often for hunting game with magnum revolvers. To me, it’s more about bullet construction and any bullet that offers at least some expansion is better than a bullet that gives no expansion and I’ll give some examples. In .41 Magnum I started using the now discontinued 220 grain FPJ Tournament Master that was designed for Silhouette shooting. It had lead exposed at the nose and gave some expansion when pushed to velocities the round is capable of. I’ve used 180 gr. XTPs in .357 Magnum, but because of the excellent construction of those bullets along with the fact that Soft Point bullets are available in the case of the FP-XTP of 158 grains, I believe they’re a solid choice. I also believe that handgun hunters should take a page from rifle reloading in terms of consideration of sectional density. The 158 grain FP-XTP has a sectional density of .177 while the .41 210 grain XTP has a sectional density of .178 and nearly identical while you’d need a .429” bullet above 225 grains to exceed it, and 250 grains for the .45 Colt. Like matching the correct bullet to caliber, I believe in doing the same with powder.

Canik TP9sa

I am now testing with a new 9 x19mm pistol with a 4.47” barrel. The Canik TP9sa. Let me just say that all of the excellent reviews you will read on this pistol are true. Canik is one of Turkey’s newer gunmakers, but their parent company is Turkey’s largest defense contractor which includes missile systems. It may have been one of their missiles that were used a few weeks back to down the Russian SU24 that Turkey claims had violated their airspace. I do know this, with the plant being fairly new, the CNC machines the pistols are built on are likewise new. The Canik plant is ISO 9001 certified, and probably the deciding factor for me being that their barrels are cold-hammer-forged with conventional land and groove rifling. I’ve never bought into the claim that polygonal bores produce higher velocity and I’ve been seeing that claim since the mid 1980s from HK and all of those who have followed. One thing for sure, the cost to produce barrels with polygonal bores is less because they can be manufactured faster.

Walther P88

So to me it’s always been more about the quality and hardness of the steel and uniformity of the bore. I first noticed this with pistols like the Walther P-88 whose 4” barrels produced higher than typical velocity. Then with the HS-2000 that was introduced to this country. Then, of course, Springfield Armory acquired the rights to import it as the XD along with the change to a heavier trigger they called USA for ultra safety assurance. The more I studied the TP9sa I began seeing the similarities.

HS 2000

These pistols are available now for under $350 and probably the best bargain I’ve seen since we were able to buy the FEG Hi-Power clones. If you were to pick up a TP9sa without having read what I just said, and with no price tag on the pistol . . . well, I personally couldn’t imagine the very low price. And, it gets even better! It has without a doubt the best trigger I’ve ever pulled on a polymer-frame, striker fired pistol. I know that reputation is largely reserved for the Walther PPQ M2, but remember, Walther spec’s their triggers at 5.5 pounds, the Canik TP9sa that I have may not even gauge above 4.5 pounds.

The first series of Canik polymer framed pistols were simply known as the TP9 and the Turkish police bought 50,000 pistols. It borrows the trigger action of the Walther P-99 in that when you decock with the lever mounted on the top and rear of the slide, the pistol goes into double-action mode. Now they have an upgraded version called the TP9v2, for version 2 with improvements to the trigger and ergonomics. It has a barrel length of slightly over 4”. Canik decided to make a single-action-only, or SAO version, with a 113.5mm/4.47” barrel while retaining the decocking lever. This has befuddled a few folks that advertise themselves as combat pistol reviewers on the web. First, Canik kept the decocker so you wouldn’t have to pull the trigger before removing the slide. The chance of accidentally actuating the decocker is not even worth consideration because of the amount of effort required to do so. The rest is up to you as far as this being a good thing or a bad thing. Personally, I like it and decock the pistol at the range when I holster it with a round in the chamber. Another point of interest is that Canik on several occasions has pulled pistols from the production line and fired 50,000 rounds of 9 x 19mm through them without any parts changes. Getting back to the theme of the article, my primary interest was a pistol to test handloads with that had a 4.5” barrel or longer, and the cold-hammer-forging didn’t hurt. It is producing higher than typical velocity for its barrel length as well. And while the price is unbeatable, Canik throws in a Serpa style retention holster that works as well as any. In short, I’d have no problem carrying this pistol and in the holster supplied with it. You will also find some excellent and thorough reviews done by Hickok45 and a fella who goes by Sootch. If the decocker is a deal breaker for you, a new model without the decocker will be available in 2016.

Let me talk about my Chronographing procedure. First, I analyze data to find a charge level that I feel is high enough to give good efficiency. This means enough pressure to help the powder burn completely at a desired velocity level. I make 5 or so test rounds at each charge, or ladder rounds that increase in slight increments from a start charge up to the charge in the loads that will get chronographed which is 10 rounds. I make observations of the case as the loads increase in powder charge and pressure. I also use OverAll Cartridge Lengths that are longer than typical in 9 x 19mm data. I started this practice around the time that Vihta Vuori powders first became available in the US and 29mm/1.142” is a common OACL for them where pressure was rated at or below 36,300 PSI/CIP. Today, I do not own any 9 x 19mm pistols whose barrel chambers restrict OACL below what will function in the pistols magazine, or where functioning is best. The last “short chambered” pistol I owned was a CZ P-01 which I loved otherwise. The maximum length where the bullet touched the lands with a Remington 124 grain JHP (not Golden Saber) was 1.127” for the P-01. To allow .005” of freebore where my REDDING Boss single-stage press and Titanium Carbide dies would hold an OACL tolerance of +/- .001”, I loaded at 28.5mm/1.122”. That’s the shortest that I’ve ever loaded any JHP for my own pistols in 9 x 19mm.

Hornady 124 grain XTP.

Most of us have heard about what happens when you make your 9 x 19mm handloads too short. Pressure increases and sometimes to dangerous levels. Never load shorter than the OACL recommended by the data provider and loading longer is advisable in my opinion. How long you can load will be determined by the throat or leade at the front of the chamber and where the rifling begins. In my articles elsewhere on this emag you will find instructions for how to determine proper OACL for a specific jacketed bullet. But, the reverse is also true. As OACL increases, pressure decreases. Let me cite a recent example I was telling the editor about last week. I made a load with No .7 that chronographed 1230 FPS. Out of curiosity for functioning’s sake, I dropped the charge by .2 grains and reduced OACL by .5mm/.020”from 1.142” to 1.122”. The second load being only .020” shorter while the charge-weight was reduced by .2 grains, chronographed higher at 1238 FPS. So those who would say such small incremental changes have no affect, their knowledge of he 9 x 19mm may not equal to that of other autoloading handgun cartridges like say the much lower pressure .45 ACP. Everything’s relative here! Pressure rating of the cartridge, case volume, type of bullet used, burn rate of the powder and OACL. Something else comes to mind in relation to changes in a powders burn rate and OACL. When you load as long as you can, velocity will increase in most cases as the powders burn rate gets slower. Something to keep in mind for defense loads along with the powders flash signature. Velocity will not be enhanced as much when using faster burning powders while pressure will continue to rise with charge-weight increases.

Sierra 125 gr. hollow point.

The charge of No. 5 I decided on for testing was 6.1 grains. Which Lyman lists as the Max. Charge, so remember that you make ladder loads for a reason, and that’s to ensure that there are no signs of over-pressure as the powder charge-weights increase. That data is for the SIERRA 125 grain JHP which works fine for me because I use data for that bullet as a worse-case-scenario. It has the longest shank/bearing surface of any JHP that I’m aware at 124/125 grains. And also because both SIERRA and Lyman load it very short at 1.075”. SIERRA, on the other hand loads a little warmer. They also tested velocity with a 4” Hi-Point pistol so I felt more comfortable in comparing to Lyman’s 4” test barrel that I’ve found honest enough. With 6.1 grains of No. 5 with a CCI-500 small pistol primer, velocity from their 4” test barrel was 1078 FPS with pressure listed at 31,400 CUP. Remember that the CUP measurement system is different than PSI testing with the limits for standard pressure for 9 x 19mm being 33,000 CUP/35,000 PSI. We can see that this is a safe pressure level with a 1600 CUP safety cushion before exceeding the standard pressure limit and where the +P rating begins. No.5 is not a powder I would use for that but I wanted to show where that limit is. And again, this is with the short OACL of 1.075”. Since I’ve also been experimenting a bit for functional OACL, I made my loads with an OACL of 28.75mm/1.132”. Now, from what I stated earlier, we should expect a velocity loss with the longer OACL combined with the fact that the Remington 124 grain JHP has a smaller bearing surface to engage the rifling and my barrel length is 4.47” which should help offset that somewhat. So, to me, the 1083 FPS I chronographed with 10 rounds is totally reasonable and in accordance with the data. This load was also fairly uniform with an extreme spread of 28 FPS and a standard Deviation of 9 FPS. Something else to consider is that the Lyman Pistol & Revolver III manual was copyrighted in 2004. I can’t remember exactly when American production of No. 5 & No. 7 began but I think it’s likely that they were using the older foreign made powder. The data in the Lyman 49th edition load manual is identical, by the way. I also tested a load in .45 ACP with the ZERO 230 grain JHP that I also found predictable; firing it from my 4.5” SR45. I believe the results conclude that the older and newer No. 5 are indeed, very similar powders.

With Accurate No. 7? Not so much. In fact, I’ve mentioned this to Rob Behr (our fearless editor and not Darth Vader) on several occasions previously as a suspicion! Now let’s look at empirical data. Rest assured though that my suspicion has come from several different loads with 3 different bullets in 9 x 19mm all charged with No. 7 and fired from both the 4.14” SR9 and the 4.47” TP9sa. We’re gonna play by all of the same rules down to the bullet and OACL. I’ll just say that I’ve been experimenting some with No. 7 for +P type loads with the same Remington 124 gr. JHP, the 124 grain Golden Saber and the 147 grain Hornady XTP. In this case using the Remington standard 124 grain JHP, I wanted lower velocity than I had gotten from the higher velocity defense loads from the TP9sa. Again, the Lyman data looked low enough for an easy shooting target load. Lyman shows 7.8 grains of No. 7 producing 1119 FPS @ 31,600 CUP with the SIERRA 125 gr. JHP at an OACL of 1.075” from their 4” test barrel. So with the velocity loss from loading longer at slightly lower pressure while offsetting with a same weight bullet with a shorter bearing surface and a longer barrel length, I didn’t expect the velocity gain to be more than 2 or 3% where the No.5 load was only higher in my pistol by 0.46% but No. 7 is a slower burning powder. 10 rounds over my Pro Chrono averaged 1206 FPS, an increase of 7.77% with an extreme spread of 49 FPS and a standard deviation of 17 FPS. It’s definitely not a target load. I have checked the consistency of Lyman’s rated velocity using the different powders I have for 9 x 19mm with the 4.14” SR9 and in .45 ACP with the 4.5” SR45. I’m completely comfortable with it.

Typically, I predict 9 x 19mm and .45 ACP velocity pretty accurately. Usually within 10 FPS and sometimes even less on a good day. This comes from doing a lot of mathematical comparisons of pressure and velocity for different powders. That’s why I say every handloader should own at least one Lyman manual so that you can look at the characteristics of a particular powder and the bullet being used. It helps if you use the identical bullet but I’ve been loading the Remington 124 grain JHP almost as long as I’ve been handloading and I gave Rob a recent example of predicting velocity recently also. I also feel that these are good numbers because my Pro Chrono is brand new and I’ve been checking it’s accuracy against previous data from my chrono log. It is a replacement for a previous Pro Chrono that failed and became erratic. Let me just say this in regard to that. This chrono is rated about as good as you’re gonna find, and at a retailer like Midway you’ll also see that it has the highest number of reviewers to reinforce that rating. Competition Electronics is one of those great companies who do not compromise on customer service. In fact, they told me to return it for replacement a good while back. I told them that I wanted to do additional testing in as many varying conditions as possible and their CS representative agreed. Since I live in God’s country, AKA Heart of Texas, finding a bad day to test such things is harder than you might think. Even on cloudy days it’s hard not to get intermittent breakthrough by the sun. The first unit I had did very well until after a year when I noticed that things didn’t jibe. Let me recommend this if you ever wonder about your chrono’s accuracy. Shoot from the same box of factory ammo or handloads on separate occasions because if you set your chrono up at the same distance each time at the same range the velocity numbers should agree. If you only shoot once from a box of ammo or handloads and accept it as good, that may or may not be the case.

The New Western Powders 6.0 Guide will be out in January.

I have made enough comparisons now to feel comfortable with the accuracy of the new unit. What the data is telling me is that velocity using the newer American made No. 7 can be as much as 100 FPS faster than what the data shows for the older Czech made No.7. I had already begun to advise other handloaders to not exceed Lyman’s data for No. 7 which I’ve since amended that. I don’t agree with some of the 9 x 19mm data in the Western #5 load guide and viewed the +P data that was produced simply as an exercise to get near 38,500 PSI, and not of much use. In this case I’ll say stick with the Western data for No. 7 and 9 x 19mm. Lyman’s data is higher and SIERRA’s higher still. I do not have SPEER’s most recent manual but it has typically been as warm as anyone’s in the past. Hornady data is newer and NOSLER has just released their #8 load manual. If you have them, compare the 9 x19mm data for No. 7 to Western’s data from the #5 load guide or the new Western load guide which should be out any day now.

Now for more 9 x 19mm thoughts and I encourage you to read Jim Waddell’s article as well as the two I’ve written previously on handloading defense loads in 9 x 19mm and techniques common to most autoloading cartridges.

I had just begun handloading when the infamous “Miami Shootout” occurred in 1986 and I want to talk about that and some other ballistic issues. Back in 1981 or 1982, the annual review magazine, Handgun Tests printed FBI wound ballistic data they had somehow got their hands on. If that data was as factual as the editors claimed, the FBI made some really poor decisions afterward in regard to ammunition selection. I remember the hype from advertising and magazine articles about the Winchester 115 grain SilverTip load. I had been studying all things ballistic as well as handload data for about five years then, although I was certainly not an authority. Nonetheless, if someone had given me a box of 115 grain SilverTips, I might have shot some one gallon water jugs and targets at the range. I had no interest in that load otherwise.

Silver Tip recovered from ballistic media.

It was common knowledge that the jacket’s gilding metal was aluminum with zinc added. It gave very rapid expansion and was rated 1200 FPS at the muzzle. What many did not know was that the most effective loads of that day had been shown in the earlier FBI wound statistics. Two very good loads existed that were ignored by the FBI. One was referred to as the “Illinois State Police load” that used Winchester’s conventional 115 grain cup-and-core copper JHP with the other known as the “Secret Service” load with the Remington 115 grain cup-and-core copper JHP and the slightly better of the two in penetration, although both were very effective loads. They were both rated +P+ at 1350 FPS where Chronographing showed them to be closer to 1300 FPS from 4” barrels. Now, if you read my last article you may remember me discussing this. Penetration is necessary and expansion is very desirable, but you need enough of both. One or the other alone just won’t cut it. If it was only about penetration we could all just carry FMJ loads. Since we all know that they can pass through the human torso without any expansion . . . ‘nuff said. Conversely the same is true and the only thing really proven at the 1986 “Miami Shootout.”

Diagram of the 9mm Silver Tip’s path through Platt’s body.

The fatal bullet that allowed the criminal shooter to go on shooting, wounding additional FBI agents in the process and resulting in fatality, the bullet had first struck the perp in the left shoulder and began expanding because of the poorly constructed jacket resulting with in the bullet stopping within 1” of the perp’s heart.

This began some of the most hotly contested controversy in firearms history. You see, if the FBI had followed the lead of the Illinois State Police, or the Secret Service, things would have gone differently! Last article I threw some numbers at you and we’ll talk about different wounding mechanisms. But ask yourself this if your one of those who subscribe to the bleed-out theory. How long do you want to wait for an evildoer to bleed-out in a gunfight? That SiverTip expanded so rapidly that within just a few inches of penetration it had expanded to its full diameter and thus the permanent wound cavity was as substantial as many of the loads with so called “magic bullets” of today. Of course there were people like Peter Pi of Cor-Bon who knew such things, as did the Illinois State Police and the Secret Service.

Another look from the top at the failed bullet’s path.

A bullet, regardless of caliber, has to be constructed well enough to get the complete job done and that means penetration and expansion. I believe in both! I believe in kinetic energy or Einstein was wrong! And I believe in momentum. When you include them all including sectional density, the debate about which caliber is best is over. I’m not going to rehash the formulae because it’s already given in my last articles. Let’s jump right in and see if we swim. At 1200 FPS the 115 grain SilverTip had a muzzle energy of 368 Ft/lbs with momentum at .613 Lb-seconds. At 1300 FPS and a properly constructed jacket, the ISP and SS loads had a muzzle energy of 432 Ft/lbs and a momentum of .664 Lb-seconds, so which would you choose?

Dr. Martin Fackler

Then things really turned south when the FBI asked Dr. Martin Fackler to consult on terminal ballistics. His recommendation was a 147 grain JHP load with subsonic velocity. The speed of sound at sea level is 1080 FPS and the new heavyweight 9mm load was 100 FPS slower than that. Unfortunately, Dr, Fackler was somewhat obsessed with penetration after the failure of the SilverTip. But, at 980 FPS with a 147 grain JHP in 9mm having a very high sectional density, that very much contributes to penetration, it is higher in fact than a 230 grain JHP in .45 ACP by just a tad and it’s easy enough to see how much heavier the .451” 230 grain JHP is. The new 147 grain JHP loads adopted by the FBI, where it seems to be in their DNA to always lead and never follow, were also adopted by a large number of law enforcement agencies across the country as well. Right up until the incidents were reported of them passing through perps with little or no expansion and in some cases striking bystanders. It was time to go back to the drawing board.

Then, along come Marshall and Sanow and their “Street Stoppers” data and more controversy. Whether you believe it was factual or not is up to you. Myself, I try to keep an open mind until something presented as factual is proven to be false. From the earlier FBI wound ballistics report that was leaked and furnished in Handgun Tests, the best performing loads correlated to the most effective loads as reported by Marshall and Sanow. The Winchester and Federal 125 grain JHP loads in .357 Magnum, while the data collected for the one-shot-stop percentage for the ISP and SS 115 grain +P+ JHP loads were rated 91%.

We also know that the FBI continued to struggle in looking for the load that did it all for them. Next was the subsonic 180 grain 10mm “Lite” that ran near the same velocity as the 147 grain subsonic loads in 9mm and was essentially duplicated with the introduction of the .40 S&W which law enforcements is now walking away from. Again, though, Peter Pi marketed a load that might have solved all of their problems long ago. The same 147 grain grain JHPs in 9mm, except loaded supersonic at 1125 FPS from a 4” test barrel. To be fair, the failure of the 10mm Lite was a combination of both ammunition mediocrity and pistol problems of the S&W 1076. That can be found by Googling.

“High Performance” at lower velocity is more marketing than ballistics.

During the interim period following the 10mm Lite, different caliber, loads and pistols were used until the next solution stepped up: “Medium Velocity” (read subsonic again) .40 S&W loads with a 165 grain JHP at around the same velocity as before and we know how that worked out as well. Now it’s time to go back to the 9 x 19mm because of the vastly improved JHP technology! I’ve always wondered what was wrong with the old ones if you knew how they should be loaded. Peter Pi certainly knew.

And along the way we had the Strasbourg Goat incident that was decried as foul because the scientists involved wouldn’t step forward and be identified. I’m sure PETA wish they had. By the same token, members of the camp that cried foul wouldn’t step forward and be identified themselves. One of the fallacies with those who say that kinetic energy is insignificant in defensive handgun loads, is the consistent testing of loads that don’t have enough of it. Anyway you slice it, all JHP performance is predicated on kinetic energy. Some may want to only view a specific velocity window to make the new and improved JHPs work, but that’s really always been the case since velocity and bullet weight are primary factors in the calculation of energy.

Long before Strasbourg, scientists had been implanting piezoelectric transducers into human sized animals and shooting them to see if kinetic energy could be measured and to studied it’s affect as a wounding mechanism, while there’s plenty of controversy surrounding those tests even while the empirical data is ignored. The Strasbourg goats had been implanted with piezoelectric transducers as well to both record the time between bullet impact and the animals collapse. One thing common to the Marshall and Sanow data and the FBI wound ballistics reports I saw in the early 1980s was pretty well summarized later by Ed Sanow, in my opinion. That being the necessity of 500 Ft/lbs of kinetic energy, and I’d say give or take 50 Ft/lbs, required to facilitate rapid incapacitation.

http://www.amazon.com/Quantitative-Ammunition-Selection-Charles-Schwartz/dp/1475929064

Today, I believe someone has stepped to the forefront and applied some common sense rather than just try to baffle us with bullshit. That would be Charles Schwartz. His research has been in the comparison of firing JHPs into water and comparing the results for the same JHP bullet fired into calibrated 10% ordnance gel with 94% accuracy for over 700 data points using his formula to calculate penetration depth in the gelatin by Chronographing the bullets speed just before it impacts water and then measuring its recovered diameter. No water does not exactly replicate human tissue and neither does ballistic gel. But it now appears that performance in ballistic gel can be replicated in water. And, anyone who can follow the Schwartz method and calculation has an easy way for conducting their own test.. (Here is a link to one of Mr. Schwartz’ posts:)  http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-continuing-evolution-of-terminal.html

I don’t believe that anyone holds the patent when it comes to wound ballistics. Nor do I believe that someone’s theory should be chastised until it’s proven wrong. I believe there is plenty to learn by evaluating the entire facts and theories amassed test as much as possible and draw your own conclusions. This is not a completely predictable science, as is often the case. Neither is skewing your tests to reinforce your own conclusions as is often done by those who ignore the temporary stretch cavity as a wounding mechanism. If you fire heavier subsonic JHP loads into gelatin, you’re just not going to get a temporary stretch cavity as large as the same diameter JHP of lighter weight, with higher velocity and energy, so what does that prove? In my opinion, things like sectional density and momentum are all too often ignored in the debate. And like kinetic energy, momentum can be manipulated for a desired result. In the case of Peter Pi and Cor-Bon, I believe he had it right all along. So, let’s look at his load compared to the two that failed the FBI during and immediately after the “Miami Shootout.”

Sig 226 in .357 Sig.

Quoting the stats I mentioned earlier: at 1200 FPS the 115 grain SilverTip had a muzzle energy of 368 Ft/lbs with momentum at .613 Lb-seconds. At 1300 FPS and a properly constructed jacket, the ISP and SS loads had a muzzle energy of 432 Ft/lbs and a momentum of .664 Lb-seconds. The 147 gr. +P Cor-Bon load with a rated velocity of 1125 FPS from their 4” test barrel gives 413 Ft/lbs of muzzle energy with a momentum of .734 Lb-seconds while its sectional density is higher than either a 180 gr. JHP in .40 S&W, or a 230 gr. JHP in .45 ACP. Now from what I understand is that the FBI is following the lead of other law enforcement agencies in evaluating the SPEER 124 grain +P Gold Dot. Without question it has performed well, so how does it shake out? I can tell you that its velocity rating of 1220 FPS from a 4” test barrel is optimistic from my chronograph results, and in case you’re wondering, with the chrono problems that occurred before I was actually getting higher velocity than I should have and why I came to suspect the chrono was in error. When I put 10 rounds of the SPEER 124 grain +P Gold Dot over the chrono, velocity was 1174 FPS, with an extreme spread of 61 FPS with a standard deviation of 17 FPS. That’s 380 Ft/lbs of muzzle energy with a momentum of .646 Lb-seconds. Without a doubt its performance in ballistic gel is excellent in terms of expansion and penetration, and there are other great performers as well like the Federal HST and Winchester Ranger T. No one has to tell me that JHP technology is better today, but the fact remains that when JHPs of yesterday failed it was typically do to low velocity. Excessive penetration, clogged cavities what have you. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand when you push a bullet faster, increasing kinetic energy, you’re also increasing momentum. When the lead core’s mass has higher momentum, the more likely it is to force the jacket open.

FBI Agents Jerry Dove and Ben Grogan who were killed in the Miami Shootout.

These days the majority of shooters want to know which load is approved by the FBI or someone perceived as an expert while they may have relatively little experience or education in the science of physics. I’m pleased to tell you that a law enforcement agency with considerable more gun fighting experience well preceded the FBI testing protocol: the Texas Department of Public Safety which includes the Texas Rangers when they tested various pistols and cartridges before selecting the SIG/Sauer P-226 & 229 in .357 SIG because it came closest to performing like the tried and true 125 grain JHPs fired from their 4” service revolvers. They did not have the benefit of using today’s high tech JHPs but they did use all of the same barrier tests. No .40 S&W or .45 ACP load at that time made it through the testing process. Only the .357 SIG and one other did. What was that other you ask? A 147 grain JHP load rated +P or higher which they declined because of the extra power label and possible negative press connotations. I know, I know, there are 147 grain +P loads today that use the newer high tech JHPs but those from the major manufacturers rarely chronograph supersonic or above 1080 FPS at sea level. Some of the smaller ammunition manufacturers like Underwood’s and Double-Tap are making loads almost 100 FPS faster where I believe 1150 FPS from a service pistol is fast enough. The question is up to you as well as law enforcement. Do you trust a load that has been proven in ballistic gel testing, or one proven by physics? Couldn’t the major ammo makers give us those high tech JHPs at true Supersonic speed? And, if recoil is too high for those that didn’t learn as I did with the .357 and .41 Magnum, there are always the 124 grain +P JHP loads.

It’s not that I’m a velocity junkie, it’s just that too many rounds only loaded to subsonic velocity have failed. What might look good in gel is doesn’t always turn out to work as well on the street. I simply have no interest in subsonic loads until the cases are stamped .45 ACP with a JHP 200 grains or heavier seated into it.

Before I go I’d like to extend an invitation to everyone to take a look at a new gun forum and join it if you like what you see. I’m moderating there so that I can help out with the reloading and ammo sections. If you have a question that you’d like to ask me or just want to shoot the breeze about our favorite hobbies, shooting and handloading for me, come and take a look! http://www.thegunrack.org/index.php

The .300 Blackout and the .223 Rem. can be a dangerous mismatch

The .300 Blackout is a perfect fit in the AR-15, using the same bolt and magazine as the more common .223/5.56 models.  With a lack of caution on the shooter’s part, those attributes can prove a dangerous combination.

Last year, a friend of mine called and told me his company had blown up one of their high-end AR-15 rifles during testing.  On the range, they had two rifles, one an AR15 with a .223 Wylde chamber (a hybrid .223/5.56 chamber) and another in .300 Blackout.   During shooting, one of the magazines loaded with .300 Blackouts was inadvertently loaded into the .223 Wilde, the action closed from an open bolt and the forward assist used.  The result was a destroyed rifle and no one hurt.  The .300 Blackout can headspace in a .223/5.56 chamber and the results are disastrous.

Headspace is a simple concept that can seem complex at first glance.  The textbook answer is that headspace is the measure from the breech face to the portion of the cartridge that stops its forward movement into the chamber.  Examples make it easier to understand.  On a rimmed case, like the .22 Long Rifle, it is the front face of the rim that sets headspace as it is trapped between the barrel and the breech face.  Headspace on a .45 ACP is the distance between its case mouth and the breech face.  Belted magnum headspace is set between the belt and breech face, while bottleneck cartridges headspace on the case shoulder.

The .223/5.56 cartridge is the parent case of the .300 Blackout but they do not share the same headspace dimensions because of differing case lengths.  The .223/5.56 headspaces further forward than the Blackout, but they do share similar overall cartridge lengths because of the Blackout’s much longer .30 caliber bullet.  An empty Blackout case will not headspace in a .223/5.56 chamber, but when loaded with bullet, especially a soft lead bullet, all bets are off.

When my friend’s rifle went into battery with the Blackout round, a couple of unusual events were forced into motion.  Thrust forcefully into the chamber by the buffer spring, the bullet was rammed not into true headspace, but into the neck portion of the .223/5.56 chamber.  Use of the forward assist completed the task, either deforming the bullet or pushing it back into its case.  Whichever occurred, the locking lugs engaged while artificially headspaced on the bullet.  Once fired, many things happened nearly instantaneously.

With the bullet plugging the chamber, pressure spiked dramatically causing the case to fail.  High pressure gas flowed through the paths of least resistance, the extractor and firing pin raceway, and finally into the AR15’s aluminum receiver.  Both sides of the receiver blew out and the mag well flared, blowing out the magazine.  The lugs did not unlock and did not shear, preventing serious injury.  The rifle was a complete loss.

This isn’t a story about an inherent failing with either the ammunition or the AR15 rifle.  If anything, the rifle performed extraordinarily well handing this high pressure event.  This is a story about carelessness and a call for caution regarding the .223/5.56 chamber and the .300 Blackout cartridge.  They fit in the same magazines and use the same bolt face.  It is up to you guarantee the right cartridge goes into the chamber.