I'm going to load some 9MM 125 grain LRN ammo using Bullseye powder. My Speer #12 manual lists the maximum load at 3.8 grains with a MV of 962 fps. I have an old Alliant load data chart that lists a suggested load of 4.9 grains with a MV of 1,165 fps and pressure of 32,100 psi.

That seems to be quite a spread (1.1 grains) between Speer's maximum load and Alliant's suggested load. So my question is:

Is the Speer data overly conservative (cautious), or is the Alliant data pushing the limits?

I sent this question to Alliant, but haven't heard back from them. Their current load data charts do not include a load for the 125 LRN.

I'm loading this ammo for range practice/plinking, so I don't need blazing speed. But I do need it to be hot enough to reliably cycle the actions of my guns.

Does anybody have any experience with loading Bullseye behind the 125 LRN? Any loads that you like and have good luck with? Any other relavent comments or observations?

Thanks.

Here recently I got a deal on 2000 125 grain LRN's and I ran them thru my Beretta 92FS.

The load was 4.0 grains of bullseye.

Accuracy was fine and all loads functioned well and I don't recall any jams.

There was some leading but nothing the single pull of a bore snake couldn't handle.

As far as velocity goes, I couldn't tell you.

I hope this helps.

Dr.

I loaded and fired about 1000 LRN 125 gr. 9mm. I used 4 gr. of Bullseye. I had some leading but nothing too bad.

2 potential explanations for the discrepancy. 1.The 9mm parabellum is a a cartridge very sensitive to seating depth changes. Develop a load with deeper seting and you will get very differnent max charge weights than a load developed with les encroachment into the powder space.
2. Speer often deveops lead bullet loads based upon potential leading with their swaged bullets. Speer #11 had the same charge weight and an explanation in the cartidge intro that these were light practice loadings and that heavier charges would likely cause leading.

Like others have mentioned- I've done the 4 grains Bullseye behind cast 125grain without problems.

OK, sounds like 4.0 grains of Bullseye is a good starting point. I coated the bullets with Lee Alox to alleviate heavy barrel-leading, so this ammo should make for some smokey shooting and fun clean-up.

Thanks to all three of you guys for responding. Y'all have a nice "short" week.

One thing that is not going to happen is a powder manufacturer publishing data that has the potential to blow up your gun and kill you or anyone standing near you. Just not going to happen. Remember though it is a load RECIPE. There are far more ingredients than the weight of the powder. Like Treeman said, seating depth is a big factor. You could feasibly have a load that is 3.8gr of powder with a short OAL that has much more pressure than 4.5gr with a long OAL. Look at all of the data. One other thing that folks have a hard time getting a grip on is bullet design and friction. If you have a LTC with only one lube groove there is going to be much more friction than a LSWC with two lube grooves and three small driving band.

The data for making any bullet is a "RECIPE" and just like baking a cake, things don't turn out too well if you forget the sugar!

The 9mm is very sensitive to seating depth, not OAL. Pressure can be doubled by seating the bullet as little as a 1/16 of an inch deeper.

The reason is because the case capacity is so small. Be careful. All 125 LRN bullets do not seat to the same depth.

I don't know Jack about the 9MM.
But you can bet I'm lapping up every bit of knowledge I can on this thread!
Thanks Gents!

quote:

The 9mm is very sensitive to seating depth, not OAL.

Understood, but the two are connected, so to speak. My bad for saying one and meaning another. In my mind they are one and the same if the bullets are of the same length 'cause wherever the front of the bullet goes the rear is sure to follow!

OK, here's the bullet - one lube groove and .61" long.

(click for bigger)

Here's the seating depth with an OAL of 1.13" (the recommended minumum OAL by Speer #12).

(click for bigger)

And here is the seating depth with an OAL of 1.15" (the recommended minumum OAL by Alliant).


I guess the safest OAL would be 1.15", huh?

quote:

Originally posted by smith crazy:

quote:

The 9mm is very sensitive to seating depth, not OAL.

Understood, but the two are connected, so to speak. My bad for saying one and meaning another. In my mind they are one and the same if the bullets are of the same length 'cause wherever the front of the bullet goes the rear is sure to follow!

Skip there are at least two different styles of RN bullets in this weight commonly cast by commercial casters. Most of the molds by H&G, Saeco and others wih some few exceptions akso closely follow one of these two designs. One has a much more pointed nose than the other. It also has a rather pronounced shoulder, that the other one doesn't have. They both are properly described as RN bullets but even the most casual side by side comparison would reveal their differences. This includes the all important SEATING DEPTH. If they both weigh 125 grs but one is much more pointed than the other guess where that extra weight is? Inside the case, taking up case capacity. So they do not both load the same. For that matter they do not shoot the same either. Years ago I used to cast the pointed version. I later abandoned it in favor of the much more accurate rounded profile bullet. It is as accurate as my truncated bullet and that is saying something.

Other methods may work fine with some calibers but with the smallish case capacity of the 9 pressures can build quickly by seating the bullet just a little too deep. My advice with 9mm is to always load to the maximum allowable OAL for your gun. Build your loads around this number. Think maximum allowable OAL rather than minimum OAL. Using this method your loads will be safer, probably feed better and be more accurate. This will prevent any mishaps due to deep seating of the bullet. Prevention is better than cure any time. Play it safe.

quote:

Think maximum allowable OAL rather than minimum OAL.

Speer says maximum OAL is 1.168". Is that what I should go for?

(click for bigger)

quote:

Think maximum allowable OAL rather than minimum OAL.

That is the way I think when loading ANY high pressure auto round, 40 S&W (small and weeny! ) especially.

The only thing I was trying to bring out was that the front end of the bullet is always the same distance from the base of the same bullet.

Backward thinking maybe, but hey, it ain't the first time. The results are the same!

If you get the right answer but use the wrong method getting there, does the test scorer know?

Start at the min charge and work up. Seating at a length that functions well in the mag and feeds in the gun (make some dummy rounds first).

I would go .2gr at a time till max. Don't load a bunch of each or the ones that are too hot you'll have to pull apart.

Shoot starting with the low charge and work your way up watching for pressure signs.

If max shows no pressure signs or very minimal pressure signs then you can use that.

quote:

Speer says maximum OAL is 1.168". Is that what I should go for?

I would feel much better working with a near max OAL in 9mm than I would at the very minimum. Ideally it would be best to tailor the loads to the maximum allowable OAL for your gun.