Reloading the Missouri Bullet 9mm 125 gr SWC

I just received some of Missouri Bullet 9mm, 125 gr SWC, sized .356 and can't find much information on load data. I don't find much on a search here on the forum about this bullet. I know some of you guys have probably loaded this round or similar in weight. I have found a little data here and there but thought I would ask here on the forum for some feedback. I am thinking of using HP38 or Unique for the load. I want to shoot these loads in a S&W-M&P-9c and would like some suggestions. Has anyone used this bullet and if so what kind of results did you have.--Thanks

Please see post #13 for additional information.

Lots of data on Hodgdon's website. You might also check Alliant's site.

Ed

I'm loading them with 4g HP-38 at 1.1 OAL. Works great in my M&P FS 9, should be fine in a 9c.

Well for me I'm loading 3 gr HP-38 and shooting 2" groups at 10 yds on a rest, ammo bag. Well, they are by best groups. For me as the powder increases the groups increase as well.
For unique I'm loading 4.2 and getting 1.5" to 2" groups.
Both are at 1.10 "
This data is for my CZ-75B.

I have used 3.7gr HP38 behind that bullet with good results. However, I found 3.2gr of Clays under that bullet at 1.10 OAL hit the sweet spot in both my 9mm M&Ps and 1911 pro.

Interestingly enough, that same powder charge is my go to under Missouri's 180gr LTC in my 40's.

I load 3.8 gr 231 (same as HP38) and it gets just at 1000 fps and is under 3" at 10 yards from a 3" barreled 469. It is also comfortable to shoot.

photobiker said:

Well for me I'm loading 3 gr HP-38 and shooting 2" groups at 10 yds on a rest, ammo bag. Well, they are by best groups.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised with that light a load your slide even cycles. Hodgdon lists a starting charge of HP-38 of 3.9gr with a 125gr LRN bullet. Your 3.0gr load is VERY light. Be very careful you don't stick a bullet in the barrel.

I usually charge 4.0gr W231/HP-38 under a 125gr LRN bullet for target 9mm loads and that works very well for me.

I'm loading the same bullet

I'm loading the Missouri 9mm 125 gr SWC and trying to make a really light target round. Nothing in my books matched up exactly and the variance between loads of similar weight was extreme to say the least, but the closest I could extrapolate was 4.2 grains Bullseye. I haven't shot them yet but after thinking about it some more maybe that's a little hot, which I don't want. Would around 3.8 BE would be better? Anybody got any thoughts on this?? I'm shooting a third gen mod#5943.


UPDATE: I just checked Alliant's site and they use 4.4 grains BE for a 124 gr Gold Dot bullet. I believe I'm in the 'too hot' range with 4.2 grains on a hard lead SWC. If I shoot them up to get the cases back, what should a starting load be??

My older Alliant manual lists 4.9 grs BE with either lead or jacketed
125 gr bullets. My Lyman Pistol and Revolver Handbook lists up to
4.8 grs BE with 125 gr jacketed bullet. I don't believe you're in the
"too hot" range with your 4.2 gr load. 3.8 would be in the "starting
load" range.

Mr. Angel I agree it's on the low side. I'm am seating to 1.10 which is a little less than there length of 1.125 so I can reduce the powder a little. I got this number somewhere, didn't just trying stuff and surely didn't take someones else's word for it. I'll have to poke around and see where I might have found it. I believe light loads can be as bad or worst than excessive.
I shoot mostly light loads and have reduced my springs to allow for the lighter recoil.

Thanks alwslate.....

alwslate said:

My older Alliant manual lists 4.9 grs BE with either lead or jacketed
125 gr bullets. My Lyman Pistol and Revolver Handbook lists up to
4.8 grs BE with 125 gr jacketed bullet. I don't believe you're in the
"too hot" range with your 4.2 gr load. 3.8 would be in the "starting
load" range.

Click to expand...

Thanks alwslate, that sounds reasonable to me. I'm putting together light loads for my wife. If the 4.2 grains BE seems 'warm' I'll cut it back a few tenths. I don't want to go too low and start running into slide operation problems.

rwsmith said:

Thanks alwslate, that sounds reasonable to me. I'm putting together light loads for my wife. If the 4.2 grains BE seems 'warm' I'll cut it back a few tenths. I don't want to go too low and start running into slide operation problems.

Click to expand...

Watch for flattening of the primers. That is an indicator of over pressure. On the other end, watch for consistent ejection. If they get to the point that casings are coming straight up and bouncing on your head, your a bit too light. I like to run mine so ejection is consistent but only about 2-3' away in a nice pile.

shield said:

I'm loading them with 4g HP-38 at 1.1 OAL. Works great in my M&P FS 9, should be fine in a 9c.

Click to expand...

If we are talking about the same bullet here, the 125 gr. lswc by Missouri Bullet Co, I can't get by using the 1.10" OAL because the front lands of the bullet engage the rifling of the barrel. I have the barrel for my S&W 9c and the barrel from my S&W 6906 on the bench and have made several dummy rounds of various lengths. The OAL of 1.10" is great for the 6906 barrel and drops to where it should with no interference with the rifling and will spin with the fingers like it should so it would work just fine in that barrel. I have to seat the bullet for the S&W 9c barrel to OAL of 1.050" to not interfere with the rifling lands of the barrel itself. That just leaves a fingernails width of the land (driving band) showing on the front edge of the bullet measuring about 1/64 of an inch. Anything longer than the OAL 1.050" and the front lands (driving band) of the bullet engage the rifling and it makes the bullet set taller in the barrel and will likely cause feeding and ejection problems. This particular bullet is sized .356" and it measures true. I am using a slight taper crimp of .376" for the dummy rounds. I realize that the lands (driving band) on the LSWC are a problem in this case because it is not like a round nose bullet in which the bullet starts its taper to the nose and you don't have the bullet land (driving band) to worry about rifling engagement quite that soon. In seating the bullet that deep in the case, powder charge will certainly have to be lowered a little to account for the less space in the case and increased pressure. Has anyone loaded this particular bullet above for the S&W M&P 9c pistol itself. Looks to me like the OAL of 1.050" would work in both the 9c and the 6906 if I find the right powder combination. I realize this is post is long but the OAL is bothering me.

I have made dummy rounds starting at 1.120", 1.100",1.080", 1.065", 1.050" and they all fit the Dillon 9mm case guage with no problem, but the 1.050" round is the only one that will drop in the S&W M&P 9c barrel and fit like it should and not interfere with the front edge of the driving band of the bullet. I believe this is what I will use and develop my powder charge from the 1.050" OAl and see what I come up with.

Any help or suggestions or ideas will be appreciated.

9mm Loads

I shoot a Kimber 1911 5", I have tried every load listed in the books using 125 gr Missouri Cast SWC. What seem to shoot and eject the best was 3.8 grs Bullseye, still seemed a little hot for what I wanted and I had very little to no leading, so I worked my way down to 3.4gr Bullseye, Win WSP primer, light crimp with an OAL 1.110. That load shoots 1" groups at 15yds, very little leading that cleans out very easy, all brass is in a 12" to 14" dia circle about 1 to 2ft away using a 11lb recoil spring. The only thing I'll change when I shoot up this supply of lead is order my next at .357 dia 125 SWC. My bore slugs out at .3555. I think .356 is just a little small.

sophie said:

If we are talking about the same bullet here, the 125 gr. lswc by Missouri Bullet Co, I can't get by using the 1.10" OAL because the front lands of the bullet engage the rifling of the barrel....

Click to expand...

Yes, same bullet. As I said, 1.10 works for me in an M&P full size 9mm. I assumed it would be OK in a 9c, but guess not if you have a problem getting it to fit. My son has a 9c, but he's out of town until around the end of August - I can check then. I'll also check my Shield which I haven't done yet.

shield said:

Yes, same bullet. As I said, 1.10 works for me in an M&P full size 9mm. I assumed it would be OK in a 9c, but guess not if you have a problem getting it to fit. My son has a 9c, but he's out of town until around the end of August - I can check then. I'll also check my Shield which I haven't done yet.

Click to expand...

I have added some more info on post #13 about OAL of the MB 125 gr. in the 9mm SWC and the seating depth. All the lengths listed fit the dillon 9mm case guage but the 1.050" is the only one (maximum OAL) that fits the S&W M&P 9c barrel like it should. It will be interesting to see if and when you check your Shield just how the OAL of 1.10" fits the Shield 9mm barrel.

As i mentioned before the 1.10" OAL is just fine in my S&W 6906 but not in the 9c and I wanted a load that would feed and shoot satisfactorily in both guns.

Checked my Shield, and 1.10" OAL fits. Passes the plunk test and spins easily, although I don't shoot them in the Shield - I keep it "lead free" . Took my FS 9 out today and shot 50 rounds of the SWC with no trouble.

shield said:

Checked my Shield, and 1.10" OAL fits. Passes the plunk test and spins easily, although I don't shoot them in the Shield - I keep it "lead free" . Took my FS 9 out today and shot 50 rounds of the SWC with no trouble.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that information. It is interesting that 1.10" oal passes the plunk test in your shield but yet it doesn't in my 9c. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

sophie said:

Thanks for that information. It is interesting that 1.10" oal passes the plunk test in your shield but yet it doesn't in my 9c. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that is strange. I may get a chance to check my son's 9c next weekend. Will get back when I do.

I attached a photo of one of my loaded rounds - maybe compare to yours to see if any significant difference.

shield said:

Yeah, that is strange. I may get a chance to check my son's 9c next weekend. Will get back when I do.

I attached a photo of one of my loaded rounds - maybe compare to yours to see if any significant difference.

Click to expand...

Yes, your round looks like mine. Take a look at these rounds and they are identified with the oal marked and the one on the left (1.10") looks just like yours. And on down to the 1.050" on the right. I had been to town to eat and noticed you sent the picture. Took me a few minutes to get mine together.

I actually have not shot this M&P 9c yet and got to thinking. Do you think in your wildest imagination that it would make any difference when it comes to bullet drop in the barrel? I would not think it would make any difference at all because the barrel is steel and the bullets are either copper jacket or lead so how could it make a difference in the beginning of the rifling of the barrel by going out and shooting 50-100 rounds. That is just my thoughts.

The dummy round on the right marked 1.050" oal and you can see there is just the slightest bit left of the driving band of the bullet above the case rim. About the thickness of a fingernail or about 1/64" .

Tell me what you think.

I have went back and added 3 pictures of the round in the barrel. The two pictures with the rim above the face of the barrel are the 1.10" oal bullet. The picture with the round flush or just slightly below is the 1.050" oal bullet. You can see the longer oal would be a problem. I had one more picture to post but had reached the limit on space.