Hey, guys! I just bought a 9mm conversion barrel for my glock 23 and now I'm having problems reloading for it. I bought 500 125 grain small ball .356 bullets and, using an OAL of 1.13", all failed to chamber and jam the gun. I found that the maximum OAL I can use is about 1.05". The problem I have with that is that I cannot find any load data for something that short. I have 3 rounds loaded with 3.9 grains of SR4756 and an OAL of 1.05" ready to test. Anyone know if that is a safe load? Know any other sources for data using SR4756 on these "SmallBall" bullets? Thanks!

According to the MBC website and the box of bullets sitting next to me, they have 124 grain LRN Small Ball, not 125.

I use 4.2 grains of HP-38 with a COL of 1.100 and it feeds fine in my P-226 and 6906. Longer than that, the bullet engages the rifling in the Sig but not the 6906. I've used as short as 1.092 without feed/chamber problems.

Have you done a "Plunk" test with that 1.13 OAL--or anything less? I rarely use stated OALs in load data as they may or may not fit any individual gun. The 124 gr MO bullets have a long bearing surface, and at 1.100 look long. They certainly could be seated deeper, powder load permitting.

What brand conversion barrel are you using. I bought a Storm Lake barrel for my Glock 30 but it is nowhere near as reliable as the Glock barrel with lead reloads.

Hey, SMSgt! I've done "plunk" tests (1.04" loads) with the barrel and they don't quite freely fall out, but are easily pulled out. The barrel is a Lonewolf 40-9 conversion standard length. I loaded 15 rounds at 1.13" only to jam my gun up when I tried loading one in. I discovered the barrel likes 1.05" when I put a projectile in an expanded case and pushed it into the barrel until it head spaced correctly. I've made loads at 1.04" with 3.5 and 3.9 grains, and two others at 1.045 and 3.3 grains. I plan to test these in a couple of days. Oh, and the bullet weighed 125.4 grains on my scale, so I just said 125. Thanks!

The MBC 124 gr small ball (RN) has a very fat round nose. It will not fir my CZ's without reducing the COL by a lot. I use a shorter COL and just reduce the powder charge a bit. More of the start load for whatever powder. My guns have light recoil springs so the function fine.

This one:

Missouri Bullet Company

If you use the 124 gr Parabellem (cone nose)it is pointier and should not be an issue but I do not care for it accuracy wise.

This one:

Missouri Bullet Company

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Rule3, are your COLs close to mine? I'm loading with SR4756 and the minimum COL is 1.125". Mine is .085" shorter. Will minimum loads for the 1.125" be safe in something that much shorter?

Disclaimer: Do this at your own risk. I am not responsible, just ask my Wife!


For MY gun the COL is 1.070.(yes not a mis print)

For YOUR gun only you can determine.

What is IMPORTANT is that you reduce the powder charge accordingly. COL in test data is based on that test only and whatever gun or test barrel they used. Pressure especially in a 9mm or a 40SW will increase as you seat it shorter.

The pressure is related to the powder charge along with the depth of seating the bullet. So if you seat deeper, than there is less volume for the burning powder gas to expand, so therefore you need to reduce the powder charge.

Take your barrel out and do the plunk test. Start at at a long length and gradually reduce it until it plunks in and out. Do not forget to put a slight taper crimp as it spaces off the mouth of the case, but in guns with short chamber or leads or odd shaped bullets the bullet is hitting first.

Per Hodgdon the min for a 125 gr lead CONE nose is 4.2 gr seated at 1.125. If you look at the listed Hornaday action Pistol (a jacket bullet) they seat that at 1.069 and start with 3.9

So if it was ME I would use the 3.9 and only load a few to see if it cycles the gun OK.




This is a 1911 barrel but the technique is the same.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

As noted, one option is to use a lighter powder charge and load short. While this in usually safe there is a small risk of pressure spikes that can rupture a case. Typically this is not life threatening but a case rupture is almost universally rather painful.

The second option is to contact the barrel manufacturer about this issue. IMO you have a barrel that wasn't machined completely to SAAMI specifications for the Chamber and Lead. My hunch is that your barrel was machined specifically for Semi-Wadcutters and using any other bullet type may be problematic. Since it shouldn't be too difficult to re-machine the Lead in your barrel to a profile that works with a variety of bullets I would suggest you contact the manufacturer about having it machined for general use. Yeah, you will in theory lose a bit of accuracy but most of us can't shoot a handgun well enough to ever see the difference.

I loaded some of the 125 gr. small ball 9mm and they jammed both of my M&Ps (full size and compact) until I seated them shorter. They would feed fine in my SW9VE(sigma) as it feeds anything I put through it. I only shoot FMJs now.

I've contacted the manufacturer (Lone Wolf) and was informed that there is a fee of $30 to refinish the chamber to allow "custom loads". I believe the barrel is SAAMI spec. and it fed 115 grain FMJ with no hiccup. The problem lies within the MBC bullet's round nose. I've seated them to a length of 1.04 and 1.045 and hope to test them tomorrow. I'll post results here in hopes that is might help someone else someday.

You have put a taper crimp on the rounds yes?? If the flare is not taken out the case will hang up.

It is the bullet from my experience with them.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Yes, I've tried light all the way to heavy taper crimps and they're still sticky. I think it's the bullets because they're sticky being dropped into the bore alone.

I too have a bit of problem when setting COL with lead bullets as they are sticky. Before I do the Plunk test, I wipe the bullet with a paper towel. A dummy rounds that drags/sticks will now drop right out.

Doesn't seem to affect live rounds as they're on a one-way trip anyhow.

RANGE REPORT! Tested the loads a couple of days ago. Here are the results.

Load #1
3.3 grains of SR4756
1.04" COL
Accuracy poor, little report, and failed to cycle the gun

Load #2
3.5 grains of SR4756
1.04" COL
Better accuracy, cycled weapon, and failed to lock the slide back

Load #3
3.9 grains of SR4756
1.04" COL
Best accuracy producing a .25" group at 7 yards, cycled flawlessly, locked slide back, and mild recoil

I'm going with Load #3! Hope this helps anyone else!

Look at the IMR SR 4756 data at Hodgdonreloading.com for the 125 grain LCN. That will come closest to the Missouri Bullet small ball. It shows a starting load of 4.2 grains and an overall length of 1.125". You're seating your bullets deeper, which increases the pressure somewhat. So you're probably now just getting up to the pressure to properly cycle the pistol with 3.9 grains.

I've shot thousands of the Missouri Bullet 124-grain small ball in an 1911 9mm and my Rock River Arms 9mm carbine. With the 18 Brinell rating, they don't lead even in the 1-10" twist carbine barrel. I seat them to 1.10" oal. Missouri Bullet suggests approximately 1.08.

Sometimes those drop-in conversion barrels are not exactly "drop-in". And like most anything new, a barrel's doing to need a little breaking in. It sounds like you're getting there! Good luck!

Looks like he had this figured out 2 years ago....

Sure hope so, Peter. It came up on the new posts, and I commented on it.

As several others have suggested above, just start low.

Yes, a deeper seating depth may increase pressure, but that's more of an issue when the bullet sets back when chambered and results in greater pressure in an already near maximum load.

Just start low and work the load up carefully at whatever OOL you need to get the round to chamber and for reliable feeding.

Pressure tends to be lower with lead bullets than with jacketed bullets in general, so you'll likely find it'll work just fine while being well under the maximum average pressure.

I just went through the same thing with another bullet that was not defined as 'small ball' but apparently has a similar profile. You have to load them SHORT. 1.06" works in my tightest chambered, shortest leaded barrel. You may have to adjust the load down for pressure. My bullets catch on the rifling of the barrel and either won't chamber fully or if they do they get stuck in the rifling and getting the slide open can actually pull the bullet and leave gunpowder in your gun.

I HATE this profile. The FMJ bullets I use are tapered in such a way that loaded to the right specs they plunk freely, almost like a rock falling down a gutter pipe. I use SWCs too and if I load them so that the bit of shank that's showing is about as thick as a fingernail, they work fine, too.

If I load the small balls this short, they feed and work reliably in all of my 9mm semis. I'm going to ASK next time I buy RN coated lead bullets if they have a tapered profile or are 'small ball'.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

These messed me up too, but I don't hate them. I run them at 1.07" - 1.075" and they feed fine in my S.A. range officer and new CZ SP-01, both with short throat. They work fine in my Glock 26 also, but then I think they would feed in a Glock if I put the cartridges backwards in the magazine.

And this ^^
is how it's supposed to be done

__________________
I'd like to agree with you BUT

It's certainly a good start.

I'd have inserted a 3.7 gr load in the development ladder as well. Increments of .2 grains is about right working up a load with a fast burning pistol powder, and 3.5 to 3.9 grains is a pretty big jump. Is suspect that test loads with 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 grain charged may all have cycled and locked back the slide as well and gotten the desired performance with a smaller charge.

I'm also big fan of chronograph data to see if your loads are actually doing what they are supposed to do and/or see if your loads are tracking with the data in a manual.

In that regard, in a situation where multiple loads might all provide proper function, accuracy, etc, velocity data really helps identify the recoil forces involved and helps confirm whether the load is running at the target velocity or not.

Consider the measured velocity of three different loads using three different bullets with the same powder in the same P.08 Luger:

Load 1: X-treme 124 gr round nose plated bullet, with a CCI 500 primer and 5.9 grains of HS-6 in matched head stamp brass.

This is a maximum load in the Hornady sixth edition manual with 124 gr jacketed Hornady bullets, however it's .2 grains lower than the 6.1 gr maximum load I've seen in published data using the 124 gr X-treme plated bullet.

It functions extremely well in the P08 when using a 1.140" OAL.

The average velocity of this load was 1,026 fps with a standard deviation of just 5.26 fps. That's extremely close to the nominal design velocity noted in the DWM manual for the 124 gr bullet in the P.08.

Load 2:Rimrock 124 gr LRN cast bullet with 5.6 gr of HS-6.

Despite the .3 gr lower powder charge with the same weight bullet the average velocity was slightly higher at 1,054 fps. The SD was higher, but a still very good 14.60 fps.

Load 3: 124 gr lead bullet with a truncated cone profile, similar to the shape of the original Luger 124 gr bullet. This load again used 5.6 gr of HS-6. The average velocity in the P08 was however almost 90 fps faster at 1,164 fps with another very good SD of 12.55 fps.


The take away here is that bullet type makes a difference, based on the presence or absence of a jacket, the thickness and hardness of that jacket, and the hardness of the lead core, along with variables such as diameter and bearing surface of the bullet.

And, even when the bullets are roughly comparable - cast from similar alloy with identical diameter, they can still perform significantly differently in the same pistol with the same primer, case and powder charge.

Without a chronograph however, a hand loader has no good way to detect or quantify what's happening.

Hand loaders invest a lot of money in reloading equipment, reloading components and in firearms, yet few of them seem to be willing to invest $150 or so in a chronograph, or invest time in learning how to set up and use one correctly to get reliable data that can guide their load development. I've never understood that.

I only tested one lead bullet in my 3.5" C9mm so far and it was a coated 125gr RN.
My minimum per data was 1.06" which gave the highest fps of 1173 with HS-6 powder.

Due to the minimum case volume, Ball powders worked bestfor higher speeds.

Bullseye did 1115fps
CFE pistol did 1092

3.8grs of Red or Green Dot around 945fps did well as low speed target loads that shot at POA.

None of the Ball powder were close to a compressed loading but
the Alliant flake powders were at or over 100% case volume on a lot of my loadings
this short 1.06" OAL with this bullet.
As a note, it could work in my chamber at a OAL of 1.16"

Good luck.

They work well now but I went through a fit trying to get them to work. I even had a tight chamber on my Shield that the factory replaced and I still had trouble. This occupied me for months. Now that I've cooled down and had some good range time rather than taking my pistols home to open them with my vise and a wood block, I'm not hating them as much. However, flexible they ain't.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I feel sorry for those that have a "Short" loading area with their barrels.
It is nice to be able to seat a load out to at least 1.145" OAL that is a standard seating for a lot of factory made 9mm ball ammo, to see if accuracy improves.

My pistols do better with the long OAL in most of my light target loads. My C9 likes the 124 and 147 plated at a OAL of 1.165" for my sub-sonic loads.

However, if you do get good accuracy with a short barrel, congratulations.

I wouldn't spend $ on that myself.
For $30 you could just buy a batch of another bullet profile. FWIW, My lone wolf 9mm ( std and conversion) barrels feed 125 gr RN, CFP and even semi wadcutters if the OAL is right.

__________________
Dave

Knowing this is an old thread but did anybody check the MBC website for this bullet?


SmallBall!
.356 Diameter
9mm Parabellum
124 Grain 9MM RN
Brinell 18
For General Shooting
Note: Seat To Approximately 1.08"
Price per box of 500
Price: $32.00

Seating depth is listed right in the specs for the bullet.

__________________
Plastic has no soul

I found out that I could not load 'smallball' any longer than 1.06" to work in all of my guns. Full size, compacts and a carbine. I think that smallball bullets ought to say 'smallball' because many RN bullets are much more tapered and can be seated longer. If you use RN data for these it's going to mess up feeding.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

GOOD results! WHERE do you find SR4756? Scarce as hen's teeth around here for years!

SR 4756 is a very slow powder for the 9mm case.
It is like using IMR4831 in rifle cases..... scoop and load a bullet.

My heavy duty C9 3.5" pistol will take the 115 and 124gr plated bullets
at a maximum OAL to receive a compressed load of SR4756 powder in
order to get to a standard 9mm load.

You should be able to load up to 5.0grs in the short 1.04" load that works in your pistol.
This is a loading that I use for a medium fast powder with a 125gr bullet
since I never tried SR4756 at this short of OAL.

As a note, the 125gr LRN coated bullet with a OAL of 1.06" took a
maximum load of 6.6grs of HS-6 for 1173fps.

You should have NO pressure problems using SR4756 powder in the 9mm case.

Good loading.