9mm 115 RN coated test #1 & 2

[Nevada Ed]

This is my first try with the little 115gr 9mm coated bullet by Gallant from Utah.
The first thing that I found out was that I needed to open up the belling for this coated bullet, not to shave the coating, where my old 125 did not have this problem, maybe just how the base was designed.
The old 125 came in Dia .355, .356 and .357...... this is stated at .356".

My data was from the Eggleston site which is actually the Hodgdon data and also data from Lyman manuals.
Some of the "Hight amount" of powders used, not in any data, is from loads that I shot out of my "Tank" 3.5 pistol, using a .356 & .357 dia. 125 Eggland bullet at a OAL of just 1.06"......
this test used a short 1.08" OAL with this 115 gr coated bullet.

The data in these two manuals out of my Beretta type 5" pistol
was very light and out of the 16 test loads........
I had ten (10) fail to lock the slide on the last shot
and also eight (8) fail to feed into the chaimber.
The good news was if it fired, the case were ejected.

I did the short 1.08" just to see if it would be accurate.
the "Standard" 1.10 manual lengths were ok but .......
my cases at 1.12" looked better ( no bulge ) and I think, gave tighter groups
even though I did have the shakes, today.

Anyway, here are the two pictures..... ( target at 10 feet )

 

[Paul in Nevada]

Looks like the CFE didn't come through on this one. Maybe you have to push it a little faster.

 

[Nevada Ed]

CFE & BE86 usually do well in my 9mm loads , however this load did not do to well.

The Hodgdon maximum "Standard load" is a oal of 1.10", 5.4gr. , 1209fps at 33,800psi.
That is what I tried but it did not pan out to well.

In my C9 3.5", 5.5 at 1.14" gives me 1040fps with a plated fmj.
In my full size 5", 6.1 grs gives me 1253 with a plated FMJ bullet.

I don't like the figures that Hodgdon puts out or their data. It just does not jive
with my loads or chrony.

However bullseye, w231 and Unique are showing promise, with this pistol.

All coming eight test will be with a OAL of 1.12" since it did best.
Being a lead, coated bullet, I am not looking for loads past 1180fps or 33 psi, for my target use and practice sessions.

Later.

PS;
like I said, I was having a hand shaking day..........
the CFE flyer, could have landed in the "X" ring, who knows, for sure?
After my third test, maybe then I can see what is really happening?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Ed, now you see why I say I use W231 for most of my 9mm range ammo. It delivers accuracy and it's clean.

The only time I use a different powder is when loading a JHP bullet I want to push even faster without excessive pressures.

 

[Paul in Nevada]

5.4gr is the listed max for cast bullets but I would think the coating gives you a little more potential. I agree that Hodgdon data can be a little suspect sometimes but then again CFE is their baby. Looking at the groups from the other powders though why bother.

 

[Nevada Ed]

5.4gr is the listed max for cast bullets but I would think the coating gives you a little more potential. I agree that Hodgdon data can be a little suspect sometimes but then again CFE is their baby. Looking at the groups from the other powders though why bother.

Don't do this but...........
On one site there was a person testing out powders and listing his data.
Shooting a CZP10C 4" with a 115 HAP, he got 1350fps with CFE at 6.8 grains.
I chickened out ..................
There is data and then there is DATA !! Feel Lucky ?

Stay safe.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

With Hodgdens MAX at 5.4gr of CFE-Pistol for a 115gr LRN @ 1.100" giving 1209fps vs. the MAX of 5.9gr (1/2 gr more powder?) CFE-Pistol for the 115gr GDHP @ 1.125" (longer) giving 1185fps (slower?) I'm a bit surprised at anyone using 6.8gr for the HAP which has the same bullet length as their XTP...!

Seems like a lot more powder in a 9mm case? Maybe in +P+ range?

 

[Nevada Ed]

With Hodgdens MAX at 5.4gr of CFE-Pistol for a 115gr LRN @ 1.100" giving 1209fps vs. the MAX of 5.9gr (1/2 gr more powder?) CFE-Pistol for the 115gr GDHP @ 1.125" (longer) giving 1185fps (slower?) I'm a bit surprised at anyone using 6.8gr for the HAP which has the same bullet length as their XTP...!

Seems like a lot more powder in a 9mm case? Maybe in +P+ range?

In all my test the Gold Dot JHP was ALWAYS SLOWER............
than the RN plated "Ball" type bullets that I shot out of my pistols.
The OAL is what makes or breaks a load.

I go by the fps of the load and not the amount of power, used.
My slowest 3" 115 fmj was at 869fps, 3.5" at 939 and 5" at 996
that had good accuracy.

Note;
I did notice that CFE needs a lot more powder than w231, though.

After my third test with the full size 9mm 5"..........

I will try my C9 3.5" and see if the ligher loads will let the slide lock on the last shot.

 

[Eddietruett]

On the advice of a long time competition shooter, I recently tried 3.2gr Bullseye with some 135gr coated 9mm bullets as well as the same charge with 230gr coated lead in 45acp. Yes, I know it's sounds light, but gave it a try. I was pleasantly surprised. In my Colt Competition 1911 9mm these shoot as good as any load I've ever tried. I've only tried the 45 load in one of my 1911 Colts and it's very accurate as well. As expected these are very light with recoil and have not been chronographed. Doing a little research, a lot of bullseye shooters in the 60's and 70's used lighter than Normal loads of Bullseye Powder. Jim Clark recommended 3.5-3.9 grains with 200gr and 255gr swc's for guns he built

 

[ArchAngelCD]

From what I've read the Hornady HAP bullet is very different than their other bullets and uses a lot less powder for the same weight bullet.

From the Hodgdon Load Data Site:

124gr Hornady XTP bullet
4.1gr max W231 1.060" OAL
5.1gr max CFE Pistol 1.060" OAL
5.1gr max W572 1.060" OAL

125gr Hornady HAP bullet
3.3gr max W231 1.069" OAL
4.8gr max CFE Pistol. 1.069" OAL
4.6gr max W572. 1.069" OAL

As you see, the HAP uses much less powder than the XTP bullet even with a deeper OAL. The 1gr in weight change is inconsequential.

I think I got the numbers right but mistakes writing numbers can and will happen.

 

[rockquarry]

On the advice of a long time competition shooter, I recently tried 3.2gr Bullseye with some 135gr coated 9mm bullets as well as the same charge with 230gr coated lead in 45acp. Yes, I know it's sounds light, but gave it a try. I was pleasantly surprised. In my Colt Competition 1911 9mm these shoot as good as any load I've ever tried. I've only tried the 45 load in one of my 1911 Colts and it's very accurate as well. As expected these are very light with recoil and have not been chronographed. Doing a little research, a lot of bullseye shooters in the 60's and 70's used lighter than Normal loads of Bullseye Powder. Jim Clark recommended 3.5-3.9 grains with 200gr and 255gr swc's for guns he built

You're right. I still use the light Bullseye loads in .45 ACP 1911s. 3.5 Bullseye with a 200 grain cast SWC has a muzzle velocity of around 700 fps. Very pleasant to shoot and generally quite accurate. I don't know whether the competitive Bullseye shooters continue to use these loads or have gone to something else.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

Uh, the HAP I referred to was the 115gr version: in the Hornady data the 124gr XTPs & HAPs have the exact same data for powder weight, velocity and OALs.

I doubt this does not apply to the 115gr versions as well...?

Cheers!

P.S. The Hodgdons data does not seem right to me: a difference of 0.001" in bullet diameter, a difference of 0.001gr in bullet weight, a difference of 0.009" in OAL, a significent difference of 0.9gr of 231 powder, but with both indicated at an equal pressure of 33,600psi should not equate to a difference of 174fps...

The equal pressure being the most suspect, IMHO.