So What's Really Happening with the 9mm

[beagle]

It seems that more people have more trouble loading the 9mm than any other cartridge. I'm not saying I've mastered it but me and the 9mm have reached kind of a handshaking agreement in two BHPs and two Ruger Blackhawk convertibles. The BHPs are fairly easy as I suspect they have generous chambers. The Blackhawks are really fickle.

Here's what I think is happening and we'll get some discussion going.

I size my 9mm to .357", well .3575" to be exact as I made a custom sizer years ago. This works well accuracy wise in all my guns.

I'm using a Lyman TC sizing die and I suspect many of you are in one brand or another.

The OAL of the loaded round seems to be the biggest problem and me and Wally have been bouncing ideas back and forth all winter as to the fix.

Now this all starts with the sizer and being tungsten carbide, in most dies is a small carbide spacer about 3/16" thick which is cemented/staked into the mouth of the sizing die. I haven't measured one but I have measured several hundred heads and the all fall well below .391" which is the 9mm head dimension.

After loading, I checked several hundred 9mm cases loaded with a .3575" 358480 through my 9mm cylinder and has four which failed to seat easily and during shooting and loading would have tied my cylinder up. Measuring these loaded rounds gave me right at .384" OD at the base of the bullet which is a bit oversized but after another trip through the taper crimp die, they chambered fine. These would have fired in the High Powers.

Now, the case mouth on a loaded 9mm should run .380". Doing a little subtraction here, I'm getting .023" for the difference between the loaded round (.380") and the sized bullet (.357"). Half of this is .0115" and I'm pretty sure 9mm brass don't run that thick.

It looks like to me, we're sizing, expanding, seating a bullet which expands the case and then we come back with a taper crimp die and squeeze the whole mess back down to where it chambers.

Now, this is well and good if it chambers and the accuracy is there.

If this is happening, we're using a bullet with a .357" diameter or .357" driving band diameter at the front end and the rear end is swaged town to .356" or maybe as low as .354". If this is happening, the bump upon firing is expanding the rear to chamber diameter to give good accuracy.

Kinda think this is happening. Discussion?????/beagle

[Ben]

Poor brass and bullets, kinda sound like both are being jerked around quite a bit.

[Bwana]

My Blackhack requires large, at least .358", boolits and they must be hard. I lay this to the shallow rifling in the Blackhawk. It is too much work to mess with so I very rarely shoot cast out of the 9mm cly. In fact most of the .357 rounds are tipped by my Hybrid bullets made from 9mm, 380, and .223 cases. It is very accurate with them.

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

What did the cases you miked work out to for case wall thickness:
1. at the mouth, before and after seating the boolet?
2. at the base of the boolet (outside diameter) in the loaded rounds?

The 9mm is not considered a truly accurate cartridge, nowhere near the 38 Super or 45 acp.

Rich

[ssnow]

I think you have it right. So many variables. Add a longer bullet, or seat it deeper, add some thicker brass, or a new reloader applying too much crimp, and it all goes south pretty quick.

[williamwaco]

My first 9mm was a Ruger BH convertible over 40 years ago followed immediately by a Browning HP and a delightful little Star. I have had at least two 9mms ever since. Currently have 3. All 1911s.

In my experience the 9mm is no more trouble to reload than any other handgun cartridge. 90% of the problems I read about on this site are cause by too much research and too much reading about and looking for problems and trying to solve obscure problems that sometimes may occur occasionally - before they ever size a case. . .

The only problem I have ever had with the 9mm is leading caused by over-hard, undersized bullets. Now let me remember, I have had that exact same problem with a couple of other cartridges:

.32 Long Colt
.38 S&W
.38 Special
.357 Mag
.40 S&W
.41 Magnum
.44 Special
.44 Magnum
.45 ACP
.45 Colt

If you will forget all the esoteric rocket science warnings and concentrate on the bare fundamentals, common to ALL cartridges, you will find the 9mm is easy and fun.


.

[beagle]

Most of the stuff I measured was RP and WW.

I intend to cut a case and measure the actual case thickness but got to wondering and was out of the shop.

For sure, something is happening to the bullet base during seating and taper crimping and I fell like it's being sized inside the case and for sure isn't .357 anymore. Pulled, cast .30 Carbine measures .308" from loaded .310 bullets so I know it's happening with them.

I once had the opinion too that the 9mm was not accurate with cast until I shot with a gentleman at the club and he used 125 grain RN cast in a M39 Smith and he could hold 2" offhand at 25 yards. Not occasionally but he did it week after week and that made me think I was missing something so I started loading 9mm when people scoffed at us and factory 9mm was $6 a box.

I find that 9mm is just as accurate as a .38 Special if loaded properly.

There's something we're missing on teh 9mm and I'll be darned if I know what it is and want to get some opinions.

I know that the loading dies are a kind of band aid and are made to load acceptable ammunition and not precision ammunition byt we will have our carbide sizers and that's not economical to make a carbide sizer for the whole case. We size the head and right in front of the head, expand the mouth and the remainder of the case takes care of itself. This, in itself is not a correct practice but the best the die manufacturers can come up with on an economical basis./beagle


What did the cases you miked work out to for case wall thickness:
1. at the mouth, before and after seating the boolet?
2. at the base of the boolet (outside diameter) in the loaded rounds?

The 9mm is not considered a truly accurate cartridge, nowhere near the 38 Super or 45 acp.

Rich

[beagle]

You're preaching to the chior here. I've loaded thousands of 9s over the years and have no problems but others are and I'd like to see what opinions are as to what is really happening in a 9mm case.

I can load GC'd PB 9mms and get no leading in any of my 9s and get darn fine accuracy but I've been at this on the shady side of 50 years and some of these people haven't./beagle


My first 9mm was a Ruger BH convertible over 40 years ago followed immediately by a Browning HP and a delightful little Star. I have had at least two 9mms ever since. Currently have 3. All 1911s.

In my experience the 9mm is no more trouble to reload than any other handgun cartridge. 90% of the problems I read about on this site are cause by too much research and too much reading about and looking for problems and trying to solve obscure problems that sometimes may occur occasionally - before they ever size a case. . .

The only problem I have ever had with the 9mm is leading caused by over-hard, undersized bullets. Now let me remember, I have had that exact same problem with a couple of other cartridges:

.32 Long Colt
.38 S&W
.38 Special
.357 Mag
.40 S&W
.41 Magnum
.44 Special
.44 Magnum
.45 ACP
.45 Colt

If you will forget all the esoteric rocket science warnings and concentrate on the bare fundamentals, common to ALL cartridges, you will find the 9mm is easy and fun.


.

[beagle]

Bwana...it's the challenge of the 9mm Blackhawk that attracts me. I hav etwo now and have them pretty well dialed in but it was a hassle but now, they're as reliable as a .357 Blackhawk. I want to see these other guys suceed too./beagle


My Blackhack requires large, at least .358", boolits and they must be hard. I lay this to the shallow rifling in the Blackhawk. It is too much work to mess with so I very rarely shoot cast out of the 9mm cly. In fact most of the .357 rounds are tipped by my Hybrid bullets made from 9mm, 380, and .223 cases. It is very accurate with them.

[honus]

For accuracy with the 9mm, stick with bullet designs having a long bearing area such as SWCs or TCs.

[Harter66]

I'm a simplton on this matter beagle.

Shoot your R-Ps in the autos and shoot another headstamp in the revolvers. No more sizing issues.
There is also the option of turning or reaming the cases for the revolvers.
I made a few cases for the "see if its worth it" factor from 223/5.56, they required substantial turning to chamber, but function fine and hav a substantial anti-set-back shoulder.

Like I said im a simpleton.

[Larry Gibson]

Since the early '70s i've shot thouasands of cast bullet loads through a lot of verious 9mm handguns and a few sub guns without any problems at all. After the intitial load development with a M39 I've setteld on 4 gr of Bullseye under any commercial cast of .356+ or my own cast at .357 or .358 of 115 - 125 gr weight. For my own cast I've use 356402, 358242 (121 gr), RCBS 09-124-CN and Lee's 358-105-SWC and 356-120-TC (what I currently use) all with great success. I've used Javelina from day one but sometimes now I'll use BAC. I've never had any leading with my own cast bullets. I have had minor leading with some commercial cast due to the poor hard wax lube that was used. When the lube was removed and the bullets relubed with Javelina I got no more leading. Most of my 9mm cast bullets have been with WWs + 2 tin added during the last 20 years.

I've had no more "problems" loading cast bullets in the 9 mm than with any other cartridge and I've never found anything "finicky" about it.

Larry Gibson

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

A few years back I picked up a Bulgarian Arcus 94, a clone of the Israeli Browning Hi-Power clone. Essentially it functioned and had internals identical to the Browning Hi-power. The only major difference was a squared off trigger guard and a more blocky appearance like a Sig. The gun was very inexpensive and curious, I picked one up to give it a try for fun.

It was obvious to me out of the box the gun was manufactured to be reliable and "combat" accurate, with fairly loose tolerances. This was okay for my original purposes for the gun. I took it out and shot it with FMJ's and it shot okay, with typical 1.5 to 3 inch groups at 25 yards.

When I began to attempt to cast and load lead for it, I ran into a problem. The groove diameter of the pistol's barrel bore was a bit over .358" while the lands ran right in with most 9MM's, maybe even a bit tighter. (I apologize, can't remember their measurement, been too many years.) So the barrel shot good with FMJ's. The problem was the over sized groove diameter made the pistol very hard to match up a bullet to what you could size and reload.

If I took a bullet that matched well in the groove dimensions, sized/lubed it and loaded it, by the time it was in a cartridge and ready to shoot, the bullet dimensions had been swaged down enough by the process I now got tumbling bullets with keyholing at 25 yards.

I tried a number of cast bullets, even those from other casters on the board and none of them worked, all keyholing. I finally gave up and sold the pistol, getting my money back out of it. It was a shame, the pistol was forged steel with forged steel parts and I really liked it.

Upon reflection, I realize now I was using a Lee Deluxe die set and was using the factory crimp die as my crimp die and I may have been swaging my cast boolits down too far using that die without realizing it. I wish I had the gun back now so I could run some more experiments and perhaps try other brands of dies or other crimping dies or perhaps just less crimp.

Be interesting to try again. At the time, I felt it was the significant difference in groove diameter vs. land diameter the problem. Then, I used a friend's S&W M39's barrel as a basis for comparison. The Smith's barrel was a good bit smaller in groove diameter and likely would have been easy to cast and reload for.

Since the Arcus 94 is the only 9MM I've ever owned, I can't say if other 9's would be easier to reload for, but I suspect that would be the case.

[ku4hx]

I've been loading 9mm since sometime in the early '70s. I didn't know I was supposed to be having problems until I found this forum.

I have had some minor leading along the way but proper boolit size and appropriate lube has always fixed that. Just yesterday I fired 170 124 grain cast loads through my BHP. Every round chambered, fired and extracted perfectly. At 7 yards I could cut one ragged hole in the X-ring; at 25 yards that opened a bit but I still peppered the X.

Only problem I had was getting the feel of the BHP and then shooting my Glock Gen4 19. The BHP may be old technology (bought it circa 1969) but even with the factory trigger it's still the smoothest most accurate autoloader I own.

[beagle]

Larry, so have I. I also have used Javalina. It's not a lube problem. Sure, you can make anything work with cast but you shouldn't have to.

The problem doesn't come with the 356402 or the 358242 but comes with long base bullets like the 358480 and 358345s. The SWCs. Now, I can make them feed in the Brownings but they do cause a ruckus in the Blackhawk with it's tighter chambers and require some special work to get reliable chambering.

I'm thinking it has to be the design of the loading dies that are causing it. Here we're trying to load a tapered case with a set of carbide dies that supposedly only sizes straight wall cases. The guns, most of them, require a bullet that is a miniumum of .357" for good accuracy and then we come back and taper crimp the bullet in the small end of a tapered case to squeeze it back to dimensions that will fit the chamber. On top of this, case thickness is increasing from the head end of the case and this bulges the case with these larget diameter bullets.

I know we make it work but there has to be a better way. I've been loading 9mm for over 50 years starting out with a Lathi, then a Luger, then a P-38 and then a High Power covered with swastikas and finally a POlish Radom and they shoot and feed but what we have to do to accomplish this is not right and I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by our loading methods.

I'm asking that we get our heads together and figure it out for posterity./beagle




Since the early '70s i've shot thouasands of cast bullet loads through a lot of verious 9mm handguns and a few sub guns without any problems at all. After the intitial load development with a M39 I've setteld on 4 gr of Bullseye under any commercial cast of .356+ or my own cast at .357 or .358 of 115 - 125 gr weight. For my own cast I've use 356402, 358242 (121 gr), RCBS 09-124-CN and Lee's 358-105-SWC and 356-120-TC (what I currently use) all with great success. I've used Javelina from day one but sometimes now I'll use BAC. I've never had any leading with my own cast bullets. I have had minor leading with some commercial cast due to the poor hard wax lube that was used. When the lube was removed and the bullets relubed with Javelina I got no more leading. Most of my 9mm cast bullets have been with WWs + 2 tin added during the last 20 years.

I've had no more "problems" loading cast bullets in the 9 mm than with any other cartridge and I've never found anything "finicky" about it.

Larry Gibson

[ku4hx]

I'd have to ask, what exactly is a "problem"? Coming from a scientific background, I see problems as steps in a process. At least non lethal ones or those that cause damage of one sort of another.

In my 40+ years of casting and loading, I've had many "problems". The overwhelming majority of which I worked through and reached a satisfactory conclusion. The thing is, sometimes the "solution" for me is to simply abandon the effort. Case in point are SWC boolits in my Glock 20 and 23 with both OEM and LW barrels. The LW barrels have had the chamber reworked by LW but for months no matter what I did chambering was not reliable.

Whenever I am working through an undesirable situation, I always consider alternatives as a viable solution. Sometimes the investment in time, money and effort are just not worth it. My solution to the SWC 10mm/40 cal. problem was to switch to a TC boolit profile, melt down all the SWCs and cast no more. In my case, and by my definition ... problem solved. Others may see it differently.

I don't limit myself to cast boolits only. I like options and I choose those that suit my needs best as I define that. That means I also load and shoot a lot of jacketed bullets in various applications. In those cases, that was my solution to my problem. Others are free to disagree or agree with my problem resolutions.

[fecmech]

I have not had any problems loading the 9MM and it may just be my expanders. When I load on the turret press I'm using the Lyman "M" die and the expander on my CH Auto Champ for the 9MM is almost identical. I run .358 on my 120 TC bullets and just taper crimp enough to turn the case bell straight. I loaded for a Star, 2 BHP's and a Khar with the polygonal barrel. In each gun I could equal or better factory jacketed velocities and accuracy with cast of equal weights. For lube I've used Zambini and Magma hard lubes, leading was never a problem. The two best powders I found for max effort 9's were Longshot and BlueDot.

[Iron Mike Golf]

beagle,

I have not shot a whole lot of cast through my SR9c and and really just getting into it. I am using a SAECO #383 that drops for me at 140 gr. That boolit has a long, graceful cone shaped nose and a tiny SWC shoulder. It feeds beautifully. Accuracy is spotty. I size to .358 and lube with CR. No leading issues.

I have loaded 115 gr JHP from Montana Gold over 6.4 gr Power Pistol for more than 2 years and had nice accuracy without sorting or trimming brass.

I am finding that during loading, there is a huge variance in neck tension among different headstamps. I don't have the proper tools to measure case wall thickness, especially at different depths inside the case.

I also have not trimmed brass to common length. I am going to make up some batches of same headstamp and trim them to common length. I am also going to really figure out the COL needed to just kiss the lands.

Magtech brass (CBC headstamp) gives me the most problem. If I don't get the M die deep enough, the case will spit the boolit forward. The boolit won't expand the case. I have a handful of those to pull and mic.

With .45 ACP and .380 Auto, I don't sort or trim brass. I am thinking with this long boolit, I may need to.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, so have I. I also have used Javalina. It's not a lube problem. Sure, you can make anything work with cast but you shouldn't have to.

The problem doesn't come with the 356402 or the 358242 but comes with long base bullets like the 358480 and 358345s. The SWCs. Now, I can make them feed in the Brownings but they do cause a ruckus in the Blackhawk with it's tighter chambers and require some special work to get reliable chambering.

I'm thinking it has to be the design of the loading dies that are causing it. Here we're trying to load a tapered case with a set of carbide dies that supposedly only sizes straight wall cases. The guns, most of them, require a bullet that is a miniumum of .357" for good accuracy and then we come back and taper crimp the bullet in the small end of a tapered case to squeeze it back to dimensions that will fit the chamber. On top of this, case thickness is increasing from the head end of the case and this bulges the case with these larget diameter bullets.

I know we make it work but there has to be a better way. I've been loading 9mm for over 50 years starting out with a Lathi, then a Luger, then a P-38 and then a High Power covered with swastikas and finally a POlish Radom and they shoot and feed but what we have to do to accomplish this is not right and I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by our loading methods.

I'm asking that we get our heads together and figure it out for posterity./beagle

Yes, it certainly is obvious that some are having problems. Mostly when they used a wrong alloy, insufficient lube, size the bullet too small or use a bullet design that is not correct. Like several others I don't percieve those as problems endemic to the 9mm as they are problems with any cartridge. I've used several different sets of 9mm loading dies over the years (RCBS, C&H, Lyman, Dillon and Lee) and never had any problems with any of them. I don't use the Lee FCD simply because I haven't found that extra step necessary.

I've also loaded other SWCs that were heavier like the 358477 and the 358156. If there are feeding problems with any correctly seated cast bullet (drop fit test into the chamber) then it is the gun and not the 9mm cartridge. We have been throating semi autos for 60+ years to feed such and should understand the problems.

I guess what I'm saying is; is it really the 9mm cartridge or is it the loader or is it the gun that is really the problem? Interesting quandry isn't it:drinks:

Larry Gibson

[Echo]

My Blackhack requires large, at least .358", boolits and they must be hard. I lay this to the shallow rifling in the Blackhawk. It is too much work to mess with so I very rarely shoot cast out of the 9mm cly. In fact most of the .357 rounds are tipped by my Hybrid bullets made from 9mm, 380, and .223 cases. It is very accurate with them.

My BH won't chamber .358 boolits, and accuracy with .357 is marginal, so I haven't switched from .357M to 9mm in years.

[Cherokee]

Back in the 80's I bought a new Colt 1911 in 9mm and began loading for it. I used Lyman 356402 primarily and really had no problem with performance, accuracy was acceptable but not as good as 38 Special and others I was also loading for. That 9mm became a Super 38 that was more accurate. Then came a Taurus PT99, had some good loads for it using the 356402 and commercial cast TC bullets. Then a BHP, same loads for the Taurus worked OK in the BHP but not great. All of this was with bullets of 356 size. Now I think the BHP would have like a larger bullet. My Witness 9mm also shot the loads fine.

My only dies are an RCBS 9mm carbide set I bought back in the 80's. The FL die appears to have a long insert that does taper size the brass. Maybe I'm wrong, don't have a measuring tool to prove it. But, I have measured cases as fired and then sized and the measurements (caliper) are smaller all along the case, base to mouth. Now I have a Caspian-based 9mm custom build and an XDM 5". Still use the Lyman 356402 but primarily now the Lee 356120TC and CR lube. The Caspian is the most accurate followed closely by the XDM, then the Witness. None of these 3 shoot any better with 357 bullets and 358 bullets will not chamber, so I continue to use .356 size. I do get light leading (no build up even after 4-500 rounds) but it cleans right up with usual brush and patch. Not sure this helps your quest any, but that is my experience.

Oh, I do have Ruger Blackhawks with 9mm cylinders but never use them.

[Harter66]

Beagle,
The autos feature a different set of paramiters than a revolver. For example seating depth is a non-issue in the revolver,where as the round has to fit in the magizine and feed mechanics of the auto. While the sizing that occures during crimping may contribute to the revolver issues it is nessasary for the auto. I can't even use exponants to count the times I've read "you need only enough crimp to remove the bell". Using that swaging should be next to improbable.

In this therory seating depth and case buldge/swaging is next . A boolit w/correct shank length is 1 option. The 2nd option is turning/reaming every case .

Fit issues "fit is king/if it'll chamber freely its not to big" followed by "if the revolver throats are smaller than groove dia its gonna lead and not shoot"

Sharing brass between revolvers and autos w/o something like a deGlocking die or cutting all of the chambers yourself w/your tools is going to be a rare oppertunity. I count myself lucky to have a 38 that will share w/the 357s untill I get to the top end then the rifle brass just won't go back in the revolver 3rd time neck sizing.

All of the above are the fixes gun by gun learned here and by my own failures.

As a point of intrest what is the difference in the chamber/throating from 380 ACP to 9mm to 38 ACP and Super to 9x21 and 9x23 or 9mm Win mag aka 9x30. Its more likely to find an answer in that than asking why the 9mm is so picky.

[williamwaco]

.

Would one of you guys that just can't make the 9mm work consider sending me about 25 of the fired cases that just will not work for you?

I would like to "give it a shot".
Either I can help you or or you will have fun embarrasing me.

Either way we will all learn something.


.

[subsonic]

I'm thinking it has to be the design of the loading dies that are causing it. Here we're trying to load a tapered case with a set of carbide dies that supposedly only sizes straight wall cases.


There's my vote. Try steel dies and see what happens.

[runfiverun]

i quit fighting the sizing.
using 38 carbide dies,38 cal 125 gr rnfp boolits,and a 38 taper die...
thick+tapered cases will kill the 9mm.
sorting case thickness and measuring thier length helps accuracy.

jon
i started doing this while messing with 32-20 cases for my 30 carbine [and the sizing [down] of the 32 [313] boolits in the carbine case]
it kind of clicked for me with the rnfp boolits in my 45 acp revolver [i went to the 45 colt dies],then went over to the 9mm.

anyways thats my solution,i got it from you :lol:

[HangFireW8]

Beagle,

My take on the problem is that the 9mm is not very forgiving. It has 357Mag pressures in a smaller case, so small changes in, well, anything, COAL, crimp, sizing, make for larger pressure variances. On top of that it is a tapered case that has to feed and chamber. As far as cast is concerned, it is doable but not friendly.

Leaving aside neck turning, steel dies and/or 38 Special dies seem to be the best ideas.

Cast Boolits Forum is good at custom mold group buys. How about a custom die group buy?

HF

[leadshooter5]

I shot a lot of 9mm out of my EAA Witness (CZ75 made by Tanfoglio) with decent accuracy and function, but always with some leading. The best load was 5gr W231, which I recall was in the 1100 fps range for the Lee 120gr. It's probably my least favorite round because it doesn't do anything especially well.

[dlviolin]

I have successfully cast for .357 mag and .45 ACP with little difficulty, so when I got my new XD9 sub-compact I headed to the basement to cast and load.

Slugged the barrel at .355-.3555.
Loading on a Dillon SDB, set OCL to 1.125"
All casting is wheel weight, ladle pour, water quench.
Pulled bullets don't indicate any swaging.

First set of boolits were from a vintage 6 hole round nose 125 gr. cast about 690 deg. They all dropped under .355. Sizing was useless other than to remove some flashing. Loaded 4.2 gr Unique. Accuracy was poor, some keyholes and leading was noticeable after less than 100 rds. Fail.

Next set was from a new TL356-124-2R casting about 690 deg. They dropped around .355 also. Since they were tl's I didn't size. Loaded 5.0 gr Unique, Accuracy was somewhat better but still leaded.

Next I upped the casting temp to around 750. The boolits filled out better and the lube grooves looked sharper. Dropped @ .356. This was encouraging. Loaded 4.8 gr Unique. Ran 65 rounds this evening and accuracy was better, almost no leading BUT counted at least 20 keyholes!

Now, the engineer in me reminds me that I adjusted too many variables but still I was surprised at all the keyholes.

Conclusions for the day: don't cast without a thermometer and micrometer. Cast fast and hot. Watch for sudden appearance of flashing...unintentional beagling can occur if there is a speck of lead in the mating surfaces. I think casting for 9 is more problematic because of the .356 standard being too small. My preference would be to cast around .358 and size to .357.

Questions for the day: is there a mold to cast a round nose or truncated cone 125 grain .358 boolit, and where would I find a .357 sizing die? Has anyone successfully lapped a tumble lube mold?

Thanks for all the great info.

Dan in rainy Kansas City

[Bullwolf]

I keep seeing the Browning Hi-Power come up in this thread, and it was also the first pistol that I cast, and loaded 9mm for.

I started to cast 9mm in the late 80's to early 90's using the tumble lube Lee mold TL356-124-2r. I would TL the Lee boolits in Lee Liquid Alox, and load and shoot them as cast, in my older fixed sight Browning Hi-Power. My Hi-Power also has a few swastika stampings on it, like most of the Belgian made Fabrique National Hi-Powers have from that era.

http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/11/HP20414202JPG-1.jpg

It was years before I purchased my first Lee sizer die.
My 9mm load at the time was a mild charge of Unique loaded a few tenths of a grain past what would consistently cycle the action of the Hi-Power, using the same overall cartridge length as standard 9mm ball (1.10) that had already proven itself to feed reliably in the Hi-Power.

I think I was simply lucky that the Lee mold happened to cast on the larger side of things, (.357-.358) and while I may have had a few 9mm rounds that were too large to chamber... They were all large enough to fit the barrel, and not lead. Accuracy was great for me with the Hi-Power at the ranges that I shot, both inside the barn shooting at my home made butcher paper targets, and from my back porch, to the silhouette gong.

I never did slug my old Browning Hi-Power, mostly because it worked so well for me, with my original cast boolit load.

That same load was pressed into duty later on down the road with similar success, in a few other guns, besides the Hi-Power. Most notable though were a trio of Beretta 92's, a couple of Taurus 92 clones, a stainless, and a blued Ruger P89, a 3913, and a 5906 Smith, and even a Marlin 9mm Camp Carbine.

These days I run all of my Lee 9mm cast boolits through a Lee push through sizer die for consistency, (and no more failures to chamber) I also gauge all of my loaded ammunition. I tumble lube twice with Recluse's 45-45-10, once before sizing, and once after, instead of just tumbling them once in straight LLA.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_187904efd5a49c53f4.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3164)

Even though my Browning Hi-Power was my favorite pistol to shoot cast 9mm in for years, I tend to shoot the most cast 9mm boolits through a CZ75, or my Tanfoglio TZ-75 now.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=539&pictureid=4782

While not a Ruger Blackhawk convertible, my Smith 940 J-frame revolver also likes my 9mm Lee TL 45-45-10 Unique load.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_187904ee1cdb001f11.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2924)http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_187904ee1cdde42a39.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2925)

I have picked up a few Lyman molds since then, and while they don't get loaded, and shot as often as the Lee stuff does, I have had pretty decent success using the Lyman 2-Cavity 356402 in 9mm, with Lyman Orange-Magic lube, running the boolits through a .357 lubrisizer.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_187904f1115e1a2914.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3440)

While my Lee TL356-124-2r 9mm mold is a 6 cavity mold,
http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/medium/476/476412.jpg

The 9mm Lyman 356402 that I have is only a 2 cavity mold.
http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/medium/249/249038.jpg

I can create, and quickly tumble lube many boolits using the Lee system. Naturally, I ended up favoring the Lee production rate a bit more, despite the fact that the Lee seems to be what so many folks are having trouble with lately.

I typically load all of my cast 9mm boolits single stage (with a few rare exceptions on the Dillon) using an RCBS 4 die carbide set, and I seat and taper crimp in separate steps.

I would guess that the majority of peoples problems with 9mm are either: over crimping issues, inadequate case bell/flaring, overall length problems, or boolit swaging issues from starting off with the very affordable pistol version of the Lee Factory Crimp Die with it's full length carbide sizing ring.

I have a 9mm Lee Carbide Factory Crimp die for 9mm that I have yet to find a reason to use. I had been planning on using it to "bulge bust" fix a batch of guppy shaped 9mm brass that had been fired through a loose chambered sub gun, but I later decided to just scrap all of the bulged brass instead. 9mm brass just isn't that hard to come by.

In an older thread, geargnasher had suggested loading an 45acp test boolit using the Lee Carbide Factory Crimp Die, and then pulling the loaded boolit ,and measuring the result.

So I loaded up a 45acp "dummy" test round, using the Lee Carbide FCD and my oversize cast lead .452 boolit. I used a kinetic puller to pull the boolit that had been loaded using the Lee Carbide FCD, and then I measured it. I found that my.452 boolit had been swaged down to .451 diameter by the Lee Carbide FCD.

My 1911's don't shoot .451 boolits very well, however they will shoot .452 diameter boolits beautifully. I found the whole Lee FCD experiment to be very enlightening.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=539&pictureid=3879

I cringe when I think just how badly a small .355 cast boolit would lead in most of my 9mm guns. I don't think I have ever had a 9mm barrel that was right on at .355

After that little experiment, I have avoided using the Lee Carbide FCD with my oversize cast boolits. If it isn't broken, then there isn't any need to fix it. While the pistol version of the Lee Carbide FCD will probably work just fine with jacketed ammunition, I don't see any need to ever use it with my oversize cast lead boolits since proper sizing and correct loading practices negate the need for that sort of thing in the first place.

My Browning Hi-Power has a good throat, and has also had many, many J-word boolits shot through it, before ever shooting cast. Subsequently the barrel is quite polished, as is the barrel in my TZ-75. Does it prevent leading? I dunno, but it sure makes it a breeze to clean up, and to remove powder and lube residue from it. I also make sure to completely remove all copper fouling from a gun before I shoot cast through it.

Perhaps the newer guns, that seem to be intended mostly for use with jacketed ammunition and don't have a gentle throat transition, along with rough, or copper fouled barrels are causing a lot of the problems?

I have not purchased one of the newer modern fantastic plastic 9mm's myself, but I have heard of a few folks here who have obtained new manufacture guns that have a very abrupt throat, or no throat at all. Perhaps the current batch of 9mm's are just not as cast friendly as the simple yet venerable Browning Hi-Power.

I don't know if I can say for certain exactly what the problem is that people are having with 9mm. I can just relate some of my experiences with the cartridge, and cite a few examples of what has worked for me.


- Bullwolf

[geargnasher]

The issues as I see them with 9mm:

1. Reloading dies are made for really small boolits, therefore the cases are sized too small and not expanded enough to keep from crushing the necessarily oversized lead boolits when seated, which of course causes gas leaks, leading, and loss of accuracy.
1a. The cases are made for very high pressure, therefore are thick, tough, and hard. This compounds the issue with #1.
2. Most 9mm guns are automatic pistols and have very abrupt throats, or no throat at all, which shaves lead and causes gas leaks that lead the bore. As has been mentioned, many 9mm platforms aren't built for accuracy anyway, loose tolerances of barrel supporting mechanisms and chamber dimensions are for reliable functioning, not tiny groups downrange.
3. Short, plain-based boolits are difficult to shoot accurately, especially from a straight-walled cartridge case.
4. Many reloaders and cast boolit shooters are fairly "in the dark" about the above, which leads to the difficulty.

Gear

[Harter66]

As a note my BHP clone was made in the late 80s,magazine disconnector gun,so it has the mentioned short/no leade chamber also. If the front boolit band isn't 90% covered by the case mouth it doesn't battery ,period.

I only full length the pickup and new to me brass or about every 5-6th firing. My dies are a carbide RCBS 3 die set the expander/belling die pin is marked 38/357 not 9mm so maybe its .001-3 larger than a 9mm pin.

Last I spent 20 min getting the crimp set to just bearly move the bell "over center" . Meaning that,using .385 as a nominal case od,that the mouth rim only crimps to .384 and then only as far down/back as the factory die iniside shape.

I get some brass some times that would bulge at the bullet base implying swaging. I don't have that issue w/WIN brass so that's all I feed it now .

I don't size the boolits that drop from my LEE 356-124 TLTC,as they drop at 127gr w/a gross base dia of .359+ and a front band at .358- .

After finaly getting all the copper out of it there just isn't any leading .

[BarryinIN]

As per the original post's reference to crimping having an effect, that was where I made my biggest gains shooting cast in 9mm. Once I went real easy on the crimp, groups got a lot better. I didn't think I was crimping it very much before, but apparently I was.

I think a lot of people eyeball their crimp amounts, and the tapered 9mm case can throw off a calibrated eyeball.

I started using the expander die from my .38 Super/.38 S&W die set, and I think that made a slight difference too. I would guess the Super die has a larger expander but I've been too lazy to measure (actually I'm afraid to touch it after getting it set where I want it).

I size mine to .358 (well, a little under .358) since almost all of my 9mms have fat bores. I think I only found one that wasn't .357-.358, the Sig P-210, which was .356 I think.
I mostly shoot 9mm in HiPowers, ranging from 1972 to 2006 mfg.

I have had little luck with bullets considered "standard" for 9mm. Bullets like the 356402 or Saeco 377 (122 grain TC) did nothing in my guns, but goofy ones like the Saeco 383 and Lyman 356472 did well. The somewhat different Saeco 115 is the most normal looking 9mm bullet that has done much good. To a lesser degree, the Lyman 358480 has been OK, but I wish I could get it to do better because I like it's shape.

I need to go back and try some bullets again. Some of my earlier tests were done before I got my crimp adjustment settled out.

Also...
I've been using Herco powder some in 9mm, and it seems to take a lighter charge to get the velocity I see in other articles, tests, and posts where it's used. I expect a little difference from lot to lot, but I'll sometimes be a full grain under what I've read. One grain may not sound like much but it seems a big difference to me when working in the 3.5-5 grain range to start with.
I was just wondering if anyone else has seen this with recent Herco. I think I bought the last kegs in 2010, but maybe 2009.

[Harter66]

Berry,
Not all that odd to have that much variation . I get 1050 w/3.8 Unique under the LEE 124 TLTC. I shoot the nominal loads in 38/357 and 45 Colts w/velocities typically +200fps of published data. I have 1 load now that is 2gr below the jacketed starting load and reaching maximum jacketed load velocities. There are lots of factors involved in why the end result in my gun is different in yours.

[BarryinIN]

I once read that powder makers test their powder in the guns they expect them to be primarily used in. In Herco's case (and I think that might have been the example used) they market it primarily as a shotgun powder for heavy loads, so that's how it gets tested- by pressure and velocity testing it in heavy shotgun loads.
If it falls within expected specs, it's good to go. Whether it will test as well in handgun loads is another thing, which is why they say to work up with every new can.
Even knowing this, I was surprised how much less it took.

[geargnasher]

Good point about the crimp, Barry. What you've mentioned has proved critical to the .40 too in my experience.

Gear

[Old Caster]

Try pulling a seated bullet that has been crimped and one that hasn't and see how much size difference there is to make sure you aren't over crimping.

The 9 mm being called a tapered case is not only talking about the outside but also the inside. I just measured FC's, Winchester, and Remington 9 mm brass and the FC's were the thinnest at .011 and the thickest were the Remingtons at .0125. They are that measurement only at the tip. The Remingtons half way in are .020 and the Federal were .015. The Winchester were also almost .020 and of course all of these varied a little from case to case plus I have no idea which type of loaded rounds each of these manufactures empties came from and I am just going by headstamp. Most of the necks were fairly consistant varying about 1 thousandth at the extreme.

Since the case halfway back is so much smaller it will give bulging if the bullet is seated that deeply and of course it will swage the bullet back there also if the bullet is soft enough. In this case the deeper the bullet is seated might also be the most detrimental.

Another thing I noticed when measuring the cases was that the Remington seemed to be the roughest when trying to measure the inside taper and the Federal seemed to be the smoothest and most gradual. A lot of this might have to do with the Remington changing size quicker and that is in a very short distance. It might be a good idea to take a hacksaw and cut a case lengthways to see what you have when your bullet is seated because the round part of my mic might be too big and bump on the upper edge while trying to measure how fast the taper is in the case because the mic is made for measuring rifle case neck thickness where it is all flat and consequently has a fairly long ball on it. -- Bill --

[soldierbilly1]

post deleted

[monge]

9s require a little more care in reloading I found that if you dont skip steps trim cases and watch AOL they are no more trouble than eney other round.

[375RUGER]

All I know is that handloads in a 9mm really improve performance/accuracy. Seems to me that the guns chambered in 9 and the cartridge it's self is very finicky.
I've owned some but have never been a fan. I've had revolvers and autos. I loaded for all of them and performance improved greatly with handloads, both cast and j-word.
I've taylored loads for a SP101, Hi-Power, Firestar x2, P89 x 3, a carbine that I don't remember the make. Maybe only one or two of these were even a little more than boring before handloads were introduced.
All loads made on a Square Deal B.

[HeavyMetal]

For those who haven't yet had a chance to read it please find a copy of Ken Waters 9mm load information.

The 9mm update in his book Pet Loads has some very interesting info on the 9mm.

The most important stuff dealt with the case itself: .020 to .025 case length variation in a single 50 round box of factory loads!

huge variation in case capacity

and another big variation in case thickness. Which accounts for the capacity issue.

For accuracy loads I have since started trimming to a specific length, .750 has worked well for me.

I stick to a specific head stamp for the entire loading cycle. I double check all settings when I change from say WW to Remington brass.

I do taper crimp, very lightly, and never use the FCD die at least not with a sizer ring in it!

In my experience the OAL of the case plus capacitiy variations are the biggest cause of 9mm load issues.

Lets face it if you brass varies .020 in 50 or so cases you can never control the taper ( or roll crimp ) crimp!

A lot of guys think trimming is a waste of time but it is not with the 9mm same applies to the 40!

Using these guide lines I have shot 9mm 356 cast to 1450 FPS out of my 6 inch custom Bar-sto barrel mounted in a Taurus PT99 with no leading.

Read the article in Pet Loads very neat stuff.