Can't find valid WSF load data for my OAL

[bullpen7979]

Grabbed a # of WSF yesterday to experiment with a slower powder with my ACWW 9mm loads. I think I will size a batch to .357 and some to .358, pan lube with a modified version of the Barry Darr pan lube (sweetened with a stick of javelina) and probably tumble lube after that with the JPW/alox formula. I am using the Lee 356-125-2R mold. They cast with tin at around 127 grains

I see on hodgdon's site that they publish a 4.0 grain load of WSF with a COAL of 1.169. My issue is that 1.085 seems to be the longest COAL I can chamber in my P-01. My thought is somewhere along the lines of 3.4-3.5 grains for a starting load, but that's not based upon any valid published data. I know that pressure increase is not linear when it comes to these things; I mainly just wanted to double check myself with respect to a safe starting point for the new powder, especially with a noteably shorter COAL.

In the future, is there a source on the web for situations like this? I have heard of quickloads, but a brief google search tells me it's a $150 program. That's not really feasible at this point. Is there some other scientific method to the calculation of load data when I can't get all the variables to line up like good little soldiers?

[lwknight]

I use 5 grains WSF in my 9mm 125 grain loads. Its a medium load with the OAL at 1.150-1.160
Less than 4.6 grains does not seem to cycle the guns and If you want to get on the really strong side , 6.0 grains will rock you pretty good.

I have tested up to 6.6 grains with jacketed 125 grain bullets but did not gain much over 6.0 grains but did get a lot more pressure signs. I did get 1300 fps from the Rem. GS with a 4" barrel.

If your gun makes you shorten the OAL to chamber the round then you must reduce the load accordingly.

[Dark Helmet]

But 231 is. Based on what QL says for your bullet and 231, your WSF load should be plenty safe, work towards what the above poster says.

[bullpen7979]

If your gun makes you shorten the OAL to chamber the round then you must reduce the load accordingly.

Is there any science to how much one would reduce the load? From 1.15 or 1.16 to 1.08 would be approximately a 7% reduction in overall length. So, reduce charge by 7%? I know the physics of the increase in pressure can't be that simple.

I guess what I'm looking for is some way to generate a safe load based upon a shorter OAL than is published. I would think there is something by way of science involved in doing this; I hesistate to be using the "looks about right" method. I just dont know where I can find the info.

I guess the fact that WSF is not in quickloads does not help matters much. In reading the reloading manuals, I am trying to err on the side of caution when I can't find a load specifically listed. Sorry if I'm over-analyzing this. I have that tendency. I just want to be safe, and not end up with a slug 3/4 of the way down the barrel. Or end up with 3/4 of a barrel period.

[lwknight]

There probably is a method to the madness somewhere. What I did originally to get started was to measure everything.
First I dropped a bullet into the chamber and measured to the base and added that measurement to the bullet length measurement. That gave me max OAL that would chamber.

As it turned out , th chamber would tolerate more length than I could physically make because some bullet has to be in the brass.

The second step was to take a fired and unsized case and drop powder into it a pinch at a time and set a bullet on top of the powder till the bullet stopped at max OAL (1.160 in my case ) then weighed the charge. It was 7.2 grains at 100% capacity.

WSF is a very forgiving powder and I found that 70% capacity would work out great with lead 125 grain bullets. It took 75% capacity to cycle the slide with jacketed 125 grain bullets.

It still boils down to trial and error even though WSF ramps up linearely according to the charge. Properly fitting lead bullets can use significantly less powder than jacketed in my case because they seal the bore causing higher pressure and also shove through the barrel easier causing higher velocity. All guns will vary. Thats why we start low and work up slowly to find the sweet spot.

I consider a 90% cap charge in 9mm with a 125 grain bullet in the 9X19 to be the ragged max safe charge and would not use it for target practice. Also I found that about 70% is minimal just to work the slide in my P-95 , 5906 and a Taurus MP 24/7

[Sapper771]

I am using 4.6gr and 4.7gr of WSF with a Lee 120gr TC ( AC WW alloy ,sized to 0.358" and lubed with BAC). OAL is 1.100" . It has worked well in the last 600 rounds through a Glock 17. I havent chronoed it yet.

[bobthenailer]

Data from a 1997 winchester reloading manual . col at 1.169
124 gr lead round nose
WSF powder
4.0 gr @ 945 fps @ 22,200 psi
4.7 gr @ 1,055 fps @ 27,300 psi
As you can see the psi is not up to max ! as a reference a 124 fr fmj with 5.3 gr WSF @1115 fps @32,700 psi col 1.169 . 4.7 gr WSF @945 fps @27,700 psi
Usually with the 9mm you want to keep velocity around 1,000 fps with cast bullets




Ive used alot of WSF in the 38 super and some in the 9mm, my load for the 9mm is 4.0 WSF with a 125 gr lead TC bullet @ 950 fps which is more accurate than the 125 gr lead rn in my guns .

[garym1a2]

I am using 4.6gr and 4.7gr of WSF with a Lee 120gr TC ( AC WW alloy ,sized to 0.358" and lubed with BAC). OAL is 1.100" . It has worked well in the last 600 rounds through a Glock 17. I havent chronoed it yet. My load is close to this and clocks around 1050fps in Glock 22 with a 9mm barrellel.