New Ruger Security 9

[newton]

Well, it that time of year that I get the itch for something new to 'work' with. It started out with an itch to get an EC9 after I saw an ad for them under $200, but after visiting my local Cabelas and putting the EC9 up next to the Security 9, I realized that the Security 9 was only a tad bigger - almost not enough to notice except for barrel length. The bonus was a little larger grip, longer barrel, larger mag capacity and the Security 9 came with 2 mags where as the EC9 only comes with one. The difference in price was next to nothing if you consider buying an extra mag for the EC9.

So, I found the one I wanted online and got it in last week. Figured I would show you all some pictures of it, but I have so many attachments already that I cannot put them directly on here. Eventually, I will clean some things up, but one of the biggest things that has helped me over the years is people who post pictures on this site. So I don't want to just go taking old pictures off till I have a way to link them for the future generations of castbooliters.

With that said, I am going to be trying something new by uploading everything to my google drive and just putting links here. I've never done it before, so hopefully, it works the first go around. Here is the link.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1r07dQ_4DQyMZLAJvys2TrtXLKIoX4nKi?usp=sharing

I've got more to say about it, and if the link works well then you'll see some of the load testings I have done so far. But I am going to start with this so I can test the link.

[tazman]

I see the ballistic data in the link.

[35remington]

I have both, and to characterize the S9 as only a “tad” bigger than the EC9s is, in my opinion, a mischaracterisation. The S9 is considerably longer, wider, especially in the grip, a bit taller and considerably heavier. Ruger offers the two pistols because they are not similar.

But if it makes you happy have fun. I agree the price is decent for what you get.

[newton]

Looks like the link works. To see the pictures just click on the folder named "Pictures". Just FYI, this is a long post.

I figured I will just use this one link and drop all my data I collect into this. Hopefully, it sticks around for generations to come. I figured Google is probably going to be around for as long as the internet is still up, so its probably the best place to store stuff.


With that said, the gun is pretty nice. You can look up all the different specs online, there have been a lot of reviews of this gun. But for what it is, and the company that is behind it, I think its one of the better deals out there.

I started out testing with shooting some factory American Eagle 124gr ammo. Just to get a baseline. I might also throw in here that the new chrony I "had" to get is pretty sweet too. You can see the files I uploaded that came straight from my phone - I did not have to do any editing or anything. The chrony is the latest one put out by competition electronics. Has a bluetooth link built in that connects with your phone. Beware that it will eat your phone battery up while using though.

The reason I "had" to get it was because my old F1 Chrony got in the way of a muzzleloading sabot. Go figure. They say it's not if, but when you will shoot your chrony. I had always been meticulous with setup to ensure I would be the one who never shot one. I just had no idea that a sabot would come off and divert off the flight path so quickly. Lessoned learned.

So, the factory ammo lists MV as 1150fps. As you can see I got 1055fps average. When I got the gun I was not sure if I was going to have time to make my own cast boolits, so I ordered some Berry's hbfp-tp when I got my dies. I ended up having some time over the weekend to go ahead and make some of my own, and while the PC was baking I loaded up some of the Berry's to test. One thing I noticed right off the bat was the length of the berry bullet was shorter than what they claim it to be online. I was using the info before hand in order to come up with a OAL in comparison to other bullet/loads in order to make sure I stay under the pressure limit. They list the hbfp-tp at .555" and all of mine measure out at .538".

I think that's why I was getting so much less velocity than what Western Powders lists for this bullet. I decided to go ahead and pick up some Silhouette powder since there is such a wide range of bullets they have tried it with, and they also list +P load data. While I am not wanting to regularly put through the gun, but it shows me where the upper wall is and I would like to run more than just plinking loads at times.

Eventually, I plan to get my CCL and I might just end up using this gun as the carry piece. So I will be wanting to practice with what I am going to carry, or at least with loads like it.

I did get to where the Berry's were at least throwing near to where the factory threw, and just a little under the factory velocity. That would be #3 in the files. The 1st and 3rd shot were an anomoly to me. I am not sure why they registered so much lower. You can see by the time stamp that I went back and loaded up 3 more in order to make sure they were not the standard. It threw the data off, but I will retest them again later. I think it was the powder measuer just not throwing right. I had just switched from the .40cc to the .43cc disk for the lee turret. I usually throw a few just to make sure its flowing good, but maybe I did not throw enough.

Anyways, that load shows promise, but I really think those bullets can be pushed a little harder. Western shows a max load(for standard 9mm) of 5.4gr of Silhouette, the same bullet I am using, same OAL I am using, and they were getting 1082fps. Which, I know they use different barrel, brass, and primer - but I was throwing between 5.5gr-5.6gr and getting much less than the 1082fps. I think most of that is because of the bullet being shorter. As you can see from the first two tests, all I did was seat the bullet .005" deeper and I got an average of 35fps more from the same charge. IF they were in deed using bullets that were .555" long, then my bullets were .017" shorter. That is a lot of room inside a case as small as the 9mm. I am going to email Berry's to find out what is up with this.

Needless to say, I was under the +P loads for that bullet, but I think I still was not at the top of the standard load for it.

After that I decided to try the Lee boolit. I probably should have let the boolits age more, and the PC had just been baked on earlier in the day, but I did not get any leading so that is good. I decided, from doing calculations, to go with the same 5.5gr-5.6gr Silhouette charge. My lee 356-120-tc weighed in at a little over 125gr after powder coating. The are also .555" long. So, based on the fact they are the same length as the published Berry data, and they are around the same length as some other jacketed bullets, I compared notes and decided that if 1.070" OAL would work cycling in the gun, then the 5.5gr-5.6gr load would be around max load for standard 9mm, but well below top +P load data. This all of course taken from Western Powder data for Silhouette and the bullets they used and OAL. Along with data from Speer and Sierra.

I can definitely say that its a pretty nice load. It throws the brass to the same spot the factory threw, the velocity is significantly more though. After running the three over the chrony, I loaded up 5 more to go test POI on some steel. It was not so much of a accuracy test as it was just seeing how the gun shot over all with them, but they did group very well on the steel and shot right at POA for the gun at around 7 yards. Still need to do some more testing though. If I can be sure that they are not too hot, then this looks like its gonna be a fantastic load.

That brings me to the part where I would love to have some input from you all. I have loaded a small amount of 9mm, but it was just plinking ammo for a friend. I wanted to make sure I stayed well below anything remotely +P. The one thing that makes me somewhat pause is what I was seeing on the primers. Shown here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1csjKBFh_AoNLNR6daXgRGAWddnlYo9Bf/view?usp=sharing)

Top row is the ones I tested velocity with, the row below contains 2 factory rounds and the middle is the last berry bullet test. The bottom row is the five I shot at the plate.

You can see where the primer has slightly flowed back into the firing pin channel. I did some googling last night, seems that its normal for top loads, soft primers, or sometimes just a gun thing - or any of those combinations. I am personally leaning toward it being a soft primer issue because the primers I am using are sellior and belliot. Also, although its not as prominant, the berry test round also shows it slightly. I am really pretty sure that they were not near top end.

If you look at the from the side here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-vJRPD-J3JLpxb-nd0YZHtTTy1r1_ff/view?usp=sharing) you can see is very slight, and when I looked around, there are pictures of others with much worse extrusions. I am really thinking its just the primer softness. Anyone else use these in their 9mm?

[newton]

I have both, and to characterize the S9 as only a “tad” bigger than the EC9s is, in my opinion, a mischaracterisation. The S9 is considerably longer considerably wider and considerably heavier. Ruger offers the two pistols because they are not similar.

But if it makes you happy have fun.

It would definitely have to be an opinion thing then because even when you look at the specs for each, there is not much difference. That is what made me want to go and look at them in person. And once I did that I realized there was not too much difference in size/weight and the difference in size really made the gun fit in my hand good.

1.24" longer, .12" wider, and 6.6oz heavier. In other words, other than the length, without a scale and calipers, there is not enough of a difference to tell - at least I couldn't.

The LC9 has been around for a long time. They did not have anything that even remotely came close to its size before. From internet buzz, they introduced the Security 9 to compete with the Glocks. But, in doing so, I think they also gave the opportunity to have a gun close to the same size as the LC9 but with a larger capacity.

I don't think it takes away from what the LC9 is by any means, because it is smaller and lighter, but from my viewpoint, there is not enough difference unless you absolutely are trying to get the smallest 9mm Ruger makes.

[newton]

35remington,

Is there any way you could post some pictures of different spent brass from your Security 9? I'd be curious to see if the same primer marks show up on yours.

[35remington]

I guess my opinion comes from having the two in my ownership rather than quickly comparing them in the store and then going on memory. Also from wearing both. If you are happy that is the main thing, but I see them as having a little different roles so I make distinctions on when I use them and they differ somewhat in concealability. So my view of them matches the reason Ruger makes them I would think.

Some people do desire the smallest possible nine. The EC9s is a top seller so some people must like the pistol in that regard.

I may not have similar primers (I do not use S and B) so I am not sure I can show you anything relevant. Mine just has a light wipe mark on the primer indent, less in fact than some of my other pistols. Do your factory ammo have marks similar to the handloads?

I would not get too charged up about primer appearance until I tried different loads and brands.

[35remington]

I can’t see much of the primer from that view honestly.

[newton]

Thanks. I know looking at primers for handgun load pressure signs is not a good approach, but I just figured it might be nice to see some from another Security 9.

Some of my loads did show the firing pin smear. It's definitely not a consistent thing. The only thing that seems odd, since I have not ever seen it before, is the slightly raised portion around the firing pin indent. I am sure it is from the primer flowing into the firing pin hole, I just am not sure if its a sign of; 1) too much pressure, 2) soft primers, 3) timing/strength of the firing pin strike.

I could see where in lighter loads the firing pin strikes and then keeps the primer material from expanding back. Then in heavier loads, the pin strikes and more pressure presses back against the pin and hole.

But, I suppose it is all a guess without comparison.

I plan to shoot a few of the Lee boolits with Unique loads from the Lyman book to see if the same thing happens.

What kind of velocity are people getting with the Lee 120tc boolit? 1128fps average seems to be in the ballpark of top-end standard 9mm loads.

[tazman]

I can’t see much of the primer from that view honestly.

If you click on the picture, you get a larger view. There are controls at the bottom of the picture that let you blow up the image considerably. Makes it easy to see.

[newton]

I forgot to mention, one of the pictures is to show the leade. It is very generous. I could seat the lee boolit all the way out to 1.100" if I wanted. It does not cycle well with that length though. Makes me wonder if some of the round nose boolits would work well in this gun. I held off on getting a mold for them because people talked about them needing a good leade in order to chamber good.

Those of you that have this gun, what molds have you tried in it?

[FergusonTO35]

I have never met a pistol that didn't like the Lee 356-120-TC. I seat mine to 1.055 with 3.5-3.8 grains of most common powders out there such as Bullseye, Titegroup, and HP-38.

[35remington]

I am not so much about speed as good accuracy. If it kicks about the same as factory FNJ and shoots well I am happy. I have had good luck with the old Lyman truncated cone flat point myself sized as large as the gun will accept.

1100 fps with around a 120 grain bullet duplicates most factory FNJ that is practice ammo. I am okay even with 1000 fps if it shoots well.

The S9 is to the EC9s as the Glock 19 is to the 43, or the M and P 4 inch compact is to the Shield. All the manufacturers more or less call the first a compact and the second a subcompact.

[newton]

Tested a few more rounds yesterday afternoon. Think I have come to a conclusion, but just not sure why exactly its happening - or if its a bad thing or not.

I first shot 3 rounds of the same round configuration as before, just with 5gr of Unique. I loaded these up because I knew they were at the top for standard pressure 9mm(when you look at different sources for 125gr projectiles and OAL). Of course, I cannot say absolutely what the pressure is.

The average speed of them was 1145fps and you could tell they were a bit more snappy than the previous rounds. What was interesting was when I looked at the brass. Here is the picture. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_G5fdd4lOkbTGItZmVDeUNqbHR3M2FnbXhqLXdQLVozUFlF/view?usp=sharing)

The top row is the three fired with Unique. Same mixed brass as before, same boolit, same primer, same OAL. I remembered seeing pictures of primers like this before and they were factory S&B 9mm ammo. So I was next to positive at this point that its a very soft primer issue - although thats not to say the pressures are not at top end.

So I decided to test the thought and shot some more. The bottom 3 rows went back to the load with Silhouette, but instead, I used some CCI 500 primers. When you look at the picture, you can see that they almost all show the same type of hit that I was getting with factory ammo. So, I can say for sure that the S&B primers were deffinetly softer. I will say that the day before, the S&B primer loads averaged around 6fps more than the loads with the CCI primers. But I only shot 3 of the S&B compared to 9 with the CCI.

Personally, I am not as interested in accuracy as I am overall function. Meaning, I bought the gun to carry and use as a tool, not to play games with. I have other guns that I use to play with and squeeze the last bit of accuracy I can out of them.

This gun, overall function is the top priority. I want a hard hitting load that will take care of whatever threat I encounter. Whether I hit the threat 2" to the left or right of where I am aiming does not matter to me. The gun needs to cycle correctly and hit within a 6" circle at around 10 yards or less.

Sure, I'll be tickled to have this gun be precise at 25-50 yards also, but that is not the use of this gun for me. If I wanted a target shooting 9mm I would have opted for a larger gun.

[35remington]

Fortunately, good accuracy within the gun’s capabilities still fits within the envelope of proper functioning.’ It is not necessary to settle for one and not the other.

Cast bullets are practice ammo. Use a reputable jacketed HP for defense purposes. I would not use a solid cast bullet for that any more than I would use FMJ.

[newton]

Fortunately, good accuracy within the gun’s capabilities still fits within the envelope of proper functioning.’ It is not necessary to settle for one and not the other.

Cast bullets are practice ammo. Use a reputable jacketed HP for defense purposes. I would not use a solid cast bullet for that any more than I would use FMJ.

I am one who believes that cast boolits are just as capable as jacketed ones in some situations. High power rifles the field opens up depending on caliber, but with pistols the field can be quite close. I am pretty sure that when I do start to conceal carry every day I will not use cast boolits for that purpose(I know that some say it can get sticky in a human on human deffense situation), but when carrying the gun in the woods and such I can see the benifit of a good flat nose cast boolit over a jacketed HP or FMJ. Also, while cast boolits are good for practice, they are not going to allow you to practice for true situations if your shooting loads that do not match those loads you carry every day. Most marketed self deffense ammo is quite stout in the 9mm, and plinking ammo does not come close to representing it.

I've found with other guns that there are different levels of velocity in which accuracy was attained. Also, generally, your not going to find the best accuracy at the highest end of loads. So that is what I indicate as far as settling for one or the other. I would rather have the high end load then have one slightly less for better accuracy.

Semi-autos do have a smaller window than revolvers when it comes to function though. So first you have to have a gun function properly mechanically, then you can decide what other 'function' you want to have after that. For me, the 'overall function' I want is the most amount of power I can get - even if it sacrifices the best accuracy. Its nice when the top end of what a gun can handle mechanically also results in the best accuracy it is capable of(aside from human error), but more often then not best accuracy is attained before the top end is reached.

On another note, I've finally figured out what is going on(besides the primers being softer than others). I hope to explain it a little better soon, no time for that at the moment. The main thing is because of the over all weight/design of the gun. Not that the Security 9 design is bad, just that the brass is showing different signs than what I have seen before with other semi-auto guns and its attributed to their weight/design. Very interesting to say the least.

[35remington]

Here is a reality check worth pondering.

The Security Nine is not considered as durable as the American or SR 9 series.

So you may want to tone down the blaster loads for practice purposes. I am personally not sure why anyone would deliberately choose a 9mm for woods carry for animal protection over almost anything else.

If you plan on shooting it a lot, be kind. It will last longer. I am not sure regularly shooting it with as powerful a load as you can make or get is a long term plan.

[newton]

Here is a reality check worth pondering.

The Security Nine is not considered as durable as the American or SR 9 series.

So you may want to tone down the blaster loads for practice purposes. I am personally not sure why anyone would deliberately choose a 9mm for woods carry for animal protection over almost anything else.

If you plan on shooting it a lot, be kind. It will last longer. I am not sure regularly shooting it with as powerful a load as you can make or get is a long term plan.

Well, as the old saying goes "to each his own". :)

I know FULLY that they are not as durable. The aluminum frame was a dead giveaway for that. I knew it was going to be a trade off for longevity choosing this one over others.

I actually dug deep in my decision for choosing what I did. It was not just a haphazard pick. I am sure everyone has their own idea of what constitutes a good carry gun, but I had my own idea.

I wanted something light. Main thing. The second was the amount of power. When you calculate it all up, the 9mm was the ticket.

I've carried many different guns in the woods, but just like in everyday carry a little 22lr is better than a 44mag sitting at home. Maybe some people think about the "woods" as walking around some flat ground for 30mins or so. Sure, a big heavy gun is fine for that. When I go into the woods......I go into the woods. Every ounce counts.

[35remington]

I am of the opinion that standard velocity nine is fine for practice and defensive work due to the longer(ish) barrel. This was what the gun was designed for, so why not go with that?

[Texas by God]

The strength of a Ruger has never been a point of doubt in my experience. Why is this pistol different?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[35remington]

Built to a price. Aluminum chassis.

News flash: The LCP is not considered a pistol good for tens of thousands of rounds, or the LC9 either. Lightweight construction pistols do not last as long.

You will still spend way way more on ammo to wear them out than you spent on the gun. On a gun built to a price that’s good enuff.

[newton]

I am of the opinion that standard velocity nine is fine for practice and defensive work due to the longer(ish) barrel. This was what the gun was designed for, so why not go with that?

What do you consider standard velocity is?

Personally, I do believe this gun can handle +p ammo, but my desire is to keep it right below that. Top end standard pressure. From what I’ve seen in load manuals, velocity is anywhere from 1050-1150 - some close to 1200. My goal is minimum of 1100fps, any higher is a bonus if it doesn’t seem to much +p.

[35remington]

A 115 at 1150 is pretty much standard velocity.

I’ll reiterate if a whole lot of shooting is planned, you will have a hard time telling the difference in recoil if you knock off some reasonable amount of velocity. Standard pressure factory ammo is fine for defensive use as well. Standard pressure boutique HP’s perform well in all the testing protocols.

Ruger suggests the amount of Plus P usage be limited. Pounding your carry gun does not seem like a long term reliability plan for a lifesaving tool.

[Texas by God]

By aluminum chassis- do you mean aluminum rails in a polymer frame? I've not looked at one at all. I can name several aluminum FRAME pistols with great longevity. The two in your news flash are polymer frame/ steel rails, correct? I'm just curious. I tried a friend's Ruger American .45 today and I liked it. My old P97 won't rate a second look from anybody but you could probably run over it and it would still work.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[35remington]

The aluminum in the LCP, the EC9s and LC9 and S9 is intended primarily as a weigh saving feature. While the surfaces may not be as long wearing as steel, this really is not a load bearing interface. The polymer frame absorbs much of the slide impact. Too much is made of the aluminum construction. I don’t worry about it given thoughtful consideration, as I allow for it and do not abuse the guns.

Treated with gentlemanly respect and not pounded with lots of hot rod stuff these will all give good service. I would not let that construction material dissuade me from buying any of them. And to put my money where my mouth is I have done just that.

I own an aluminum 638. Despite it being a Plus P rated, I treat it like it was made of aluminum, and have no worries about it either. Standard practice loads are below top end standard pressure, with 3.1 grains Bullseye and a 148 grain wadcutter being preferred.

I treat the LCP and LCP2 (have both) the EC9s and the Security 9 the same as the Smith snubbie. Moderate loads for most shooting, as most practice is handling and acquisition drills. Finish off range session with some standard pressure loads similar to what I carry in recoil in lower round counts, with emphasis on repeat fire shot placement.

[35remington]

And sorry if I was not clear. Aluminum frame rails in polymer frames is what they have.

Keep them oiled and they will be fine. A P97 has polymer frame rails. really long strand fiberglass. I have one myself. Haven’t worn anything out, and I keep that oiled too.

[Texas by God]

Thanks, that's what I was wondering.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[newton]

I also wondered about the aluminum at first, then I realized a lot of 9mm are made with it, and even military service weapons. They get shot a LOT and with some pretty stout nato rounds. The nice thing about the security 9 is they are long rails. I think that will help with longevity.

Unless the gun gets a lot of dirt in the rails, I cannnot see how they will wear to being unusable before the barrel gets shot out. I suppose time will tell.

It does make for a nice lightweight pistol.

[newton]

So, what I discovered about the primer situation is this. None of the following is bad, it's just the facts of the situation.

First, the gun, itself, is lightweight for its size. Meaning, all the parts, including the slide, are not as heavy as some. Less weight means less resistance and more work that the springs have to do.

Second, the gun is hammer fired instead of striker fired. The kicker with this is, while there is a spring that sends the hammer forward - there is also a spring that holds the firing pin back. I can attest to the fact that it is a very stiff spring. This is good for this type of design to prevent 'full auto' type of situations. I am sure(not a gun expert though) that it takes a while for this kind of system to 'break in'. The firing pin spring is gonna be stiff at first, which will produce lighter strikes at first.

This is also one of the selling points for the gun. Being hammer fired instead of striker fired the gun is supposed to be easier to rack. I will say, the gun is very easy to rack.

Third(and partly my opinion), 115gr ammo is usually 'cheaper'(to buy and handload), Ruger has designed this gun to reliably shoot it, but it also means the recoil spring is on the lighter side for the heavier 124gr recoiling rounds. Again, not a "bad" thing, just the reality of it. It goes hand in hand with the fact that the gun is light. Light gun equals springs do more of the work. Since they do more work, their operating window has to open up more, but based on how they work mechanically, it is near impossible to have a spring that works perfect at both ends of the bullet weight spectrum. What you have to do is have a spring that just "works", and lighter is going to be better for function - where as heavier is better for force absorption.

When you add it all together you get a cartridge that gets a lighter(than a well broke in gun) primer strike - then because of the firing pin spring pulling the firing pin back the instant after the hammer has hit it - and the force of the round backwards because of the internal pressure - the primer will naturally 'flow' into any unsupported face - which is the firing pin channel in this case - which gives you those shinny circles you see in my pictures.

In a striker fired gun, you don't see it as much because the firing pin is actually being forced outward by spring pressure and there is not as much room(if any) for the primer to flow back around. The pin does not retract into the channel until the slide racks back far enough. Generally, this just before the round gets ejected, otherwise you get into a timing issue and you get those little tear drop primer marks from the pin dragging.

Then, back to the hammer fired gun, you get the smear of the primer because the barrel starts to move downward and before the ejector kicks the round out there is enough time for the little bit of primer that got pushed back into the firing pin hole to get smeared/cut off by the breach face. The higher the pressure and/or the softer the primer matterial the worse it gets.

Again, this is not to bad mouth Ruger by any means. It just helps to know these things, for me at least. I am going to try and help it out a little by getting a stiffer recoil spring. I have no interest in shooting 115gr ammo, so a stiffer spring will help provide a little more resistance, which should help with frame battering. I also think that as time goes on the firing pin spring will break in and wont move back into the channel so quickly. The only way I can see to help the primer flow issue is to use hard primers, or have a heavier hammer spring.

Also, with the fact that the primers are being sheared/smeared off, it would be wise to keep an eye on the firing pin channel because it could collect enough to block the firing pin from striking hard enough.

I've always been fascinated with semi-autos for this reason. They truly are a work of art when you think about it. So much going on mechanically in a literal explosive environment. It's amazing they last as long as they do.

[35remington]

Consider....if a stiffer recoil spring would have helped in some way....it would already be present.

Nine grains of bullet weight is trivial. A spring proper for one weight is perfectly adequate for the other.

[newton]

Consider....if a stiffer recoil spring would have helped in some way....it would already be present.

Nine grains of bullet weight is trivial. A spring proper for one weight is perfectly adequate for the other.


Not necessarily. A stiffer recoil spring will help with heavier bullets, but not with lighter bullets - just the same as a lighter recoil spring will help with lighter bullets but not heavier ones. That is the reason if you tried to shoot light bullets slow in this gun you would not get the action to cycle. Put in a lighter spring and walla, the gun would cycle. The heavier spring will work on the opposite end of the spectrum. It will help absorb the impact more than the lighter spring does.

They designed this gun to work with both weight bullets. They are not as concerned about long term life as they are about the gun functioning properly right off the batt. While the spring they put in is truly 'adequate', it is not "perfect" for both. It cannot be. Simple physics dictate that. A stiffer recoil spring will help for what I am using the gun for. I have no plans to shoot 115gr projectiles so I do not need the lighter end capability of the current stock spring.

I would HIGHLY disagree that 9 grains of bullet weight is trivial. When you consult loading manuals you will see a big difference in loads between the bullet weights. I would HIGHLY discourage anyone from thinking that the 9 grains of bullet weight will not matter much.

The very fact that the weight difference is not trivial when it comes to loading is the same reason it is not trivial when it comes to the mechanics of the firearm. They are both "mechanics" and as such depend heavily on mass.

"Ballistics is the field of mechanics that deals with the launching, flight, behavior, and effects of projectiles, especially bullets, unguided bombs, rockets, or the like; the science or art of designing and accelerating projectiles so as to achieve a desired performance."

It may seem trivial to us, but physics dictates otherwise. When I speak of a stiffer recoil spring I am not talking about much. Just enough to put the physics onto the heavier bullet side than a compromise between the two bullet weights.

[newton]

I found this while trying to come up with a way to express what I am getting at in regards to the recoil spring. So instead of typing it all out, I figured I would just provide a link for those interested. I just don't want there to be a misunderstanding that this gun is somehow not working right. The gun works fine, great even, but that does not mean a person can not customize it to better suit their shooting style. Thats all I am doing.

What you need to know about recoil springs (http://gunbelts.com/blog/handgun-recoil-springs/)

[35remington]

Fiddling around with the numbers reveals about half a foot per second in slide velocity and about 0.35 foot pounds in slide energy. That is about like tapping your finger gently against your desktop in terms of energy difference in the slide.

The difference between the two bullet weights is, in fact, trivial.

Will it make a difference in gun longevity or function? Absolutely not. There is no point in believing something needs changing or fixing when it does not.

[newton]

Here is another good article with actual documentation on how different recoil springs affect the timing of a gun among other things. Point being, if recoil springs did not affect function then it would be pointless to have different weight ones for the same firearm.

They are not a "necessary" modification, but they can help with some things.

I suppose if someone thought that spring weight did not matter that much they could test the theory by installing the lightest spring possible to return the slide to battery. I am willing to bet that it would not take long before you would see the effects of having that weaker spring.

How Balancing Semi-Auto Pistol Recoil Spring Rate with Ammo Affects Timing (http://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/recoil-spring-rate-affects-timing/99604)

[35remington]

No problem with the idea that different springs are needed sometimes.

Big problem with the idea that 115s and 124s need different springs. They do not. Any analysis of the numbers shows this very clearly.

The other problem is that the hammer spring has more to do with slowing the slide than the recoil spring as it is both heavier and exerts most of the leverage holding the slide in battery and refarding its movement under the impulse of firing. The preload of the recoil spring is low and it does not retard the movement of the slide much in comparison.

The recoil spring function is mostly to close the slide. That it slows the slide somewhat is secondary to the action of the hammer spring. The recoil spring must be strong enough to return the slide to battery after stripping the round from the magazine.

[newton]

No problem with the idea that different springs are needed sometimes.

Big problem with the idea that 115s and 124s need different springs. They do not. Any analysis of the numbers shows this very clearly.

The other problem is that the hammer spring has more to do with slowing the slide than the recoil spring as it is both heavier and exerts most of the leverage holding the slide in battery and regarding its movement under the impulse of firing. The preload of the recoil spring is low and it does not retard the movement of the slide much in comparison.

The recoil spring function is mostly to close the slide. That it slows the slide somewhat is secondary to the action of the hammer spring. The recoil spring must be strong enough to return the slide to battery after stripping the round from the magazine.

In your opinion is there much of a difference in standard 115gr ammo and 124gr +p ammo?

[35remington]

There isn’t much of a difference between 115 Plus P and 124 Plus P.

Fixed the question for you. You initially tried to suggest that nine grains of bullet weight made a big difference. It does not.

A 115 going 1300 is more energetic than. 124 going 1050. Nine grains doesn’t make much difference. Big differences in velocity between the two does, which is the point you should have been making.

Remind yourself that Ruger does not want you to shoot much Plus P. Adding a heavier recoil spring will not slow the slide much. For why see my previous post.....the hammer spring primarily governs that.

[35remington]

124 is loaded to lower velocity than 115, which offsets the weight difference when standard is compared to standard and Plus P to Plus P.

[deerstalkerks]

I have put well over 10,000+ round of cast bullets,loaded with Titegroup, and it function just as if it was new. The rails are still blue and show no signs of wear, I think it will last me my lifetime anyway..

[newton]

There isn’t much of a difference between 115 Plus P and 124 Plus P.

Fixed the question for you. You initially tried to suggest that nine grains of bullet weight made a big difference. It does not.

A 115 going 1300 is more energetic than. 124 going 1050. Nine grains doesn’t make much difference. Big differences in velocity between the two does, which is the point you should have been making.

Remind yourself that Ruger does not want you to shoot much Plus P. Adding a heavier recoil spring will not slow the slide much. For why see my previous post.....the hammer spring primarily governs that.

Actually, my question was if there was a difference between standard 115gr ammo and 124gr +P ammo. Have you shot both through the Security 9 or other lightweight gun? If so, was there a noticable difference between the recoil of the two?

I have not shot both. I have heard from others who have that there is a significant difference. I can attest, in this gun, just the difference between light loaded 124gr and heavy loaded 125gr, there is a difference with it.

My entire point is that a stiffer recoil spring will make some difference. How much? I am not sure. But I do know it will help not hurt the gun.

Another good question to ask is why do you say Ruger does not want you to shoot much Plus P? I have not seen that in their manual. They only state not to shoot +P+.

Ruger Security 9 Manual (http://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/security9.pdf)

[newton]

I have put well over 10,000+ round of cast bullets,loaded with Titegroup, and it function just as if it was new. The rails are still blue and show no signs of wear, I think it will last me my lifetime anyway..

That is awesome news. 10,000+ rounds is quite a bit. With the gun being only on the market for a few years its good to hear that its holding up to the Ruger name. :)

[35remington]

They state that Plus P will accelerate wear on the gun, which means don’t shoot much of it.

Some Plus p really is. Others not so much. Buffalo Bore is. Some Federal HST Plus P was not much faster than standard velocity.

10k is way more than most people will shoot, but reports of 1911s and Glocks with over 100K abound. Whether 10K is good or bad depends upon how much you shoot I suppose. Frequent shooters will do that in a year or less, professional shooters might use three times that or more. They have lots of time and free ammo to use most likely.

But if you buy your 9mm at eight bucks a box that is 1600 for ammo. The gun is way cheaper than that and a good value by any account.

[newton]

They state that Plus P will accelerate wear on the gun, which means don’t shoot much of it.

Some Plus p really is. Others not so much. Buffalo Bore is. Some Federal HST Plus P was not much faster than standard velocity.

10k is way more than most people will shoot, but reports of 1911s and Glocks with over 100K abound. Whether 10K is good or bad depends upon how much you shoot I suppose. Frequent shooters will do that in a year or less, professional shooters might use three times that or more. They have lots of time and free ammo to use most likely.

But if you buy your 9mm at eight bucks a box that is 1600 for ammo. The gun is way cheaper than that and a good value by any account.

I guess I am completely missing it in their manual. Can you tell me what page its on?

I've heard this, and in the LC9 manual it states this, but I cannot find it in the Security 9 manual.

[newton]

On the same note, while the subject is up, what exactly "wears" faster on guns using +P ammo, and why does it wear faster?

The only things I can think of are barrel erosion and frame battering. Is there something else that wears down by using the higher pressure ammo?

[35remington]

Discussed it with a Ruger employee on the phone when I was ordering replacement sights for my MK2.

[newton]

Discussed it with a Ruger employee on the phone when I was ordering replacement sights for my MK2.

Interesting. Wonder why they would not include it in their manual like they did the LC9.

[35remington]

Just in a general sense the harder you drive an autoloaders the more likely it is to malfunction and the shorter its reliable lifespan. Malfunctions are usually inertia related. Also possible for the slide to outrun the magazine but since polymer impact is a less elastic impact than metal slide on metal frame polymer pistols mitigate this to some degree versus metal.

The polymer frame is the vertical impact surface forward of the rails. Heavy loads can cause enough frame flex that the slide can be peened by the rails (see early single pin Glock 40s). Since these rails are aluminum the rails would get the short end of it.

[35remington]

No idea why they left it out. That is why I asked.

[newton]

Just in a general sense the harder you drive an autoloaders the more likely it is to malfunction and the shorter its reliable lifespan. Malfunctions are usually inertia related. Also possible for the slide to outrun the magazine but since polymer impact is a less elastic impact than metal slide on metal frame polymer pistols mitigate this to some degree versus metal.

The polymer frame is the vertical impact surface forward of the rails. Heavy loads can cause enough frame flex that the slide can be peened by the rails (see early single pin Glock 40s). Since these rails are aluminum the rails would get the short end of it.

Do you believe a stiffer recoil spring will slow down slide inertia? Even if it’s just a fraction of the stock spring inertia, wouldn’t that equate to less wear?

[newton]

After rereading my response, I think I may have not worded it correctly.

I am assuming that the inertia related malfunctions come from abrupt changes in momentum. For example, the frame being still until the slide contacts it and changes it position. Jarring would be another word for it.

It seems to me, that any bit you can do to lessen that would benefit. So, if you can lessen the force by use of a wearable/replaceable part(spring), then it saves the frame and rails that much more.

Springs absorb force. So by sacrificing the easy to replace spring, you save some of that force being applied to the frame and rails.

[35remington]

Changing the springs by making them heavier can positively OR negatively affect the gun. A heavier spring reduces rearward travel speed less than it affects forward speed. A slide goes rearward faster than it goes forward, and it “hangs” in the rearwardposition momentarily. How long it hangs there depends upon how fast it hits its abutment and how much elastic rebound it has in addition to the power of the spring driving it forward.

Making the spring heavier makes it hit the abutment a little less hard, but not much. The rearward resistance is the combined weight of the hammer spring and the full compressed weight of the recoil spring which is probably in the 32 lb. vicinity. Adding a 2 lb heavier recoil spring does not change the spring strength from 12 lbs to 14 pounds...we have to add the hammer spring in there

So it changes it from 32 pounds to 34 pounds....not the percentage increase we thought. The percentage increase in power comes from driving it forward and here the recoil spring alone is acting.

The spring is a balancing act, and there are downsides to increasing spring strength just as there are downsides in reducing it. A strong recoil spring may slightly reduce inertial misfeeding due to frame impact but disproportionately increase the odds the slide will out run the magazine.

Much depends on the pistol. A 1911 has weak magazine springs for a reason. A Shield has stiff springs for magazine and recoil for a reason. Changing springs for weaker or stronger affects the interaction of the entire operating cycle.

[newton]

Changing the springs by making them heavier can positively OR negatively affect the gun. A heavier spring reduces rearward travel speed less than it affects forward speed. A slide goes rearward faster than it goes forward, and it “hangs” in the rearwardposition momentarily. How long it hangs there depends upon how fast it hits its abutment and how much elastic rebound it has in addition to the power of the spring driving it forward.

Making the spring heavier makes it hit the abutment a little less hard, but not much. The rearward resistance is the combined weight of the hammer spring and the full compressed weight of the recoil spring which is probably in the 32 lb. vicinity. Adding a 2 lb heavier recoil spring does not change the spring strength from 12 lbs to 14 pounds...we have to add the hammer spring in there

So it changes it from 32 pounds to 34 pounds....not the percentage increase we thought. The percentage increase in power comes from driving it forward and here the recoil spring alone is acting.

The spring is a balancing act, and there are downsides to increasing spring strength just as there are downsides in reducing it. A strong recoil spring may slightly reduce inertial misfeeding due to frame impact but disproportionately increase the odds the slide will out run the magazine.

Much depends on the pistol. A 1911 has weak magazine springs for a reason. A Shield has stiff springs for magazine and recoil for a reason. Changing springs for weaker or stronger affects the interaction of the entire operating cycle.

Thanks.

Sounds like if my new spring works with my loads function wise then it’s a win win for me.

I suppose the nice thing about it is it literally takes less than 10 seconds to take apart so if in the future I decide to run lighter ammo I can always swap the stock spring back in.

[35remington]

Just don’t kid yourself you are going to gain significant or likely even toticeable increases in gun life by so doing. It does not change a less durable gun into a more durable one. It does not make shooting Plus P loads possible in noticeably greater amounts.

It may not hurt....but it does not help as much as is believed.

The biggest determinant in slide velocity is the weight of the slide assembly in relation to the power of the load going out the barrel. Not spring strength within any reasonable limit. The biggest gain in firearm longevity is obtained by shooting lighter loads in it, not changing springs.

[newton]

Just donÂ’t kid yourself you are going to gain significant or likely even toticeable increases in gun life by so doing. It does not change a less durable gun into a more durable one. It does not make shooting Plus P loads possible in noticeably greater amounts.

It may not hurt....but it does not help as much as is believed.

The biggest determinant in slide velocity is the weight of the slide assembly in relation to the power of the load going out the barrel. Not spring strength within any reasonable limit. The biggest gain in firearm longevity is obtained by shooting lighter loads in it, not changing springs.

As long as it helps more than the stock spring then I feel great. :)

Kind of like just changing a little portion of your diet. Not going to guarantee you won’t die, but it will help your body.

Personally I plan to stay out of +p teritory. However, I want to run the gun at the top of standard pressures. If a stiffer spring will provide even a fraction better buffering of wear then it more than pays for itself.

On another note, you talking about the hammer spring versus recoil spring got me to playing with the gun a little tonight. I wish I had an easy way to measure the resistance of the slide coming back against the hammer up versus the hammer down. There seemed to be very little change. Some, but with the hammer at full cock, the slide seemed to be almost as stiff pulling back. Which indicates to me there is more resistance against the slide on the recoil spring than on the hammer spring.

I know in the reviews and selling points of this pistol they talked about how it was easier to rack this compared to a striker fired gun.

I also know with my 1911 that the hammer does offer greater resistance than the recoil spring alone. In other words, there is a huge difference between racking the slide with the hammer down than with it cocked. Enough so that I often will pull the hammer back before I pull the slide.

However, with this gun the hammer is relatively lighter in comparison to the recoil spring. I’m sure it’s just the difference between the 1911 and this design, but it’s interesting to me and definitely noticeable.

[35remington]

I do not know the exact Security 9 hammer spring weight, but commonly the hammer spring resistance is notably greater than the recoil spring resistance. For the 1911 I know it is around 21-23 pounds versus 16 pounds.

9s have lighter recoil springs. More in the 12 lb vicinity. I doubt the hammer spring is less than that but I would have to measure to resolve it. Maybe on the to do list. In any event hammer resistance is added to the recoil spring as the slide goes back but not forward.

Peak slide velocity is lower than is often believed. It is pretty easy to calculate. Determine the weight of the slide, including the weight of the barrel and most of the spring weight. Do not include the guide rod weight if present as that does not move. Taking the peak velocity of the bullet and dividing it by the number ratio of slide assembly weight to bullet weight.

This is peak velocity absent any spring retardation. Velocity at peak will be a little lower than calculated. The most spring preload is from the hammer spring as it has some advantage in leverage over the slide at rest. The recoil spring has very little preload and does not reach its full rated value until it is nearly compressed. A recoil spring’s preload is a few pounds at most.

Fiddling around with the numbers I get a velocity for the slide of around 13 mph at peak speed, and of course when it strikes the frame it is going slower than that. That isn’t much speed. A fairly gentle swing of your arm is faster than that.

A guy who worked on pistols for a living always told me the slide/frame impact thing is not a problem that needs addressing IF you operate the gun in its intended range or below most of the time while you are using it. He was also of the opinion that if you regularly overstress the gun stronger springs will not help much.

What is fascinating is high speed photos of pistols cycling with various springs installed. As spring weight goes up slide speed is not reduced very much, but the slide goes forward a lot faster in terms of proportion. In other words rearward slide velocity does not get affected as much as forward slide velocity.

[35remington]

This is kinda cool:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xUecHstU4QQ

The fascinating thing is 1911 shooters put very high round counts through their guns and run lighter recoil springs to change how the gun feels during recoil. Often they run lighter springs than seems prudent but the guns survive a long time anyway.

Watch how long the gun “hangs” open when cycling before it picks up the next round when a light spring versus heavy spring is used. A 1911 doesn’t require much force to strip the round fro the magazine and get the gun in battery versus, say, a Shield in 45. A Shield in that caliber has less slide run up before it hits the round to be fed.

In effect, the Shield goes into battery because the recoil spring closes the slide due to its strength. It has to strip a round out of the magazine over the magazine spring’s greater resistance. A 1911 goes into battery because it has more space for the slide to accelerate even though it is driven by a weaker spring. The heavier slide has more time to gain momentum as well. Weaker magazine springs make the round easier to strip and shove into the chamber, and the slide goes back so far the round has all day to get into feeding position. Comparatively, that is.

[35remington]

A good dissertation on why a heavy spring is a bad thing if you sit through it all and watch the video. A good thing to notice as you try to experiment with spring rates.

[35remington]

I hasten to add I am certainly not advocating running major power factor loads through a 1911 or 2011 with seven!!!!!! pound springs, but a great many competitors run lighter springs than we think prudent through all manner of autoloading pistols, metal, plastic and otherwise, to high round counts and the guns last a long time.

I think the key consideration is that the load, despite being major power factor, is still within the gun’s design envelope in terms of power. Thus light springs then do not detract from gun life. As I recall PF is only about 160 now, which is a 200 at 800 fps or a 180 at about 890.

[newton]

A good dissertation on why a heavy spring is a bad thing if you sit through it all and watch the video. A good thing to notice as you try to experiment with spring rates.

That is a good video. I like to watch guns work in slow motion. Fascinating to me.

I have to say that he in no way said a heavy recoil spring was bad. He said too heavy of a recoil spring is bad as it relates to mechanical function, and too light of one is bad as it can batter the frame.

Two minutes in you will hear him say that you want to find the perfect balance between the two. Find the load you want, then tweak your spring to that load.

So it sounds like I am on the right track. I figured I was, but videos like that help. Thanks.

[35remington]

If it a heavy spring is bad in relation to mechanical function (gun misfeeding) and shot recovery, both of which he did say, isn’t that saying it is bad? I do not see where he said “in no way was it bad.”

I did watch it multiple times as I have known about that video for some time.

[newton]

If it a heavy spring is bad in relation to mechanical function (gun misfeeding) and shot recovery, both of which he did say, isn’t that saying it is bad? I do not see where he said “in no way was it bad.”

I did watch it multiple times as I have known about that video for some time.

Not at all. He is quite clear that a heavy spring is only "bad" if the gun malfunctions and the shot recovery aspect is a purely personal choice. He reiterates this at the end of the video too.

He also prequalifies all of it by talking about the particular gun it is used in and those like it. They are already made nose heavy by having more and heavier material up front. That is almost the exact opposite of Ruger Security 9. It has more weight backward. It is actually nose light.

I was noticing this when shooting. I did not even come close to having any nose dip with standard ammo, and the heavier stuff I shot was even further from having a nose dip.

Now, I am willing to bet that by adding the heavier spring my loads will level out just fine without any nose dip, and I have zero doubt that it will be fine with the magazine. Maybe if I shot some lighter 115gr ammo it may cause the nose to dip, but unless someone gives me free ammo to try I will never know.

However, nose dip is purely personal preference - not "bad" unless you consider it that personally, or are competing in the shooting games. Neither of which I will be doing. What he did state specifically is that too light a spring for the load you are shooting has the potential to damage the gun - that means it would be emphatically "bad".

He made it very clear - primary importance - find the load you want to shoot, then find the spring that makes it work best. He states this at the beginning of the video, and then at the very end.

[35remington]

I agree that heavy springs can be bad, just as the video’s author suggested. Just clarifying. He did in fact point out those instances where they could be detrimental.

One can go too heavy or too light in spring strength, of course..

[newton]

Just in case someone does not want to watch the whole video, I copied the following from the guy's description of what he covers in his video.

"Making sure you have the correct weight recoil spring in your gun is going to make a difference on how it handles when performing double taps. Too heavy a spring will cause the muzzle to "nose dive" and take longer for you to recover the sight picture before you can shoot again. Too light a spring can cause damage to your pistol."

[35remington]

The other point he made was that too heavy a spring can cause malfunctions. Just adding to the above a bit.

[newton]

Great news, new spring works like a charm.

I actually have not got a chance to test it with my hand loads yet. However, I figured if it worked with standard factory ammo it will with mine.

I’ll say that at first I had my doubts. Even though it is just 3lbs more than stock, it feels way more than that when racking the slide. Like enough to say weak hands could not do it. Takes a good grip. Absolutely nothing like stock.

One thing I tried out was how it handled after the shot. Perfect is how. Way better control than the stock spring. Not near as much muzzle rise, and no nose dive. I plan on videoing it in slow motion on my phone. Might not be able to replicate the fancy video camera footage, but I bet it will be good enough to see the result.

Another big bonus is the brass only flies 4’ versus the 8’ it was going. Nice for finding the brass.

More testing to come....

[FergusonTO35]

Where did you get the heavier spring? I wasn't aware there was one available.

[Forrest r]

Glad you tested your ruger with factory loads 1st. I do this with any firearm & it's 1st range trip.

The next thing I do is test reloads with the same bullet. Lite/min loads, standard loads/middle, hot loads/near max. I look at the ejection pattern of the firearm with all 3 loads. Things like brass hitting you in the head, going forward (+/- 2 o-clock) or ejecting 8ft are clues.

https://i.imgur.com/iVohJkW.png

FWIW:
After you re-test your reloads you need to take pictures of the primers again and compare them to the last picture you took. Your primer hits are extremely deep with swipes. Things like pre-mature unlocking of the slide or burrs/crud/machining marks on or around the fp come to mind. fp out too long or doesn't have a change to move back into the slide.

[newton]

Where did you get the heavier spring? I wasn't aware there was one available.

Galloway Precision. I actually bought it through eBay because I had a coupon from eBay.

[newton]

Glad you tested your ruger with factory loads 1st. I do this with any firearm & it's 1st range trip.

The next thing I do is test reloads with the same bullet. Lite/min loads, standard loads/middle, hot loads/near max. I look at the ejection pattern of the firearm with all 3 loads. Things like brass hitting you in the head, going forward (+/- 2 o-clock) or ejecting 8ft are clues.

FWIW:
After you re-test your reloads you need to take pictures of the primers again and compare them to the last picture you took. Your primer hits are extremely deep with swipes. Things like pre-mature unlocking of the slide or burrs/crud/machining marks on or around the fp come to mind. fp out too long or doesn't have a change to move back into the slide.

Nice chart. Do you actually use a pressure test device? I have always said that once I retire that is the first thing I will buy. Should keep me preoccupied till I die. :)

I actually did a test with some other primers, and have come to the conclusion that the S&B primers are just really soft.

Honestly, I am not seeing that the primer hits are all that deep? I think that last picture is at the right angle to look like they are deep.

The primer swipes(teardrop shape) come from a timing issue. However, with a hammer fired pistol it's not as critical as a striker fired one. I'm hoping that the new spring helps a little with it.

I think when you ponder it some the way the primers are being sheared off is a real indication that the primer strikes are not too deep and that the fp isnt out too long. The smears happen when the fp recedes back into its channel imediately after setting off the round and the primer flows into that unsupported place durring the recoil.

The downside to it is it can very much be a problem if those little bits get collected in there. I decided to shoot up the primers I had left because I threw the primer box away. After about 10 rounds I actually had a failure to fire. There was enough brass bits collected in the fp channel that it gave a light strike. Racked it and the round fired.

When I started looking I saw that little bits of brass were indeed in the fp channel, and after I dry fired they came out.

I have only used these sp primers in lighter pressure rounds and with striker fired 9mm's. So its no wonder they are showing what they are now and not before.

After this last little bit I will use some harder primers from now on.

[Forrest r]

When I clicked on the picture you posted with the fp hits there a plus at the bottom of the picture to make it larger (click on the + 2 times). Blow that picture up and you can clearly see a deep fp hit along with a secondary cup to the side of the original deep fp hit and marks (swipes) coming out of the craters.

The only way that can happen is if the fp is still out when the case starts moving.

That chart is from quick loads.

[newton]

When I clicked on the picture you posted with the fp hits there a plus at the bottom of the picture to make it larger (click on the + 2 times). Blow that picture up and you can clearly see a deep fp hit along with a secondary cup to the side of the original deep fp hit and marks (swipes) coming out of the craters.

The only way that can happen is if the fp is still out when the case starts moving.

That chart is from quick loads.

I see. Yes, I agree those are definitely fp drags, but I would say they are just a timing thing not necessarily a firing pin hitting too deep thing. I say that because I only get them every so often. I will try to get a better picture of them from the side, I think my picture is doing an optical illusion with lighting. I have read about it and its not an uncommon thing.

What is more uncommon, and had me concerned at first, was the primer firing pin dimple being sheared off. But, after research, I realized it too is the nature of the beast when you combine all the things going on.

Actual primer cratering looks way different. That is what you want to avoid because it shows high pressures. What I am seeing is not because of high pressures.

I wish I would bite the bullet and just get quickloads. Is there any way I could get you to run the same scenario except using 5.6gr of Silhouette? I have settled on that as my load and I am really liking it. It would be interesting to see what quickloads says.

[newton]

Here are some video's I took yesterday.

I am not an expert videoer, and the video's are kind of grainy. They are not grainy on my phone though. Regardless, the idea is to see what the recoil spring did.

I shot twice in each video. It was recorded in slow motion so its kind of painful to just sit there and wait for the gun to fire. lol

Anyways, if you watch them both, a few times, you will see that the heavier recoil spring makes the gun more controllable. I knew I could feel the difference when shooting, but the video does show it. The only thing different is the spring. The loads in each video are exactly the same.

I know that someone is gonna catch right off the bat how the nose dives down after the shot. However, if you watch both videos it happens the same regardless of the spring. So the heavier spring does not make it nose dive any more than the lighter spring does. But what it does do is make the gun more controllable.

17lb spring video (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_G5fdd4lOkbX2VXZi1Ob0RuQUpYWmFIYmxaUGQzZVJST1ZB/view?usp=sharing)

20lb spring video (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_G5fdd4lOkbakZrM1k0dW1qMG10OUo1QTJTZnZaUDlfeU9z/view?usp=sharing)

[FergusonTO35]

Galloway Precision. I actually bought it through eBay because I had a coupon from eBay.

Did not know that, thanks.

[newton]

Little update here.

Decided I would go ahead and try out the Lee 358-125 rnfp. I have loaded this before in other 9mm's, but only with Unique.

It is about .015" shorter than the Lee 120 tc. So, based on that, I determined that the case volume would remain the same if I loaded it to a depth of 1.055". I know they are different profiles, but the bearing surfaces of each are really pretty close to each other.

I looked at the chart that Forrest posted, and figured that dropping down a little further than the 1.055" wouldn't hurt. I know that his chart was based on Unique powder, and I am using Silhouette, but Unique is actually a faster powder so pressures should be a little milder with the Silhouette.

I tested how deep the boolit would seat if I just left it set for the 120 tc. Turns out it seats the 125 rnfp to 1.045". So, it is seating about .010" deeper in the case than the other boolit. I did some deductive reasoning and guestimated I would be around 1150 fps with the load. Turns out I was not far off my mark.

Here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_G5fdd4lOkbUTRBdVRCUFljc0hmNFFaYm1FOWlxQ24wU2Jv/view?usp=sharing) is the chrony results from 10 rounds. They are definitely higher pressure than the 120 tc. The 120 tc weighs on average 125gr, and the 125 rnfp weighs on average 129gr. Not too much diffference. The primers showed more of the smear than they did with the 120 tc, but it was not too bad. Also, they threw about a foot or two further. There was not much noticible difference in how the gun handled really.

I like the results and the big meplat would really make this a nice SD load. I think I will be just mainly shooting the 120 tc and have some of the 125 rnfp loaded up for when I go into the woods.

When you think about it, that load packs as much of a punch as most 45 acp loads, except I can carry twice as much for the same weight or less.

[newton]

I forgot to add something I found.

I was looking for something completely different when I stumbled on this article. It gives a really good insight into what I was experiencing.

Primer article (http://blog.westernpowders.com/?s=308)