9mm pressures

[Bird]

Got back from the range after shooting 9mm in my cz75bd for the first time.
I fired 20 rounds each of .357'' dia bullets, coal of 1.118'', mp bullet 124 2r design(actual weight with lube is 129.5g ). Loads were 4.0 unique, and 3.9 of 231. No problems with anything except a little leading in the first 3/8 of barrel.
Later, checking over the 40 fired case, half of them had flattened primers, and half looked the same as other fired brass I picked up at the range for comparison. My 40 cases got mixed up, and I do not know which charge was making more pressure.
Any guesses?

[BMW Rider]

231

[ACC]

231

Not 231. 3.9 grains is the minimum charge weight in 4 different reloading manuals that I have. It is more likely that his cases are just a bit short. Been there done that.

ACC

[BMW Rider]

Not 231. 3.9 grains is the minimum charge weight in 4 different reloading manuals that I have. It is more likely that his cases are just a bit short. Been there done that.

ACC

You're probably right about the flat primers, but the Bird asked which made more pressure. I'm still thinking the faster powder (within 0.1 grains) stuffed in the same small space (same OAL) will make more pressure.

[Ford SD]

Got back from the range after shooting 9mm in my cz75bd for the first time.
I fired 20 rounds each of .357'' dia bullets, coal of 1.118'', mp bullet 124 2r design(actual weight with lube is 129.5g ). Loads were 4.0 unique, and 3.9 of 231. No problems with anything except a little leading in the first 3/8 of barrel.
Later, checking over the 40 fired case, half of them had flattened primers, and half looked the same as other fired brass I picked up at the range for comparison. My 40 cases got mixed up, and I do not know which charge was making more pressure.
Any guesses?

I used Gordons reloading tool 9mm lee 357- 125g cast and oal of 1.118 4.0 unique, and 3.9 of 231 .... its not exactly your load but close

I am Not sure of the results ???? what i See is 231 load is the higher Pressure

What I can not understand is the 231 load = 17000 psi and a velocity of 962fps and ]this should be a mid load and not showing pressure signs are you getting bullet setback and that is increasing pressure ?

If you get bullet setback to app 1.081 you are in the 25k range and getting in to the hot range
if set back (is even shorter) you will be getting even flater primers

[Bird]

The bullets are not setting back. I have dismantled some test rounds, and it took 4 good whacks with an inertia puller to free the bullets. The rear band of the bullets have even been squeezed down 0.001'' to a diameter of 0.356'' with a 50/50+tin alloy mix. I just made an expander plug to fix that.
I took a look at the hornady data site, and they say for a 130 grain berrys bullet of 0.356'' and an oal length of 1.150'' a 3.9g charge of 231 gives 27,600psi.
My bullets are not plated, but I am running 0.001'' larger dia, and 0.032'' shorter loa, which is a lot.
I think I will drop the charge down to 3.6g of 231 and see what happens.
Any suggestions are appreciated, as I am not that familiar with small cases with small charges.

[Dusty Bannister]

CUP and PSI are not the same unit of measurement. What does your Lyman Cast Bullet handbook give for data? That will keep you from an unpleasant surprise a lot easier than loading cast bullets with plated data. The resulting size of your cast bullet at .356 is quite likely why you are having a bit of leading issue. Good that you can resolve that issue.

[Bird]

Dusty,
My Lyman 45th does not give pressures, or loads for 231, but I should be well in the safe zone with Unique.

[Dusty Bannister]

My Lyman 47th edition is 30 years old. Your data source is even older than that and due to manufacturing changes by the powder makers may be unreliable with newer production powders.

[racepres]

My Lyman 47th edition is 30 years old. Your data source is even older than that and due to manufacturing changes by the powder makers may be unreliable with newer production powders.
The only answer here I object to.
No mfg of powder would make such a change. More margin?? Maybe. So, perhaps, less pressure/grain. But not much. Less than lot to lot Im betting! $0.03

[Pirate69]

For what it's worth, using QuickLoad, a 129.5 grain bullet, 1.118 COAL, and a 4.6" barrel. 4.0 grains of Unique gave 17,132 psi and 941 fps. 3.9 grains of 231 gave 20,908 psi and 964 fps.

[Dusty Bannister]

The only answer here I object to.
No mfg of powder would make such a change. More margin?? Maybe. So, perhaps, less pressure/grain. But not much. Less than lot to lot Im betting! $0.03


This is a link to an article that discusses reformulation of several powders. Toward the end, it talks about 2400 being close but not the same after reformulation. Many reloaders caution against the use of out of date data. My comments are only a concern for safety of the individual reloading with old data and perhaps new powder.

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/reloading/reloading-are-classic-powders-still-relevant

[Larry Gibson]

I've pressure tested side by side comparisons of Hercules 2400 and Alliant 2400 in the 357 and 44 magnums. Given the same equal loads loaded at the same time and tested back to back other than normal test to test and lot to lot variations I've not found any measurable difference between them.

The differences in old data and new data is simply a product of much better psi measurement using transducers than with the older CUP method. Also, the adoption of SAAMI standards as the "rule" in numerous court lawsuits has dropped the "max load" data in numerous cartridges.

[TD1886]

I've pressure tested side by side comparisons of Hercules 2400 and Alliant 2400 in the 357 and 44 magnums. Given the same equal loads loaded at the same time and tested back to back other than normal test to test and lot to lot variations I've not found any measurable difference between them.

The differences in old data and new data is simply a product of much better psi measurement using transducers than with the older CUP method. Also, the adoption of SAAMI standards as the "rule" in numerous court lawsuits has dropped the "max load" data in numerous cartridges.

Recently I bought a whole can of the old Hercules Unique. I also have a new can of the current Alliant Unique. Using the same gun, same bullet, same load (volume measured) shooting over the chrono showed the old stuff to be much more potent. There was quite a difference in the velocity with the older Unique being hotter. Grant you this is not quite the testing you have done, but the chrono isn't going to lie. I attribute it to maybe the old Unique seem much more dry then the new Unique. When weighing the volume measured Unique the newer one is heavier. Do you think that is possible if older powder being more dry burns differently toward the fast end say like dry leaves burn better then wet ones?

[barnetmill]

Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
I've pressure tested side by side comparisons of Hercules 2400 and Alliant 2400 in the 357 and 44 magnums. Given the same equal loads loaded at the same time and tested back to back other than normal test to test and lot to lot variations I've not found any measurable difference between them.

The differences in old data and new data is simply a product of much better psi measurement using transducers than with the older CUP method. Also, the adoption of SAAMI standards as the "rule" in numerous court lawsuits has dropped the "max load" data in numerous cartridges.

Recently I bought a whole can of the old Hercules Unique. I also have a new can of the current Alliant Unique. Using the same gun, same bullet, same load (volume measured) shooting over the chrono showed the old stuff to be much more potent. There was quite a difference in the velocity with the older Unique being hotter. Grant you this is not quite the testing you have done, but the chrono isn't going to lie. I attribute it to maybe the old Unique seem much more dry then the new Unique. When weighing the volume measured Unique the newer one is heavier. Do you think that is possible if older powder being more dry burns differently toward the fast end say like dry leaves burn better then wet ones?
I imagine you would have to duplicate Larry Gibson's loads exactly and see what you results are. I believe the original Unique is a double based powder: goggle factoid says-Unique is a double-based powder composed of 20 percent nitroglycerine and nitrocellulose. We or at least I do not know what was done. To be safe when using data for the older powder I would stay at least 10% short of the modern published max loads.
If they changed the formulation the nitrocellulose formulation might make a difference depending how it is loaded. Also older powder can deteriorate leading to unpredictable changes in performance.

I wonder if the new formulation burns any cleaner leaving less residue behind compared to older batches.

[justindad]

Listen to Dusty.

[TD1886]

Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
I've pressure tested side by side comparisons of Hercules 2400 and Alliant 2400 in the 357 and 44 magnums. Given the same equal loads loaded at the same time and tested back to back other than normal test to test and lot to lot variations I've not found any measurable difference between them.

The differences in old data and new data is simply a product of much better psi measurement using transducers than with the older CUP method. Also, the adoption of SAAMI standards as the "rule" in numerous court lawsuits has dropped the "max load" data in numerous cartridges.

I imagine you would have to duplicate Larry Gibson's loads exactly and see what you results are. I believe the original Unique is a double based powder: goggle factoid says-Unique is a double-based powder composed of 20 percent nitroglycerine and nitrocellulose. We or at least I do not know what was done. To be safe when using data for the older powder I would stay at least 10% short of the modern published max loads.
If they changed the formulation the nitrocellulose formulation might make a difference depending how it is loaded. Also older powder can deteriorate leading to unpredictable changes in performance.

I wonder if the new formulation burns any cleaner leaving less residue behind compared to older batches.

Alliant claims it's cleaner. They said they cleaned up some of their powders. I take that to mean shotgun/pistol powders.

[Larry Gibson]

Recently I bought a whole can of the old Hercules Unique. I also have a new can of the current Alliant Unique. Using the same gun, same bullet, same load (volume measured) shooting over the chrono showed the old stuff to be much more potent. There was quite a difference in the velocity with the older Unique being hotter. Grant you this is not quite the testing you have done, but the chrono isn't going to lie. I attribute it to maybe the old Unique seem much more dry then the new Unique. When weighing the volume measured Unique the newer one is heavier. Do you think that is possible if older powder being more dry burns differently toward the fast end say like dry leaves burn better then wet ones?

You might try that again using weighed charges instead of "by volume". Different lots of the same powder can have different densities.

As an example; my powder thrower set to throw 22 gr of Hercules 2400 will throw 22.8 gr of Alliant 2400. Thus loading "by volume" in the 44 Magnum under a 429421 the Alliant 2400 at 22.8 gr would, no doubt, give higher psi and higher velocity than the 22 gr of Hercules 2400.

[Larry Gibson]

Alliant claims it's cleaner. They said they cleaned up some of their powders. I take that to mean shotgun/pistol powders.

Yes, cleaner, but not different in performance.

[TD1886]

You might try that again using weighed charges instead of "by volume". Different lots of the same powder can have different densities.

As an example; my powder thrower set to throw 22 gr of Hercules 2400 will throw 22.8 gr of Alliant 2400. Thus loading "by volume" in the 44 Magnum under a 429421 the Alliant 2400 at 22.8 gr would, no doubt, give higher psi and higher velocity than the 22 gr of Hercules 2400.

I'll go ahead and try that.

[TD1886]

I'll go ahead and try that.

I have done the test. I loaded five each of the new and old Unique. Load was 230 PC roundnose over 6.0 grains of powder. The old Unique averaged 773 for five shots and the new Unique averaged 863 for five shots. That's quite a difference. I would have bet that I would have to put more of the old Unique in the scale thinking it's lighter and dried out more. I was wrong. I had to put quite a bit more of the new Unique in to get 6.0 grains.

Okay Larry what's your explanation on this. One more thing the velocities were more consistent with the new Unique.

[Larry Gibson]

Hard to give any "explanation" based on that minimal amount of information regarding the specifics of the test. Firearm used, same cases, primers etc.? Each powder charge weighed?

Also, in your other post you say you just purchased the old can of Hercules Unique? Any idea of how it was stored over the years. As mentioned, powders can deteriorate depending on age and storage. I recently obtained 2 "new" cans of IMR 3031 from a widow that were supposedly only 10 - 12 years old. It had been stored in an attic since the death of her husband 10 years ago. The summertime temp in the attic gets very hot. Both cans had gone bad.

[TD1886]

Hard to give any "explanation" based on that minimal amount of information regarding the specifics of the test. Firearm used, same cases, primers etc.? Each powder charge weighed?

Also, in your other post you say you just purchased the old can of Hercules Unique? Any idea of how it was stored over the years. As mentioned, powders can deteriorate depending on age and storage. I recently obtained 2 "new" cans of IMR 3031 from a widow that were supposedly only 10 - 12 years old. It had been stored in an attic since the death of her husband 10 years ago. The summertime temp in the attic gets very hot. Both cans had gone bad.

Well the pistol is a 70 series Colt Gold Cup tuned and has a Clark match barrel in it. Cases are CCI and the primers are large pistol S&B. The powder was bought at a gun show in the original cardboard can. I transfered it to the newer black plastic bottle. I dissected the old can and the steel bottom had zero rust and the powder was not clumped and it smelled like, well, Unique.

I do have an explanation and it's that when both are weigh to the same exact weight the new Unique has more energy in it for some reason. Reformulated maybe?

[Larry Gibson]

Reformulated maybe?

No, simply because Alliant says it's the same Unique as old just burns cleaner.

How about lot to lot variation? Let's assume the old Hercules is still good. Assuming that and understanding there can be a 5% +/- variation lot to lot. If we figure that, given the velocities you measured, then the Hercules is at the low end and the Alliant is at the higher end of that variation. Hard to say for sure as lots of powder are based on pressures created as in "burn rate" not velocities in any cartridge.

[TD1886]

Reformulated maybe?

No, simply because Alliant says it's the same Unique as old just burns cleaner.

How about lot to lot variation? Let's assume the old Hercules is still good. Assuming that and understanding there can be a 5% +/- variation lot to lot. If we figure that, given the velocities you measured, then the Hercules is at the low end and the Alliant is at the higher end of that variation. Hard to say for sure as lots of powder are based on pressures created as in "burn rate" not velocities in any cartridge.

True burn rate from what I understand is a closed bomb test. With that said different cartrige volume, different shape, different shoulder angle, whether over bore or not, weight of the projectile, are just a "few" of the things that affect powder burn rate once inside a cartrdige.

The key is just how much has my old Unique deteorated.

[Larry Gibson]

Got to thinking about the weight per volume difference between the lot of Hercules and Alliant 2400. A few years back I had run a test or both in the 44 magnum using a 250 gr Keith bullet working up to the classic Keith load of 22 gr. There wasn't a Nichol's worth of pressure/velocity difference between the two powders with equal charges. https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?72355-2400-Hercules-vs-Alliant

Then sometime later I ran a test of numerous SR and SP primers in the 357 Magnum. I also used both the Hercules 2400 and Alliant 2400 with what i thought were equal charges. I had set my thrower to throw 14 gr of Alliant 2400 and just used that setting with the Hercules 2400 thinking those charges also be 14 gr and proceeded to load all the test rounds. During testing it was found the cartridges loaded with Alliant 2400 consistently produced 5,000 +/- more psi and 100 +/- fps than the cartridges loaded with the Hercules 2400 regardless of the primer used. Thinking back then that something was amiss as the results of the two different test contradicted each other. That was when I discovered that what I thought was a thrown charge of 14gr of Hercules 2400 was, actually, only 13.2 gr. At the same setting the thrower threw 14 gr charges of the Alliant 2400.

In another 357 Magnum test using 6 gr of both Hercules and Alliant Unique under a 358156 The Alliant gave a bit higher psi and velocity than did the Hercules but the difference was well within test to test variation.

I have an old small square metal can of Hercules Bullseye that I got unopened (still had metal tab in place). For all intents an purposes it appears to as good as new. I will load up a comparison test of it to Alliant Bullseye. I'll load a series of each in the 38 SPL with 2.7 gr (weighed) of each powder under a Remington swaged HBWC. I'll also load 3.5 gr of each under the Lee TL358-158-SWC. I'll pressure an velocity test in the Contender test barrel using the Ransom Rest with groups at 50 yards. That should give us an idea of any significant difference between the old and new Bullseye.

You might also search a test I did comparing Hercules Blue Dot to Alliant Blue dot. https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?51566-Blue-Dot-Hercules-vs-Alliant-test

[44MAG#1]

I posted a couple years or so ago of some Chrono data in the 44 Magnum with the "KEITH" notice the parentheses, with A2400 with two different lots with the SAME bullet, SAME primer and the SAME cases with the SAME charge weight, chronoed BACK to BACK on the SAME morning and got quite a bit different velocity averages in the TWO DIFFERENT lots of Alliant 2400 that was BOUGHT within a couple months of each other. Now on the other hand I had an much older lot of A2400 and one lot that was somewhat newer. So in all I had FOUR different lots
Three were very close but the one lot was to me QUITE abit different. Just to clarify on all loads ALL used the SAME bullets and the SAME primers and cases and SAME charge.
When I posted that info I was picked apart on my results implying I didn't know what I was doing.
I learned a very, very, very, very, very, very valuable lesson.

[TD1886]

This is very true what you last two posters said. Thing is I'm getting almost 100 fps difference between the Hercules and the Alliant.

When I first bought that old Hercules Unique I was desperate for Unique. When I got it home testing the difference between it and what new Alliant Unique was the first thing I did. I have a brand new 8 lb jug of Alliant Unique, perhaps I should throw that into the equation. I think I will.

[Larry Gibson]

I posted a couple years or so ago of some Chrono data in the 44 Magnum with the "KEITH" notice the parentheses, with A2400 with two different lots with the SAME bullet, SAME primer and the SAME cases with the SAME charge weight, chronoed BACK to BACK on the SAME morning and got quite a bit different velocity averages in the TWO DIFFERENT lots of Alliant 2400 that was BOUGHT within a couple months of each other. Now on the other hand I had an much older lot of A2400 and one lot that was somewhat newer. So in all I had FOUR different lots
Three were very close but the one lot was to me QUITE abit different. Just to clarify on all loads ALL used the SAME bullets and the SAME primers and cases and SAME charge.
When I posted that info I was picked apart on my results implying I didn't know what I was doing.
I learned a very, very, very, very, very, very valuable lesson.

Remember that thread well. Noticeable differences between the different lots of powder you had. There was an article in one of the Speer manuals titled something like; why we get gray hair. Had to do with the variances in the velocities listed in the manuals and the complaints they got from shooters who's chronographed velocities did not match. It seems many do not understand the lot to lot variances of the components we use in reloading and other variable conditions in testing. One could consider it to be somewhat related to "tolerance stacking" which sometimes isn't much but other times can be a great deal of difference.

[TD1886]

Remember that thread well. Noticeable differences between the different lots of powder you had. There was an article in one of the Speer manuals titled something like; why we get gray hair. Had to do with the variances in the velocities listed in the manuals and the complaints they got from shooters who's chronographed velocities did not match. It seems many do not understand the lot to lot variances of the components we use in reloading and other variable conditions in testing. One could consider it to be somewhat related to "tolerance stacking" which sometimes isn't much but other times can be a great deal of difference.

There are so many variables in loading manuals. The data they got was for the particular rifle they used, the particular cases, primers, and powder. Throw in bullet seating depth and their case neck tension. Then there is the location where the test was done and what atmopheric conditions they had.

Reminds me of a friend that had a 22-250 Ruger Varmint rifle. I had a 223 Winchester heavy barrel varmint rifle with a 26 inch barrel. My 53 grain bullet loads were kicking on the heels of his 55 grain loads and wow was he mad about it. I explained to him what I wrote above. In addition the manual he was loading from used a RUGER HEAVY BARREL VARMINTER!! I told him that if you got 10 Ruger Varminters of that caliber that were made on the same day and shot the same ammo in them that they would all have different velocities. He accepted that, but the next thing that irked him was I was killing ground hogs at the same distances he was! LOL

[44MAG#1]

Remember that thread well. Noticeable differences between the different lots of powder you had. There was an article in one of the Speer manuals titled something like; why we get gray hair. Had to do with the variances in the velocities listed in the manuals and the complaints they got from shooters who's chronographed velocities did not match. It seems many do not understand the lot to lot variances of the components we use in reloading and other variable conditions in testing. One could consider it to be somewhat related to "tolerance stacking" which sometimes isn't much but other times can be a great deal of difference.
I will admit I am of an intelligence level far below most on here
I don't know about all the scientific jargon, speak, etc. to explain things. I will give this explanation to my limited knowledge on things. Example, if it is dark in a room with the light switch turned off and I then turn the light switch on and the room lights by the lights coming on to me I made the technical decision that with the switch off the light is off and the room is dark. If I turn it on and the lights come on the room is lighted.
If I turn on the switch and the room is dark I look to see if someone took the bulbs or if the bulbs are burned out or is something is wrong with the power supply.
How the electricity flows, the voltage, the travel time of the electricity, where the electricity originates etc. etc. etc.
is not in my mind. Since the electric bill is automatically deducted I don't have to check to see if the bill was paid.
So, with that being said when I Chrono two different lots of the same powder with the same charge weight with the same bullets of the same alloy sizes the same with the same bullet lube crimped the same way in the same cases with the same primers shot in the same 4 inch S&W M629 on the same morning back to back and get quite a bit of velocity variation on the average velocities between the two I have learned something similar to the light switch example. Switch on lights on switch off lights off.
My simple mind just doesn't have the scientific ability to absorb the scientificness of the science to break it down.
I have that Speer manual.
Also I learned, (in my feeble minded way), that if it can be with A2400 it probably can happen with another of their powders.
I won't even bring up the AA2460 in a 458 Win Mag Encore handgun with 500 gr Hornady SP bullets and CCI 250 primers.
BTW, I pay almost zero attention to primer flattening.

[Recycled bullet]

If I am understanding you all correctly: I am reading that it is requiring an adjustment to the powder measure to make the same scaled powder charge mass between the old and the new unique powder?


Is the energy density of Hercules and Alliant unique calibrated on powder volume or powder charge mass? Most of the loading data I have ever seen is listed in grains mass. I like that Lee lists volumes, and I'm sure we've all seen others leading case fill percentage.

This is a very interesting topic.

[44MAG#1]

Different lots of the same powder can have different weights for the same volume.
I ve know that since shortly after I started reloading just before I was 18 years old. I started with a Lyman powder measure that has a flipper knocker, (my feeble definition).
I always checked the charge weight after changing powder lots and during throwing charges sporadically along the way.

[Bird]

OK, back to the original topic.
I have loaded the 9mm with test loads 3.3grns, 3.5grns and 3.7grns of 231. That should drop the pressure enough, but it will also drop the velocities.
I have also taken some of my cast bullets that weigh 129 to 130 grains, and sanded down the bases until they weigh 124grains. To achieve this, I removed 0.020'' from the bullet base. This leaves the rear driving band at 0.110''. This should lower the pressure considerably, and am thinking this should allow me to use starting load of 3.9grs 231 without pressure signs. If this works, I will give the mold a 20 thou trim.
This will move the C.G. forward, but not sure about C.P.
What effect do you think it will have on bullet stability?

[TD1886]

OK, back to the original topic.
I have loaded the 9mm with test loads 3.3grns, 3.5grns and 3.7grns of 231. That should drop the pressure enough, but it will also drop the velocities.
I have also taken some of my cast bullets that weigh 129 to 130 grains, and sanded down the bases until they weigh 124grains. To achieve this, I removed 0.020'' from the bullet base. This leaves the rear driving band at 0.110''. This should lower the pressure considerably, and am thinking this should allow me to use starting load of 3.9grs 231 without pressure signs. If this works, I will give the mold a 20 thou trim.
This will move the C.G. forward, but not sure about C.P.
What effect do you think it will have on bullet stability?

I'm going to tell you something. HP8 and Winchester 231 are the same powder. 231 isn't the same powder decades ago when Winchester made it. Got to Hodgdon' s reloading page and look up 9mm, 124 grain jacketed bullet (yes I know you're shooting cast) type in for powder HP38 and 231 and hit data. You see the same exact load and data.

Personally I don't like HP38 and I'm not the only one. The Winchester powders when they actually made them were much better.

I would shoot the largest diameter bullet that will let the cartridge chamber with zero problems. Don't worry about the weight varriation unless you have some $6000 match pistol and you are a match shooter. I wouldn't worry about the CG and CP, we're shooting a stubby 9mm bullet not a long rifle bullet.

[Recycled bullet]

I sure hope that none of that abrasive media got embedded into the bullets to be fired through the barrel of your gun.

[Bird]

td1886,
Yes, I am aware of the Hodgdon/winchester 231/hp38 currently being the same powder, and the earlier 231 load data.
I am not worried about the weight variation, but more so, the case powder capacity with my bullets seated. I am sorting through the 9mm cast bullet offerings by Accurate and others that have dimensional drawings, but so far, none of the bullets are suitable for the 9mm using 231 powder, as they would create high pressures that I am currently seeing even with starting loads. I am wondering what cast bullets others are using. I can not seat the bullets out any farther, as the grease groove would be exposed, also I am at max with regards to the chamber depth.
The only options I can see so far, is
1. Reduce the 231 load, and lose velocity.
2. Make more powder room by taking length from bullet base.
3. Stop using 231 powder.
4. Find a better bullet that suits my needs.
5. Make a custom mold to fit.

[44MAG#1]

This is what I would do if I had the long green to spend
I would go to Accurate Molds website and look at what he has to offer. On each bullet design he has easily seen and understood dimensions on his bullets. Also how many of that design that has been sold. Plus he answers email. If I couldn't decide for myself by the dimensions or the number of molds sold, that indicates it popularity I would email him with questions.
Me being simple that is what I would do

[TD1886]

td1886,
Yes, I am aware of the Hodgdon/winchester 231/hp38 currently being the same powder, and the earlier 231 load data.
I am not worried about the weight variation, but more so, the case powder capacity with my bullets seated. I am sorting through the 9mm cast bullet offerings by Accurate and others that have dimensional drawings, but so far, none of the bullets are suitable for the 9mm using 231 powder, as they would create high pressures that I am currently seeing even with starting loads. I am wondering what cast bullets others are using. I can not seat the bullets out any farther, as the grease groove would be exposed, also I am at max with regards to the chamber depth.
The only options I can see so far, is
1. Reduce the 231 load, and lose velocity.
2. Make more powder room by taking length from bullet base.
3. Stop using 231 powder.
4. Find a better bullet that suits my needs.
5. Make a custom mold to fit.

Here's Hodgdon's load for a jacketed 135 grain bullet using 231, the current crap, not the original.
3.6 937 28,400 PSI 4.2 1,028 33,200 PSI

I can't understand why you are worried about pressure, you're no ways need anything dangerous.
Here's there load for a jacketed 147 grain bullet 3.4 845 34,300 PSI Now you know that bullet is longer then what you're shooting. Quit worrying about pressure, you're not loading anything dangerous. When the 9mm is up to snuff it will have flat primers.

[poppy42]

Recently I bought a whole can of the old Hercules Unique. I also have a new can of the current Alliant Unique. Using the same gun, same bullet, same load (volume measured) shooting over the chrono showed the old stuff to be much more potent. There was quite a difference in the velocity with the older Unique being hotter. Grant you this is not quite the testing you have done, but the chrono isn't going to lie. I attribute it to maybe the old Unique seem much more dry then the new Unique. When weighing the volume measured Unique the newer one is heavier. Do you think that is possible if older powder being more dry burns differently toward the fast end say like dry leaves burn better then wet ones?

Unique is one of the earliest smokeless powders manufactured. Goes back to the 1800s and it has been virtually unchanged according to Alliant(I have spoken with senior technicians there). Yes powder can change over time if it has started to Degrade it will burn differently than good powder. However in your statement you say “volume measured” and I believe that’s where the issue occurred. I will unique in everything from 12 gauge to 30-06 Including 3 or 4 pistol calibers. I have found and it has been stated often by others it is one of the hardest powders to get consistent drops out of a powder measure! Therefore I believe what your differences in velocity( I am assuming these were shot over a chronograph On the same day) we’re probably caused by you not weighing your charges. Especially if you were loading to maximum.

[M-Tecs]

Recently I bought a whole can of the old Hercules Unique. I also have a new can of the current Alliant Unique. Using the same gun, same bullet, same load (volume measured) shooting over the chrono showed the old stuff to be much more potent. There was quite a difference in the velocity with the older Unique being hotter. Grant you this is not quite the testing you have done, but the chrono isn't going to lie. I attribute it to maybe the old Unique seem much more dry then the new Unique. When weighing the volume measured Unique the newer one is heavier. Do you think that is possible if older powder being more dry burns differently toward the fast end say like dry leaves burn better then wet ones?

Yes, Some very good info here on the effects of humidity on gunpowder.. That is also why you are getting different weights for the same volume between the new and old.

https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2022/01/changes-in-humidity-can-alter-powder-burn-rates-important/

The video is well worth the time it takes to watch it.

https://thescienceofaccuracy.com/podcast/60-humidity-effects-on-smokeless-powder/

On a side note, the extreme long ranges shooters are finding it necessary to control the powder humidity for consistency.

[M-Tecs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3lEAWqyREk

[M-Tecs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIvVBPCwXAw

[Larry Gibson]

The effect of humidity on smokeless powder has been known for quite a few years. As seen from the videos, the availability of test equipment in tracking changes in humidity and its effect is more easily understood and controlled. I became painfully aware of the effects of humidity on smokeless powders when I moved from the humid Pacific Northwest down here to the arid SW desert. I first noticed it when my match 308W loads [Varget under a 175 MK] blew primers down here in Lake Havasu. Loads that were loaded up north [specifically the Puget sound area] and pressure tested to give top end performance showed a marked increase in psi/velocity. Pulling the bullets I found the powder charge was lighter than what it was when the ammo had been loaded up north. Obviously, with the much lower humidity here in the desert the powder had "dried out". Pressure testing showed a marked increase in psi and velocity. Newly loaded match ammunition using the old powder charge with "dried out" Varget blew primers.

I did some research and discussed the problem with Dr. Oehler. Subsequently I bought a used refrigerator w/o a freezer compartment to use for powder storage. In my garage/man cave/ loading area here the temp is pretty much held at 75 - 78 degrees. The humidity mostly stays around 10 - 20 %. With low temp/humidity it didn't take long for the powder "dry out". Re-testing numerous of my old loads in various cartridges developed up north revealed a drop in the powder charge was necessary to maintain the same psi/velocity.

It has been my procedure with a container of powder to break the seal and store it for a couple weeks before use. Doing that the variation of any lot to lot has been normal. I also found in psi/velocity testing that US arsenal produced 5.56. 7.62 and 30-6 milsurp ammo performed uniformly the same from tests up north to tests down here. the weight of the powder charges remained consistent also. That is because each round is very well sealed so the humidity inside the cartridges has remained consistent.

As Litz says in the video lot to lot variation is considered but humidity should also be considered. Another reason ballisticians have gray hair as mentioned in the Speer article...... Lot to lot variation, humidity and test condition variables all add up to cause much of the consternation we see expressed on this and other forums when chronographed velocities are posted of supposedly the same load......

[44MAG#1]

As I take it there are so many variables to why velocity varies that the mind boggles at the thought of it.
1. Humidity
2. Lot to lot variations
3. Scales being off for some reason
4. Reading the scales wrong.
5. Temperature
6. Setting up the Chrono wrong.
7. Battery problems
8. Differences in guns
9. Etc.
10.Etc
11.Etc.
I give up.
Just stay so far below book maximum with the components that the book list so there will be no problems.
If that is possible but I am sure someone will tell about a problem doing that.

[Larry Gibson]

That's why when you say you get 1210 fps out of your 4" M29 and I say I get 1185 fps out of my 4" Colt Anaconda with the "same" Keith load I just smile and think, close enough for government work.......

[44MAG#1]

That's why when you say you get 1210 fps out of your 4" M29 and I say I get 1185 fps out of my 4" Colt Anaconda with the "same" Keith load I just smile and think, close enough for government work.......

I've known that factoid for years. Of course what do I know?

[TD1886]

Unique is one of the earliest smokeless powders manufactured. Goes back to the 1800s and it has been virtually unchanged according to Alliant(I have spoken with senior technicians there). Yes powder can change over time if it has started to Degrade it will burn differently than good powder. However in your statement you say “volume measured” and I believe that’s where the issue occurred. I will unique in everything from 12 gauge to 30-06 Including 3 or 4 pistol calibers. I have found and it has been stated often by others it is one of the hardest powders to get consistent drops out of a powder measure! Therefore I believe what your differences in velocity( I am assuming these were shot over a chronograph On the same day) we’re probably caused by you not weighing your charges. Especially if you were loading to maximum.

You've been following this so you know that I said I weigh the charges. I use a Belding & Mull powder measure. With certain powder granulation they gaurantee .1 accuracy. They were being modest. With the fine powders, including flake like Unique, it cuts them .0. I will throw a BUNCH of charges on my powder scale to verify it's set right. While I'm reloading I'll throw a charge on the scale again to insure it hasn't changed. The B&M will be mighty close with stick powders. For the test I did for Larry I weighed the charges dead nuts. I don't have a problem. I merely stated there is a huge difference between the old stuff I have and the new stuff. I fully understand it. I've had completely deteriated powder in the past and know of it's quirks. I haven't popped the lid on my new Unique 8 lb yet and will real soon.

[justindad]

Are there any problems with doing a powder grains per unit case volume calculation in this case? Should be able to tell you how much to reduce the charge for the reduced case volume.

[TD1886]

As I take it there are so many variables to why velocity varies that the mind boggles at the thought of it.
1. Humidity
2. Lot to lot variations
3. Scales being off for some reason
4. Reading the scales wrong.
5. Temperature
6. Setting up the Chrono wrong.
7. Battery problems
8. Differences in guns
9. Etc.
10.Etc
11.Etc.
I give up.
Just stay so far below book maximum with the components that the book list so there will be no problems.
If that is possible but I am sure someone will tell about a problem doing that.

1. I pay attention to the humidity
2. I know about the difference in lot to lot and make adjustment for it.
3. I check my scales ALL THE TIME. They aren't off. I keep them clean too.
4. I can assure you I don't read my scales wrong. Hey I can read a micrometer too!
5. I pay attention to temperature too
6. I don't know about setting the chrono up wrong
7. I have a constant supply of new battery and I measure the voltage
8. Yup very aware of the differences between guns

I'm very aware of the dangers of shooting and reloading and I don't want be be injured badly or killed.

[TD1886]

The effect of humidity on smokeless powder has been known for quite a few years. As seen from the videos, the availability of test equipment in tracking changes in humidity and its effect is more easily understood and controlled. I became painfully aware of the effects of humidity on smokeless powders when I moved from the humid Pacific Northwest down here to the arid SW desert. I first noticed it when my match 308W loads [Varget under a 175 MK] blew primers down here in Lake Havasu. Loads that were loaded up north [specifically the Puget sound area] and pressure tested to give top end performance showed a marked increase in psi/velocity. Pulling the bullets I found the powder charge was lighter than what it was when the ammo had been loaded up north. Obviously, with the much lower humidity here in the desert the powder had "dried out". Pressure testing showed a marked increase in psi and velocity. Newly loaded match ammunition using the old powder charge with "dried out" Varget blew primers.

I did some research and discussed the problem with Dr. Oehler. Subsequently I bought a used refrigerator w/o a freezer compartment to use for powder storage. In my garage/man cave/ loading area here the temp is pretty much held at 75 - 78 degrees. The humidity mostly stays around 10 - 20 %. With low temp/humidity it didn't take long for the powder "dry out". Re-testing numerous of my old loads in various cartridges developed up north revealed a drop in the powder charge was necessary to maintain the same psi/velocity.

It has been my procedure with a container of powder to break the seal and store it for a couple weeks before use. Doing that the variation of any lot to lot has been normal. I also found in psi/velocity testing that US arsenal produced 5.56. 7.62 and 30-6 milsurp ammo performed uniformly the same from tests up north to tests down here. the weight of the powder charges remained consistent also. That is because each round is very well sealed so the humidity inside the cartridges has remained consistent.

As Litz says in the video lot to lot variation is considered but humidity should also be considered. Another reason ballisticians have gray hair as mentioned in the Speer article...... Lot to lot variation, humidity and test condition variables all add up to cause much of the consternation we see expressed on this and other forums when chronographed velocities are posted of supposedly the same load......

I'm surprised you don't seal your primers and case neck LOL! I've heard you didn't see much WW2 Japanese surplus ammo because they didn't seal their cartridges.

[rsrocket1]

If a newer version of the same powder burns cleaner, then there must be more conversion of the powder into combustible by products. You can keep the same peak pressure (the important thing when it comes to reloader safety) but continue to burn products after the peak which can lead to a higher velocity, especially in a short barrel low pressure application such a Unique in a 5” 1911. In a 40 or 9mm at up to 35,000 psi, the powder has more chance to consume itself than it does in a 21,000 psi max chambered 45acp. I posted somewhere else that a 200g 45ACP and a 200g 30 m1 carbine load with everything else being equal (charge, barrel length, powder) gives nearly equal muzzle velocities provided you use a powder fast enough to be 100% consumed before the bullet exits the muzzle even though the pressure curves were vastly different. This was to prove that KE is largely dependent on potential chemical energy of the powder regardless of bullet geometry.

Unique at 45 ACP pressures did not burn 100% before exiting a 5” barrel. The newer cleaner stuff may behave the same as the old stuff when it comes to pressure rise and peak, but more burn on the tail end could be what you were observing.

[murf205]

That's why when you say you get 1210 fps out of your 4" M29 and I say I get 1185 fps out of my 4" Colt Anaconda with the "same" Keith load I just smile and think, close enough for government work.......

Larry, since you have a Model 10 Oehler, you will get a kick out of this. When the 10 first came out, almost 50 yrs ago (wow, time flies), I and a shooting partner, used to set my sky screens up c-clamped on 2 saw horses. We used a tape measure to juggle the saw horses to get the 10 feet. One day, I brought 2 different tape measures and lo and behold, there was almost 1 inch difference in them! Heaven only knows what that was doing to out chrono figures. It was about that time when we decided that a piece of electrical emt tubing on a tripod was a better answer and go to the 5' page in the "little book". It was quite a step up from the screens of coiled wire that you shot through and we thought we were cutting edge! Fun though.

[44MAG#1]

1. I pay attention to the humidity
2. I know about the difference in lot to lot and make adjustment for it.
3. I check my scales ALL THE TIME. They aren't off. I keep them clean too.
4. I can assure you I don't read my scales wrong. Hey I can read a micrometer too!
5. I pay attention to temperature too
6. I don't know about setting the chrono up wrong
7. I have a constant supply of new battery and I measure the voltage
8. Yup very aware of the differences between guns

I'm very aware of the dangers of shooting and reloading and I don't want be be injured badly or killed.

After doing all those precautions have you considered the danger in driving to and from the range? That is if you have to drive to the range.
Some are so fortunate they have a range on their property.
Some of us have to drive to the range.

[TD1886]

After doing all those precautions have you considered the danger in driving to and from the range? That is if you have to drive to the range.
Some are so fortunate they have a range on their property.
Some of us have to drive to the range.

On my property sir.

[44MAG#1]

On my property sir.

You are very fortunate. I have to drive to the range.
It is a learning experience to watch others though.
With that being said it is a classroom of teaching and insightfulness.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, since you have a Model 10 Oehler, you will get a kick out of this. When the 10 first came out, almost 50 yrs ago (wow, time flies), I and a shooting partner, used to set my sky screens up c-clamped on 2 saw horses. We used a tape measure to juggle the saw horses to get the 10 feet. One day, I brought 2 different tape measures and lo and behold, there was almost 1 inch difference in them! Heaven only knows what that was doing to out chrono figures. It was about that time when we decided that a piece of electrical emt tubing on a tripod was a better answer and go to the 5' page in the "little book". It was quite a step up from the screens of coiled wire that you shot through and we thought we were cutting edge! Fun though.

Yes, my first chronograph was the Oehler 11-61 (improved M10) which I got in the early '70s. It was indeed "cutting edge" back then. Like you, after fiddling around with various set ups I just mounted the sky screens (M61) on a piece of conduit with 5' spacing. That kind of worked better when a suitable place to set them on was available. I then mounted them on a board long enough to also mount a protective piece of steel at a 45 degree angle in front of each screen. With higher power scopes it was still too easy to stray from the narrow window the bullet had to pass through. It was also too easy to crowd the screens as evidence by the bullet impact on the top edge of the rear screen. I then drilled two holes for doweling to be inserted one on each side of the window. That gave an easy to see "alley" to shoot through. I also put a black paster around the dowels 4" high. That way the horizontal cross hair or sight picture with iron sights was never held below the pasters. Not "high tech" but it sure worked well. I had numerous requests to chronograph favorite loads from friends and fellow shooters. One thing I really liked about the M11 and having to turn the dial between 4 stations to get the time and then look that time up on the conversion to FPS was it gave ample time between shots to keep the barrel cool. Not so with today's chronographs......

314056

314057

314058

314059

[justindad]

OP - what are your next steps? Have you found a load that gives you confidence?

[fredj338]

Many make too much over OAL in the 9mm. Yes it matters but not much with charges midrange & below. If you were getting flattened primers, IF, then I suspect your charges were off. I run a lot of fast powder in 9mm, WST, quite a bit faster than w231. It is 9mm minor but boringly consistent, regardless of the case or slight OAL variation of 0.015". Which btw is less than the diff shaving the bullet bases. What does that give you, 0.015" more powder room?
I ran some vel tests using 9mm & WST, also Unique. I seated the bullets 0.010" deeper from 1.145": to 1.115" Nothing really showed up on the chrono until I got to 1.115". Both loads were above midrange but well off max. the vel gain was about 50fps for that No flat primers. Case volume matters but I only worry about things like those funky interal stepped cases getting mixed into my regular stuff so Ido sort thru any 9mm range pickups.

[fredj338]

OK, back to the original topic.
I have loaded the 9mm with test loads 3.3grns, 3.5grns and 3.7grns of 231. That should drop the pressure enough, but it will also drop the velocities.
I have also taken some of my cast bullets that weigh 129 to 130 grains, and sanded down the bases until they weigh 124grains. To achieve this, I removed 0.020'' from the bullet base. This leaves the rear driving band at 0.110''. This should lower the pressure considerably, and am thinking this should allow me to use starting load of 3.9grs 231 without pressure signs. If this works, I will give the mold a 20 thou trim.
This will move the C.G. forward, but not sure about C.P.
What effect do you think it will have on bullet stability?

You are chasing your tail. There isnt much diff between 125 & 130gr in weight v pressures IF the bearing surfaces are the same. Certainly not enough to flatten primers.

[Bird]

justindad,
I am still loading ammo, but I am sure I can find the solution.
fredj338,
I have taken some measurements of the expansion rings above the case bases.
Various brand of brass measured 0.389 at expansion ring.
FC brass showed expansion at 0.392. The largest I found.
My once fired winchester brass showed 0.3895.
The smallest diameter of my reloaded and fired brass was0.391.
The largest diameter, about half of my reloaded and fired brass, was 0.393.

As a point of interest, I found this from outpost75,
I can tell you from personal experience, and Alan Jones at Speer can confirm, that factory 9mm Parabellum loads which tested 28,000 cup spiked dangerously above proof pressure when bullets were purposely reseated only 0.030" deeper. They mention this in the description of the 9mm Para cartridge prior to the data section in the Speer handbook.

As for my personal experience, running "accelerated endurance tests" on 9mm pistols, which normally is done with 364 M905 High Pressure Test rounds, which we didn't have, it was determined experimentally that by reseating the bullets on M882 service ammunition deeper, by only 0.020", that the sample average pressure was raised to 3050 bar (44,200 psi), but care had to be taken not to exceed 0.025" as pressure increased to 50,700 psi, at the upper envelope for M905 HPT rounds and we didn't want to void our test results...

At .030" deeper pressure soared to 62,000 psi!

The pressure specs for US military 9mm ammunition are:

CARTRIDGE, 9 MM, BALL, NATO, M882
Type Classification:
HQDA (DAMA-CSM), dated 15 April 85.
Use: Pistol, 9 mm, M9. The cartridge is intended for use against personnel.
Projectile weight................................112 gr

Performance:
Case mouth pressure ........................31,175 psi (avg),
36,250 psi (max)
Velocity ............................................1263 ± 5 fps, 15 ft
from muzzle

CARTRIDGE, 9MM, HIGH PRESSURE TEST, M905

Type Classification:
HQDA (DAMA-CSM), dated 15 April 85.
Use:
Proof testing of M9 pistols. The cartridge is intended for use in proofing new pistols and test barrels to
demonstrate safety prior to releasing weapons to the field.

Performance:
Chamber pressure ............................50,000 psi
Velocity ............................................. NA

So seat deeper at your own peril!

[44MAG#1]

justindad,
I am still loading ammo, but I am sure I can find the solution.
fredj338,
I have taken some measurements of the expansion rings above the case bases.
Various brand of brass measured 0.389 at expansion ring.
FC brass showed expansion at 0.392. The largest I found.
My once fired winchester brass showed 0.3895.
The smallest diameter of my reloaded and fired brass was0.391.
The largest diameter, about half of my reloaded and fired brass, was 0.393.

As a point of interest, I found this from outpost75,
I can tell you from personal experience, and Alan Jones at Speer can confirm, that factory 9mm Parabellum loads which tested 28,000 cup spiked dangerously above proof pressure when bullets were purposely reseated only 0.030" deeper. They mention this in the description of the 9mm Para cartridge prior to the data section in the Speer handbook.

As for my personal experience, running "accelerated endurance tests" on 9mm pistols, which normally is done with 364 M905 High Pressure Test rounds, which we didn't have, it was determined experimentally that by reseating the bullets on M882 service ammunition deeper, by only 0.020", that the sample average pressure was raised to 3050 bar (44,200 psi), but care had to be taken not to exceed 0.025" as pressure increased to 50,700 psi, at the upper envelope for M905 HPT rounds and we didn't want to void our test results...

At .030" deeper pressure soared to 62,000 psi!

The pressure specs for US military 9mm ammunition are:

CARTRIDGE, 9 MM, BALL, NATO, M882
Type Classification:
HQDA (DAMA-CSM), dated 15 April 85.
Use: Pistol, 9 mm, M9. The cartridge is intended for use against personnel.
Projectile weight................................112 gr

Performance:
Case mouth pressure ........................31,175 psi (avg),
36,250 psi (max)
Velocity ............................................1263 ± 5 fps, 15 ft
from muzzle

CARTRIDGE, 9MM, HIGH PRESSURE TEST, M905

Type Classification:
HQDA (DAMA-CSM), dated 15 April 85.
Use:
Proof testing of M9 pistols. The cartridge is intended for use in proofing new pistols and test barrels to
demonstrate safety prior to releasing weapons to the field.

Performance:
Chamber pressure ............................50,000 psi
Velocity ............................................. NA

So seat deeper at your own peril!

People who reload and understand the effects of seating deeper know to reduce the powder charge and rework the load looking for pressure signs.
They just don't willy nilly seat deeper and go shoot the ammo without reducing the powder charge.
Seating deeper is not necessarily a bad thing.
Also making sure the bullet don't recede into the case during feeding is important too.

[P Flados]

I have done a bunch of 9mm stuff with Quickload and although I would not call it "super accurate" it tends to be pretty close.

A big input is seating depth on some loads. To get this input correct it helps to check actual bullet length. I was not able to find a published length for you bullet, but it should be no longer than a 0.622" long 129 gr NOE RN bullet.

Based on the results below, I am pretty convinced that your ugly primers are not due to excessive pressure. Ugly primers can be caused by the primer initially backing out and then getting flattened when pushed back in as the case goes flat up against the breech. This is typically associated with some "slop" for headspace.

First I will set COAL to 0.010" less than you reported in case your bullet is up to 0.632" long.



Cartridge : 9 mm Luger (SAAMI)
Bullet : .355, 129, 358-128-RN PB BN5
Seating depth : .268 inch
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 1.108 inch = 28.14 mm
Barrel Length : 4.6 inch = 116.8 mm
Powder : Winchester 231

CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-25.0 61 3.00 832 198 15357 2269 97.1 0.697
-22.5 63 3.10 854 209 16477 2346 97.8 0.674
-20.0 65 3.20 875 219 17651 2419 98.4 0.653
-17.5 67 3.30 897 230 18879 2489 98.9 0.634
-15.0 69 3.40 918 241 20163 2555 99.3 0.615
-12.5 71 3.50 938 252 21505 2617 99.6 0.598
-10.0 73 3.60 959 263 22907 2676 99.8 0.581
-07.5 75 3.70 979 274 24370 2731 100.0 0.565
-05.0 77 3.80 998 285 25898 2782 100.0 0.550
-02.5 79 3.90 1017 297 27492 2831 100.0 0.536
+00.0 81 4.00 1036 308 29155 2880 100.0 0.523
+02.5 83 4.10 1055 319 30889 2929 100.0 0.510 ! Near Maximum !
+05.0 85 4.20 1074 330 32697 2977 100.0 0.498 ! Near Maximum !
+07.5 87 4.30 1092 341 34582 3025 100.0 0.487 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0 89 4.40 1110 353 36547 3073 100.0 0.476 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!


I then went in and changed the COAL down 0.020" from the above



Cartridge : 9 mm Luger (SAAMI)
Bullet : .355, 129, 358-128-RN PB BN5
Seating depth : .288 inch
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 1.088 inch = 27.64 mm
Barrel Length : 4.6 inch = 116.8 mm
Powder : Winchester 231

CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-25.0 65 3.00 848 206 16892 2239 97.6 0.672
-22.5 68 3.10 870 217 18155 2312 98.3 0.650
-20.0 70 3.20 892 228 19481 2380 98.8 0.630
-17.5 72 3.30 914 239 20871 2446 99.2 0.611
-15.0 74 3.40 935 250 22329 2507 99.6 0.593
-12.5 76 3.50 956 262 23857 2565 99.8 0.576
-10.0 78 3.60 976 273 25458 2618 100.0 0.560
-07.5 81 3.70 997 284 27133 2668 100.0 0.544
-05.0 83 3.80 1016 296 28887 2715 100.0 0.530
-02.5 85 3.90 1036 307 30723 2762 100.0 0.516 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 87 4.00 1055 319 32643 2808 100.0 0.503 ! Near Maximum !
+02.5 89 4.10 1074 331 34653 2855 100.0 0.491 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

[Bird]

P Flados,
Thank you,
my bullets are 0.596'' length. Seated to an OAL of 1.118'', there would be 0.225'' of the bullet seated in the case, which is less than your figures, so that should mean even less pressure.
Would you please run the figures again, and up the bullet diameter to 0.357''.
Thank you.
I agree with you on the primers being flattened as a possibility, but what about the pressure ring on the fired cases?

[justindad]

Bird - does your boolit have multiple lube grooves?

[P Flados]

Here is the run.

Any chance you can get the velocity measured.




Cartridge : 9 mm Luger (SAAMI)
Bullet : .357, 129 gr, by 0.596" long
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 1.118 inch = 28.40 mm
Barrel Length : 4.6 inch = 116.8 mm
Powder : Winchester 231

CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms
-23.3 59 3.30 869 216 16126 2552 98.3 0.673
-20.9 61 3.40 889 226 17181 2626 98.8 0.654
-18.6 63 3.50 909 237 18279 2696 99.2 0.635
-16.3 65 3.60 929 247 19422 2763 99.5 0.618
-14.0 67 3.70 949 258 20611 2826 99.8 0.601
-11.6 68 3.80 968 268 21847 2886 99.9 0.586
-09.3 70 3.90 987 279 23131 2942 100.0 0.571
-07.0 72 4.00 1005 290 24466 2995 100.0 0.557
-04.7 74 4.10 1024 300 25852 3048 100.0 0.543
-02.3 75 4.20 1042 311 27290 3100 100.0 0.531
+00.0 77 4.30 1059 321 28783 3152 100.0 0.518
+02.3 79 4.40 1077 332 30332 3203 100.0 0.507 ! Near Maximum !
+04.7 81 4.50 1094 343 31940 3255 100.0 0.496 ! Near Maximum !
+07.0 83 4.60 1111 354 33607 3306 100.0 0.485 ! Near Maximum !
+09.3 84 4.70 1128 365 35335 3356 100.0 0.475 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+11.6 86 4.80 1145 375 37128 3407 100.0 0.465 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

[Bird]

Justindad,
The bullet has a single groove. https://www.mp-molds.com/product/mp-356-125-2r-8-cav-flat-base/

P Flados,
Thank you again. I have a chrono, but nearest range is 120mile round trip. I was hoping to get some loads and accuracy results in the indoor range thats 20 mins away before making the longer trip.
The data from various sources and yours, would confirm that there should be no pressure problems.
The bullet sized to 357 is a snug fit in the chamber with no wiggle room.
I will purchase a box of the winchester 124g ammo and try that in my gun and compare to what I see now. i will also remove some of the winchester bullets and load them over 3.9g of 231 and compare. Lastly I will load some of my bullets over the factory winchester load and compare that as well.
A factory box of ammo will give me a baseline.

[P Flados]

Bird, your range situations sounds familiar. I shoot a lot at a indoor range that is a 10 minute drive. My outdoor shooting range is close to an hour drive to get there.

[fredj338]

justindad,
I am still loading ammo, but I am sure I can find the solution.
fredj338,
I have taken some measurements of the expansion rings above the case bases.
Various brand of brass measured 0.389 at expansion ring.
FC brass showed expansion at 0.392. The largest I found.
My once fired winchester brass showed 0.3895.
The smallest diameter of my reloaded and fired brass was0.391.
The largest diameter, about half of my reloaded and fired brass, was 0.393.

As a point of interest, I found this from outpost75,
I can tell you from personal experience, and Alan Jones at Speer can confirm, that factory 9mm Parabellum loads which tested 28,000 cup spiked dangerously above proof pressure when bullets were purposely reseated only 0.030" deeper. They mention this in the description of the 9mm Para cartridge prior to the data section in the Speer handbook.

As for my personal experience, running "accelerated endurance tests" on 9mm pistols, which normally is done with 364 M905 High Pressure Test rounds, which we didn't have, it was determined experimentally that by reseating the bullets on M882 service ammunition deeper, by only 0.020", that the sample average pressure was raised to 3050 bar (44,200 psi), but care had to be taken not to exceed 0.025" as pressure increased to 50,700 psi, at the upper envelope for M905 HPT rounds and we didn't want to void our test results...

At .030" deeper pressure soared to 62,000 psi!

The pressure specs for US military 9mm ammunition are:

CARTRIDGE, 9 MM, BALL, NATO, M882
Type Classification:
HQDA (DAMA-CSM), dated 15 April 85.
Use: Pistol, 9 mm, M9. The cartridge is intended for use against personnel.
Projectile weight................................112 gr

Performance:
Case mouth pressure ........................31,175 psi (avg),
36,250 psi (max)
Velocity ............................................1263 ± 5 fps, 15 ft
from muzzle

CARTRIDGE, 9MM, HIGH PRESSURE TEST, M905

Type Classification:
HQDA (DAMA-CSM), dated 15 April 85.
Use:
Proof testing of M9 pistols. The cartridge is intended for use in proofing new pistols and test barrels to
demonstrate safety prior to releasing weapons to the field.

Performance:
Chamber pressure ............................50,000 psi
Velocity ............................................. NA

So seat deeper at your own peril!
The Speer proclamation on pressures & OAL is just not in context IMO. Yes, seating deeper CAN raise pressures but lots of variables like are you already @ max pressures & what powder & bullets being used. I can almost guarantee seating deeper with a slow powder like AA#7 isnt spiking pressures much with 115-125gr bullets.

[Larry Gibson]

The Speer proclamation on pressures & OAL is just not in context IMO. Yes, seating deeper CAN raise pressures but lots of variables like are you already @ max pressures & what powder & bullets being used. I can almost guarantee seating deeper with a slow powder like AA#7 isnt spiking pressures much with 115-125gr bullets.

On what basis are you making that "almost guarantee"?

[justindad]

Does peak pressure occur before or after the bullet starts to move?

[P Flados]

Does peak pressure occur before or after the bullet starts to move?

QL shows a 4.0 gr 231 load under a 125 gr bullet getting to peak pressure at 0.2" of bullet travel.