JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
246
Reactions
195
Hey guys, looking for any pro's to help this beginner out.

Bought my second batch of 1,000 bullets from RMR. First batch was 115 gr. plated. They worked perfect at an OAL of 1.135 to 1.142(I have mixed brass)

Thought I ordered the same bullets on my next batch, but they turned out to be 115gr. FMJ. No problem right?

Didn't adjust my dies, cause I didn't think I needed to. Made about 200 and realized, maybe I should do some plunk tests since I noticed my OAL is coming out a little longer.... 1.150". 3 of my 4 pistols didn't pass the test. It's close, but they were kinda sticking in the barrel.

This newest batch of FMJ's I noticed are fatter, not as narrow as the plated. I'm having to seat them at 1.115 to 1.122. Plunk test works for all pistols now.

But anyone deal with this?? Can't believe I'm having to set them this low to fit!! The SAAMI max is 1.169. These fat, less narrow bullets kinda suck if they limit me to this.
I like a longer OAL.

Anyone deal with a situation? Is this normal? Anyone actually load their 9mm to a shorter OAL in the range of 1.115? Thanks in advance
 
Using CFE pistol, at 5.1gn. According to their load data on the website, they list 5.4gn. as max with a 1.100 OAL

Seeing as CFE pistol is a hair slower than the HS6 I use, I don't see where .015 shorter would be a problem? What's the min/max powder weight in your book/source? you might consider dropping weight a little more to help make up for the shorter OAL

Input from others?

I load HS6 in the minimum area in three different OALs. .075" and another at .085" and for the other 9mm guns .095. I get proper ejection, recoil and report with no over pressure signs.
 
Seeing as CFE pistol is a hair slower than the HS6 I use, I don't see where .015 shorter would be a problem? What's the min/max powder weight in your book/source? you might consider dropping weight a little more to help make up for the shorter OAL

Input from others?

I load HS6 in the minimum area in three different OALs. .075" and another at .085" and for the other 9mm guns .095. I get proper ejection, recoil and report with no over pressure signs.
If .015" to .030 is no big deal, then I'll go with that. I was just worried I was seating too deep. It's weird that the rounder shape of this bullet is causing me to have to seat deeper. I have a 124gr. NATO round that I keep on my bench for reference, and it's just fine. But the bullet is narrower.
 
If .015" to .030 is no big deal, then I'll go with that. I was just worried I was seating too deep. It's weird that the rounder shape of this bullet is causing me to have to seat deeper. I have a 124gr. NATO round that I keep on my bench for reference, and it's just fine. But the bullet is narrower.


That bullet shape is changing the OAL is common. Think about a JHP vs FMJ? The JHP has a flat nose, generally. That will change OAL. I can't stress enough that you have to look at multiple sources for your loads. A couple of books, a newer one for sure. And also check online sources for loads. There will be differences between the three sources. When you have perused those three sources, that should give you an idea of what's going on in that particular round. That's what I do anyway. Something else to consider...The books and sources aren't giving you a recipe for loading. They are simply showing you what THEY used, and what THEIR results were. YMMV was never so true!

Please note that I forgot to put the "1" in my OALs I edited to show 1.075", 1.085" and 1.095" in my last post. :oops:
 
That bullet shape is changing the OAL is common. Think about a JHP vs FMJ? The JHP has a flat nose, generally. That will change OAL. I can't stress enough that you have to look at multiple sources for your loads. A couple of books, a newer one for sure. And also check online sources for loads. There will be differences between the three sources. When you have perused those three sources, that should give you an idea of what's going on in that particular round. That's what I do anyway. Something else to consider...The books and sources aren't giving you a recipe for loading. They are simply showing you what THEY used, and what THEIR results were. YMMV was never so true!

Please note that I forgot to put the "1" in my OALs I edited to show 1.075", 1.085" and 1.095" in my last post. :oops:
Thank you so much for the info!! Seating the bullet further down made me nervous, particularly because I can kind of see the outline of the bullet seated in the casing, even with minimal crimp. Didn't know if this was normal.
I will definitely take your advice on finding multiple sources to give me a better idea too
 
Thank you so much for the info!! Seating the bullet further down made me nervous, particularly because I can kind of see the outline of the bullet seated in the casing, even with minimal crimp. Didn't know if this was normal.
I will definitely take your advice on finding multiple sources to give me a better idea too

I can see the outline of the base of the bullet in a number of my 9mm cases too. 9mm cases seem to have different thicknesses depending on brand. And you'll notice when you resize, some cases are easy, Blazer brass for example. And some are quite stiff, like S&B. They all shoot in our guns fine. As a matter of fact, I have been sorting out S&B because it's much harder to stroke the ram when sizing. I use an RCBS rock Chucker. As far as crimping goes, just the slightest pressure at the bottom of the stroke is plenty to simply close the bell at the case mouth. But then different length cases feel different when crimping at the bottom of the stroke. If you're over doing it, it will probably make that bulge more pronounced. Adjust the die accordingly.
 
Thanks again Mike for the info, really appreciate it! I'm so paranoid about doing something wrong in reloading, it's eating my brain. Lol!! After reading your comments, and looking at a few other forums, I'm seeing what you said echoed throughout. I guess having a wasp looking case is a good thing, have good neck tension. This isn't a picture of my rounds, but this is what they look like...

604AF924-D0CD-48C8-A812-61EB15EB16EC.jpeg
 
Thanks again Mike for the info, really appreciate it! I'm so paranoid about doing something wrong in reloading, it's eating my brain. Lol!! After reading your comments, and looking at a few other forums, I'm seeing what you said echoed throughout. I guess having a wasp looking case is a good thing, have good neck tension. This isn't a picture of my rounds, but this is what they look like...

View attachment 635336

That's an interesting pic. I've never put a straight edge across on of my loads like that. 9mm is kind of a weird one, it's not a perfectly straight wall case. It's very slightly tapered. I've never had an issue with 9mm though. Most people don't mess with loading it due to the price of commercial ammo..
 
Uh oh...maybe not normal in my case then. These FMJ bullets are driving me insane. Lol!! I used Berry's Bullets and the plated ones I mentioned before, no problems. These ones, I don't know what's going on
 
that does not look right unless it is the picture ?
does yours look like that at the base ?
that brass looks to have a bulged base , I agree it can be common to see the bullet impression in the case but that is a strange
looking picture that case rim should be a bit larger then the base ,


download.png
 
that does not look right unless it is the picture ?
does yours look like that at the base ?
that brass looks to have a bulged base , I agree it can be common to see the bullet impression in the case but that is a strange
looking picture that case rim should be a bit larger then the base ,


Ok, here's one of my own. I don't think it's as "curvy" as the one posted from Google. But I don't know...? Any input is greatly appreciated. Hope that it looks legit...

D7AD6F0C-CD7C-449D-A542-4E98C5226D9B.jpeg
 
In this matter the shape of the bullet is more important than its length. The curvature/slope/profile of the bullet as it goes from tip back to where the curve turns into the side wall of the bullet is called the ogive. 9mm bullets with a long, sloping ogive may be seated out farther than short, stubbier bullets. The issue is, you don't want to jam the bullet into the leade of the rifling. Or not go into battery. Or push the bullet back into the case. Any of which may occur when a bullet is seated out too far.

I've liked the stuff I've bought from RMR. But remember, they come up with all kinds of stuff from different sources. I wonder if the 115 gr. 9mm bullets with the stubby profile weren't originally made for .380 ACP? Which typically takes a shorter bullet. 115 gr. is a heavy bullet for .380 but not unknown. It really doesn't matter because bullets designed for .380 will work fine in 9mm so long as the work is done properly.

Using CFE pistol, at 5.1gn. According to their load data on the website, they list 5.4gn. as max with a 1.100 OAL

If you are referring to Hodgdon's website, I think what you were looking at was their data recommendation for "LRN" (Lead Round Nose) bullet. Your charge is a little under the 5.3 gr. minimum recommended for a Speer jacketed bullet. So your charge isn't in much danger of being unsafe as a possible over charge. But I wouldn't reduce it any further providing it works as is.

9mm has somewhat limited case capacity and reloading books caution us that high pressures can result if we violate this space. So if you suspect you are seating a given bullet more deeply than might otherwise be indicated, go lighter on the charge. Said another way, it's not advised to do max. charges on more deeply seated bullets. But this isn't an issue with your already light charge.

I'm pretty cautious when using CFE Pistol. I've experienced some hottish loads using their middle ground recommendations.

I wouldn't worry too much about the differences in seating depth you bring up. The 115 gr. bullet is typically a fairly short one in relation to the heavier weights and therefore provides more internal volume for the powder.

Didn't adjust my dies, cause I didn't think I needed to. Made about 200 and realized, maybe I should do some plunk tests since I noticed my OAL is coming out a little longer.... 1.150". 3 of my 4 pistols didn't pass the test. It's close, but they were kinda sticking in the barrel.

The shape of the bullet (back to ogive) will be the determining factor in die adjustment. Every time you change bullet design in your reloading work, you'll need to check/change the seating depth.

Seating the bullet further down made me nervous, particularly because I can kind of see the outline of the bullet seated in the casing, even with minimal crimp. Didn't know if this was normal.

The hourglass effect in 9mm is pretty normal, especially if you're using a carbide sizing die. The 9mm case has a pretty good taper to it. The carbide sizing sleeve in a sizing die cannot be made full length or the effort to size with it would be too great. So they make the sleeve as long as they can but somehow, it tends to reduce the size too much in the middle. When using steel dies (not carbide), you don't see much if any of this.

Re. the bullet bulge in the neck of the case after seating. Pretty normal with 9mm. More pronounced with some case brands than others due to variations in brass wall thickness. If you flare case mouths with a Lyman M die (instead of the one provided in most die sets), this will reduce the bulge. Because the M die makes entry of the bullet into the case more uniform. The bulge will be more noticeable with cases that have been sized with a carbide die. Because of what I wrote in the paragraph immediately above.

I like a longer OAL.

I'm curious as to why this might be. A couple of reasons. One, we always have to be cognizant of, "Will the bullet fit and feed through the magazine?" You don't want an overly-long bullet that will hang up in the mag. Two, I've found that the 9mm bullets with a long, sloping ogive tend not to be as accurate as those with a long, straight side wall and fairly short ogive. Like a Hornady HAP or XTP. Or just about any conical 9mm bullet. The long bearing surface of these designs seems to stabilze better in the bore.
 
Wow, can't thank you enough for that highly detailed response. Definitely puts my mind at a little more ease. Hope I'm not making everyone's eyes roll if this is trivial. I just probably overthink things too much in terms of safety. Lol!!
 
In this matter the shape of the bullet is more important than its length. The curvature/slope/profile of the bullet as it goes from tip back to where the curve turns into the side wall of the bullet is called the ogive. 9mm bullets with a long, sloping ogive may be seated out farther than short, stubbier bullets. The issue is, you don't want to jam the bullet into the leade of the rifling. Or not go into battery. Or push the bullet back into the case. Any of which may occur when a bullet is seated out too far.

I've liked the stuff I've bought from RMR. But remember, they come up with all kinds of stuff from different sources. I wonder if the 115 gr. 9mm bullets with the stubby profile weren't originally made for .380 ACP? Which typically takes a shorter bullet. 115 gr. is a heavy bullet for .380 but not unknown. It really doesn't matter because bullets designed for .380 will work fine in 9mm so long as the work is done properly.



If you are referring to Hodgdon's website, I think what you were looking at was their data recommendation for "LRN" (Lead Round Nose) bullet. Your charge is a little under the 5.3 gr. minimum recommended for a Speer jacketed bullet. So your charge isn't in much danger of being unsafe as a possible over charge. But I wouldn't reduce it any further providing it works as is.

9mm has somewhat limited case capacity and reloading books caution us that high pressures can result if we violate this space. So if you suspect you are seating a given bullet more deeply than might otherwise be indicated, go lighter on the charge. Said another way, it's not advised to do max. charges on more deeply seated bullets. But this isn't an issue with your already light charge.

I'm pretty cautious when using CFE Pistol. I've experienced some hottish loads using their middle ground recommendations.

I wouldn't worry too much about the differences in seating depth you bring up. The 115 gr. bullet is typically a fairly short one in relation to the heavier weights and therefore provides more internal volume for the powder.



The shape of the bullet (back to ogive) will be the determining factor in die adjustment. Every time you change bullet design in your reloading work, you'll need to check/change the seating depth.



The hourglass effect in 9mm is pretty normal, especially if you're using a carbide sizing die. The 9mm case has a pretty good taper to it. The carbide sizing sleeve in a sizing die cannot be made full length or the effort to size with it would be too great. So they make the sleeve as long as they can but somehow, it tends to reduce the size too much in the middle. When using steel dies (not carbide), you don't see much if any of this.

Re. the bullet bulge in the neck of the case after seating. Pretty normal with 9mm. More pronounced with some case brands than others due to variations in brass wall thickness. If you flare case mouths with a Lyman M die (instead of the one provided in most die sets), this will reduce the bulge. Because the M die makes entry of the bullet into the case more uniform. The bulge will be more noticeable with cases that have been sized with a carbide die. Because of what I wrote in the paragraph immediately above.



I'm curious as to why this might be. A couple of reasons. One, we always have to be cognizant of, "Will the bullet fit and feed through the magazine?" You don't want an overly-long bullet that will hang up in the mag. Two, I've found that the 9mm bullets with a long, sloping ogive tend not to be as accurate as those with a long, straight side wall and fairly short ogive. Like a Hornady HAP or XTP. Or just about any conical 9mm bullet. The long bearing surface of these designs seems to stabilze better in the bore.


What this ^^ member says is what I'm trying to say, only better. :D That space under the straightedge in your google photo isn't anything I would worry about. As long as the rounds are passing the "plunk test".

Considering 9 mm luger brass isn't a straight wall case it can look like the base portion of the brass is slightly bulged when it's really not. It'll fill out with firing.

i wouldn't be worrying about that bit of hourglass shape
 
Wow, can't thank you enough for that highly detailed response. Definitely puts my mind at a little more ease. Hope I'm not making everyone's eyes roll if this is trivial. I just probably overthink things too much in terms of safety. Lol!!

Yeah, somewhat, maybe. But it's infinitely better to ask than end up doing something truly wrong.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top