Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

OAL/Headspacing a 9mm

Discussion in 'Ammunition & Reloading' started by davef, Mar 16, 2014.

  1. davef

    davef S.E. pdx Active Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    114
    Hello Ive been reloading 3 years and Im just starting to use montana gold 124g hp. Ive been using xtreme 124g rn. First the specs then Ive got a question. I have loaded the Montana Gold 115g hp before.

    the barrel is a lone wolf. the gun is a glock 19.

    So I've been using a oal of 1.130 on the xtremes in order to get the case to headspace on the case mouth. its a really accurate load.

    Im having difficulty with the headspace on theMontana gold 124g hp. Im trying to make a nice target load. In order to headspace off the case mouth I need to seat these puppies to an oal of 1.060. When I do they slip in the chamber buttery smooth with a slight "thunk" when it lands. My last experiment with these, I used an oal of 1.090 and 3.8g of titegroup which, if you've used titegroup before, know its on the mid to bottom of the range. I was surprised to see signs of overpressure (primers starting to flatten out) despite this average load. At first I thought it was due to the oal but, after pouring over much load data, I realized that 1.090 wasn't that extreme for this particular bullet. I began to wonder if it was headspacing off the extractor because the bullet was too long. After dropping in one at 1.090 I realized that it was indeed too long. The bullet was making contact w the lands and I bet that was the reason the pressure was high enough to start to flatten the primers.

    Heres my question. Im just not sure about using an oal length of 1.060 but thats definitely whats required with this particular barrel and bullet combo to get it to headspace properly off the case mouth. Would you just use the minimum load for titegroup and see where you were at? I just have no idea what the pressure might be like from an oal like that. Does that oal look intimidating to anyone else?

    thanks
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2014
  2. Benchrest

    Benchrest The Desert Planet Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    827
    Likes Received:
    515
    PM me the bullet OAL and I'll run it through QuickLOAD.
     
  3. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf SE Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,854
    Likes Received:
    7,244
    It won't headspace off the extractor unless you crimp the heck out of the case mouth or the case is way too short.
     
  4. Mikej

    Mikej Portland Gold Supporter Gold Supporter 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    3,189
    Likes Received:
    3,162
    I am in the same boat....9mm Montana Gold, 115
    I was in the same boat as you.....

    9mm Montana Gold, 115gr AND 124gr JHPs. The sources recommendations of the 1.100-1.135 neighborhood ran fine in the SR9c and the Keltec P11. However when we got the Kimber Pro Aegis I had the issue you have. I found that dropping the OAL to 1.085 solved the problem, and that's what we shoot now with NO high pressure signs. I'm not loading Titegroup though, and I load on the lower end of specs.

    Do you have another, slightly slower powder you can use? I left Titegroup as I wanted to have a little more range of powder weights than Titegroup offers, in those small shells. I was using 231 with good results, and have started using HS-6...No pressure signs with either. I was using 4.2gr of 231, and found 6.4gr HS-6 works well. Seems to me in those small shells a slower powder has a better chance of completely burning, cleanly, without the pressure spike you're likely to get with a "Fast" powder. Where something like Titegroup or Bullseye in a .38 Special is ideal because of the larger case.

    And, of course, work up loads from written, tested specs from the low end always watching for pressure signs!

    Mike
     
  5. davef

    davef S.E. pdx Active Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    114
    thanks for all the answers so far.

    benchrest.. the bullet oal is .575, the primer is tula #500, the charge at this point is 3.8g of titegroup.

    Mike. I do have and have used unique but i really like titegroup and have several pounds of it. for me it burns really clean, its very economical, and i like its snappy nature.

    after doing a whole bunch of web crawling im finding out that many people are using the load data for the Hornady xtp hp 124g and the oal for those are 1.060 so Im beginning to feel more comfortable about trying it out.
     
  6. Benchrest

    Benchrest The Desert Planet Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    827
    Likes Received:
    515
    Dave

    Modeling XTP 124gr at 1.060 w/ 3.8gr of Titegroup you're over max SAAMI by 4K.
     
  7. Mikej

    Mikej Portland Gold Supporter Gold Supporter 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    3,189
    Likes Received:
    3,162
    My point is....Maybe Titegroup is a little TOO snappy for your OAL? If you load .45 and .38 you'd be good with Titegroup.
     
  8. davef

    davef S.E. pdx Active Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    114
    dang that seems huge. could it be that I gave you the wrong oal of the bullet? I admit i didnt write the number down and i am an engineer so Ive got a bunch of numbers floating around in my head at any given moment. I figured I could remember ONE number between my basement and the computer. lol!! Ill double check when I get home.

    I dont get it. I cant imagine im the only one who uses a glock, titegroup and montana gold 124g. The oal of the cartridge definately needs to be 1.060 to get the headspacing right with this lone wolf barrel. Ive been reading different forums and theres guys running glocks titgeroup and mg124 who are posting lengths of 1.100 and greater and I just dont get how they are getting them to work without hitting the lands
     
  9. Benchrest

    Benchrest The Desert Planet Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    827
    Likes Received:
    515
    Again, modeling off the XTP, you need to increase your OAL to 1.085, or decrease your charge to 3.5gr.

    DISCLAIMER: Use at your own risk - work off published data.
     
  10. davef

    davef S.E. pdx Active Member

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    114
    Thanks benchrest, I was thinking id reduce the charge to 3.6 so im glad you chimed in. ill drop it to 3.5 and see how it works. boy that quickload software is pretty great. wish they would port it over to the mac.
     
  11. Benchrest

    Benchrest The Desert Planet Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    827
    Likes Received:
    515
    Anytime Dave!

    I've only been handloading for a year and a half, but I've learned to trust QuickLOAD (my father in law used it for many years), as it's predicted results have always been accurate.

    New loads are always based on known, published data - but the ability to tweak with QuickLOAD...

    Best $150 I've spent!

    And can't you run it with an emulator? Heck, doesn't modern MAC run Windows software anyway (ignorant PC guy here!)?

    Jason