- This topic is empty.
-
Topic
-
stevendragonjr
stevendragonjr
-
Replies
-
charlesnuss
I like what I see. My requirements are that it chamber in a rather tight throated 9mm and still not be seated so deep as to bulge the case. It goes without saying that we must retain sufficient volume under the boolit such that we can get enough powder to push it at velocities that I see the 147 XTP going.
frankelliott
First, let me say that I’m not a avid pistol shooter, I do have two auto loaders, a 38 Super and a 7.62×25 but don’t shoot them much and i don’t “carry”.
The approx COAL with this bullet in the 9mm Luger will be 1.00. In the 38 Super about 1.24. Those COAL’s will allow you to chamber and eject a live round w/o sticking.
I designed this bullet so that it has a 1 caliber length of barrel contact for accuracy. The 9mm chamber ends with a 90 deg shoulder for head spacing, then at approx. .356 it has a 2 deg lead through the lands and this bullet matches that.
What I’m getting at is, will there be any feeding problems and with the bullet .36 in the case, will that create and pressure problems using standard 147gr loading data?
What kind of COAL are you guys getting with that Hornaday trucated, jacketed bullet and does it feed ok?
With a bullet designed for self-protection, you don’t want any mistakes!
Frank
daveridenour
…
The approx COAL with this bullet in the 9mm Luger will be 1.00. In the 38 Super about 1.24. Those COAL’s will allow you to chamber and eject a live round w/o sticking.
I designed this bullet so that it has a 1 caliber length of barrel contact for accuracy. The 9mm chamber ends with a 90 deg shoulder for head spacing, then at approx. .356 it has a 2 deg lead through the lands and this bullet matches that.
…What kind of COAL are you guys getting with that Hornaday trucated, jacketed bullet and does it feed ok?
With a bullet designed for self-protection, you don’t want any mistakes!
Frank
Frank,
I actually haven’t used the Hornady 147gr XTP-HP in any of my guns. The Hornady 9th Edition Loading Manual lists a COL of 1.100″ for the 147gr XTP in 9mm, a COL of 1.260″ for it in 38 Super, and a COL of 1.140″ for it in 357 SIG.
The Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook 4th Edition has listings for the Lyman #356637 147gr cast lead FP, which has a somewhat similar appearance to the Hornady 147gr XTP. The Lyman CBH 4th Edition lists a COAL of 1.058″ for the Lyman #356637 in 9mm, and a COAL of 1.224″ for it in the 38 Super.
The Speer Reloading Manual #14 has listings for the Speer 147gr Gold Dot HP. The Speer Manual #14 lists a COL of 1.130″ for the 147gr GD-HP in 9mm, a COL of 1.275″ for it in the 38 Super, and a COL of 1.135″ for it in the 357 SIG. The Speer 147gr Gold Dot HP also has a flat base, which makes it look a lot different than the Hornady 147gr XTP-HP and the Lyman #356637, which both have long, “boat-tail” like bases.
From this, it appears that our design will probably have to be seated as much as 0.100″ deeper in the 9mm case than the Hornady 147gr XTP, and about 0.058″ deeper in the 9mm case than the Lyman #356637.
I hope this helps.
Dave
Dave remember we aren’t all using to same alloy @ .358 on both bands aren’t we going to have a little case bulging? and what is the Max.OAL is this design going to give us. I guess it depends on what one plans to use this bullet for,most heavy 9mm tumble in the short range of about 25 yards I can’t tell you how many keyholes I’ve shot with the 9mm I’ve hit pins @10 yards and had them just sit their too. again what’s the main reason for this bullet I’m wanting a good stopper my wife carries a 9mm now so I’m in search of the best stopper I can arm her with.
I’m a fan of the bevel base, yep harder to pour but I’ve had better luck with them on paper. less keyholes and much tighter groupsJust remember the old say you can’t please everybody so you got to please yourself….
I’m still on broad for this heaver 9mm. mold
Thank you for bringing up the issue of the bullet diameter. I requested increasing the size from the .356″ you usually see with the RCBS, Lyman, and SAECO moulds to .358″, but didn’t really explain why. My main problem with most of the other commercially available 9mm moulds available now are they cast bullets that are too small, and this results in the tumbling, keyholing, and leading problems that you described in your post.
The 9mm cartridge is a European military design, and most of the 9mm guns I’ve seen require a cast bullet diameter larger than the nominal .355″/.356″ jacketed bullet diameter to shoot well at any kind of velocities without leading, tumbling, or keyholing. The two 9mm guns I have now, a Browning Hi-Power pistol and an IMI UZI Model A carbine both shoot cast lead bullets sized at .358″ very well. I’ve previously had two Beretta 92’s, and both of those had larger than what is considered “normal” groove diameters (about .358″) too.
I know there are some 9mm’s out there that have tighter chambers/throats. My thinking was that if our bullet was spec’d at .358″, it would work well in guns with the more generous chambers/throats, but it could still be easily sized down to fit those guns with tighter throats. It’s relatively easy to size a bullet down, but it’s not easy to bump one up.
I don’t know anything about your specific gun or your load, but your problem of keyholing could very well be caused by a bullet that’s too small for your groove/bore dimensions. I don’t know if you’ve seen it or not, but there’s a really good “sticky” on CastBoolits’ Wheelguns, Pistols, and Handcannons forum, called “Setting up for boolits in a new 9mm”. You can see that sticky at: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?121607-Setting-up-for-boolits-in-a-new-9mm
Nothing has been etched in stone yet about our new bullet design. Please take a look at that link I posted to that sticky, and see if that might possibly be a cure for your keyholing problem. Please also get back with us on this discussion, and let us know what you think.
Thanks,
Dave
randypatterson
Hi.
I’m new to this forum but not to casting and loading. I was recently told about this project by one of the current members and posters in the thread. I find it interesting as I like the idea of heavy bullets in 9mm.
I like the first drawings posted by DFK and the first drawing posted by Frank. I have had good results with bullets in that style.
I prefer a bullet designed specifically for the 9mm instead of a one size fits all deal.
I have been having excellent results with the discontinued Lyman/Ideal 358212 design at 147 grains with my alloy(range scrap). I am thinking you could flatten the nose and move the material to the back of the bullet giving it a slightly heavier rear driving band(possibly bevel based) and eliminate one of the lube grooves, moving the other one more to the center of the driving band.
This would essentially be a longer version of the 358-135-RF. I have my best accuracy with the 358-135-RF and would like to see a heavier version.
tazman52To begin with, the 9×19 and 38 Super just arn’t compatable with the 357 Sig. Because of the Sig’s 1.14 COAL and it’s short neck, you just can’t make one bullet, fit both.
This bullet will be the best fit for both the 9mm & the Super. The Coal’s will be as follows:
9mm = 1.144 – 1.166
Super = 1.256 – 1.271
The difference in length is based on the head space tolerance.
There shouldn’t be any problem with case bulge because the bands only go into the case .245.
It should be a very accurate bullet because it is supported and centered from the end of the leade to the base of the bullet in the 9mm and should be good in the Super, too.
Frank
To begin with, the 9×19 and 38 Super just arn’t compatable with the 357 Sig. Because of the Sig’s 1.14 COAL and it’s short neck, you just can’t make one bullet, fit both.
This bullet will be the best fit for both the 9mm & the Super. The Coal’s will be as follows:
9mm = 1.144 – 1.166
Super = 1.256 – 1.271
The difference in length is based on the head space tolerance.
There shouldn’t be any problem with case bulge because the bands only go into the case .245.
It should be a very accurate bullet because it is supported and centered from the end of the leade to the base of the bullet in the 9mm and should be good in the Super, too.
Frank
Frank,
Thanks again for all your time and effort. I really like this one!
Let’s see what the others think about it.
Dave
…
IMO I think it would best to stick with a design based off the 147gr XTP. We know it works in jacketed form and how it fits a 9×19, .357sig and etc already so I think it would probably be easier to tweak that design to suit a cast boolit based of it. Also I would not object to maybe a PB 147gr solid and HP version of the Ranch Dog 9mm design either. My $.02.
I’ve never used the Hornady 147gr XTP, but I really like all the other Hornady XTP’s I’ve used. When you first proposed the idea of using the Hornady 147gr XTP for the basis of a 9mm cast bullet design on another discussion thread on the CastBoolits forum some time ago, I liked the idea enough to contact Al Nelson over here about doing the same thing. Al really liked the idea too. Al didn’t have any info on it, however, so he asked if someone could send him a few as samples for measurement, etc., so he could do a drawing on his CAD program he uses for his mills. If you, or someone else, could send some to Al, I’m sure he would be happy to do a drawing of the design, and post it on this thread for our consideration. Once we had that drawing and the actual specs, we could have a better idea about any changes, tweaks, etc. that we might want to make on it.
FWIW. The overall profile of the Hornady 147gr XTP reminds me a lot of the profile of the Lyman #356637 147gr FP, particularly in regard to the long “boat-tail” type bevel base they both have. The only visual difference seems to be the taper of the noses.
Another bullet design from the jacketed world that I think is worth considering for the basis of a cast bullet design is the Speer 147gr Gold Dot HP (Speer #4002). I think the RCBS 147gr FN-PB (RCBS #82221) looks like the Speer Gold Dot, but with 2 lube grooves. If someone could send a few of these to Al Nelson, maybe we could talk him into doing a drawing for these too.
As far as the Ranch Dog design you mentioned, I think the nose profile is very interesting. It reminds me a lot of a Veral Smith LBT/WFN design. What I don’t like about that one is the fact is uses the Lee style tumble lube design with it’s “mini” driving bands, AND a gas check. I would much prefer a design with one rear driving band, one front driving band, and one lube groove.
Dave
…
I prefer a bullet designed specifically for the 9mm instead of a one size fits all deal.
I have been having excellent results with the discontinued Lyman/Ideal 358212 design at 147 grains with my alloy(range scrap). I am thinking you could flatten the nose and move the material to the back of the bullet giving it a slightly heavier rear driving band(possibly bevel based) and eliminate one of the lube grooves, moving the other one more to the center of the driving band.
This would essentially be a longer version of the 358-135-RF. I have my best accuracy with the 358-135-RF and would like to see a heavier version.
tazman52Tazman,
Welcome to the NOE Forum, and Thanks for joining in!
Thanks also for pointing out the Ideal/Lyman 3358212. I haven’t really looked at that one before. With your suggested changes on that one of going from three driving bands and two grease grooves, to two driving bands and one grease groove, I agree that it would really look like an extended version of the NOE 358 135 FN design. I also think the NOE 358 135 profile looks a lot like the RCBS #82221 147gr FN-PB profile too, other than the number of driving bands/grease grooves.
I have a NOE 358 135 RG/HP, and I agree that it’s a great 9mm bullet. Many people seem to think if you could only have one 9mm mould, the NOE 358 135 FN would be the one to have. I couldn’t argue that point.
I still think there are enough potential buyers for 9mm, 38 Super, and 357 SIG moulds out there, we could come up with several possible designs for consideration. It only takes 10 buyers to put a mould into production, and everyone in the group buy would get a 15% discount from the catalog price, so a NOE 2 cavity mould actually wouldn’t cost any more than a 2 cavity Lyman or RCBS mould in most places.
I hope everyone continues with their comments on the designs from Frank, DKF, and anyone else who would like to join in the discussion. I think we have some really good designs coming together so far. We have the chance to design the best heavy 9mm bullet out there. Let’s do it!
Dave
My main concern is weight at this point. I have zero interest in more hollowpoint molds. The fun factor w/ them wore off quickly. My alloy usually weighs slightly more than wheel weights. So a solid version would most likely put me around 153-155 grains. I’d prefer to see the solid version at 147 grains and the hollowpoint falls a few grains less. I’m not looking for a one size fits all bullet. If it’s compromised to work in something other than 9mm then that isn’t good for me.
I’m sorry guy’s. I have so many of these drawing stored, I grab the wrong one when I posted last night. I just replaced it, in the above post.
This one, I named L-S for Luger – Super.
Notice the the tapered lead area of this bullet is different. For some reason the program was drawing it wrong for 2 deg. I noticed it yesterday, because it wasn’t matching the chamber lead of 2 deg and I fiddled with it by putting in the length and diameter to change it. I had entered 2 deg to begin with, as you can see in the upper rt conner but, in all the other drawings, it only gave me 1/2 the leade angle. I’ll have to tell TMT about that.
Frank
My main concern is weight at this point… My alloy usually weighs slightly more than wheel weights. So a solid version would most likely put me around 153-155 grains. I’d prefer to see the solid version at 147 grains and the hollowpoint falls a few grains less. I’m not looking for a one size fits all bullet. If it’s compromised to work in something other than 9mm then that isn’t good for me.
Dragon,
I won’t quibble about your concern on the weight issue. The weight as specified when using wheel weight alloy on Frank’s drawing wasn’t that critical of an issue to me.
Frank’s previous drawing showed the bullet design as 150 grains as a flat point, when using wheel weight alloy. Frank noted in his last post, however, that there was a glitch in the TMT software he’s using, and it didn’t put in the proper 2 degree leade angle on the bullet as he had specified. Frank corrected that problem, and his latest revised drawing now shows the bullet as 147 grains as a flat point. I hope that satisfies your concerns. And, I don’t care what alloy you are using!
I would be happy to go along with whatever the majority of the Design Team Members want.
Hopefully, more people will offer their suggestions and input too.
Dave
charlesnuss
frankelliott
daveridenour
devinfry
randypatterson
johnmortimer- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.