- This topic is empty.
-
Topic
-
stevendragonjr
stevendragonjr
-
Replies
-
blikseme300
Guys,
This design looks pretty good. However, the front band should be reduced to allow some of the band to be a bore ride diameter. This would greatly help chambering in tighter bores when seating out farther than the Hornady. Also be aware that the Hornady seats really low in the case and thus the boat tail on it. 9mm cast does not need to seat as deep. OAL for the 9mm as you all know is 1.169″ which with a flat nose would put somewhere around 1.140″ as max. Without the reduce for bore ride, You either seat at 1.100″ and chamber with no problem or seat farther out and not chamber.
Seating farther out helps with internal pressure delivery. If one was to mimic the seating depth of the condom bullet you would in turn also have similar pressures. However, if seated out at say 1.135″ instead of 1.100″ your pressure would be more linear and perhaps not have leading as opposed to running the higher pressure and probably having some leading even if minor.
Just my two cents worth.The colored text is what I am concerned about. I looked at the photo on the Hornady site of the pattern bullet and saw that there is a substantial parallel portion of the bullet body ahead of the case mouth. Most of my 9mm pistols are of European manufacture and their tolerances are quite tight as I cannot seat my favorite Lee 120TC sized to .3575″ with more than .0025″ of the parallel body exposed or I have failure of going into battery. I have no desire to cut new throats or leades to accommodate a new or different cast bullet. (Pistols are BHP’s and CZ’s.)
randypatterson
As I read the drawing Frank posted, with .260 of the bullet inside the case you get an OAL of 1.140 approximately. That is seated so the front driving band is even with the mouth of the case. The bullet has a 2 degree taper from there forward giving you your bore riding nose within just a short distance. It is different than the bullet shown on the Hornady site.
This bullet would feed through my Beretta barrels very easily.I am in for a 4 cavity in this bullet design.
daveridenour
charlesnuss
SwedeNelson
andyadkins
Al,
I would like to see the following design or similar design that will wiegh 145~147 with the hollow cavity. It would be around 150~155 without the hollow piont. The link is the design as shown on Tom’s site.
It is a proven performer. I would say a deep conical hollow piont would give possitive expansion even at sub velocites.
Unless Al wants to run both designs. We need a vote!!
I know there is alot of fun in designing our own boolit. However, this design on Tom’s site would be perfect in my humble opinion. That is if we can all get past the fact that we didn’t design it. My opinion is anything less than this would be just that less.
Thanks,
AndyHere’s link again guys.
http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=35-155P-D.pngHere’s link again guys.
http://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=35-155P-D.pngI will commit to buying one of both Frank’s designs, and one of GoodAlloy’s/Accurate 35-155P hollow point designs TODAY.
Dave
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
Al,
I believe this is Frank’s latest drawing and specs (Post #37).
Dave
frankelliott
Ok, I’ve made a couple of minor changes.
1. Increased the length of the front band by .010. There is not much leaway in COAL for the Luger. The .060 band will allow a COAL of at least 1.2 and I don’t think you can get that much in the mag.
2. Widened the GG by .010 and took .008 out of the depth.
I also added a flat nose drawing.
No disrespect ment but, I feel it’s a mistake to go with a “proven preformer” design plus, it’s already available and can be ordered on demand. I’m hoping to advance the accuracy of of the heavy 9mm by matching the band to the leade.
The Accurate design has a approximation of about a 4.5 deg angle, in front of the front band. That’s more than twice the lead angle of the 9×19 and the Accurate bullet is .357 and the guy’s are wanting a .358.
If this one is put into production, it would be interesting to see a side by side accuracy comparison.
Frank
Al,
I want to THANK you and Frank, along with everyone else who helped in the design of this mould and to make it happen!
Here’s the link to the Active Group Buy thread for anyone who wants to sign up for one: http://noebulletmolds.com/smf/index.php/topic,644.0.html
Thanks,
Dave
Frank,
I like the changes that you have made to the design. Matching band and lead is a possitive improvement. Meplat increase will help in terminal performance. I believe from what i see that this will be a very good shooting boolit. I would expect good results in the accuracy dept. I just wanted a deep, deep conical hollow piont. As for making an accurate design that is heavy and will work great in a 9X18 I am hopefull you have acheived that goal. However for terminal performance I would prefer a deep conical HP. This design will expand with correct alloy but not as well as a deep conical. I will say that I do apprecaite your help with this design and look forward to playing with it. Mabe Al can offer a deeper hollow piont pin as well as the one in the drawing???
Thanks,
Andy
cecildavis
blikseme300
randypatterson
daveridenour
charlesnuss
SwedeNelson
andyadkins
frankelliott
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.