The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:55 pm
It’s my observation that many of us who reload tend not to reload for all of our calibers, tending to load for limited purposes. So I think that your experience is probably applied over a broader range than most of us. I actually
have the dies for most of the calibers I shoot, but I only actually reload for one of them right now—.308 Winchester—and plan to add two others, .300 Blackout and .30-30. And although I have worked up a
decent hunting load for the .308, most of what I’ve done in that caliber has been aimed at target shooting, and I now have a really good load for that. But I’d like to work up some good hunting loads for both the .300 Blk and .30-30. Good commercial ammo is available for all of these calibers, but I want to bag some game with ammo that I built. I’m especially interested in duplicating/exceeding the 160 grain Hornady LEVERevolution FTX .30-30 cartridge, which shoots very well in my Marlin.
But otherwise, I don’t have a lot of interest as a hobbyist, if you will, in reloading pistol ammo in order to wring every last iota of performance out of it.
IF I have an interest in reloading pistol ammo, it’s primarily about having
cheap ammo. I don’t compete, so COAL v. chamber dimension doesn’t really matter to me as long as it is within nominal SAAMI spec for the cartridge. At some point I’ll buy a multi-stage press so I can load a lot of it at once. But to be honest, I just don’t have the patience to build several hundred pistol rounds using my single-stage Rockchucker. If I were a competitive shooter, maybe I’d feel differently about it.
Anyway, all of this is to say that by extension, the chamber length of a particular brand of pistol doesn’t inform whether or not I buy that pistol. I either buy it for its reputation for reliability and features, or for its esthetic appeal—or both—trusting that the chamber dimensions are within SAAMI spec for the caliber. I bought my first Glock because of my wife, as I’ve previously explained. I bought the rest for the first reason—their reputation for reliability. But as I’ve owned them over time, their appeal has morphed also into an appreciation for their blue collar ethic and plebeian simplicity. Yeah, they’re ugly, but they’re not.
I certainly understand the logic. But for me it's about being more than a hobbyist. I started loading 9mm back when the cost advantage was even lower than it is today. I felt that I could make better ammo than I could buy. I have that mindset for every caliber I shoot.
I loaded on single stage presses for many years. A Redding Boss was the last I bought. I bought a LEE Classic Turret press in 2008, and even then, it took a while before I started using it extensively. I don't want to start a press war, but problems exist today, mostly with 9mm case variations that are worse today than they once were. As a result, I don't ever expect to buy a progressive press. The advantage of an auto-indexing turret press is that you only work with one case at a time. So while you don't get a new round with each pull of the lever after the first 4 pulls, you can sense by feel when there are things like case thickness variations that you would not feel by operating a progressive. Considering the rate of productivity reloading on a single stage, the production rate possible with the LEE Classic Turret is high enough that I'm satisfied. Particularly with the lowest priced ammo in brass cases suitable for reloading, case thickness variation is a fact of life. I do not, however, sort by headstamp, exactly. I simply sort for brands that have thicker case-walls and cases that are in-spec. Essentially, case-wall thicknesses above .011" go into the thick case bin. And for those who may not know, that also effects OACL variations. It doesn't take long to know the variations by brand.
For some time now I have felt that handloaders deserve their own safety entity. It is not SAAMI. When you think about who the members of SAAMI are, Arms and Ammo-Makers, handloading is not exactly in the best interest of the ammo-makers. No single cartridge has gone through more industry changes than the 9 x 19mm, even some prejudice against the cartridge because it was not developed in America. Still didn't stop John Moses Browning from developing the Hi-Power later finished by his Belgian associate.
The first major change came when the 9mm was really taking off in law enforcement use. SAAMI switched to testing by PSI and lowered the pressure rating at the same time from 35,700 CUP, as it was when I started loading it, down to 35,000 PSI which is the equivalent of 33,000 CUP. And they gave no rational explanation for doing it! Anything above 35,000 PSI became +P up to a limit of 38,500 PSI. And while it is said that there is no established limit for +P+, there is the "suggestion" that it not exceed 40,000 PSI. The honest truth is that it is very doubtful that even +P+ rated 9mm exceeds the +P limit of 38,500 PSI and very often, there is no need for a +P rating for a good many 9mm loads that have +P printed on the box and headstamp. Cases even bear that out because there is NO modification made to 9mm cases for +P loads other than the headstamp on the case. They are no different than the standard pressure ammo cases. So the +P designation has for the most part become a marketing tool. Not so much a safety consideration.
Consequently, the .40 S&W was also given a Max Average Pressure, MAP, rating of 35,000 PSI by SAAMI. Almost single-handedly, the .40 S&W became known as the cartridge that caused the widespread use of the term, Ka-Boom. Then when SIG and Federal got their joint venture rated for SAAMI MAP, the .357 SIG was allowed a 40,000 PSI MAP. And remember, with just slight modifications to the .40 S&W parent case. I don't know about anyone else, but I trust the 9mm case at 40,000 PSI more than I would the .357 SIG. Not by any means to try to match the performance of .357 SIG loads, but as a safety issue. I was made aware of a test conducted to see how much pressure was required to blow out the case-head of a 9mm cartridge. Let me just say that it's more than twice of what the .357 SIG MAP is.
So pardon me if I do not consider SAAMI to be a safety institute for handloading. More than anything else, they've been about aiding the ammo-makers in controlling what is possible by handloading the 9 x 19mm. That is the biggest issue concerning the shortening of 9mm ammo over time. Naturally, the arms-makers have to follow suit, even Glock with the Gen Vs, because short chambers are more condusive to accuracy with short loaded ammo. Now even the Europeans are following that lead where you'll see that with the ammo tested in the CIP system. The pressure standard you'll see listed today as Max for the 9 x 19mm is 2350 BARS. Not so many years ago it was 2600 BARS.
The other rabbit they've pulled out of their . . . hat, is due to the almost universal shape of the 124 gr. FMJ that is used by all for the manufacturing of 9mm NATO ammo. It can still be loaded as long as it's always been and fit current pistols with short chambers because of the slim and long ogive of the bullet that at the same time restricts the OACL for JHPs. In terms of pressure, if say, you're shooting a standard pressure factory load of 34,000 PSI that has a built in safety margin of 1000 PSI below the standard pressure Max, by lengthening the load and staying at the same exact pressure of 34,000 PSI, the longer burn column of the powder will increase the velocity of the load. Provided that you can trust the ammo-makers to be using the powder best suited for the purpose. Most of them obviously understand the need to use a low-flashing powder for defense ammo, but that says nothing about the powders burn rate. Particularly for 124 gr. JHPs in 9mm, you can have your cake and eat it too by using a powder like Ramshot Silhouette that's slow enough in burn rate to take up most of the space in the 9mm's combustion area, or usable space under the bullet, while it's also treated to give low flash. Hodgdon followed suit with CFE Pistol and they're essentially chemistry based on the old and bold HS6. The thing is, however, the greatest embarrassment likely suffered by Winchester, was the discontinuation of their powder called Winchester Action Pistol, WAP. Seems the beancounters didn't have the patience to let the powder establish itself in the market, so it was discontinued. Actually made by St Marks then in the Ball Powder manufacturing facility that was once owned by Winchester, they had a powder without a customer. Western Powder Co. took care of that where the renaming resulted in Ramshot Silhouette. Ramshot even used existing load data for WAP through their first 3 load guides. And while Hodgdon owns Winchester Powder Co. today, they did not get WAP in the bargain. Whether or not CFE Pistol is the equal of Silhouette remains to be seen. And when in doubt, check Brian Enos' forum. Not so you can make 9mm MAJOR that is beyond the pressure limit for most 9mm service pistols, but to find what powders they're using to do it. By and large, however, the demographic is not any different than for handloaders of 9 x 19mm, 9mm NATO and 9mm +P. You have the largest portion following the lead of others, while you hope the fewer at the top of the food chain know what they are doing.
So, pardon me again for taking the long way around, but because I can make longer 9 x 19mm loads, the first benefit is accuracy. By sorting my cases by thick and thin, I can maintain OACL tolerances that nearly match what I could do with my REDDING Boss single stage. Those loads will have the least "bullet jump" from the case into the bore. The same principal most rifle ammo reloaders follow for top accuracy. Since the load is longer, even at standard pressure using the correct powder to achieve it, the longer burn column also results in higher velocity. No doubt some have seen my post or articles on the Western blog about handlaoding 147 gr. JHPs in 9mm. A performance level is possible that essentially renders the .40 S&W moot. I've never had an interest in .357 SIG because I don't want to handload a bottle-necked handgun cartridge where carbide die sets are few and very expensive. In the long run, there simply is not enough boost in performance until you get to a level of recoil with pistols identical in size to 9mm service pistols that it is clear today that the .357 SIG is in decline almost as much as its parent cartridge, the .40 S&W.
I always enjoy someone trying to build an air of superiority by saying that handloading for handguns is simpler than handloading for rifles. I would submit that anyone who can handload 1 can handload the other. So taking a page from the rifle bullet book, most of us understand the advantage bullets have by caliber when the sectional density is increased. So, why do we not apply the same principle to handgun loads? It's like some great revelation that heavy bullets in 6.5mm outperform .308 bullets at long range. The 9mm 147 gr. JHP has a higher sectional density than a .40/10mm 180 gr. JHP as well as a .451" 230 gr. JHP. Kinda changes the perspective, don't it. Of course, the ammo-makers can NOT make the higher velocity 147 gr. JHP loads except that CorBon was doing it in the early days of the 147 gr. JHP bullet when the ammomakers were enthralled with subsonic ammo loads that resulted in lawsuits due to over-penetration due to little or no expansion. CorBon was SAAMI then, so how is it that only Peter Pi seemed to understand that the expansion needed would only come from higher velocity, and thus his 147 gr. JHP +P load was rated super-sonic at 1125 FPS.
Point being that it is handloading that allows for such discoveries. I want my pistols to be capable of such handloads, the smaller "boutique" ammo-makers like Double-Tap, Underwoods and Buffalo Bore understand things pretty well themselves, but since the pistol-makers are part of the SAAMI alliance, they have to make their loads shorter, to the point that a +P+ designation is the result.
