TexasCHLforum.com

New to reloading as a matter fact Ive yet to reload any ammo. I purchased some 115gr round nose TMJ .355 projectiles but when I received them I weighed them an they don’t weigh 115gr their actually 113gr and as far as base measurement it’s not .355 either more like .352, .353 some are not even perfectly round at the base since I take one measurement and get .353 spin the projectile some and remeasure and get .357 so am I screwed or can these be salvaged by a Lee resizing die? Thanks in advance.

Glad AndyC gave an answer as I was not sure.
I measured the following on some of my bullets.
Remington 115 gr UMC FMJ
115.7
115.5
115.7
115.1
115.0

All measured .3545 at the base

Next were Winchester 124 FMJ
124.0
124.0
123.7
123.8
123.7


All measured .3545 at the base

All of mine appeared uniformly round at the base. I guess the final answer will be when you try them. Weight variations I expect but diameter measurements I would think would be more uniform. Let us know how they work. Do you want to tell us what brand they are?

I am going to say i have shot cast bullets that were not perfect and I think a lot of the cast bullet man
say if you not shooting for record and just plinking shoot them all and don't worry about it.
Match shooting is a different matter. I don't shoot for record and I don't worry about it
Super hot loads I use Speer, Hornaday even have a few Norma left from a by gone day. Some days
I forgot early Lyman books said 22 grains of 2400 with 429421 linotype were just fine. I think the books have backed off
of that load. That pales to the S&W 500.

I came to have fun.
ET-ret

.355 is 9 mm. .357 is 38/357. Which are you reloading? Are your bullets cast or jacketed? If cast for 9 mm, size and load you will be ok.

Cummins24 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:51 pm New to reloading as a matter fact Ive yet to reload any ammo. I purchased some 115gr round nose TMJ .355 projectiles but when I received them I weighed them an they don’t weigh 115gr their actually 113gr and as far as base measurement it’s not .355 either more like .352, .353 some are not even perfectly round at the base since I take one measurement and get .353 spin the projectile some and remeasure and get .357 so am I screwed or can these be salvaged by a Lee resizing die? Thanks in advance.

I've never had them that far off- I would send them back. You will have more trouble with the case gauge from the egg shaped ones. I had some poorly cast projectiles one time and they constantly hung up in the gauge, wouldn't seat squarely and generally shot poor. A few grains will not change anything in handgun bullets but being .003" undersized is a lot. That's enough to lower neck tension to the point that setback could be an issue. You'll be chasing inconsistent issues that vary by the round.

It's not the way you want to begin your loading career.

Why I will say it's not alright. Jacketed bullets will fluctuate in weight. As long as it's by decimals of a grain it's not a big deal. Undersize, or even oversize can be a problem. The bullet used in the handload data was very likely .355" and if you load a larger diameter bullet, pressure increases. How much? That depends on the extra diameter. The issue with under-diameter bullets becomes a greater concern. After seating and taper-crimping, the bullet is held in place by case-neck tension. Your dies are made for a specific dia., and if you use undersized bullets, they may not get enough case-neck tension. This can lead to set-back: the bullet being seated to an even greater depth upon making contact with the barrel's feed ramp. It doesn't take a great deal of set-back to increase the cartridge's pressure dramatically. Some load manuals are better than others in explaining this.

If I ordered bullets where the dia. was stated as .355" but as small as you mention, I'd send them back. A good deal is more than just about price. Find a company that delivers what they state. Another thing for me personally; in 33 years of handloading I've rarely used FMJ bullets when a JHP is about the same price. One discount bullet I can recommend as being uniform is the 124 gr. JHP made and sold by RMR. The downside is that due to the nose, or ogive, shape, they need to be seated a bit deeper than others. They are, however, compatible with Sierra and Lyman data where the Sierra 125 gr. JHP is used. Another very good bullet is the 124 gr. JHP from Everglades that allows longer OACL. When I haven't loaded JHPs, I've loaded .356" dia hard cast, and now poly-coated bullets. Remember that in order to avoid leading the barrel, the cast lead bullet will need to be .001" larger than the barrel's groove dia. Since you use an oversize bullet, the case mouth that got a slight flare in expanding will only need the case-mouth returned a nominal dia, Taper crimping is not necessary with cast and poly-coated bullets. And if you like an FMJ profile, one can be had. I've been very pleased with bullets from SNS Casting. It is very much worth the small increase in price to buy the poly-coated version of a hard cast bullet.

Some of the opinions you will hear about taper crimping are vastly overblown. It ain't magic, and I would recommend one that isn't advertised as a magical solution. The best I've used is the separate taper crimp die from Redding, and it's certainly more than about the brand, and it's not expensive. They are made exactly as they should be. I can explain in depth if need be, but it works in 2 phases. One to get adequate tension on the bullet where the die has the main taper that acts only on the case-neck. Then there's a much smaller secondary taper that acts strictly upon the case-mouth. Some reloaders get overly concerned about improper headspacing possible if too much taper crimp is applied. It's a bit of paranoia considering how far you'd need to reduce the dia of the case-mouth to keep it from headspacing. at .002" or less of taper crimp, the case-mouth is no where near undersized and to apply so much taper crimp that would prevent it from properly head spacing would cause significant deformation of the bullet. I have written a number of articles on the 9 x 19mm, and one specifically on the geometry of getting it right that you will find here: https: https://blog.westernpowders.com/2015/11 ... e-success/

K-Texas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:52 pm One discount bullet I can recommend as being uniform is the 124 gr. JHP made and sold by RMR.

I concur, I took delivery of 3 boxes of those last week!

The OP hasn't been active on the forum since he posted his question in January 2018. Perhaps he'll return some day to get the answers he wanted.....

Well, we really don't have a convenient location to shoot gun games, but I've been working on a comp load, anyway, with AA No 2. Great accuracy and light recoil. It is an effective bullet for defense loads up to 1180 FPS in my tests.

Most 9mm Minor comp shooters seem to prefer 147s for a lower perceived level of recoil. With this load I've been working on at +/- 4.2 grs. of No 2, I don't know how recoil could be practically lighter at 130 PF to allow a bit of cushion for firing over anyone's chronograph.

I was shooting and handloading for Magnum revolvers before I decided to pursue greater accuracy from 9mm handloads. Back then, foreign and bargain 9 x 19mm was so cheap that not many bothered handloading for it. And as such, I never really considered a lower recoil load.

As I mentioned, pistols with shorter chambers will require a shorter OACL with the RMR 124 gr. JHP. For those pistols I load to 1.085" and just a tad longer than Sierra and Lyman loaded with the 125 gr. Sierra JHP, so either manuals data works well. I've been using a Canik TP9sa for handload development originally, but now I find myself using it for more options. It has no OACL restrictions, so I am able to load that bullet to 1.122"/28.5mm. In the link I posted for the article on the Western Powders blog, I covered the technique for finding the correct OACL for the specific bullet you handload for a specific pistol. Hopefully it will benefit those who have questions regarding that.