Lite and Heavy 9MM bullets

[KHornet]

I shoot mostly 115 to 130 gr bullets thru my 9mm's, and they
serve me well. Have never tried the small 100 grain or the 147-
150 gr, being cheap, and saving lead. My P1 Walther shoots best
with 115 Speer jacketed and no jams and quite accurate, so I will
not fix what works. My American made 9's do very well with 6
cav lee mold bullets, but my 2 molds do drop heavy by about 5
grains. Am just curious about the little 9mm bullets and the big
close to 150's. Am just curious about loads, functioning, accuracy
etc.

Paul

 

[RBHarter]

I have the good fortune of feeding 2 9mm that will feed empty cases . To that end I tried some 148 WC in them which not surprisingly shot very well with I think 2.5 gr of Unique . As an interesting point they we're also very close to POA at 25 yd and around 650-700 fps . The 358432 148 gr is the one I have I think . I loaded it nose out , in the Ruger I might get away seating in the top lube groove for a little more case space .

I loaded a few 358-158 RNFP Lee but getting them up to the sights was hard on me and bad for the gun .

In an effort , a very short lived effort , to consolidate I bought the 358-125 RNFP Lee at 130 gr and it shoots fine in the old Smith 38 and both 9s . I wanted a 147 but decided it would be completely redundant to the mould stocks .

 

[popper]

My 135gr RNFP (35-135S) runs fine from several XDs, even the compact. Tried some steel coated 147s in a Sig but gave most of the box way. They were a tapered blunt nose and fed fine, just not going to put them through my gun.

 

[358156 hp]

I load a lot of NOEs 135 gr 9mm Ranch Dog, and I recently backed it up with a 4 cav Lyman 356637 147 gr. My 135 gr NOEs come out around 142 gr. (powder coated), and I've only test cast with the 356637 so far, but those bullets averaged 152 gr. While it seems obvious that my alloy is a bit heavy, I run range scrap and do my load development to suit what I have in front of me, not what some book says I should have. Anyway, I get good results with the 135/142 gr, accuracy is good, and I keep it subsonic in 9mm, but flog it pretty hard in 357 SIG with no noticeable loss of accuracy. I bought the 356637 because I have to be dead on with seating depth for one of my 9mms or feeding suffers, so the 356637 is intended to address this issue since it has a smaller meplat. FWIW, the 356637 is a boat tail design (or heavily beveled, whichever suits you) to address the inner case taper in 9mm. I am currently shopping for a 124-5 gr 9mm design I can live with as well, I though the 135 gr would split the difference weightwise for me between the mid-weights and the heavies, but that "one size fits all" approach has never worked out for me yet. No wonder I have so many moulds!

 

[CZ93X62]

Oh, the 9mm Luger.......on its home continent (Europe) the arms and their ammunition are pretty consistent--a 123-125 grain bullet running in the 1200-1250 FPS bracket from full-sized service pistol barrels. This is the form our current issued M-9 NATO STANAG pistol ammo takes. It is a good load, though I think a FMJ/TC would be a much better bullet form to enhance lethality while staying with the Hague Accords for non-expanding bullets. One wonders why we worry about expanding bullets when our opposite numbers in The Sandbox come at us with IEDs and lop off the heads of people they find objectionable. Whatever.

The 147 grain "Sub-Sonic" was designed for use in suppressed 9mm pistols and SMGs, NOT for general usage or self-defense roles. FBI's adoption and exhortation of this load as The Next New Thing is a fraudulent hijacking--its sole benefit is that it provides gentle recoil impulses that enable marginally-trained and generally-disinterested law enforcement shooters to "qualify" adequately at minimal cost. Re-quals cost money--for ammo and for personnel salaries. One unintended benefit of these longer/heavier bullets--they do shoot VERY WELL. They can be quite accurate in good pistols, whether driven at their sedate sub-sonic rate (950-975 FPS) or boosted to their full potential in a service-length pistol barrel--1075-1100 FPS. Still "sub-sonic" (in a pistol), and a whole lot more effective on evil-doers and malefactors. More recoil, of course--about like the 125 grain/1250 FPS stuff I cart around in my P-226 on the few times it hits the streets with me.

In summary--the FBI sees the 9mm as a 38 Special with high-cap magazines. A more cogent view (from the standpoint of the gun enthusiast) is that the 9mm straddles the void between the 38 Special and the 357 Magnum right at about its mid-point, when all 3 calibers are getting run at their full potential. Most USA ammomakers ignore that reality with enthusiasm. The 9mm can be A LOT MORE than what Americans have been led to believe.

 

[Pistolero]

The good news is that the new US issue 9mm Para ammo is sort of TC, maybe call it a long RNFP bullet and a
HOLLOW POINT, which has been officially blessed as legal for certain war application. I will not try to
explain it, other than to applaud it. Ball is XM1152, HP is XM1153.



I have seen a photo where the ball round looked more TC. This appears to be computer generated
images.

It is not totally clear when the JHP M1153 ammo will be used, hopefully in ALL situations calling
for real warshot. Leave the FMJ for training.

Bill

 

[358156 hp]

The 9mm is a high capacity 38 Spl +P. If it weren't for the high capacity option, and relatively light recoil the 9mm would have died before any of us were even born. Untold millions of dollars in bullet design research revived its imminent demise in the last couple of decades. The 40 S&W could have been the final nail in its coffin if it had been fully developed before its release. Instead.... "oh, it kicks too hard". I will admit that the money spent of bullet research benefited other calibers as well, but like most research it was intended to prove an existing position, not to find facts.

 

[CZ93X62]

FACTS?? In military and LE equipment selections? Surely, you jest. FACTS would get in the way of The Prime Directive--steering purchasing agents toward the correct lobbyist's pet supplier. Get your priorities in order, I say!

 

[358156 hp]

FACTS?? In military and LE equipment selections? Surely, you jest. FACTS would get in the way of The Prime Directive--steering purchasing agents toward the correct lobbyist's pet supplier. Get your priorities in order, I say!

Well said.

 

[KHornet]

Good info, but nothing on the lite weights. Somebody
must have tried them?

Paul

 

[freebullet]

Paul
We run the rd95 fn & Lee 102 rn @356 over 4.2-4.5gr tg with the initial test run up to 4.8gr. They zip from pistols about 12-1300. From the carbine they run past 1400. Lyman cbh4 has the data.

 

[CZ93X62]

I haven't pursued lighter-weight bullets in the 9mm enough to talk about them intelligently.

 

[RBHarter]

I have an NOE 358-95 RNFP . My box data says 3.5 Unique in WW 380 ACP . It would probably take about 4.5 in a 9mm . It's a pretty impressive twilight flash in a 2" LCP less so but impressive in a G42 also. I should probably try it in all 4 with Hercules Red Dot just to say I did .
I tried some 360 dia RB in the HP-9 I don't recall the load but it seemed like a lot of powder at the time . Stove piped if it cleared chamber , Ideal 35866 , 80gr .

 

[KHornet]

Well Bruce, you convinced me that I ought to
get a 6 cav lee in the 102 gr. So think I will
order one today. A quart jar ought to hold
a whoop of the little fellows. Would think
I would lube and size them per your rec.
at .356, and then give them a coat of
45-45-10.

Paul

 

[Cherokee]

KHornet - you might consider sizing to .357, that works best in all my 380's.

 

[Pistolero]

My first mold ever was the 105 Lee 38 SWC, which looks a good bit like a mini H&G 68.
I had never seen an H&G 68 at that point. In any case, it shot very well indeed out of my
only 9mm at that time, a BHP. Fed perfectly, and a good bullet in all ways, IMO, for 9mm
for a plinker. I have loaded a few dozen in .380, they worked fine there, too.

My experience with 9mm is that .356 sizing caused problems with some guns, and .357 or 358
sizing fixes them. My current std 9mm used .358 diam Lee 122 TCs.

Bill

 

[freebullet]

The data I shared is for 9mm.

Same bullets/powder work in 380 but much less to reach the top.

Ain't never had an issue with 356 in 9mm. Maybe minor leading in fat barrels. I have had quite a bit of issue trying to cram 357-359 in tight 9's though. Ymmv

 

[Pistolero]

I have many 9mm Paras. None have ever balked at .358 Lee 122 TC. Using RN cast is an
error in 9mm, IME. Forces too much bullet into the (possibly nonexistent) throat. The
Lee 122 TC has no problems this way. Neither does the 105 Lee SWC, if you load them right.

Bill

 

[freebullet]

I've had at least 3 that wouldn't accept anything 356 or bigger when new. The bigger mistake imo is having a bunch of ammo picky 9's around. I prefer to massage them into working in a less picky fashion & take full advantage of the calibers tiny case capacity. Doesn't matter if we're talking 9 or any other, having them function with just about any bullet/ ammo is always most preferred for me. Best of luck.

 

[CZ93X62]

Gotta say--those upgraded 9mm ammo types are a joy to my heart. I have yet to handle or fire any of the new SIG P-320 variants that are being adopted as the new service pistol platform.