9mm bullet shape

S

Shadow9mm

New member
So i am switching from 124 to 147g bullets for 9mm going forward. I am looking at berrys plated bullets as i have used them before and liked them.

Questions becomes round nose or truncated cone.

Im leaning towards truncated cone. But are there any definitive pros or cons to the bullet shape?

A few things come to mind.
1. Less aerodynamic, but at handgun ranges I would think the difference is negligible.
2. That they may have a increased risk of feeding problems in some guns due to being shaped like a hollow point.
3. That due to the design there may be a longer bearing surface creating more friction and heat and slowing the bullet down.
4. The reccomended COL is shorter for the truncated cone bullet based on berrys reccomeds col.

While my use is 147g 9mm, but i would presume this would be somewhat applicable to most handgun cartridges.
 
Last edited:
Hello,

What are you trying to achieve?

1. You're correct that the aerodynamics are negligible at pistol distances.
2. An pistol you have for defense should be able to feed hollowpoint, so this argument is moot.
3. Longer bearing surface = more gas seal, too. Any slowdown due to friction is negligible. If you're shooting 147grn, you're not concerned about speed, anyway.
4. COL is shorter due to truncated cone design. Length to ogive should be similar.

Regards,

Josh Smith
Smith-Sights.com
 
A few things come to mind.
1. Less aerodynamic, but at handgun ranges I would think the difference is negligible.
Click to expand...

I agree.

2. That they may have a increased risk of feeding problems in some guns due to being shaped like a hollow point.
Click to expand...

The only way to know is to test the bullets in the gun(s). Sometimes, a gun will choke due to design incompatibilities, sometimes, the same design will choke due to individual gun/ammo tolerances, and sometimes they don't choke at all.

3. That due to the design there may be a longer bearing surface creating more friction and heat and slowing the bullet down.
Click to expand...

I believe that while those things might be measurable, they are of little or no practical significance in a 9mm handgun.

4. The reccomended COL is shorter for the truncated cone bullet based on berrys reccomeds col.
Click to expand...

COL = CARTRIDGE Overall Length.
This is measured to from the case base to the tip of the bullet. Check the two different bullets you are thinking of using, the RN and the Truncated Cone for length, compared to each other. The shorter one will have a shorter COL when both are seated with the bases at exactly the same depth in the case.
 
Josh Smith said:
Hello,

What are you trying to achieve?

1. You're correct that the aerodynamics are negligible at pistol distances.
2. An pistol you have for defense should be able to feed hollowpoint, so this argument is moot.
3. Longer bearing surface = more gas seal, too. Any slowdown due to friction is negligible. If you're shooting 147grn, you're not concerned about speed, anyway.
4. COL is shorter due to truncated cone design. Length to ogive should be similar.

Regards,

Josh Smith
Smith-Sights.com
Click to expand...
Training rounds, as well as possible critter issues, possum or coon in the chicken coop type of issue.
 
44 AMP said:
I agree.



The only way to know is to test the bullets in the gun(s). Sometimes, a gun will choke due to design incompatibilities, sometimes, the same design will choke due to individual gun/ammo tolerances, and sometimes they don't choke at all.



I believe that while those things might be measurable, they are of little or no practical significance in a 9mm handgun.



COL = CARTRIDGE Overall Length.
This is measured to from the case base to the tip of the bullet. Check the two different bullets you are thinking of using, the RN and the Truncated Cone for length, compared to each other. The shorter one will have a shorter COL when both are seated with the bases at exactly the same depth in the case.
Click to expand...
147 berrys, round nose col 1.160, truncated cone 1.130. So a difference of 0.030. Max is 1.169 for 9mm if I remember correctly.
 
I have had too many feeding failures with truncated cone, flat nose, and semiwadcutter bullets.
All I load for sport any more is roundnose.

My defense weapons are checked out and loaded with hollow points.
 
I picked up a couple thousand of Berry’s 147gr RN bullets a few years ago and they work great in all of my guns. But, I relegated them to only shooting in my PCC with as hot a load I could without any copper buildup. It’s been a few years since I chronoed that load but as I recall it it was right close to 1200 FPS MV.
 
jetinteriorguy said:
I picked up a couple thousand of Berry’s 147gr RN bullets a few years ago and they work great in all of my guns. But, I relegated them to only shooting in my PCC with as hot a load I could without any copper buildup. It’s been a few years since I chronoed that load but as I recall it it was right close to 1200 FPS MV.
Click to expand...
Out of a 9mm! Thats moving. I have got my 124s up to 1250 but that was ar max with power pistol. Would you mind sharing your load, here or a pm. Ill cross reference with my manuals and work it up, but that sounds like a great loading.
 
This load is used in my Just Right Carbine and even in a heavy carbine the recoil is noticeable but not harsh. Berry’s 147gr RN bullet, 4.6gr Power Pistol, CCI SPP, and COL 1.160 as per Berry’s data. I have shot it through all of my 9mm pistols and in my steel 1911 not too bad, in my CZ 75B SA and my Taurus 99 the recoil is still pretty easily managed, but any of my Plastic framed smaller carry pistols it’s just borderline harsh. In my pistols you do get some pretty substantial muzzle flash/blast but the carbine isn’t too bad at all.
 
Too many variables for a helpful answer. Check with Berrys to see if they offer any sample packs. Need to do your own testing.
 
147 berrys, round nose col 1.160, truncated cone 1.130. So a difference of 0.030. Max is 1.169 for 9mm if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

1.169" is the industry standard COAL for the 9mm Luger.

What you need to check is the difference in length between the bullets (just the bullets), not the loaded rounds, to see. Its quite possible the truncated cone slug is 0.030" shorter than the RN slug. SO, with identical seating depth in the case, one would be shorter than the other.

It’s been a few years since I chronoed that load but as I recall it it was right close to 1200 FPS MV.
Click to expand...

isn't 1200fps the approximate upper limit recommended for plated bullets??
 
44 AMP said:
1.169" is the industry standard COAL for the 9mm Luger.

What you need to check is the difference in length between the bullets (just the bullets), not the loaded rounds, to see. Its quite possible the truncated cone slug is 0.030" shorter than the RN slug. SO, with identical seating depth in the case, one would be shorter than the other.



isn't 1200fps the approximate upper limit recommended for plated bullets??
Click to expand...
Per berrys 1250 for standard, 1500 for thick plate. But i would say yes given sd/es variances, at the upper limit.
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
1.169" is the industry standard COAL for the 9mm Luger.

What you need to check is the difference in length between the bullets (just the bullets), not the loaded rounds, to see. Its quite possible the truncated cone slug is 0.030" shorter than the RN slug. SO, with identical seating depth in the case, one would be shorter than the other.



isn't 1200fps the approximate upper limit recommended for plated bullets??
Click to expand...
Berry’s recommends a max of 1250 for this bullet. I was trying to get as close to that in my PCC and still maintain good accuracy at 50yds. Even shooting this load offhand at 50yds I could keep most of a 30 round magazine in a six inch circle with fairly rapid firing back when I was more active at the range. I haven’t been shooting as much for the last year and a half and my skills have definitely slid downhill a bit. Turning 68 may have contributed to this decline a bit too.
 
44 AMP said:
1.169" is the industry standard COAL for the 9mm Luger.

What you need to check is the difference in length between the bullets (just the bullets), not the loaded rounds, to see. Its quite possible the truncated cone slug is 0.030" shorter than the RN slug. SO, with identical seating depth in the case, one would be shorter than the other.



isn't 1200fps the approximate upper limit recommended for plated bullets??
Click to expand...
so I looked at berrys site
147g RN OAL is .672
147 TC OAL is .597

So the TC is actually 0.075 shorter. over double the .030 difference in seating depth.
 
Jim Watson said:
1.169" is the industry MAXIMUM COAL for the 9mm Luger.

Hardly any real ammo comes out that long.
Click to expand...
In my case using Power Pistol this length happens to be perfect for the amount of powder in the case, and it cycles flawlessly in all of my firearms. Most of my loads with lighter bullets and faster powders and other profiles usually wind up substantially shorter. The only reason I went with PP is because I have a lot of it and it works well in my carbine. Personally if I had enough of it on hand I’d try HS-6, I think it would be perfect for this bullet.
 
In a strictly terminal performance the trunjucated nose will do more damage than the round nosed bullet.

If your having feeding issues, try experimenting with different COAL.
 
My SP-01 prefers 147 gr. truncated cone for accuracy over any other RN profile. I have not tried Berry's. Factory 115 and 124 gr RN fed well. Missouri coated 124 gr TCFP, 125 gr RN, and 147 gr TCFP also feed flawlessly at 1.08" - 1.13" COAL. The only exception was Bayou 135 gr RN, which have a very long nose. I could not get the Bayous to feed even when I seated them at 1.08".
 
If your having feeding issues, try experimenting with different COAL.
Click to expand...

^This. I had an occasional hang-up with 124gr TCFPs that went away when I tightened up just a hair. I'm loading 147 TCFPs now to the same OAL with no issues @ 1.10" COAL. Some come out a bit longer, but that's what I gauge to when I start out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top