9mm Lead Bullet Question

R

robhic

New member
I've done .38spl and .357 magnum without problems. So I bought and wanted to try some lead hollow point (HP) in 9mm for a change. The bullets I used are .356" dia instead of the .355" jacketed bullets I normally use. (http://hunters-supply.com/shop/356-9mm357-sig-115-php-p-719.html

I used the manufacturer's spec. for the OAL (1.050") and all looked all right. I tried the "plop test" in a Glock barrel (probably not the gun I'll use) just for the heckuvit and the bullet(s) didn't especially "plop" well and extended out past the barrel hood slightly. I was told the bullets (not lead...) should be even with the hood. Is this because of the lead bullets' slightly larger diameter? And these are taper-crimped, not roll-crimped. The top groove is exposed but the blue (lube groove?) is below the case mouth.

I don't want to have the bullet extending too far into the rifling. Does this sound OK, or should I not shoot these rounds? Thanks!
 
Kinda' sounds like the cartridge length is just a bit too long.
Reloading data is not always spot on.
Just be careful not to introduce excessive internal pressure when seating the bullets deeper.
The plop test is best done on the actual barrel where the rounds will be used.
There's differences in manufacturers especially with so many companies making 9mm.
Do you use a chronograph to help determine safe loads?
 
Kinda' sounds like the cartridge length is just a bit too long.
Reloading data is not always spot on.
Just be careful not to introduce excessive internal pressure when seating the bullets deeper.
Do you use a chronograph to help determine safe loads?
Click to expand...

After posting my original question I put a lead load next to one of the factory jacketed hollow-point bullets on hand. The jacketed round was longer. As they always shoot fine I'm wondering if the .356" diameter is contacting the barrel moreso than the .355" ones do? The ends are tapered enough so I'd expect the far tip of the bullet (which is not .356") to be completely away from the barrel.

And no, I don't have nor use a chrono. But I am loading all at the lowest end to start.
 
I cast lee RN 125gn lead bullets. I found I had to make the OAL alarmingly short for them to "Plunk" correctly. When shooting they would jam into the rifling making extraction a real booger some times. If you intend to use these bullets for something other than a glock Id suggest plunking that barrel. The glock chamber is cut a bit different from other manufacturers.
 
"...lead hollow point..." Kind of, um, pointless. A cast bullet will expand to flat upon impact.
Anyway, It is not about the bullet diameter. One thou larger is normal.
1.050" is too short, if anything. A cast 115 RN goes to 1.100". 1.169" works well for a cast 121 TC(nearly the same as the Hunter's bullet) too.
"...top groove is exposed..." That does indicate an OAL issue though. I'd seat those to the top edge of the silly crimp groove. The taper crimp die will still work just fine.
 
"...lead hollow point..." Kind of, um, pointless. A cast bullet will expand to flat upon impact.
Anyway, It is not about the bullet diameter. One thou larger is normal."

That's not necessarily true. I can cast bullets that are so hard they act like full metal jackets. I guarantee they won't flatten.

I won't disagree about bullet diameter but I strongly suggest the OP slug the barrel of the firearm he intends on using. It's surprising how many 9MM handguns have 357" bores. I have three and two are .357" and one has a .358" groove diameter. Those .356" bullets the OP has may just lead like hell.
Paul B.
 
1.050" is too short, if anything. A cast 115 RN goes to 1.100". 1.169" works well for a cast 121 TC(nearly the same as the Hunter's bullet) too.
"...top groove is exposed..." That does indicate an OAL issue though. I'd seat those to the top edge of the silly crimp groove. The taper crimp die will still work just fine.
Click to expand...

Now I'm a bit confused. If 1.050" is too short (with top groove exposed), won't seating to cover that groove make it even shorter? I'll be nowhere near your suggested 1.100 - 1.169". I'll be shorter than the 1.050" it is seated now. :confused: What am I missing?

This lead bullet IS a bit shorter than factory JHP bullets I have on hand and some that I made, myself, too.
 
I can cast bullets that are so hard they act like full metal jackets. I guarantee they won't flatten.
Click to expand...

These aren't that hard. I am new, but I can scratch the surface with a fingernail, so it seems these aren't a true "hard-cast" lead. That's why I figured they would be OK and form to the rifling even at low loadings.
 
If you intend to use these bullets for something other than a glock Id suggest plunking that barrel. The glock chamber is cut a bit different from other manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know Glock gets all worked up about lead and the polygonal rifling and forbids using it upon loss of your Glock fan-boy papers. :D But that was all I had handy at the time so figured I'd just "plonk" it to see....
 
So have you actually tried cycling them in gun you plan to use? Load up 5 or 6 in your mag and cycle the slide by hand. That will tell you if you have a problem or not. The 1.050 does sound really short. I would wait till you have a chance to try them out at the range before you load a bunch more. Hopefully you didn't buy too many so if they don't perform well you can move on to something else.
 
I am using 4.5gr of W231 as per a "Load Book". The bullet manufacturer is where I got the OAL of 1.050". I just looked at the Hodgdon website and see they list 4.3gr of W231 and OAL of 1.100" for a 115gr round nose lead bullet. The bullet (lead) I'm using is a 115gr flat nose hollow-point.

So powder manufacturer says 1.100" and bullet maker says 1.050" for OAL. Wasn't there a discussion about specs of bullet vs. powder manufacturers recently...? This is getting complicated. :(
 
I load a few different cast for my 9's and have found that going by the different OAL's listed in manuals or on other sites is almost useless. The plunk is about the only reliable way to go about it, using the barrel they will be shot through.

I also always start with the closest powder data that I can find for the actual bullet weight I'm loading. If mine weigh a bit more I use the starting jacketed data and am usually very close in velocity listed for similar but lighter weight bullets.

As to the cast HP remark, well like mentioned it depends on the alloy, but in most of my tests the RN usually look like the could be cleaned up and shot again. I can promise my HP's never look the same after hitting the same media.

Now if your using almost pure or shooting steel, then yes I agree, but not everyone is stuck with just those considerations. I might be hunting or may be shooting targets. Either way, or anything in between, I pour mine for the purpose they will be needed, and wouldn't hesitate if needed to use them to defend myself or my family. I know for a fact they will work as desired.
 
I currently cast 2 bullets for the 9s and my favorite is a hollow point that casts 135 gr with my alloy.

I size to 0.357" for 4 different guns.

The bullets won't plunk like a copper jacketed bullet will.

They will go in the barrel and then with ever so slight finger pressure will fully seat in the barrel.

I have had no fail to feed.

I cast them approximately to BHN 9 and they give text book expansion to almost double caliber.....IIRC I measure one at 0.670".

The bullet holds together very well and does not break apart. Nephew has killed 3 pigs with his. I have only shot a few cottontails.

OAL = 1.035"
 
The linked bullet has some bearing surface ahead of the crimp groove. (The crimp groove indicates it is being used as a dual purpose bullet, meant for a revolver but sold for autos.)
That is what affects seating, not the shape of the nose or the arbitrary OAL.

Plunk one in the gun you will really use.
 
Plunk one in the gun you will really use.
Click to expand...

^^^This.

I use lead in 2 9mm pistols. The bullet is Dardas Cast 124gn round nose. I had to seat a little deeper than recommended OAL data given for a generic similar sized lead projectile and the powder I was using because the projectile would jam in the lands of the rifling in one of the pistols. It wasn't much deeper, maybe .01 inch. They were light to mid loads so I didn't stress it too much. I've shot over 2000 of them with no issue. Recoil and flash/report are consistent with a milder load. The point is two-fold, you can seat slightly deeper if you need to but be mindful of pressure, and the round may pass a plunk test in one pistol but not another. Plunk it in the pistol you will use.
 
The point is two-fold, you can seat slightly deeper if you need to but be mindful of pressure, and the round may pass a plunk test in one pistol but not another. Plunk it in the pistol you will use.
Click to expand...

All good information, thanks everyone. I was going to load 5-10 rounds to test. Since so few, I think I am just gonna try them in the Glock :eek: and risk my fan-boy status. If the lead sticks, 5 or so rounds shouldn't be bad to clean. I've had .22's that had me using foul language so this should be OK.

The bigger issue: Do you think the 1.050" OAL to test (if hand-cycling doesn't turn out badly) is too short, or should I try to lengthen to 1.100"? My concern is loading too deep, but that WAS the depth the bullet mfg. gave. Thoughts?
 
They will go in the barrel and then with ever so slight finger pressure will fully seat in the barrel.
Click to expand...

Did that and yes, they went in almost by gravity to even with barrel hood. I'm just concerned about over-pressure from seating. The bullets look good and I'm gonna hand cycle 5 or so to look for issues there.
 
My first hand experience. 9mm Luger.
Cast bullets, specially if not sized, do not chamber without forcefull foreward assist if loaded to reloading manual OAL of between 1.130“ to 1.160“. That OAL is for FMJ.
Lead cast unsized bullets I seat to an OAL of 1.045“. That means you seat them deeper. If you seat them deeper you have to lower the powder charge in order to get the same pressures. On powder back up 1.5 grains and work your way up till the gun cycles reliably.
When seated to 1.147“ an FMJ 115 grain was powered by 4.3 grains of VV N330 powder.
When seated to 1.045“ an unsized lead cast Lee Truncated Cone bullet of 124 grain was powered by 3.3 grain VV N330 powder.
If you reduce the empty airspace in the case by seating the bullet deeper you rise the pressure. That allows you to reduce powder and obtain similar velocities.
 
I had to seat a little deeper than recommended OAL data given for a generic similar sized lead projectile and the powder I was using because the projectile would jam in the lands of the rifling in one of the pistols.
Click to expand...

So I took 5 rounds and loaded them in a Glock G19 magazine to hand cycle. Looked a bit short in the mag (1.050") and made me a bit concerned if jamming on the feed ramp might be an issue. But hand cycled twice without issue. Might full power/speed of firing cause feed ramp issue? I don't know. But all looked and seemed OK in the Glock so I may just risk Glock Fan Boy status and run 'em to see if that load is all right and not seat deeper or longer. Thoughts?
 
If you reduce the empty airspace in the case by seating the bullet deeper you rise the pressure. That allows you to reduce powder and obtain similar velocities.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm trying to avoid. I don't really want to seat any deeper as it seems a bit deep already. That OAL spec (1.050") was the bullet maker's figure.

As long as I don't get over-pressure I'll be happy. No jamming the feed ramp, either....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top