9mm puzzler

A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
I have always carried some variant of a 1911 in .45 ACP, and I've loaded thousands of rounds of .45 ACP. I have also loaded some 9mm,but more in the high hundreds of very low thousands, and that was all 115-grain round nose.

Fast forward to today, and I'm looking at an Officers-size 1911 in 9mm. According to a friend who is a retired police chief, police arms instructor, and Colt certified armorer, one of the preferred rounds for carry in a 9mm is Remington Golden Saber in 124-grain. Yes, I know that's discontinued, but I have several boxes so I have that covered.

What I don't have covered is practice ammo. To correct that, I bought a batch of Berry's plated hollow-point 124-grain bullets and set out to load up some ammo to test the feed, function, and reliability of the pistol. Since what I'm looking for is to prove reliability with Golden Saber, I'm more interested in duplicating the profile and COAL of the handloads rather than trying to optimize accuracy.

And that's where I ran into trouble. I load both .45 ACP and 9mm with Winchester 231, so I started with the Hodgdon web site. The only load they give me is for a hollow-base, round nose bullet at a COAL of 1.15". The Golden Sabers measure 1.21".

So I moved on to the Western powders web site. They have some recipes for "Rem GS," which I'll assume is a Golden Saber. They show a COAL of 1.145".

On to Alliant's web site. For a 124-grain JHP they show a COAL of 1.12". They also show 1.12" for the 124-grain Speer Gold Dot hollow-point.

Lastly, Berry's web site doesn't offer load data, but they do say to load that bullet to a COAL of 1.090".

So it looks like everyone calls for the cartridges to be shorter than what Remington is (was) selling as premium, self defense ammunition. I've got my press set right now so the ammo I'm producing runs 1.19" to 1.20". Since what I'm after is the physical profile of the cartridge, is there any reason why I shouldn't keep on loading at that COAL?
 
Aguila Blanca said:
. . . one of the preferred rounds for carry in a 9mm is Remington Golden Saber in 124-grain. Yes, I know that's discontinued, but I have several boxes so I have that covered.
Click to expand...

Discontinued? Since when? It's in their 2019 catalog and you can find it here: https://www.targetsportsusa.com/rem...ass-jacketed-hollow-point-gs9mmb-p-58766.aspx
and here: https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1001594722?pid=975311
and probably lots of other places. The brass jacketed hollow point is the Golden Saber.

Bullets for reloading can be found at Midway when they have them in stock. https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1601122217


Aguila Blanca said:
What I don't have covered is practice ammo. To correct that, I bought a batch of Berry's plated hollow-point 124-grain bullets and set out to load up some ammo to test the feed, function, and reliability of the pistol. Since what I'm looking for is to prove reliability with Golden Saber, I'm more interested in duplicating the profile and COAL of the handloads rather than trying to optimize accuracy.

And that's where I ran into trouble. I load both .45 ACP and 9mm with Winchester 231, so I started with the Hodgdon web site. The only load they give me is for a hollow-base, round nose bullet at a COAL of 1.15". The Golden Sabers measure 1.21".

So I moved on to the Western powders web site. They have some recipes for "Rem GS," which I'll assume is a Golden Saber. They show a COAL of 1.145".

On to Alliant's web site. For a 124-grain JHP they show a COAL of 1.12". They also show 1.12" for the 124-grain Speer Gold Dot hollow-point.

So it looks like everyone calls for the cartridges to be shorter than what Remington is (was) selling as premium, self defense ammunition. I've got my press set right now so the ammo I'm producing runs 1.19" to 1.20". Since what I'm after is the physical profile of the cartridge, is there any reason why I shouldn't keep on loading at that COAL?
Click to expand...

What 9mm Golden Saber, or for that matter any 9mm round, measures 1.21"? That ain't possible. The maximum COAL for 9mm is 1.169". Anything longer than that won't fit in a proper 9mm Luger - length magazine. You would need a 38 Super length magazine for anything longer than 1.169".

If your press is set up for 1.19" to 1.20" and you load 9mm to that length, they would NOT fit in the magazine.

It sounds like you're set up to load 45. Are you not aware that 45 Auto and 9mm have different overall lengths?

Max COAL for 45 is 1.275".
Max COAL for 9mm is 1.169".

With all due respect, it sounds like you don't know what you're doing. You sound very confused about the COAL thing. It's time to get back to basics. Pick up a loading manual and read. What manuals do you have? Most all manuals will show a drawing of the cartridge and list maximum lengths and other dimensions. Study them.

Hodgdon also has load data for 125 grain lead, 125 grain HAP, 125 grain Sierra FJM. One (1) grain of weight will make no difference.
 
I'm just curious, why does it matter if you match another cartridges OAL? I would suggest loading to the length that reliably plunks and functions, then seat about .010 deeper and work up the load to match the performance of your chosen SD ammo. I guess I look at it like this, as long as the loaded round functions and performs the way you want, why worry about the OAL. I have CZ's and a match barrel on my M&P all with relatively short leads and they need to be loaded a little shorter with the bullet profile I use and this is the method I use to work up loads. Of course the thing to monitor closely is cartridge fill to avoid a compressed load. For me the two best powders I've found are Clays, and 700X. They both shoot great and case fill is pretty close to 100% without any compression with the OAL that still works in my guns. I've used Extreme, RN, TCFN, HP, and Berrys hollow base bullets with this method and no problems with any of them in several different guns.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I have always carried some variant of a 1911 in .45 ACP, and I've loaded thousands of rounds of .45 ACP. I have also loaded some 9mm,but more in the high hundreds of very low thousands, and that was all 115-grain round nose.

Fast forward to today, and I'm looking at an Officers-size 1911 in 9mm. According to a friend who is a retired police chief, police arms instructor, and Colt certified armorer, one of the preferred rounds for carry in a 9mm is Remington Golden Saber in 124-grain. Yes, I know that's discontinued, but I have several boxes so I have that covered.

What I don't have covered is practice ammo. To correct that, I bought a batch of Berry's plated hollow-point 124-grain bullets and set out to load up some ammo to test the feed, function, and reliability of the pistol. Since what I'm looking for is to prove reliability with Golden Saber, I'm more interested in duplicating the profile and COAL of the handloads rather than trying to optimize accuracy.

And that's where I ran into trouble. I load both .45 ACP and 9mm with Winchester 231, so I started with the Hodgdon web site. The only load they give me is for a hollow-base, round nose bullet at a COAL of 1.15". The Golden Sabers measure 1.21".

So I moved on to the Western powders web site. They have some recipes for "Rem GS," which I'll assume is a Golden Saber. They show a COAL of 1.145".

On to Alliant's web site. For a 124-grain JHP they show a COAL of 1.12". They also show 1.12" for the 124-grain Speer Gold Dot hollow-point.

Lastly, Berry's web site doesn't offer load data, but they do say to load that bullet to a COAL of 1.090".

So it looks like everyone calls for the cartridges to be shorter than what Remington is (was) selling as premium, self defense ammunition. I've got my press set right now so the ammo I'm producing runs 1.19" to 1.20". Since what I'm after is the physical profile of the cartridge, is there any reason why I shouldn't keep on loading at that COAL?
Click to expand...

I am a bit perplexed at what you posted. :confused:

I do not have any trouble getting 124 Golden Sabers for reloading. There are a couple of sites that have them off and on, but since I have a fair supply, I admittedly have not checked recently.

I have been loading 124 GS bullets for a few years now, and I have found 1.130 to be a good length, and it functions perfectly in all my 9mm guns.I cannot imagine a COAL of 1.210 for a few reasons. First of all it far exceeds the SAAMI max COAL of 1.169, and I doubt they would fit properly in most 9mm magazines. Next, at that length there would be portion of the bullet driving band of those Golden Sabers protruding out of the case. Finally, that length would likely cause feeding issues even if it did somehow fit in the mag.

As for trying to duplicate COAL for practice ammo, I personally struggle to find a reason for doing so. But, to each his own. My goal with practice ammo is to shoot something that closely resembles my SD ammo. Since I do not push to +p in my loads, that gives me good practice with cheaper ammo that closely simulates felt recoil of my SD ammo.
 
I think AG just typo'd out a caliper digit in the OP and he's got 1.121" for the Golden Sabre, which is reasonable. At least, that's how I'm reading it.


74A95,

If you look at the Midway link you supplied and try to select a quantity, you will see it says "Unavailable—Limited Production". The loaded ammo you linked to is not called Golden Sabre, but rather is "Ultimate Defense". I don't know if that is merely a renaming of Golden Sabre, as you are assuming, or if they have updated the design, as Federal did when the Hydra-Shok bullet was reworked into the HST. If it has, so the profile may have changed some.


Jetinteriorguy,

As he explained, he's trying to put together practice ammo that matches the physical profile the GS round. This will be to match feed reliability and to determine if there are any feed reliability issues over a large number of rounds.
 
Unclenick, if it is a typo, then he did it twice; once at the beginning and again at the end where he alluded to his settings.

I agree, 1.121 would be just fine, but if that is what was meant, one would think he would not have too much trouble with the 1.13 for a hollow base bullet and 1.12 for the GS being close enough to edge them to a happy medium? And why the last line question still pushing a length out of spec?

BTW, Remington 124 grain Golden Sabers are available through Precision Reloading right now. Just checked.
 
Just move the digits one place to the right and add a one. I've seen a number of people have that same brain fart working with a dial caliper and just seeing the tenths scale and the dial and dropping the inches.

Glad the bullets are in stock somewhere. Not long ago on another board a fellow was bemoaning the lack of availability of 35 cal Remington Core-Lokt bullets in time for hunting season. They also have that "Unavailable-Limited Production" notice on Midway, though loaded rounds were available. I think Remington must wait to make bullets until they need them for an ammunition run and then overun them to have some available for the handloading market, but don't find it worthwhile making them specially for handloading. Finished ammunition is much more profitable. I bought a couple thousand Remington swaged .38 wadcutters from Midway a year or so back because Ed Harris had determined, using a rifle he had made up in .38 Special for testing wadcutters, that Remingtons gave the best accuracy of those he'd tried. They aren't even listed on the Midway site now.
 
It's not just a typo, he thinks he is loading his own stuff 1.19-1.20" and comparing that to book values.
So the first step is to learn how to read the calipers.
 
OP might actually be loading that Berry's 124 HBRN to 1.200. It's a bit of
a pointy RN, and the Hollow Base makes it a long overall bullet. If I just switch
bullets from my regular 9mm (147 Bayou RN) to the Berry's I have to screw
the seating stem W-A-Y down to get to the 1.145" OAL I use for most 9mm.
Whether that long round will fit the Officers 9mm magazines depends on
whether the magazine runs a spacer or not. A 1911 magazine was designed for
a 1.250 OAL 45 ACP.
 
Unclenick said:
74A95,

If you look at the Midway link you supplied and try to select a quantity, you will see it says "Unavailable—Limited Production".
Click to expand...

I know. That's why I wrote "when they have them in stock".

Midway's Remington pistol bullets are here:https://www.midwayusa.com/bullets/b...%7C1&Ntpc=1&Ntpr=1&customerSelectedSort=False

I've bought Golden Sabers from Midway for over a decade. Still have a bunch. They are on sale at times. It looks like there are some on sale now.

I think Remington's 'new generation' of golden sabers are their 'black belt' line - essentially a golden saber with a black band around the bullet.
 
I think you may be overthinking this.

Load up a batch at 1.12. Test them in your weapon and if you have no problems, and you probably won't, call it good.
 
jetinteriorguy said:
I'm just curious, why does it matter if you match another cartridges OAL?
Click to expand...
Because, as I wrote, the reason for loading these hollow points is to test the pistol for function with Golden Saber, without having to spend hundreds of dollars on Golden Saber to just test the pistol for reliability. The profile of the Berry's bullets is very close to the Remington, so making up rounds that are the same length makes it cheaper to test the gun before trusting it for carry duty.
 
Unclenick said:
I think AG just typo'd out a caliper digit in the OP and he's got 1.121" for the Golden Sabre, which is reasonable. At least, that's how I'm reading it.
Click to expand...
Unclenick is correct. That's what I get for posting at oh-dark-thirty.

1.121" it is.
 
Ok I get the reason behind trying to match the OAL, but to my mind unless the bullet profile of the practice bullet matches the profile of the bullet you're trying to duplicate you're still not duplicating the reliability factor. The only way to be sure of reliability would be to use the actual ammo, whereas duplicating the ammo to match recoil and accuracy for actual shooting purposes should be doable and worth pursuing.
 
I went back and reread and sorted out the OP's original post. Now I get his goal as opposed to my original interpretation and retract my previous posts. Sorry for getting off the track.
 
Just MHO, but if you're going to trust your life to a particular brand/type of commercial ammo, you need to bite the bullet (pun intended) and shoot a box of it every now and then to verify it's reliability in your carry weapon. You can make your reloads super reliable and convince yourself that your duplicating factory ammo, but that doesn't verify the reliability of your commercial carry ammo in your EDC. I don't even try to match my reloads to my carry ammo except for perceived recoil, and that's iffy at best. YMMV
 
AB:

I amazed on what you are not getting here and head scratching furiously. You have stacked so many assumptions that are wrong.

1. Golden Sabre is a bore rider type, I don't know of another current bullet that is of that shape.

2. Its got its own profile. So its not anyone's bullet and COAL is not a feeding issue, shape may or may not be.

3. Nothing you can find or load is going to duplicate a GS.

Its basic reloading that the bullet shape is different for different mfg as well as different between bullets types the mfgs offer, bore rider or not, as long as it fits the chamber of your 9mm the length listed is irrelevant.

You can accept its not going to be the same COAL or not and it makes no difference. You can only test feeding and reliability with the round you want to feed and be readability. Modern pistols are quite good about it all anyway vs the old ball bullets needed.

If you want reliability with a 1911 then you should shoot ball.

On the other hand if it shoots the GS fine, then you are good.

But thinking that one bullet type at a COAL crosses to reliability for another bullet type is not relevant.

While GS is considered a good SD round, it does not mean its a good 1911 round.

The 1911 may be modified and smoothed for feed, but in the end its a 1911 designed for ball.
 
Last edited:
That's what I get for trying to read a dial caliper at 02:00 a.m., and then for trying to post at 02:30 a.m.

Unclenick hit it right -- I just left out a "1". The Golden Saber ammo measures 1.121" and I initially set the seating die by putting a Golden Saber in the press and turning down the stem of the seating die until it made contact. Then I moved on to actually loading a round, and fine tuned from there. My rounds are measuring 1.119" to 1.120".

So the issue of being longer than published data doesn't exist. The only discrepancy is how much longer the COAL is than what Berry's recommends for that bullet. I found that in .45 ACP, Berry's bullets are considerably shorter than most FMJ bullets from the "name" bullet and ammo manufacturers, so it's possible that the same holds true for the 124-grain hollow-point. I'll get at least a partial answer to that when I run the first ten rounds over a chronograph and see what velocity they produce.

To clarify and reinforce, however, at this stage I am not looking for the most accurate round, and I'm interested in velocity only to the extent that fully verifying reliability of the firearm includes having test ammo that approximates the velocity of the ammo I plan to carry.

The reloads, irrespective of what bullet is in them, will NOT be used for carry. I only carry commercially-loaded ammunition, for legal reasons that have been discussed at length in other threads on this forum, as well as many other forums. Remington discontinued production of Golden Saber ammunition two or three years ago. It was replaced by their Ultimate Defense line. I've been told that the Ultimate Defense ammo is the same thing as Golden Saber, with a new name and at a higher price -- but I don't know that.

Either way, whether I shoot up my existing stock of Golden Saber or buy new Ultimate Defense, it's more than a buck per round. I can't afford to shoot 250 to 500 rounds of premium self defense ammo at more than a dollar a shot to satisfy myself that a firearm is reliable. Hence the reason for loading test ammo that replicates as closely as possible the physical aspects of the Golden Saber. I'm not even remotely interested in POI v. POA issues at this stage ... I want to know if the gun will go "BANG" reliably for 250 or more rounds without any stoppages.
 
What you are missing is that swapping one type of ammo chrono the same or no for another is not going to tell you how reliability GS is (or is not)

You have one major consideration to start with and that is 1911 is not the poster child for non ball.

I too practice with non GS, but I have a modern pistol that fires anything I have put into it.

So rolling your own for practice is fine. Its simply not going to tell you other than a general sense how good your gun is nor is it cross applicable to how good GS is in it.

The COAL is even less relevant. GS has a shape and Barrys has a shape and they are nothign alike (in bullet terms) - you could profile them and then try to match but.....

So, pull the slide, find out what the longest it will take, drop it back .030 to .050 and you are as good to go as you can get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top