Berry's 9mm 115gr flat point COAL ????

M

Metal god

New member
So I went to go load some of these and where I generally like the o-give/baring surface to be as it relates to the case mouth is very short . Berry's has a max of 1.120"

Left to right = ------.900" ……………………………………….1.010" ……………...………………...……………1.075"

vca4Rb.jpg


The one on the left is generally where I like my bullets seated but that just seemed way to short so I loaded them at the 1.010 COAL but even the 1.075 seems seated way longer then you'd want and that's .045 off max :eek:

I guess my point is that I don't think I've ever come across a bullet I'd want to seat so much deeper then the max and max being quite long to the point of looking silly . I mean that one sticking way out the mouth on the right is .045 short of max . Ignore the bulge and the crooked bullet on that one . I pounded it in with a hammer just to get the photo .

Where would you guys start and is that .900 way to short cus I'd like it there . It just looks like it would feed better or can to short cause feeding issues ?

FWIW these will be shot from a PX4 storm , Shield and XD9 but will be tested in the PX4 first .
 
What's throwing you off is the flat point. Visually, I'm used to (and guessing you are too) seeing a round nose in 115 grain which looks much longer and probably feeds better. I know in theory too short can cause feeding issues. After all, empty brass doesn't chamber, you need an adequate nose to ride the ceiling of the chamber on the way into battery. Have you tried chambering the samples you made from slide lock?
 
I have the same document as TBJ101. Looks like Berry's recommends an OAL of 1.060."

So I would recommend something in that neighborhood ;)

The beauty of loading your own is that you get to set your OAL were your guns and mags like it best.
 
The beauty of loading your own is that you get to set your OAL were your guns and mags like it best.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I was thinking , but when I seated one to where I thought it should go . It measured under 1 inch . None of my notes show I've ever seated a 9mm projectile that short which gave me pause . I wanted to just use an existing powder charge I'm already using for Berry's 115gr RN but at .900 or even 1.010 would be to short to do that . I'll have to go with the 1.060 to keep my same charge I believe . At least there's something out there showing a more reasonable COAL . I'm wondering if the website is showing there max COAL while the data TBJ101 posted is showing the recommended COAL
 
Western Powders also lists data @ 1.060" for both the 115gr and the 124gr. I was fortunate enough that my tight XD Mod2 would plunk that length.

I load and shoot the 124gr HBFPTP that uses the same length and I love shooting them. They leave nice clean holes.
 
I don't know when TBJ101 and NicK_C-S downloaded or screen grabbed that chart, but it's not on Berry's web site now. Metal God is correct, the current information is 1.12". It doesn't say if that's a maximum, minimum, or recommended ... it just gives that as the COL.

I like Berry's bullets, but their loading suggestions aren't worth the pixels they're displayed with. In .45 ACP, they have a 230-grain round nose and a 185-grain round nose, hollow base. Their suggested COL for the 230 is 1.237". Their suggested COL for the shorter, lighter, hollow-base bullet is 1.250". That makes no sense whatsoever.

What others who know more about reloading than I do have told me is that the "correct" seating depth is that which puts the straight portion of the bullet body inside the case, leaving just a thumbnail's thickness of the body exposed along with the shoulder/ogive. To me, that would mean that the bullet on the left in Metal God's photo is seated correctly. The next step would be to see if it feeds in his guns, and how the actual velocity compares with whatever loading data he's using for a recipe.

Of the on-line loading manuals, the only one I've found with data on any Berry's bullets is Western. They don't have anything for the Berry's 115-gr flat-point, but they do show the 124-gr HBFP, and they show a COL of 1.060". To my surprise, that's also what Berry's shows on their web site for that bullet.
 
Metal god, I have a method for seating truncated cone type bullets that I have used successfully for many years.

Rather than bore everyone with that, I checked the average overall length of a factory 9MM round with a similar profile, that has proven to be reliable in several of my guns, the Winchester "Active Duty" 115 grain flat point. Measuring five rounds, they measured between 1.112" and 1.115" with an average of 1.113".
 
rock185 said:
Rather than bore everyone with that, I checked the average overall length of a factory 9MM round with a similar profile, that has proven to be reliable in several of my guns, the Winchester "Active Duty" 115 grain flat point. Measuring five rounds, they measured between 1.112" and 1.115" with an average of 1.113".
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call the Winchester Active Duty a similar profile at all. It is a flat point, but that's as far as the similarity goes. The Winchester appears to be a longer bullet, with a longer, more gradual taper.

Look at the right cartridge in Metal God's photo. There's very little bullet seated within the case, and that's seated to a shorter COL than the Winchester you are citing. Now look at the Winchester Active Duty:
https://winchester.com/Products/Ammunition/Handgun/Active-Duty-/WIN9MHSC

In fact, I don't consider that Winchester bullet to be a truncated cone at all. It definitely has a curved ogive. It's more like a round-nose bullet with the nose chopped off.

Note how little of the bullet body is exposed. Now look back at the right cartridge in Metal God's photo.

[Edit]Post edited to remove image. Don't want to violate Winchester's copyright. Check the web site.
 
The plunk test tells you the cartridge fits the chamber without encountering any interference along the way before the case mouth hits the end of the chamber. If anything else encounters the chamber first, like the case rubbing the sides of the chamber, you don't get a clear plunk sound, but rather a muted drop.

If you are intentionally seating the bullet out to contact the lands before the case mouth hits it's headspace seating surface, then you also get muted sound, so you then have to wiggle the cartridge on its way down to ensure the case width slides freely and then check after the cartridge stops against the bullet to be sure the head of the cartridge is flush or below the back end of the barrel and not protruding any, as that can interfere with locking up.
 
cartridge stops against the bullet to be sure the head of the cartridge is flush or below the back end of the barrel and not protruding any, as that can interfere with locking up.
Click to expand...

I loved the plunk test until I got the PX4 Storm

tXmZLF.jpg


yep completely different design then what most semi auto barrels are today . That is a perfectly passed plunk test . The PX4 Storm barrel actually rotates to unlock which means it can't be square like others .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKs-rMB-cio
 
It’s easy to get caught with the “easy” way to do things...

1. All COL’s must pass the plunk test because we headspace on the case mouth (except for... above case)

2. No matter the profile of the bullet, for a given bullet weight and powder charge the important dimension is the free volume inside the case when the bullet is seated.

Seating a bullet deeper will increase pressure from the combustion of the powder, and we don’t want to exceed the safe pressure.

So:
Find the data for a bullet of the same weight. Find the length of that bullet.
The COL subtract the Bullet Length is “V”. Write that number down.
(“V” is an indication of how long a cavity is inside the cartridge for gunpowder, assuming all our rim thicknesses are the same and the bullet bases are the same shape and we resized all the brass uniformly.)

Find the length of the bullet with a different shape:
Take the length “V” found above and add the bullet length of the bullet in question to find the new COL.

What we are doing is making sure the BASE of each bullet (which we can’t see) is the same distance from the base of the brass as another bullet of the same weight but a longer or shorter nose. The powder cares about what’s inside, but our tools measure what’s outside.

Caveats-
when getting up in pressure, how much bearing surface a bullet has might matter; obviously we want to compare against roughly similar shapes. Best practice is to not use a wadcutter shape and a cone point to do this, right?

Hollow bases are going to give a little more volume than flat bases

The plated bullets are softer than jacketed and that’s a factor

What feeds well is an important factor, so is accuracy but

The most important factor is safety so it’s best to ask a bunch of gun nerds and figure out for yourself what to believe.

One thing we all seem to agree on is those Berry bullets are nice for what they are and that Berry’s needs to step up with their loading data!
 
How does the PX4 effect the plunk test? The case either hits the bullet to rifling or hits mouth to chamber edge. When it drops out when you turn it over, what is the oal?
 
I don't know when TBJ101 and NicK_C-S downloaded or screen grabbed that chart, but it's not on Berry's web site now.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, it was never on their website. I e-mailed them, and they sent me the PDF. It's been a few years, btw. 2014-ish.
 
How does the PX4 effect the plunk test? The case either hits the bullet to rifling or hits mouth to chamber edge. When it drops out when you turn it over, what is the oal?
Click to expand...

Yes the PX4 does have the plunk part but does not allow you to see if your case length is with in spec or correct for that chamber .

A ( dare I say ) traditional semi auto barrel has an extra step if you will that the head of the case will sit level with or a tad below if the case length is correct .

kyQ3GB.jpg


The PX4 does not

tXmZLF.jpg


FWIW I tried to plunk that 1.075" cartridge and the bullet contacts the rifling . So it's clear that there 1.120 COAL is way off on there website , maybe I'll give them a call .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top