First 9mm reloads fired, now I need your advice please.

P

pathdoc

New member
Starting ingredients:

700X powder
115gn Hornday FMJ RN, Hodgdon said 3.9-4.2gn
124gn Winchester FMJ RN, Hodgdon said 3.0-3.6gn
CCI Small Pistol primers
Federal cases (factory "American Eagle" ammo, once-fired).
All bullets seated to fractionally short of published OAL.

Results:

1)115gn, 3.1gn charge:

10 rounds fired, no failures to fire, but ALLfailed to extract and eject. When I pulled the trigger, the striker (M&P 9) went down on the dead primer, so it seems to have cycled enough to reset the striker but not to take the case out of the chamber.

This was sort of an expected result, though I have to admit I didn't expect them ALL to fail to cycle. That experiment is done now; we know what happens.

No accuracy testing was done; function was the main concern. (I did actually try to aim for the centre, but the range was so short the result is not worth bragging about)

2) Same charge, 124 gn Winchester bullet. This is 0.1gn above the start load I was given.

Group size reduced markedly. Function was exactly as described for #1. This I did not expect; a starting load ought at least to cycle the firearm, oughtn't it?

3) 115gn Hornady bullet, 3.9-4.0 grain charge.

No failures to fire. There were, however, TWO stovepipe jams and TWO failures to feed (the bullet seemed to have hung up on the top of the chamber). When I drew the slide back a little and gave things a shake, the failures to feed went straight in without further issues, fired, extracted and ejected cleanly.

The cases are tumbling as we speak, so Ican examine their condition once they are clean and shiny.

Clearly loads #1 and #2 are FAR too light, and need to be significantly increased. The question is how much. If I am currently at the point where the load will not even cycle, I am guessing I have at least half a grain to play with.

Load #3 is a bit more of a mystery. I suspect the stovepipes are the consequence of having not enough force on extraction/ejection to throw the case clear, and the load could be increased some more. As for the failures to feed, it's worth noting that these ten rounds were the first ten rounds of pistol ammunition I ever assembled, which might account for things. I will never know what would have happened with loads 1 and 2, of course, but every time I worked the slide to feed a new round in those two batches, it went in without problems.

It is worth noting that apart from those bullet nose hangups, there were no failures to go into battery; i.e. the rounds appeared adequately taper-crimped to chamber.

Assistance, observations and constructive criticisms are definitely welcomed.
 
You are way too light on both loads, also did the rounds chamber check? Called the plunk test. I bet it runs fine on factory ammo.
 
"Normally" failures to extract/cycle a semi-auto is becasue of light loads. But my Ruger LC9s and FMK cycle on 3.9-4.0 of 700x. If it were me I'd up the charge to at least 4.0 and mebbe 4.1 and see if that will cycle your gun. Perhaps your gun has stronger recoil springs and just need a little more uummph...

How does your M&P work with factory ammo?
 
Published loads are usually from 4" pressure test barrels and not a guarantee of function in any particular gun.
 
In reply to both of you:

1) Function with factory ammo is perfect. The only misfires I've ever had with factory rounds (all FMJ BTW) were due to failure to seat the magazine home properly. Noob mistake and definitely my bad.

2) "3.9 to 4.0gn of 700X" - on top of which projectile? Load number three was exactly that over the 115 FMJ, and I still had two stovepipes, and with a maximum load of 4.2 grains given by the factory tech I'm very wary about going higher. However, it looks as though I'm going to have to go looking for older data with higher published maximum and cross my fingers that the composition hasn't changed too much.

3.9 grains is OVER the maximum for 125gn that the factory technicians gave me, and I'm loath to go there; perhaps 3.3 and 3.5 are the next logical steps?

I chamber checked the rounds for load #3 above, ironically the ones that had the feed problem, and I think it's worth noting that I am almost certain the failures to feed were among the first five rounds of 9mm I ever loaded. I suspect it's an OAL issue, but time and further experience will tell.

AFAIK a failure to feed is a failure to feed; whether it happens on slide run-in from lock-back, manual cycling or proper cycling from a functioning round. Or is it? At least one of them was off the back of a stovepipe, so maybe that had something to do with it too.

Anyway, only way to find out is to load and fire more ammunition, and that's not a bad thing. :D
 
Not seating the magazine is not an ammo issue, so it doesn't count But I missed the 4 grains behind the 115 on the cell phone, that should have run fine. So that was 2 out of 10 rounds for that load? I would shorten the OAL on the 115 down to 1.130" at 4.0 grains and do the same OAL for the 124 over 3.5 grains. When I say chamber check it means take the barrel out and vertically drop a round in a clean chamber, it should make a plunk sound, that's why they call it the plunk test. As for crimp, it's really a de-bell operation, only enough to remove the crimp so it falls easily in a case gage. I don't try to measure crimp diameter, but rather use the "wipe" test. Use a marker on the case after the seat station, then check the mark after the crimp, it should wipe about .005-.010" off, as shown. Lastly, do you have any other 9mm you can run these rounds thru? Or have another shooter function fire your gun? Changing grip can cause function issues on plastic framed pistols. Do you hold your gun like this?


image37113.jpg


image37140.jpg
 
@pathdoc
May I respectfully suggest that you invest in a copy of the newly published Lyman 50th Edition Reloading Handbook?
You will find the information there to be very useful. It will help you to avoid problems and frustrations such as you are experiencing.
Father's Day is an excellent reason (or excuse, if you like) to obtain this valuable and respected resource.
Best regards.
 
AFAIK a failure to feed is a failure to feed; whether it happens on slide run-in from lock-back, manual cycling or proper cycling from a functioning round. Or is it? At least one of them was off the back of a stovepipe, so maybe that had something to do with it too.
Click to expand...
From the original post I understood you to say the gun would not cycle. That's different than a failure to feed. Failure to feed, failure to fire, failure to extract/eject, and stove pipes are all different symptoms of potentially different problems. You mentioned a stove pipe, which is getting close to full cycling of the gun, keep going up.

Anyway, only way to find out is to load and fire more ammunition, and that's not a bad thing.
Click to expand...
There you go! I look at "problems" much the same; opportunity to reload more...:D
 
This may not be the issue with your gun but something I ran into a year or so ago. My son picked up a Sig Saur 9mm, P2022 which I think is about the same barrel wise as yours. It would load and fire factory loads but I noticed it only pitched the spent brass a short distance. This made for nice retrieval but wasn't normal. I gave him some mid load hand loads to fire and experienced the same thing you are. At that point I looked very closely at the brass and found striations running around it. Looking at the chamber I found the cause, it had never been finish polished. The factory rounds were hot enough to cycle it in most cases, low to mid hand loads not. The pistol was sent back to Sig and they replaced the barrel and all was fine.
As said, this may not have a thing to do with your problem but certainly can cause it.
 
Hodgdon lists

3.7-4.2 for the 124gr bullet

and 3.9-4.2 for the 115gr bullet.

I'm not sure where your 3.0gr starting load came from, but it seems way out of whack.

Start at starting load and increase as it functions better, and stop when you get to 4.2.
 
>2) Same charge, 124 gn Winchester bullet. This is 0.1gn above the start load I was given.

>Group size reduced markedly. Function was exactly as described for #1. This I did not expect; a starting load ought at least to cycle the firearm, oughtn't it?

Well, in most cases, the start load is just a 10-12% drop in the MAX charge weight. There is nothing that even says they tested function.
So, you don't have the same gun they used, you don't have the same lot number of powder, you don't have the same bullet, you don't have the same COL, cases, or primer, and you expect to get the same results?
Sorry, no two manuals can agree on the SAME MAX loads.
This is why you start low and work up and find what works in your gun.
 
Assuming 9x19 (9mm Luger, etc.).

>700X powder
>115gn Hornday FMJ RN, Hodgdon said 3.9-4.2gn

You started at 3.1gn, when Hodgdon shows 3.9gn as starting load?
Checking my manuals, MAX loads for 700x and 115gn jackets bullets range from 4.2-4.9gn, with start loads from 3.1-4.2gn. So, you are at the lowest starting load, right where I would start, and ready to work up the load.


>124gn Winchester FMJ RN, Hodgdon said 3.0-3.6gn

Hodgdon shows a plated bullet (which is usually loaded with a lighter charge than jacketed) at 3.7gn start and 4.2gn max.
Checking my manuals, MAX loads for 700X and 124gn jacketed bullets ranges from 3.6-5.0gn, with start loads ranging from 3.0-4.3gn. Notice that MAX pressure was reached by some test labs at charge weight well under what other labs considered starting loads. Thus, components do make a significant difference, and why I always recommend using several manuals and starting low--just like you have done.
So, you loaded 3.1gn, again right at the lowest start load in any of my manuals.

So, you aren't doing anything wrong, just need to work up the loads now.

PS: stove pipes are usually caused by loads that are just a bit too light and/or the shooter limp-wristing and taking momentum from the slide.
 
Tim Sr, noylj

I have just been to the Hodgdon website, and while the loads you list are correct for A 115/124gn bullet, they are not necessarily correct for MY 115/124gn bullet, hence why I telephoned them and spoke directly to their support staff.

If you are willing to extrapolate from one jacketed bullet of a certain weight to all of them, I agree, my starting load was way under - but the starting load you give for the 124s is higher than the maximum which was verbally quoted to me!

9x45, I agree a shortening and a lift to 3.5gn is the next logical step. All ten of my first ten rounds passed the chamber check, oddly enough, and I concluded from this that the seating operation alone was putting enough of a taper crimp on to sort out any bell-mouth issues. I can certainly try adding in the factory crimp die (carefully) to see what happens.

As to my grip, that is right hand holding the gun, left hand cupped beneath gripping the right hand, and thumbs in the DOWN position rather than up against the slide like that. I try to maintain a firm grip at all times, but am still a relative newbie, so I might be relaxing without noticing it.

mikld, when I was talking about failures to feed in the context of the gun not cycling, what I meant was that I had no problem with these rounds feeding when I cycled the slide manually; hence I interpreted that as "no failure to feed"

Supercub99, the brass from the failed loads is in the tumbler right now, but although I did not look for them, I do not particularly recall any striations. I can look for them once they're done with the cleaning cycle, provided the tumbling process does not somehow grind them off.

mps - excellent. Will do.
 
LIKE MPS said go get you the Lyman reloading book and read it then reread it then you can start to reload. That will keep you and every one safe an under load can blow up jest like an over load. GOOD LUCK
 
Path, you always need to crimp semi auto rounds, they all have a slight taper. I have seen many newbies try to skip that step with bad results. The grip I show is what maintains the most control over the weapon and all the top competition shooters use the same style, with just slight variations in thumb forward position The tea cup grip is Hollywood, and allows the gun to roll around in your strong had.
 
UPDATE:

Loaded ten with 4.2gn of 700X behind the 115gn Hornady FMJ's. Applied a very, VERY light squeeze on the crimp die for taper. First round plunk-tested beautifully after loading, so I went ahead and loaded the next nine without changes.

Tonight, not bothering to shoot for any sort of accuracy or group size but just for function and fun, all ten shot flawlessly. No issues with feed, fire, extract or eject phases. SUCCESS!!

Also did some more reading around. Lee's Modern Reloading, 2nd Edition, lists this as a START load for both 115gn and 124gn jacketed 9mm bullets, which is reassuring.

I'm going to load another fifty or so and go out and practice with that the next time I shoot pistol. Now that I know it works, I'll start lengthening the range to see what sort of accuracy it can give.
 
Are you having fun?

I know you are ;)

Keep going. You'll still hit a bump or two; but you're on the right track now. Generally, your 124's will offer a larger cycling window.

Load safe.
 
Loaded fifty, one failure to feed, no failures to fire, extract or eject. Lost five cases in the long grass (wails).

More and ever more is required to find out whether my lousy results were due to the ammunition or other factors - I have not yet ruled out the "nut behind the trigger". :D

I have a load that functions, which is half the battle in this thing. I think I shall go back to the 124gn bullets now, go up from 3.1gn to 3.4gn and see how it cycles. 3.1 did not cycle at all, so 3.4 seems a pretty safe bet.
 
one failure to feed
Click to expand...

Don't get too wrapped up in one FTF out of fifty - not yet, at least. Yes, that's 2%; and 2% is too high (I'm good with 0.5% - 1 out of 200). But it was a small sample size and it's not worth dwelling on at this time. Make sure your gun clean and properly lubed of course.

For now, go ahead and make the loads that you have already planned and go out and have more fun with them.
 
Had more fun today.

30 of my brand new 115gn load functioned perfectly.

My new 124gn load was a different story - the 3.3gn charge of 700X failed to cycle most, if not all of the ten rounds fired (there might have been one or two that lit off hot enough to eject the case). Been there, done that, so I did it all again.

The 3.5gn charge had several that ejected cleanly and cycled the next round without issues, but there were a whole lot that either failed to feed or failed to eject cleanly. The failures to feed usually happened in the context of cases that were flipped limply out of the gun to land at my feet instead of well behind and to the right where the 115s were going. On the other hand, the group size seemed well down on the 115s even accounting for all the distractions going on.

Representatives of both the experimental loads passed the plunk test as easily as the 115's, and no cartridge failed to chamber properly from the top of the magazine when the slide was cycled by hand or run forward from hold-open. It would appear to me that my next logical steps are 3.7gn and 3.9gn.

I must say, though, the low loads are very pleasant to shoot and they make me wonder whether a revolver in 9mm Parabellum might not be a worthy option. I almost considered a .357 Magnum revolver instead of the M&P,. actually, but my intended use was IPSC shooting, most of the guys I do it with run automatics rather than revolvers, and I didn't want the hassle of speedloaders (I would actually prefer a full moon clip - drop in and done - or an ancient .455 Webley and replica Prideaux push-action speedloaders). Especially since the courses we run are well suited to multiples of ten (Canadian magazine limit).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top