Problems loading 9mm berry's 124 flatnose

[BondoBob]

I'm having a problem with these rounds sticking in the chamber checker and my MP barrel.

https://www.berrysmfg.com/product/bp-9mm-356-124gr-fp

I'ts a flat nose 124gr berry's plated bullet. The round nose work fine. But these don't seat as low in the chamber checker and I need to give it a good tap to get them out.

I'm seating to the berrye's spec 1.060 COAL. These bullets are .356 not .355. I wonder if that is part of the problem or the flat nose profile. Seems ogive is contacting the stepped down portion of the chamber checker and chamber.

Resized cases plunk in and out no problem. I'm using the Lyman M expander die and hornady seating die with lee resize and FCD. It seems they work a bit better with no crimp at all.

I don't know if going shorter than 1.06 would be ok or safe (regarding pressure) or make a difference. Any ideas?

 

[74A95]

Keep seating them deeper until they fit (plunk and spin) your barrel. Let us know what that length is.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Keep seating them deeper until they fit (plunk and spin) your barrel. Let us know what that length is.

^^^ This.

If you are using a maximum charge weight, back off a bit when you seat deeper. If you are loading starting charge weight, you shouldn't need to back off the charge unless you have to seat significantly deeper.

 

[Unclenick]

Also, with copper on brass, there is enough friction that you shouldn't need a real crimp, per se. Just measure the diameter of the finished round at the case mouth and adjust the crimp until it is 0.3793"-0.3800" in diameter. At a point 0.054" below the mouth, the diameter should be 0.3804" to 0.3811". If you meet those two criteria, it should fit.

The issue with crimping is that it is possible to crimp the mouth hard enough that the sides tend to bulge out below it. If you are crimping too hard, then a Magic Marker's ink will tell you because the bulge will rub in a chamber or in a chamber-mimicking gauge.

 

[gnystrom]

I have loaded thousands of Berry's both flat point and RN and I do not adjust my die.

I find 9mm semi autos are very forgiving when it comes to ammo OAL. If it fits in the chamber properly, it boes bang. I haven't measured the OAL on my 9mm loads in years.

To make it worse, I load once fired mixed range brass.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I find 9mm semi autos are very forgiving when it comes to ammo OAL. If it fits in the chamber properly, it boes bang.

But BondoBob's rounds don't fit in his chamber.

I'm having a problem with these rounds sticking in the chamber checker and my MP barrel.

 

[BondoBob]

Thanks for the feedback. I measured 4 rounds at the mouth got .376, .376, .377 and .379. The measurement .054 back was the same.
Are they over crimped and perhaps bulged lower down?

Maybe I'll try using the seating die to crimp mildly. I did try the magic marker test, but it didn't really show anything.

 

[PA-Joe]

A little over crimped but you still have to seat them deeper.

 

[BondoBob]

Id does seem the ogive is sticking when it encounters the narrowing of the chamber or engages the lands. But how much deeper can I seat them before it becomes a dangerous over pressure situation? Or is contacting the groves a more dangerous pressure situation?

Berry's specifies 1.06. That's already shorter than all the load data I see. But that load data is by weight, not profile so could be for round nose, not flat point. Is the listed 1.06 a minimum, a maximum or an average? Lee lists it as a minimum.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Berry's specifies 1.06. That's already shorter than all the load data I see. But that load data is by weight, not profile so could be for round nose, not flat point. Is the listed 1.06 a minimum, a maximum or an average? Lee lists it as a minimum.

What load data are you looking at? Most powder makers list very few Berry's bullets, or none at all. Are you looking at data for a flat tip, truncated cone bullet, or are you looking at data for a round nose bullet?

Berry's does not list 1.060" as a minimum. They list it as a suggested C.O.A.L. without stating if it's a minimum, maximum, or average.

Are you loading what your data (which probably don't apply to that bullet) list as a starting charge, a mid-range charge, or a maximum charge?

I think it was in one of your earlier threads that I mentioned the importance of matching everything from a recipe exactly, because different bullets of the same weight may (and generally do) have different bullet lengths. If you know the C.O.A.L. and the bullet length (which Berry's provides) and the case length, you can calculate what your seating depth is. If you can also obtain the bullet length for the bullet used in your recipe, you can calculate the seating depth for that bullet, and compare the two. If your seating depth is less than that from the load recipe (shorter bullet), then you have more case volume and you don't need to reduce your charge. If your seating depth is more than that from the recipe (longer bullet), then you have less case volume and you should back off on your charge a bit and then work up from there.

 

[pete2]

Seat them deeper til they chamber. If you are near max on powder, back off some. It happened to me on a .45, Ruger CMD has no leade. You may only have to back off .002 or .003" so take it easy.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm seating to the berrye's spec 1.060 COAL. These bullets are .356 not .355. I wonder if that is part of the problem or the flat nose profile. Seems ogive is contacting the stepped down portion of the chamber checker and chamber.

FWIW, all Berry's 9mm bullets are specified as .356" diameter.

The SAAMI specified groove diameter for 9mm is .355 inches. Bullet diameter is supposed to be a tad larger than the groove diameter to ensure a good gas seal. I load three different Berry's 9mm bullets, and I haven't experienced any problems. I don't think your issue is bullet diameter -- it's a C.O.A.L. problem.

 

[74A95]

SAAMI specs for 9mm barrel groove diameter is 0.355 + 0.004. So any barrel with a groove diameter between 0.355 and 0.359 is within spec. Of the dozen or so 9mm barrels I've slugged, only two (2) were below 0.356.

SAAMI specs for 9mm bullets is 0.3555 - 0.003. So any bullet between 0.3525 and 0.3555 is within spec.

Many lead and plated bullets are 0.356. Some shooters use 0.357 and 0.358 bullets in their 9mm handloads.

 

[BondoBob]

There's basically no load data for this bullet that I can find. I was going with Berry's claim that you can use any load data for the same weight and profile. When I bought these bullets, I didn't realize the Lee manual data was apparently only for RN not FP bullets.

The Lee Min COAL is 1.150 with 3.8 gr Universal start load for a RN. Berry's site says use COAL 1.060 so .090 difference right there. I'm assuming the .09 reduction in COAl is for the profile.

I have to go down to 1.008 (another .1) to get these to plunk smoothly.
The additional .1 drop concerns me. If I'm at the starting load, is this much deeper going to increase pressure to dangerous levels? Or is it more dangerous to let these bullets remain too long to plunk. Maybe I should toss these bullets and get some RN to use.

Here's what the 1.060 looks like in the chamber checker.

And the 1.008.

Both rounds.

 

[BondoBob]

Update*

I just re-checked. And now the chamber checker and MP sheild barrel disagree. While the 1.06 rounds still stick in the chamber checker, they plunk and exit the barrel very easily. I think I nailed it, by eliminating the FCD and just using the seating die for a light crimp. I guess my chamber checker is a bit too tight. I'll go with Berry's recommendation of using any lead or jacketed data for same weight but with berry's COAl and starting load. Unless anyone here cautions me otherwise.

 

[74A95]

The best advice I can give is to put the chamber checker in a drawer. They often confuse people.

Use your barrel as your 'chamber checker'. You'll be shooting your ammo from your barrel, not your chamber checker.

 

[Shotgun Slim]

I'm a little late to this party but when I figure the difference between your 1.060 and your 1.008 that comes to a whole lot less than I see in the difference of the rounds in your photo. The long round looks like 1.160 to me.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I just wrote a long explanation of the issues I see here, I fumble-fingered a wrong key, and I lost the whole thing.

Bottom line: Stop using load data from Lee's book. It's basically worthless. He doesn't identify the bullets being used, so you actually have no idea what the load is and how it relates to any specific bullet you have in front of you.

Looking at data from Alliant (the maker of Unique) and Speer (for whose bullets Alliant has data), you should be safe loading your bullets to a length that plunks in your barrel. Looking at your third photo, the round on the right is clearly much too long. The one on the left looks correct -- the bullet is seated to the shoulder.

There is no reason to stop loading those bullets. There's nothing wrong with the bullets. The problem is that you are turning yourself into a pretzel trying to force the bullet to fit load data that are incomplete, and based on an entirely different bullet. That's not how it works.

 

[BondoBob]

Auilla, not to drive you crazy too but...

If you know the C.O.A.L. and the bullet length (which Berry's provides) and the case length, you can calculate what your seating depth is.

I've found a round and bullet from Atlanta Arms in RN that I gleaned numbers from. And I found some usable load data in the Lyman manual for a JHP but same bullet weight and profile within .001. The AA round has a seating depth of .200. The Lyman recipe depth is also .200.

My 1.060 (right in photo) rounds come up to .211 seating depth. If .200 is approx the right spec I guess I'm good with that. The 1.008 rounds give me .250 seat depth. I wonder if the extra .050 would up the pressure too much.

The Lyman recipe calls for less powder than the Lee manual recipe. I'm going to start with 3.5 gr universal (according to Lyman recipe) not 3.8 (Lee recipe). I'll start with 1.060 COAL and see if they cycle right.
If anyone can tell me if going .050 deeper is safe, I may work the length down, but if they feed and cycle there won't be a need.

Sorry to be so paranoid but it seems these small 9mm and 380 rounds are a lot less forgiving than my revolver rounds.

P.S. I won't go bullet shopping again without recipe's in hand..lol

 

[jetinteriorguy]

For plated bullets I just load a long dummy round and plunk. Keep seating deeper until it plunks, then set the die to seat it .010” deeper to allow for variations in the bullets. At this point use a starting load for a lead bullet of the same weight and work your way up until you find your accuracy load while avoiding a compressed load or while monitoring for signs of high pressure. The key is start at a beginning load and work your way up safely. One other thing, inspect all your brass to eliminate Magtech brass, easily identifiable by a definite step in case thickness, their internal volume is drastically lower than normal brass and would create a dangerous spike in pressure. I believe they design their bullets this way to use less powder and allow them to produce a more competitive priced bullet by saving on production cost. This is just my theory/opinion, not a reflection on the quality of their product.