GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-01-2010, 13:36   #1
YamaLink
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 78
.1 grain of powder make a difference?

Setup: G34. Totally stock except for Warren sights and polish job on internals.

WSF at 4.8 and 4.9 and 5.0 batches
Federal primer
OAL is 1.130 give or take
MG 124 fmj

So I'm sampling a bunch of the above and the 4.9 and 4.8 seem the same. Casings anywhere from 1 to 3 feet away. The 5.0 is about 2 to 5 feet. One FTE with the 4.9 (one-handed drills), accuracy is my typical newbie G34 self which means low/left due to poor trigger control or pretty darn spot on which means I actually took the time to get a sight picture and work that nice trigger at distances up to 15 yards.

From a competition shooting perspective is it going to matter at any distance having a 4.8 or 4.9 or 5.0 (I stopped at 5.0 because above that I could tell a diff in recoil and time back on target).

Question: Would you go with the highest powder charge for distances up to 25 yards? My sights are set for 6 o'clock hold if that matters. Or would you go with the lowest recoiling?

I've only shot up to 15 yards due to bad weather. Until I can march off 25 yards and practice targets....thought I'd ask here.

Last edited by YamaLink; 04-01-2010 at 13:37..
YamaLink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 14:10   #2
CTSixshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 381
My older "Winchester Reloader's Manual" lists 4.7 to 5.3 for WSF with the 124g FMJ. It looks as if you should meet Power Factor of 125 for any of these loads, if that is even a necessity. You'll have to see if the 1 or 2 tenths grain makes any difference in point of impact and decide accordingly. As long as they all function and shoot well for you, I won't notice a tenth grain from my house.
CTSixshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 14:15   #3
PCJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Posts: 2,884
You're asking two questions if I read your post correctly...

Quote:
Originally Posted by YamaLink
From a competition shooting perspective is it going to matter at any distance having a 4.8 or 4.9 or 5.0 (I stopped at 5.0 because above that I could tell a diff in recoil and time back on target).
I would have to say, no. A difference of 0.1gr of powder at those charges will not be noticable up to 25 yards if shooting without a bench rest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YamaLink
Question: Would you go with the highest powder charge for distances up to 25 yards? My sights are set for 6 o'clock hold if that matters. Or would you go with the lowest recoiling?
I would use the charge that feels most comfortable and allows your quickest sight reacquisition. Again, unless you are benchrest shooting or measuring velocities over a chronograph, you probably will not notice any difference on the target.

Now, if we were discussing a spread of 0.5gr powder charge from min to max, I would expect you to be able to tell a difference. And at 25 yards, it could probably be discernable on paper.
PCJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 14:20   #4
IndyGunFreak
RIP My Friends
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 29,693
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Well, eventually .1gr is gonna make a difference between blowing up and not blowing up...

In your application though, it probably doesn't make that much of a difference. Just follow PCJim's advice for picking out what you want to use, and have fun.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioaJack View Post
The fire is no longer my major concern since I am leaving immediately on an unexpected road trip to Indianapolis. Watch the national news over the next couple of days, I'll wave... well, only if I'm cuffed in the front.
RIP Jack
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 14:22   #5
YamaLink
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 78
Thank you all.
YamaLink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 15:04   #6
MoNsTeR
Senior Member
 
MoNsTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 588
If those are traditional round nose FMJs I would bump the OAL to 1.169". But to answer your question, a tenth of a grain is not going to make much difference with a medium speed powder like WSF.
MoNsTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 15:21   #7
YamaLink
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 78
They are https://secure3.mooseweb.com/montana...mm-FMJ-124.jpg

34 OAL range seems to be all over even up to 1.16. Most seem to be at 1.13-ish depending on bullet specs.

I just built some 4.8 rounds at 1.15 and see will see how things go. Probably should take some 5.0 at 1.15.

Why would you go 1.169, the max?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNsTeR View Post
If those are traditional round nose FMJs I would bump the OAL to 1.169". But to answer your question, a tenth of a grain is not going to make much difference with a medium speed powder like WSF.

Last edited by YamaLink; 04-01-2010 at 16:18..
YamaLink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 17:03   #8
fredj338
Senior Member
 
fredj338's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: so.cal.
Posts: 21,124
Blog Entries: 3
I don't think 0.1gr diff in charge wt is noticeable on a target @ 25yds. it may shoot tighter groups or not, but should have no affect on POI.
__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".
fredj338 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 17:17   #9
KB2MBC
NRA Life Member
 
KB2MBC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 743
Gotta remember there is numeric rounding on a digital scale.
On a digital scale that displays down to tenths, 4.9 grains can actually be a charge weighing in between 4.851 and 4.949, or simply +/- 0.05 grains.

Last edited by KB2MBC; 04-01-2010 at 17:17..
KB2MBC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 17:27   #10
fredj338
Senior Member
 
fredj338's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: so.cal.
Posts: 21,124
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by KB2MBC View Post
Gotta remember there is numeric rounding on a digital scale.
On a digital scale that displays down to tenths, 4.9 grains can actually be a charge weighing in between 4.851 and 4.949, or simply +/- 0.05 grains.
Which would also mean nothing, exspecially w/ medium to slow burn rate powders.
__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".

Last edited by fredj338; 04-01-2010 at 17:27..
fredj338 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 17:53   #11
BBJones
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamaLink View Post
They are https://secure3.mooseweb.com/montana...mm-FMJ-124.jpg

34 OAL range seems to be all over even up to 1.16. Most seem to be at 1.13-ish depending on bullet specs.

I just built some 4.8 rounds at 1.15 and see will see how things go. Probably should take some 5.0 at 1.15.

Why would you go 1.169, the max?

For my G17 I load to 1.14 OAL for both 115FMJ and 124FMJ. No real good reason for it, but has worked well and I don't see a reason to change it.
BBJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 18:29   #12
YamaLink
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 78
Wow, I owe a big thanks!

Went back with 1.15 oal and 4.8 and 5.0 WSF; Montana Gold 124 fmj.

The 1.15 was insanely more accurate, easier shooting, faster back on target, less recoil (not that the recoil of a 1.13/4.8 WSF is anything). Each round passed cleanly and ejected about 2 to 3 feet.

This morning was the 1.130 at 4.8 WSF. Took a mag's worth of that along this evening. The OAL difference of going to 1.15 made my shooting seem almost effortless.

Last edited by YamaLink; 04-01-2010 at 18:30..
YamaLink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 18:59   #13
KB2MBC
NRA Life Member
 
KB2MBC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredj338 View Post
Which would also mean nothing, exspecially w/ medium to slow burn rate powders.
Umm, yeah. Pretty much.
KB2MBC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010, 20:10   #14
shotgunred
reloading nut
 
shotgunred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: N W Washington
Posts: 7,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamaLink View Post
Wow, I owe a big thanks!

Went back with 1.15 oal and 4.8 and 5.0 WSF; Montana Gold 124 fmj.

The 1.15 was insanely more accurate, easier shooting, faster back on target, less recoil (not that the recoil of a 1.13/4.8 WSF is anything). Each round passed cleanly and ejected about 2 to 3 feet.

This morning was the 1.130 at 4.8 WSF. Took a mag's worth of that along this evening. The OAL difference of going to 1.15 made my shooting seem almost effortless.
My current IDPA load is 4.7 WSF 1.1 OAL Rainier 125 FMJ.
It makes power factor with a G17 and is plenty accurate.
__________________
When dealing with Democrats, let us remember we are
not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with
creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices
and motivated by pride and vanity.
shotgunred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 09:31   #15
MoNsTeR
Senior Member
 
MoNsTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamaLink View Post
Why would you go 1.169, the max?
Because it is the max (more case capacity = safer), and also because that is factory length and the length that 9mm guns have been built around since the Luger.
MoNsTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010, 17:17   #16
DoctaGlockta
Senior Member
 
DoctaGlockta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: FEMA Region IV
Posts: 2,102
Yes .1 grains does make a difference over......

































Reloading

One million loads
__________________
"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."

- Barack Hussein Obama

Last edited by DoctaGlockta; 04-02-2010 at 17:18..
DoctaGlockta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 07:52   #17
cyberiad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near RTP NC
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNsTeR View Post
Because it is the max (more case capacity = safer), and also because that is factory length and the length that 9mm guns have been built around since the Luger.
I don't have any 9mm loaded that long but at 1.169 they may not fit in a Glock magazine.
cyberiad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 10:05   #18
MoNsTeR
Senior Member
 
MoNsTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberiad View Post
I don't have any 9mm loaded that long but at 1.169 they may not fit in a Glock magazine.
Measure a round of Winchester factory 115gr FMJ, it will measure 1.170". If factory ammo didn't fit in Glock magazines I'd think we'd be hearing about it.
MoNsTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 10:19   #19
cyberiad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near RTP NC
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNsTeR View Post
Measure a round of Winchester factory 115gr FMJ, it will measure 1.170". If factory ammo didn't fit in Glock magazines I'd think we'd be hearing about it.
The last measurements I have are from some time ago:

Fed AE 147gr TC 1.061
Fed AE 115gr FMJ 1.151
Fed AE 124gr FMJ 1.151
Blazer Aluminum 115gr 1.115

My notes are not complete but I think the last "white box" I had was around 1.146

Maybe it's all changed now.
cyberiad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 02:51   #20
CitizenOfDreams
Senior Member
 
CitizenOfDreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 8,117
Here are some factory 9mm 115gr FMJ ammo measurements (10 rounds average)...

Federal American Eagle 29.29mm/1.153"
Precision Delta 29.37mm/1.156"
Golden Bear 29.43mm/1.159"
Wolf 29.50mm/1.161"
Winchester 29.50mm/1.161"
Sellier & Bellot 29.52mm/1.162"

Last edited by CitizenOfDreams; 04-11-2010 at 02:52..
CitizenOfDreams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 05:02   #21
dudel
Senior Member
 
dudel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North Georgia Mountains
Posts: 4,389
Only a chronograph will tell you. As Indy said at some point, yes, it will make a difference between a safe load and an unsafe load. If .1 less works for you why not do it and save powder. A 1/10th here, and a 1/10 there, eventually you've save a pound of powder. Of course, you have to wonder just how accurate your powder dump is.
dudel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 05:49   #22
MarkTX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Texas, US
Posts: 1,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudel View Post
Only a chronograph will tell you...

+++1

When I read G34 and "competition" I think IDPA.

With that in mind you have to make power factor and the only way to be sure of it is with a chronograph. With my chosen load a difference in X.8 X.9 rarely is noticable by me the shooter with recoil feeling the same and POI being identical. But that change has always been noticable to the chronograph with all else being equal.
__________________
Mark in TX (.40 club #32)
IDPA Classifications:
CDP/EX (via bump at TX State 2010),
ESP/EX (via bump at Nationals 2010),
SSP/EX (via classifier).
MarkTX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 10:06   #23
thorn137
Walther
 
thorn137's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNsTeR View Post
Measure a round of Winchester factory 115gr FMJ, it will measure 1.170". If factory ammo didn't fit in Glock magazines I'd think we'd be hearing about it.
Yep. I've got a WWB 9mm round that measures 1.169" that I keep on the shelf for die setup.

thorn
__________________
:: Gunpowder Treason ::
thorn137 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 13:33   #24
Knight Diver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNsTeR View Post
Because it is the max (more case capacity = safer), and also because that is factory length and the length that 9mm guns have been built around since the Luger.
Can someone explain to me what the "more case capacity = safer" part means? Thanks.
Knight Diver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2010, 13:45   #25
fredj338
Senior Member
 
fredj338's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: so.cal.
Posts: 21,124
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNsTeR View Post
Measure a round of Winchester factory 115gr FMJ, it will measure 1.170". If factory ammo didn't fit in Glock magazines I'd think we'd be hearing about it.
It depends on the bullet shape & wt. At 1.169"OAL, there isn't much 115grRNFMJ left in the case. The OAL is "safer" if you have no chronograph to help you adjust your powder charge wt. You can seat a 124gr bullet as short as 1.050" & be "safe" as long as you adjust the powder charge down to achieve the same vel as longer OAL w/ higher powder charges.
__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".

Last edited by fredj338; 04-11-2010 at 13:45..
fredj338 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:57.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,203
426 Members
777 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42