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 03-23-2013, 11:44   #1
rtpguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7
Help w/first loads 9mm 115gr JHP

Hi all,

Putting together my reloading setup (yeah, not at the best of times, obviously), and going through the online load data + Lyman's 49th.

I plan to standardize on 124gr JHP to approximate a carry/SD load, but until some bulk bullets become available, I've got a mixture of projectiles including 250 Nosler 115gr JHP I'd like to get loaded as my first reloads.

I saw some references somewhere (I know, not great..) about adding 10% or so to min loads for Glocks, something about pressure needed for cycling the slide - not sure if that's valid or not, but I am running into some conflicting load data, and hoping someone might nudge me in the right direction. As I don't have a chrono yet AND am new to reloading, I have no desire to chase ultimate power loads, just low to moderate power until I can get a chrono.

This is for a Glock 19c, for targets, training classes and some cardboard stuff..

Powder choices are either WSF or HS6.
Primers: CCI or Win.
Projectiles: Nosler sporting pistol 115gr JHP

I can't seem to find WSF load data for 115gr, but for HS6, it's all over the place:

Lyman:
HS6 MIN: 5.7gr/vel: 956 MAX: 7.2gr/vel:1193 bullet: xtp OAL: 1.090

Nosler:
HS6 MIN:6.1gr Vel: 770 MAX 7.1/990 BULLET: Nosler 115gr JHP OAL - none given

Hogden:
HS6 MIN 5.2gr vel:1095 MAX: 5.7gr/Vel: 1165 Bullet: generic/non-named 115gr JHP OAL 1.169

There's a pretty large range in there across the board, powder min/max, and OAL. Nosler's numbers seem way low on velocity to me, or are they somehow the lowest BC in existence?

Also if someone can throw me a bone about the easiest/best way to setOAL, I'd appreciate it.

Right now, I'm thinking to run some dummy rounds (no primer/powder) check and adjust OAL, check chambering in the Glock, sort out a sane load, and perhaps load 20 at most x 3 batches staying well below max...if I can determine reliably the right data.

Any help appreciated.
rtpguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 12:08   #2
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,764
I would use WSF first if you can get published data for it. Fred might be able to help out with that and I'm sure he'll sniff the letters WSF and come along shortly. HS6 is a good powder, but it is suited to the hotter end of things and you might end up with loads that have a lot of blast. Blast can make accurate shooting harder to achieve. The HS6 loads would be safe, but I just think a WSF load would be preferable for starting out.

As for the power level needed, load a dozen or so at the minimum load and see if the gun runs on them. Or, pick a spot in the data just off the bottom of charge weights. Starting at max can be dangerous, starting at minimum can result in a gun that won't cycle, so there is no good way to avoid making up a small batch and seeing how it does. Make a big batch and there is a agood chance you'll have a big pile of ammo that you have to pull down.

As for seating depth, load them as long as you can and still have them fit in the mag and chamber. Or, use the OAL given in the data. Most guns will chamber most loads if loaded to the OAL in the data, but some won't, so make up one or two and see if they fit your gun. Glocks are very accommodating of long OAL with the stock barrel.
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 12:08   #3
F106 Fan
Senior Member
 
F106 Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtpguy View Post
This is for a Glock 19c, for targets, training classes and some cardboard stuff..

Powder choices are either WSF or HS6.
Primers: CCI or Win.
Projectiles: Nosler sporting pistol 115gr JHP

I can't seem to find WSF load data for 115gr, but for HS6, it's all over the place:

Lyman:
HS6 MIN: 5.7gr/vel: 956 MAX: 7.2gr/vel:1193 bullet: xtp OAL: 1.090

Nosler:
HS6 MIN:6.1gr Vel: 770 MAX 7.1/990 BULLET: Nosler 115gr JHP OAL - none given

Hogden:
HS6 MIN 5.2gr vel:1095 MAX: 5.7gr/Vel: 1165 Bullet: generic/non-named 115gr JHP OAL 1.169

There's a pretty large range in there across the board, powder min/max, and OAL. Nosler's numbers seem way low on velocity to me, or are they somehow the lowest BC in existence?
BC has no effect on muzzle velocity.

You need to remember that all of this data is crap and you won't get anywhere near the same results. I ALWAYS come up low in velocity against published data. I swear that none of these were ever tested!

The only good news is that they have been lawyered up to the point that they are almost certainly safe.

Enough rant...

Go to the Hodgdon site and work through their database and you will find 7 9mm WSF loads, two of which are for 115 gr.

Quote:

Also if someone can throw me a bone about the easiest/best way to setOAL, I'd appreciate it.
The round should be as long as possible but it still needs to fit the magazine, run up the feed ramp and chamber without having the bullet impact the rifling. I load 115 gr to 1.125" because that's what I measured from a factory round. You will notice that Hodgdon site says 1.169" for everything. That turns out to be the SAAMI maximum length.

Anyway, Hodgdon says 4.9 gr MIN to 5.7 gr MAX.

Sierra has similar load data for WSF but they max out at 5.5 gr (start at 4.8 gr) but they have an OAL of 1.100".

I might start at 5.0 gr and 1.125" and maybe work up toward 5.5 gr. I would stop when the action cycled well and the holes started to group. There's no need to push MAX.

Make up a round and drop it in the chamber. Make sure it spins easily without dragging on the rifling. This is the famous 'kerplunk' test.

Quote:
Right now, I'm thinking to run some dummy rounds (no primer/powder) check and adjust OAL, check chambering in the Glock, sort out a sane load, and perhaps load 20 at most x 3 batches staying well below max...if I can determine reliably the right data.

Any help appreciated.
I would make up about 5 each of 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 gr all at 1.125".

Richard
__________________
"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." - Lily Tomlin
F106 Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 12:11   #4
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,764
Quote:
115 GR. JHP Winchester WSF .355" 1.169" 5.2 1095 28,700 PSI 5.7 1165 32,100 PSI
This is WSF data from hodgdon's website. Based on what they list, I'd start a few at 5.4 and see how they do.

http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 13:41   #5
Kentguy
Senior Member
 
Kentguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kent, OH
Posts: 1,059
rtpguy,

Congratulation on your decision to start reloading.

I too have a G19 and have done some testing with the 115g bullet using both HS6 & WST, although I have only use FMJ bullets not JHP's. Both of these powders will work fine for this caliber/bullet, information is the key, buy some load books and bookmark web sites from powder manufacturers. All of them will have load data on their products.

I good way to obtain numbers for a standard is to copy factory rounds. Outside of the box will give you Velocity and you can check that yourself through your own Chronograph, you can also check the OAL. From there you just go to your load data and match up the powder charge/velocity you are looking for.

In my tests, WSF will wake up and give you its best results in the mid to upper levels, where HS6 is a bit the opposite.

As you are already doing, checking the OAL via dummy rounds is the best way to find what your pistol will use. The best OAL I have found in my tests for this is around 1.135".

Good luck and be safe.
__________________
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"
óRudyard Kipling
Kentguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 17:37   #6
rtpguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7
Thanks, all!
Am putting the press together at the moment, so have a bit more time to absorb and think , but I appreciate all the comments and advice.

It looks like the WSF is the powder to crack open here...will use it for the 115 loads.

I do have a 9mm LoadUSA loadbook on the way, as well, but Nosler's data just seems way different than everyone else's I can find, which is making me a bit nervous that for example, min/max AND velocity is so off vs Lymans 49th, Hogden's load data online, etc.
rtpguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 22:40   #7
Bluescot
Senior Member
 
Bluescot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Idaho
Posts: 224
Brian Pearce published an article in Handloader magazine about reloading for the 9mm and he ran those loads through a couple of pistols.

I think it was the issue of February 2013, Handloader only publishes 6 magazines a year and that one had about 200-300 different loads for all weights of bullets from 90g to 147g I think. There weren't any loadings for WST but it had some for HS6.

See if you can find one online.
Bluescot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 20:34   #8
rtpguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7
Bluescot - looked but as of yet no luck on locating an online version of Handloader, will keep looking.

I checked my stash and realized I do have a few hundred Hornady 115gr FMJ RNs...while of course Hornady doesn't publish their load data online. Amusingly, I should have a mini version of the Hornady manual from my LnL press, but it was missing the doc packet (currently en route).

Anyone happen to have a copy of the Hornady manual that can give some load data for either the HS6 or WSF?

Also, seems like in this thread, I've heard it both ways - HS6 is for higher power loads and WSF is. *confused*
rtpguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 20:39   #9
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,764
I don't understand why you're making this harder than it is. Hodgdon's website has the data you need. It has been copied and pasted and linked for you.

As for which powder is better suited for your uses, load some up and find out. HS6 is a medium ball powder. Powders like it tend to not do well at lower power levels like you said you wanted. WSF is known to be much more flexible in that regard. Since someone on here contradicted that opinion, you'll simply have to load some up and find out.
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 22:00   #10
rtpguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
I don't understand why you're making this harder than it is. Hodgdon's website has the data you need. It has been copied and pasted and linked for you.

As for which powder is better suited for your uses, load some up and find out. HS6 is a medium ball powder. Powders like it tend to not do well at lower power levels like you said you wanted. WSF is known to be much more flexible in that regard. Since someone on here contradicted that opinion, you'll simply have to load some up and find out.
Eh, there's a saying about 'measure twice, cut once.'
I know enough that I realize I can't extrapolate between different powders, and don't know the impact of for example, keeping charge constant while changing bullet types with possibly different setbacks into the case, so basically - better safe than sorry, or trying to be so. Better to acknowledge what I do *not* know at this point, basically.

I did manage to get some load data from someone's Hornady manual, along with on my Lee dies booklet, the latter with WSF (as 'w-super-field') w/generic FMJ, the former w/actual projectile from Hornady but no WSF.

OAL is different between the two. Lee load data shows min OAL at 1.169", Hornady shows COAL (no min) @ 1.10".

I made some dummy rounds@ 1.170", loads from mag and chambers fine in the Glock. I guess I'll do some loads in WSF @ 5gr, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 and use an OAL of 1.170" and call it good until I can go shoot.

Thanks, and sorry if it seems I'm trying to make it more difficult than it 'should be' - that's not the intent.
rtpguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:14   #11
F106 Fan
Senior Member
 
F106 Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,237
The SAMMI maximum length is 1.169". I don't think I would go longer than that particularly since commercial loads are likely to be around 1.125" and both Hornady and Sierra call for 1.100". Sierra has a WSF load (4.8 - 5.5 gr).

Not that it matters but according to Sierra, HS6 will give more velocity than WSF and Unique will give even more. In fact, WSF is tied for last place in terms of velocity.

http://www.hodgdon.com/burn-rate.html

Richard
__________________
"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." - Lily Tomlin
F106 Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 07:21   #12
rtpguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7
Thanks, F106.
The 1.170" seemed long but I'm staring at it in front of me in the Lee guide - any idea why they would use SAAMI max as min OAL? I did do a sanity check vs carry loads, but those are commercial HPs, definitely shorter.

All of the rest of the Lee data is varied on Min OAL, starting at around 1.1070" - typos, convention of saying "use SAAMI" or ?
rtpguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 12:43   #13
rtpguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7
Answering self- Lee load data is showing a min OAL of SAMMI/1.1690" only if loaded to the never exceed/max powder load.

Currently loading at 1.150" OAL, batches of 6 at 5.0 through 5.5gr in .1gr increments w/WSF.

Last edited by rtpguy; 03-25-2013 at 12:45..
rtpguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 13:16   #14
F106 Fan
Senior Member
 
F106 Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,237
Lots of data, that's the key. Then filter out the junk. I have 10 published sources (or more) plus the Alliant and Hodgdon sites. I don't consider Handloads.com a credible source (because I don't trust ANY Internet loads) but it's sometimes worth a look.

Richard
__________________
"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." - Lily Tomlin
F106 Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 13:23   #15
Colorado4Wheel
Senior Member
 
Colorado4Wheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 14,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtpguy View Post
Thanks, F106.
The 1.170" seemed long but I'm staring at it in front of me in the Lee guide - any idea why they would use SAAMI max as min OAL? I did do a sanity check vs carry loads, but those are commercial HPs, definitely shorter.

All of the rest of the Lee data is varied on Min OAL, starting at around 1.1070" - typos, convention of saying "use SAAMI" or ?
Lee guide is just a combination of a bunch of public source data. It's not something Lee worked up or tested. So he groups similar loads into groups (124g all lumped together). I can normally find his source on the internet and get better information then what is in his book.
__________________
Steve
Colorado4Wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 13:50   #16
rtpguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by F106 Fan View Post
Lots of data, that's the key. Then filter out the junk. I have 10 published sources (or more) plus the Alliant and Hodgdon sites. I don't consider Handloads.com a credible source (because I don't trust ANY Internet loads) but it's sometimes worth a look.

Richard
I've got the loadbooks usa 9mm 'booklet' coming as well - any good?

I've seen handloads.com and reloadersnest..I'm seeing you're right - look for as much corroborating data, ignore any outliers without damned good reason, and start light.
rtpguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 14:17   #17
F106 Fan
Senior Member
 
F106 Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtpguy View Post
I've got the loadbooks usa 9mm 'booklet' coming as well - any good?
It is simply a reprint of the load data from the various manufacturers.

Hornady, Nosler, Sierra, Speer and Lyman bullets.
Hodgdon, Accurate, Alliant, IMR, Scot , Winchester and Vihtavuori powders.

It is a nice summary but there is no original work. OTOH, it can replace a number of larger volumes as long as the single caliber format is acceptable.

I have the 9mm book.

Richard
__________________
"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." - Lily Tomlin

Last edited by F106 Fan; 03-25-2013 at 14:17..
F106 Fan is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply


Tags
9mm, wsf
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 04:42.




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


Users Currently Online: 562
133 Members
429 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31