close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

WSF and .40 HST help

Discussion in 'Reloading' started by LanceL1, Aug 6, 2012.

Tags:
  1. LanceL1

    LanceL1

    31
    0
    Jan 24, 2009
    I acquired some 180gr .40 HST bullets from RMR and they seem to measure about .03 longer than the Zero 180gr jhp I normally load .
    I guess due to the larger hollow point cavity or is this just due to the different shape of the nose/ogive and wont effect case capacity for the same oal?
    If it will seat deeper in the case if I load to the same OAL 1.125 does anyone have any experience with these bullets or suggestions as to if/how much powder reduction....I normally load 5.5gr of wsf with the zero 180jhp
    Thanks in advance
    Lance
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2012
  2. ColoCG

    ColoCG

    936
    0
    Mar 18, 2011
    Colorado
    If you are changing bullet shapes for the same weight bullets and the new bullet will be seated deeper and thus reduce case capacity which will raise your pressure, then you should reduce your powder charge to starting levels and work up slowly.

    If I were you I would first load a dummy cartridge with your new bullet and your seating die set the same, then measure oal depending on the new bullets ogive it may or may not be seated deeper than your original bullet. Also test for fit in your magazine and chamber.Then you can decide on whether changes in your powder charge are needed.
     

    Last edited: Aug 6, 2012

  3. fredj338

    fredj338

    21,672
    901
    Dec 22, 2004
    so.cal.
    ^^THIS^^ There is no formula for longer bullets or seating deeper. You are changing powders & bullets, start over & work it up.
     
  4. squirreld

    squirreld

    1,456
    0
    Jan 15, 2006
    US of A
    typically a 10% drop and rebuild would be the best thing.
    I would start at 5 gr. and work up.
     
  5. firefighter4215

    firefighter4215

    1,137
    34
    Nov 2, 2009
    Kentucky
    I actually measured the HST's I received from RMR, and added the difference between them and a 180 XTP to 1.125",and started there. It came out to about 1.150", which is long for a 40 load. However, it dropped freely in the barrels from my G27 and G22, so I decided to try it. For now I'm sticking with the starting load of Autocomp and HS-6, and loading to 1.145". Seems to be working for well me, and I don't have any pressure signs.
     
  6. fredj338

    fredj338

    21,672
    901
    Dec 22, 2004
    so.cal.
    Yeah, but does it fit the magazine 4-5 rds down? In semiautos, it has to fit both bbl & magazine.:wavey:
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2012
  7. firefighter4215

    firefighter4215

    1,137
    34
    Nov 2, 2009
    Kentucky

    Haha. Good point. I should've mentioned that the next logical step was to load that many rounds and see. I went so far as to make a couple dummy rounds, and see if they'd work at the bottom of a full 15 round mag. No problems. Thanks for adding making that point. I've only shot a couple hundred like this so far, but they seem to work well with HS-6, Autocomp, and Longshot. I'm away from my data, but I never came close to a max load for any of them. Not going to experiment in uncharted territory.
     
  8. hotpig

    hotpig IAFF Local 4766 CLM

    Are the bullets HST or Hydra Shock? RMR listed them as the same but they are not related to each other.
     
  9. LanceL1

    LanceL1

    31
    0
    Jan 24, 2009
    HST's.......
    In the end I was able to load to 1.125 and go with my usual 5.5gr WSF......no signs of pressure that I can see....cases/primers look/feel the same as my loads using the zero 180JHP.
    Nice when it works that way :)
    Thanks again for the feedback