The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => Ammunition, questions, and handloading techniques => Topic started by: IDescribe on June 23, 2015, 12:37:01 PM
-
• • For CFE Pistol in 45ACP look here: https://czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=95931.0 • •
Just two bullets for now: the Hornady 115gr HAP and the Montana Gold 115gr JHP. As I load more with this powder, I will add to this thread. I recommended to another forum user that they go ahead and use Hodgdon's load data for CFE Pistol and the Speer GDHP, which was 5.3 -- 5.9. He was concerned that he should start lower because of the shorter OAL, so I went ahead and extended the ladder down to a starting load of 5.1 so that we could see the difference between 5.1 and Hodgdon's starting load of 5.3.
CFE Pistol. What the manufacturer says: This spherical pistol propellant utilizes our CFE formula, Copper Fouling Eraser, virtually eliminating copper fouling, plus providing top velocities with clean burning and minimal muzzle flash. For competitive shooters and hand loaders seeking the perfect powder for target or self-defense loads, CFE Pistol provides optimum performance in cartridges like the 9mm Luger, 38 Super, 40 S&W, the venerable 45 ACP and many more.
It metered well. It was a little dirty, especially at lower charges. Recoil was definitely stouter when compared to faster powders, but that's expected. Some people are using this to make major power factor for USPSA Open division, so it's going to be fairly forgiving in normal load ranges.
Caliber: 9x19 Luger
Bullet: Hornady 115gr HAP
Powder: CFE Pistol
Primers: Federal SPP
Brass: Starline -- used
OAL: 1.080"
I know most don't use 115gr bullets for action shooting, but I went ahead and included power factor for context. I am also going to add the additional velocity gained per tenth grain of powder at the end of each string.
5.1gr Avg fps - 1083 fps | PF-125 | SD-15 | ES-40
5.3gr Avg fps - 1108 fps | PF-127 | SD-10 | ES-35 | +12.5
5.5gr Avg fps - 1160 fps | PF-133 | SD-9 | ES-30 | +26.0
5.7gr Avg fps - 1188 fps | PF-137 | SD-7 | ES-24 | +19.0
5.8gr Avg fps - 1206 fps | PF-139 | SD-12 | ES-44 | +18.0
5.9gr Avg fps - 1225 fps | PF-141 | SD-11 | ES-31 | +19.0
With that modest velocity bump of 12.5 feet per second per tenth grain going from 5.1 to 5.3, as well as the fact that these were especially dirty, I'd say the powder at these charge weights is not producing enough pressure to burn efficiently -- to be expected for light loads. Those nice even incremental velocity bumps for the highest 3 charge increases are fairly comforting. Between that and the low flash characteristics, I'd say this powder has some potential for HD loads. Hodgdon's load data for the Speer GDHP shows 5.3gr -5.9gr getting 1059 - 1185 feet/sec, so it would seem we're getting a little more pressure and velocity for our powder with the deeper seated bullet.
______________________________________________
Caliber: 9x19 Luger
Bullet: Montana Gold 115gr JHP
Powder: N320
Primers: Federal SPP
Brass: Starline -- used
OAL: 1.075
5.3gr Avg fps - 1113 fps | PF-128 | SD-14 | ES-48
5.5gr Avg fps - 1138 fps | PF-131 | SD-13 | ES-32 | +12.5
5.7gr Avg fps - 1193 fps | PF-137 | SD-11 | ES-45 | +27.5
So not too far off from the Hornady HAPs.
[Mods changed the thread title]
-
Interesting post! I just started to try out some loads with CFE Pistol this week. I used Hodgdon's data and am using RMR 124gr RN bullets. No chronograph so I can't comment on velocity. I loaded them at a COAL of 1.140" and have gotten good results with a charge of 5.3gr of powder, and I did notice that the recoil is a bit snappier than with the faster burning powders that I have been using.
-
I've only had a chance to test it with a Ballisticast 931 (125 grain lead round nose).
Bullet: Ballisticast 931
Lube: Carnauba Red
Diameter: 0.358"
Alloy: Water Quenched Wheel Weights
Powder: CFE Pistol
Primer: CCI 500
Brass: Federal Nickel (once fired)
OAL: 1.125"
Load Avg
4.4gr 1006fps
4.5 1042
4.6 1066
4.7 1081
4.8 1093
4.9 1111
5.0 1156
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/jameslovesjammie/gun%20stuff/Casting%20Stuff/cfe-9-125.png)
SD's ranged from 8-13, and all rounds were trickle charged to weight.
Hodgdon's load data showed (with a 125 grain Lead Conical Nose bullet) at 1.125", a starting load of 4.4 grains at 1,041 fps and max of 5.0 grains at 1,156 fps. While my 5.0 grain load matched Hodgdon's data to the T, judging by the spike in velocity I would call this overpressure for this bullet. Especially since the velocities for the other powder charges were so much lower than Hodgdon's data. I would call 4.9 grains max with this bullet. 4.5-4.9 grains gave the most predictable increases in velocity, and would be the more usable window.
Accuracy node was at 4.8 grains. (5 shots 20 yards)
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/jameslovesjammie/gun%20stuff/e661621b-a94d-48da-a723-63c650ff5b46.jpg)
-
Awesome job ID, sorry about putting that BUZZ in your head, ha! ;)
Even though it appears I need to go slightly shorter at 1.07 my my P09, it does appear the 5.3gr may be a good starter. The velos are good! All this should run well I would think, now lets talk a bit about accuracy!
Any prefs based upon your experience? Some of my reading suggests the PF range of upper 130's to lower 140's is the way to twist up a 9mm reguardless of 115vs 124/5.
I know some of that is subjective and may vary.
Thoughts appreciated.
I do want to toutch upon the other question I have about felt recoil with a slower powder, but that is secondary for now.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Some of my reading suggests the PF range of upper 130's to lower 140's is the way to twist up a 9mm reguardless of 115vs 124/5.
Mark, I am pretty sure power factor itself, which is just a measure of momentum, isn't that important. Because action pistol shooters measure velocity so that they can achieve a certain power factor, they often use the term power factor for both, even if velocity is the more appropriate term. When you read about people making certain accuracy gains at certain power factors, that's probably what's going on.
If you see me, for example, saying that I like 147 grain bullets at a power factor of 136/137 because lower than that makes the pistol feel sluggish to me, then I add a comment about how I have also observed groups at 25 yards tighten up for me at that power factor, what I'm really talking about that's affecting accuracy is velocity, but because I started off talking about power factor, I continue to use that term.
At the end of the day, given a bullet, powder, and pistol, you need to play around with OAL and charge weight to find the accuracy sweet spot. You don't have much room to play with OAL with this pistol and bullet, so it's probably going to be mostly charge weight for you.
-
Good Data.
I have only used this powder with Xtreme 124 RN and my chrono results were:
5.3 grns 1.135 OAL SP-01 Average 1148
5.5 grns 1.135 OAL SP-01 Average 1177
4.6 grns 1.135 OAL Glock 17 Average 1027
4.0 grns 1.135 OAL CZ P-02 Average 1006
-
Some of my reading suggests the PF range of upper 130's to lower 140's is the way to twist up a 9mm reguardless of 115vs 124/5.
Mark, I am pretty sure power factor itself, which is just a measure of momentum, isn't that important. Because action pistol shooters measure velocity so that they can achieve a certain power factor, they often use the term power factor for both, even if velocity is the more appropriate term. When you read about people making certain accuracy gains at certain power factors, that's probably what's going on.
If you see me, for example, saying that I like 147 grain bullets at a power factor of 136/137 because lower than that makes the pistol feel sluggish to me, then I add a comment about how I have also observed groups at 25 yards tighten up for me at that power factor, what I'm really talking about that's affecting accuracy is velocity, but because I started off talking about power factor, I continue to use that term.
At the end of the day, given a bullet, powder, and pistol, you need to play around with OAL and charge weight to find the accuracy sweet spot. You don't have much room to play with OAL with this pistol and bullet, so it's probably going to be mostly charge weight for you.
Yep, I agree. To me it just seems to be about the velocity and just how fast to twist these things up to stabilize them as best possible. Other margins are slim here.
My testing with a P09 and red dot will still be up to the shooter at best, which is subjective and may require many comparative rounds to see a true pattern. This is not easy!, then take it out to 50 or 100! Nuts but fun!
-
Good Data.
I have only used this powder with Xtreme 124 RN and my chrono results were:
5.3 grns 1.135 OAL SP-01 Average 1148
5.5 grns 1.135 OAL SP-01 Average 1177
4.6 grns 1.135 OAL Glock 17 Average 1027
4.0 grns 1.135 OAL CZ P-02 Average 1006
More good info here, as I still have some of them bullets I think! Good for comparison to the HAP!
-
Ok ID,
Den splains dis to me!
I do want to touch upon the other question I have about felt recoil with a slower powder, but that is secondary for now.
I am thinking something along the lines of the slower burn and longer duration may translate into a greater perceived recoil due to the period as compared to the work done? ???
-
There are many reasons.
Here is a great discussion on the topic: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?253596-Why-do-some-powders-have-more-recoil
My favorite analogy from that thread:
think about accelerating in your muscle car.
half throttle = eh but you'll get to 60.
hammer down on that pedal and it pushes you back into the seat like crazy and you get to 60 much sooner.
pushing a 230gr boolit to 850 fps produces recoil quite similar in force [rearward motion] no matter how you get there.
you feel the slam differently than you feel the gentle acceleration.
bullseye= slam.
unique= acceleration.
both= equal 60 mph.
-
Thanks for data..... CFE..it's available local so I'm also about to test...
Anyone have data for heavier bullets.... Lead...?
Also note Jamies' data is for .358 Dia bullet.....
Most load data is based on .355. I too will be testing .358 (Poly coated)
Does the .003 make a big difference? Feel, accuracy, pressure, spread, sd.....
(I'm aware.... Start low work up....). (Ps.. I'm just returning to reloading after a few year lay off )
-
Also note Jamies' data is for .358 Dia bullet.....
Most load data is based on .355. I too will be testing .358 (Poly coated)
Does the .003 make a big difference? Feel, accuracy, pressure, spread, sd.....
There's an old saying with cast bullets: Fit is King.
Bullet to barrel fit is more important than alloy, hardness, lube choice, or rifling. A cast bullet needs to seal your barrel, hence it needs to be a larger diameter than the groove diameter of the barrel. If a cast bullet is of smaller diameter than the barrel and too hard, it won't properly obdurate (seal the bore). This leads to gas blow by that damages the bullet and causes leading, tumbling, velocity loss, and inaccuracy.
A larger bullet, on the other hand, will swage itself down in the transition through the leade while maintaining a gas seal. Lead alloys are quite malleable and conform easily to the barrel. A bullet that is too small can skid across the rifling, depositing lead. The harder the alloy, the more pronounced the problem is.
Do larger diameter bullets feel differently? No. Are they more accurate than smaller bullets? They tend to be, especially the higher the round count gets because you don't get the leading deposits associated with an undersized bullet. Are the resulting pressures higher because of the larger bullet? Theoretically most likely. How much more? Not very much. Are the higher pressures associated with the extra force required to swage the bullet down? Or is it because you aren't losing pressure due to escaped gas? ES and SD shouldn't be affected.
-
Are the resulting pressures higher because of the larger bullet? Theoretically most likely. How much more? Not very much. Are the higher pressures associated with the extra force required to swage the bullet down? Or is it because you aren't losing pressure due to escaped gas?
James, I don't know this to be true, but I suspect the higher pressure is due to the better containment of gas. I can't imagine that it takes more force to push a lead a lead/moly bullet at .356 into a 9mm barrel than it does to push the much harder jacketed bullet into the barrel, even at .355, especially with the harder, higher zinc content jackets of the Montana Gold.
So a real world example -- my .356 Blue Bullet 125gr RN with a seating depth of .219 avg 1000 feet/sec with 3.8gr of N320 whereas the 124gr Montana Gold JHP with a significantly deeper seating depth of .251 only avg 965 with 3.8gr of N320 and need 4.0gr to break 1000. I would think that's the result of better obturation by the lead bullet. It seems the 124gr MG JHP would have just about every velocity advantage there except obturation, so... obturation wins?? I know some people will say that the extra friction of the jacket keeps the bullet from getting to as high a velocity as the coated lead, but that's the opposite of what happens. I know from researching various low friction coatings like moly or hexa-Boron Nitride used by the benchrest guys that the low friction coatings actually reduce velocity, and people that have a load developed with a copper jacketed bullet who add moly or hBN to the bullets they already use, they have to increase charge weight to get back to the original velocity. The reason is that the reduced resistance of the coated bullets at the beginning of the burn allows faster initial acceleration, which expands the combustion chamber more rapidly, and results in lower overall pressure. Basically, the gain you get in acceleration from less resistance is out-weighed by the pressure loss of the faster expanding combustion chamber.
So, James, I'd guess better obturation and less escaped gas. Your best guess?
-
ID
Correct me if I'm not following you about the benchrest guys coating thier plated bullets.
The coating is getting the bullet to move quicker out of the chamber but is lacking the obduration at the base of the bullet to seal the gases. So they need to up thier charge weight to get to what they got without the coating.
FWIW I think your guess makes a lot of sense.
-
great info .... now to wrap my head around it........
-
Managed a couple more refinements to my system today and put together test ladders for accuracy using the HAP and CFE to compare with a couple other 115gr factory loads.
15 rds ea(5x3) of 5.3,5.5,5.7 and 5.9gr loads for the test.
This stuff just takes time. Gun ready, P09 in full CGW trim and Burris FFlll dialed in. Now to find some range time!
I almost hate to waste this stuff at 15 yds, may go straight to 25.
-
The coating is getting the bullet to move quicker out of the chamber but is lacking the obturation at the base of the bullet to seal the gases. So they need to up their charge weight to get to what they got without the coating.
No, no. I'm not suggesting the low friction coatings affect obturation. I'm saying that there's a common conception that higher friction between the barrel and bullet will decrease overall velocity, and that's not necessarily true.
Smokeless powder burns faster the more pressure it's under, so as the powder burns, pressure goes up, which causes the powder to burn faster, which causes pressure to go up, which causes the powder to burn faster, and so on, and so on. So anything we do to increase pressure early results in a geometrically greater pressure overall. It's a positive feedback loop. When the primer goes off, powder starts burning, pressure starts rising, and the bullet begins to move into and down the barrel. The thing is, while the ever faster burning powder and additional gaseous nitrogen works to increase pressure, the bullet moving into and down the barrel has the effect of expanding the combustion chamber, which reduces pressure. Through the first part of the burn, the expanding gases have a greater positive effect on pressure than the expanding chamber has on reducing pressure, but as the fuel source dwindles and the chamber continues to expand, the pressure starts falling. That's why the pressure curve rises then falls.
So, while increased friction certainly has the effect of decreasing acceleration, that decrease in acceleration has the affect of slowing down the expansion of the combustion chamber, which has a positive effect on pressure. What I've read of the bench rest shooters needing to increase powder charges after coating bullets with low-friction coatings to achieve the same velocities they had before would seem to indicate that the decrease in acceleration you get from higher friction is outweighed by the increase in pressure you get from the more slowly expanding combustion chamber. I suppose that which is the greater effect could change with a given bullet weight, shank length, actual diameter relative to barrel, standard pressure levels, the particular barrel, powder, etc., etc., but it should not be assumed that higher friction between bullet and barrel results in lower velocity because in some cases the opposite is demonstrably true.
NOW, the reason all that mattered for the previous point is that for the two bullets I referenced -- the 125gr Blue RN and the 124gr JHP -- it would seem that given the same charge weight, the 124gr should have the advantage with velocity. It's lighter (by a hair) but it's seated much more deeply into the case. But there is some other factor that is giving the 125gr Blue Rn the velocity advantage at a given charge weight. The 125gr Blue RN coated lead bullet gets an extra 35 feet per sec at charge weight I referenced, and the JHP does in fact need an extra .2 grains to achieve the same velocity, AND the deeper seating depth should have been worth an extra .2 grains worth of powder, so it would seem the .001 larger, better obturating bullet is worth about .4 grains of powder there, which is significant. I know it won't play out exactly like that with every bullet comparison of the same or almost the same weight, but I would guess the better obturating bullet in that situation is always going to show the higher pressure. The reason it mattered to point out that a higher friction coefficient doesn't translate to slower velocity is to preemptively remove the idea that the reason the 124gr JHP needed extra powder was to overcome the greater friction. I was basically anticipating and addressing an argument before it was made. ;)
edited to correct three type-os
-
Hello ID, me again with more questions relating to this thread and my specific loads used as listed here with the Hap and CFE in a search for accuracy...
Which velocity would you guess just works out to 100 yds? Or more?
Yes, we need a good bullet, then we need to propel it to a velocity that will twist it up to gyro stabilize it, yet it seems to me that within itself will degrade as distance increases and velocity decreases.
Yet, at the same time, no need to overdrive it in a search for high PF. Someone termed it "wasted powder"!
In my realm, testing is still subjective and only as good as I may be on the day.
My thoughts are running along the lines of the 1200 fps range for longer range stability with a 115 gr bullet.
Input appreciated.
Mark
-
James, I don't know this to be true, but I suspect the higher pressure is due to the better containment of gas. I can't imagine that it takes more force to push a lead a lead/moly bullet at .356 into a 9mm barrel than it does to push the much harder jacketed bullet into the barrel, even at .355, especially with the harder, higher zinc content jackets of the Montana Gold.
So a real world example -- my .356 Blue Bullet 125gr RN with a seating depth of .219 avg 1000 feet/sec with 3.8gr of N320 whereas the 124gr Montana Gold JHP with a significantly deeper seating depth of .251 only avg 965 with 3.8gr of N320 and need 4.0gr to break 1000. I would think that's the result of better obduration by the lead bullet. It seems the 124gr MG JHP would have just about every velocity advantage there except obduration, so... obduration wins?? I know some people will say that the extra friction of the jacket keeps the bullet from getting to as high a velocity as the coated lead, but that's the opposite of what happens. I know from researching various low friction coatings like moly or hexa-Boron Nitride used by the benchrest guys that the low friction coatings actually reduce velocity, and people that have a load developed with a copper jacketed bullet who add moly or hBN to the bullets they already use, they have to increase charge weight to get back to the original velocity. The reason is that the reduced resistance of the coated bullets at the beginning of the burn allows faster initial acceleration, which expands the combustion chamber more rapidly, and results in lower overall pressure. Basically, the gain you get in acceleration from less resistance is out-weighed by the pressure loss of the faster expanding combustion chamber.
So, James, I'd guess better obduration and less escaped gas. Your best guess?
ID,
Sorry it took so long to reply. Had a death in the family.
I think you're on the right track. I've tried to research this for the past day and can't find a definitive answer to the cast vs jacketed situation. You're remarks about Moly and HBN mimic what I have read about them. I have no personal experience with either.
As far as lead goes, I'm absolutely certain that obduration is the key. You know I'm a proponent of filling the throat and an alloy of reasonable hardness. With a softer alloy, the base of the bullet can expand to fit the barrel. What happens is the base of the bullet starts acceleration before the nose does. Think of it as a "pancaking" affect. A hard alloy resists this deformation, hence needs to be of larger diameter to fill the throat off the get go. It also doesn't "bite" the rifling as well as the softer alloy. This is why many people have issues with commerial cast bullets and leading. If the alloy is too hard and the bullet is undersized, it doesn't obdurate well off the get go and can skid on the rifling before fully obdurating. This gies you had leading in the first few inches of the barrel and then none in the last part. Continued shooting in this situation extends the leading farther down the barrel as more lead is deposited on each subsequent shot and accuracy deteriorates.
-
Sorry to hear about the loss, James.
Thanks for the reply. A couple years ago, obturation was one of those things in shooting where I knew what it was, but I didn't really see it as playing too big a role, and bullet to barrel fit was barely a thought. Over the last six months, obturation keeps popping up in different ways, and the more I look at it, the more important it gets. I saw your "fit is king" comment earlier in the thread and thought "Yeah, I'm finally starting to figure some of this out." ;)
-
Which velocity would you guess just works out to 100 yds? Or more?
My thoughts are running along the lines of the 1200 fps range for longer range stability with a 115 gr bullet.
You're in luck! ;) I don't know the real answer to your question. But the powder and bullet combo you're using makes that unnecessary.
According to Hornady's ballistic data, a 115gr HAP doing 1155 at the muzzle will be doing 958 at 100 yards. While I can't tell you the actual velocity floor you're asking for, I can tell you that with the twist rate of a CZ, 958 feet/sec definitely produces enough RPMs to keep the bullet stabilized.
While it's not the same bullet, the same Hornady data has data for 115gr FTX at 1135 at the muzzle and 949 at 100 yards. 949 is also more than fast enough. I am confident the HAP would be close enough to call it the same for our purposes, so 1135 at the muzzle is good, as well.
Finally, I'm pretty sure I've seen video of Joe L producing impressive groups at 100 yards at muzzle velocities significantly slower than 1135, so 1135 should give you a nice cushion.
So why are you in luck? With CFE Pistol, you're going to be at 1135 or higher just about anywhere other than your starting load anyway, so you don't have to worry about it. Run your ladder, find your accuracy load at 25, and that's probably going to be your accuracy load at 100 yards as well. ;)
-
I'll also add that while you're .2gr ladder increment is fine for general load development where you're evaluating velocity, after you see what you get, you might want to do the next ladder in .1gr increments. If you get one of those loads to appear more accurate than the others, build another ladder for accuracy evaluation that includes three steps: your charge weight that produced the best accuracy in the first test, then one .1gr down, and another .1gr up. And load up a bunch of each to shoot groups. If you have two charge weights from the initial test that seem to be about the same, then do a 5 step in .1gr increments that spans both. And I'd still do that at 25 yards. No reason to move to 100 until you get things dialed in at 25.
-
I'll also add that while you're .2gr ladder increment is fine for general load development where you're evaluating velocity, after you see what you get, you might want to do the next ladder in .1gr increments. If you get one of those loads to appear more accurate than the others, build another ladder for accuracy evaluation that includes three steps: your charge weight that produced the best accuracy in the first test, then one .1gr down, and another .1gr up. And load up a bunch of each to shoot groups. If you have two charge weights from the initial test that seem to be about the same, then do a 5 step in .1gr increments that spans both. And I'd still do that at 25 yards. No reason to move to 100 until you get things dialed in at 25.
Yes, I totally agree and that is my plan. That batch is mostly all going to be in a range that is twisted up pretty well, and if I find a difference in accuracy I may be lucky.
Joe L. is running the Atlanta Arms, cannot recall exactly which one, but looking at their website on their premium ammo running 115 XTP it says:
Using a high quality match bullet, this is designed for extreme accuracy at 50 yards. This ammo is the PPC match ammo used by all of Homeland Security pistol teams including all of the Border Patrol Teams, as well as some of the best police teams. This is also a great Bianchi Cup and Steel Challenge round averaging 1100 FPS. Our accuracy test requirement is 5 ten-shot groups at 50 yards, with an average group size not to exceed 1.25 inches.
I feel soooo reassured already this stuff should almost find the same hole like a laser guided rocket if I can just manage to kickstart it!
I do not have any to compare, but I do have some Freedom 124 XTP to compare.
All point being, I may not need to run them all that fast as long as stability will hold at distance.
Thanks again for your input. Hopefully I can get out this weekend and blow some stuff off.
-
Finally made it to range for testing. Preferred range still shut due to flooding, the alt. does not allow sandbags on pistol range so a 4x4 in carpet had to do, not the greatest rest! That dot can move a lot at 25!
I warmed up a bit with some Perfecta from Wallyworld! Couple of fliers but about ten of fifteen rounds wore a 1.5 in the target! Ok then!
I ran some of my Xtreme 124 and 4.0 gr titegroup along with the other stuff just to compare, but long story made short, everything ran into about 3.0 in. groups with one exception.
The 115 HAP over 5.9 gr of CFE did three groups of 5 rounds at 2 inches with one flier I think.
Oh well, maybe I will work around that to see what happens. It is a bit on the hot side based upon the chromo numbers from ID, but more testing is due.
-
great info .... now to wrap my head around it........
The first step is to roll out your head until it's about 1/2 inch thick. Then use a spatula to gently lift the head....
;D
-
Well, continuing the process, and since I got the best groups at 5.9 gr CFE, the new ladder will be (is) :
5.8
5.9
6.0
It's get'n hot in Texas! O0
-
And after finally fixing my P-09, I decided to get it into the chrono rotation. ;)
Pistol: CZ P-09 Cajunized
Bullet: Missouri Bullet Company 125gr SWC
Powder: CFE Pistol
Primers: Federal SPP
Brass: Federal -- Used (all my Starline is dirty)
OAL: 1.066
Final number is the increase in velocity from the previous charge weight.
4.4gr Avg fps - 1060 fps | SD-15 | ES-53
4.5gr Avg fps - 1077 fps | SD-14 | ES-32 | +17
4.6gr Avg fps - 1084 fps | SD-11 | ES-30 | +7
4.7gr Avg fps - 1119 fps | SD-9 | ES-20 | +34
These were 5 shot strings, so the averages are a little suspect. For the 4.6gr string, the first two shots were well under the other 3, and I suspect that string should be coming in in the 1090's. This was just a preliminary to see where the loads fell. I'm going to load 50 @ 4.6 and 50 @ 4.7 for accuracy testing. Would like these at 1100. Accuracy at 15 yards was quite good. We'll see what happens at 25.
-
I am starting to think 1100 fps or better is the range for 124-5 gr bullets, and 1105-1200 range for the 115 gr.
I ran into some serious problems trying to break in the TP9 on the cheap Perfecta 115 running 1050. It is a stiff gun, not unlike a P-07, and it did not want to function well at all. It did run well on WWB the next day. Not sure what they chrono at.
Seems I now need to re- do my load accuracy tests with the 115 Hap and CFE. Seems the higher loads were just a bit too much at over 1300 fps.
Does anyone know what velocity the defense ammo is running without going +P? or with? Stuff like Critical Defense and Critical Duty?
-
Does anyone know what velocity the defense ammo is running without going +P? or with? Stuff like Critical Defense and Critical Duty?
Factory specs for the 115 Critical Defense is 1140 and the 135 grain Critical Duty is 1010. Chrono velocity on the Defense is usually pretty close, withing 20 fps or so.
-
Copemech, if you got to Midway USA, most of the commercially produced ammo they sell will have the predicted velocity in the description, and it should be close.
-
Thank you both for the reply.
Yes, it seems the Midway site does give that info all in one spot! Nice.
I was surprised by the 1190fps claim on the WWB! This was one that Schmekey often referred to as giving low power issues in the CZ's. I have run it before without issue, though.
That is a 137 PF if correct. The Perfecta would be at 120.
Transformed the gun with proper operation and ejection pattern as compared to dumping brass on my feet. It is not like one is able to run out and buy light recoil springs for a Canik TP9, or a Walther either it seems.
I would need to refer back to ID's recent dissertation about recoil and all that, but in general terms I believe this basic power factor equation relates heavily into simply making your average gun function without modifications, specially our euro imports that are probably built around something closer to Nato spec ammo.
The Win 124 gr is listed at 1140 fps as well, 141 PF!
-
Several 9mm Winchester ammo options can be referred to as "WWB".
The WWB 100rd loose 115gr bullets are not a class act, and most find lightly loaded.
The WWB of 50, each in a styrofoam pocket perform much more reliably and I believe a little hotter. I shot these before I started reloading.
I guess the Win Nato box of 50 is also 'white', is a heavier load and the primer is crimped.
Back in the day and before the loose 100 rd box came out, the std. WWB of 50 was very reliable and consistent. THESE were called WWB and also inexpensive.
-
Several 9mm Winchester ammo options can be referred to as "WWB".
The WWB 100rd loose 115gr bullets are not a class act, and most find lightly loaded.
The WWB of 50, each in a styrofoam pocket perform much more reliably and I believe a little hotter. I shot these before I started reloading.
I guess the Win Nato box of 50 is also 'white', is a heavier load and the primer is crimped.
Back in the day and before the loose 100 rd box came out, the std. WWB of 50 was very reliable and consistent. THESE were called WWB and also inexpensive.
Yes indeed, this was a 100 round loose box. Is there a difference? Who knows. I would like to chrono a few. I am gonna try some of my PPU and Blazer as well in this gun. I really like it, but it needs to run!
I did see those 124gr Nato you referred to. They are hot as well. Possibly a +P ?
-
Caliber: 9x19 Luger
Bullets: Precision Delta 124gr JHP
Brass: Winchester
Powder: CFE Pistol
Max Velocity: 1120fps
Primer: Winchester WSP
OAL: 1.110"
Pistol: SP-01 Tac
Qty: 10 rounds each, slow fired
Weather: 50F, clear and windy
Chrono: ProChrono
Load Avg Vel SD
4.5gr 970 20
4.7 995 23
4.9 1024 23
5.0 1047 13
5.1 1083 13
5.3 1122 15 Max Load
NOTES
• Metered very well due to small grain size
• Burned remarkably clean, even at 4.5gr
• Attribute the mid-range SD numbers to the powder and not my reloading technique
• Loaded on Dillon 550 using Dillon dies
• Good case fill
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/d66mYQCLEGaszlAueFMLGx1YJQlj4TaMX4jxC8BE9nvjo3vwvWCDbpEbh1E2-hPvLVL1m2jX_nk1olcSxUZwpXzUqHYyvqoRoMyvRZCcDK3PJT-V7teDBLeuQhLnwClYY9AuCz-BKwTo8QVPtP-3IYAUAh4KxiKlI1B9DWrg-APP7_Z9BKj0-TLpy1_7yS0Cu6Dxq76SEWzunyaLeFZKHbt5uxqZ8HLrD049JDBQWZpBqFPszEsTV-lz46XmnYnxLEAcOklMFZC2NzD3WMgB_ih7on2gm0cPFCna-hzkfD4_Kaxy_RjV13eHRe5iBkU17kiDmPmvXsw8019iu7eD5zeLYvTJ9LoXHm6hTSTrNuTNt6PDR_YIiMcHD9ExbwsnelpENQmlDleMd-CldqNV4tyMRSyrlrf0UkDrXA0EacR_ertm51NrCBtQKnKOUx8QljXFojHGh0u-u1zosaipXThWm0nY8CxWYtkZklFfE1IwIgv4kSIxLvA-rxvEYe3J5n-LndkaYr8n0z_q3sd28jUZwz1zhw0r51s-qRE3QcI0zZZLXFIUltm1AgKSSVPofL7GJxRNyMsx8Q-4fI7UQ-Py4RY1OY6ZvAps9q0=w414-h502-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/x73c_didreaXGu3ZSlKFafGVPjsQ1OOnDjjBgLH_bbtQiaYBW2Muth8uXowtH2HlLD-7eh8rZy2NNVthGbBU_NvlsNcxcUqr5MyGI6HdD9Hq-GpxSe4wRCBRerOpI3P5i7LanRcAUhEL5ZySuTgHT972zXYp3Sv2i2mMzCVwSckWuDc8ohsIfeOViXCFuu-ml561t_m9wCW2ZruXs-FoRTFBzSYud44Bq8jfRzEEJ-PKPQpi-K0epUD67W98dCBwicoe244AD5adkMogPuniGgxYdQTGsXINSTYqpNmKDDp53bf1g9BfJahCIB43LxAvTvTLej5UkYxjh_-GLNfNWzr0t7JhbO0KzNKgYoTaQeSJrElLcgrJdkOu6kmzezQ8gwpfqfjddSWX6rrfPsK6mJdX-N0SJFJJAE_x2raDhMbcjG0XX6Kaf6cSY2OKyS1r9qMBHDht8vu88IL_4phRrXtbDXACtHzh9bI0J7kiL7t9FbR4v8zNAQrGwlhMxayhwiI6Q7xOKEAajQU66nVNSXL__sKp0ZDZ56uYD-kOFunZXYcsVaTad_5H6Ot-kI51M5pXRKfzgKTUyCl8XAYD7fF99BQPc5U-BYpx0os=w640-h480-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/qUsjEQSDEf3syJytrsKhXIVNDA9Ns1_tMiEvhrqQg8ienydnCkpntzmFx_z9rghvZkGLMtCFnaBVyZkW3wp3-P1hmV6YetTnas9zFSHIDzU63s5MeJNw9is_gtgxK1PX5rzGHpHPOA34BuMMdBy18ftJljvte9bStJjzYNjGpVWcBS3XwlJo47RaTYvSsAUC3SsU_JF0s3SCDHFrScS6Jlp63b4DCVuk0ZcvytKaftrmZgm-pahXa0_S7ZDEc0VGifGC4rf_ri-ZhTyZ-KN5fgY0yOzX5Z_xcjl2CcQvNLcgnOI4su9QOlw384a9M1LuQN1yb1y1M3gqPPaK4qlXOb9Febyj6S5cuHcJdJK4_7GtWH2STQxBrqasM_4T0KIFhhnL3nQRnJ4FP8_hi0O1GM5F3czzb682vUcyiOFJXkFQryzwdBbzDBSI1j_OyEzNIQ2Z0WjIhyF8WfTK7QyR_AsA8IIWd0l_BWBwhm1dH5eeDrGFeHQ-4BQ-3mBI9pL4hBvVKGLgHT3td0dr7us9R1PzU2eV-416UheM-vuoJAQXja7186wFZkKv7vjXMlC7zlgW5dx0OrsJ5xgFQ37bams6hecshGhYTMAq8IA=w480-h330-no)
-
Now you have me thinking about trying the CFE in my 9mm. Last year I loaded up Berrys SD HHP 124 with Longshot in 0.2gr steps. I don't remember the exact load, (not at home near my logs) but saw 1140 over the chrony out of my P120. I backed it down to 1100. But now I'm wanting to try the CFE in it and see if it burns cleaner.
Thanks for reviving this thread, Wobbly.
-
Thanks for reviving this thread, Wobbly.
It was a simple decision.
All the previous data was here. All the data belongs together.
;)
-
And he only had to change what I can only assume was my beautifully worded thread title, which I do not remember. ;)
[Only the words Hodgdon and powder were added.]
-
I tested CFE pistol today in my suppressed Sig MPX (8" barrel). The goal was to find a 124gr load that would reliably lock the bolt back on the last round. The other 9mm powders I've been using function well with very light recoil, but fail to hold open on the last round (n320 and sport pistol). My theory was that a 'slower' powder would help with this. All loads functioned, including lrbho, suppressed and non-suppressed.
Equipment
Caliber: 9x19 Luger
Bullets: Precision Delta 124gr JHP
Brass: FC
Powder: Hodgdon CFE Pistol
Max Velocity: 1218 fps
Primer: Federal Small Pistol
OAL: 1.106"
Pistol: Sig MPX 8" / Silencerco Octane 45k
Qty: 5 rounds each, medium pace
Weather: 94F, 35% humidity and sunny (texas hot)
Chrono: Magnetospeed
Load Avg Vel SD
4.6gr 1108 15
4.7 1123 14
4.8 1154 10
4.9 1176 10
5.0 1185 7
5.1 1218 8
Notes
• Metered very well due to small grain size.
• POI did not shift among all charge weights at 15yds
• Different recoil impulse vs the sport pistol load tested today (3.9 gr for 1082fps with that load), both feel like a pellet gun. More 'push' with CFE.
-
I tested CFE pistol today in my suppressed Sig MPX (8" barrel). The goal was to find a 124gr load that would reliably lock the bolt back on the last round. The other 9mm powders I've been using function well with very light recoil, but fail to hold open on the last round (n320 and sport pistol). My theory was that a 'slower' powder would help with this. All loads functioned, including lrbho, suppressed and non-suppressed.
Probably could have addressed that issue with a spring. Or more of a faster powder. ;)
-
I tested CFE pistol today in my suppressed Sig MPX (8" barrel). The goal was to find a 124gr load that would reliably lock the bolt back on the last round. The other 9mm powders I've been using function well with very light recoil, but fail to hold open on the last round (n320 and sport pistol). My theory was that a 'slower' powder would help with this. All loads functioned, including lrbho, suppressed and non-suppressed.
Probably could have addressed that issue with a spring. Or more of a faster powder. ;)
I wasn't able to address it with a safe load of the faster powder. Maybe I just like to overcomplicate things though.
Sig MPX springs aren't exactly tunable unless you want to cut coils. I haven't been able to find aftermarket buffer springs.
-
I tested CFE pistol today in my suppressed Sig MPX (8" barrel). The goal was to find a 124gr load that would reliably lock the bolt back on the last round. The other 9mm powders I've been using function well with very light recoil, but fail to hold open on the last round (n320 and sport pistol). My theory was that a 'slower' powder would help with this. All loads functioned, including lrbho, suppressed and non-suppressed.
Probably could have addressed that issue with a spring. Or more of a faster powder. ;)
I wasn't able to address it with a safe load of the faster powder. Maybe I just like to overcomplicate things though.
Sig MPX springs aren't exactly tunable unless you want to cut coils. I haven't been able to find aftermarket buffer springs.
You can buy the reduced power recoil springs from In Lead We Trust. https://inleadwetrust.com/
I don’t have any problems locking back the bolt on my 8” MPX using my 135 PF using 4 Gr of sport pistol with 124 Gr PD JHP @ 1.125”. This is with the stock recoil spring too.
-
You can buy the reduced power recoil springs from In Lead We Trust.
I don’t have any problems locking back the bolt on my 8” MPX using my 135 PF using 4 Gr of sport pistol with 124 Gr PD JHP @ 1.125”. This is with the stock recoil spring too.
Interesting. I will definitely look into the ILWT springs. Thank you for the pointer...
I actually shot nearly the same load today - 124gr PD JHP over 4.0 gr of sport pistol at 1.105 oal. Shoots nice, but no lrbho for me.
-
Interesting. I will definitely look into the ilwt springs. Thank you for the pointer...
I actually shot nearly the same load today - 124gr pd jhp over 4.0 gr of sport pistol at 1.105 oal. Shoots nice, but no lrbho for me.
My 8” MPX has over 12k rounds on it since it’s my primary for USPSA’s PCC division. My backup MPX is the 16” Competition model and uses the same ammo. Both LRBHO.
They’re setup identically.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kMzGHmnt/72-F3-AB47-5-C64-436-E-81-F1-A0427-E92-C564.jpg)