Shooters Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just wondered if anybody loaded and shot heavier bullets? The heaviest I've done is 130 gr. RN.
 

·
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
Joined
·
23,915 Posts
You're talking handguns, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Absolutely. I hadn't even thought about carbines but, that is good too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,643 Posts
Still make 147gr. 9mm bullets....maybe it was a "fad", maybe just the urge for sub-sonic....but there is a good bit of loading data.

IMI did make (still does? haven't had that need in some time) a 158gr. 9mm loading. Data for that weight is kind of skimpy, but at least we can say it's possible.
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
37,098 Posts
160gr. cast. Not much data, and maybe not really needed, but it can be done. Gets to the point where only the thinnest brass will work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
As for 150gr in a Carbine, some velocity tests that I've seen show a gain from 4" to an 8" barrel (HG) to no gain from 8" to 16" in a carbine. Performance-wise, the "sweet spot" in performance for a 9mm is 124gr and 124gr +P. Either of those loads will match a .357 similar weight in velocity/power when fired from a Carbine (the .357 in a 4-6"). There are pistol caliber long barreled pistols set up similar to a "Carbine" that make sense with their 8" barrels and heavier weight bullets, but a Carbine doesn't enhance performance when talking 150gr. Of course, it may be more handy to handle or aim, making it more effective.

My choice for a Carbine with 16" barrel was the .40 S&W as it continues to improve with a 16" barrel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
818 Posts
Back in the 1970's I used a 150 gr. cast SWC , lyman # 358477 , sized .357 over 3.7 grains Unique , seated the bullet deep enough to fit into the magazine and feed in a WWII Walther P38 9mm luger . I got it to work , the velocity was about 900 fps ... but it wasn't anything to write home about ... 38 Special ballistics at best . So that led me back to the 124 truncated cone bullet , when driven to 1100 fps ... they seemed to have a bit more "thump" .
I have a 124 gr. TC GC NOE mould , that bullet when cast to BHN 8 with a GC , sized .357" and over 5.2 grs. Unique @ 1166 fps is just the ticket !
The Walther P38 is the one in my avatar , I still shoot it with lighter loads !
Gary
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
83 Posts
I pretty much agree with Tnhunter above. I'm not much of a "silly millimeter" fan and heavy bullets. I know of a fellow, who may still be walking around, carrying a 147 gr. Hydrashock HP, lodged just below his left eye and parked in his sinus cavity. Distance was 46 yards and weapon was a Glock 17. Btw, he's sporting nine more in him from belt buckle to neck.

Just my thoughts, 115 +p+ or 124 flat nose, likely will penetrate better and you're less likely to get a blister on yer booger finger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
I have shot the 358311, 158 gr RN in the 9. Mine were cast soft and weighed @ 162 gr. Lyman actually has load data for this bullet in the 9, in one of their older manuals. Using bullets like this pose unique challenges for the 9. The bearing surface is rather long, conflicting with the internally tapered case in seating, and/or throating of your chamber.

I used this bullet, only because I had the mold. I used this bullet in a custom 1911, with a deep throated chamber. Also after sizing, I flipped the bullet over so the base was up, and used a Lyman #460 top punch to swage a bevel base on the bullet. This solved the internal taper of the case issue. It was a big hassle just to use this bullet.

I shot USPSA with this bullet for a bit, loading it to 850 fps. It shot very accurate, but the slide functioned rather lazy, and I prefer a more snappy action for the double taps. I liked the feel of the 125's better. I know a revolver shooter, who loves the heavy bullets in his S&W 9, for USPSA. Being their is no recipricating slide to deal with, recoil is very light for the 125 power factor. He does quite well with it.

There are custom mold makers who have designs, with a short bearing surface, and the correct profile, that are configured to work well in the 9, to address these issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
818 Posts
In post #7 I refer to a NOE 9mm mould NOE 358-124-TC-GC ... one of the main reasons for ordering it with a gas check was to help with bullet seating ( see post #9) ...and it works ... even with a BHN 8 (50-50 mix COWW and soft scrap lead ) the GC protects the base . Also lets you push this puppy 1200 fps . Sized .357 and use in 9mm semi-auto's ...size to .358 and I use it in 38 Special , 38 Special+P and 357 Magnum handgun and lever action rifle .... This bullet gets a lot of use and would be good in a 357 mag. bolt action rifle ... if I had one !
A lot of people don't like gas checks but this is one bullet that puts one to good use ...the softish alloy (bhn 8) and 1000+ fps speed allows it to mushroom some even as a solid point .
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,643 Posts
In the theme of “using what you got” (components just are not easy to come by right now), you can. Heavy bullets in a 9X19 can make good accurate, reliable practice ammo. Might be a bit picky in the sub-compacts...and a bit of an adventure in powered charges...but that’s pretty much always the case with micro-9’s.


If you have a choice in components, gotta wonder “why”.


Not sure why it became “a thing” for handguns. Original intent seems to be sub-sonic with reliable functioning…..but if you don’t have a legal attachment, the “crack” is minor compared to the “bang”.


I really can’t fault the 147gr. JHP bullets. Have found accurate loads with lead of JHP’s in the heavies. Just can’t really generate the speeds to activate the hollow point the way we want hollow points to do.


Add another 150fps or so (lets say 1100-1130) in a full sized .38 Super, and I liked what I got with 147 JHP.


Add another 100-120 fps (from a “Destroyer “ bolt action...call it 1230-1250fps), and the 147’s were a better choice than the lite weights designed for handguns.


----------

If you really have to, have found 9X19mm functioning with 158gr. RNL. In my case, cast from the old Lyman 358311 and sized to .356”. Accuracy never was better than “range ammo”.


NO matter what powder recommendation you dig out...start too low (it won't function) and go up in small steps (until it does function)….and stop there. 3gr. of unique didn’t do it...3.3gr almost did it...3.5gr functioned fine in that particular pistol (full sized Colt 70 GM).

Problem: at the OAL (1.35-1.4") that functioned, left a bit of a belt around the case at the bullet base. Thick case walls that rapidly thicken more and deep seated bullets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
Only 9mm's I have are carry guns. In them I shoot 124gr bullet's. I'd though about 147gr bullet's idea being the lower velocity and heavy bullet might limit the penetration enough to not have the bullet exit! If I'm ever in a situation where I have to shot someone or be shot, I hope the bullet doesn't go through and exit hitting the innocent guy behind the bad guy! Never gonna know till it happens. That's what wrong with theory!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Like I said in the first post, I've never loaded anything over 130 gr. I really don't see the need for anything heavier unless a person liked them for target or something else. 9mm is never been my favorite caliber. I got into it because believe it or not, ammo was once cheap and plentiful. Seems like a fairy tale now, huh?
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top