Firearm Forums - Arms Locker banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
in 9x19, pussy. The big hollowbased 55 gr Split NOse has LESS pressure and friction, dumbass. It's NOTHING to get another 200 fps in the longer, stronger case of the 356 TSW, dumbass. Your IGNORANCE is showing. You only lose 100 fps in the 1" shorter barrel of the pocket 9. non plus P 9 is a lousy 30,000 CUP, that's nothing. The 356 factory load was rated at 45,000 CUP. my load aint even CLOSE to being hot. The super lightwt, hollowbased bullet starts moving from just the primer detonation, most likely. An ignorant twit like you needs to keep his mouth shut about what he obviously is completely in the dark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
Honest curiosity here…

Assuming that’s true, couldn’t that same 9mm 52-grain bullet, loaded to +P levels, reach the same power level of the .356tsw load you talk about? (55 @ 2200fps for 591 ft/lbs)

If upping that same 52-grain 9mm load to +P level just increases velocity by only 5%, it’s over 2,200 fps, and at 560+ ft/lbs. If +P loading gave a 7% increase in velocity, that’d be 2,247 fps and 580+ ft/lbs.

I haven’t verified your magsafe numbers, but if you’re right, this seems reasonably “do-able”. Get .356TSW power in an unmodified 9mm pistol, using just +P loads…? Sounds “pie in the sky”, but if your numbers are right, it should be possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
Got my curiosity up a bit, so I checked around, looking for specs.

Found three MagSafe 9x19 loads:

- 64-grain @ 1,950 fps (+P load) [540 ft/lbs]
- 50-grain @ 2,000 fps (non-+P load; listed specifically for short-barrel guns) [444 ft/lbs]
- 60-grain @ 1,800 fps (non-+P load) [431 ft/lbs]

Interestingly, (just to stir the pot some… :dgrin: ) they also list a 9Makarov load; 51 grains @ 1,700 fps [327 ft/lbs], and they even list it for the PA63, which is probably the weakest “9Mak” caliber gun out there.

So take the middle 60-grain, n on-plus-p load. If a +P loading upped the velocity by 10%, it would hit 1980 fps.

The 50-grainer, if upped 10% velocity-wise, would hit exactly 2200 fps, which is what you mention for a .356TSW loading.

If that’s not enough, switch to a Glock, so you can push them even farther, to +P+ levels.

Two caveats: First, I don’t know how much velocity increase is gained in going from a standard to a +P load; just guesstimating 10% or so. I suspect that’s not too far out of line, but I could be way off.

Secondly, I’m not sold on the “ultra-light-ultra-fast” bullet approach in a defensive handgun. Would I want to be shot with one? No, but I’m not convinced it’s the “ultimate” approach. There’s still enough old fart in me to want some “meat” with my potatoes…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,852 Posts
"The super lightwt, hollowbased bullet starts moving from just the primer detonation, most likely"

Sounds like he is admiting to more speculation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
I was hoping for some discussion on the merits and potential of andy’s approach of ultralight bullets at ultra-high speed; just without the complication of going to the discontinued .356tsw cartridge.

Just to try to spark debate, I checked on another brand I recalled; RBCD. Don’t know if they’re any good or not, just using them for reference numbers to see what’s commercially available, and potentially possible for the reloader.

RBCD loads:

9mm – 60 grains @ 2010 fps (538 ft/lbs) They don’t say if it’s +P or not
.357 sig – 60 grains @ 2410 fps (774 ft/lbs) This one surprised even me.
.45acp – 90 grains @ 2,036 fps (828 ft/lbs) another surprise


Given that these loads are commercially available, guns and barrels in these calibers are readily available, it seems that this presents a solution for someone looking to go this “ultra-light, ultra-fast” route. All of these calibers can even be had in a commander-size gun; so no need to switch platforms if you didn’t want to.

All the loads listed above give MORE power than the .356TSW load espoused here gives, except the 9mm, and even the 9mm is within nine percent. (538 vs 591)

If the RBCD or MagSafe bullet designs aren’t to your liking, it still shows that these numbers are possible, even if you want to use your own custom-cast bullets.

All in calibers that are commonly and commercially available, with ammo that’s commercially available.

Sounds like I just solved the problem... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
Hasher said:
"The super lightwt, hollowbased bullet starts moving from just the primer detonation, most likely"

Sounds like he is admiting to more speculation.
No, GK's right about it, but therein lies the problem. Because the flyweight bullet starts to move, the powder may not burn before the bullet exits. So, in the absence of other measures, the bullet may not reach as high a velocity as would a heavier bullet.

If GK's flyweight bullets are so great, then why do we not make bullets out of styrofoam?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Don't know if I should get in here, I'm not a believer in lightweight, high speed bullets, but if you are looking to get a round with some power.......The 9MM Parabellum can be loaded with a 147 grain bullet to some pretty impressive power levels. Before I had to shut down due to cold weather (Chrono and pressure testing equipment don't work below freezing, and I made the mistake of moving north), I was getting 1350-1375 fps, around 600 ft lb. Using both XTPs and Gold Dots, no custom bullets here. Pressure was above +P, but below the 15% (or 10%, depending on who is doing the talking) extra pressure of the +P+. There is actually no standard for +P+ pressure. Haven't used that powder with any 124 grain loads, but I suspect it will toss them pretty well too.

DC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,783 Posts
Did you test expansion with the 147 grain Gold Dots? I'm told they expand well within a range, with the peak performance at around 1000 fps. Push them too fast and they fold back on themselves and reduce permanent cavity size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
I’m not a believer in the ultra-light theory, either. When I switched from 1911 to Glock, I initially went with the 147’s, just because they were the “biggest” bullet I could fit in there. I eventually eased back on the weight, in order to get the extra power of the medium-weight +P+ loads.

I don’t load my defensive ammo; I still believe a manufacturer can be more consistent than my handloads, but I still shoot a lot of my own loads for non-defensive use.

I would have thought a +P+ 115 grainer (for max velocity with a "normal" bullet weight) would be the way to go until I looked up the numbers on the Federal 9BP-LE load. It’s slower than the 127 +P+ Winchester, so I figure I might as well get the velocity as well as the heavier bullet. It’s not overly exotic, but it puts out 420-470 ft/lbs in my little G19, which is respectable enough for me until I come across something I’m convinced is substantially better.

I’m just trying to bring either some discussion or some closure to the “uber-light” bullet school of thought. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
Why not just load aluminum clad wooden bullets like they did with the Danish Shobue back in the 1930's. Think they got about 2500fps out of those 9mm's. Don't remember the weight but they were light.

RIKA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Wylycoyte said:
Did you test expansion with the 147 grain Gold Dots? I'm told they expand well within a range, with the peak performance at around 1000 fps. Push them too fast and they fold back on themselves and reduce permanent cavity size.
Testing is far from complete, still need to get Sierras into the mix. As I said, cold weather has me just about shut down. You heard right about some Gold Dots, the 230 grain .45 in particular is one that actually comes apart at velocities that are too high. The 147's look fine in saturated paper, but haven't been fired into any harsh media yet, to test bullet integrity.

John, as far as the ultralight theory goes, my opinion is that it is bull, although that opinion isn't shared by all. I could write pages on tests I've done over several years that prove me right, but I'm sure someone else would write as many to refute me. I just threw in the 147 thing as an alternative using a readily available cartridge, with common, not "custom", components.

I'll shut up now.

DC
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top