185gr 9mm

[Capbyrd]

I want to see the numbers on this.   

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/01/21/shot-2019-seismic-ammunition-high-mass-loads/


No way that carries much energy.   And two piece cases?   Are we just making things too complicated now?  

[owejia]

Their web site says it has the same energy as the 45 acp, just skip the 9mm and use a 45!!!!!!

[Capbyrd]

5 minutes ago, owejia said:

Their web site says it has the same energy as the 45 acp, just skip the 9mm and use a 45!!!!!!

Why?   If you can carry 20 9mm or 12 45 in the same size package and they are ballistically similar?   Doesn't make sense to give up capacity.  


Also, I want to see independent numbers on that.  

[Whisper]

Websites can claim anything.  Doesn't mean that any of it is true. 

Like Capbyrd says -- show me the data.

Cheers,

Whisper

[owejia]

Just quoting what their web site had on it. Unless some one is doing a mass shooting why do you need that many rounds in a self defense gun?

[KahrMan]

2 minutes ago, owejia said:

Just quoting what their web site had on it. Unless some one is doing a mass shooting why do you need that many rounds in a self defense gun?

Why not?

[Whisper]

3 minutes ago, owejia said:

Unless some one is doing a mass shooting why do you need that many rounds in a self defense gun?

Exactly how many rounds is the correct number to have in a self defense gun?

[Capbyrd]

1 minute ago, Whisper said:

Exactly how many rounds is the correct number to have in a self defense gun?

All of them.   

[owejia]

Personal choice, every one has to decide what is right for them. In a self defense situation my first objective is looking for an exit from the situation, not a shoot out.

Edited January 23, 2019 by owejia

[Chucktshoes]

16 minutes ago, owejia said:

Personal choice, every one has to decide what is right for them. In a self defense situation my first objective is looking for an exit from the situation, not a shoot out.

I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with that premise, I just think that some of the others in the conversation just want to ensure they can keep shooting as long as it takes to find that exit. I intend to be able to be in the fight as long as I have to be, no matter how long that takes. That means having enough ammo to keep shooting until I can escape, or the other guy decides that he doesn’t want to fight anymore or has that choice made for him.

[A.J. Holst]

"325gr .45acp in development"

Concur, let's see some ballistic test vids.

[1fast4by]

I was reading about that this morning. Id be very interested to get my hands on a box, and see it tested independently. 

[1fast4by]

1 hour ago, Capbyrd said:

All of them.   

The only correct answer that I can think of.

[gregintenn]

35 minutes ago, 1fast4by said:

The only correct answer that I can think of.

I'd go with "more".

[gregintenn]

Will the average 9mm barrel stabilize that long a bullet?

Will it be regulated to the average sights?

My money is on "no" to at least one of these questions.

[Alleycat72]

Guess the magic number is 950 fps or so. If you're comparing a 230 at 850 fps 45. 

[deerslayer]

Something doesn't add up.  I don't buy their claims that their 9mm round is equal to the momentum of a .45.  Momentum (aka power factor) = bullet weight x velocity.  An average 230 grain .45 travels at say 850 fps.  Momentum = 195500.  They claim 950 fps for their 185 9mm, which equates to 175570.  Whatever.  

What is truly baffling is their claim that their 185 round feels softer due to slower burning powder.  Slow powders usually result in more velocity and recoil because they take longer to build up a bigger bang.  Fast powders shoot their wad before the party really gets going.  That Newton fellow said for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that is true.  However, one can manipulate the feel of that reaction.  Competitive pistol shooters know that big (for caliber) bullets loaded with small charges of fast burning powder result in a softer "push" feeling recoil.  However, some prefer a lighter faster bullet, sometimes loaded with a larger charge of slower burning powder, which gives more of a "pop" sensation.  It depends on the shooter's preference of which one they believe helps them reacquire the sights.  The problem is that bigger bullets cut down on the case capacity required to contain enough slower burning powder to work and their 185 load has almost no case capacity.  Unless they are using a compressed load or some type of 8" test barrel, I'm not sure I believe their claims of 950 fps.  I suppose a quick magazine through a chronograph would settle the matter.

Edited January 24, 2019 by deerslayer

[Fourtyfive]

[patotn]

These "may" start off with the energy of a 45acp but I think they will slow down real quickly.  I tried some 165gr and got velocities from 800 to 900.  I find it difficult to believe they are getting 950 with a 185gr.  Seating a bullet that deeply into a case is going to increase pressure and leaves hardly any room for a slow burning powder.

[Jamie Jackson]

8 hours ago, deerslayer said:

Something doesn't add up.  I don't buy their claims that their 9mm round is equal to the momentum of a .45.  Momentum (aka power factor) = bullet weight x velocity.  An average 230 grain .45 travels at say 850 fps.  Momentum = 195500.  They claim 950 fps for their 185 9mm, which equates to 175570.  Whatever.  

What is truly baffling is their claim that their 185 round feels softer due to slower burning powder.  Slow powders usually result in more velocity and recoil because they take longer to build up a bigger bang.  Fast powders shoot their wad before the party really gets going.  That Newton fellow said for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that is true.  However, one can manipulate the feel of that reaction.  Competitive pistol shooters know that big (for caliber) bullets loaded with small charges of fast burning powder result in a softer "push" feeling recoil.  However, some prefer a lighter faster bullet, sometimes loaded with a larger charge of slower burning powder, which gives more of a "pop" sensation.  It depends on the shooter's preference of which one they believe helps them reacquire the sights.  The problem is that bigger bullets cut down on the case capacity required to contain enough slower burning powder to work and their 185 load has almost no case capacity.  Unless they are using a compressed load or some type of 8" test barrel, I'm not sure I believe their claims of 950 fps.  I suppose a quick magazine through a chronograph would settle the matter.

I think you make some excellent points in this post.

In Oct 2017 we ( Brad, @BrasilNuts, and I) cast, coated, and worked up some 160 gr 9mm loads. Using Titegroup we came up with some very accurate and soft recoiling loads. Our velocities ranged from 824 fps to 940 fps out of a Glock 17 and a Glock 34. (FWIW the 824 fps dropped to 753 fps in my Shield). The 940 fps loads showed signs of overpressure. 

I guess with a proprietary powder mixture and the proper, professional grade pressure testing equipment the ammo manufactures should have, their claims may be safely achievable. I believe some competition folks on BE Forums work with this bullet weight in 9mm and many of them are quite knowledgeable...  I would like to read more about their testing and development procedures though. But I imagine they hold that info close. 

I wouldn't mind working with some 185 gr bullets for S&G's. But I'll happily stick with 147 gr HST or similar for a carry load.

At $1.38/per round I don't think I'll be purchasing any to play with. 

[BrasilNuts]

Those rounds were awesome, if memory serves we abandoned the project because they would hand chamber, but not hand eject through my 34.

They cycled just fine if you loaded up a magazine and just shot them. 

[Jamie Jackson]

28 minutes ago, BrasilNuts said:

Those rounds were awesome, if memory serves we abandoned the project because they would hand chamber, but not hand eject through my 34.

They cycled just fine if you loaded up a magazine and just shot them. 

You are correct my friend. Strange idiosyncrasy as I ran about 100 rounds of those through my Shield last week and they cycled great and were easy to hand eject... with my G17 hand ejection is a hit & miss kinda thing.

[deerslayer]

16 hours ago, Jamie Jackson said:

I think you make some excellent points in this post.

In Oct 2017 we ( Brad, @BrasilNuts, and I) cast, coated, and worked up some 160 gr 9mm loads. Using Titegroup we came up with some very accurate and soft recoiling loads. Our velocities ranged from 824 fps to 940 fps out of a Glock 17 and a Glock 34. (FWIW the 824 fps dropped to 753 fps in my Shield). The 940 fps loads showed signs of overpressure. 

I guess with a proprietary powder mixture and the proper, professional grade pressure testing equipment the ammo manufactures should have, their claims may be safely achievable. I believe some competition folks on BE Forums work with this bullet weight in 9mm and many of them are quite knowledgeable...  I would like to read more about their testing and development procedures though. But I imagine they hold that info close. 

I wouldn't mind working with some 185 gr bullets for S&G's. But I'll happily stick with 147 gr HST or similar for a carry load.

At $1.38/per round I don't think I'll be purchasing any to play with. 

A couple local guys shot some 160s for a while.  I think they were using 2.5 or 2.7 grains of Titegroup.  They were SOFT.  Some folks don't like them because they say the gun feels too sluggish.  

I'm still not sure about their velocity claims, but would be curious to see some chronograph results.  With someone else's gun 

[Jamie Jackson]

@deerslayer  Sluggish... I can see where some would say that, but heck...I'm sluggish LOL

We've used @BrasilNuts G34 in the past. Huuummmm? 

Tamara Keel does a decent writeup in RecoilWeb. She's a shooter, not just a writer.

The below is quoted from an article she wrote in Recoil. I look forward to reading her followup article.

https://www.recoilweb.com/seismic-disturbance-145326.html

"Leaving Range Day, this ammunition is one of the most interesting things we saw there, and not least for the puzzles it raises."

[Chucktshoes]

The more I read about this, the more I want to try it. If it delivers as advertised, it seems like it would be the perfect subgun ammo. Might even get me off the fence for an Evo.