9 & 40 subs

Slacker said:
I would rather have the Lee 2nd edition than both of those. More load data.
Click to expand...
Well, fine. Happy now? :p

(Ordered that from Walmart Wednesday, picked it up today...before the first two even got here from Midway)

And to be clear...I really grabbed these just to have something to look through. Not necessarily for the powder loads. I know most of that stuff is online, but with me having zero experience, I wanted to absorb all I could with the how-to process.

Same reason I reached out to a couple guys here in town and have plans to go watch them load ammo before I try it the first time. I'm also going to hang out with Lucky13 for a bit when I go pick up all the stuff I paid for today, to watch his operation as well as doing the initial setup of my press.

image.jpeg
 
I know how my ARs work with suppressed vs unsuppressed, and have adjustable gas blocks on them. I can turn the gas way down for suppressed shooting...or set them up at the lowest setting where they'll reliably shoot unsuppressed, and they'll function just fine suppressed.

How does it work with non-DI firearms (specifically Glocks and AR9)? More powder needed for suppressed, or less? In my head I can see an explanation both ways.

Trying to figure out if I should test my loads primarily with or without the suppressors. I want the quietest I can reliably get for suppressed, but it should also function unsuppressed.
 
BigWaylon said:
I know how my ARs work with suppressed vs unsuppressed, and have adjustable gas blocks on them. I can turn the gas way down for suppressed shooting...or set them up at the lowest setting where they'll reliably shoot unsuppressed, and they'll function just fine suppressed.

How does it work with non-DI firearms (specifically Glocks and AR9)? More powder needed for suppressed, or less? In my head I can see an explanation both ways.

Trying to figure out if I should test my loads primarily with or without the suppressors. I want the quietest I can reliably get for suppressed, but it should also function unsuppressed.
Click to expand...

It's really host dependent with pistols.
My CZ will cycle loads that a Grock wont.
 
Slacker said:
It's really host dependent with pistols.
My CZ will cycle loads that a Grock wont.
Click to expand...
Ok...but with your CZ will it cycle a lighter charge more reliably suppressed or unsuppressed?

Maybe I phrased my question wrong.

If the recommended range is 3.2-3.6 grains, I'd rather stay at the lower end for quieter shooting, but I'd want the firearms to function reliably both ways.

Which statement is more likely to be true?:
If it cycles at 3.2 suppressed, it will cycle unsuppressed
If it cycles at 3.2 unsuppressed, it will cycle suppressed
 
If it cycles at 3.2 unsuppressed, it will cycle suppressed... assuming the booster works as designed.

Eta, I cannot tell the difference, sound wise, between 3.2 or 3.4gr of titegroup in a pistol length 4-5" bbl.
Add another two inches of bbl and I can tell the difference, but it's due to the sonic signature of the faster bullet, not the extra gas. I think you will find the sane thing.
In other words, a given load may crack in a 8" bbl and be pleasently quiet in a 4" bbl.
Temps also play heavily. A quiet load may crack in the colder temps.
 
Last edited:
Slacker said:
If it cycles at 3.2 unsuppressed, it will cycle suppressed... assuming the booster works as designed.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Found a guy on ARFCOM I've dealt with that has at least twice as many suppressors as me. I asked him the general question and he included his favorite recipe for 9mm.

Just happened to use Titegroup, which is what I bought. He's had good success with 147gr pills, a 3.3gr charge and a CCI SPP...so that's probably what I'll try. Said he hadn't had any cycling issues with or without suppressor.
 
Less powder doesn't always mean quieter. Also, you have to focus on making sure the load is reliable and accurate. Won't matter how quiet it is if it won't shoot to point of aim.

Different powders also have a different tone.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
BigWaylon said:
Thanks. Found a guy on ARFCOM I've dealt with that has at least twice as many suppressors as me. I asked him the general question and he included his favorite recipe for 9mm.

Just happened to use Titegroup, which is what I bought. He's had good success with 147gr pills, a 3.3gr charge and a CCI SPP...so that's probably what I'll try. Said he hadn't had any cycling issues with or without suppressor.
Click to expand...

3.4gr titegroup under a 147gr is a well known sub load. It runs all my guns well and is easily hearing safe.
 
Slacker said:
3.4gr titegroup under a 147gr is a well known sub load. It runs all my guns well and is easily hearing safe.
Click to expand...
What OAL do you run for 147gr RN?

Have a 180gr .40 load you like? I know somebody mentioned 4.5gr of Titegroup on the first page.
 
BigWaylon said:
What OAL do you run for 147gr RN?

Have a 180gr .40 load you like? I know somebody mentioned 4.5gr of Titegroup on the first page.
Click to expand...

Whatever plunks in my CZ chamber.
Cz chambers are cut shorter than most other brands so if it plunks in the CZ, it's good in everything else.
COAL is relative in pistols.
For instance, look at the Lee 2nd edition, N340 load for a 115gr FMJ.
The COAL they spec will not plunk in half the chambers sold today.

I don't load .40.
@bigfelipe does, or did load .40 subs.
 
I want to bring this back up for a question.

There was a lot of discussion around 3.4gr of Titegroup and 147gr pills.

However, when I go back and look at the Lyman manual, it lists:
1. 147gr TMJ, 3.2-3.6gr of Titegroup, 1.115"
2. 147gr alloy, 2.5-2.8gr Titegroup, 1.058"

I'm assuming the alloy is bare lead. Discussion earlier was that coated were similar to plated, right? But both of those are different than jacketed?

With coated 147gr, is 3.4gr of Titegroup still a good starting point? I believe we got mine set up ~1.12" yesterday.
 
BigWaylon said:
I want to bring this back up for a question.

There was a lot of discussion around 3.4gr of Titegroup and 147gr pills.

However, when I go back and look at the Lyman manual, it lists:
1. 147gr TMJ, 3.2-3.6gr of Titegroup, 1.115"
2. 147gr alloy, 2.5-2.8gr Titegroup, 1.058"

I'm assuming the alloy is bare lead. Discussion earlier was that coated were similar to plated, right? But both of those are different than jacketed?

With coated 147gr, is 3.4gr of Titegroup still a good starting point? I believe we got mine set up ~1.12" yesterday.
Click to expand...
I admit that I've never understood this. Cast having a lower bottom end makes some sense, traditional lube, coating, and plating all takes less pressure to push it down the barrel than does jacketed, but I don't know why they moved the top end down.

Experience says that it is safe, but it would be interesting to ask the testing folks at Lyman.
 
JimB said:
I admit that I've never understood this. Cast having a lower bottom end makes some sense, traditional lube, coating, and plating all takes less pressure to push it down the barrel than does jacketed, but I don't know why they moved the top end down.

Experience says that it is safe, but it would be interesting to ask the testing folks at Lyman.
Click to expand...

Just a guess, but look at the seating depth differences in the example given. The deeper the bullet is seated, the less volume, the more pressure. Of course, that assumes the bullet length is the same, which it rarely is.
 
Slacker said:
I treat coated & plated the same.
Heck, I treat coated and FMJ the same.
Click to expand...

I may catch some flak for saying this, but I've started to treat plated and jacketed the same, except I keep in mind the upper velocity limit with most plated bullets, and I don't like to venture too close to max listed charges. I always start low and work up. If I see higher velocity than I expect (taking into account different barrel lengths) then I stop.

If you go to Xtreme's website, they say "mid range jacketed or higher end lead", but if you call them they will recommend using Speer TMJ data. In most cases I have had similar results with the Speer data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom