Beginner rifle handloaders seem to try to focus on max possible velocity. Once that novelty wears off, they experiment with bullets, OAL, powders and powder charges to find the load that gets the best groups.
I don’t see the same load development focus for handgunners. I suspect part of the reason is that most cannot shoot well enough to see a big difference in loads. But the same mixture of variables for handgun ammo (powder, bullet, etc.) can be used to develop more accurate ammo.
When I have an OAL that feeds and chambers properly, I load a test of 10 rounds each, in 0.3 gr powder increments, starting very low (sometimes too mild to cycle the action) all the way to max in the book. I keep log books for each caliber and have a page for each gun. This prevents me from repeating a test unnecessarily, and gives me lots of data to extrapolate to new guns and situations. Here is a 9mm pistol log page, and you can see a test I ran using 2.6 to 3.8 gr of Titegroup and the DRG 135gr lead bullet. I ran the same test twice. This pistol clearly shot much better with a mild load. If I had never run the test, I would have never known how accurate this pistol could be.
I made a bucket of each load and then ran the same test in 20 different pistols. I have run similar tests in other calibers. It would be nice to have a single load that worked well in all guns (have not found one yet) but by listing all the loads on a sheet of paper, and all the pistols and marking the loads that scored VG or VVG, I was able to see that some loads worked in a lot of different guns. In this Titegroup test, 3.4 gr was best in 8 guns; 3.6 gr was best in 7 guns, but 3.8 gr only excelled in 1 gun.
But I bet many loaders just choose the hottest load in the book and stick with it. They probably are missing out on the best performance their gun can produce. In my guns, the hot loads get the worst groups.
Then I make buckets of the popular loads and label each tub with the guns that ammo is best suited.
I don’t see the same load development focus for handgunners. I suspect part of the reason is that most cannot shoot well enough to see a big difference in loads. But the same mixture of variables for handgun ammo (powder, bullet, etc.) can be used to develop more accurate ammo.
When I have an OAL that feeds and chambers properly, I load a test of 10 rounds each, in 0.3 gr powder increments, starting very low (sometimes too mild to cycle the action) all the way to max in the book. I keep log books for each caliber and have a page for each gun. This prevents me from repeating a test unnecessarily, and gives me lots of data to extrapolate to new guns and situations. Here is a 9mm pistol log page, and you can see a test I ran using 2.6 to 3.8 gr of Titegroup and the DRG 135gr lead bullet. I ran the same test twice. This pistol clearly shot much better with a mild load. If I had never run the test, I would have never known how accurate this pistol could be.
I made a bucket of each load and then ran the same test in 20 different pistols. I have run similar tests in other calibers. It would be nice to have a single load that worked well in all guns (have not found one yet) but by listing all the loads on a sheet of paper, and all the pistols and marking the loads that scored VG or VVG, I was able to see that some loads worked in a lot of different guns. In this Titegroup test, 3.4 gr was best in 8 guns; 3.6 gr was best in 7 guns, but 3.8 gr only excelled in 1 gun.
But I bet many loaders just choose the hottest load in the book and stick with it. They probably are missing out on the best performance their gun can produce. In my guns, the hot loads get the worst groups.
Then I make buckets of the popular loads and label each tub with the guns that ammo is best suited.
Last edited:
