124Gr BDX OAL 9mm?? What works for you

Canuck223

Canuck223

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
80   0   0
Location
GTA
I've been loading up some light ammo for my kids 9mm Spartan. I worked up some test ammo using up some 115gr and 125 gr Frontier bullets prior to getting the BDX in hand.

When I loaded the first rounds with the BDX bullets, I intended to load 20 to test fire, then run over the chrony if they cycled OK.

I didn't adjust the seating die and the rounds came out looking OK. I stopped to check the OAL with the second round, and found they were 1.158, or about 20 thou longer than I loaded with the Frontier truncated cone style.

They fit fine in the chamber and in the magazine. I don't have my old reloading book handy, but I seem to recall the max for SAMMI spec 9mm is 1.170.

What OAL are you using for these bullets?
 
Max is at 1.169", you are below the mark, and if gun cycles and shoots just fine then there is no reason to seat bullet deeper.
 
CeeZer said:
Max is at 1.169", you are below the mark, and if gun cycles and shoots just fine then there is no reason to seat bullet deeper.
Click to expand...

I am happy to go with what works. This ammo is for one gun only after all. However I was looking to hear what other users had found.

I used to strongly subscribe to the notion that loading to use the full length of the magazine was wise. When I started using more truncated cone bullets, and my #### didn't fall off with all that room at the front of the mag, I began to question my old thinking. The FMJ profile is fairly tolerant, but the truncated cone and JHP's seem to run best with a bit of free running room before hitting the feed ramp.
 
I've just randomly measured 124gr BDX Combat Masters 9mm ammo (that being bought from Calgary Gun Show this year) last night. Most of them have 1.125" -.005 OAL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom