Bullseye – The ExhaustNotes Blog

DKC 147-grain 9mm Full Metal Jacket Bullets

By Joe Berk

Here’s the bottom line upfront: Don’t expect stunning accuracy from DKC’s 9mm bullets.

I bought 1000 of them from Raven Rocks after watching a YouTube video about FBI handguns and ammunition, in which an FBI ballistics expert explained why the FBI uses 147-grain bullets in their 9mm Glocks. The YouTube fellow didn’t specify which 147-grain bullet the FBI uses, although a friend later told me it’s the Speer Gold Dot. The DKC bullets I bought were cheap at $98 per 1000, and my testing showed why. You get what you pay for. Sometimes.

Full metal jacket, 147-grain, 9mm DKC bullets.

DKC is relatively young Turkish ammunition and reloading components manufacturer. One of their importers is Raven Rocks here in the US. I’ve ordered components from Raven Rocks before (in particular, their composite 9mm and .45 bullets) and I’ve been pleased with the results. I was hoping the same thing would happen with these 9mm full metal jacket bullets, but it was not to be. Win some, lose some.

I fired my 9mm DKC bullet handloads at the West End Gun Club using the 147-grain full metal jacket bullets. I tested the bullets in three different handguns (a Springfield 1911, a SIG P226, and a S&W Shield), with a light load and a heavier load for each of four different propellants (Red Dot, Bullseye, Unique, and Power Pistol). For the initial accuracy testing, I shot two 5-shot groups at 50 feet for each configuration.

How did the new bullets do? All the 50-foot groups were disappointing from an accuracy perspective. A few of the groups dipped below 2 inches, but most were above (and some well above), and at 50 feet, that’s not the kind of accuracy I’m used to. Here’s how it shook out:

The results. I fired 400 shots in total for this blog’s test series. I used my Garmin Xero to chronograph the velocities. **Click on the table to make it bigger.**

The above table is data intensive and correspondingly small (ah, if only my groups were the same). If you click on the table, it will open in a new window and be a little easier to read.

You can see from the above that the group sizes generally were mediocre to poor. As a point of reference, what I consider good is a group of an inch or less from a 9mm at that distance. None of the loads I tested met that threshold.

I added a column to show the best of the two groups fired for each load in each pistol (this is highlighted in yellow), thinking that maybe it was my shooting that returned the mediocre groups and this might give a better feel for what worked best. None of the groups met my 1-inch threshold. I had been h0ped that a few of them would, as had occurred when testing previous 9mm loads (see, for example, A Tale of Two Nines, A 9mm Comparo: Cast Bullets, and A 9mm Comparo: Jacketed Bullets). On the plus side, all the loads functioned all three handguns reliably. There were no failures to feed and no failures to extract. I guess that’s something.

Surprisingly (especially when considered in light of the mediocre accuracy), the velocity standard deviations were all relatively low, and in some combinations, surprisingly low. Bullseye was generally the winner from a standard deviation perspective, although its low standard deviation did not translate into superior accuracy.

I averaged all groups for each handgun (both high and low loads and the different propellant loads). Predictably, the SIG returned the best groups overall, and the short-barreled Shield was the worst. The SIG has always been a stellar performer.

Average group sizes for all loads in each pistol.

I then considered the results across the three pistols to try to select a powder that I could use for all three handguns. To do this, I averaged the three pistol’s performance with the light Red Dot load, the average performance with the heavy Red Dot load, etc. Nothing emerged as a significantly better accuracy load, as you can see below.

Average group size for different loads across all three handguns.

By this time, the data were confusing me. I was also feeling my age a bit, thinking maybe my old eyes just aren’t what they used to be.

At the end of the session, I had 20 rounds left in each load combination. I fired the heavy loads (for each powder) into each of four targets at 50 feet using the SIG only. By this measure, the heavy Power Pistol load had maybe the best group. I didn’t do the same for the other two handguns. The Power Pistol load had perceptibly heavier recoil, and it averaged over 1000 fps (a lot, I think, in a 9mm 147-grain load). I don’t know if I want to subject an aluminum-framed handgun to a steady diet of this load (see my blog on the Smith and Wesson Model 59).

The targets you see above are (clockwise from top left), the heavier Red Dot load, the heavier Bullseye load, the heavier Unique load, and the heavier Power Pistol load. If you eliminate the one or two flyers in each group, there’s not a lot of difference between any of the heavier loads.

I also had 20 rounds left for each of the four loads at the lower end of the propellant charges. I took these 80 rounds and one of the Alco mini-4 silhouette targets to my indoor range. I again fired all rounds through the SIG, shooting the groups you see below at 10 yards. Here’s what that target looked like:

These are targets shot at 30 feet with 20 rounds each of the lighter loads. Clockwise from top left, these were shot with the lighter Red Dot load, the lighter Bullseye load, the lighter Unique load, and the lighter Power Pistol load.

The experimental design for the lower and higher load comparisons with the SIG you see above would probably earn a failing grade from a competent statistics professor. The sample size is too small, I shot at different distances for the higher-level loads versus the lower-level loads, and I probably broke one or two other statistics rules. That notwithstanding, here’s a summary of what the group size data looks like:

Data from the above two targets summarized in tabular form.

Where’s all this going? The bottom line is none of the results were anything to write home about. Why, I wondered? Other 9mm loads had done significantly better.

To further assess why my results were as mediocre as they were (and recognizing but not fully accepting that 100% of the mediocrity could have been due to me, the shooter), I next evaluated the bullets themselves. The first parameter I measured was bullet weight. In a random weight sample of 20 DKC 147-grain 9mm bullets, here are the weights I recorded (all weights are in grains):

Weights for 20 of the DKC 147-grain 9mm bullets.

That first bullet was right on the money at 147.0 grains, so I thought these would prove to be good bullets from a weight variability perspective. But I was wrong, as the remaining measurements above showed. Here are the particulars on weight variability:

I think that half a grain weight variability (0.55 grain, to be exact) is a lot for a jacketed pistol bullet. I would have expected the weight to be within ±0.1 grain, so an extreme spread of 0.55-grain is not good. It’s also not likely that the weight variability is symmetric to the bullets’ axes, which further aggravates the problem. As the bullet spins, any weight asymmetry will induce larger group sizes.

That had me wondering about bullet diameter. After zeroing my calipers, I measured the diameter of 10 bullets. Note that these are stated by the supplier to be 0.355 inches, which is what I would expect on a 9mm jacketed bullet. Here’s what I found:

0.355 inches in diameter? Guess again, Bullet Boy!

Damn! Four of the ten bullets I measured were out-of-round by 0.001 inch (these are Bullets 1, 2, 4, and 6), and where this occurs, they are undersized. Small wonder the group sizes were not that good. The undersized bullets would have rattled down the bore, with perhaps some propellant gas sneaking around their periphery. I think the reason the hotter Power Pistol loads did a little better is the higher chamber pressure probably deformed the bullet to fill the bore better.

Here’s the bottom line from an old ordnance engineer: These bullets are (ah, what’s that ordnance technical term again…oh yeah, I remember): MAB (or mediocre, at best). They are cheap at $98/1000, but in retrospect, they are at best plinkers, nothing more. Maybe I’m expecting too much. Maybe a 9mm handgun just won’t group that well with a 147-grain bullet. I don’t think that’s it, though. I’ve done better with other 9mm 147-grain bullets.

I relayed the above results to a few of my buddies and one of them asked me if he could have some of the DKC bullets because, as he put it, he is more of a plinker than a wannabe ballistics engineer (like yours truly). Done and done, I immediately answered. Then the question becomes: How should I load the rest of these bullets? I still have several hundred left.

I realized this would not be a decision based on accuracy, as none of the different recipes I tried resulted in impressive accuracy. I don’t need big time penetration and I don’t need high velocity, as I’m not an FBI agent preparing for a rerun of the Miami gunfight. I decided I would go with a load that offered:

- - A low velocity standard deviation (which held at least a promise of better accuracy).
  - Reliable performance.
  - Lower recoil.
  - A load that was adequate (if not stellar) across all three 9mm handguns.

Any of the loads I tested with the 147-grain DKC bullets meet the above criteria, so the choice came down to which powder I had the most of on hand. That made it easy. I’m going with the lower Red Dot load of 3.2 grains. That will give me just under 900 feet per second from the 1911 and the 226, and just over 800 feet per second in the Shield. That’s as good as or better than a .38 Special with a comparable weight bullet, and the .38 Special is a great cartridge. I’ll be flush with these 9mm handloads for a while, and then I won’t buy any more of the 147-grain DKC bullets.

More gun stuff? You bet!

We need your support! Do what you can to help ExNotes stay in the black!

More Huber? Check out A Trip Into The Moment.

More Gresh and Berk? You bet! Check out A Cup O’ Joes!

Join our Facebook ExNotes page!

Help us keep the lights on:

Ruger Blackhawk Accuracy Testing

I recently tested several loads for accuracy in my Ruger .357 Magnum New Model Blackhawk.

The .357 Magnum Blackhawk is available with either a 4 5/8-inch or a 6 1/2-inch barrel; mine is the 6 1/2-inch version. I like a longer barrel when I have a choice.

In this test series, I fired four 5-shot groups at 50 feet and then calculated the average group size for each load. I did not use a machine rest (more on that later); I used a two-hand hold rested on the bench, with no support for the barrel or any other part of the gun.

The Loads

I tested with five bullets and three propellants:

- - The Hornady 158-grain XTP jacketed hollow point
  - The Speer 158-grain jacketed soft point
  - The Hornady 110-grain jacketed hollow point
  - A cast 158-grain truncated flat point
  - A cast 148-grain powder coated double-ended wadcutter
  - Unique
  - Bullseye
  - Winchester 296

From left to right, the Speer 158-grain jacketed soft point, the Hornady 158-grain jacketed hollow point (designated by Hornady as XTPs), the Hornady 110-grain jacketed hollow point, a cast 158-grain truncated flat point, and the Gardner 148-grain powder coated double ended wadcutter (the wadcutters are loaded in .38 Special brass).

All loads were prepared using my new Lee Deluxe 4-die .357 Magnum reloading dies, with the exception of the .38 Special wadcutter ammo. All loads were crimped. I recently did a blog on the Lee dies. I think they are the best dies I’ve ever used. If you’re considering a set of Lee dies, a good place to buy them is on Amazon.

Lee’s Deluxe 4-Die Set. These do a fantastic job.

You can also buy directly from Lee Precision.

The different load recipes are identified in the table below.

The Results

Here are the results:

The biggest variable in this test series is me. But, I’m what you get.

The most accurate load was 8.0 grains of Unique with the 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point bullet and a regular (non-magnum) primer. You won’t find this load in any modern reloading manual. It’s one that was in Lyman’s 45th edition manual (printed in 1970) as their accuracy load with a 158-grain jacketed bullet. Sometimes there are jewels hidden in those old reloading manuals. There are folks who say you shouldn’t use loads from old manuals. When I do, I work up to them, watching for pressure signs. Another one of my old reloading books goes up to 8.5 grains of Unique with a 158-grain jacketed bullet. I didn’t go there because I didn’t need to.

The Lyman 45th Edition Reloading Handbook. I still use it. These older books contain loads the newer reloading manuals do not.

Back in 1970, the good folks at Lyman identified 8.0 grains of Unique and a 158-grain jacketed bullet as their accuracy load. They were right!

Recoil with the Lyman accuracy load identified above was moderate, and there were no excess pressure indications (extraction was easy, and the primers were not flattened). I tried 7.0 grains of Unique first, and it was so calm I had no qualms about going to the Lyman-recommended 8.0-grain load. I was impressed with the 8.0 grains of Unique and 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point load. One of the groups was a one-holer (five shots clustered in a single ragged hole). Was that simply a fluke? I don’t think so. The other groups with this load were larger, but that was undoubtedly me.

I wish I could do this every time. This target was brought to you by 8.0 grains of Unique and the Hornady 158-grain jacketed hollow point bullet.

The second most accurate load (which is essentially as accurate as the load above) was the 158-grain Speer jacketed soft point bullet with 15.0 grains of Winchester 296 and a magnum primer. These bullets are still listed on the Speer website, but good luck finding them. No one has them in stock. The ones I used were from a stash I picked up from my good buddy Paul. Winchester 296 is a good powder for magnum handgun cartridges and it’s been one of my favorites for years. I was a bit surprised that 296 did not take the accuracy honors, but it was pretty close. 296 is a slower burning powder, and the reloading manuals show it gives the highest muzzle velocity. Recoil (and muzzle blast and flash) are significant with this powder.

Trust me on this: Bill Jordan’s No Second Place Winner is a good read.

The difference in average group size between the most accurate load and the next most accurate load was only 0.004 inches (the most accurate group average was 1.087 inches, the next most accurate group average was 1.o91 inches). That’s nothing, really. And I didn’t go higher or lower with the 296 charge with the second-place load; I only tried 15.0 grains. It’s likely that variations in the 296 charge would have shown a slighly different charge to be better. Maybe Bill Jordan (who carried a .357 Magnum) had it wrong: There is a second place winner.

Surprisingly, one of my previous accuracy loads (a near-max load of Unique with the Hornady 110-grain jacketed hollow point bullet) was not a good load in the Blackhawk. Accuracy was okay, but it was a fierce load and the cases would not extract (I had to take the cylinder out and drive the cases out with a rod). I only fired two groups with this load and then I stopped. This is a load that worked well in previous .357 Magnums, including a stainless steel Blackhawk, an earlier version of the Colt Python, a Smith and Wesson Model 27, and my current production Colt Python. I had the Python with me so I fired a couple of groups with it. It worked fine (it was accurate and extraction was easy). I proved, once again, that every gun is different with regard to what it likes.

What I thought would be a good load (a 158-grain cast bullet and 7.0 grains of Unique) was not. It was just okay accuracy-wise, but it leaded the bore big time and accuracy grew worse with each group fired as the leading increased. That wasn’t unique to the Blackhawk, either. It did the same thing in the Colt Python. These cast bullets are fairly hard, but the charge (7.0 grains of Unique) is driving the bullets to approximately 1200 feet per second, and it appears that’s enough to induce leading. The bullets are sized to .358 inches, so they should be sealing adequately.

The above observation led to a quest for a load using these cast bullets that wouldn’t lead the bore, and I tried a couple that kept velocity below 1000 feet per second (4.3 grains of Bullseye, and 5.0 grains of Unique). Neither produced appreciable leading, but the accuracy was mediocre.

Mild leading after the 4.3-grain Bullseye and 5.0-grain Unique cast bullet loads. These loads kept the velocity below 1000 feet per second.

After cleaning the bore, I tried the standard .38 Special target load: 2.7 grains of Bullseye and a 148-grain double ended wadcutter. I used Jim Gardner’s powder coated wadcutters and ammo I reloaded with my Star progressive machine. Accuracy was okay, but not exceptional.

Machine Rest versus Hand-Held Shooting

On the topic of machine rests, I don’t have one. In the past, keyboard commandos criticized me for that. I was recently was in the Colt plant in Connecticut. The Colt manager took us through the famed Colt Custom Shop and he showed me one of their custom gun test targets. It looked like my targets…four shots clusted into a cloverleaf with a single flyer. I asked my Colt buddy about the distance and if Colt used a machine rest. He told me the distance was 45 feet and said they do not use a machine rest. “A good shooter will outshoot a machine rest,” he said. I thought that was interesting and I liked hearing it. I never felt a need to use a machine rest and what the Colt guy said reinforced that.

A Note on Safety

This blog describes loads I developed for use in my revolver. Don’t simply run with them. They work for me; I make no conclusions (nor should you) about what they will do in your guns. Consult a reloading manual, start at the minimum load, gradually work up, and always watch for pressure signs.

What’s Next?

I have a blog in work that compares the Blackhawk to the Colt Python, and part of that is assessing how the Python groups with the same loads listed above. I think you’ll enjoy reading it. Stay tuned, folks.

Keep us in components…click on those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog!

More gun and reloading stuff? You bet!

A Boudreau Econo-Whelen Load!

The .35 Whelen is an interesting cartridge. A wildcat formed by necking .30 06 brass up to .35 caliber, it’s been called the poor man’s .375 H&H, but the price of ammo would suggest it’s anything but a poor man’s cartridge. A box of 20 factory rounds when I checked just a few minutes ago ranged from a low of $50 to a high of $72. For 20 rounds? Gimme a break!

My .35 Whelen Ruger No. 1. They didn’t make too many of these and mine has exceptional Circassian walnut. It’s not for sale.

I like to shoot, but I’m a cheap SOB and truth be told, I don’t like beating my self up with factory .35 Whelen recoil. Roll that up with the good luck I’ve been having with good buddy Ralph’s Boudreau Bullets in several handguns and I wondered: Could I have Ralph make .35 caliber powder-coated pistol bullets sized to .359 inches? You see, cast pistol bullets for the .38 Special or .357 Mag are ordinarily sized to .358 inches (the sizing operation occurs after the bullets are cast when they are swaged down to the desired diameter). But .358-inch diameter bullets probably wouldn’t work in the Whelen. The .35 Whelen rifle has a bore of .359 and shooting bullets sized to .358 would allow the propellant gases to escape around the bullet as it traveled down the barrel. That would melt the sides of the bullet and create God-awful leading. A tighter fit (with .359 bullets) ought to work better, and powder-coated cast pistol bullets are inexpensive. Inexpensive is good. Did I mention I’m a cheap SOB?

Boudreau 158-grain powder-coated pistol bullets with candy apple green powder coating. These are sized to .359.

I’ve loaded jacketed pistol bullets in the .35 Whelen before, I’ve loaded cast pistol bullets, and I’ve also loaded cast rifle bullets from Montana Bullet Works. The Montana bullets are great and the Whelen performed well with them. The jacketed pistol bullets worked well. The cast pistol bullets I tried before didn’t work well (you can read about that here). The premium cast Montana Bullet Works bullets are not cheap (nor should they be). I wanted something inexpensive so that I could play with the Whelen at recoil levels comparable to a .22. Maybe Ralph’s powder-coated pistol bullets would work.

Montana Bullet Works cast rifle bullets. These are very accurate, but they cost as much as jacketed rifle bullets.

Ralph obliged, and when my .359 158-grain cast semi-wadcutters arrived, the fun began. I did my research on the Internet about what loads other folks had used with cast pistol bullets in the .35 Whelen, or at least I attempted to. Like everything else on the Internet, opinions were all over the map.

I make .35 Whelen brass from older .30 06 brass that I had already reloaded a few times by running the cases through a .35 Whelen full length resizer. Not every case survived the neck expanding operation.

Loaded .35 Whelen ammunition with Boudreau’s 158-grain powder-coated bullets. Later loads seated the bullets out further for an overall cartridge length of 2.910 inches. I don’t use a crimp on these bullets and I neck size only.

I initially went with what one forum commenter fervently quoted: Low charges of Trail Boss were the way to go with 158-grain cast bullets. He was wrong, as least as far as my Ruger No. 1 is concerned. I tried 13.0 grains and the groups at 50 yards were (no kidding) about a foot in diameter. This might be okay for a shotgun, but not a rifle. The groups were lousy, but I noticed that the bore was clean. Ralph’s powder coating, which had worked well in keeping a handgun bore clean, worked well in the longer rifle barrel as well.

These groups were typical of all loads tried (except the last one).

A nice clean bore with Trail Boss powder. There was no leading.

I next tried Unique propellant (first with 13.0 grains, and then with 15.0 grains), which had worked well for me in the past in a variety of cast rifle loads for other cartridges. Nope, both of these loads shot lousy groups, too, and they leaded the bore way more than Trail Boss. Trail Boss is actually a faster powder than Unique, so the slower-burning Unique was driving the bullets to higher velocities.

Bore leading with Unique. This stuff doesn’t dissolve with Hoppe’s or any other commonly-used bore solvent. You’ve got to scrub it out with a bore brush.

Then it was on to Bullseye. I found a few references to these loads in various forum comments, but Bullseye is a dicey powder and I wanted a better load data source than some yahoo on a gun forum. I hit paydirt when I found an old Ideal reloading manual and it had a Bullseye load for the .35 Remington (the .35 Whelen was still a wildcat cartridge when this manual was published and there was no load data for it). I figured with the .35 Whelen’s bullet weight and case volume, I wouldn’t get into trouble using the .35 Remington load. I tried it and I tried a few others with a bit more powder (there were no pressure signs), but nope, it was not to be. I still had terrible groups at 50 yards.

Loads from an old Ideal reloading manual. It was a place to start.

Bullseye loads in the .35 Whelen produced no leading.

Hmmmm. Maybe it’s a powder position thing, I wondered. I called Ralph at Boudreau’s Bullets and chatted with him. Ralph explained that when the powder doesn’t fill the case, powder position makes a huge difference in accuracy even in a 9mm pistol cartridge. Okay, I can fix that, I thought. So after loading my brass again with the same light Bullseye loads, I inserted a cleaning patch in each cartridge to hold the powder up against the primer. Still no cigar, though: The groups remained stuck on atrocious. It was cool, however, seeing the cleaning patch threads dissipate downrange in the scope after each shot. One good thing that came out of the Bullseye loads was that they didn’t lead the bore. Well, maybe two good things: I didn’t blow myself up. Okay, three good things: None of the bullets stuck in the bore.

I was just about ready to give up trying to make the powder-coated .359 Boudreau bullets work in the Whelen when my mind returned to the powder position question. Okay, I thought, the cleaning patch wad trick (a noble thought) was a bust. But Trail Boss might still be the way to go, even though the lighter load wouldn’t group. Those earlier 13.0-grain Trail Boss loads left a lot of unoccupied space in the case. The beauty of Trail Boss is that you can load all the way up to the bullet base (thereby completely eliminating the powder position issue, as the case will be full) without overpressurizing the cartridge. So that’s what I did. I measured where the base of the bullet would be at a cartridge overall length of 2.910 inches and I filled a case to that level with Trail Boss. The magic number was 19.3 grains. I adjusted my powder dispenser and went to work.

19.3 grains of Trail Boss powder in my RCBS powder scale. The powder flakes look like little Cheerios.

19.3 grains of Trail Boss in the .35 Whelen cases. The powder stack just touches the bullet base. The propellant is held in place and it provides a nice, even, repeatable burn.

The next day I was on the range at the West End Gun Club. I’d been reading more forum posts about 158-grain semi-wadcutter bullets in .35 Whelen and the feel I got from them was that most people were shooting at 25 yards. You know, turning a grizzly bear rifle into a close-range gopher grabber. Okay, that’s an old reloaders trick: You want tighter groups, just move the target closer. So for the first six of my 19.3-grain Trail Boss loads, I shot at a 25-yard target and wowee: Finally, a group!

19.3 grains of Trail Boss and the 158-grain Boudreau powder-coated bullets at 25 yards.

It wasn’t a great group (I’ve shot tighter groups at 25 yards with a handgun), but it was a group. It was a clear indication I was on to something. So I next set up a target at 50 yards.

The same 19.3 grains of Trail Boss at 50 yards. I can’t explain that flyer off to the right. But the other five rounds were looking better. More work is necessary. I have a path forward.

That group was gratifying. I can’t explain the one flyer off to the right (the trigger broke cleanly on that shot and it felt like it should have grouped with the others…maybe it hit a fly on the way to the target). The other five shots went into a group about the size of the bullseye, but biased to the right. That’s one thing I noticed with all of these light loads: They shoot to the right.

When I returned home, I photographed the muzzle. It’s the photo at the top of this blog. I was pleased to see how clean it was. It had the same appearance as occurred before with 13.0 grains of Trail Boss. There was a kind of swirly thing going on near the muzzle inside the bore; I think that is a combination of melted lead and powder-coating paint behind the bullet as it exits the bore. The rifling was clean, as in no lead.

There are a few more things I should mention: When you’re loading at these reduced levels, the brass doesn’t really expand or stretch. Neck sizing works just fine. Also, when you’re loading cast bullets, you have to flare the brass case’s mouth (I use a Lee tool for this) so that the bullet can get an easy start into the case. If you don’t flare the case, you’ll shave the powder coating and lead off the sides of the bullet, both of which will degrade accuracy. And one more note…you’ll see in these photos that I seat the bullets pretty far out for an overall cartridge length of 2.910 inches. The bullets are not contacting the rifling at that length, and there’s enough of the bullet in the case to keep it aligned. I’m not worried about setback (the bullets moving under recoil) because the Ruger No. 1 is a single-shot rifle.

The gray arrows point to a very slight flare. You have to flare the cases before seating the bullets or the case will shave the bullet as it is inserted into the cartridge case.

The bullet seating and crimping die in my RCBS Rockchucker press. Seating and crimping are performed in two separate steps.

After I seat all the bullets to the correct depth, I then back way off on the bullet seater (again, denoted by the upper arrow in the above photograph). I’ll next screw in the die body (denoted by the lower arrow) until the reduced crimping radius in the die body interior contacts the mouth of the cartridge. At that point, I’ll adjust the die by screwing it in just a little bit further. What I’m doing is adjusting the die so that it removes the flare, but does not crimp the case mouth. You can see the results (i.e., the case mouth flare removed) noted by the red arrows in the photo below.

The upper arrows show the case mouth after the crimping die has removed the case mouth flare. These are not crimped; I adjusted the die to just remove the flare. The lower red arrow indicates the depth to wihch I neck sized these cases.

Back to the cost issue: As you read at the start of this blog, a box of 20 rounds of .35 Whelen factory ammo goes for anywhere between $50 and $72. By my computations, the reloads you read about here cost under $6 for a box of 20 rounds.

So what’s next? Well, the brass is in the tumbler and I’m going to load more. Same load, which kicks about like a .22. Then I’ll try reducing the load slightly to see if that improves things. Stay tuned; you’ll be able to read all about it right here on the ExNotes blog.

More Tales of the Gun!

Never miss an ExNotes blog. Sign up here for free:

Pop up ads. We love ’em. We love ’em even more when you click on them!

Rifle Primers in Revolver Ammo

With reloading components still hard to find, the question emerges: Can you use rifle primers in handgun cartridges? If you’re flush with rifle primers but hurting for pistol primers (as I am), it’s a logical question. To evaluate this, loaded a box of .357 Magnum ammo for my Colt Python. I tried to different loads of Bullseye (not an ideal .357 Magnum propellant, but it’s what I had available) and Winchester small rifle primers.

I thought I would simultaneously test for accuracy and reliability on Alco 4-silhouette targets at 25 yards, firing single action at the top two targets and double action on the bottom two targets. The first load was 3.2 grains of Bullseye, a 158 grain cast flatpoint bullet, and Winchester small rifle primers.

Accuracy was mediocre (if you’re ever assaulted by four little men with orange bullseyes painted on their chest, you’d be good enough for government work, but you won’t be taking home any accuracy trophies). The upper two little orange guys were fired single action, and every round discharged. The bottom two little orange guys were fired double action, and on those two targets, I had two misfires. That’s two misfires in 10 rounds, and that’s not good. When I fired the two misfired rounds a second time, they discharged normally.

The next target was a repeat of the first, except the ammo I shot at it had 4.0 grains of Bullseye. Everything else was the same. The top two targets were fired single action and the bottom two were fired double action. All rounds fired normally.

You can ignore the shots below the bottom two targets. I was just shooting up some ammo I had left loaded with different combos. The lower left group on the zombie’s green hand were .38 Special 148 grain wadcutter loads (with 2.7 grains of Bullseye); the ones between the two targets were .38 Special loads with the 158 grain flat point bullets and 4.5 grains of Bullseye (a very hot .38 Special load).

The propellant’s name notwithstanding, none of the above were not particularly accurate loads.

As to the primary question: Will rifle primers work in handgun cartridges, my take on this is yes, if fired single action. In double action, ignition is unreliable. On handguns with heavy hammers, you’re probably okay if firing single action. That’s true on the Colt Python, and it’s definitely true on single action Ruger Blackhawks (I have a .30 Carbine Ruger Blackhawk and I always load .30 Carbine ammo with rifle primers).

I suppose it’s possible that the two rounds that misfired double action in the Python may have been suffering from primers that were not completely seated, but I don’t see a need to continue testing. I learned enough from this quick look.

More Tales of the Gun!

Gardner’s Powder-Coated 185 gr SWCs

Here’s a quick look at some new 185-grain powder-coated semi-wadcutter bullets I received from my good buddy Jim Gardner. I loaded 50 with 5.0 grains of Bullseye in mixed brass to get a feel for how they shot. They did great!

This was a quick look with zero load development; I just used the load that had worked well for me with cast-and-lubed 185-grain semi-wadcutter bullets. The distance was 50 feet.

The two targets on the left were just to get a feel where the load shot, and then I put the remaining 40 rounds through the silhouette target. Interestingly, there was no leading and no blue paint residue in the barrel. I like these Gardner bullets!

More Tales of the Gun, including our favorite loads, are right here!

Help us keep the lights on…click on those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

A Model 625 load…

When I first posted about the Model 60 load development plan and the Altamont grips I bought from good buddy Paul, the cover photo showed my recently-acquired Model 60 snubbie and a Smith and Wesson Performance Center Model 625 I’ve owned for years.

I like that photo because the two stainless steel Smiths look great on the wild boar skin. That skin is from a pig hunt Paul and I did in Arizona a few years ago.

The earlier blog was about finding an accuracy load for the Model 60, but a few people wrote to ask if I had a favorite load for the Model 625. I do: My usual accuracy load for the 625 is a cast 200-grain cast semiwadcutter bullet (sized to .452 inches) over 4.2 grains of Bullseye.

When I went to the range to run a few rounds through the 625 I picked a box of ammo I had reloaded in 2014. It was different than my usual accuracy load. I used the same bullet (a 200-grain cast semi-wadcutter), but instead of Bullseye I had loaded these over 6.0 grains of Unique. And instead of .45 ACP brass in star clips, I used AutoRim brass. This is the load I fired that 6-shot group you see in the cover photo above for this blog, and it’s a honey. The group, that is…not the photo (it’s hard to get true colors when using an iPhone in the shade). I shot at 50 feet while standing…there’s no rest for the Model 625 or the weary.

.45 ACP cartridges in star clips for the Model 625. These are loaded with 230-grain cast roundnose Missouri bullets.

The .45 ACP cartridge (left) and the .45 AutoRim cartridge (right). The AutoRim cartridge is designed for use in the Model 625 without star clips. The ACP cartridge has a 230-grain roundnose Xtreme bullet; the AutoRim cartridge has Missouri’s 200-grain semi-wadcutter.

The AutoRim brass is in the tumbler as I write this and when I reload it I’m going to go with the same load: The 200-grain cast semi-wadcutter over 6.0 grains of Unique. It seems to be working for me.