Tag: chronograph data

Dialing in a Python Hog Load

By Joe Berk

In two previous blogs, I wrote about adding the Wilson Combat rear sight (which caused the Python to shoot too high) and the Harrison Design front sight (which brought the Python back on target).  This blog discusses two heavy Python loads, their ballistics, and the Python’s accuracy at 25 yards.

The two loads evaluated in this comparison. The one on the left is loaded with the Missouri Bullet Company’s 180 truncated roundnose (a cast bullet); the one on the right is loaded with Hornady’s 180-grain jacketed hollow point.

The two loads are:

      • Hornady’s 180-grain jacketed XTP bullet with 13.6 grains of Winchester 296 propellant and a Winchester small pistol magnum primer, and
      • Missouri Bullet Company’s 180-grain hard cast, truncated roundnose bullet with 14.0 grains of IMR 4227 propellant and a Winchester small pistol magnum primer.

Both are max loads.

I first tried the Hornady bullet load at 25 yards, shooting from a bench, with a two-hand hold.  My point of aim was at 6:00.  I fired two groups of 20 shots each.  The groups were a bit low, and very slightly to the left.

A 25-yard, 20-shot group with the 180-grain jacketed hollow point Hornady bullet and 13.6 grains of Winchester’s 296 powder.
A second group with the same combo.

I next tried the Missouri cast bullet load at 25 yards, firing 20 rounds under the same conditions.  Surprisingly, the group size and the group center were similar to the Hornady load, even though the velocity was higher and I was using different bullets and propellants.

A 25-yard group with Missouri’s 180-grain cast bullet and IMR 4227 propellant. The two loads are of comparable accuracy.

I felt the cast bullet load’s recoil was slightly lower than the jacketed bullet load, but the difference was miniscule.  Both loads have significant recoil.  The ballistics of both cartridges (fired from the Python) are summarized below:

Chronograph data for the two loads tested. The IMR 4227 load has a much smaller standard deviation.

The above surprised me a bit.  I always thought that Winchester’s 296 would provide the highest velocities and the smallest standard deviations.   For me, an amateur ballistician, the Garmin chronograph was a good purchase.  My reloading is frequently guided by the additional information it provides.  I knew IMR 4227 was a good powder for magnum handgun cartridges; I just didn’t know how good.  It’s very good.

After firing the first 20-round group with the Missouri Bullet Company load, I moved on to the next target.  I adjusted the rear sight for elevation and windage, realizing while doing so that I had no idea how much each click of elevation and windage adjustment represented on the target, so I made a guess.  I came up 6 clicks in elevation, and I moved the rear sight 6 clicks to the right.

I was disappointed that the three 20-shot groups I had shot thus far were larger than I thought they should be, so I tried harder.  I poured everything I had into the next 5 shots on the second Missouri Bullet Company target,  concentrating intensely, focusing on the front sight.  The front sight.  The front sight only.  I willed myself to not think about anything except the front sight while slowly and gently increasing pressure on the trigger.  The target disappeared as into fuzzy black blur.  The big Python barked and bucked.  I did it again four more times and then got up to check the target in my spotting scope.

Damn, that looked good!  All 5 shots were in the 10-ring.  This formed a dilemma.  That was a nice target.  Should I stop now and save the target for a photo, or should I fire the next 5-shot group, potentially ruining the target’s bragging rights?

A deep breath, let halfway out, with intense concentration on the front sight. This is a sweet combination: The Colt Python, 14.0 grains of IMR 4227, and the 180-grain Missouri cast bullet.

I went for Door No. 2, and sent 5 more 180-grain cast bullets downrange, concentrating so hard the rest of the world vanished.  I checked the spotting scope.  All 5 shots went into one ragged hole.  This is good stuff; both the above loads are acceptably accurate and they are suitable for taking hogs.  I think I’m going to go with the cast bullet load when I next hunt pigs in Arizona, which will occur later this year.   When I do so, you’ll read about it here on the ExNotes blog.

Subscribe to ExNotes for free!

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

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

Join our Facebook ExNotes page!

ARX Bullets In Two 9mm Pistols

By Joe Berk

About three years ago I had dinner with good buddy Robby at a Mexican restaurant outside of Atlanta.  Robby bought some sample bullets for me and one of the flavors was a 65-grain 9mm ARX bullet.  It was something I had not seen or heard of before.

These are frangible lightweight bullets designed to inflict a lot of damage without penetrating walls.  The bullets are called a fluted design, and they are a composite copper/polymer material.  They are a very high velocity bullet.  There are a number of reloading admonitions with these, including not to overcrimp because doing so will break up the bullet.  I’m talking like I’m an expert on these; I am not.  This is the first time I’ve played with them.

I loaded these with 5.2 grains of Winchester 231.  That powder is the same as HP 38, and I found a load for HP 38.   I’m thought I would get something like 1400 fps with this load based on what I saw on the Hodgdon site.  Other powders provide more velocity, but I loaded with what I had on hand (and that was Winchester 231).

I loaded on Thursday and fired these the next day, testing for velocity, reliability, and accuracy in two 9mm handguns.  Those were a 1911 (with a 5-inch barrel) and a Smith and Wesson Shield (with a 3.1-inch barrel).  From what I had read in online reviews, the ARX bullets are supposed to be relatively accurate.  I expected them to shoot way low (as lighter bullets in handguns generally do).  The loaded ammo looks cool, and the ARX bullets are relatively inexpensive at $39/500.

At the range, I set up a couple of targets at 25 yards.  I had only loaded 25 rounds, so I shot the first 10 in the Shield.  The Shield functioned perfectly with all 10 rounds (I shot two magazines with 5 rounds each).  There were no failures to feed or eject.  As I had read, the load was accurate (in fact, it was more accurate than anything else I’ve shot before in the Shield).  Recoil was very light.  I held at 6:00 on a standard 25-yard pistol target; the rounds hit low left (but not as low as I expected).  This ain’t half bad with a little belly gun like the Shield.  If I needed to, I could slide the Shield’s rear sight to the right to correct for the bias you see below.

The Shield’s velocities were high, and the standard deviation was low.  I am impressed.  There are better results than I had previously seen in the Shield.

I next fired my remaining 15 rounds in the Springfield 1911.  The load was at the top end of what Hodgdon lists for these bullets using HP38 powder (which is the same propellant as Winchester 231).

In the 1911, I had one failure to eject.  You can see that below.

Also, on the last round for each of the three mags I fired in the Springfield 1911, the pistol did not hold the slide back (it functioned okay for the first four shots).  This load apparently has just enough energy to cycle the 1911 slide, but not enough to drive it all the way back.   I could probably address this with a lighter recoil spring.  Subsequent testing proved to me that the above-described failures were related to how I was holding the 1911 during this test.  I used a two-hand hold and I bench rested the pistol on a rest.  When I fired with a two-hand hold without bench resting the pistol, it functioned flawlessly.

Here are the chrono results in the 1911.  As expected, velocities were higher due to the 1911’s 5-inch barrel.  There are other powders will give more velocity with the ARX bullets, but I loaded with what I had on hand.  Like Donald Rumsfeld used to say, you go to war with the Army you have.

Like I found with the Shield, the 1911’s accuracy was similarly good at 25 yards (again, with a 6:00 hold on the target).  I could probably do better.  I didn’t make any sight adjustments, so I was surprised that the gun was pretty much on target.

Another pleasant finding was that the both the Shield and the 1911 dropped the brass right next to the gun.  With the 1911, the brass just plopped out and came to rest on the table next to the gun.  The Shield dropped most of the brass on the table; three pieces fell off the bench.  Where you see the brass in the photo below is where it landed; I didn’t scoop it up and put it there.

The ARX bullets are a little trickier to reload than regular 9mm bullets.  Inceptor, the manufacturer, advises against a heavy crimp as it will crush the bullet.  The one time I blew up a gun two or three years ago I’m now convinced was the result of bullet setback when feeding due to a light crimp and a slippery powder coated bullet.  Setback would be more of a concern here with the light crimp.

I could probably load these bullets a bit hotter to get them to hold the slide back after the last round in the 1911 (or, as mentioned above, go to a lighter spring).   I don’t think I want to go above the 5.2 grains of Winchester 231. Also, as noted above, the issue disappeared when I fired normally without bench resting the pistol.  This was intended to be a quick look.  I learned what I wanted to.  The ARX bullets are very good. I ordered a thousand of them, which should last for a while.

Join our Facebook ExNotes page!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Help us keep the lights on:

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!