Tag: SIG P226

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:

Bullet weight variability parameters.

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:

Five Favorite Handguns

I’ve owned quite a few handguns and I’ve shot quite a few more.  These are my five all-time favorites.

Colt 1911 Government Model

What can I say?  I waxed eloquent about the 1911 in several ExNotes blogs.  I’ve owned several 1911s, and I still own my first, the MacManus Award Colt 1911.  My mid-1980s bright stainless steel 1911 is a real honey.  It’s hard to go wrong with any 1911.

1911 Government Models can be phenomenally accurate handguns, I love the .45 ACP cartridge, and the 1911 is part of America.  I carried a 1911 in the Army and I carry one today (see below).

Rock Island Compact 1911

The Rock Island Compact checks all the boxes for me.  It’s under $500 (I picked  up mine new for an incredibly low $425).  While not quite as accurate as a full-size Government Model, it’s accurate enough and it’s easy to carry.   Like the bright stainless Colt 1911 above, my Compact has been lightly customized by TJ’s Custom Gunworks, with a polished barrel and chamber, engine-turned chamber exterior, Millet sights, and other mods to improve reliability (new extractor, recut ejector, etc.).  It feeds anything.  I like the Parkerized finish; it’s all business and it reminds me of the 1911s I carried in the Army.  I call it my American Express gun (I never leave home without it).

My favored Compact 1911 loads are a 230-grain cast roundnose with 5.6 grains of Unique, and a 185-grain semi-wadcutter with 5.0 grains of Bullseye.  The 185-grain SWC load is crazy accurate for a snubbie .45.

Colt .22 Trooper 

This is an unusual one.  I bought it in the 1980s.  The Trooper is the same .357 Magnum that Colt manufactured for police duty, except it’s chambered in .22 Long Rifle.  The barrel and the cylinder have the same external dimensions as the .357 Mag, which makes it heavy and that translates into stellar accuracy.  It is the most accurate .22 handgun I own.  Mine has custom rosewood grips.  I love shooting the Trooper, and it does well with every brand of ammo I’ve put through it.

I paid $200 for the Trooper back in the ’80s.  If you check what they go for today on Gunbroker.com, I think you’ll agree it was a good investment.  But like all the other guns in this blog, it is not for sale.

Ruger .357 Magnum Blackhawk 

Ruger Blackhawks are exceptionally accurate revolvers, they are easy to shoot, and they are just plain cool.  I’ve shot loads in mine that run the gamut:  148-grain wadcutter target loads, 110-grain max hollow point loads, 158-grain max loads, and metallic silhouette 200-grain cast roundnose loads.   The Blackhawks don’t care; they handle all of them with target-grade accuracy.

I used to say Blackhawks last forever, but I have to tell you I can’t say that anymore.  My stainless steel Blackhawk finally wore out.  When I sent it in to Ruger for repair, they were surprised, too, and they backed up their surprise with an even-more-surprising offer to buy the gun back (an offer I accepted).  I’ve got my antenna up for another .357 Blackhawk, and when things calm down a bit in the gun world, another one will find a home with me.

SIG P226 Scorpion

The SIG P226 is an amazing handgun. At $1200 (and that’s a pre-pandemic price), they are not cheap, but I feel like I spent my money wisely on this piece.  I love the SIG’s finish and grips, and I love its accuracy (it is the most accurate 9mm handgun I’ve ever owned).

I first learned just how good the SIG is when I fired good buddy Python Pete’s, and it wasn’t too long after that I bought the one you see here.  It did better than any of the other 9mm handguns in the load development comparos (for both cast and jacketed loads).  Trust me on this…if you want a fine handgun, you won’t go wrong with a SIG P226.

Lots more gun stuff on our Tales of the Gun page!

Keep us afloat:  Please click on those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog…sign up here for a free subscription:

The 9mm Comparo: Cast Bullet Loads

Bottom line first: The SIG P226 Scorpion can get ‘er done! This is a phenomenal handgun, one of the best I’ve ever shot.

This is Part I of the promised 9mm comparo, and after thinking about it for a bit, I thought I would focus on the cast bullet loads in the first installment, and then move on to the jacketed bullet loads in the next one (that will come a little later).   There are a lot of ways I could have organized the comparo; this one made the most sense to me.   There’s a lot of information here and I didn’t want it to be overwhelming.  It also involves a lot of shooting (about a half day’s worth with just the cast bullets), and I wanted to clean the pistols after shooting the cast bullet loads before moving on to the jacketed loads.

I used three 9mm handguns for this test:  A former police-issue Model 659 Smith and Wesson, a Springfield Armory 1911 Target, and a SIG P226 Scorpion.    Let’s start with a few words about each.

Keep us in clover…please click on the popup ads!

The 659 S&W is a gun that’s been featured on the ExNotes blog before.   It’s a police department trade-in that was manufactured in the 1980s.  My good buddy Tom gave me a great deal on it, I refinished the brushed stainless steel slide and frame, I fixed the decocker (it wasn’t dropping the hammer when the safety was actuated), and I’ve been shooting it a lot in the last few months.  My gun has Pachmayr checkered rubber grips (which I like a lot).   It is a heavy gun at 40 ounces, mostly because it has a steel frame (many 9mm handguns have a polymer or aluminum frame).

The 659 Smith and Wesson. It’s a solid service pistol, one that was used widely when police agencies in the US switched from revolvers to autos 40 years ago.

I like the 659.  Like I said above, it’s heavy (but that means it’s steady) and it seems to shoot everything well.  What do I not like about it?  It needs to be kept clean behind the extractor, or it will sometimes fail to fully extract and eject a fired cartridge.   That’s due to the nature of the extractor, which is a hinged arm.  When grit or powder reside gets behind the aft portion of the extractor, it can’t pivot and it doesn’t pull the cartridge all the way out so that it can be ejected.  I think the squared-off trigger guard is goofy.  I never wrap my left hand around the front of the trigger guard and I prefer the look of a rounded trigger guard.  Like most double-action/single-action semi-auto handguns, this 659 has the Joe Biden trigger (it’s kind of creepy). The front sight is unfinished stainless steel, so it is hard to see on the target (I paint the front sight on my 659 flat black so I can get a good sight picture).   The Pachmayr grips add to the 659’s bulky grip design, but they also allow a secure hold.

That’s a lot of bitching, I suppose, especially when it’s directed at a handgun I enjoy shooting enormously.  None of the above would keep me from buying a 659 (and none of the above kept me from buying this one).  I like my 659.  If you get an opportunity to buy one and the price is right for you, take it from a guy who knows:  You won’t regret pulling the trigger (literally and figuratively) on a used Model 659.  That’s if you can even find one.  The police departments have all traded them in, Smith and Wesson stopped making these guns decades ago, and the supply is drying up.

The next one up is a Springfield Armory Target model 9mm 1911.  As handguns go, it doesn’t get any better than the 1911 (or so I thought up until this test, but more on that later), and having a 1911 chambered in 9mm seems to me to be a good idea.

Springfield Armory changed the name on this gun.  It used to be called the “Loaded” model (as in loaded with all the options, including target sights and hand fitting here in the US), but they later changed the name to the Target model.  That’s good. “Loaded” makes it sound like the gun is a stoner (i.e., a doper, not the weapons designer).

I’ve had my 9mm 1911 for about 5 years (I bought it new from my good buddy Brian at Bullet Barn Guns).   I knew it was accurate, but I had not really played with it that much to find out what loads it liked best.

The Springfield Armory 1911 Target Model, with adjustable sights, a 5-inch barrel, and all stainless steel construction.

There’s not too much to dislike about the Springfield Armory 1911.  Springfield makes a quality gun.  The fit and finish on mine are superb.  One thing I’ve noticed is that it has a tight chamber, and ammo loaded on a progressive reloader is prone to sometimes jam if the cartridge isn’t perfect (unlike the 659, which feeds anything).  That doesn’t bother me because I load everything on a single-stage RCBS Rockchucker these days.  I don’t need the speed of a progressive reloader, and my ammo quality and accuracy are better when I load on a single-stage press.  The trigger on my 1911 is superb, as is the case on nearly every 1911 I’ve ever shot.   I think that as 1911s go, Springfield Armory is one of the best.  I’ve owned and shot several of them.  They are accurate and they hold up well.  Fit and finish are top drawer, too, on every Springfield Armory 1911 I’ve ever seen.  It’s just a beautiful 1911.

The third handgun for this test series is my recently-acquired SIG P226 Scorpion.  This is the first SIG I’ve ever owned.  I’d heard so many good things about SIG handguns (and in particular, their accuracy) that I thought I would take the plunge and buy one.  I bought mine at Turner’s here in southern California.

So how do I like the SIG?  In a word, it’s awesome.  I like the look of the Cerakote finish and the SIG grips, and gun just feels right in my hand.  The grips fit like a glove, and the grip texture works.  It is one seriously good-looking and good-handling handgun.

SIG’s P226 Scorpion. It has a Cerakote finish and an aluminum frame. This is a good-looking handgun, I think.

The SIG is the only pistol used in this test that does not have adjustable sights.  The SIG literature told me they offer sights of different heights, and the rear sight can be drifted left or right in its dovetail, but none of that was necessary on my gun.   My SIG shoots exactly to its point of aim at 50 feet (take a look at that target at the top of this blog again).

Speaking of sights, the SIG has what is evidently a fairly expensive set of Tritium sights that glow in the dark (I think they are about a hundred bucks if you buy them separately).  The glow is not like the lume of a watch dial; instead, they have something else going on that makes them light up at night.  You can see that in this photo I took in the dark:

There’s the sights. Where’s the target?  Normally, you’d get the front and rear sights aligned; that is not the case in this photo.  The only point of this photo is that the SIG glows in the dark.

I think the Tritium sights are kind of a Gee-Whiz deal, and I don’t think I need them.  I’m an old guy and I shoot targets when I can see what I’m shooting at.  If I was a lot younger and I was running around in a white Ferrari with Miami Vice music playing while chasing bad guys at night, maybe Tritium sights would do it for me.  But even under those conditions, it would still be dark and I wouldn’t be able to see my target. I think the Tritium sights are gimmicky, and the little lenses (or whatever they are) for the Tritium inserts are distracting.  Plain black sights work best for me.  Your mileage may vary.

So, on to the main attraction:  The 9mm loads and how they performed in each of the three handguns.   I loaded everything for this first 9mm test series with a bullet I’ve known and loved for 50 years, and that’s the 124-grain cast roundnose.  My particular flavor these days are the pills from Missouri Bullets.  At $33 for a box of 500, they are inexpensive and the quality is good.  A roundnose configuration bullet feeds well in just about any gun.  Yeah, I know there are other cast bullet configurations and other cast bullet weights.  I’ve always had my best results with the 124-grain bullets, though, and that’s what I used for this test.

124-grain cast roundnose bullets from the Missouri Bullet Company. They are relatively inexpensive and they shoot well.

I tested with four different propellants:  Bullseye, Unique, 231, and Power Pistol.  For the 231 and Power Pistol loads, I loaded near the lower end of the recommended charge range for one test set, and I loaded another test set near the upper end of the recommended charge range.   With Unique, they were all loaded with 5.0 grains, which is a max charge in most reloading manuals.   I had a bunch of these already loaded, and I knew from a past life that this was an accurate load.   I tried one load with Bullseye, too.  I had a box of 50 loaded and I grabbed those as I headed to the range a few days ago.  I used Remington small pistol primers for everything, and I used several different brands of brass, but I used the same kind of brass for each load.   Cartridge overall length was 1.112 inches for all loads.

All loads were handheld at a distance of 50 feet.  I shot two 5-shot groups with each load.  I didn’t use a machine rest or a chronograph because I have neither.  I shot from the bench, resting my arms (but not the gun) on the bench.  Yes, a lot of the variability you see in the chart below is due to me.  Hey, I’m what you get.  My intent was to get an idea what worked best in each of these guns, and I think I succeeded.

That’s the background.  Here are the results:

Clearly, the SIG is the most accurate of the three handguns.  What I’d read and heard about SIG’s performance is true.  Some of the SIG groups were amazing, putting 5-shots into under an inch at 50 feet.  That’s about as good as I’ve ever done.

While the SIG was accurate with Winchester’s 231 propellant, the gun didn’t like it.  On both of the 3.4 grain loads, the slide went forward after the last round (it didn’t lock open), and it did it again on one of the 3.9 grain magazines.  While the 231 loads had enough poop to cycle the action, it wasn’t running the slide far enough back to lock open on the last round.  This powder also did that on one of the Springfield Armory 1911 tests.   Interestingly, the Smith and Wesson 659 worked okay with both the upper and lower 231 loads.  These were light loads (I could see the slide moving back and forth with each shot, and it popped the brass out right next to the gun).  My testing got me far enough along to decide Winchester 231 is not for me as a 9mm propellant.

The SIG really liked Power Pistol propellant, and from an accuracy perspective it performed similarly at both the low (5.0 grain) and high (5.5 grain) levels.  There was perceptibly more recoil (but no pressure signs) with 5.5 grains of Power Pistol, so my load for the SIG with this bullet will be 5.0 grains.  The SIG also did well with 5.0 grains of Unique.  That’s a good thing, as I have a bunch of ammo loaded with this recipe.  As I mentioned above, I found 5.0 grains of Unique did well in accuracy testing a long time ago, and it’s good to see this test supports those earlier findings.  The 5.0 grains of Unique load also did very well in the Springfield 1911 (it was the Springfield’s most accurate load).  With this load, the Springfield is as accurate as the SIG.  But the SIG did well with all loads; the Springfield was pickier.

The 659 is a great gun, but from an accuracy perspective it can’t run with the big dogs. That’s okay; it’s still fun to shoot and I plan to continue shooting it a lot.  And it only cost about a third what the others cost.  Like I said earlier, if you get a chance to pick up a 659, don’t let it get away.

But that SIG.  Wow!

So there you have it.  Next up?  I want to see how these same three pistols shoot jacketed bullets.  Stay tuned.

One last comment…it’s time for the warnings and disclaimers.  These are my loads in my guns.  You should always consult a reloading manual published by one of the major sources (Hornady, Speer, Sierra, Lyman, Winchester, Alliant, you get the idea) and rely on the load data published there.  Start low and work your way up, watching for any pressure signs along the way.

Help us keep the lights on:  Please click on the popup ads!

See more Tales of the Gun here!

Don’t pay exorbitant range fees for targets.  Buy online and get targets delivered to your door like we do!

Looking for great deals on reloading equipment?  Here you go!

Don’t miss a single ExNotes blog post!

Want to read a similar jacketed bullet test series with the same three 9mm handguns?  It’s right here!

Coming Up: A 9mm Comparo

I’ve been lusting over the SIG P226 Scorpion for some time now, and after a little bit of brushing up on my negotiation tactics, I pulled the trigger (figuratively speaking) on one this morning.

I like the looks of the SIG, I like that it is an alloy-framed handgun (I’m not a big fan of the plastic guns), and I like that it is a SIG.   Good buddy TJ told me he believes these are the finest handguns available today, and he’s a guy who knows handguns.  The US Army recently made their sidearm decision and it’s SIG.  That’s a strong endorsement, I think.

I bought my SIG Scorpion at Turner’s, the gun will be in the store this Thursday, and that’s when I get to start the PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia) 10-day waiting period.

My tried and trusty Model 59, the gun that got me hooked on 5.0 grains of Unique and a 125-grain cast roundnose bullet.

I’ve got a boatload of 9mm ammunition reloaded and ready to go, but that got me to thinking:  What load might work best in the new SIG?  I’d found in the past that 5.0 grains of Unique and a 125-grain cast roundnose bullet provided great accuracy in my Model 59, but then I got lazy and I stuck with that as my standard 9mm load in everything.  I’ll be the first guy to tell you that to find the best load in any gun, you need to experiment and develop a load specifically for that gun.   I have a couple of other 9mm pistols (a Springfield Armory 1911 and the Model 659 Smith and Wesson that I’ve blogged about before), and I’ve simply used my 5.0-grain Unique/125-grain cast roundnose in all of them.  Is there a better load for each of these handguns?

The 659 with my 125 grain cast roundnose reloads.
The Springfield 9mm 1911. It seems to like the 5.0 grain Unique/125-grain roundnose load, too.

So here’s what’s coming up:  I’m going to do a load development comparo for the 659, the 1911, and the P226 to see where the accuracy lives for each gun.  I’m thinking Unique, Bullseye, Power Pistol, the 147 grain Speer, the 125 gr cast RN Missouri, and maybe a 115 full metal jacket or hollowpoint bullet.  I’m looking for inputs, so if you have a favored load for your 9mm handgun, let me know and I may throw it into the mix, too.  Please add your suggestions to the Comments section here.   I’ll keep you posted.

Want to read our other Tales of the Gun stories?  You can find them here.

We’re thinking about another book, one that would include all of our Tales of the Gun stories and much more.   What do you think?  Let us know if you think you might have an interest in this new book to help us assess the market.  In the meantime, you can see our other titles here.