Springfield Armory 1911 – 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:

Lee’s Classic Turret Press and the S&W Shield: Range Results

By Joe Berk

Check out that photo above. It’s a flat dark earth Smith and Wesson M&P 9 Shield, with ammo reloaded using the Lee Classic Turret Press Kit. Yep, this is a “two-fer” blog: A first look at the Shield, and an evaluation of the first loads prepped with the Lee Classic Turret Press Kit.

I initially tried two loads in the Shield:

- - 124-grain plated roundnose Rainier bullets and 5.2 grains of Accurate No. 5 powder.
  - 124-grain plated roundnose Rainier bullets and 5.6 grains of Accurate No. 5 powder.

I wanted to start low and work up, partly because that’s good reloading practice and partly because the Shield was new to me and I didn’t know how it would work and what it would like. The first reduced load (5.2 grains of Accurate No. 5 and a 124-grain plated bullet) wouldn’t cycle the Shield’s action. I fired 50 rounds this way, one at a time. I’d have to pull the slide back and release it after each shot. For the Shield portion of the evaluation, I knew I needed to bump up the load. For the ammo portion of the evaluation, every load fed and fired flawlessly. The Lee turret press had done its job.

Bumping up to the 5.6 grains of Accurate No. 5 (still with the 124-grain plated bullet), the Shield’s action cycled but a couple of times the slide closed after the last round in the magazine fired. I fired 50 rounds in this test, loading 5 rounds in the Shield’s magazine each time. The Shield was pushing the slide back far enough to strip off a new round, but on two magazine loadings the slide did not go far enough back to engage the slide stop after the last round. I needed to bump the charge a scosh more. For the ammo eval, every load fed, fired, and ejected flawlessly. Again, the Lee turret press had done its job.

The Lee Classic Turret Press, a phenomenal value and a great reloading setup.

At this point, I knew I needed to go a little higher on the powder charge with the 124-grain plated bullet, and I knew the Lee Classic Turret Press was making good ammo. Everything fed and there were no jams.

The first rounds loaded to an overall cartridge length of 1.610 inches. I later moved that back to 1.140 inches.

I loaded the above 9mm ammo to an overall length of 1.160 inches, which is longer than I usually load 9mm. The Lee manual has the cartridge overall length with a plated 124-grain Rainier bullet at 1.169 inches. The cartridges would go in the Shield’s magazine and they fed fine when shooting, but when loading them in the magazine, the first cartridge tended to go horizontal instead of being angled up as others were loaded on top of it. That hung up the magazine while cartridges were being loaded into it. In the past, I had normally loaded 9mm at around 1.120 to 1.130 inches overall length. I decided that for my next load I would go up to 5.8 grains of Accurate No. 5, and I would seat the bullets for an overall cartridge length of 1.140 inches. I went home and in 20 minutes I had loaded another 50 rounds. That Lee Classic Turret is fast.

50 rounds of custom-crafted 9mm ammo created on the Lee Classic Turret Press.

The popup ads keep us going…please click on them!

When I returned to the West End Gun Club, I set up a target at 50 feet, took out the Shield, and loaded the first magazine. Loading to a cartridge overall length of 1.140 made it easier to load the magazine. So far, so good.

Next, I fired 20 rounds to assess the ammo’s functionality. Everything worked perfectly. Every round fed, every round ejected, and life was good. The Shield’s bright fixed sights were printing a bit to the left, so I held to the right on a fresh target and rattled off 30 rounds.

Thirty rounds at 50 feet from the Shield. Not too shabby for a belly gun.

The Shield’s recoil was not at all uncomfortable; it was way better than a .38 snubnose revolver. The Shield is a very light pistol (19.0 ounces). That’s lighter than the S&W Model 60 (23.2 ounces) or a Compact 1911 (33.4 ounces). Those weights for the 1911 and the Model 60 may not sound like a lot, but (trust me on this) it’s enough to weigh on you at the end of the day. I guess the Shield’s light weight is the big advantage of a Tupperware gun. I like it, and I like the fact that the gun is pleasant to shoot.

A few days later, I was on an indoor range and I set up the Alco target that has four mini-silhouettes on a single sheet. I ran it out to 21 feet and put 50 rounds on target (dividing them roughly between the four targets), all shot offhand while standing. The load was the same as the one mentioned above. That’s 5.8 grains of Accurate No. 5 and a 124-grain plated Rainier roundnose bullet at an overall cartridge length of 1.140 inches, and for these, I used mixed brass.

The quad mini-silhouette from Alco Target in Monrovia, California, and 50 rounds fired standing at 7 yards.

I also tried two different powder-coated bullets with Accurate No. 5. One was the 147-grain Boudreau flat nosed bullet with 4.8 grains of Accurate No. 5. This is an accurate load in the Shield (even more so than the plated bullet load mentioned above), but it leaded the bore. The other was the Boudreau 124-grain round nose bullet with 5.4 grains of Accurate No. 5; it, too, leaded the bore. The plated bullets did not lead the bore at all so I think they are a better load. I loaded more 147-grain powder coated bullets with a lighter charge to see if that would eliminate the bore leading, but they did not and I had cycling issues. 4.8 grains of Accurate No. 5 is what this 147-grain powder coated bullet wants.

The Shield with 124-grain powder coated roundnose bullets. These leaded the bore.

147-grain powder coated bullets. These, too, leaded the bore. They are accurate, though.

Another Alco quad mini-silhouette with 5-shot groups fired standing at 7 yards, this time with the 147-grain powder coated Boudreau bullet and 4.8 grains of Accurate No. 5.

Let’s talk about the Shield a bit. My Shield is the first iteration (not the Shield 2.0, as that model is not sold in California). The Shield has a 3 1/8-inch barrel.

The Shield’s 8-round magazine. The left arrow points to the spacer. It can slide up, as indicated by the right arrow.

The Shield’s magazine could be better. It has a plastic spacer at the bottom, and that spacer rides up when loading the magazine. Conceivably, it could interfere with seating the magazine in the gun. In my opinion it is a poor design. The collar slides down as easy as it slides up, so that’s good. You get two mags with the Shield. The one you see above holds 8 rounds and it has a grip extender that feels just right to me. There’s another one that doesn’t have the grip extender and it holds 7 rounds. I haven’t done anything with that one, other than checking to make sure it was in the box when I bought the gun.

The Shield’s sights are the best I’ve ever used. They are bright and easy to see. The sights let in light from the sides, and that design just flat works. It’s the first gun I have ever shot with these sights. They are better than my SIG P226s’s Tritium sights, and those sights are good. The photo below isn’t enhanced; it’s what the Smith’s sights actually look like.

The Shield’s sights. They are the best I’ve ever used.

The Shield’s trigger, in a word, is terrible. There are other triggers available for the Shield, but I will leave this one alone. The trigger got a little better with use and a couple of cleanings (I’ve put about 600 rounds through the Shield so far). The Shield is a striker-fired gun and the trigger is not what I would consider good, but it’s better than it was initially. Compared to a good 1911 like the Springfield, it’s awful. But, it’s good enough to get rounds on target (as you can see above).

The Shield’s slide release, out of the box, was super stiff and essentially unusable. I could release the slide with two thumbs, but not with one. I found it best to pull the slide back and let it go to release the slide. This aspect of the design (or its execution) is poor, and requiring two hands to release the slide is not good for a defensive weapon. A close examination of the slide stop showed that it was rough where it interfaced with the slide, so I judiciously worked it over with 600-grit sandpaper, and it releases more easily now. I can release it with one thumb with no magazine in the gun, but it still takes two thumbs and a lot of effort with the mag inserted and that’s bad. It’s surprising that Smith and Wesson would let this happen.

A SIG P226, the Smith and Wesson Shield, and a Springfield Armory 1911, all chambered in 9mm. Flat dark earth is the new black.

I had the SIG and my 1911 with me when I shot the Shield. The Shield doesn’t look that much smaller in a group photo, but it is flatter and it will carry concealed better. In subsequent blogs, I’ll explore different loads prepared on the Lee Classic Turret press fired in all three of the guns above. I fired a few rounds through the Springfield, and they worked just fine; the same is true for the SIG P226. Interestingly, the lighter loads that wouldn’t work in the Shield did work in the Springfield. It’s counterintuitive, but compact handguns are tougher to make work well than are full size handguns. That’s because the recoil spring in a compact handgun has to be much stiffer than one in a full size gun.

The Shield’s sear deactivation lever. You have to push it down to remove the slide and barrel.

To takedown the Shield, you do not simply unlock the slide takedown lever. There’s a sear deactivation release in the magazine well (identified with a red arrow in the photo above), and you have to push that down before you can turn the slide takedown lever for disassembly. You can’t do it with your finger; you need a small screwdriver or a thin pen. With the SIG, you just turn the slide takedown lever with the slide back.

Cleaning the Shield is a breeze. You make sure the gun is unloaded, release the mag, lower the sear deactivation lever, rotate the slide takedown lever, and the gun comes apart. The slide comes off the frame, and the spring subassembly and barrel come out. That’s it. Five parts (the magazine, the receiver, the barrel, the spring subassembly, and the slide.

The plated ammo I loaded on the Lee turret press didn’t lead at all. Zero. Zip. Nada. The powder coated bullets did, which surprised me. All were accurate.

The bottom line? Let me put it this way: I like the Shield; I love the Lee Classic Turret Press kit. The Shield will get better with more shooting and I want to try more loads in it, but that 5.8-grains of Accurate No.5 and 124-grain plated Rainier roundnose load is a winner. The Lee Classic Turret press and all its accessories were good to go right from the beginning. Its design and quality are excellent.

The Lee Classic Turret Press…what can I say? It’s awesome. It’s fast, easy to use, inexpensive, and it makes great ammo. I say it’s the best bang for the buck in the reloading world. As an engineer I’m impressed; as a consumer and reloader I am delighted. I have already fired several hundred rounds loaded on the Lee Classic Turret Press in my Shield, the Springfield, and the SIG and once I settled on a load, every one of them fed, fired, extracted, and ejected perfectly in three different handguns. I had a box of 1000 124-grain plated 9mm bullets a few days ago; I like the Lee turret press so much they’re all gone now (they were either sent downrange or they’ve been loaded and labeled and they’re waiting their turn to go downrange). I love reloading and shooting; I love it even more now that I’m loading with my Lee turret press.

A word of caution here…these loads performed acceptably in my guns. Your firearms may vary and you need to develop your own loads. Always start low and work up in any load development program.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

More Tales of the Gun!

More information on Lee reloading gear.

Our earlier blogs on Lee equipment:

Lee Safety Prime
Lee Auto-Drum Powder Measure
Lee Classic Turret Press Kit
Lee Bench Plate
Lee’s Modern Reloading Manual
Lee Safety Powder Scale
Lee Classic Turret Kit Unpacking
Lee .44 Magnum Dies 1
Lee .44 Magnum Dies 2
Lee .44 Magnum Dies 3
Lee .357 Magnum Dies

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!