Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/12/2012 8:24:07 PM EDT
So I bought some frangible bullets from Midway, 90 grain, 9mm... I've never loaded them, any advice or things i should look out for? They seem to vary wildly in color also, anyway to make them uniform, maybe tumble them in media? And what about loading them in once fired nickel plated Speer lawman casing?

Thanks, go easy on the newb
Link Posted: 5/12/2012 11:04:48 PM EDT
Don't worry about the color and find some load data that uses the 90gr bullet weights.

Chris
Link Posted: 5/13/2012 10:20:51 AM EDT
I have been fooling around with frangible in .223 and you use data for a much heavier round. Like I know with the 55 grain frangible rounds I'm using you use 75 gn data.

The color doesn't matter. I think it's where they use a mixture of tin and copper to make the round. Maybe it has more tin or more copper.
Link Posted: 5/13/2012 3:16:43 PM EDT



Originally Posted By ChrisGarrett:


Don't worry about the color and find some load data that uses the 90gr bullet weights.



Chris


Load data is based upon the bullet size, not weight. A 90gr. standard  bullet has much more room for powder than a 90 grain frangible bullet.

 
Link Posted: 5/13/2012 5:42:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/13/2012 6:28:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rosseubanks666:
So I bought some frangible bullets from Midway, 90 grain, 9mm... I've never loaded them, any advice or things i should look out for? They seem to vary wildly in color also, anyway to make them uniform, maybe tumble them in media? And what about loading them in once fired nickel plated Speer lawman casing?

Thanks, go easy on the newb


What brand are they?
Link Posted: 5/13/2012 6:39:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/13/2012 6:40:13 PM EDT by MagnusM4]
Originally Posted By Flamethrower:
Originally Posted By rosseubanks666:
So I bought some frangible bullets from Midway, 90 grain, 9mm... I've never loaded them, any advice or things i should look out for? They seem to vary wildly in color also, anyway to make them uniform, maybe tumble them in media? And what about loading them in once fired nickel plated Speer lawman casing?

Thanks, go easy on the newb


What brand are they?


I'm assuming these.
http://www.midwayusa.com/find?promotionid=569393&cm_vc=U012Swing

I don't reload 9mm, but the price seems great.
Link Posted: 5/13/2012 7:58:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mcornell:

Originally Posted By ChrisGarrett:
Don't worry about the color and find some load data that uses the 90gr bullet weights.

Chris

Load data is based upon the bullet size, not weight. A 90gr. standard  bullet has much more room for powder than a 90 grain frangible bullet.  


Not in the four or five manuals that I have.  They group them by weights, not size.

Chris



Link Posted: 5/13/2012 9:13:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MagnusM4:
Originally Posted By Flamethrower:
Originally Posted By rosseubanks666:
So I bought some frangible bullets from Midway, 90 grain, 9mm... I've never loaded them, any advice or things i should look out for? They seem to vary wildly in color also, anyway to make them uniform, maybe tumble them in media? And what about loading them in once fired nickel plated Speer lawman casing?

Thanks, go easy on the newb


What brand are they?


I'm assuming these.
http://www.midwayusa.com/find?promotionid=569393&cm_vc=U012Swing

I don't reload 9mm, but the price seems great.


Correct. Plan to buy more if the price stays reasonable...

Link Posted: 5/13/2012 9:19:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bfoosh06:
Accurate Powder has some data.

http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/accurate_load_data_3.5.pdf


Nice thanks for the linkage...

Link Posted: 5/14/2012 3:37:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2012 5:23:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2012 5:37:14 AM EDT by countrygunner]
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By countrygunner:
I have been fooling around with frangible in .223 and you use data for a much heavier round. Like I know with the 55 grain frangible rounds I'm using you use 75 gn data.

The color doesn't matter. I think it's where they use a mixture of tin and copper to make the round. Maybe it has more tin or more copper.


Be careful about making this broad generalization by comparing bottleneck cartridges and straight wall cartridges.

Plus, I'm curious about just what you are shooting and where you got the data.  I'm skeptical about your claim, and we need to understand why the data would substitute this radically.



I don't see how I made a broad generalization about anything. I just simply stated that with the .223 that I've been loading that is how I've been doing it. Here is where I got the info and some more info on 9mm:

link

And I was a little off it was to use 72 gn jacketed data when reloading 55 gn frangible rounds instead of 75gn.

I also got data off of hodgdon's site:

link

If you will notice they don't exactly have  72 gn data but the data in let's say IMR 4895 for the 55gn frangible round is a max of 24.6 and for a 70gn jacketed bullet, which is lighter than 72 but close, the max with

IMR 4895 is 25 gn. So If you make a few math calculations it will work out to about the same charge weight as compared to the info I got on the first link whereby you would use 72gn jacketed data for a 55 gn frangible round.

So didn't really make a generalization at all. It's pretty much factual data.

And yes as someone stated above the frangible bullets are much larger than their counterparts by weight. So I would make a guess and say that does play a factor in coming up with the charge weight but I also think that it has to do with the fact that frangible bullets

are made of compressed tin and copper and are not near as hard as a full metal jacketed bullet with a lead core. So they can't be pushed to as high of a velocity or be under as much pressure or they will prematurely bust apart before reaching there intended target

Oh and the load that I've been using was found on hodgdon's site and is a 55gn frangible bullet in a lake city city brass case with 22gns of H335 powder and a cci #400 primer, no crimp seated at 2.190 oal.. I also have another load I"m trying with IMR 4895  24gns in a

lake city case with winchester small rifle primers seated at 2.190 and no crimp. Both are below max and seem to work great. Max for these powder with 55 gn jacketed bullets is around 1.5 - 4 gns higher depending on what load data your looking at.
Link Posted: 5/14/2012 6:48:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2012 7:36:51 AM EDT



Originally Posted By ChrisGarrett:



Originally Posted By mcornell:




Originally Posted By ChrisGarrett:

Don't worry about the color and find some load data that uses the 90gr bullet weights.



Chris


Load data is based upon the bullet size, not weight. A 90gr. standard  bullet has much more room for powder than a 90 grain frangible bullet.  




Not in the four or five manuals that I have.  They group them by weights, not size.



Chris


Bullets are grouped by weight and by composition. Data for lead bullets is different than jacketed bullets of the same weight (as is pure copper bullets). Frangible bullets are made of a material that is less dense than lead, so for the same bullet size, the frangible bullet will occupy more space. Hence, to maintain the same over all length, a frangible bullet will have less available powder space (the base of the frangible bullet is seated deeper).

 



You cannot substitute loading data for 90 gr. lead or jacketed bullets for 90 gr. frangible bullets (any more than you can substitute jacketed data for lead data). Most manuals do not even have frangible data, which is why you do not see any. The link to the accurate data shows that their is a difference.




I did not notice the product description for these bullets states:





Note:

The 90gr. CTF bullets have a similar size and profile as a traditional 115gr full metal jacket bullet.




Frangible bullet specific load data should be used when loading these bullets like that available from most major powder manufacturers.







I just ordered a 1,000 of these after seeing that Accurate has loading data (and I have some AA #5 in the powder stash).  I am curious how they feed and shoot. If anyone has a chance to try these out, please post your impressions.






Link Posted: 5/14/2012 2:40:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By countrygunner:
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By countrygunner:
I have been fooling around with frangible in .223 and you use data for a much heavier round. Like I know with the 55 grain frangible rounds I'm using you use 75 gn data.

The color doesn't matter. I think it's where they use a mixture of tin and copper to make the round. Maybe it has more tin or more copper.


Be careful about making this broad generalization by comparing bottleneck cartridges and straight wall cartridges.

Plus, I'm curious about just what you are shooting and where you got the data.  I'm skeptical about your claim, and we need to understand why the data would substitute this radically.



I don't see how I made a broad generalization about anything. I just simply stated that with the .223 that I've been loading that is how I've been doing it. Here is where I got the info and some more info on 9mm:

link

And I was a little off it was to use 72 gn jacketed data when reloading 55 gn frangible rounds instead of 75gn.

I also got data off of hodgdon's site:

link

If you will notice they don't exactly have  72 gn data but the data in let's say IMR 4895 for the 55gn frangible round is a max of 24.6 and for a 70gn jacketed bullet, which is lighter than 72 but close, the max with

IMR 4895 is 25 gn. So If you make a few math calculations it will work out to about the same charge weight as compared to the info I got on the first link whereby you would use 72gn jacketed data for a 55 gn frangible round.

So didn't really make a generalization at all. It's pretty much factual data.

And yes as someone stated above the frangible bullets are much larger than their counterparts by weight. So I would make a guess and say that does play a factor in coming up with the charge weight but I also think that it has to do with the fact that frangible bullets

are made of compressed tin and copper and are not near as hard as a full metal jacketed bullet with a lead core. So they can't be pushed to as high of a velocity or be under as much pressure or they will prematurely bust apart before reaching there intended target

Oh and the load that I've been using was found on hodgdon's site and is a 55gn frangible bullet in a lake city city brass case with 22gns of H335 powder and a cci #400 primer, no crimp seated at 2.190 oal.. I also have another load I"m trying with IMR 4895  24gns in a

lake city case with winchester small rifle primers seated at 2.190 and no crimp. Both are below max and seem to work great. Max for these powder with 55 gn jacketed bullets is around 1.5 - 4 gns higher depending on what load data your looking at.


As to your first link I would advise EXTREME caution about using anything on this website. They make generalized claims that are dangerous at best. Compairing frangible bullets to jacketed bullets of different weights is not wise. There are other things about this company I have some knowledge of but cannot say openly. Please use caution.
Link Posted: 5/14/2012 4:02:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2012 4:04:57 PM EDT by countrygunner]
Originally Posted By Flamethrower:
Originally Posted By countrygunner:
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By countrygunner:
I have been fooling around with frangible in .223 and you use data for a much heavier round. Like I know with the 55 grain frangible rounds I'm using you use 75 gn data.

The color doesn't matter. I think it's where they use a mixture of tin and copper to make the round. Maybe it has more tin or more copper.


Be careful about making this broad generalization by comparing bottleneck cartridges and straight wall cartridges.

Plus, I'm curious about just what you are shooting and where you got the data.  I'm skeptical about your claim, and we need to understand why the data would substitute this radically.



I don't see how I made a broad generalization about anything. I just simply stated that with the .223 that I've been loading that is how I've been doing it. Here is where I got the info and some more info on 9mm:

link

And I was a little off it was to use 72 gn jacketed data when reloading 55 gn frangible rounds instead of 75gn.

I also got data off of hodgdon's site:

link

If you will notice they don't exactly have  72 gn data but the data in let's say IMR 4895 for the 55gn frangible round is a max of 24.6 and for a 70gn jacketed bullet, which is lighter than 72 but close, the max with

IMR 4895 is 25 gn. So If you make a few math calculations it will work out to about the same charge weight as compared to the info I got on the first link whereby you would use 72gn jacketed data for a 55 gn frangible round.

So didn't really make a generalization at all. It's pretty much factual data.

And yes as someone stated above the frangible bullets are much larger than their counterparts by weight. So I would make a guess and say that does play a factor in coming up with the charge weight but I also think that it has to do with the fact that frangible bullets

are made of compressed tin and copper and are not near as hard as a full metal jacketed bullet with a lead core. So they can't be pushed to as high of a velocity or be under as much pressure or they will prematurely bust apart before reaching there intended target

Oh and the load that I've been using was found on hodgdon's site and is a 55gn frangible bullet in a lake city city brass case with 22gns of H335 powder and a cci #400 primer, no crimp seated at 2.190 oal.. I also have another load I"m trying with IMR 4895  24gns in a

lake city case with winchester small rifle primers seated at 2.190 and no crimp. Both are below max and seem to work great. Max for these powder with 55 gn jacketed bullets is around 1.5 - 4 gns higher depending on what load data your looking at.


As to your first link I would advise EXTREME caution about using anything on this website. They make generalized claims that are dangerous at best. Compairing frangible bullets to jacketed bullets of different weights is not wise. There are other things about this company I have some knowledge of but cannot say openly. Please use caution.


In this case, the site referred to, there data is right on track with the other sights that I have gotten data for the exact frangible weight bullet. I love how people pick apart statements and try to find anything they can that's wrong or make it to sound wrong. I wrote I

didn't use this sight for my sole source of data and just as a piece of the puzzle. I came on this board about 2 months ago asking for data on reloading frangible ammo and had about 2-3 people reply with help. So I had to research most of it on my own. I have done

quite a bit of research plus I have shot the loads I've referred to. So I'm not just giving the data off that sight only to support my statements I have also shot the rounds myself. Just because you question them on something else doesn't mean there wrong in this case.

Since I"m no expert I'm not going to guarantee you they are perfectly right but from what I've read and data I've searched through on many sights I've found the data on their sight to be very close to exactly the same data I've found everywhere else.  

Have you ever loaded a frangible round?

Link Posted: 5/14/2012 4:16:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By countrygunner:
Originally Posted By Flamethrower:
Originally Posted By countrygunner:
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By countrygunner:
I have been fooling around with frangible in .223 and you use data for a much heavier round. Like I know with the 55 grain frangible rounds I'm using you use 75 gn data.

The color doesn't matter. I think it's where they use a mixture of tin and copper to make the round. Maybe it has more tin or more copper.


Be careful about making this broad generalization by comparing bottleneck cartridges and straight wall cartridges.

Plus, I'm curious about just what you are shooting and where you got the data.  I'm skeptical about your claim, and we need to understand why the data would substitute this radically.



I don't see how I made a broad generalization about anything. I just simply stated that with the .223 that I've been loading that is how I've been doing it. Here is where I got the info and some more info on 9mm:

link

And I was a little off it was to use 72 gn jacketed data when reloading 55 gn frangible rounds instead of 75gn.

I also got data off of hodgdon's site:

link

If you will notice they don't exactly have  72 gn data but the data in let's say IMR 4895 for the 55gn frangible round is a max of 24.6 and for a 70gn jacketed bullet, which is lighter than 72 but close, the max with

IMR 4895 is 25 gn. So If you make a few math calculations it will work out to about the same charge weight as compared to the info I got on the first link whereby you would use 72gn jacketed data for a 55 gn frangible round.

So didn't really make a generalization at all. It's pretty much factual data.

And yes as someone stated above the frangible bullets are much larger than their counterparts by weight. So I would make a guess and say that does play a factor in coming up with the charge weight but I also think that it has to do with the fact that frangible bullets

are made of compressed tin and copper and are not near as hard as a full metal jacketed bullet with a lead core. So they can't be pushed to as high of a velocity or be under as much pressure or they will prematurely bust apart before reaching there intended target

Oh and the load that I've been using was found on hodgdon's site and is a 55gn frangible bullet in a lake city city brass case with 22gns of H335 powder and a cci #400 primer, no crimp seated at 2.190 oal.. I also have another load I"m trying with IMR 4895  24gns in a

lake city case with winchester small rifle primers seated at 2.190 and no crimp. Both are below max and seem to work great. Max for these powder with 55 gn jacketed bullets is around 1.5 - 4 gns higher depending on what load data your looking at.


As to your first link I would advise EXTREME caution about using anything on this website. They make generalized claims that are dangerous at best. Compairing frangible bullets to jacketed bullets of different weights is not wise. There are other things about this company I have some knowledge of but cannot say openly. Please use caution.


In this case, the site referred to, there data is right on track with the other sights that I have gotten data for the exact frangible weight bullet. I love how people pick apart statements and try to find anything they can that's wrong or make it to sound wrong. I wrote I

didn't use this sight for my sole source of data and just as a piece of the puzzle. I came on this board about 2 months ago asking for data on reloading frangible ammo and had about 2-3 people reply with help. So I had to research most of it on my own. I have done

quite a bit of research plus I have shot the loads I've referred to. So I'm not just giving the data off that sight only to support my statements I have also shot the rounds myself. Just because you question them on something else doesn't mean there wrong in this case.

Since I"m no expert I'm not going to guarantee you they are perfectly right but from what I've read and data I've searched through on many sights I've found the data on their sight to be very close to exactly the same data I've found everywhere else.  

Have you ever loaded a frangible round?



Sorry I didn't mean to offend. I have extensive experience in frangible ammunition and have been loading it commercially for years now.  I have spoken to the owner and engineer at Sinterfire, the leading producer of frangible bullets, about this very site you have linked above. They have indicated on several occasions that the very site and it's content is questionable.  I am just stating that it's content should be used with extreme care. Passing along information as it were.

Please disarm yourself, I am not your enemy as you seem to have taken me as such.
Top Top