Well, no response from anyone, but I got the new Windows laptop 2 days ago, and the QuickLOAD software CD is on its way from Neconos, so I'll likely get the CD within another 12 to 14 days. In the meantime, I have been reading articles and watching videos about how to use it. So, once I have it, I'll be ready to start using it and answer the above question!

Watching the videos, I have come to see that QuickLOAD is an amazingly useful tool, if you fully understand how it works. Lots of subtleties built into it. For anyone looking to take their loading efforts to the next level, it is well worth its modest cost.

Jim G

 

Hi Jim, I saw your post and was tempted to reply just so you knew someone was watching, but I had and have no idea of what you were looking for. Glad someone is here that can help.

 

I apologize but I didn't see your original post. I have a friend that has Quickload but I have Gordons Reloading Tool. Both seem to be comparable and we don't get exact results but pretty close. I did a workup of your load and this is what came up.
I tried to enter 8.0 grains of powder and it errored out saying it was an over charge. I dropped it to 7.0 grains and it calculated results but gave a notice that said it was a "press charge, can lead to unexpected pressure peaks". It's trying to tell you that the 8.0 grains is too much powder.
Screen shot below of report with 7.0 grains of powder.
I tried to attach a PDF report but can't figure out how to do that. If you PM me your email I will send it that way.

 

Interesting indeed! The Vihtavuori online load table shows, for 3N38 powder and the Berry's 115g bullet, a minimum charge of 7.2 grains and a maximum of 8.7 grains. Brad Miller at Shooting Times Magazine had run this for me in QuickLOAD and reported that with the Hornady HAP bullet which is shorter than the Berry's bullet, the pressure that Quickload reported was less than with the Berry's bullet, at the 8.7g maximum as long as I used the same COL = 1.142". But he did not tell me what the actual pressure number was, which is what I am curious about. I am at only 8.0 g so far, and no pressure signs at all, with velocity = 1328 fps, which is far lower than the 1401 fps reported at 8.7g in the Vihtavuoiri table.

Maybe I calculated the cartidge volume incorrectly? Can you try using the "default" cartridge volume for 9mm Luger?

I sent you my email address and cellphone number via PM.

Thanks for the kind assistance!

Jim G

 

Speedwagon: Your screenshot seems to show pressure as only 25,000 psi or so. This is FAR below the 34,000 limit for the 9mm Luger. The message on caution is probbably because it thinks the 7.0 grains is "compressed" which it is NOT. Even the 8.0g is not compressed. The 8.7g would be according to Vihtavuoir. I must have given you an erroneous internal volume for the cartridge.

Jim G

 

I just checked 5 of my actual fired unsized Hornaday cases with water on my digital scale. I can consistently get 14.5 grains of water into them with a slight meniscus appearing over the rim, but without spillage. So, the case capacity must be pretty close to 14.5 grains of water .

There are 1000 grams of water in 1 liter which is also exactly 1000 cc.
14.5 grains of water = 0.9396 grams of water
So the internal volume of my fired unsized Hornady cases = 0.9396 cc
0.9396cc = 0.0573 cubic inches
The "standard" internal volume of a 9mm Luger case is apparently 0.0526 cu in.
So fired unsized Hornady case, after firing in MY pistol is 0.0573 / 0.0526 = 1.0893 = 108.9% of "standard" 9mm case

This lowers the peak pressure quite a bit, but I'd like to know HOW MUCH. Hence the question.

By the way, the UNfred, UNresized Hornady cases, direct from the Hornady factory packaging, measure 0.3705" in OD at the top rim of the case, and the wall thickness measures 0.0101". At the base of the case, just above the extractor groove, they measure 0.3854". The internal csse height above the primer is approx 0.580". If you do the math, assuming a constant 0.0101" wall thickness and linear internal taper, you get approximately 0.0583 cubic inches, which is within 1.7% of the 0.0573 cubic inches from the water test. So, I have pretty good confidence in the 0.0573 cubic inch number.

Jim G

 

is there an error in the Gordon bullet dimensions for the Hornady HAP? It shows 0.5945", but I measured a large sampling of my actual HAP bullets, and they average 0.5393", which is .0552 shorter! That coupled with the understated internal volume of the cartridge would cause the erroneous "compressed" alert. With my actual Hornady cases and 8.0 grains of powder in the case, there is only about 0.1486" of bullet inside the case, not 0.206" as reported by the Gordon software. That's a .050" difference!

Plus, 7.0 grains loading is BELOW the minimum recommended loading.

Also, the Gordon software reports only 65% of the powder burning, which indicates something about the configuration, which we already know is incorrect, being a very bad combination of variables.

I think a recalculation using internal case volume of 14.5 grains of water, bullet length of 0.5393, and 8.0 grains of 3N38 powder will give a different and likely much better result.

The actual load shot the group sizes I quoted above in the first posting in the thread, and did it with recoil that was not detectably different than for the Federal American Eagle 147g 1073 fps FACTORY load!

Jim G

p.s. I just noticed the 4" barrel length in the Gordon software. My actual barrel length is 5".

 

I responded to your PM. Will look into it more in detail in the morning.

 

Speedwagon: I did some research and of course discovered that Gordon's Reloading Tool is FREE for downloading, so downloaded it and ran the simulation myself with my actual cartridge volume, COL, 5" barrel length, and real HAP dimensions (GRT admits that it uses "generic / usual values for bullet lengths which you can and should edit). Here is the result:

Note that the pressure is only about 25,000 psi.

But also notice that the predicted velocity is only 1244 fps versus my actual 1328. It also says that only 70% of the powder is burnt before the bullet leaves the muzzle, and says the burning may be inconsistent.

Yet, this is already shown to be a very accurate and consistent load.

Hmmm. Maybe the GRT simulation is not that great?

Jim G

 

Hmmm. Maybe the GRT simulation is not that great?

Jim G

Quit possible. Going on that assumption I won't pursue this further.

 

Here's the GRT result for 8.7g (the maximum charge recommended by the Vihtavuori table):

Still just under the 34,000 pressure limit for 9mm Luger.

And here is the GRT result for 8.2g, which would be a 0.2g increase over my current accurate load:

The pressure here still shows as pretty modest. at approx 26,700 psi.

I'm thinking of trying 7.9g and 8.1g for my next batch of test ammunition, IF I can believe the simulations are at least in the ballpark.

Jim G

 

I am speculating (PURELY speculating) about why only 70% of the powder has been burned by the time the bullet gets to. the muzzle.

One obvious guess is that we know that VV 3N38 is a very slow burning powder compared to most pistol powders. But this is the powder that VV recommends for Action Pistol shooting, where high muzzle velocity is apparently very important. Maybe this is because the slow burn results in low PEAK pressure, but rather a good sustained average pressure for the entire burn from firing pin to muzzle. That would of course result in a higher muzzle velocity.

Sure, the load is "inefficient" in its use of powder, but that's just like saying that a powerful V8 engine in a car is inefficient in terms of fuel mileage. We still want the power in the car, and action shooters apparently want the power in their ammunition.

I am used to hearing that high speed, powerful pistol loads are not known for being accurate, but maybe VV 3N38 enables you to contradict that reputation.

If I can really get a 1328fps bullet speed and 453 ft lb of muzzle energy out of a 9mm 115g load, and have great accuracy doing so, and pressure at under 27,000 psi (versus the maximum 9mm pressure of 34,000 psi), I think that's a pretty good deal.

When I get my QuickLOAD software, I'll run the 3 simulations on it, and see if it agrees with GRT.

This is getting interesting.

Jim G

 

Guys, for reference/clarification purposes, GRAMS are abbreviated, “g”, while GRAINS are abbreviated, “gr”.
1 GRAM (1g) = 15.43236 grains, (15.43236gr)
Talk about compressed loads!!! 😳

 

Guys, for reference/clarification purposes, GRAMS are abbreviated, “g”, while GRAINS are abbreviated, “gr”.

I did not know that. Thank-you! I will try to use those, or the full spelling, in the future, even though "gn" would be more intuive for grains, since BOTH grains and grams contain "gr"!

Jim G

 

I'll put this out there since it's sounds like your trying to make a hot load. To help keep pressure spikes down I would recommend loading to a longer OAL if your barrel and bullet permit. It can also improve accuracy having a shorter gap before engaging the rifling. But not no gap, that will increase pressure spikes. I have found that all my factory barrels can run a much longer OAL than the magazines will accept so I load to max magazine length. Magazines are built around SAAMI spec OAL of 1.169". So I load all mine to 1.165".

As far as high speed, powerful pistol loads are not known for being accurate, most powders are most accurate at near max their particular load where the burn is 100%.

The point of 3N38 is mostly for use in competitions where you need to make Major power factor with 9mm. Usually also needing the heavier 147gr bullets. This slow burning powder also creates a lot of gas to run the compensator on those guns.

It is interesting that Vihtavuori calls out that they used a 4" barrel in their load data. Most load data is done with pressure guns and 5-6" barrels and yield velocity numbers you'll never see in the real world. I do find their velocity numbers sill run a bit higher then achievable.

 

I'll put this out there since it's sounds like your trying to make a hot load. To help keep pressure spikes down I would recommend loading to a longer OAL if your barrel and bullet permit. It can also improve accuracy having a shorter gap before engaging the rifling. But not no gap, that will increase pressure spikes. I have found that all my factory barrels can run a much longer OAL than the magazines will accept so I load to max magazine length. Magazines are built around SAAMI spec OAL of 1.169". So I load all mine to 1.165".

. . .

It is interesting that Vihtavuori calls out that they used a 4" barrel in their load data. Most load data is done with pressure guns and 5-6" barrels and yield velocity numbers you'll never see in the real world. I do find their velocity numbers sill run a bit higher than achievable.

Thanks, MarxMuni! I AM running the longest COL that I am comfortable with from a safety perspective. Doing a plunk & rotate test, my P210A Target pistol starts to fail at around 1.150" to 1.152", and I want at least a few thousandths of "jump" because it is very hard to control COL with jacketed hollowpoint pistol bullets to less than a few thousandths variation.

The 1328 fps I am getting with 8.0 grains of 3N38 at COL = 1.142" is about what I should have expected, based on the VV table being accurate, given that I have a 5" barrel versus 4". If you assume approximate linearity of the VV load data between 7.2 grains and 8.7 grains, you would predict about 1300 fps for a 4" barrel, so 1328 fps with a 5" barrel sounds roughly "right".

I don't regard 27,000 psi (well under the 34,000 SAAMI limit) and 1328 fps as a "hot" load for 9mm. Over the decades, there have been multiple FACTORY and military 9mm 115g loads that went as high as 1350 fps, with police loads at over 1300 fps being relatively common. I just personally believe that shooting a load in any shooting competition that is a "target creampuff' load is gaming the intent of real competition. I also like to practice all my shooting with the same load as I would use in competition or for personal defense if that actually became necessary, so that I get to know exactly how my firearm and the bullet behave.

Jim G