230 gr Jhp. More accurate?
266
8
I went to buy a supply of my usual Montana Gold 230 gr. FMJ, but the dealer had just sold the last case. He had several cases of 230 jhp. He wanted to know why I wanted 230gr FMJ when the 230gr jhp was more accurate because of additional shoulder contact with the barrel. He insisted that I would experience better accuracy with the jhp. Is this just sales hipe or is there any support for his statement. I must admit that it seems like he may have a point. What's your consensus?
Chief
------------------
Chief
Chief
------------------
Chief
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
I have my bullet-seating die set for making FMJ RN loads at 1.25". I don't measure anything else; I load them with the same setting, pretending that the missing part of the bullet is there.
![]()
I use 6.4 grains of Unique, as a matter of fact, behind the Golden Sabers.
Chief, that is one variable I didn't mention before. I load the GS loads hotter than the plinking/target FMJ loads. But usually - not always - lighter loads are more accurate loads. Still, the hotter Remington GS loads shoot straighter than the Remington FMJ loads. I don't know why, as I said.
------------------
If God didn't want us to own guns, why did He make the 1911?
[This message has been edited by jpwright (edited 11-19-2001).]
I use 6.4 grains of Unique, as a matter of fact, behind the Golden Sabers.
Chief, that is one variable I didn't mention before. I load the GS loads hotter than the plinking/target FMJ loads. But usually - not always - lighter loads are more accurate loads. Still, the hotter Remington GS loads shoot straighter than the Remington FMJ loads. I don't know why, as I said.
------------------
If God didn't want us to own guns, why did He make the 1911?
[This message has been edited by jpwright (edited 11-19-2001).]
Joined
·
230 Posts
In rifle bullets, hollow points were designed as match bullets. The reason for their inherent accuracy, according to the manufactures, is that more of the bullet's wieght is to the rear - which leads to better stability in flight. This is also the same reason some benchrest shooters prefer flatbase bullets to boat-tail designs.
In pistol bullets, I don't really think hollowpoint designs are necessarily more accurate than other designs. Bullseye shooters have been shooting hollow-base wadcutters (where most of the bullets wieght is up front, instead in the back) for years with great success. Perhaps this has something to do with slower velocities and rotational speeds pistol bullets encounter in flight.
I honestly don't know why hollow points shoot better than FMJ's, but it seems to be true in all my pistols. However, I can usually get cast lead bullets to outshoot jacketed bullets (any style), when I keep the speeds fairly low.
In pistol bullets, I don't really think hollowpoint designs are necessarily more accurate than other designs. Bullseye shooters have been shooting hollow-base wadcutters (where most of the bullets wieght is up front, instead in the back) for years with great success. Perhaps this has something to do with slower velocities and rotational speeds pistol bullets encounter in flight.
I honestly don't know why hollow points shoot better than FMJ's, but it seems to be true in all my pistols. However, I can usually get cast lead bullets to outshoot jacketed bullets (any style), when I keep the speeds fairly low.
I have found that Golden Sabers are likely to be more accurate than other JHP bullet designs, particularly in Glocks or other polygonal rifled barrels. I think the reason is that because of the harder jacket, there is a "driving band" at the rear of the bullet that engages the rifling and the front part that would normally engage the rifling is "land sized" like a pilot area. This design tends to give an initial centering alignment of the bullet to the barrel and reduces the tendency of the bullet to yaw. Yawing is rotation of the nose and base of the bullet around the central axis of the bullet and is generally detremental to accuracy.
Mstarn,
Thank you very much for your post on the Bullseye thread. I couldn't get info on the COAL for the 230 grain GS. I foolishly loaded my first 150 handloads to 1.266 to 1.275 in. like I had been loading 230 grain RN.
They fed my Kimber 5" and Ruger ok but I had trouble packing them into the magazines!
Now I know 1.235 is more appropriate.
I also picked up some Bullseye at the range today.
By the way, I had picked up the Golden sabers on sale at Midway or Natchez for about $46 for 500. I don't think many shooters use the 230 grain rather than the 185 grain.
Thank you very much for your post on the Bullseye thread. I couldn't get info on the COAL for the 230 grain GS. I foolishly loaded my first 150 handloads to 1.266 to 1.275 in. like I had been loading 230 grain RN.
They fed my Kimber 5" and Ruger ok but I had trouble packing them into the magazines!
Now I know 1.235 is more appropriate.
I also picked up some Bullseye at the range today.
By the way, I had picked up the Golden sabers on sale at Midway or Natchez for about $46 for 500. I don't think many shooters use the 230 grain rather than the 185 grain.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
