1911Forum banner
21 - 40 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
One of the current problems with loading is the dearth of powders…I have some 700x, Bullseye, Win244, CFE. As much as I like Bullseye, as mentioned, it is difficult to work with in these tiny loads.. .I think I’ll concentrate on developing loads using Win244 since that is my most plentiful powder. It’s a little faster than Unique but not like Bullseye…thanks for the suggestions and comments…you’ve convinced me it’s better to work with a slower powder making it easier to adjust the loads…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
I'm not at all acquainted with CFE-PISTOL's burning characteristics (except that it appears to burn more slowly than Unique), but the Hodgdon online data says you have 7 increments from start to max, vs. 5 increments with W244. It might mean some extra steps on the way to getting the Glock .380s to function reliably, but in the interest of safety...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
I'm not at all acquainted with CFE-PISTOL's burning characteristics (except that it appears to burn more slowly than Unique), but the Hodgdon online data says you have 7 increments from start to max, vs. 5 increments with W244. It might mean some extra steps on the way to getting the Glock .380s to function reliably, but in the interest of safety...
Assuming 244 doesn’t work well I’ll try CFE next. WIN244 is really close to Win231 which I understand is an ideal powder for most handgun loads. Hoping it cycles well with Glock as well as all my other 380s as I have much more Win244 than my other powders. I need one standard load that functions in all my 380s.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,451 Posts
231and HP38 are ideally suited for that cartridge. You have a full grain of charge weight to mess with. You can always use that same powder in a gazillion other loads as well. It’s not worth the time to spend exhaustive hours trying to perfect that little guy. A middle of the road load should cycle that Glock. If not, the gun is broken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
A middle of the road load should cycle that Glock. If not, the gun is broken.
If your definition of "broken" includes an over-stiff slide spring in a fairly new pistol, I don't disagree.
Otherwise...
Glocks were (and perhaps still are) known for sometimes not fully actuating with reloads using very fast propellants, which were fully capable of running through other 9mm platforms. Slightly higher charges, or velocity-equivalent loads with slower burning powders (Unique, AA#5, Herco, HS-6, SR-4756) usually fixed this. This is one of the reasons I suggested some of the powders listed in the parentheses above.
W231/HP38 is a very versatile and excellent performing propellant, but "ideal" is in the eye of the beholder. Its burning rate puts it on the edge of the "too fast/fast enough" threshold, so it may work in a less-than-ideal fashion in the Glock. While Unique is NOT what I'd NORMALLY call "ideal" for .380, its burning characteristics may sufficiently in the "non-ideal" direction to offset the "non-ideal" tension of the Glock's recoil spring.
If Unique is unavailable, CFE-Pistol may be the best bet.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,451 Posts
I am a bit shocked. I’m just not used to Glock owners admitting that they don’t run 100%, all the time, with anything you shove in the mag.
Thank you for the honesty!
Now, drop in a lighter spring and enjoy the superior accuracy of a light load of 231! 🙂
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
I am a bit shocked. I’m just not used to Glock owners admitting that they don’t run 100%, all the time, with anything you shove in the mag.
Thank you for the honesty!
Now, drop in a lighter spring and enjoy the superior accuracy of a light load of 231! 🙂
It’s my only Glock…I bought it in a “I wonder how glocks work?” moment…but I also have a Springfield EMP 911 Champion Concealed Carry model that gives me fits…about every 40 rds it fails to eject leaving the case stuck in the chamber…I’ve written to Springfield and got no response..as a matter of fact the with the first magazine ever fired it happened! This is with all factory ammo, it doesn’t matter which brand as I’ve tried all brands I can find…still working on it. When it comes to firearms honesty is important…
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,572 Posts
I loaded lots of .380 acp loads using N320, Titegroup, and W231. Most charge weights are very small so easy metering powders are the best ones to work with. Of the three powders listed I've found acceptable results with all three. The whole process would be a whole lot easier if my fingers were not so fat!

Grumpy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 ·
Just thought I’d update this thread, I finally had a chance to get to the range with some loads. I tried 2.9 Bullseye (up from 2.7) 100gr Berry‘s RNHB…this did not work the Glock 42…the Glock would not cycle even though my Sig P238, Spring 911 worked great. New powder Win244 3.1gr and 3.3gr 100gr Berry’s RNHB cycled the Glock easily and worked well in my other two .380s. My wife mentioned that the Win244 was “snappy” compared to the 2.8/2.9 Bullseye in the Sig.

I also tried 9mm loads for my new Kimber Micro 9 ESV and Colt Commander in 9mm as well as loads for the 45ACP using Win244…very pleased with this new powder from Winchester…time to go reload!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
Your wife's observation is unexpected, but probably right on, some how. I would expect that Bullseye would be more "snappy" than W244, but perhaps the charge weights you used for Bullseye were nor sufficient to get into the "pressure band" at which W244 started operating the slide. I would expect faster-burning propellants to act more "snappy" and "less fast" ones to be less so. Then again, I've heard people characterize reloads using power pistol as being "snappy", also. Perhaps it is the product of pressure that increases through the burn and is released as the projectile leaves the barrel. <shrug>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
Your wife's observation is unexpected, but probably right on, some how. I would expect that Bullseye would be more "snappy" than W244, but perhaps the charge weights you used for Bullseye were nor sufficient to get into the "pressure band" at which W244 started operating the slide. I would expect faster-burning propellants to act more "snappy" and "less fast" ones to be less so. Then again, I've heard people characterize reloads using power pistol as being "snappy", also. Perhaps it is the product of pressure that increases through the burn and is released as the projectile leaves the barrel. <shrug>
I fired some 9mm loads using Win244……4.2, 4.3, 4.4 Xtreme 115gr RN. They also felt a bit different from the Bullseye loads I’d been using…Winchester lists 4.5 as being max…each load tried seemed “snappy”…going to back off to 4.0 or 4.1.

As an additional, Win 244 5.1gr for 230 Xtreme RN and 5.3gr Xtreme 200gr RN felt fine on my Colt 1911 Series 70 (new model).

All in all, Win244 worked the Glock42 even using the recommended starting load by Winchester…
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,451 Posts
You were at about the top of the recommended load for Bullseye for the 380. Those loads should easily work unless the gun is brand new and full of packing grease.
Clearly, the gun is the issue. Especially since the others worked fine. Don’t be so quick to blame a powder that a gazillion of us use, and have for decades.
244 is great, but you shouldn’t have to go to extremes to batter the gun to make it function.
You already have a 238......why the worry??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
You were at about the top of the recommended load for Bullseye for the 380. Those loads should easily work unless the gun is brand new and full of packing grease.
Clearly, the gun is the issue. Especially since the others worked fine. Don’t be so quick to blame a powder that a gazillion of us use, and have for decades.
244 is great, but you shouldn’t have to go to extremes to batter the gun to make it function.
You already have a 238......why the worry??
Not worried, but it would be nice to have a load that works in all my .380s and not have to assign ammunition based on powder. 2.9 Bullseye is as high as I want to go. The Lyman 3rd Edition Pistol and Revolver Handbook lists 3.1 Bullseye as max while the latest Lee Manual lists 3.3 gr of Bullseye.

The Glock42 is new, but I’ve fired factory ammo through it and have stripped and cleaned it thoroughly. The 238 is my wife’s..it works fine at 2.8 of Bullseye…2.7 tends to be a little soft ejecting the case (her comments). I’ve been a big fan of Bullseye since I started reloading in the early 70s….It is interesting though that the recommended starting point for Win244 cycles the Glock. I may just switch to Win244 since Bullseye is unavailable at this point in time. Unfortunately the only load data available for Win244 is on the Winchester/Hodgdon site.
 

·
Registered
I'm a Ruger man.
Joined
·
4,417 Posts
2.7 grains of Titegroup under a 100 grain Berry's RNHB gave 750 fps in a Bersa Thunder.
That load has worked in all the pistol that tried it.

Back in Augut the kids wored up 3.7 grains of CFE Pistol for that bullet.
I didn't get chrono numbers from it, but they weren't wimpy.
 
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
Top