9x19 115g FMJ Load Charge Through the Ages

[Flouncer]

I am looking at Speer Number 12, 1994, Modern Reloading by Lee, 1996, and Hornady 10th Edition, 2016 for 115g FMJ with Hodgon HS-6 FMJ data. I have a supply of HS-6 and am not interested in another powder until it is used up. The pistol STARTING LOADS in the older sources EXCEED the maximum in the newer Hornady. And we all presume the Lee data to be the most conservative because as he states "These are factory powder loads reduced 10% for your safety". I dont have an older Hornady book. Anyone ? I guess Hornady is more sensitive to the legal liability ?

Speer 6.7 - 7.5
Lee 6.7 - 7.0
(Hodgon edit) Hornady 5.7 - 6.4

Going with 6.2g in a new Glock 19.

 

[Evan]

Speer 1974 doesn’t have 115gn, but has these two for HS6:
100gn 6.3-6.7
125gn 5.9-6.3

 

[Evan]

Hornady 7th has 5.7 to 6.4 for HS-6 with the 115gn bullets

 

[avidflyer]

Had a ton of hs-6, most everyone I asked about it recommended a magnum primer if going to use it in 9mm. just a fyi let me know how it works for you. have a ton left myself.

 

[Flouncer]

Thanks for the replies. I was kinda amused by the disparity over time. In other planetary alignments my Lee Turret press shiat the bed so it will be a while before I load this up.

 

[kenhwind]

If I am not mistaken HS 6 and Winchester 540 are the same or similar enough like HP 38 & 231.

The 45th Lyman manual has loads for the .38 Super 130 grain Remington FMJ, 7.7 Unique and same for Herco.
The 48th Edition lists 6.2 Herco for the 130 grain 38 Super, no listing for Unique.

 

[divingin]

All of the load books are more conservative these days, as people are much more used to suing when they hurt themselves. Anyone still putting data out has lawyered up, and those lawyers always look first for a safety buffer.

 

[Flouncer]

Hodgdon online doesn't even list HS-6 with 115g 9x19 anymore.

 

[Timberyote]

The Hornady 4th Edition manual (1991) lists the 115gn Bullet over 6.3 - 6.9gr/ HS6

 

[brokeasajoke]

I have some data that really pushes the 9. It's book data too.

 

[Catfur]

All of the load books are more conservative these days, as people are much more used to suing when they hurt themselves. Anyone still putting data out has lawyered up, and those lawyers always look first for a safety buffer.

Load books are also more conservative because we can now measure pressure better (and found many old loads were higher pressure than testing at the time indicated). As well as manufacturers better understand things like lot-to-lot variation of powder burn rates, and have to account for that responsibly.

 

[Evan]

Load books are also more conservative because we can now measure pressure better (and found many old loads were higher pressure than testing at the time indicated). As well as manufacturers better understand things like lot-to-lot variation of powder burn rates, and have to account for that responsibly.

Many sources are simulated now too (think Quickload/GRT). Not every load is test fired in a rifle or universal receiver or needs to be. So again proper accounting of pressure with factors of safety have resulted in data that looks “lawyered” but in fact is just realistic and within the specification for the cartridge. Reading the tea leaves of primer shape and extractor swipes is a very poor approximation of safe pressure when you NEED to know you aren’t exceeding the rated maximum for a cartridge.

 

[chop house]

I dont have an older Hornady book. Anyone ?

i have vol II, 1979 printing. it does not list hs-6 for any bullet. indeed the only fmj shown is 100 grain

 

[6BRA]

Metal frame vs polymer frame. The loads of the past can't be handled by today's plastic toys.

 

[Flouncer]

Metal frame vs polymer frame. The loads of the past can't be handled by today's plastic toys.

I would think the manufacturers design their products to meet the specification of the ammunition and the pressures generated. Also, todays "plastic toys" have been running full power and +P and mil spec ammo since 1982 (Glock) and 1984 (Ruger, others). So I will say no, plastic frames are not the reason for lower RELOADING data. The loaded ammunition has not dropped in power, while the frames have changed materials. Wouldn't you agree with that ?

 

[6BRA]

I would think the manufacturers design their products to meet the specification of the ammunition and the pressures generated. Also, todays "plastic toys" have been running full power and +P and mil spec ammo since 1982 (Glock) and 1984 (Ruger, others). So I will say no, plastic frames are not the reason for lower RELOADING data. The loaded ammunition has not dropped in power, while the frames have changed materials. Wouldn't you agree with that ?

My experience Glocks cant take too much 1450 fps ammo. Let me know where you can buy 1450 fps 9mm ammo now days. Otherwise take a look at an early 70 reloading manual. These are still my pet loads. Soft recoil and fly like a bat out hell. Accurate and they hit hard.

 

[Old Navy]

I think you picked a good starting load.

 

[Flouncer]

i have vol II, 1979 printing. it does not list hs-6 for any bullet. indeed the only fmj shown is 100 grain

That's weird. The cartridge was designed with a 115g FMJ RN right ?

 

[chop house]

That's weird. The cartridge was designed with a 115g FMJ RN right ?

 

[Flouncer]

6.5g HS-6, 115g Berrys plated at factory/mil spec 1.14 inch OAL with mixed pick up brass loaded on the Lee tirret. Also shot factory Winchester 115g FMJ RN. All launched perfectly in First time fired Glock19. Like the weapon and its trigger. A small win for me.