BE-86, 9mm range report

[MightyMO1911]

Hi all. Been a while since I've posted, or even stopped by for that matter, but life has been pretty busy here for a while. But hey, not the point of this thread. Several months ago I loaded some 9mm using BE-86 powder and a 115 gr Nosler JHP. Today, finally, we had a nice day here weather wise and I was able to get outdoors and test these loads. This is the first test I've done with the BE-86 powder, so lots to learn. I found this interesting. I started at 5.8 grains and worked up to 6.2 grains. COAL is 1.140", and used a Remington #1 1/2 primer.

5.8 grains: 1092, 1118, 1087, 1071, 1073, 1134, 1076, 1097 and 1067.
AVG: 1090 E.S. 67 S.D. 21

5.9 grains: 1165, 1112, 1157, 1120, 1137, 1100, 1090, 1100, 1095, 1099
AVG: 1117 E.S. 75 S.D. 26

6.0 grains: 1128, 1162, 1128, 1141, 1150, 1163, 1144, 1092, 1097
AVG: 1133 E.S. 71 S.D. 25

6.1 grains: 1175, 1175, 1143, 1128, 1132, 1179, 1179, 1172, 1168, 1123
AVG: 1157 E.S. 56 S.D. 23

6.2 grains: 1149, 1141, 1184, 1151, 1151, 1162, 1209, 1169
AVG: 1164 E.S. 68 S.D. 22

As you can see, one round only 9 shots registered and one only 8 shots registered, so maybe these aren't exactly complete. But I noticed a couple of things. Really, the extreme spread and standard deviations don't really change by much, even though the velocity increased steadily. But, that steady increase slowed between 6.1 and 6.2 grains. That increment was only 7 fps, but again, on the 6.2 grain test, only 8 rounds registered on my chrono. So it's possible that number may have been a tick higher had I got all 10 shots.

So I was thinking about the possibilities of why the increase form 6.1 to 6.2 was smaller than the others. I come up with 2 potential causes, feel free to add any more. 1. An impending pressure spike or 2. Maybe that's the max powder that my short 3" barrel can burn. (M&P Shield).

Anyway, I just thought this was interesting.

 

[Tsquared]

How well does the powder burn? My biggest issue with regular Bullseye is that it burns dirty.

 

[MightyMO1911]

Quite clean in my testing today.

 

[Nick_C_S]

why the increase form 6.1 to 6.2 was smaller than the others. I come up with 2 potential causes, feel free to add any more.

1. An impending pressure spike or

2. Maybe that's the max powder that my short 3" barrel can burn.

There's a 3rd possibility: It's a small sample size and so variations of this type are more or less common. Stuff happens.

Here's what I took from the data: Basically, the increases were more or less linear and SD's remained constant. That tells me that all was going "normal."

If I found the difference between 6.1 to 6.2 to be concerning (I don't), I'd load up about 30 more of each and take another trip to the range - to gather more data. I probably would either way; because this is the stage of the process where I start using larger sample sizes.

From there, my purpose would dictate my next move. If they're just basic range shooters (I know they're JHP's), I'd probably load them at 6.0 and call it good. If I wanted to get them as spunky as possible (defense), then my results from the two 30-round samples would dictate my next move. If I start seeing a lot of ES, I'd be apt to back down. If things are still going smooth, I'd be apt to call it good at 6.2 or whatever; or try a small sample at 6.3gns (Alliant's max). But this paragraph is getting ahead of myself. I'm just giving you an idea of how things rattle around in my head.

BE-86 (I don't use, btw) is an intermediate speed propellant and so pushing the light 115's doesn't concern me much from a pressure spike standpoint. Aside from the fact that it's unlikely; you're also in a forgiving position with the "slow-ish" (meaning, not "fast") powder / light bullet combo.

And yes, you do have to take into account your short barrel. Longer barrels tend to give the bullets time to "settle down" and exit the barrel with more consistency (not to mention more velocity, of course). I'm not an expert here and I'm speaking to the extent of my knowledge - which is purely from personal experience. Point is, your shorter barrel will manifest some limitations, and you have to operate within those limitations. Which is why I wouldn't use any powder slower than BE-86 with those 115's. I'm not saying you've hit some kind of a "velocity wall" (if there is such a thing ); but I am saying that barrel length limits what kind of loading(s) are practical, and what kind are not.

 

[sawdustdad]

Interesting to see these results. thanks for posting.

I just loaded up a couple dozen 9mm rounds using BE86 at 5.8g w/115g Xtreme plated bullets just last weekend. Test fired fine from both my SR9 and LC9s. Did not Chrono.

Finished loading another couple hundred last night. I want to fire them and compare to comparable loads using Unique to see how well the flash suppression works.

No specific objective for my rounds, mostly range ammo. But some of my use will be on the tactical range in low light conditions. When I get a chance to run both on the tactical range, I'll report back on the differences. If I'm lucky, I'll get someone to video the shots from BE86, Power Pistol and Unique.

 

[Nick_C_S]

If I'm lucky, I'll get someone to video the shots from BE86, Power Pistol and Unique.

When it comes time to video the Power Pistol, make sure they close the aperture setting down

 

[MightyMO1911]

Sawdustdad, interesting you mention Unique. I have a serious love affair with that stuff. BE86 and Unique have similar burn rates and what I may do next is run this same basic test only using Unique.

Really, these rounds are just for fun and education. I am building up data points and a knowledge base of how different powders work (generally) with different bullets and so forth. I learn a lot with every one of these tests I do. I was a little disappointed that I couldn't get better deviation, but from a stable, consistency standpoint, this is the best I've seen.

Coincidentally, I achieved my lowest deviation to date the same day I ran this one. 4.4 grains of #2 pushing a 115 grain Xtreme plated right at 1000 fps, with a deviation of 5. Yeah. 5. I ran it twice just to make sure. Lol

 

[Nick_C_S]

Standard Deviations

MightyMo, I think your SD results are more or less typical. I don't chrono a lot of 9mm per se, but those are the SD numbers I get with 10mm, 45 ACP, and 357/44 Mag.

I get lower SD's with 38/44 Special - particularly with heavy lead slugs, over fast propellants. Many of my target/competition loadings have SD's in the 5 to 10 range. And AA#2, btw, tends to deliver low SD's from my experience.

And that's kind of the generality: SD's tend to go down with heavier bullets and/or faster powders. You are testing light bullets with a (relatively) slower powder. So your SD numbers raised no eyebrows here.

 

[MightyMO1911]

Thanks, as always, for your input, Nick. You're a dude I could sit with and pick your brain I think for hours.

At this point in my career I'm not even exactly sure what I'm learning, but I'll figure it out. I've gathered lots of data over the last year and I think, or maybe just hope, in another year I'll start to see some trends. Maybe in a few years I can begin putting the puzzle pieces in the right place. But for now, I'm happy merely identifying them.

 

[Nick_C_S]

Pick my brain?? Better hurry. I don't think there's much left

I'm not even exactly sure what I'm learning.

You're learning how to craft quality ammo for your specific purpose(s) and firearm(s). You're not trying to turn heads at the range with hot-rod ammo; you're trying to knock the black out of a target with just a few mags. You're making ammo that both you and your gun like to shoot; and exceeds the expectations of factory ammo.

The latter, not being a difficult task.

Enjoy the journey.

 

[rclark]

It's a small sample size and so variations of this type are more or less common. Stuff happens.

Yep... I normally test 15 rounds as a sample. According to the 'experts' SD really isn't valid until you shoot at least 10 rounds anyway. More is always better. ES is mostly what I care about. If I am really interested, I'll load up 30, but normally 15 will tell me what I need to know.

 

[pctechdude]

Like seeing this, I've done quite a bit of testing with BE-86 and 9mm. So far all of mine has been with 124gr and 147gr bullets. I have loaded a few with 115gr but haven't tested them yet, but my loads mirror yours on the charge weights so I'm excited. 115gr round nose.

Used the data from Alliant, I'll be testing mine from a glock 19, so I shall post what I come up with!

 

[Nick_C_S]

Yep... I normally test 15 rounds as a sample.

For me, it depends on my starting point. I've crafted rounds where I had absolutely no data as a starting point (I sometimes use obscure powder/bullet combos - like a 148 plated over Nitro 100 - that sorta thing). In those cases, my first sample may be just 3 rounds.

But usually, my starting point will be 6 rounds (revolver friendly). Once I start to get things narrowed closer to my goal, I'll start testing 12 round groups. Once I think I'm where I want to be, I'll go to 30 round groups. By the time I'm at 30 round groups, I'm no longer hand-weighing each charge. I'm testing "real world production rounds," as it were.

Also, when I produce a batch for competition (usually 2 or 3 hundred), I'll run a 30 round sample - just to make sure they clear Power Factor.

I've done quite a bit of testing with BE-86 and 9mm.

I haven't. That's why I've been speaking in generalities in this thread. I've never used BE-86, and after checking my loading logs (prompted by this thread, out of curiosity), I haven't loaded a 9mm round since 4/6/14 - heh.

(For me, 9mm is purely utilitarian and has no recreational value. Most the time, I carry a 9mm; and I have a Beretta 92fs that's a safe queen. But that's it. So I shoot 9 only to practice with my carry piece and I happen to be sitting on a bunch of factory ammo that suits my range needs.)

So far all of mine (BE-86 testing) has been with 124gr and 147gr bullets.

Since BE-86 is an intermediate speed propellant, I think you'll find that it behaves more consistently under your 124's and 147's. It's probably right in the wheelhouse and has the broadest application for range shooters up through defense levels with the 124's. It might be a touch fast to propel 147's to their full potential, but would make good range shooters. And it's probably a touch slow to consistently drive the light 115's, unless you're loading them up rather hot. That's just kind of where its speed range is as I know it.

Myself, If my goal was to make good consistent range practice ammo with 115's, I'd move to something faster. Both TiteGroup and AA#2 would be good choices. They are fast powders, but are on the slower end of the fast powder spectrum, if you will. That's right were I'd want to be for loading 115 range ammo. W231/HP-38 has a touch of "slowness" to it too. That'd work.

 

[MightyMO1911]

For me, it depends on my starting point. I've crafted rounds where I had absolutely no data as a starting point (I sometimes use obscure powder/bullet combos - like a 148 plated over Nitro 100 - that sorta thing). In those cases, my first sample may be just 3 rounds.

And Nick, this is PRECISELY an area I would dearly love that afternoon of brain picking, before it all runs out. Right now I stick with, rather strictly I might add, factory published data. But we all know it's impossible, and frankly impractical, for each company to test every powder and bullet combination there is. In fact, I'm just not sure one could actually do it. The choices are nearly endless. This point is one end goal I have with all of my data mining and testing. I want to be able to pick a bullet I have available and hey, maybe I don't have any powder that has published data for this bullet, but I'm quite certain this will work, this is where I will start and this is why. I'll get there.

 

[Nick_C_S]

Right now I stick with, rather strictly I might add, factory published data.

I would strongly encourage that notion. I've loaded test rounds with no data; but would never condone it. Doing so leaves a lot of unknown variables up to chance; and can even be a bit nervy for someone with over three decades' experience. I mentioned it in my previous post only to give an example of why I sometimes do chrono testing with very small sample sizes. I load a lot of highly specialized ammo and have found myself in that situation only a few times; and likely won't again.

Getting back published data: Just because it's published, doesn't mean it's a good round. Safe is only the first step in being a good round. I think I've seen load data for 115's using Blue Dot. I would never put BD under a 115.

I certainly wouldn't discourage novice loaders from using propellants for an application that might be a bit slow for my load style (such as BE-86 under a 115). Slower propellants are generally more forgiving and thus, bode well for the less experienced. But I will share my experience and state how I'd approach making ammo for the same application.

I've been at this for a while these days, and my approach is generally "what's the fastest powder I can use to fit this application?" Powders generally run best near the top of their load scale - that's a fact. I'm not afraid of pressure; in fact, I see it as a good thing.

Please don't take this to mean I'm reckless - I'm not. I have tremendous respect for what we are doing and its inherent dangers. But I also know - from experience - that the best running ammo operates near the upper end of the pressure scale. And the slower the propellant (generally), the more so that becomes apparent.

This is why powders like Unique and HS-6 have reputations for being dirty - they just aren't being used to their full potential. And this is also why I say that putting BE-86 under a 115 probably isn't a combination I would use for range shooters. A faster powder will bring up the pressure and get things running better (cleaner, more consistent, crisp slide action, etc.).