Cartridge is from Ammo Manufacture: Underwood 220gr Hard Cast (MT10mm)
Ballistics Information: 10mm Auto
Muzzle Velocity: 1240 fps
Muzzle Energy: 750 ft. lbs
Brass Make/Headstamp: Underwood - Brass
Bullet Make/Weight/Construction/Info; Length 0.7310"/Dia. 0.4010": 220gr. Hard Cast
MEPLAT 0.2640" / Flat Base
Actual weight 216.6 grains Crimp squeezed bullet to 0.4010"
C.O.A.L.: 1.2585"
Primer: Nickel color
Case: Diameter 0.4215" Crimp Diameter 0.4225" (Tight) Length 0.9880"
Powder Description/Positive ID/Type/Charge LongShot Weight: 8.6 grains
(https://s20.postimg.cc/tqq1r7qi5/IMG_0560_zps97965a83.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.cc/n09khsirx/IMG_0561_zps75e35e8f.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.cc/wkt74onjh/IMG_0562_zpsaa5865c1.jpg)
I have 8.4gr's from my box of 220's. Is that correct? These are before the "change" as well.
Yea, 0.2 grains more than the previous load from you that we did. 0.2 is a lot at this level of performance! :o
It measured almost identical to mine on the Chronograph. The powder difference might not be giving much in the FPS gain.
I see Kevin's 220's are weighing 216gr's versus BB's 219gr's. Just something in the casting process?
My order from Kevin will be here tomorrow and I will get you a sample of the new loadings. Is the 8.6 loaded too hot?
That's a loaded question ;D
8.4-8.6 probably isn't something suited to cover the entire umbrella of all the platforms and how they are set up. Something along the lines of 8.0 and an even 1200 FPS would be fine I would think.
We will soon see what it's been backed down to.
His older IMR800 loads were with 8.4 grains and the other round IC sent was at 8.4 grains LongShot. Whereas this one was 8.6 grains, 0.2 grains with this heavy weight/long bullet can spike the pressure up enough to causes the smiles you saw.
However, recoil setup and actual lock-up of the gun all play into whether the case stays inside the chamber long enough for the impulse of pressure to drop off before it starts the ejection cycle.
Cartridge is from Ammo Manufacture: Underwood 220gr Hard Cast(reduced)(MT10mm)
Ballistics Information: 10mm Auto
Muzzle Velocity: 1200 fps
Muzzle Energy: 703 ft. lbs
Brass Make/Headstamp: Underwood - Brass
Bullet Make/Weight/Construction/Info; Length 0.7260"/Dia. 0.4010": 220gr. Hard Cast MEPLAT 0.2870" / Flat Base
Actual weight 216.4 grains Crimp squeezed bullet to 0.4010"
C.O.A.L.: 1.2535"
Primer: Nickel color
Case: Diameter 0.4215" Crimp Diameter 0.4230" (Tight) Length 0.9880"
Powder Description/Positive ID/Type/Charge LongShot Weight: 8.0 grains
Tested by Intercooler; EAA Limited 4.75" 1195, 1195, 1191, 1194, 1190, 1195. Average = 1193.3 FPS/ 696 LBS
EAA Hunter 6" 1254, 1221, 1215. Average = 1230 FPS/ 739 LBS
(https://s20.postimg.cc/qccgpb571/IMG_0019_zps4da13fb4.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.cc/s45fk7w9p/IMG_0020_zpsfd4b5a43.jpg)
(https://s20.postimg.cc/3nn9priod/IMG_0021_zps0bb3a155.jpg)
Made the change in velocity to reflect the reduced loading.
Still using Longshot I see. If these test out well they might be my woods load when I retire.
Quote from: 4949shooter on February 07 2014 03:33:56 PM MST
Still using Longshot I see. If these test out well they might be my woods load when I retire.
Test out well? You mean if they will work in a Glock okay?
Quote from: Intercooler on February 07 2014 03:51:22 PM MST
Quote from: 4949shooter on February 07 2014 03:33:56 PM MST
Still using Longshot I see. If these test out well they might be my woods load when I retire.
Test out well? You mean if they will work in a Glock okay?
Yes, for feed reliability as well as pressure issues.
As far as pressure goes I think they will be okay, but there are some more knowledgeable than me in this area who believe the velocity may still be too high for this weight/length bullet.
Actually, I almost ordered some of this last night to test in my Glock, but I held off because the Lone Wolf Tac length barrel is on back order. That, and I have the XDs in .45 coming, and I am thinking of picking up some more hollowpoints for it for off duty carry.
Unless it's a crap barrel/setup the pressure signs won't be any worse than the other Underwood weights or "Heavy" 10mm ammos out there. As for the function I sold my Dan Wesson 1911 because it wouldn't run 220's perfectly. Possibly if I had the barrel reamed or loosened some it would have but when the others ran it just fine that left it odd man out ;)
Any 1911 can be finicky with certain types of ammo, different magazines, etc. You have to be a real 1911 fan to run them. I am keeping my two Combat Commanders though. 8)
I am not trying to be skeptical about the UW 220's, but until I see their track record and test them in my gun I won't know for sure. If the 220's are loaded to the same quality as thee 165 tmj from Underwood I think they will be great! And this is what I am hoping for. ;)
I think the 24lbs spring is the fix all for me. I will run some of the new batch 220 today and see for sure.
Which Glock Gen do you have now and what barrel will you be running? I for sure would run the 24lb spring setup! These are top tier loaded and need all the help from the spring you can get.
Quote from: Intercooler on February 09 2014 06:23:28 AM MST
Which Glock Gen do you have now and what barrel will you be running? I for sure would run the 24lb spring setup! These are top tier loaded and need all the help from the spring you can get.
I have the SF and was running a 22lb spring and was still having slight issues with the 220. Went out yesterday with the 24lb spring but didn't bring the 220! I had no issues with UW 200TMJ,DT 200HC or Prvi 180 so I think the 24lb spring fixed my issues.
That's good news!
Quote from: Intercooler on February 09 2014 06:34:17 AM MST
That's good news!
You had it pegged the whole time saying the 24lb spring!
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTN5iIHwvbMJYA-_h0hNsj3YtZRies3JZjNCqQi0cZQBI5Tg1k9) <----- Glock recoil spring ;D
Quote from: Intercooler on February 09 2014 07:23:55 AM MST
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTN5iIHwvbMJYA-_h0hNsj3YtZRies3JZjNCqQi0cZQBI5Tg1k9) <----- Glock recoil spring ;D
That's funny stuff right there! I don't care who you are!
Quote from: Intercooler on February 09 2014 07:23:55 AM MST
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTN5iIHwvbMJYA-_h0hNsj3YtZRies3JZjNCqQi0cZQBI5Tg1k9) <----- Glock recoil spring ;D
Whatever makes it run. :)
I know this is an old thread, but I'm new to the 10mm and am spending some time reading thru threads. I've had my G20 Gen4 for a couple of weeks with a little over 200 rounds of various ammo thru it, including Underwood 180 and 200 grain TMJ's. I have already ordered 50 rounds of the Underwood 220 hard cast bullets, and until I read this thread, I never gave any thought as to the round being too powerful for my Glock. It is totally stock, and I plan to keep it that way.
What is the consensus on running these rounds in a stock G20?
Hello Gary, Many have run the 220's in the stock Glocks, more so the 3rd gen and earlier, the gen 4's are newer and yet to be tested as much as the older models. The ammo is stronger impulse than the lighter loaded stuff like CCI, Remington, Federal, etc.
That being said there have been some feeding issues in all models for different reasons. Early on Double Tap was getting FTF reports and they shortened the COL of their HC WNFGC 200 and 220 to 1.2420", this improved the feeding.
Underwood uses a slightly different bullet (more of a Truncated Cone) without the gas check, thus it provides better feeding properties.
Now, the rest will reside with the gun and the setups. You will need to test out how they perform in yours as setup. The 4th gen RSA should handle the slide speeds better than the older factory springs. Issues with the 4th gen have been more magazine related with the followers.
You may not experience any adverse issues, ONLY TESTING WILL SHOW THAT!
Best regrads,
Thanks for the reply. As you know, one can hear just about anything on forums. I have heard of G20's having problems with the high pressure stuff, and I've heard of them handling it just fine. Many modify their guns and some of the problems may reside with the mods, and some may not. The 220 hard cast bullets are for woods carry, so as not to have to order another box (the stuff isn't cheap) I'm thinking of shooting no more than 25 to see how they run, and hold onto the rest for carry till I'm ready to order something from Underwood.
I did have to send one of the magazines back to Glock. It would not hold the slide open at all. A letter from Glock says they are replacing it, but need a physical address to send it to since they don't use USPS. I have not had any problems with the two I have left, and will use them to try the 220 HCB's.
Quote from: The_Shadow on October 10 2014 08:09:18 AM MDT
Hello Gary, Many have run the 220's in the stock Glocks, more so the 3rd gen and earlier, the gen 4's are newer and yet to be tested as much as the older models. The ammo is stronger impulse than the lighter loaded stuff like CCI, Remington, Federal, etc.
I finally got to put a few of the Underwood 220 grain hard cast bullets thru my G20 Gen4 yesterday. I only put 20 rounds thru it as the ammo is expensive, and I want to use this as my woods carry round. I had no malfunctions. It performed flawlessly. I realize 20 rounds isn't a real test, but until I order more, it will have to do for now. It flung the brass a good 20 feet.
What I did notice is what looked like a bunch of horizontal marks on the cases. Marks that rubbed off with a finger. However, some had a horizontal scratch on them shown by the red arrow in the photo below. Other than that, and I'm not sure that's a concern, I see no indications of problems with the brass. Do they look ok to everyone else?
I have been carrying the Underwood 180 Gr TMJ bullets for the woods. Published FPE for the 180 grain bullets is 676 fpe and the published FPE for the 220 grain bullets is 704 fpe. Is that a significant difference if needed for a black bear?
(http://www.pbase.com/wingspar/image/157862623/original.jpg)
Quote from: The_Shadow on January 23 2014 03:25:32 PM MST
Cartridge is from Ammo Manufacture: Underwood 220gr Hard Cast (MT10mm)
Ballistics Information: 10mm Auto
Muzzle Velocity: 1240 fps
Muzzle Energy: 750 ft. lbs
Brass Make/Headstamp: Underwood - Brass
Bullet Make/Weight/Construction/Info; Length 0.7310"/Dia. 0.4010": 220gr. Hard Cast
MEPLAT 0.2640" / Flat Base
Actual weight 216.6 grains Crimp squeezed bullet to 0.4010"
C.O.A.L.: 1.2585"
Primer: Nickel color
Case: Diameter 0.4215" Crimp Diameter 0.4225" (Tight) Length 0.9880"
Powder Description/Positive ID/Type/Charge LongShot Weight: 8.6 grains
I'm curious. The Underwood published fps is 1200 fps both on their web site and on the box I have. Did you get your 1240 fps from testing with a chrono?
If you look further into the linked info you will see that there were some loaded 8.6 grains LongShot and then some at reduced to 8.0 grains which were said to be marked 1200 fps.
Intercooler tested these 8.6/8.4 gr loads;
QuoteThese ran flawlessly out of the Limited Pro today.
Limited Pro 4.75" 1237, 1231, 1250. Average = 1239.33 FPS/ 750 LBS
The distinct line is the dreaded "SMILE", it is that portion of the brass which is laying at the feed ramp with the least amount of support! The pressure starts the softer brass to stretch and flow, these are at the point where they are tearing on the molecular level.
BTW, they can not be fixed with any sizing and could experience a catastrophic failure if try to used it again!
So, Underwood has recently changed the load in the 220 grain hard cast? I see the second test at 1200 fps now.
I did some research on the "Glock Smile" since I last posted, and this isn't as bad as some. However, I did find a good video on the "Glock Smile" here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20aSjSMKqY4
It's an informative video for guys like me that are just starting with the 10mm. After watching his video, I measured the fired case and the unfired Underwood 220 Gr HCB's. My results were the same as the guy that did the video.
New unfired brass. 0.422 OD
Fired brass. 0.427 near the mouth and 0.431 near the base at the smile. (A bulge not visible to the naked eye).
A fired Remington UMC brass that I happen to have laying here 0.425 top and bottom.
Until I watched that video, I really did not understand what "unsupported case" meant. You can see where the round is not supported at the feed ramp in the left photo below. The photo below is two photos combined into one. On the left is an unfired UW 220 HCB. On the right is a fired UW 220 HCB case with the crack (smile) facing the feeding ramp. You can see it no longer drops right into the chamber, but can be pushed the rest of the way easily and removed easily.
(http://www.pbase.com/wingspar/image/157870947/original.jpg)
I've learned a lot today. I have come to the conclusion that the 220 grain brass is fine to fire in my G20 Gen4, but I should toss the brass and not save it. Anyone disagree?
Does the UW 180 grain TMJ round suffer this same problem in a Glock?
Well another thing I noticed is that the prime is not oriented correctly to all the brass to be in the position as shot. That might allow it to slide inside the chamber a little more. Rotate the brass where the smiled area is located back at the feed ramp and the primer strike is vertical again.
Next, the brass on the right is not headspaced on the case mouth but on the expanded section of the casing. After it is oriented to the as fired position check to see if the case does headspace flush to the barrel hood again. If it does not this means that the expanding casing was moving out of the chamber or being wedged out which increases the unsupported area...
If you don't have the distinct line which is the smile, you could recondition (pass-through size) those cases and reuse them with lighter loadings. Most of the Glock factory barrels will allow the cases to swell to 0.4340" before the smile develops. I have measured many case in studying this situation and use a good stainless steel caliper to the 0.0000" or 0.0005" thousandths of an inch. Most unfired Underwood Starline brass measures 0.4215" or 0.4220" at the base before the start of the extractor cut of the casing head.
You could use the damage brass for setting dies and making dummy rounds for various chores.
Ok, I took the photo over again placing the smile above the feeding ramp. This time I took the time to use a tripod. I just replaced the photo in my last post with the updated photo. The empty does sit down a little lower in the chamber with it correctly oriented. It never dawned on me when I took the first photo that it would be important to correctly orient the empty case. I also edited the paragraph above the photo.
Only a few of the empties had the crack (smile), not all of them. I do not reload, so this is all a learning exercise for me on the higher pressure 10mm cartridges. I plan to shoot some of everything I have, keep them separate, and measure the empties, mostly for my info and learning experience. If there is any interest in me posting my findings, I can. I must have 7 or 8 different loads from different manufacturers.
As for reloading, I want to, but last winter I spent 3 to 4 hours a day for a little over a month doing research and purchasing a couple of reloading manuals. When it came to finding powder, I found there was none to be had, and there still isn't, so I have not purchased a press or anything else, tho I'm considering a chrono just to have some fun with. The purchase of my 4th .357 magnum, which was a Marlin 1894 in .357 was what got me to give serious thought to reloading. Unfortunately, it developed the classic "Marlin Jam" and Remlin has had the gun for over 7 months now cause they aren't making parts.
Thanks for the update on your pictures, most of what I do, is to help other help themselves, as they experience things with their firearms and or ammo. Just getting them to understand what they need to look for or are seeing first hand.
I'm sorry to hear of the issue with you Marlin 1894, mine works really well but the length of the ammo is something that can also cause issues. The RCBS 357 180 grain cast silhouette bullet I make, is too long to feed through the Marlin lever gun as seated in the normal cannelure. I can seat it deeper but I have to reduce the powder charge.
(https://s20.postimg.cc/skqn6mhfx/SAECO399_RCBS180gr-12_zpsffeaf9b2.jpg)
I have to say Remington CS is non existent. The issue is with the carrier. Remington is not making parts. The manual states a minimum length for .38 Special which is 1.400. The .38 Special I have is 1.445. No mention of OAL limits for .357 rounds. The issue started at 3 weeks and 450 rounds with .357 Magnum loads. I very much regret sending the gun back to the factory, but since it was new, it seemed like the best thing to do. Big mistake. I should have just taken it to the local gunsmith. I'd have had it back in a few days. Working.
Keep in mind, Remington is currently overloaded due to the issues regarding the R1 and the complete recall. Not defending Remington, just trying to be fair in case you were not aware of how extreme Remington's situation is.
Quote from: Pinsnscrews on October 19 2014 04:10:56 PM MDT
Keep in mind, Remington is currently overloaded due to the issues regarding the R1 and the complete recall. Not defending Remington, just trying to be fair in case you were not aware of how extreme Remington's situation is.
Not my problem. It's Remington's problem. I don't care if they are overloaded due to a recall. That's their problem, not mine. I paid too much for my gun that they've had for over 7 months for the replacement of one part that they are not making. Stupid ridiculous. Anyway, enough of that. I foam at the mouth every time I think about it. Now back to the Underwood 220gr Hard Cast Pull-Down.