I purchased a Lone Wolf 6" 9mm (9x19, 9mm Luger, etc) conversion barrel for my Glock 20 (10mm), and reamed the chamber to accept 9x23 Winchester cartridges. I chose this over the 38 Super barrel for several reasons. 1) I felt the tapered 9mm case would feed and extract more reliably than the straight walled 38 Super. 2) 9x23 Winchester doesn't have a large rim. 3) the 9x23 Winchester brass is stronger than the 38 Super brass, and it can be loaded to a higher pressure. 4) A 9x23 Winchester chamber can accept a 38 Super cartridge easier than a 38 Super chamber can accept a 9x23 Winchester cartridge. In a 9x23 chamber a 38 Super cartridge will be held tight at the front, and the base is a little loose. In a 38 Super chamber a 9x23 cartridge will be loose at the front, and tight at the back. The back of the 9x23 cartridge may not fit into a tight 38 Super barrel.
I had 4 different loads. I tried some cast bullets, Lee 358-158-RF and Lee 358-125-RF resized to 9mm, and some jacketed bullets. The cast bullets didn't do very good. The flat nose sometimes jammed against the top of the barrel during feeding: The 158 grain was the worst. I think this was mainly because the 9mm case was in a 10mm magazine, and the lips are too wide to properly feed 9mm cases. I also tried some 125 grain Remington JHP 38 special bullets resized to 9mm, but they also jammed sometimes. I had some success using 115 Grain Winchester FMJ ball bullets.
I used my standard 9mm dies to reload the 9x23 cartridge.
Below is a picture of my target (@ 10 yards) for the 115 grain Winchester FMJ bullets and the 125 grain JHP bullets. Each target has 10 shots even if it doesn't look like it. Not great, but not bad. The 9x23 makes an authoritative BANG.
(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1362/13695381/24585439/410762757.jpg)
I did not have a chronograph at the range, so I don't know the velocity.
I also tried some factory Fiocchi 38 Super ammo. The step on the base cause a lot of jams. Almost every cartridge had problems feeding from the G20 magazine. Because the 9x23 chamber is larger at the rear than the 38 Super cartridge, and the Glock 20 slide has a cutout to fit the 10mm base, the G20 extractor pushed the 38 Super cartridge to the left. This made the right side of the 38 Super cartridge have a slight bulge. The 38 Super cases should still be good for reloading a few times.
I forgot to say I used a 22# Wolf Spring.
.
I would say you have an excellent trigger finger and fine shooting. I wish I could hold that tight with my Glock 20, I finally did some trigger work, need to take it out to the range to test.
All the failures stressed me out from reading this. Have you considered 9x25 Dillon?
As long as you had fun. Reminds me of friends of mine back in the 70s who would cut down 308 rifle brass I think it was and see how much fast burning powder they could dump in trying to make a 45 ACP Mag. I guess guys like that are where the 451 Detonics and everything that followed came from.
Quote from: Dave84 on February 22 2015 03:05:27 PM MST
All the failures stressed me out from reading this. Have you considered 9x25 Dillon?
Do you mean all the jams?
That was because I was putting 9mm sized brass in a 10mm magazine. It would be like taking a reliable Glock 20, and using a 45ACP magazine to shoot 10mm.
I thought about 9x25, but the reloading dies are too expensive. I can use my regular 9mm Luger dies to reload 9x23.
.
Quote from: my_old_glock on February 22 2015 07:39:18 PM MST
Quote from: Dave84 on February 22 2015 03:05:27 PM MST
All the failures stressed me out from reading this. Have you considered 9x25 Dillon?
Do you mean all the jams?
That was because I was putting 9mm sized brass in a 10mm magazine. It would be like taking a reliable Glock 20, and using a 45ACP magazine to shoot 10mm.
I thought about 9x25, but the reloading dies are too expensive. I can use my regular 9mm Luger dies to reload 9x23.
.
9x23 - I need to study this one. Doe it have a subtle taper?
Quote from: Pablo on February 22 2015 08:27:44 PM MST
Quote from: my_old_glock on February 22 2015 07:39:18 PM MST
Quote from: Dave84 on February 22 2015 03:05:27 PM MST
All the failures stressed me out from reading this. Have you considered 9x25 Dillon?
Do you mean all the jams?
That was because I was putting 9mm sized brass in a 10mm magazine. It would be like taking a reliable Glock 20, and using a 45ACP magazine to shoot 10mm.
I thought about 9x25, but the reloading dies are too expensive. I can use my regular 9mm Luger dies to reload 9x23.
.
9x23 - I need to study this one. Doe it have a subtle taper?
Yes. It is a stretched 9x19 (9mm Luger). The base and the nose is the same size as a 9x19, but the length is 4mm longer, so there is less taper in the 9x23 than the 9x19.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%C3%9723mm_Winchester
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/cartridge-review-9x23-winchester/
.
Also, the 9X23 runs at 55,000 PSI MAP, where the 9mm Luger/Parabellum/X19 runs at 33,000 PSI. So, about double the working case capacity, and just short of double the working pressure.
9x23
Next on the bucket list.
Still enjoying the 9X25!!
Quote from: my_old_glock on February 22 2015 07:39:18 PM MST
Quote from: Dave84 on February 22 2015 03:05:27 PM MST
All the failures stressed me out from reading this. Have you considered 9x25 Dillon?
Do you mean all the jams?
That was because I was putting 9mm sized brass in a 10mm magazine. It would be like taking a reliable Glock 20, and using a 45ACP magazine to shoot 10mm.
I thought about 9x25, but the reloading dies are too expensive. I can use my regular 9mm Luger dies to reload 9x23.
.
You find any kind of solution for that?
Quote from: Dave84 on February 23 2015 06:08:07 PM MST
You find any kind of solution for that?
Several sources on the internet say to bend in the feed lips a little, but I have been trying to avoid that. I am in California, and I bought high-cap 10mm magazines before the 10 round law went into effect, so I can still have them and use them, but if I damage them I can't get replacements. I need to try bending the feed lips on a 10 round 10mm magazine first.
.
Heck yeah. Test it on a Clinton mag. I'd leave your pre ban mags alone.
Quote from: Dave84 on February 23 2015 06:08:07 PM MST
Quote from: my_old_glock on February 22 2015 07:39:18 PM MST
Quote from: Dave84 on February 22 2015 03:05:27 PM MST
All the failures stressed me out from reading this. Have you considered 9x25 Dillon?
Do you mean all the jams?
That was because I was putting 9mm sized brass in a 10mm magazine. It would be like taking a reliable Glock 20, and using a 45ACP magazine to shoot 10mm.
I thought about 9x25, but the reloading dies are too expensive. I can use my regular 9mm Luger dies to reload 9x23.
.
You find any kind of solution for that?
Buy your "normal capacity magazines" out of state and lie like the proverbial rug.
Quote from: Captain O on September 03 2015 11:42:11 AM MDT
Quote from: Dave84 on February 23 2015 06:08:07 PM MST
Quote from: my_old_glock on February 22 2015 07:39:18 PM MST
Quote from: Dave84 on February 22 2015 03:05:27 PM MST
All the failures stressed me out from reading this. Have you considered 9x25 Dillon?
Do you mean all the jams?
That was because I was putting 9mm sized brass in a 10mm magazine. It would be like taking a reliable Glock 20, and using a 45ACP magazine to shoot 10mm.
I thought about 9x25, but the reloading dies are too expensive. I can use my regular 9mm Luger dies to reload 9x23.
.
You find any kind of solution for that?
Buy your "normal capacity magazines" out of state and lie like the proverbial rug.
This only works with some pistols in some (unconstitutional) states. If standard capacity mags are grandfathered, then later generation mags are easily identified as illegal, absent a manufacturer's replacement letter. Currently, all Gen 4 Glock standard capacity (over 10) mags are prohibited in CA to most people. To my knowledge, Glock is no longer manufacturing related Gen 3 mags. I suppose you could pull it off if you found some used or old stock.
I was able to run the 9x23 loads through a chronograph. The 115gr FMJ bullet was 1600fps. The 125gr JHP was 1560fps. This was at 35* Fahrenheit. To me these loads were very accurate.
(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1362/13695381/24585439/411848309.jpg)
(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1362/13695381/24585439/411848308.jpg)
.
One of the next handguns on my wish list is a RIA .22 TCM / 9mm combo (double stack M1911). I don't really need a 9mm M1911, but since the extra barrel and spring comes with it, I'm inclined to rechamber it for 9x23 and then use cut down .223 brass for it. So, I guess that would make it more akin to the 9mm Super Cooper wildcat. It is my understanding that the .22 TCM was based on .223 brass, so the extractor should work without a problem.
I'm not sure I would do the conversion on the G20 though. Do you still have the same magazine capacity or did it get bumped up by 1 or 2?
Quote from: NavyVet1959 on November 10 2015 11:59:28 AM MST
One of the next handguns on my wish list is a RIA .22 TCM / 9mm combo (double stack M1911). I don't really need a 9mm M1911, but since the extra barrel and spring comes with it, I'm inclined to rechamber it for 9x23 and then use cut down .223 brass for it. So, I guess that would make it more akin to the 9mm Super Cooper wildcat. It is my understanding that the .22 TCM was based on .223 brass, so the extractor should work without a problem.
I'm not sure I would do the conversion on the G20 though. Do you still have the same magazine capacity or did it get bumped up by 1 or 2?
The .22TCM is based on the .223 Rem, but it's not only that simple. Whether using .223 brass for the .22TCM or 9x23, the neck has to be turned (quite a bit, you can't just "polish" it). Unless you ream the chamber for only that brass, they won't fit. If you do ream it, standard size won't fit.
The 9x23 Winchester is a very interesting cartridge. It's more powerful than the 357 Sig and the smaller case diameter allows for greater magazine capacity. I'm less surprised it didn't go mainstream than it not becoming more popular with handloaders and enthusiasts.
The extremely high pressures make muzzle blast and perceived recoil quite oppressive.
The 9x23 is everything the .357 Sig wanted to be, yet can't. It is the true .357 Magnum of the autoloading world. If I had one, I would want a 6" barreled 1911 version with a flat-bottomed firing pin retainer and an extra power hammer (main) spring. coupe this with a 23-24 lbs recoil spring and you'd have a marvelous combat/personal protection pistol.
Since the Wincheter 125-grain factory loads mirror the 125-grain .357 Magnum loads from a 4" revolver barrel, a 6" barreled 1911-pattern autoloader would not only tame the cartridge's recoil, the longer sighting plane would enhance the round's accuracy. Talk about "opening up a can of whip-@$$", that setup would prove devastating.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Someone, Brad Miller, Ph.D., wrote an article about converting a Glock 20 to shoot 9x23 Winchester. It is dated February 18, 2016. I wonder if he got the idea from this thread that I started more than a year before he wrote/published this article.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/gunsmithing/glock-conversion-9x23-winchester/
.
This can be easily accomplished because Lone Wolf Dist. sells a 9x19 barrel for the Glock 20. It can be reamed to a 9x23 chamber. The 9x19 / 9mm Luger cartridges do fit the G-20 magazines. While they fit and feed somewhat reliably, I'd never use this for a defensive carry setup.
Quote from: DM1906 on November 10 2015 04:32:46 PM MST
The .22TCM is based on the .223 Rem, but it's not only that simple. Whether using .223 brass for the .22TCM or 9x23, the neck has to be turned (quite a bit, you can't just "polish" it). Unless you ream the chamber for only that brass, they won't fit. If you do ream it, standard size won't fit.
I'm not really concerned about whether commercial ammo works since I'm a cheap bastard and I cast my own bullets and reload my own ammo. :)
I've managed to acquire a mid-size double stack RIA .22TCM/9mm combo and a full-size single stack one. I'm still waiting on some parts to be available to finish the conversion of both of them. The barrels that I decided to go with were the .38 SUPER barrels, but I will be making my brass from .223 brass. I think that this means that my conversion is not a 9x23 or a .38 SUPER, but rather a .38 SuperComp.
Having read this thread several times and the linked article a couple of times, I have a question. Wouldn't this conversion be possible on a G21 as long as I used a G20 mag in addition to the rest of the conversion parts?
I have the LWD 9mm barrel and a recoil rod and lighter spring for 9mm use in my G-20SF. It not as reliable as I had hopped with the 9mm ammo. They hung up on the feed ramp more than likely because they are sticking up higher in the mag as they are being shoved forward. However I can still test the ammo from this 6" tube, someday I may have it cut for 357SIG. ???
The extractor does well to hold the case during extraction, not sure if the G-21 would without an extractor change to the 10mm extractor. ???
Thanks, this is going to take some thinking... :)
OK, I guess I need to run all the way down this rabbit hole before my mind will move along to something else. Using a G21 or G30 (not 30S), would require swapping the .45 extractor for a 10mm each time you wanted to run the 9x23 barrel. A better solution (in my mind) would be to spend the extra for a complete 10mm slide and set it up as the 9x23. Or 9x23 and 10mm and have 3 calibers from 2 slides.
Which brings another question to my mind. Would a solid longslide (http://www.lonewolfdist.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=80618&TERM=10mm) or lightened longslide (http://www.lonewolfdist.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=80618&TERM=10mm) be prefereable? Or just a regular 10mm slide?
And if the 10mm extractor is just OK at grabbing the case (but better than the .45 extractor), can a 9mm extractor be used in the 10mm slide? I have absolutely ZERO clue on what extractor will work in which slide other than the parent caliber so if that's a square peg in a round hole suggestion, feel free to point and laugh... :D
Here are a few things to consider...It has to do with the fact that the slides of the G-20 10mm is wider than the 9mm platform slides. And the G-21 is same width as the 10mm side although the reach is less because the larger diameter cartridge case.
There were issues using the 45 extractor for the 10mm cases, so they were changing to the 10mm extractor. Also the breech face of the 45 is cut for the diameter of the 45ACP casing, this adds to the amount of slop side to side that can let the case slip out from the extractor.
The G-20 10mm breech face is cut wider than the 9mm although it can still hold and function.
So not only do you have the slop from the wider slide, but a 9mm extractor would effectively have an even shorter reach because of the wider breech face. Or at least that's how my brain is perceiving this. And I bet it's also why I haven't read of anyone using the 9mm extractor.
I like the idea of a hot, flat shooting 9 and I sure wish the .960 Rowland didn't sound like it's running at a super high pressure. Isn't it basically duplicating the 9x23 but with the 9x19 COAL? That's got to be some hellacious pressure.
The 10mm extractor provides more reach than the 45, The 9mm extractor may not work like you think!
The slop is because of the way the breech face is cut for each cartridge...using the smaller diameter case head than it's cut for adds to the slop.
Yeah I figured that out but it was late and I think my post ended up more stream of consciousness than technical! ???
Quote from: awp101 on July 25 2016 08:51:34 PM MDT
I like the idea of a hot, flat shooting 9 and I sure wish the .960 Rowland didn't sound like it's running at a super high pressure. Isn't it basically duplicating the 9x23 but with the 9x19 COAL? That's got to be some hellacious pressure.
9x23 Winchester maximum pressure is 55,000 psi (rifle pressure). I doubt the .960 has higher pressure. You might be able to use a regular 9x19 case and just load it to 9x23 length, but you would have to use a bullet that doesn't hit the rifling lands at that length.
.
460 rowland is 40,000 PSI, well below the 9X23.
If brass is scarce and you are a scrounger, you could cut and ream 5.56 brass. But reduce a good bit and work up.
In regards to (original) slide caliber, extractors, case heads, and slide breach channels, it isn't too complicated, but it isn't straight forward, either. There are a few variables that hinder, and some that are dead-ends. This in response to the question of using a G21 vs. G20 for various conversion considerations.
Case heads matter. There is little difference between 9mm (Luger or x23) and .40/10mm case heads, but the .22TCM is more significant. The "rimless" 9mm case head is technically rimmed, in that, the head (.394") is greater than the wall (.3911"). The .40/10mm case wall to rim relation is "straight", meaning they are the same (.425"). The .22TCM case head is technically rimless/rebated (.370"), vs. the wall (.372"). The difference between 10mm and 9mm case heads are close enough to be insignificant; the difference between 9mm and .22 TCM are close enough to be insignificant; BUT, the difference between 10mm and .22TCM is significant. The case head diameters are relatively stepped evenly between the calibers, but the difference between the extremes is double, and therein lies the problem. A case head difference of ~.030" is easily dismissed, while a difference of .055" is a game-stopper for the 10mm slide.
Extractors matter. 9mm extractors won't fit 10/.45 slides, so existing available extractors are the only option, short of custom fabricated parts. A 9mm extractor, of any series, will physically fit in the larger slides, but the FP safety button will NOT engage the extractor correctly, WILL initially fit and feel "correct", but WILL eventually work loose, sending the extractor to lands-unknown, and the safety button WILL foul the action against the trigger bar cam (and may actually break some parts). This WILL occur within about 4-20 firings, typically. All extractors, even within the same calibers, are not equal. In regards to extractor effectiveness, which (correct for slide-caliber) extractor that is used depends on the extractor series and the desired case head use. Original non-LCI extractors should ONLY be used for their designed case heads (no case-head-different conversions), while LCI extractors are 100% effective within one-step case head reductions. The reason is the LCI extractor functional design, and it works by accident. The LCI extractors have a longer reach, and a greater travel allowance. If used within a one-step case head diameter reduction, the extractor to extraction groove engagement remains the same. The ONLY difference being the level of "indication". For example, using the correct-caliber-slide and case head, the LCI extractor begins with the "indicator" button flush with the slide (recessed extractor), and is pushed outward by the case head outer diameter (against the extractor shoulder, not the extractor hook) to the "indicated" position, with full extractor engagement into the extractor groove. Interestingly, the amount of LCI extractor travel for caliber-correct use is about the same as single-step case head difference (the accident). This means, stepping down the case head diameter by one step (.020-.031"), still leaves the extractor 100% effective, and it will operate exactly as a correct-for-caliber non-LCI extractor. Inversely, a non-LCI extractor begins flush with the slide, and remains so with caliber-correct case heads (the extractor remains static during normal operation). This means that chambering reduced case head diameters leaves the corresponding case head diameter difference as less extractor engagement (the case head diameter does not engage the extractor shoulder). Also note, if you have a non-LCI extractor, NO reduced diameter case head conversion should be considered before upgrading to the LCI extractor (and required spring-loaded bearing).
The last component of case head departures is the slide breach channel. The rule is basically the same as the extractors: One-step only. The problem isn't the "slop", because while a round is chambered, it WILL center to the chamber. The problem is the transitions from magazine to chamber, and chamber to extraction/ejection. Using a non-LCI extractor with a two-step departure is a dead-end. Using a LCI extractor with a two-step departure is possible, butl reduces effectiveness, increases premature extractor hook wear/breakage, and greatly reduces reliability.
In conclusion, simply, one-step case head reductions are advised, while two-step reductions are not. .45 to 10mm OK. 10mm to 9mm, OK. .45 to 9mm (or .22TCM), not OK. I'm not saying you can't do it or it won't work. Only that the variables depart too greatly, disqualifying it as a candidate. None of this takes into consideration of the respective slide's mass, which is yet another variable that won't be ignored.
my_old_glock, for whatever reason I didn't even think about the 9x23 pressure. ??? I did find an article saying Rowland claims 40-45K PSI and the author's estimated loads in Quickload were running 43-50K.
DM1906, thank you for the detailed info! It really explains and clears up a bunch of things I didn't even know I needed to ask about!
When I first decided to try the 9x23 conversion I only had my G21 (45ACP) slide. I bought an older style G20 (10mm) extractor off eBay (I think it is called a 90/0 extractor), and removed some metal from the inside (see red arrows) to allow it to grab the smaller diameter 9mm case better. I bought the older style extractor because it was only $5 shipped which was a lot cheaper than a new extractor.
The green arrows in the picture are polished corners. I polish all my extractors like that so the brass rim moves smoothly into the breach. A sharp corner may bite into the brass rim under certain circumstances and cause a jam. I start with 400 grit sandpaper, then go to 600, and 800. The extractor has been refinished with Birchwood-Casey cold blue.
I now just use a G20 slide with the stock G20 LCI extractor.
(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1362/13695381/24585439/412690910.jpg)
(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1362/13695381/24585439/412690909.jpg)
Quote from: my_old_glock on July 26 2016 09:36:26 AM MDT
9x23 Winchester maximum pressure is 55,000 psi (rifle pressure). I doubt the .960 has higher pressure. You might be able to use a regular 9x19 case and just load it to 9x23 length, but you would have to use a bullet that doesn't hit the rifling lands at that length.
That might be difficult with some bullets. I loaded a Lee 358-105-SWC to max OAL in a 9x19 and this is what I got:
(http://www.monkeywrench.space/navy-vet-1959/images/lee-358-105-swc-loaded-saami-max-oal-9mm-320w.jpg)
The unloaded bullets look like this:
(http://www.monkeywrench.space/navy-vet-1959/images/lee-358-105-swc-hf-flat-black-320w.jpg)
As you can see, there's not much of the bullet sticking in the 9x19 case if you do this, even though it conforms to the 9x19 max OAL (1.169"). The 9x23 increases the max OAL to 1.300". I doubt this bullet would even be *touching* the case if you placed the nose of it 1.300" away from the base of the brass. :)
Quote from: NavyVet1959 on July 22 2016 02:13:15 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on November 10 2015 04:32:46 PM MST
The .22TCM is based on the .223 Rem, but it's not only that simple. Whether using .223 brass for the .22TCM or 9x23, the neck has to be turned (quite a bit, you can't just "polish" it). Unless you ream the chamber for only that brass, they won't fit. If you do ream it, standard size won't fit.
I'm not really concerned about whether commercial ammo works since I'm a cheap bastard and I cast my own bullets and reload my own ammo. :)
I've managed to acquire a mid-size double stack RIA .22TCM/9mm combo and a full-size single stack one. I'm still waiting on some parts to be available to finish the conversion of both of them. The barrels that I decided to go with were the .38 SUPER barrels, but I will be making my brass from .223 brass. I think that this means that my conversion is not a 9x23 or a .38 SUPER, but rather a .38 SuperComp.
Have you tried making .38 Super/9x23 brass from .223 brass yet? I did this back in the 1980s when I first started shooting .38 Super after reading Cooper's article. It is a lot of work and the body of the brass has to be expanded to accept 9mm bullets.
Not sure if there is any left on the market but a few months ago Winchester released a batch of 9x23 brass onto the market. It can take pressures that Starline brass can not..
Bob
The 9x23's max pressure of 55K is impressive and worth noting! As potent as the Dillion 9x25 appears it's WEAKNESS is the bottleneck case! Bottleneck cases will ALWAYS have a problem holding the bullet in place during feeding and this could be catastrophic. The 9x23 Winchester is the right answer even if the fickle American public never got it. It has a super thick case wall that can hold when fired in non-ramped barrels - the reason for it's invention.
The current factory loads offered by Winchester are "mild" to say the least. The cartridge can be fired from a Super chamber without issue and since tempered 4140 gun steel is good for over 120K pis, the factory .38 Super barrel will handle the round just fine.
Quote from: NavyVet1959 on August 22 2016 08:09:34 AM MDT
Quote from: my_old_glock on July 26 2016 09:36:26 AM MDT
9x23 Winchester maximum pressure is 55,000 psi (rifle pressure). I doubt the .960 has higher pressure. You might be able to use a regular 9x19 case and just load it to 9x23 length, but you would have to use a bullet that doesn't hit the rifling lands at that length.
That might be difficult with some bullets. I loaded a Lee 358-105-SWC to max OAL in a 9x19 and this is what I got:
(http://images.spambob.net/navy-vet-1959/lee-358-105-swc-loaded-saami-max-oal-9mm-320w.jpg)
The unloaded bullets look like this:
...
As you can see, there's not much of the bullet sticking in the 9x19 case if you do this, even though it conforms to the 9x19 max OAL (1.169"). The 9x23 increases the max OAL to 1.300". I doubt this bullet would even be *touching* the case if you placed the nose of it 1.300" away from the base of the brass. :)
I have that exact same Lee bullet/mold.
I was refereeing to to the longer 147-151 grain 9mm/38-Super plated/jacketed bullet offerings. I got some Rainier 151 grain RN plated bullets, and they are 0.700" long. They are suppose to be good up to 1500fps. I might try the Lee 358-158-RF lead bullet. I have used it in a few 9x19 guns with limited success. I also might try the C358-158-SWC bullet with and without gas checks, but I am fairly certain it won't work with a gas check. A few years ago I sent LEE and email asking them if they can make a gas checked 130-135grain 9mm bullet mold as a standard item. I suggested they take their 356-125-2R mold and extend the base to accept a gas check and a second lube groove, and to cut the top flat to give it a little meplate. They said they would think about it.
.
.
You might want to try the Lyman 125 grain Devastator cast HP, that mold is still available...
http://www.opticsplanet.com/lyman-pistol-bullet-mould-9mm-hollow-point-356637-2650637.html (http://www.opticsplanet.com/lyman-pistol-bullet-mould-9mm-hollow-point-356637-2650637.html)
(http://1.op.ht/978-550-ffffff/opplanet-lyman-pistol-bullet-mould-9mm-hollow-point-356637-2650637.jpg)
Buffalo Bore now sells 9x23 ammo, but they are below max pressure.
Quote
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=427
All four of these loads are well under the industry max. average pressure of 55,000 PSI. These loads are operating at or under 50,000 PSI, so they have lots of safety wiggle room. We've chosen propellants that produce a slightly compressed powder charge once the bullet is seated. We do this so bullets cannot be driven substantially deeper into the casing via the cycling/feeding process which is quite violent to the loaded cartridge. Driving bullets deeper into a case that is already withstanding 50,000 PSI, will raise pressures and is not safe, so we have remedied that possibility with a compressed powder charge. Additionally, we are under-sizing the portion of the case that grips the bullet shank, to create tension/grip on the bullet in order to better hold the bullet in place. ...
It is likely because there are so many older 9x23's that lack chamber support, so to be safe, the hold the pressures down.
This is why we handload for our best results! ;D
Quote from: The_Shadow on December 10 2016 08:02:38 PM MST
It is likely because there are so many older 9x23's that lack chamber support, so to be safe, the hold the pressures down.
This is why we handload for our best results! ;D
I thought it might be because they used Starline brass (because Winchester Brass is hard to get), and Starline 9x23 is not as strong/thick as Winchester Brass.
It sounds a little odd that a gun manufacturer would design a gun/barrel that could not be used with a full power load in the caliber it was designed to shoot.
.