I bought several hundred 200 grain WFNGC Beartooth and DoubleTap bullets to handload for woods carry and hunting. I've only done a little bit of load development with those bullets thus far and will have to wait til spring for warmer weather to complete it.

In the meantime, I thought I would share some info I have gathered on these two bullets. Obviously, one will be more accurate than the other in your pistol but the consistency in the weight of these bullets is interesting.

I randomly selected 25 bullets from each 100 round package and weighed them on my RCBS digital scale. I have no idea how much bullet lube weighs but since no two bullets will have exactly the same amount of bullet lube I would expect this to play somewhat of a role in the overall weights.

Here's what I found:

Beartooth 200 grain WFNGC weights of the 25 bullets varied from 199.0-201.4 grains. That's a variation of 2.4 grains.

DoubleTap 200 grain WFNGC weights of the 25 bullets varied from 193.4-200.7 grains. That's a variation of 7.3 grains.

In my preliminary load testing with these bullets at 20-25 yards, I fired four six shot groups and here's how they fared:

Beartooth 8.2 grains Longshot 2 3/4 inch group

Beartooth 9.4 grains Blue Dot 2 1/4 inch group

DoubleTap 8.2 grains Longshot 4 inch group

DoubleTap 9.4 grains Blue Dot 3 1/4 inch group

So, based on the consistency of the weight between the two bullets and my preliminary testing, it looks like the Beartooth with Blue Dot is the most accurate load for my G40. This spring I will bump the Blue Dot load up to 10.0 and I'll also try Accurate #9 as well. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Hope this info helps someone in their load development.     

             

Thanks for the report!

I've been on the back order list with Beartooth for what seems like years!

Thanks for the report.  What gun and barrel where you using?

The lighter bullets may not have filled out the mold completely and may be smaller in diameter!  (there could be voids, or lack of fill out in the area of the lube groove, the sharper edges can be rounded compared to the design)

What was the diameter size?  0.4000" ?  0.4005"  0.4010" ?  0.4015" ? 0.4020" ? 

My S&W will shoot the 0.4000" cast with accuracy, but the Glock Factory barrels seem to prefer bullets sized @ 0.4015".
Others say they need 0.4020" in the Glock factory barrels.

I consider +- 1% an acceptable deviation.  The beartooth. I could live with.  Not the double tap

I'm shooting a KKM 6 inch barrel in my Glock G40.  Both brands of bullets were sized to .401. I ran a similar weight test with ten 200 grain XTPs and they were even more consistent. 1% either way would definitely be preferred.

I also weighed some .429 44 Magnum 245 grain Montana Bullet works WFNGC bullets, 255 Cast Performance and 250 grain Keith Leadheads. The Montana Bullet works bullets were by far closer in weight than the others. I wish they made a good 10 mm WFNGC bullet.   

The DT bullet is inferior to the BT. The quality and consistency of the BT is evident. Both have loaded and shot fine in my G20 barrel with decent, but not excellent groups. I will order the BT in .402 next time to see if groups will tighten.

I like a heavy charge of Accurate No. 9 (mid to high 13s) with a CCI 350. That gives velocities in the 1210-1230 fps range depending on temperature. No indications at all of pressure problems. Mag primers probably aren't needed, but that is what I started with way back. It worked so I havent botheredto rework the loads with standard primers. Those BT bullets are spendy! Please carefully work up. There is no published data to follow. I do know that Accurate 9 prefers sticky new brass togive a lot of bullets pull. My hot BT handloads get new Starline brass.

1200ish fps is what I'm lookin for with these bullets. I'm glad to hear AA#9 can make it happen.

There's another poster on the Alaska Outdoors Forum who also used Blue Dot and AA#9. He commented he had to use CCI 350s to get good all weather ignition with AA#9. His referenced loads for 200 grain hardcast were 10.0 grains Blue Dot and 14.0 grains AA#9. I'll work up to the mid 13s with AA#9 and see how it performs compared to Blue Dot. Whichever is more accurate in my gun will get the nod. 

Appreciate the insight on the use of new starline brass for these loads. That's what I intend to do as well. Once fired brass will get plenty of opportunities to hold 180 grain plated bullets for practice.     

It is interesting to note that Speer calls for CCI 350 primers with Accurate no. 9. Back in the day Speer and Accurate had Loa for a 200 gr Speer TMJ. Speer called for a 350 gr primer and 14.0 gr max. I don't have it in frnt of me now, but IIRC,  Accurate's max was 13.5 with a standard primer. That bullet is no longer catalogued,  but the load data was a loose framework for my initial workups.

I did testing with the old Belgian formula No. 9 and the new USA made powder. The old formula was a little cleaner but the current formula gives a tad more velocity and might be more temp stable.

Good stuff to know about AA#9. I would guess the difference between the two powder charges (13.5 vs 14.0) would be because of the change in primer. The CCI 350 should be hotter than the CCI 300.  So, maybe they were compensating for the pressure difference? 

I'm lookin forward to spring to get back out and do some load development. When I tested some AA#9 in 44 magnum as a proxy for the 10mm back at Christmas time, AA#9 lost over 100 fps in velocity from +70 to -15 F. That's a big velocity loss but I don't expect to hunt in temps anywhere near that cold so the velocity loss should be more acceptable going down to the teens to zero which is when most of my deer hunting takes place.   

Speer 12 is the publication  Taterhead is referring to...

I couldn't get #9 to come alive with 200gr XTPs until I went with CCI 350s.

Sure wish the Beartooth order would come in

Thanks for posting that Shadow. That sheds light on several posts I've seen on various web sites.

Quote from: sep on January 18 2016 05:03:49 PM MST
Good stuff to know about AA#9. I would guess the difference between the two powder charges (13.5 vs 14.0) would be because of the change in primer. The CCI 350 should be hotter than the CCI 300.  So, maybe they were compensating for the pressure difference? 

...

Actually, Speer, with the higher max, used the 350s. Different lab, different conditions I would guess.