› ›

10mm TRP

RaptortrapperRaptortrapper Posts: 73 Member
edited June 26 in General Firearms #1
I have a new 10mm Springfield TRP with a 6" slide that I'm working with.  Just ordered some 220gr FN-FB bullets from Rimrock.  Same bullet that Buffalo Bore loads in their heavy 10mm stuff.  Can't find any load data with this bullet as most manuals stop at 200gr jacketed bullets, but have an email in to Rimrock to see if they have suggested loads.  Thought I'd throw it out here on the forum as well and see if any of you have used this bullet, and what powder / load you used with it.  How did the bullet perform for you?

I also have some 180gr Speer Gold Dot bonded hollow point bullets coming as they were recommended by someone I have complete trust in as far as bullet choices go.  Some of his *other* decisions may require someone to hold his beer, but he knows his bullets pretty well.  :D  Found plenty of load data for these bullets, and expect to end up close to what I was using with 180gr XTP's.  Loaded them with 9.5gr Longshot and am getting 1367fps.  It was by far the most accurate load out of this 1911, so far.
Some people are like a slinky-- not much fun till you push them down the stairs!
«1

Replies

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,261 Senior Member
    #2
    Either the last issue or the one before it featured 10mm in Brian Pierce's Pet Loads column of Handloader magazine. IIRC
  • RaptortrapperRaptortrapper Posts: 73 Member
    edited June 26 #3
    Thanks!  I don't get that magazine, but I'll see if one of my friends does.
    Some people are like a slinky-- not much fun till you push them down the stairs!
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 17,295 Senior Member
    #4
    For hunting, I feel the 180gr XTP is hard to beat.

    I wasn't pleased with wet newsprint performance from the 180 Gold Dots. They appear to have been optimized for 40 S&W velocities
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • RaptortrapperRaptortrapper Posts: 73 Member
    edited June 26 #5
    Knitepoet-- what have you hunted with the 180 XTP's, and what was their terminal performance like?  We have black bears here, and I'm concerned that the XTP's aren't good for EDC here.  The bears aren't huge here, on average, but ya never know when that one big one is just around the corner.  We've seen some big ones here, just not often.

    I like heavy for caliber, and when I saw those 220's, I just couldn't pass them up! 
    Some people are like a slinky-- not much fun till you push them down the stairs!
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,143 Senior Member
    #6
    Long shot or AA#9 are 2 of the best 10mm powders velocity wise but I've never loaded 220 gr.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • RaptortrapperRaptortrapper Posts: 73 Member
    edited June 26 #7
    Think I might have found some load data.  Still hoping to hear back from Rimrock tomorrow, but this is encouraging.  I found loads using 7.8, 8.0, and 8.2 grains of Longshot that are getting 1140, 1151, and 1162 fps out of a 6" barrel with the 220gr HC.

    I will certainly be updating this thread as things move along in this endeavor.  Information for the 220gr HC in a 10mm has been VERY hard to find, so hopefully the information in this thread will help someone down the road.  That's what we're here for anyway, isn't it??!!

    When I was running my 45 Colt, I had excellent results with 335gr. HC running anywhere between 900 and 1000 fps.  Seeing the above velocities is very encouraging for this 220gr bullet in the 10mm.  Granted, I also ran the 45 Colt pretty hard at times using some H110, but it wasn't "nessecary".  Sure was fun though!!
    Some people are like a slinky-- not much fun till you push them down the stairs!
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,261 Senior Member
    #8
    Might as well have as much confidence as possible if you get a shot at a bear👍
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 19,332 Senior Member
    #9
    Interested in the 180gr GD results. 

    Might have to tey them in my 10mm. 
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 17,295 Senior Member
    edited June 26 #10
    Knitepoet-- what have you hunted with the 180 XTP's, and what was their terminal performance like?
    Whitetail. and pass through with decent damage. In my testing they're "harder" than the 180GDs

    The few bears here are protected, so I don't think about them in hunting terms. With them a possibility there, the 220s would be a better choice IMO.
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 31,414 Senior Member
    edited June 26 #11
    Hornady used to make XTPs that were 'Flat Points' at least in .357 Mag to reload. Sorta like the 158 grain semi-jacketed lead nosed flat points/soft points. Designed for slower expansion at deeper penetration levels. No HP just serrated like petals on the bullet nose.

    Also some Hornady HPs are rated for standard and magnum loads like in .44 cal, that would be appropriate for say the .44 Spl and others for .44 Mag. Not sure if they or anyone else makes such a bullet to fill the gap for a .40 S&W vs 10mm.  
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • RaptortrapperRaptortrapper Posts: 73 Member
    edited July 4 #12
    Okay, buckle your seat belt.  Here we go.  This is kinda long, but was a ton of fun.

    The 220gr FNFB standard hardcast bullets (BHN of 15) from Rimrock came in on Monday.  Grabbed a few of them out of the two boxes, and compared them.  Both boxes were incredibly consistent!  My grab out of the first box produced 6 bullets.  5 of them weighed 220.0gr and one was 220.1gr.  Checked the diameter with my caliper, and all of them are spot on .400" as advertised.  I grabbed 5 out of the second box, and every one of them weighed 220.0 grains on the money.  Diameter was .400" as well.  Needless to say, I was more than impressed with the bullet consistency.

    As you guys saw at the beginning of this thread, I did some research before the bullets even got here, and found NOTHING about the 220gr hardcast bullet using Longshot, except for one guy, on one forum, from a few years ago.  I can't exactly trust that, but I kept him and his results in mind.  I even called Hodgdon and the gentleman said he had no info at all.  Three other places said the same thing.  Even Rimrock had nothing when it came to Longshot.  They had starting loads of about 10 other powders with the 220gr hardcast, but nothing with Longshot.  The guy I talked with at Hodgdon was very encouraging.  I started telling him about my problem of no load data for the 10mm using 220gr hardcast, especially concerning Longshot.  He said, "Funny you mention that, cause I was going to suggest Longshot.  It is the best powder we have for 10mm, but that is using 180 and 200 grain bullets.  Usually if a bullet weight isn't listed, it is because it isn't recommended."  I get that, but at least I felt like I was on the right track since I was looking for Longshot loads, and that was going to be his suggestion.  I may eventually go back to 200gr bullets, but not right now -- I'm on a mission.

    I decided to work backwards a little bit.  I went to the Hornady and Hodgdon manuals.  They were so far out of tune with each other that it wasn't even funny.  Hornady start load for the 200gr bullet was 5gr longshot, plus or minus a little bit.  Hodgdon starting load was around 7gr!  Checked a couple more places, and found that 7+/- was pretty common starting point for 200gr jacketed bullets.  Being that hardcast is a bit slicker than copper (BHN of 35), I figured starting a little under 7gr of Longshot with a 220gr hardcast would be safe.  Just to make sure I wasn't about to stumble in to one of those "hold my beer" moments, I called a friend that has reloaded for years, and ran my idea by him.  He assured me I would come back with all fingers, eyes, arms, etc.  He and I both shoot hardcast in our revolvers, so I trust his opinion on this.  My 45 Colt threw 335gr hardcast using more powder than loads using a much lighter jacketed bullet, so I figured my idea of starting around 7gr with this endeavor would be okay.

    I had read that Longshot loads usually perform best at their near max loads.  So I loaded up 2 rounds with 6.6gr, 6.8 gr, 7gr, and 7.2gr.  I figured I would fire them and look for any bad signs.  If all was okay, I'd then start my real testing of 5 shots each of 7.4gr through 8.2gr using .2gr increments.  Just to be clear, I checked brass after EVERY SINGLE SHOT as this is unknown territory for me since there is no published data.  Everything from 6.6 through 7.2 looked very good.  Looked just like fired factory brass.  I stopped my ladder at 8.2 because of that guy I kept in mind from the forum I mentioned earlier.  His loads maxed out at 8.2 with a "slight smile on one case".  So I figured no need to go past 8.2 unless proven otherwise.  Turns out, he was pretty spot on!!  Here are the results I got:

    All loads are with Longshot powder.  All loads use Starline brass.  All loads use Winchester Large Pistol primers.  All loads have a 1.265" COAL.  No guns were harmed in the testing of this ammo. HAHA!!

    7.4gr Longshot
    Fastest - 1167fps
    Slowest - 1143fps
    Average - 1154
    SD - 10

    7.6gr Longshot
    Fastest - 1188fps
    Slowest - 1164fps
    Average - 1179fps
    SD - 9

    7.8gr Longshot
    Fastest - 1186fps
    Slowest - 1154fps
    Average - 1173fps
    SD - 13

    8.0gr Longshot
    Fastest - 1213fps
    Slowest - 1185fps
    Average - 1198fps
    SD - 10

    Did not shot 8.2 gr loads.  I got flat primers at 8.0gr, and best accuracy was actually at the beginning of the ladder using 7.4gr of Longshot.  At 25 yards, I had 4 shots touching at just under 1", and one called flyer that was 2" out because of a pathetic trigger pull.  7.6gr of Longshot gave me a 4" group.  7.8gr Longshot was back to a 2" group, which is more normal for me.  (The 1" group I fired with the 7.4gr loads was certainly not my normal, but was very exciting to see.  Perhaps I just got lucky.)  The 8.0gr loads had the dimple from the firing pin flattened back out, and almost a 5" group.  Because of that, I didn't bother with the 8.2gr loads as I was obviously heading in the wrong direction.  Found it a bit odd that the average for the 7.8gr loads was lower than the 7.6gr loads, but oh well.  See what happens next time out.

    To confirm my results, I'm going to do another ladder of 7.4, 7.6, and 7.8 grain loads.  I feel very confident that I'm close to having this figured out.  Whichever of these three loads I end up with, I'll be more than confident that I can hunt anything in Colorado and not be under gunned.  All three of these loads exceed the minimum Ft/lbs energy requirements for hunting that Colorado has.      

    More to come...
    Some people are like a slinky-- not much fun till you push them down the stairs!
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,261 Senior Member
    #13
    It's good you used a Chronograph. It could be your only safety net.

    Careful not to batter the gun. 1100 fps will take care of anything that walks if its delivered with deliberate care.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 17,295 Senior Member
    #14
    Sounds interesting

    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 9,691 Senior Member
    #15
    Replied for future reference.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 19,332 Senior Member
    #16
    Sounds pretty good to me. 
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 19,332 Senior Member
    #17
    A 220gr FP at 1,200 fps would be pretty sweet if you could figure out the accuracy. 
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,369 Senior Member
    #18
    Cool endeavor!
    Great results.
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 19,332 Senior Member
    #19
    Drive it like you stole it!  I’ll hold your beer!
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 19,332 Senior Member
    #20
    I may copy your results when you’re done. 
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 19,332 Senior Member
    #21
    I might try these some day. 

    https://www.montanabulletworks.com/product/3840-10mm-40-lbt-200gr-lfn-gc/

    Or these. 

    https://www.montanabulletworks.com/product/10mm-lbt-200gr-wfn-pb/

    Though i I don’t know how well the latter would feed in an auto. 
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,264 Senior Member
    #22
    Following this thread closely.  If there is one cartridge that will get me handloading again, I think it’ll be the 10mm.  Would love to find a heavy that would work well in both the DW and the 610.
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • RaptortrapperRaptortrapper Posts: 73 Member
    edited July 5 #23
    I'd be interested in those Montana 200gr WFN bullets as well.  I wondered how the nose of these from Rimrock would do, but I didn't have a single fail to feed with them.  I've been very impressed so far. 

    Zee- certainly gonna keep playing with these loads.  I don't feel like I'm anywhere near a dangerous load.  I only stopped because the 8.0 group was horrible.  Well, I might be getting close to dangerous loads, but I don't think 8.0 is it.  I think there is more to play with.  And if I mess around with the COAL, the accuracy just might come around.  We'll see...

    Another interesting thing is that the recoil from these loads felt less than the recoil from the 180gr XTP loads I had been using.  Possibly because of jacketed vs hardcast??
    Some people are like a slinky-- not much fun till you push them down the stairs!
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 19,332 Senior Member
    edited July 5 #24
    I got a few projects I’m working on first. But, I think those WGN-PB might have to come home with me this fall for some load work. 

    My my goal would be 1,200+
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • RaptortrapperRaptortrapper Posts: 73 Member
    #25
    No doubt in my mind that 1200+ is possible with 200gr bullets.  With these 220's, I still think it's possible, but accuracy might be limited.  Hold my beer... I intend to find out.

    Some people are like a slinky-- not much fun till you push them down the stairs!
  • RaptortrapperRaptortrapper Posts: 73 Member
    edited July 5 #26
    After this morning's shooting session at 25 yards, I am going with the 7.4gr Longshot.  I had all 8 shots in a 3" (horizontal) X 5" (vertical) area, and all but 2 of those 8 were within one inch of the center square.  2 were actually in the center square.  The 7.6gr and 7.8gr groups were no where near this good.  Two days in a row, the 7.4gr group outperformed the others, so it is my obvious winner.  Plus I like the fact that at 1179fps, and a Standard Deviation of 10, I am nowhere near any bad pressure signs.  It has some recoil to it, but it isn't kicking like an epileptic mule, so I'm confident this load is good to go.

    I only have one thing left to test with this load, but that test will have to wait till hunting season!! 

    Now that I have that figured out, I'm going to play around with the COAL and crimp a little bit, and see if I can get an accurate load at 1200fps.  Since Zee mentioned that yesterday, I haven't been able to get it out of my mind.  I certainly don't NEED it to work as I have found a load I am very happy with.  But I just want to know if it CAN work!  I can't change the COAL much as I am already almost at magazine max with 1.265" now.  But with a little more powder, slightly shorter COAL, or maybe a SLIGHTLY tighter crimp, I can get to 1200fps.  I'm not that far away as I'm already at 1179fps, and that is with the lowest of the loads I took yesterday.  I think there is more than 21fps wiggle room before I get to warning signs.  Just gotta see if I can make it accurate.  Getting to 1200+ fps isn't the goal.  Getting to 1200+ fps ACCURATELY is the goal.  I'll certainly be working in small increments, but I gotta do it.  It's for the name of SCIENCE!! :D

    So with that said,

    Hold my beer and watch this...
    Some people are like a slinky-- not much fun till you push them down the stairs!
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 19,332 Senior Member
    #27
    :popcorn:
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,261 Senior Member
    #28
    I recently read that loading the shoulder of SWC bullets in 45acp match ammo shows best accuracy when COAL places it just off the lead when chambered. I've not tried that, but adjusting the seating length might make some difference.

    I've also been reading at least one reputable scribe's continued insistence that seating and crimping in two seperate steps make the most consistent ammunition.
  • RaptortrapperRaptortrapper Posts: 73 Member
    edited July 5 #29
    I'm gonna try the seating length first, but will actually be seating deeper than I have it now, rather than shallower.  The chamber on this gun is longer than what the magazine will hold.  It's not even close.  But I figure if I seat slightly deeper, its the same as adding a little bit of crimp since more surface area of the bullet is touching the case.  Don't know that it will get me 21fps of difference, but it might get me a little bit.  If the deeper seating doesn't do it, I'll add a little bit of powder -- maybe .2 to .3 gr or so, and try that.  If that doesn't work, I'll use the same seating depth, and add a little crimp at that point.  I would think at that point, I'd be there with the velocity, but have to figure out the accuracy part as well.  I want to do this in small incremental groups, and in my mind, these are the smallest adjustments I can make that will actually make a noticeable difference.  If I get ANY warning signs other than a flat primer, I'm calling it off.

    That's my game plan for now.  So, off to my lab... I mean reloading bench.
    Some people are like a slinky-- not much fun till you push them down the stairs!
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,264 Senior Member
    #30
    Just something that I read in a few places (but don't ask me to quote, I bounce around a LOT when it comes to gun topics) but I'm interested in your guys take on it.  Some folks are reporting better accuracy with the heavier/hotter 10mm loads by switching to heavier recoil springs.  The cause being a slight delay in the slide traveling backwards during recoil makes for a more solid lockup during bullet transit in barrel.  Buffalo Bore actually talks about it on their ammo listings on the Midway site as a way of getting more consistent velocities out of their ammo.  

    Thoughts?
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,261 Senior Member
    #31
    We need a highly knowledgeable pistol mechanics guy to analyse that I think. Im not sure my amateur understanding of the auto loading process is sufficient.

    A chronograph should confirm it though as long as readings are compared with the two different springs.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.