http://www.underwoodammo.com/10mmAuto220GrainHardCastFlatNoseBoxof50.aspx
SWEEEET!!!! 8)
220 grain making 1200 fps. That is a pretty stout load.
Wish they had a picture so we had a better idea of the metplat size.
Yes, a stout load for sure, but can be done; bullet length is critical in a load like this. I want to see a picture of it.
I wonder when I see velocities that may be on the high side is the tester quoting velocities from a pressure barrel that is longer than what we normally use on our guns thus same velocity is not realistic?
Underwood is matching Buffalo Bore's performance with the same weight bullet.
I have some older Double Tap WFNGC 10mm rounds with 200gr and 215gr bullets. 'Intercooler' shot some of my 215gr DT and got 1201 ft/s from his EAA Witness Elite Match with a 4.75" barrel. So, I can see Underwood reaching advertised numbers.
I'm not going to buy the Underwood 220gr WFN. I recalled why I was concerned about heavier bullets - hickok45's video shows how a standard Glock barrel can't stabilize heavier bullets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m0satEkGjw&feature=related
The 220gr bullets would work with my 1911, but I carry my Glock 29 in the woods. So, I'll wait for similar ammo with 200gr bullets.
Underwood also has an excellent reputation for exceeding the advertised velocities. That alone makes them quite unique in ammunition mfg's.
Quote from: Ramjet on September 19 2012 05:38:55 PM MDT
I wonder when I see velocities that may be on the high side is the tester quoting velocities from a pressure barrel that is longer than what we normally use on our guns thus same velocity is not realistic?
Underwood has a good reputation for matching their published velocities in user's pistols. I haven't bought any of their 10mm, cause I load my own, but bought some of their 9mm 124gr +P+, advertised at 1300 fps; that stuff does 1320 fps out of my Glock 19.
Good too know thanks for the feedback
I'll order up a box and test them in my KKM 4.6 bbl and post the results if someone doesn't beat me to it.
shot some!
UW 220gr hard cast
G29 3.8 SLB - 1133 1161 1173 1151 - avg 1155
G20 4.6LWD - 1206 1232 1217 1189 1184 - avg 1206
G20LS 6.6LWD - 1271 1266 1278 1235 avg 1263
G20 4.6barsto - 1202 1195 - avg 1199
shot some Buffalo Bore as well...
Buffalo bore 220HC -
4.6LWD - 1128 1137 1140 avg-1135
4.6barsto - 1132 1142 1148 - avg 1141
Well done! That looks like good stuff.
Can you post a picture of the ammo? Probably too much to ask, but I'd sure like to see a picture of one of the bullets, pulled from the case.
Wow I like the velocity from the LWD barrel. Stem to stern load for deer.
How about accuracy from the different barrels?
Pictures would be great, but I think I more curious as to the powder being used. Any chance you could disect one and see what the powder looks like, and how much of it?
Quote from: REDLINE on September 25 2012 12:18:32 PM MDT
Pictures would be great, but I think I more curious as to the powder being used.
AA9 and Blue Dot will both work for this load. Maybe Longshot too, I haven't used it though. I'm safely pushing a 220gr of my own a little faster than this with AA9, but I'm sure my bullet is shorter than this one, providing more case capacity.
going to do a comparison in accuracy between factory, storm lake, bar sto, lone wolf and kkm if I can find one.
Cool. 8)
I just dissected one of these. Apologies for the mangled bullet, I could not find my kinetic puller so had to resort to pliers and my press.
These are loaded to 1.250" with a TC type plain base bullet with single lube groove. The bullet weighed right at 220 grains, and is a nominal .740" long. The pictures show it next to a handloaded, and then component 200 gr. DT WFN bullet. The meplat approx. .270" on the flat with somewhat rounded corners, compared to the relatively sharp cornered meplat of the DT bullet and it's .315"-ish diameter.
The powder, from the descriptions I've read, appears to be 800x. I have none to compare it to, but it is large round flakes with some tan flakes. I DO know it's not Blue Dot, Longshot, Power Pistol, or clearly any ball type powder. The charge weight was 8.5 grains and there was not a single flake unaccounted for.
I will run some out of my 4.6" KKM barrel and post the chrono results as well....
(http://highxj.home.bresnan.net/underwood220.jpg)
(http://highxj.home.bresnan.net/underwood220a.jpg)
(http://highxj.home.bresnan.net/800x.jpg)
Thanks highxj! It does seem the powder is 800X. And the charge weight seems to make sense being 800X also. I can hardly believe an ammo manufacturer would bother using 800X with its extremely poor metering capability. I can't imagine he loads them by hand. It leaves me wondering what the charge weight consistency is between something like 10 rounds, because if Underwood isn't weighing charge weights by hand with that powder, I have to imagine they do vary some at least.
Very interesting though. That is one big answer to a question many of us have had for a very long time. Whether or not 800X is used in all Underwood 10mm loads, I don't know. But if not, funny they'ld use it just for that one.
Thanks again for disecting it. Great pics too! 8)
Maybe he has found the magic meter. While I have never had luck metering 800x or long stick powders like H4831, I have never tried anything but my RCBS. Maybe a different design works better.
Good review and info. Thanks for posting.
Thanks for posting those pics!
Wow, that is a really long bullet. Definitely wouldn't be my choice, for a handloading component anyway. Not much powder capacity left in a load like that. I have to wonder what kind of pressures that load is producing to do 1200 fps.
Yeah, I had the same thought Yondering....
And, is it just me or does the base of the bullet look like it has been swaged down some? Loading that long it is reasonable to expect.
HighXJ, could you measure the bottom of the bullet and report it's diameter?
I am gonna guess it will measure .398 - .399 or smaller right at the bottom where it is shiny. That would almost certainly mean leading in my guns.
Quote from: Yondering on September 28 2012 10:40:00 AM MDT
Thanks for posting those pics!
Wow, that is a really long bullet. Definitely wouldn't be my choice, for a handloading component anyway. Not much powder capacity left in a load like that. I have to wonder what kind of pressures that load is producing to do 1200 fps.
Yes, I'm not wild about that bullet design either....it takes up in incredible amount of space in that case. It didn't seem to be particularly hard either. I stupidly sold my LBT hardness tester years ago, but the bullet was rather easy to sink the pliers into.
I have an industry friend that has access to a pressure lab. I've had him test some 45 Super loads for me in the past and inquired about doing a couple of these Underwood loads, but he said they are so swamped right now it's not possible to secure any lab time. If that ever changes I'll post some results here.
Sqlbullet, you are correct. I got measurements as small as .398" right at the base.
Quote from: highxj on September 28 2012 11:14:02 AM MDT
Sqlbullet, you are correct. I got measurements as small as .398" right at the base.
That makes sense. A bullet that long loaded to 1.250" in the 10mm case will have the base down in the tapered portion of the case walls, creating a bulge. These rounds are probably run through one of those Lee factory crimp dies or something like it, to remove the bulge, which swages down the base of the bullet.
This bullet looks like one of the commercial 220gr TC designs, which I've said before are a poor choice for the 10mm. If it works for Underwood though, good for them.
For comparison, my 220gr bullet from Mountain Molds is .673" long, .680" with a plain base (soda can aluminum) gas check. That's a full .060" shorter than this underwood bullet. I'm loading mine to similar velocity to the Underwood load (1300 fps from my 6.6" longslide) but probably at lower pressure.
Underwood and Buffalo Bore are using the same 220gr bullet. They are made by Rimrock.
According to a few sources the Rimrock 220 is harder than both of the doubletap offerings (200gr and 230gr) by quite a bit.
If there is better options for a hard cast bullet maybe someone should give Underwood a call and make a suggestion
Doesn't Underwood say he tests all his ammo through a stock glock barrel? If it works through that then what's the problem???
The only other hard cast options out there in 10mm are Doubletap which so far for me NEVER tests out at what they advertised and costs nearly $50 for a box of 50 OR Buffalo bore at $29 per 20rds.
I don't get it people...just gotta find something to complain about...never good enough!
Quote from: MrRedbull616 on September 28 2012 03:51:15 PM MDT
I don't get it people...just gotta find something to complain about...never good enough!
Not complaining, just discussing what they're doing, good or bad. If you can't follow a discussion of what is or isn't done right, how are you going to learn, so you can make it better next time?
It's just one guy complaining about everything. Part of why I don't post here now.
Quote from: MrRedbull616 on September 28 2012 03:17:40 PM MDT
If there is better options for a hard cast bullet maybe someone should give Underwood a call and make a suggestion
I don't think there are many better options for a commercially cast 220gr bullet; Underwood is doing pretty good with what's available. This is definitely better than DT's 230gr abomination. You're pretty much stuck casting your own if you want a better 220gr 10mm bullet.
Seriously, I don't get the comments about complaining. Do you guys really have that much problem discussing technical details?
Then offer the suggestion up to the man. I know I have helped Kevin where I could but all you seem to do is attack probably our best ammo supplier and members here. I wouldn't feel at all bad if you had kept to the Glock Talk board where such things are welcome and common.
highxj, thanks for the info, that is definitely IMR800X with the tan smaller flakes mixed in, demystifying the various loads is intriguing!
Quote from: Intercooler on September 28 2012 07:32:31 PM MDT
Then offer the suggestion up to the man. I know I have helped Kevin where I could but all you seem to do is attack probably our best ammo supplier and members here. I wouldn't feel at all bad if you had kept to the Glock Talk board where such things are welcome and common.
Wow man. Sorry you feel that way. FWIW, I've bought ammo (not 10mm) from Underwood and like their product, it's good stuff. I commented in this thread because I'm qualified to do so. I've spent the last few years working on heavy bullet 10mm loads, mostly 220gr just like this one. I've learned what works well and what doesn't, and why. I'm very surprised Underwood is getting this bullet to work well at this velocity; but like I said, good for them.
Quote from: sqlbullet on September 28 2012 08:43:08 AM MDT
Maybe he has found the magic meter.
I'ld like to locate me one of those! ;)
Any business that wants to stay in business appreciates customer feedback. Helps them navigate through cloudy skies. A smaller business can find it difficult to afford marketing research and surveys to stay on top of market demands.
As a business owner, I would be dismayed if I heard nothing from my customer base. Listening to their suggestions helps my company give them what they want.
I suggested 200gr hardcast bullets to Underwood, a while back, because I carry a Glock 29 in woods with black bears and smaller predators for self-defense. If the bullet won't stabilize to the point 'hickok45' misses, I'd be SOL.
'Yondering' says the issue was not with weight, but with Double Tap's 230 bullets. So, I'm going to buy a box of Underwood's 220gr hardcast and shoot them for precision from my Glock 29. If they work, I'll buy more.
Quote from: harrygunner on September 30 2012 06:52:04 PM MDT
I'm going to buy a box of Underwood's 220gr hardcast and shoot them for precision from my Glock 29.
Any chance you would chronograph a few? I'ld be especially curious to know what they do from a G29.
Yes.
It's about time I bought a chronograph.
Oh, my bad. For some reason I was thinking you had one. Well, if ya get one sooner than later, it will be fun for you for those rounds to be the first you run through it. Best of Luck! 8)
Nah, I'm going to get one. I'm in a place now with lots of open space.
I've been donating some of my ammo to people like 'Intercooler' who chrono'ed them as part of videos. So, that's how I know how some perform. Such donations were "win-win".
I also want to get into handloading and a chronograph is very important for that.
Seeing these has me realizing how many options there are for the 10mm round. I have some 180gr HPs and FN that I need to load up. I really need a crono.
I just bought an EOTech 553 for my Sig AR that took up some money. I still need a melting pot and the rest of the goodies to go with it.
Quote from: harrygunner on September 30 2012 06:52:04 PM MDT
'Yondering' says the issue was not with weight, but with Double Tap's 230 bullets. So, I'm going to buy a box of Underwood's 220gr hardcast and shoot them for precision from my Glock 29. If they work, I'll buy more.
I think it was on the glocktalk forum where somebody measured a bunch of the DT 230's and found .004" variation in bullet diameter. I'm guessing there might be some big variations in hardness that goes with that too; and of course those 230's are too long for a decent load, by all reports. (This may have been Any Cal, but I can't remember for sure. I know several other members there had bad results with this one too.)
If you don't cast your own and reload, this Underwood 220gr load looks like the best thing available for a heavyweight 10mm load. I really don't think there is a better bullet commercially available; and very few options even for those who do cast, unless you go with a custom mold. Just so everyone's clear on my earlier comments, I think Underwood is doing a great job with what's available; but the bullet design is far from perfect, and could be improved a lot if a casting company was interested in selling a better bullet designed for the 10mm.
Quote from: Yondering on September 30 2012 08:43:25 PM MDT
...somebody measured a bunch of the DT 230's and found .004" variation in bullet diameter. I'm guessing there might be some big variations in hardness that goes with that too; and of course those 230's are too long for a decent load...
I've heard they vary in weight quite a bit and that most didn't even weigh 230 grains.
Quote from: REDLINE on September 30 2012 08:47:04 PM MDT
Quote from: Yondering on September 30 2012 08:43:25 PM MDT
...somebody measured a bunch of the DT 230's and found .004" variation in bullet diameter. I'm guessing there might be some big variations in hardness that goes with that too; and of course those 230's are too long for a decent load...
I've heard they vary in weight quite a bit and that most didn't even weigh 230 grains.
Yep, I heard that too. Kinda weird, since it doesn't seem to be the case with their 200gr bullet?
That DT 230gr load is a bummer, because it gave the heavyweight 10mm a bad rap, since there was nothing else like it to prove people wrong. Lots of rumors about heavyweight 10mm's got started because of this load; like the one about not stabilizing in the Glock rifling.
The one danger I see with this Underwood load is that inexperienced handloaders will start to think they can grab any old 220gr 10mm bullet and load it to this kind of velocity; they'd be in for some real surprises.
Quote from: Yondering on September 30 2012 08:54:13 PM MDT
...it doesn't seem to be the case with their 200gr bullet?
Not that I've heard either.
Quote
That DT 230gr load is a bummer, because it gave the heavyweight 10mm a bad rap, since there was nothing else like it to prove people wrong. Lots of rumors about heavyweight 10mm's got started because of this load; like the one about not stabilizing in the Glock rifling.
I think there is a lot of truth in that.
Quote
The one danger I see with this Underwood load is that inexperienced handloaders will start to think they can grab any old 220gr 10mm bullet and load it to this kind of velocity; they'd be in for some real surprises.
I'm afraid you're probably right, sadly enough.
Variations like that in weight and size scream to me that someone was not watching the temperature of the lead while casting. Probably made worse by a mold with cavities that weren't really close to each other in size.
I'm thinking Double Tap simply doesn't have any form of Quality Control whatsoever. I have yet to come across a single sign that they do, other than that when I have bought ammo from them in the past it somehow it turned out all the brass was 10mm Auto. I guess they had to start somewhere. The problem is it seems to be that's where it ended. Maybe Double Tap's Quality Control is to have no Quality Control?
I called Rimrock - they said the 220 is from their Premium line and is a much harder cast thus there isn't a need for a gas check.
I guess I could agree with that shooting the 220 into some phone books - I see nothing going on with the base of the bullet to make me suspect it's getting burned at the bottom etc
I use a similar method to drive the big magnums (10mm and up) at warp speed. Alloy, hardness, correct bullet diameter (slug the barrel to confirm!), powder selection, lube selection, plus I add a coating of lube on the bullet base. If you aren't seeing any leading, and the bullet base isn't pitting, a gas check isn't needed.
It's not the flat base of the bullet that you need to be looking at. Look closely at the back edge of the rear driving band, at the end of the rifling marks; look for flame cutting. I've never recovered a plain base cast bullet pushed to magnum velocity that doesn't have flame cutting around the base.
Ordered a few boxes of the Underwood 220gr hard cast. And will be picking up a chronograph.
Figured I'd place targets at fifty yards and slow-fire 180gr and 220gr ammo from a rest, over the chronograph.
I can then, compare group sizes. If the 220gr groups are reasonably similar to the 180gr groups, then that should confirm they stabilize.
That would definitely confirm, or not, stabilization. I don't know if twist rates vary between different 10mm Auto platforms or not, but that could show a more favorable outcome one way or another. And more barrel length to up velocity might favorably increase stabilization, like between a G20 4.6" and a G20 accessory 6.02".
At any rate, your results will truly shed light one way or the other. I'll be looking forward to your results.
Quote from: harrygunner on October 03 2012 02:19:57 PM MDT
Ordered a few boxes of the Underwood 220gr hard cast. And will be picking up a chronograph.
Figured I'd place targets at fifty yards and slow-fire 180gr and 220gr ammo from a rest, over the chronograph.
I can then, compare group sizes. If the 220gr groups are reasonably similar to the 180gr groups, then that should confirm they stabilize.
I uncovered this thread while searching for info on possible lower 48 bear defense loads and was wondering if you'd ever had a chance to conduct your 50 yard stabilization testing.
I did test stability of Underwood's 220gr hardcast. Changed the test a bit. I compared groups between the Glock 29 and a 1911 with a Bar-Sto barrel.
Posted my results here: http://10mm-firearms.com/factory-10mm-ammo/underwood-220gr-hc/15/
In my opinion, the UW hardcast bullets are softer, with a slightly larger diameter that allowed them to stabilize in the Glock.
Quote from: harrygunner on December 13 2012 01:19:14 PM MST
I did test stability of Underwood's 220gr hardcast. Changed the test a bit. I compared groups between the Glock 29 and a 1911 with a Bar-Sto barrel.
Posted my results here: http://10mm-firearms.com/factory-10mm-ammo/underwood-220gr-hc/15/
In my opinion, the UW hardcast bullets are softer, with a slightly larger diameter that allowed them to stabilize in the Glock.
Thanks much for the quick response, harry. Off now to check out the other thread. :)