Center Fire Pistols

Are 9mm pistols used for Center Fires Matches? If not, why not? Thank you

I have shot mine in CF matches and enjoyed it. However, many shoot 45 for CF as you really don't have much of a  realized benefit from shooting 9mm over 45. It seems that 32 or 38 is a more popular CF choice if not shooting the 45. 

You typically will see more 9mm guns in Service Pistol matches.

I have wanted to have a competitive 9mm for 30 years but am still looking. I started with a Browning High Power GP, then went to  various 1911’s , SIG P210 (US), and a S&W 952. I cannot shoot any of these as well as my S&W 52-1, although the 952 comes close. (Makes a good practice gun instead of burning my scarce HBWC bullets). To add another wrinkle, I dropped a 38 Super barrel in my Springfield RO and my scores improved over the original 9mm. Kind of points to a generic problem with the 9mm cartridge itself?

Although you specified 9mm, I can only say that I used to shoot a S&W model 52 in the centerfire portion of 2700's. Some high masters suggested that it would be beneficial to shoot the same gun in the CF and .45 matches (2/3rds of the match). I took their advice and I partially credit that with my being able to break out of the Expert Class.

When I started I had quite a few different center-fire pistols, Walther 32, Colt National Match 38 special and S&W 52. I was told to throw them into Erie and stay with the 1911, I was Marksman that year, came back the next year as Expert! When I returned home I had Master card in the mail just by shooting one gun in 45 and Center-fire matches. Adam only shot 45 in both matches and had a Frankken208 (208 with 1911 grips). AMU was able to get a Walther 32 to shoot outstanding groups, a few AMU shooter though it would improve their 2700 scores, center-fire score improved but overall 2700 score went down. One of the main reasons many top shooters are using the conversion is to have one gun in the hand. I would think that if one frame like the 1911 were used in all three matches it would be best way if a center-fire gun can get needed accuracy.

One reason they haven’t been as accepted in Bullseye is that the 9mm pistols and their ammo seem to be VERY PICKY as to what bullets and loads shoot well even between pistols and ammo.  For example, I have an Sig 320/M18 that shoots quite well with 115 grain bullets. 124 grain, I’m still searching for a good load in that pistol and bullet.  In other pistols 124 grain shoots well.  The lower target was chosen to be my load.  124 grains barely hold the 10 ring.  

In 45, there’s no problem finding a load that shoots to this level with almost any kind of bullet.  Not so in 9mm.

I suspect it has to do with sloppy chambers and to fast a rifling twist.  

SAMMI has some specifications for other chambers that are hamstrung for accuracy.  Once the specs are made the manufacturers make them wrong.  

The 38-55 Win is another example.  The barrels are oversized.  A bullet that fits the bore will not allow a cartridge to be loaded n the chamber. 

https://content.invisioncic.com/r270761/monthly_2017_08/599007b0dff5d_SAAMI9mmLugercartridgeandchamberdrawing.jpg.374ac335217b85a282212363dbbf61c4.jpg

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/handgun-rifling-bullet-weights-barrel-twists/

9mm have a connical taper holding a cylindrical bullet with most reloading dies not able to locate radially as the case is expanded and the bullet is seated. 
How many if you have seen a bulge on one side of your 9mm loads? 
.38 supers shoot, .38 special shoot, 9mm are a struggle. 

Just my thoughts,

A VERY long time ago (like 1970), there was an article in the Naval Institute magazine about improving the accuracy of the 9mm bullet.  They came up with a bullet that was the same weight, but the nose was flattened slightly, and the missing metal was used to create a slightly more elongated cylindrical section towards the rear.  I'm pretty sure they fed well in every gun they tried it in.  I suspect existing military specs, NATO interoperability & institutional inertia killed it, but I always wondered if something like it ever made it to the commercial market.  I don't have any 9mm's, so I've never investigated further.

I just tried to find the article, but a lot of the Naval Institute magazines that old are scanned, but not indexed very well.  Their search engine is also pretty pathetic...

I have a S/A XDM with the long barrel. It has all the Powder river goodies and I welded the barrel up. Load only five in the mag and it shoots well indoors at 50'

gwhite wrote:A VERY long time ago (like 1970), there was an article in the Naval Institute magazine about improving the accuracy of the 9mm bullet.  They came up with a bullet that was the same weight, but the nose was flattened slightly, and the missing metal was used to create a slightly more elongated cylindrical section towards the rear.  

The USMilitary have M1152 ball ammo with a truncated flat point round for training and force protection.  According to what I saw it hits like a ton of bricks.  It’s a high velocity and high pressure +P round so I don’t shoot much of it.  

gwhite wrote:A VERY long time ago (like 1970), there was an article in the Naval Institute magazine about improving the accuracy of the 9mm bullet.  They came up with a bullet that was the same weight, but the nose was flattened slightly, and the missing metal was used to create a slightly more elongated cylindrical section towards the rear.  I'm pretty sure they fed well in every gun they tried it in.  I suspect existing military specs, NATO interoperability & institutional inertia killed it, but I always wondered if something like it ever made it to the commercial market.  I don't have any 9mm's, so I've never investigated further.

I just tried to find the article, but a lot of the Naval Institute magazines that old are scanned, but not indexed very well.  Their search engine is also pretty pathetic...

The very first 9mm Lugers were conical and almost pointed. RMR and Hornady make Conical bullets. They are accurate and feed well you have to very mindful of head spacing, pressure and loads especially when loading 147gn.

gwhite wrote:A VERY long time ago (like 1970), there was an article in the Naval Institute magazine about improving the accuracy of the 9mm bullet.  They came up with a bullet that was the same weight, but the nose was flattened slightly, and the missing metal was used to create a slightly more elongated cylindrical section towards the rear.  I'm pretty sure they fed well in every gun they tried it in.  I suspect existing military specs, NATO interoperability & institutional inertia killed it, but I always wondered if something like it ever made it to the commercial market.  I don't have any 9mm's, so I've never investigated further.

I just tried to find the article, but a lot of the Naval Institute magazines that old are scanned, but not indexed very well.  Their search engine is also pretty pathetic...

The very first 9mm Lugers were conical and almost pointed. RMR and Hornady make Conical bullets. You can also get  They are accurate and feed well you have to very mindful of head spacing, pressure and loads especially when loading 147gn.

Seating is a problem solved with using a case expander and dillion seating die.

Properly fit a 9mm 1911 with a 1:10 twist barrel and an angle bore bushing and you'll have a good shooter. The Hornady 147 XTP BTHP bullet is very accurate when loaded to around 900 fps in Starline brass. Requires no real neck expansion, just seat about .010" back of the rifling then re-size (no crimp) the upper 0.1" or so. That's an x-ring round at 50 yards, even with an 8# recoil spring. The 147 CRN Brazos (or other) is good for 25 yards. I think the mystery and frustration ends when you use a 1:10 twist barrel and heavier slower bullets. Same results in my Sig P210A (also 1:10). Along the same lines as some like the 1:13 twist for .45? If your goal is .22 EIC and SP distinguished points, one lower for both with a conversion slide. The 9mm with 147s is easier on the hand too.

the AMU has been shooting 9mm 1911s in EIC matches quite a bit over the last few years. It will out shoot a 45 but just barely. They were using some ball ammo last year. Nothing fancy looking but obviously very accurate in their pistols. All the 9s I've rebarreled have been with kkm 1-18 twist but have a 1-10 on order. Nothing but XTP bullets for the long line. Zero 115 jhp are close to the XTPs.

The accurized Beretta M-9's and 92FS's have been shown to shoot very accurately at the long line. This has been going on for decades even when the CMP restricted what weight and type of bullets were allowed by the rules. There have been some pretty amazing scores shot in EIC matches by mostly high master military competitors. Now that the bullet restrictions are off, it should be much easier to find a very accurate load. I shot a Kidd accurized Beretta in EIC matches long after I got distinguished. It was very accurate, but my scores didn't show any improvement over a 1911 in .45 ACP with ball ammo.

Adam's Bianchi AMU built race gun was 9mm 1911. As per the AMU smiths the 9mm pistol is better than the Beretta so they were building them for EIC pistol after rule change. If my memory is correct the scoped version was frame mount. Not sure if any AMU shooters are using the 9mm 1911 in center-fire matches.

Frank: Since you may still have a connection to the AMU, I was wondering if they’re gonna pursue the M17 pistol for bullseye.?

Shoot it, find the right load, enjoy. There is nothing inherently wrong with the 9mm bullet. You just need to find the right combination for the pistol you choose. Not all pistols are created equal but that's not the bullets fault.