The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => Ammunition, questions, and handloading techniques => Topic started by: HossMan on October 17, 2016, 12:43:57 PM
-
I've been loading for my CZ P-01 with the Acme 124gr coated bullets. I have found that my max COL is about 1.1". My first batch of 50 I loaded up with 3.3 grains of Hodgdon Universal Clays, which is basically the powder charge that Hodgdon recommends for 147gr bullets. They all shot super soft, but all cycled and locked the slide back.
Issue #1: About 1 out of 10 rounds fail the plunk test at 1.095". And the reason I think they're failing is crooked seating. They catch inside the chamber when I rotate the cartridge. Atleast they all pass the plunk test in my Glock 43. How can I fix crooked seating if I am already using the RN seater that came installed on the Dillon press?
Goal #1: I am regularly competing in my local IDPA match. So far, I have only been using Walmart ammo, but I want to start loading my own. My buddy is going to let me borrow his chronograph. My next question is; How should I safely load up my cartridges until I start to make power factor? I was thinking about loading half dozen sets of 9mm in increments of tenth of a grain of powder charge (eg 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, and so on) What do you think? Also, Is shooting slightly crooked rounds dangerous? It is my understanding that headspace is more critical, in terms of safety, than a bullet slightly contacting a chamber wall or slightly touching the rifling. Thanks so much for all the resources on this forum! :)
-
Your bullets aren't crooked. It's just that the surface of the bullet isn't perfect, and the rifling lands rise gradually, so you're at a place where "lumps" in the coating that aren't necessarily visible to you are dragging and releasing on the beginnings of the lands. Basically, you're loading too long. There is a sticky at the top of this subforum about determining proper OAL. I load that bullet at 1.06. It completely clears the lands and plunks and spins freely at 1.07 - 1.075. That doesn't mean you'll get the same number, but clearly from what you're describing, you're loading too long.
My first batch of 50 I loaded up with 3.3 grains of Hodgdon Universal Clays, which is basically the powder charge that Hodgdon recommends for 147gr bullets. They all shot super soft, but all cycled and locked the slide back.
One thing to get straight right at the beginning of reloading -- Load Data is NOT a recommendation. It's not a recipe. It's not advice. It is a report of what happened when ballisticians ran tests with certain bullets and certain powders. It is NOT what you are supposed to do. It is to give you a reference so that YOU can determine what you should do.
Another thing to learn right at the beginning of reloading -- there is much more than weight that determines charge windows. Bullet weight is the most important factor when matching your bullet to bullets in data, but if you think data for a bullet of a particular weight is good for data of any other bullet at the same weight, you can get yourself into trouble.
As to your 124gr ACME coated lead RN, the closest data Hodgdon provides is the 125gr LCN, which stands for Lead Cone/Conical Nose. Normally, I would say with as big a difference as what you're getting in OAL between the load data and your bullet, which I'm confident you are going to need to shorten to an OAL of at least 1.075, if not shorter -- with that big a difference, I would normally suggest a reduction in powder charge, but this particular ACME profile is an odd bird, and the seating depths it produces relative to OAL are actually quite shallow. So I would say go ahead and use the Hogdon data for the 125gr LCN directly, maybe knock off a tenth or two? The Hodgdon data for Universal with the 125gr LCN is 3.8 - 4.3, so maybe run a ladder from 3.6 - 4.1, and see where that gets you? Maybe go 3.6, 3.8, 4.0, 4.1? A lot of people will jump two or even three tenths at a time when developing ladders. I prefer to go .2gr at the bottom but drop to .1gr increments at the top of the ladder.
-
As to your 124gr ACME coated lead RN, the closest data Hodgdon provides is the 125gr LCN, which stands for Lead Cone/Conical Nose. Normally, I would say with as big a difference as what you're getting in OAL between the load data and your bullet, which I'm confident you are going to need to shorten to an OAL of at least 1.075, if not shorter -- with that big a difference, I would normally suggest a reduction in powder charge, but this particular ACME profile is an odd bird, and the seating depths it produces relative to OAL are actually quite shallow. So I would say go ahead and use the Hogdon data for the 125gr LCN directly, maybe knock off a tenth or two? The Hodgdon data for Universal with the 125gr LCN is 3.8 - 4.3, so maybe run a ladder from 3.6 - 4.1, and see where that gets you? Maybe go 3.6, 3.8, 4.0, 4.1? A lot of people will jump two or even three tenths at a time when developing ladders. I prefer to go .2gr at the bottom but drop to .1gr increments at the top of the ladder.
Thanks for your help!
-
Well, I could have said it better, but it would get into 10 chapters with an index and appendix, and a lot of sleepy readers !! ::)
Issue #1
? I agree. Your Glock 43 is not a good comparison for what goes on in the CZ. Fords and Chevys type comparison.
? It's the reloader's job to make sure the bullet fits the seating anvil. There are many, many different RN shapes. How would Dillon know which one you chose ? Additional shaping by removing metal, or adding epoxy may be called for.
Goal #1
? Roll your cartridge on a table top. If you see the bullet wobble, then your bullet is not seating on axis, and will most probably leave the barrel not spinning on axis. This is a major contributor to lack of accuracy.
? Start with the closest data you can find which contains the same powder, same weight bullet and same construction bullet. With the data as a starting point, modify the numbers to fit your situation.
? Pistol incremental loads (aka "load ladders") is usually the load window divided into 5 loads. For some the increment will be 0.1gr, for others 0.2gr. If your load is 0.2gr and your velocity makes a huge jump, then you can always go back and fill in the gaps that matter with 0.1gr increments. But first you gotta go with the coarse increments to see where you are.
Hope this helps. ;)
-
I did a ladder load last night and shot them this morning. Turns out Caldwell chronos don't work that great at indoor ranges. Haha, shoulda figured that. Anyways, loaded a half a dozen of 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, and 4.0 at 1.075" OAL.
They all shot significantly softer than 124gr blazer ammo and they all cycled fine. And it turns out that Universal is dirty and stinky. I plan on loading up 100 rounds w/ a 4.0gr charge and shooting them tomorrow at a casual IDPA match. Thanks for all the help guys. I learn a little bit everyday. I also had some Dawson sights installed on my P-01. Life is good. :)
-
I did a ladder load last night and shot them this morning. Turns out Caldwell chronos don't work that great at indoor ranges.
The florescent lighting of an indoor range will trip up any chrono. Those type lamps are flickering at 60 Hertz. You can't see it, but the chrono does. You have to provide incandescent lighting or sun light.
-
Here are my findings after loading and shooting 70 rounds in IDPA last night:
The load was 1.075" OAL with the 124gr Acme NLG sitting on top of 3.95gr of Universal Clays. They all fed and shot fine. I marked some of the brass, so I could inspect them later. What I found is that the brass didn't expand at all. Most of the measurements I took were about .378", which is what I crimped the cartridges at. Furthermore, there were burn marks on one side of the case, which I think is the hot gases blowing back. Where should I go from here?
-
Without chronoing that load it's hard to say, but if you go by the Hodgdon data for Berry's 124 gr you are barely at min power factor.
According to the reported max velocity the best you'll get is 129 ish pf with that powder. I'd continue working up to a max of 4.15-4.2 gr and see if you get a bit better performance.
-
The load was 1.075" OAL with the 124gr Acme NLG sitting on top of 3.95gr of Universal Clays. They all fed and shot fine. I marked some of the brass, so I could inspect them later. What I found is that the brass didn't expand at all. Most of the measurements I took were about .378", which is what I crimped the cartridges at. Furthermore, there were burn marks on one side of the case, which I think is the hot gases blowing back. Where should I go from here?
Your chamber pressure isn't high enough to seal the case to the chamber. When that happens, gas expels to the rear and leaves the "burn marks" you see. You need to raise the chamber pressure. You can get a new powder that burns slightly faster, or add more of the old powder.
I would expect the inside of the cases are black and sooty. This is also being deposited in your gun, possibly with particles of unburned powder. When the powder is loaded right for the job, it should burn cleanly. The inside of the case may be gray, tan, or colorless. Like this...
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/lKysXi8KZqlnm6K_TwL-JzLZ5iDukjQX_XLRCc25GmpJef0ipJJWNZskMfdWcyJXawFpXxMFJPRxvBDnm3xK-SlFGGg5HBNKc8-9pUPM5VSEbYnPIgjOSHhqMzDIBp2ozHTDQXQUUflNyz7URRSPWfQAWzaTFNuIAFvVntaAdyOK9bsA2b-f9wgJHjBsVGKEJogNxiy7_I-EAbTyxztoKCLCPIk6iQqmTWVxn9cUvE3SB4m23QeHJPq0JYi2zjVaTwxPYL5qjeAhD8zw82OEmReJHsRc8c88V-jJVU5B6g8rDcUtEcbOsPP_3EeJX07wfeZZS2LfZgIypujJhuBu4PyMdqV-rrrLkbevJvyLFbee5CzyubVYiDc6zilITP_x9DfmkAw3a4AnwWtMm5jfEH4GtxDNAat8Ka1Xs9C2lkLElZEaSpCijYnORKACwU7rF5KKsUiieHzNiaVao_-15lROnHKrC5kOv2k7CQbammc492z0IQjtmA7IWZ-YTMk59n_lhGtyy64R1EH8ZDHtQjgGiC84hQCcsbQWSNcET_0bwiS6GiZXR0Orer2qI5GBBc1uuweVqf8hOHHqrpsEigFPMHrBO_JHGqXpYd9s66gXrYo8=w648-h378-no)
Hope this helps.
-
The load was 1.075" OAL with the 124gr Acme NLG sitting on top of 3.95gr of Universal Clays. They all fed and shot fine. I marked some of the brass, so I could inspect them later. What I found is that the brass didn't expand at all. Most of the measurements I took were about .378", which is what I crimped the cartridges at. Furthermore, there were burn marks on one side of the case, which I think is the hot gases blowing back. Where should I go from here?
Your chamber pressure isn't high enough to seal the case to the chamber. When that happens, gas expels to the rear and leaves the "burn marks" you see. You need to raise the chamber pressure. You can get a new powder that burns slightly faster, or add more of the old powder.
I would expect the inside of the cases are black and sooty. This is also being deposited in your gun, possibly with particles of unburned powder. When the powder is loaded right for the job, it should burn cleanly. The inside of the case may be gray, tan, or colorless. Like this...
Hope this helps.
Yes, thanks for your help, Wobbly! After shooting IDPA last night, the gun wasn't all that dirty. I'm still loading a hair under minimum power factor according to Hodgdon data. I didn't inspect my brass this time, because I forgot to.
After looking at one of my reloads, the gunsmith said my crimp was not enough. I haven't messed with the crimp die since receiving it already installed on my Dillon. It's been crimping cases to .378. My gunsmith said I should have a bulge at the base of the bullet, then the crimp being a thousandth shorter than that. I am not aware of how to achieve that with the crimp die. Do I start by slowly screwing it down, or do I start slowly screwing it up? I had just read in various places that it is sufficient to remove the flare with the crimp die.
-
If your rounds are all chambering, I'd leave the crimp die alone.
If you feel you must adjust it, you'd screw it down very slightly. I don't think that adjusting crimp will give you a bulge at the bullet base, because a crimp die only works the case mouth.
-
I don't think that adjusting crimp will give you a bulge at the bullet base, because a crimp die only works the case mouth.
Sorry, not "giving me a bulge at the base", but having a natural bulge at the base that then tapers to the crimp. He showed me one of his reloads. It had a bulge at the base of the bullet, but the thickness of the bulge didn't go all the way to the case mouth. My reloads have the bulge that is even in thickness all the way from the base to the case mouth. Thanks.
-
Still, the purpose of the crimp is only to remove the flare, not to give the case any particular shape. It is not for bullet retention, or any other purpose.
If your reloads are chambering, I'd leave it alone.
-
If your crimp is truly .378, it's fine. If you want to turn it down to .377, that's fine too. But you don't NEED to. I wouldn't recommend going narrower than .377.
Painter is right -- if it's working, leave it alone. And unless you show us a picture of one of your loads, it's hard for us to really say. Remember that when you and your gunsmith are discussing it, HE has the advantage of being able to look at it at the same time. If you want to post pics here, you need to post the pic elsewhere first -- like at Tumblr, the link the pic here.
You are looking to remove the flare only.
Now...
I'm still loading a hair under minimum power factor according to Hodgdon data.
No, you don't know where you are in relation to minimum power factor, according to Hodgdon or otherwise. The Hodgdon data list velocities for two charge weights -- the lowest and the highest -- you may NOT assume that there are perfectly equal divisions between the top and bottom load velocities per charge weight. So unless your charge weight happens to be the lowest or highest charge weight of the window, and that corresponding velocity equals a hair under minimum power factor (and neither of those is the case), you can't claim that you're using load data that's a hair below minimum power factor. And even if you could, the load data never lines up perfectly anyway, so it's not a very useful idea to begin with. And even if it were, YOU aren't using the same bullet in the load data, so such a statement wouldn't be very useful anyway.
What you want to do is say, "I'm looking at Hodgdon's load data for Bullet X, which has a charge window of 3.x - 4.x, and these current loads are using 4.xgr. And, really, until you get these properly chronoed, there's nothing going on here regarding velocity except guessing.
If I were getting sooty "burn" marks on the outside of the case at a powder charge of 4.0, I would go ahead and increase the charge weight to 4.2 and see if that fixes it. As Wobbly said, those sooty burn marks are the result of your not getting a good pressure seal, and if you're not getting a good pressure seal, you're not close to the top of SAAMI standard pressure, and you can bump up .2gr without worry.
We need to see pictures to evaluate your crimp situation. You need to get your chrono into play to see what your bullets are doing. ;)
-
Sorry, not "giving me a bulge at the base", but having a natural bulge at the base that then tapers to the crimp. He showed me one of his reloads. It had a bulge at the base of the bullet, but the thickness of the bulge didn't go all the way to the case mouth. My reloads have the bulge that is even in thickness all the way from the base to the case mouth. Thanks.
Pardon my French, but this guy is an idiot if he doesn't understand that different brand dies will size and crimp in highly different ways. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.
Some dies size with a tapered case, as per the SAAMI spec for 9x19 Luger. Some dies size with a (easier to manufacture) straight wall sizing die, so of course the base of the bullet will show up much more clearly in the finished product. Then some fall between these extremes. Each method has good points and bad.
So is he saying that all factory ammo with the tapered case is loaded incorrectly ?? What are his credentials for making such a statement ?? Some investigation will probably reveal that while competent, he's used only one brand of die his entire career, has no background in design or engineering to understand the various methods and options, and has a closed mind about new ideas.
Historically speaking, this closed mind "my way or the highway" just never seems to hold up.
I'm off my soap box now. :P
-
Sorry, not "giving me a bulge at the base", but having a natural bulge at the base that then tapers to the crimp. He showed me one of his reloads. It had a bulge at the base of the bullet, but the thickness of the bulge didn't go all the way to the case mouth. My reloads have the bulge that is even in thickness all the way from the base to the case mouth. Thanks.
Pardon my French, but this guy is an idiot if he doesn't understand that different brand dies will size and crimp in highly different ways. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.
Some dies size with a tapered case, as per the SAAMI spec for 9x19 Luger. Some dies size with a (easier to manufacture) straight wall sizing die, so of course the base of the bullet will show up much more clearly in the finished product. Then some fall between these extremes. Each method has good points and bad.
So is he saying that all factory ammo with the tapered case is loaded incorrectly ?? What are his credentials for making such a statement ?? Some investigation will probably reveal that while competent, he's used only one brand of die his entire career, has no background in design or engineering to understand the various methods and options, and has a closed mind about new ideas.
Historically speaking, this closed mind "my way or the highway" just never seems to hold up.
I'm off my soap box now. :P
Yeah, I see where you guys are coming from. I picked up and looked at a couple handloads that shooters racked out of their guns when they were finished shooting stages. They looked pretty much like mine in terms of crimp. I will leave my crimp die alone for now.
-
Here's my question: what was increasing your crimp supposed to fix to begin with? What problem was he responding to?
-
Here's my question: what was increasing your crimp supposed to fix to begin with? What problem was he responding to?
I was meaning to call him and ask him that today. Hahaha
-
Okay, you don't have to, then. He was trying to be helpful by encouraging you to make a "correction" to your ammo so that it would look exactly like his, which isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen. Feel free to ignore his suggestion. ;)
-
Feel free to ignore his suggestion. ;)
I already have !! ;D
Hoss is using a Dillon SDB, which has only one set of dies available in the entire Free World. What was he supposed to do, go to his local machine shop and start ordering up made-to-order parts based on a casual conversation ??
I also work a lot with vintage motorcycles. On those forums there's always some Yahoo suggesting that you MUST install a new $500 such-and-such, contrary to the evidence of the bike running just fine for the last 60 years on what it already has. Amazing how ready others are to spend your money !
;)
-
Hoss you weren't talking about the IDPA match at GA Firing Line were you? There was a new guy at the match shooting a P01 with what looked like acme 124s.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hoss you weren't talking about the IDPA match at GA Firing Line were you? There was a new guy at the match shooting a P01 with what looked like acme 124s.
That's me. Mr Hoss.
-
So why not put your locale in your profile ?
Heck, if I'd have known that I would have ridden over and we could have tweaked your machine together.
;)
-
After shooting IDPA last night, the gun wasn't all that dirty. I'm still loading a hair under minimum power factor according to Hodgdon data. I didn't inspect my brass this time, because I forgot to.
One of us is confused.
Hodgdon doesn't list their load data by Power Factor. They simply have a Starting Load and a Max Load. If you mean you are loading under the Starting Load, then no wonder you're having trouble.
I need my coffee !
-
After shooting IDPA last night, the gun wasn't all that dirty. I'm still loading a hair under minimum power factor according to Hodgdon data. I didn't inspect my brass this time, because I forgot to.
One of us is confused.
Hodgdon doesn't list their load data by Power Factor. They simply have a Starting Load and a Max Load. If you mean you are loading under the Starting Load, then no wonder you're having trouble.
I need my coffee !
Sorry, you're right. I should not have alluded to Hodgdon data containing anything about Power Factor. I've just been experimenting with everything from the starting load to a tenth or couple tenths of a grain above starting load. I have yet to load anything with a 4.1 powder charge or above. I need to order more Acme bullets before I can start doing that. Thanks for your help, Wobbly.
-
I've just been experimenting with everything from the starting load to a tenth or couple tenths of a grain above starting load.
Ah ! Now it's clear. Thanks. ;)
-
Sorry, not "giving me a bulge at the base", but having a natural bulge at the base that then tapers to the crimp. He showed me one of his reloads. It had a bulge at the base of the bullet, but the thickness of the bulge didn't go all the way to the case mouth. My reloads have the bulge that is even in thickness all the way from the base to the case mouth. Thanks.
Pardon my French, but this guy is an idiot if he doesn't understand that different brand dies will size and crimp in highly different ways. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.
Some dies size with a tapered case, as per the SAAMI spec for 9x19 Luger. Some dies size with a (easier to manufacture) straight wall sizing die, so of course the base of the bullet will show up much more clearly in the finished product. Then some fall between these extremes. Each method has good points and bad.
So is he saying that all factory ammo with the tapered case is loaded incorrectly ?? What are his credentials for making such a statement ?? Some investigation will probably reveal that while competent, he's used only one brand of die his entire career, has no background in design or engineering to understand the various methods and options, and has a closed mind about new ideas.
Historically speaking, this closed mind "my way or the highway" just never seems to hold up.
I'm off my soap box now. :P
I think I may be offended! Let me check.
-
So, for those of us that were curious, I asked the gunsmith why I should have the crimp that he has. His response was proper feeding and ensuring that the bullet does not push back into the casing, shortening OAL and increasing pressures. Not that it matters, because I'm not near max load, but I was fairly certain that the resizing of the case provides the most case neck tension that keeps the bullet at a consistent OAL during the firing and autoloading process. I will continue to load with the SDB with the crimp die crimping to .378" at the very edge of the case and just enough to remove the case flare and allow good feeding. I have yet to have a hiccup after hundreds of handloads *knock on wood*
Thanks for all your help, guys. ;D
-
So, for those of us that were curious, I asked the gunsmith why I should have the crimp that he has. His response was proper feeding and ensuring that the bullet does not push back into the casing, shortening OAL and increasing pressures.
Proper feeding comes from having a dimension smaller than the maximum dimension of 0.380" which is sited in your reloading manual. You are presently 0.002" smaller than that. The only true test is "does your ammo feed well ??" I suspect it does.
If it does indeed feed good, then 'don't try to fix what ain't broke' !! ;D
Not that it matters, because I'm not near max load, but I was fairly certain that the resizing of the case provides the most case neck tension that keeps the bullet at a consistent OAL during the firing and autoloading process. I will continue to load with the SDB with the crimp die crimping to .378" at the very edge of the case and just enough to remove the case flare and allow good feeding. I have yet to have a hiccup after hundreds of handloads *knock on wood*
Close, but not quite. Think about this....
The Sizing Die does indeed reduce the exterior diameter of the brass case. But, each case has a different wall thickness. Wall thickness varies from brand to brand, but might also vary within lots of the same brand. So how can you squeeze the outside of the brass and know for sure where the inside diameter (which does all the bullet holding) will end up ??
Answer: You can't possibly know.
Therefore, the Sizing Die takes the exterior of the brass case smaller than needed !! Then in a secondary action, the Expander Die comes along and expands the interior of the case to the correct internal diameter. You can't possibly get correct bullet holding ability without the correct internal diameter.
In a lot of die sets the Expander Die is a separate die or die station. On all Dillon equipment, including the SDB, the Expander function for pistol brass is built into the lower portion of the Dillon Powder Funnel.
[img]http://ultimatereloader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/expanders-side-by-side-500.jpg[img]
The object is to size the interior of the case to 0.002" smaller than a jacketed bullet. It's that "press fit" of the bullet into the case that does all the holding. In other words 0.355" - 0.002", or 0.353". Now if you'll carefully measure the tip of your Powder Funnel, I think you'll find that it measures 0.353" and that's why.
? So if you're using lead bullets, it's an even tighter fit! This because you're pressing a larger bullet into the same size case mouth.
? If you're bullets aren't being held very well, then check the size of your Expander Die and not the Taper Crimp setting.
Follow all that ?
;)
-
Good.
First, crimping past zero, by which I mean you have done more than just remove the flare of the case mouth for bullet seating, does not provide more case tension. That sort of crimp works as a mechanical lock. There's a groove in the bullet that the case mouth is bowed into. The bullet won't move forward or backward because the case mouth is in its way. This is a good thing when you're dealing with heavy recoiling rounds where the bullets might slip forward or backward in their cases under recoil. If you'll imagine a .357 magnum or .44 magnum revolver, which headspace on the case rim, when those rounds go off, the stout recoil knocks the gun back, and the cylinder yanks back on the other cartridges by the case rim at the rear. That massive bullet resists being moved (thanks, Isaac Newton) when the case is yanked backward away from it. If there's only a taper crimp, and you're relying on case tension to hold the bullet in place, that bullet may slip the case tension for a fraction of a moment, and move forward in the case. After five shots, that sixth round may have had the bullet slip all the way out, or far enough forward that it pokes out of the front of the cylinder and binds the cylinder. So for those sorts of loads, you want a roll crimp, which crimps past zero, literally puts the case mouth in the way, so the bullet can't move forward or backward.
Second, in a pistol that is supposed to headspace on the case mouth, like most of your automatic pistol rounds, there is a lip/rim/shoulder in the chamber upon which the casemouth is supposed to catch and headspace. If you crimp past zero, it screws up the headspacing by effectively shortening the case length. The case mouth is still there, but it's been bowed inward where it won't catch on that lip the way it is supposed to.
So, again, GOOD. Don't listen to that guy.
-
Also, everything Wobbly said. ;)
-
Ran out of Small Pistol Primers. Used 70 Federal GM205M rifle primers (found in the basement) in a reduced load. All of them shot fine without any need for double strikes.
The LGS only had CCI Small Rifle Primers, so I bought a box of them. I guess this means "Back to the drawing board"
Is there anything I should watch out for when loading Small Rifle Primers? Should I do a different ladder load? What I did at first was a 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 4.1 ladder load with small pistol primers and Hodgdon Universal. None of the loads showed any signs of over pressure on the brass or primers. I settled on 3.9
What kind of ladder load should I do with small rifle primers and Hodgdon Universal? I'm still using the Acme 124 RN seated at 1.075"
Thanks for helping this Greenhorn, guys. :)
-
Small rifle primers will physically load just like the small pistol primers. No probs there.
If you have velocity data on previous loads, then drop back to your lowest recorded load and use the rifle primers. If there is no more than ~10 fps difference, then you can assume there is little or no difference in primers. Whatever happens, try to equate the load with pistol primers to a load with rifle primers so you can develop a rule of thumb for your type shooting.
;)
-
Hello, friends and Merry Christmas!! Before heading over to my family's house I decided to make the most of my free time by reloading. This batch was 175 rounds with the same old 124gr RN from Acme and 4.0gr of Hodgdon Universal Clays. I had about 7 rounds out of that batch fail the plunk test in my SP-01. My COAL is averaging at 1.078" with the Xtreme brass cartridges reading around 1.070", curiously enough. Anyways, 6 out of 7 of these cartridges that failed the plunk test were Winchester brass with, IIRC, Glock primer strikes on them. There were a few cartridges out of my batch that barely caught the rifling with a modicum of resistance, so I felt that was "good enough" and gave them a pass. Is that an ignorant thing to do? Anyways, I'm not sure if I'm still loading too long or if there other factors that playing into my failure rate. Thanks so much for all your wisdom and enjoy all the time with your family!
PS I found my first completed cracked case, which happened to be Blazer Brass. :)
-
If you have 'some' loads engaging the rifling at your chosen OAL, then yes, you need to load shorter.
It also sounds like you have an excessive spread in your OAL's. You speak of an average, and mention .008 less. What's the deviation over 1.078?
Not trying to be preachy, but you need to tighten things up.
-
There were a few cartridges out of my batch that barely caught the rifling with a modicum of resistance, so I felt that was "good enough" and gave them a pass. Is that an ignorant thing to do?
With respect to this comment, every round I plunk test gets fully rotated while in the chamber and I periodically make sure the chamber is free of any debris. When I encounter some rounds that barely contact the rifling at a certain point in rotation, I deem it harmless. This is why I am asking you knowledgeable fellas if that is a bad policy. :)
-
If you have 'some' loads engaging the rifling at your chosen OAL, then yes, you need to load shorter.
It also sounds like you have an excessive spread in your OAL's. You speak of an average, and mention .008 less. What's the deviation over 1.078?
Not trying to be preachy, but you need to tighten things up.
I give my Dillon press the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, I'm not always confident in the quality of the Acme coating. On some of them, there are high spots I can visually see and feel with my fingers. I'm not sure why cartridges with Xtreme brass are a tinge shorter...
I haven't measured all of them to determine a standard deviation.
Edit: if I had to guess, my deviation is about 0.002"
-
If you have 'some' loads engaging the rifling at your chosen OAL, then yes, you need to load shorter.
It also sounds like you have an excessive spread in your OAL's. You speak of an average, and mention .008 less. What's the deviation over 1.078?
Not trying to be preachy, but you need to tighten things up.
I give my Dillon press the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, I'm not always confident in the quality of the Acme coating. On some of them, there are high spots I can visually see and feel with my fingers. I'm not sure why cartridges with Xtreme brass are a tinge shorter...
I haven't measured all of them to determine a standard deviation.
Edit: if I had to guess, my deviation is about 0.002"
I give my Rockchucker a squirt of oil once in a while, but it otherwise gets no benefits. ;D [weak attempt at humor]
So if you can be .002 long, and .008 short then your deviation is .010. If your bullets, or the coating, is touching the rifling at only .002 long then you didn't reduce enough from your pushtest result to allow for deviation.
Did you do a push test with that bullet, and what were the results?
I went back to the beginning of this thread, and you were having the same issue at 1.095 OAL. I'm guessing your target is 1.075 now, and you're still having a similar issue.
Something isn't right.
-
Something isn't right.
Well, there doesn't seem to be a consistent correlation between length and passing/failing the plunk test. For example, a few of my failures are 1.072" and you can't turn them while they're in the chamber and they don't freely fall out. However, the vast majority of my rounds are 1.078" and they pass the plunk test with flying colors.
-
So you have done the push test correctly and deducted .010-.015 from what you got and find that you are getting some failures.
I would suggest that you take one of those failures and color the whole thing with a magic marker from the nose of the bullet to the base of the case. Then take that, put in your barrel and spin it around. When you take it out you will see that the marker got rubbed off where it was hitting in the chamber.
Where did it get rubbed off?
Picture would be helpful.
-
Something isn't right.
Well, there doesn't seem to be a consistent correlation between length and passing/failing the plunk test. For example, a few of my failures are 1.072" and you can't turn them while they're in the chamber and they don't freely fall out. However, the vast majority of my rounds are 1.078" and they pass the plunk test with flying colors.
Like I said...
Try nicky's suggestion.
-
I would suggest that you take one of those failures and color the whole thing with a magic marker from the nose of the bullet to the base of the case. Then take that, put in your barrel and spin it around. When you take it out you will see that the marker got rubbed off where it was hitting in the chamber.
Where did it get rubbed off?
Picture would be helpful.
^^ This is the answer. ^^
? Lead is ALWAYS more trouble. Go back to plated or jacketed and work out your process issues.
? The SDB needs lubrication on all the linkage pivot positions in and around the bottom of the press. The one SBD I purchased and re-furbished had galled aluminum to steel in that area. A couple of drops of synthetic motor oil each month, or a shot of CLP will do the trick. I got so tired of lubing my 550 that I converted it to grease.
;)
-
I will report back later with my findings. Thanks for the help, guys.
-
I re-seated some of them 0.008" shorter and that seemed to fix the problem for a lot of them. I also ran out of Universal Clay powder, so I just went out and bought some TiteGroup. I have heard all about the sharp pressure curves and what not, but I'm assuming I'll be fine as long as I exercise caution. I plan on doing a ladder load of 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, and 4.0. With the same bullet this time seated to 1.070". Any advice? Thanks, guys.
-
It's not the press and it's not the gun....
? ACME makes five different 9mm bullets from 122gr up to 125gr. Are yours the ones they call "124gr RN-NLG" or what ?? We need exact information on the bullet.
(http://www.acmebullet.com/image/cache/data/9mm%20124%20A+-230x230.JPG)
? Secondly, take your caliper and measure the diameter of the bullet with the thick portion of the blade running along the length of the bullet. That way you'll avoid any low spots and get a realistic picture of their average diameter.
I think you simply got some bullets running .357/.358" and the full diameter is wedging into the freebore. That will not hurt you; that's not an issue. As long as the ogive is out of the lands of the rifling, then you'll be OK. I also think that larger diameter explains why some of these fail the spin test.
That's a very shallow ogive. You should be able to load those at 1.130" or so.
;)
-
Hossman, for your reading pleasure, I just now went through my process again to determine OAL for the ACME 124gr RN-NLG and my CZ-75 ShadowLine. I loaded a dummy round (resize case, flare, seat, crimp), then seated .005 deeper, deeper, deeper, until it would plunk and spin freely. It was NOT spinning freely at 1.079. It WAS spinning freely at 1.074. To determine a working OAL, the recommended reduction from the maximum is .015. I typically do a reduction of .010. In the past, I have loaded this bullet to 1.060 or 1.065, so it appears my OAL determining process today lines up nicely with the first time I loaded this bullet however long ago.
You, however, were loading this bullet to 1.078. My ShadowLine is a little more short-throated than most, so it's not uncommon for people to load the same bullet a touch longer than what I load, so a little variation doesn't surprise me. However, it's your results that matter, and your results are telling you that 1.078 is too long. It's THAT simple.
I don't know that your arbitrarily knocking off .008 to get it down to 1.070 is the right decision here. YOUR original process was in one way or another wrong. My recommendation is that you do it again. Determine your maximum OAL by one of the methods available, THEN knock off .015. Let THAT be your working OAL. If that turns out to be 1.070, great. If not, also great. I would just redo the whole process so that you have a more complete vision of what's going on. ;)
-
Hossman, for your reading pleasure, I just now went through my process again to determine OAL for the ACME 124gr RN-NLG and my CZ-75 ShadowLine. I loaded a dummy round (resize case, flare, seat, crimp), then seated .005 deeper, deeper, deeper, until it would plunk and spin freely. It was NOT spinning freely at 1.079. It WAS spinning freely at 1.074. To determine a working OAL, the recommended reduction from the maximum is .015. I typically do a reduction of .010. In the past, I have loaded this bullet to 1.060 or 1.065, so it appears my OAL determining process today lines up nicely with the first time I loaded this bullet however long ago.
You, however, were loading this bullet to 1.078. My ShadowLine is a little more short-throated than most, so it's not uncommon for people to load the same bullet a touch longer than what I load, so a little variation doesn't surprise me. However, it's your results that matter, and your results are telling you that 1.078 is too long. It's THAT simple.
I don't know that your arbitrarily knocking off .008 to get it down to 1.070 is the right decision here. YOUR original process was in one way or another wrong. My recommendation is that you do it again. Determine your maximum OAL by one of the methods available, THEN knock off .015. Let THAT be your working OAL. If that turns out to be 1.070, great. If not, also great. I would just redo the whole process so that you have a more complete vision of what's going on. ;)
Awesome, thanks so much!
-
I have had better luck with 1.065". I have a very small pile of bullets on my reloading table that I have visually noticed that they have high spots. Most of those plunked and rotated at 1.065". Soon, I'll figure out what OAL those really nasty bullets plunk at. Lol.
On another note, I didn't need a chrono to figure out what was making Power Factor with my new loads using Titegroup. 4.0 grains was the first charge to break the sound barrier in my ladder load. Had a nice little *crack* to it. :)
-
With 4.0 of Titegroup with that bullet at 1.160, I averaged 1094, with no single shot higher than 1105, so one or two tenths of a grain of shy of the sound barrier.
You also don't want to be near the sound barrier. Bullets experience significant turbulence, affecting accuracy negatively, while in the trans-sonic range, which runs from 20-30 feet/sec below the speed of sound to 20-30 feet/sec above the speed of sound. I treat 1090 as a hard ceiling for minor loads, and I prefer to keep the average under 1080.
If I wanted to run TG with that bullet for 9mm minor in competition, I would test at 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 for accuracy, then use the the most accurate load.