racer-x

Classified
  • Content count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About racer-x

  • Rank
    Finally read the FAQs

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tulsa, OK
  • Real Name
    Jay Mackey

Recent Profile Visitors

212 profile views
  1. Final thought here... Your cases with very flattened primers, primer flow and peened head stamp markings is a direct indication of a dangerous CHAMBER PRESSURE. PF is irrelevant to whether or not the load is safe. - these pressure signs indicate you are very close to a destructive event... maybe a case separation or rupture, maybe something much worse. PF (does not equal) CHAMBER PRESSURE PF is (velocity x projectile weight). CHAMBER PRESSURE is the pressure exerted within the chamber when the cartridge is fired. Within normal / safe operating ranges, these two usually increase together while increasing powder charge (i.e. increased powder charge=increased velocity=increased PF=increased CHAMBER PRESSURE). However, as you continue to increase the powder charge within the same cartridge volume, at some point this may not hold true (lots of variables). Increased powder charge may result in no increase or a reduction in velocity (same or reduced PF). CHAMBER PRESSURE is most likely to increase. It seems that you may be in this region based on what your primers look like, or that the batch of powder you have is not a good match for your requirements. Either way, the safest course of action is to step your powder charges down 10-20% and work up the load in this gun again with this batch of powder.
  2. Looking good!
  3. Do the plunk test. You need to 'know' your cartridges are fitting correctly in the chamber. I absolutely agree with the comment to STOP. I would not fire another one of these loads in your gun.
  4. If you are not using this side for seating the MG JHP's, you will seat many crooked. I put it in wrong on accident after cleaning my dies & reloader a while back and had many that were crooked and would not pass case gauge. Fixed 100% with this side contracting bullets. Pull it out and test fit a bullet against each side... you will see this side is a proper centered fit while the other side just doesn't fit at all.
  5. Are these compressed loads? I ask since you had FTF's and a round longer than your chamber/throat would cause that as well. Compressed loads can elongate without the correct case tension. Have you verified all OAL's after loading? I've heard of people discovering their compressed loads had grown some after a few weeks/months, but were OK right after loading. Can you do a plunk test with your bullet and brass to determine the longest OAL before bullet contacts the throat? Should be able to fully insert, spin and fall freely from your barrel. If not, cartridge is too long or something else is wrong with case. Also, I really recommend working up to your load in steps. It is possible that you are well past safe pressures, even though you are only at 170PF. I've experienced a point with a few powders where increasing the powder charge will not increase velocity, and then increasing even more the velocity goes down some. For example, it would be good to chrono 9, 9.2, 9.4 & 9.6 gr charges all at same OAL. And lastly, can you verify the actual weight of your bullets? If they are heavier than you think...
  6. Use the smaller side of Dillon seating insert for MG JHP's. Facing up in pic below with the ring around it.
  7. No spidey senses I can also hear my cartridges advancing in the magazine each shot (double-plugged with the volume at max on Pro Ears)... The whistling sound and gas in my face with this load, in this gun was distinct every shot (CK Thunder - 3 holes in barrel, 3 chamber comp). Sound was not there with the WAC loads I was going back to back with. Not sure I would hear it without Pro Ears though. The 172PF HS-6 115 load had less vertical dot movement and hit noticeably harder in the hand (compared to WAC load). Strange to me was that the 172PF HS-6 and WAC loads with 124's performed nearly identical. I've shot a bunch of WAC in the last year, and overall I like it for 9major. Need to shoot HS-6 more to get a feel for if its 'dirty' critique is any issue for me. So far, that doesn't seem to be a problem. Glass on my RTS2 is barely dirty after 200 round practice. When cleaning gun after, I found no grit, just some smoky residue inside slide and upper frame area. Doesn't seem any dirtier than WAC really. You make a good point in that relatively big differences between loads is still a very small part of the whole shooting equation. There is no magic powder, load, bullet or gun that will make you a GM. Best to find a reliable load that you like in your gun and get used to it. Training, knowing your gun, and reliability are where it's at.
  8. Finally got to shoot some more 115's with HS-6 at 172ish PF. Very, very nice. Gun is flat and dot is quick and right back where it started. 8.60 gr HS-6 for 1499fps MG115JHP @ 1.135 OAL Interesting to note was the sound. With my Pro Ears electronic muffs, I can hear the gasses whistling through the barrel holes & comp significantly more than the same PF WAC load. Can also feel more gas in my face & hair. Only other load I've felt * heard the gas whistle with in this gun is with 3N38.
  9. Full 9mm case of W572 is around 11 gr. I haven't tried 572. Found this in a BE post. Compared to 12.3gr WAC to fill up a 9mm case.
  10. That's me... you ignored ! I don't like to lay any blame before having a chance to dig in and figure out the root cause. The gun that failed me Sunday is a month old CK Thunder with the original Aftec extractor. Instructions from CK are to run it with only 1 spring installed in rear hole for around 5000 rounds, then add the second (broken in spring up front, new in back). My gun had around 1300 flawless rounds through it (still 1 spring as advised) when it just stopped extracting. No warning, done. This is the first match I haven't finished due to gun failure that I can remember. Pretty frustrating. My gun failed on Sunday because the Aftec cracked (in front of the front spring hole). Zero tension. I generally run the extractor that my gunsmith installs (believes in & supports) and have had Aftecs in 3 other open guns with no failures to extract. Also have many, many more rounds down range with regular correctly tuned extractors (EGW & STI) and very few issues. Regular spring extractors do need to be re-tensioned once and in a while, but I've never had one crack and fail completely either. Not sure my failure in a match was preventable, extractor tension was perfect before match. Its a good idea to check extractor tension whenever you detail clean your slide. Extractor should hold a cartridge on breech face with just a little effort to remove. I have a spare Aftec in my range bag now; should have been there already. Also, Aftec shipped me a replacement yesterday after speaking with them on the phone. Great support.
  11. 124 & 115 Montana Gold JHP's. Yes, all loads worked up to in steps using chrono while watching cases & primers for pressure signs. I've run long 9major loads for years in my previous open guns. My current CK Thunder has a very short throat and PVD barrel ( 2 different regular tool steel throaters didn't even leave a mark). Plunk testing this barrel with these MG-JHP's contact throat with a 1.145 OAL. I'm waiting on a PT&G carbide throater that should be hard enough to do the job.
  12. I've shot a few hundred rounds of HS-6 loads now and really like them with 115's - best dot tracking I've seen with my gun so far. The gun was a little dirtier after the HS-6 session (compared to my WAC or 3N38 loads), but it didn't seem detrimental to the gun. Was like a super fine mist or soot with no chunks that I found. I'd like cleaner, but so far this seems quite acceptable. Until I get the barrel throated properly for longer OAL's, I will probably stick with HS-6 & 115's. I'll give the 3N38 another try when I can load longer. Trying to keep those loads under 1.145 is a chore (where bullet contacts throat in my gun) - the bullets tend to push back out a little from the compressed charge. Even with 3n38's relatively forgiving nature, I do not want to risk the pressure of bullets starting out pressed into the throat.
  13. Not sure if you are referring to this thread or not? We all agree that using slow powders for 9 major loads is best. My point with this thread is that the very definition of 'slow' is elusive - it depends. I'm not looking at the burn rates to come up with a load, but searching for the best candidates for my load development. Find the slowest powder that makes major PF reliably, performs well and with minimal bad tendencies. Speaking of bad tendencies, I Just got back from my first day at the range with AA#7 and cleaning my gun. Dirty, dirty, dirty. Gritty gunk all over. Was thinking a car wash might be the ticket (kidding). One malfunction where my trigger could not be pulled back. I want to like this powder because it's at the slow end of the spectrum, but it is too dirty to be reliable for me. It's gassy for sure, but I didn't like the dot tracking as much as other loads I've been working with either.
  14. Think you hit it on the head here. The load data we have from manufacturers is from widely different test environments in most cases. The most accurate results for me are what I gather with my equipment and loads. Good point on the HS-6 too. It performs like much slower powders in my gun (lots of gas and minimal primer flattening). That's the S7 tool steel model for $40. My PVD barrel laughs at that. When I first got this gun, I tried throating with a Clymer and then a Manson throater - both S7. Did nothing to the barrels throat. PT&G makes a carbide throater (not stocked) that is hard enough to cut PVD (hopefully).
  15. Agreed, good advice. #1 in your list is the original point of my post. What actually are the slowest powders in this working range? With conflicting burn rate charts, guidelines that are frequently inaccurate and no (reasonable) way to precisely measure pressure in a semi-auto handgun, this is answer is not simple. #2 As I found out with my latest True Blue test loads at 1.135 OAL, some powders are more sensitive to reduced OAL's than others. 3N38, WAC, HS-6, AA#7 have not flattened primers at this OAL for me in the PF's I've tested. #3 Agreed. My CK gun with the short throat and PVD barrel is a challenge here. I ordered a carbide throater, but that's 6-8 weeks custom build and $$. #4 absolutely. So following your prod ( ) on AA#7, I got a pound today and worked up a load. I've always heard AA#7 was dirty & gritty... yes it is. Shoots nice. Think I still like HS-6 best though. PF's of my HS-6 & AA#7 loads weren't both at 172 tonight, so my comparison isn't done yet. AA#7 is THE slowest powder on our list, with THE largest charge volume / PF and also recommended by Schuemann. My primers at 175PF with 124's looked just like the primers for my 175PF WAC and HS-6 loads. Slight flattening, but not bad at all. Maybe there is a more pronounced difference at longer OAL's? Also, out of curiosity I calculated that reducing the OAL from 1.175 to 1.125 results in an 11.9% reduction in a 9MM's case volume (using MG124JHP's). Not a huge number, but pressure curves can be very non-linear. Certainly best to load as long as possible.