smallshot13

OK, but we are still speaking in subjective terms. It would help to clarify the problem I have if you could measure your two year old RCBS dies from top of thread to base of die. That will tell me if the problem is new RCBS die configuration, or my particular LNL AP press.

59Bassman; that is a possibility. I measure my Lee sizer 1.82" from top of threads to bottom of die, and the RCBS 1.75". As I indicated, I have used the Lee die set for more than 3 years, with the lock ring all the way to the to and just a thread or two engaged, just toudching the shell plate of the LNL AP. i mistakenly assumed that the RCBS dies would be longer but no shorter. If someone can measure their RCBS sizing die top of threads to bottom of die, and post here,we may all learn something

Thanks for the comments. I have had no trouble with my Lee dies on the LNL up to this point,even if they are a little short. Somehow bent a decapping pin, so I thought it time to buy some better dies (along with replacement decapping pins for the Lee). Made the mistake of getting the RCBS dies assuming that they would certainly be a little longer than Lee's, not shorter. I could make these RCBS dies work with some effort, and lock rings that can't be locked accept against the die itself, but why bother. I plan on returning them and getting Hornady sizing and seating dies, and possibly a taper crimp die as well. The two Hornady dies, sizer and seater are just a few dollars more than the RCBS 3 die set, which includes an expander that I won't use on the LNL AP because I successfully use the PTX.

Just purchased new 9mm RCBS 3 die carb TC set because my Lee dies were just a little too short for my LNL AP. The RCBS sizing die is shorter than the LEE sizing die. Threads on the RCBS are two threads longer, but the to get it to contact the shell plate on the LNL AP, the lock ring is engaging about 1 1/2 - 2 threads at the top. I don't believe it is sizing as much of the case as the LEE. Has anyone experienced this? I bought them because the Lee's are too short, and these RCBS's seem as short or shorter when properly set up.

I have an LNL, and I run it set up like this with Lee 4 die sets in 9mm, 38/357 and .45: 1. Size 2. Hornady Powder drop with expander insert 3. Lee powder through expander (see explanation below) 4. Bullet Seat 5. Taper Crimp (except for 38/357) The powder through expander in position 3 has a wood dowel placed in it with a rubber O ring that I use as a powder cop die. It works great, plus I can set a little more case belling as I need it for changing bullet OD. Been using it this way for a year now, and never a problem. Oh, I also have a rubber band tensioner running from the powder drop to the sizer/decapper to keep the powder drop from rotating counter clockwise and losening up. I love the LNL, but it is the only progressive I have used.

Thanks for all your replys. As before, there is a difference between jacketed and lead, coated or plated. To drive this topic to specificity, can someone provide (or point out) specific examples for jacketed bullets only, comfortably/consistently making IDPA major with Clays? It does appear that lead bullets provide more flexibility in making IDPA major with Clays, but jacketed may be marginal at the limits of the loading data. I know I must get a chrono and do the work up myself, I am just trying to decide if the odds are in my favor to be successful with this powder, or to waste my time on another. And before you respond, an answer of yes your odds are good is not going to be specific enough.

Thanks for the replys and somewhat of a confirmation. I am on the right track. I believe the difference that is shaping up is between jacketed and plated or moly lead. Jacketed means slower velocities, making it closer to the major margin. So, Clays is great for lead, and may be great for jacketed, depending on your gun. Got it.! ! !

I am confused on the use of Clays in the .45 acp. Most here sing its praises for use with 200, 230 grn, FMJ or JHP. I see data in Lee's, pg 671 for 230 grn, 3.7-4.0, for 683-732 fps; and Hodgdon on line lists 3.7-4.0, 670-732; no listing in Lyman, Speer, Hornady. Most references I see here like 3.8 grns, maybe 4.0 grns (which is max listed from sources cited) At 732fps expected vel, that's 168 power factor, barely major. I don't have a chrono at this time, so can only estimate. I've loaded 3.8 under various manufacturers 230's, (OAL 1.255) and find that OK to shoot, moderately accurate, but at 3.8, suspect they would be below major. Can someone help me out with more solid data until I can find/get chrono?

I have found that the greatest variations in OAL come from two factors: 1) as mention previously, there is a difference when the pressure of the sizing die opposite (216 degrees) is not present, there is just enough flex in the base plate to cause the OAL to be shorter, 2) consistency of stroke, yes, operator induced. Practice taught me to be cognizant of the pressure at the bottom of the stroke, making that as consistent as is practical. Loading pistol rounds may be different than your condition, so this is only my experience. I get lots of practice, as pistol punks shoot more rounds. I actually have thought about mounting a mechanical pressure guage to check consistency, but that might be overkill.

I don't have a photo, but the mod is very slight. EERW, you are probably very familiar with the slide stop pic posts over at the CZ Forum. The one I have is just the straight version. On the muzzle forward end, it is held in by the small pin, and on the breach face end, there is a small 90 bend that fits into a hole in the frame. The mod I made was to induce a very slight downward curve in the middle of it, maybe 3/64" max. Since the spring is secured at each end, that induces more pressure on the flat on the slide stop. CZ sent me a spare. I will see if I can take a pic of that unmodified, then bend as I did the other one.

Thanks for the reply. My COAL of 1.154 is derived from actual chamber fitting with the zero 115. Made up a dummy round relatively loose fit, chambered by hand (into the removed barrel), slow, low finger pressure to set just in contact with the lands. Extracted by hand, measured 1.159, (repeated a number of times) then backed off .005. All that said, it is still a good point and an easy thing to do is to shorten up a few and try them. Same loads with other powders that are not showing signs of flattening are same COAL. So, I am still searching for the cause, and the cure. Have not yet been back out to the range to try the 6.0 gr load.

Thanks G Man: Your guidance is greatly appreciated. I will follow both of your suggestions as they are factual and on-point. The information provided by others is also very valuable, as it sets context for the issue I am dealing with, so thanks to you as well.

So, consensus is building that I am well within the safe pressure limits, that I am probably crazy, and I better chrono map it. I can, and will check case volume. I will also try to grab and post a pic of the primers that I still believe are showing some flattening, once I work back up to 6.2 gr, if the 6.0gr load does not replicate the results. I will try some other brass as well. I may also try reducing crimp, but one variable at a time. It is still quite odd that my tightgroup, bullseye, AA#5, and IMR 800X loads showed no signs of primer flattening, with all other components the same.

Goneracin, that makes two of us. I don't know what I am trying to accomplish either I am just testing loads for what my pistol likes, punching holes in paper, as accurately as it can right now. Matching factory PF is probably as close to a goal as I have, other than better accuracy. Once I get a chrono and learn how to use it properly, I may trim to just above minor just for the experience. I won't try major with 115's. I just noticed this primer flattening with this particular trial load and wondered what the heck, this should not happen at this load, given the listed max load. Yes, I double checked everything, and I am getting very consistent powder throws. I even pulled several bullets and checked the powder weight to verify. I know the advice coming, get a chrono and use it; but I thought I would post the question anyway.