fully seated Federal primers

[firewood]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 9:44 PM, MWP said:

Try the .040 moons. I spent a few months with .035 and it cost me a lot of frustration. 929s headspace off of the moon, so a .005 thicker moon is equivalent to a .005 longer firing pin. That thicker moon, with the apex pin, might just solve your issues. 

 

I personally haven't used a DAA clip, but I can say that the stainless .040 TK clips are worth every penny. Might be a lot of pennies, but they're really good.

 

Ok I shot 10 full moons today (since it's about 5 degrees outside that was enough) using .040 moons and had no light strikes. This is good news. I want to repeat the exercise before I pop the cork but right now I'm happy.  Since this is my 2nd 929 and I have been using .035 moons on my other one for 2 years, the concept of them mot working on the new gun is somewhat hard to accept. But on the other hand most of my moon clips are warn out so I was going to replace them anyway.

Edited January 6, 2018 by firewood

[tomv]

Can I use my 9mm plunk gauges to check 38 short colt with?

 

[swordfish]

Definitely go thicker moons. To note: I've done two action jobs on Smith revolvers in my entire life. First one was a 627 that is silky smooth but still 7lbs. Second one was my 929, less than 7lbs and not nearly as smooth. I'm running .040 TK clips and my buddy is running shitty whatever clips in his 627. I went and primed all his brass with a hand primer and then loaded his ammo for him, and he had 1 light strike at a match last night where I had none. I've also shot a few matches and live fire with the 929 and never had an issue.

I load all my 929 ammo on a 550 (the 38SC too but prime on an RCBS single stage primer) and the 550 isn't nearly as deep it seems as the RCBS. Haven't measured. Also the 550 takes a lot more effort to seat, but I don't have the 1050 set up for 9mm right now because I'm running a bunch of .223 for 3gun. Debating on hand-seating the 929 stuff but it's a lot more work to decap on the 550 and then prime somewhere else. I should probably just set the 1050 up because it's adjustable

[MWP]

51 minutes ago, tomv said:

Can I use my 9mm plunk gauges to check 38 short colt with?

 

If you're going to shoot the short colts in a 929, sure. If a 627, the 9mm gauge won't show a bulge at the base.

[MWP]

1 hour ago, firewood said:

 

Ok I shot 10 full moons today (since it's about 5 degrees outside that was enough) using .040 moons and had no light strikes. This is good news. I want to repeat the exercise before I pop the cork but right now I'm happy.  Since this is my 2nd 929 and I have been using .035 moons on my other one for 2 years, the concept of them mot working on the new gun is somewhat hard to accept. But on the other hand most of my moon clips are warn out so I was going to replace them anyway.

Excellent. Some guns do better than others with the .035 clips. The .040 clips are 100% in everything though. 

[MWP]

50 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Definitely go thicker moons. To note: I've done two action jobs on Smith revolvers in my entire life. First one was a 627 that is silky smooth but still 7lbs. Second one was my 929, less than 7lbs and not nearly as smooth. I'm running .040 TK clips and my buddy is running shitty whatever clips in his 627. I went and primed all his brass with a hand primer and then loaded his ammo for him, and he had 1 light strike at a match last night where I had none. I've also shot a few matches and live fire with the 929 and never had an issue.

I load all my 929 ammo on a 550 (the 38SC too but prime on an RCBS single stage primer) and the 550 isn't nearly as deep it seems as the RCBS. Haven't measured. Also the 550 takes a lot more effort to seat, but I don't have the 1050 set up for 9mm right now because I'm running a bunch of .223 for 3gun. Debating on hand-seating the 929 stuff but it's a lot more work to decap on the 550 and then prime somewhere else. I should probably just set the 1050 up because it's adjustable

627 clips don't make a difference for ignition, the rimmed ammunition spaces off the rim, not the moon like 9mm and 45.

[swordfish]

3 minutes ago, MWP said:

627 clips don't make a difference for ignition, the rimmed ammunition spaces off the rim, not the moon like 9mm and 45.

ah crap. Well then it's my fault and not his crappy clips.

[Bosshoss]

44 minutes ago, MWP said:

627 clips don't make a difference for ignition, the rimmed ammunition spaces off the rim, not the moon like 9mm and 45.

Depends on the gun. The guns I build have a pretty big chamfer and headspace on the clips. They won't shoot singles without a clip anymore unless customer insists on it still working without clips which I don't understand but whatever they want. Stock gun you are correct.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Bosshoss

[MWP]

Bosshoss is correct. Very aggressive chamfer is the exception. 

 

Do you have a picture of one that deep? And what about a 929, how aggressive have you gone?

[alecmc]

2 hours ago, MWP said:

Bosshoss is correct. Very aggressive chamfer is the exception. 

 

 

 

Yup. Mine are the same.  I always windup having to send a moonclip to Chrono too. 

[tomv]

I use a Double Alpha 20 cavity plunk gauge to check my 9mm ammo. It's a lot faster than using a single. Anyone know of a similar product for .38 short colt?

[revoman]

I just use the cylinder of my revolver with the rounds already in the moon clips.

[alecmc]

6 hours ago, revoman said:

I just use the cylinder of my revolver with the rounds already in the moon clips.

 

Just dont try doing it like that at a match ;-)

 

7 hours ago, tomv said:

I use a Double Alpha 20 cavity plunk gauge to check my 9mm ammo. It's a lot faster than using a single. Anyone know of a similar product for .38 short colt?

 

I've always just used one of the TK Custom moonclip checkers as a "dual purpose " moon checker , and case gauge. Any time ive ever had a bulge or crack or other deformation in my ammo the TK Custom Moonclip checker tool has caught it 

 

https://www.tkcustom.com/products/accessories/mc-sw627x8

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by alecmc

[Bosshoss]

16 hours ago, MWP said:

Bosshoss is correct. Very aggressive chamfer is the exception. 

 

Do you have a picture of one that deep? And what about a 929, how aggressive have you gone?

Here is a picture of what I used to do. If picture is big enough you can see that the chamfer would look/be smaller without the factory step around outside of cylinder. I used to go until there was no flat between cylinders to catch the bullet nose. I still do this if customer request it on a 627. The 929 is a different animal with the Titanium cylinder. I don't chamfer the 929 with the extractor in place. I just chamfer the 929 extractor by hand and just the sides where  it is sharp.

When the 929 first came out I did some testing with customers guns brought to me for sticking cases(action work on them done by someone else) and found that when the cases were sticky it was one chamber sticking and binding up the extractor. I marked the chamber and it repeated same chamber would stick. BTW I would shoot the gun and open cylinder and push empty out of cylinder slightly with a squib rod to see if it was sticking it was always same one sticking. Checked with pin gages but really can't get a good read with a tapered cylinder. I suspect slightly undersize on that cylinder. Told them nothing I could do and suggested different powders to lower pressures some. The Ti cylinders would require a carbide reamer that would have to be custom made($$$) and have a short life.

What does that have to do with the chamfer? Well I decided that doing as deep a chamfer on the extractor as I had been was weakening it slightly and if the gun had a case sticking it might break a leg or two off the extractor if one cylinder was sticking. I still chamfer the cylinder pretty deep.

 

Also I think that it is great that a World and National Champion is active on the forum. Congratulations on a fantastic 2017 and good luck in 2018. 

 

https://i.imgur.com/fxO6Pedl.jpg[/img]

 

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Bosshoss
trying to get picture to show up:(

[tomv]

alecmc,

Thank you, this is just what I was looking for.  My gun is at TK Custom now so I'll have Tom send me one of these when he returns the gun. Shooting revolver involves a lot of brand new stuff for me. This forum has been a tremendous resource.

[MWP]

1 hour ago, Bosshoss said:

Here is a picture of what I used to do. If picture is big enough you can see that the chamfer would look/be smaller without the factory step around outside of cylinder. I used to go until there was no flat between cylinders to catch the bullet nose. I still do this if customer request it on a 627. The 929 is a different animal with the Titanium cylinder. I don't chamfer the 929 with the extractor in place. I just chamfer the 929 extractor by hand and just the sides where  it is sharp.

When the 929 first came out I did some testing with customers guns brought to me for sticking cases(action work on them done by someone else) and found that when the cases were sticky it was one chamber sticking and binding up the extractor. I marked the chamber and it repeated same chamber would stick. BTW I would shoot the gun and open cylinder and push empty out of cylinder slightly with a squib rod to see if it was sticking it was always same one sticking. Checked with pin gages but really can't get a good read with a tapered cylinder. I suspect slightly undersize on that cylinder. Told them nothing I could do and suggested different powders to lower pressures some. The Ti cylinders would require a carbide reamer that would have to be custom made($$$) and have a short life.

What does that have to do with the chamfer? Well I decided that doing as deep a chamfer on the extractor as I had been was weakening it slightly and if the gun had a case sticking it might break a leg or two off the extractor if one cylinder was sticking. I still chamfer the cylinder pretty deep.

 

Also I think that it is great that a World and National Champion is active on the forum. Congratulations on a fantastic 2017 and good luck in 2018. 

 

https://i.imgur.com/fxO6Pedl.jpg[/img]

 

 

Thanks, it's been a good run this year.

 

I like that 627 cylinder work. Maybe you could snap some pictures of the next 929 cylinder you do? I'd really like to try an aggressive one, but haven't had a spare gun lately. 

[swordfish]

1 hour ago, Bosshoss said:

Here is a picture of what I used to do. If picture is big enough you can see that the chamfer would look/be smaller without the factory step around outside of cylinder. I used to go until there was no flat between cylinders to catch the bullet nose. I still do this if customer request it on a 627. The 929 is a different animal with the Titanium cylinder. I don't chamfer the 929 with the extractor in place. I just chamfer the 929 extractor by hand and just the sides where  it is sharp.

When the 929 first came out I did some testing with customers guns brought to me for sticking cases(action work on them done by someone else) and found that when the cases were sticky it was one chamber sticking and binding up the extractor. I marked the chamber and it repeated same chamber would stick. BTW I would shoot the gun and open cylinder and push empty out of cylinder slightly with a squib rod to see if it was sticking it was always same one sticking. Checked with pin gages but really can't get a good read with a tapered cylinder. I suspect slightly undersize on that cylinder. Told them nothing I could do and suggested different powders to lower pressures some. The Ti cylinders would require a carbide reamer that would have to be custom made($$$) and have a short life.

What does that have to do with the chamfer? Well I decided that doing as deep a chamfer on the extractor as I had been was weakening it slightly and if the gun had a case sticking it might break a leg or two off the extractor if one cylinder was sticking. I still chamfer the cylinder pretty deep.

 

Also I think that it is great that a World and National Champion is active on the forum. Congratulations on a fantastic 2017 and good luck in 2018. 

 

https://i.imgur.com/fxO6Pedl.jpg[/img]

 

 

Holy shit.

I was told to do it differently, chamfering the 627 without the extractor so you could still use it without clips, and the 929 with the star in place because it was moon clips only. But that makes sense with how aggressive you're going.

 

I gotta find a better way to chamfer. Right now I'm using the Brownell's tool or whatever, but MWP suggested a dremel. It could work with the right size and shape grinding stone, but I'd have to practice a bunch before I did it on a working gun.

[revoman]

1 hour ago, alecmc said:

 

Just dont try doing it like that at a match ;-)

I agree don’t do it at the match but the night before in your hotel room. If it fits the night before it will work the next day at the match.

A supply of 75 TK Custom moon clips also helps as no reloading is done during the match ?

[MWP]

5 minutes ago, revoman said:

I agree don’t do it at the match but the night before in your hotel room. If it fits the night before it will work the next day at the match.

A supply of 75 TK Custom moon clips also helps as no reloading is done during the match ?

That's the only way to do it, I hate messing with ammo at matches, or practice. 

[revoman]

25 minutes ago, swordfish said:

 

I gotta find a better way to chamfer. Right now I'm using the Brownell's tool or whatever, but MWP suggested a dremel. It could work with the right size and shape grinding stone, but I'd have to practice a bunch before I did it on a working gun.

Sounds like you send the cylinder to Bosshoss?

[9146gt]

On 1/2/2018 at 5:04 PM, alecmc said:

 

I follow the same practice as MWP. 

 

Once you know your primers are pretty consistent, start low on the main spring tension and work your way up tightening unti they all go bang, then I give it just a touch more on the strain screw tension and lock tite it with blue. 

 

Also, i prefer to use aftermarket mainsprings ( I like the bang inc main spring ) , but plenty of people do modify their own springs in similar fashion. 

 

 

sidenote - even though it's out of reach $$ wise for alot of people, this is really where a dillon 1050 shines. Setting the primer depth on the machine makes life alot easier for a revolver shooter.

Second the 1050

Tom

[tomv]

I spoke to tech support at Dillon about six months ago and was advised by him not to buy the 1050 machine. I've been using a 550 B for years and can load about 400 rounds / hr. comfortably. I've increased the amount I shoot this year and wanted to reduce the amount of time spent at the press. The Dillon rep told me that the 1050 was a bad choice because "it's a commercial machine and only comes with a one year warranty". The productivity difference between the 550 and 650 isn't enough for me to justify the expense of upgrading to a 650 but maybe the added functionality of the 1050 warrants another look.

[alecmc]

9 hours ago, swordfish said:

Holy shit.

I was told to do it differently, chamfering the 627 without the extractor so you could still use it without clips, and the 929 with the star in place because it was moon clips only. But that makes sense with how aggressive you're going.

 

I gotta find a better way to chamfer. Right now I'm using the Brownell's tool or whatever, but MWP suggested a dremel. It could work with the right size and shape grinding stone, but I'd have to practice a bunch before I did it on a working gun.

 

Anytime I do a cylinder I use both , each has their purposes. 

Edited January 7, 2018 by alecmc

[alecmc]

3 hours ago, tomv said:

I spoke to tech support at Dillon about six months ago and was advised by him not to buy the 1050 machine. I've been using a 550 B for years and can load about 400 rounds / hr. comfortably. I've increased the amount I shoot this year and wanted to reduce the amount of time spent at the press. The Dillon rep told me that the 1050 was a bad choice because "it's a commercial machine and only comes with a one year warranty". The productivity difference between the 550 and 650 isn't enough for me to justify the expense of upgrading to a 650 but maybe the added functionality of the 1050 warrants another look.

 

Yah, Everytime I fire up my 1050 with autodrive I say what a bad choice ! 

 

The 1050 is a good option for revolver shooters because it's the only machine with the primer depth control. But, it's certainly possible to get it done with a 550/650- just might take a little bit more work and attention to detail.

 

 

You also need to remember that the machine is very costly, tool heads are expensive, caliber conversions expensive, more time to change over, and can be a little finiky. I love mine, but I also only load one caliber on it (38) on it. And that's it. 

 

 

[VanMan1961]

4 hours ago, tomv said:

I spoke to tech support at Dillon about six months ago and was advised by him not to buy the 1050 machine. I've been using a 550 B for years and can load about 400 rounds / hr. comfortably. I've increased the amount I shoot this year and wanted to reduce the amount of time spent at the press. The Dillon rep told me that the 1050 was a bad choice because "it's a commercial machine and only comes with a one year warranty". The productivity difference between the 550 and 650 isn't enough for me to justify the expense of upgrading to a 650 but maybe the added functionality of the 1050 warrants another look.

 

I have a 550 and a 650 with a bullet feeder.  I just do low volume rounds (38sp, 45aco, 10mm) on the 550 and do my practice and match 9mm ammo on the 650.  When you add the bullet feeder, the volume throughput increases dramatically.  Takes me longer to case gauge and bag a 100 rounds than to reload them on the 650 lol