jmaass

Quote: from Nolan on 1:05 pm on Jan. 10, 2003 I wish Hangloader, er Handlouder, er Handloader would have done a little research before making such blanket statements. A few phone calls to RCBS, Dillon, Lee, Hornady, Midway, etc... would have straightened up the facts. I emailed Handloader, Lee, Dillon, Redding, and Hornady, and so far all but Hornady have replied to tell me they have no information on the matter. Handloader does not have a working email address listed on the web site or in their magazine, except for the marketting folk. The respondent from there said I should ask the compainies whether they sell more single-stage or progressive presses, but that is not the crux of the question nor Pearce's claim. Lee suggested I email Brian Pearce, but again no email address published.

http://www.drix.net/~w3smd/images/2003hooters.jpg

In the February 2003 issue of Handloader Magazine, on page 64, Brian Pearce makes the assertion that: "Most ammunition is loaded on single-stage presses..." This seems unlikely in this day and age. My viewpoint may be skewed somewhat by my association with local USPSA/IPSC, NRA Action Pistol, and Steel Challenge-type competitors, most of whom load and shoot from 5000 to 20000 rounds a year. None use single-stage presses, of course, and you would think that any one of them would equal the annual total number of rounds loaded by 5 or 10 average single-stage reloaders. Can anyone provide a source for this assertion? Is Brian citing the conventional wisdom of the pre-progressive days? Is there a recent industry survey somewhere?

I shoot two 9x21 Caspians, currently with 115gr JHP at power factor 182 (gun works best at old power factor). Winchester stopped making 9x21 brass a couple of years ago, but there was quite a bit in the pipeline. You can still find it sometimes. I have a few thousand new ones stashed away. I always preferfed Tangfolglio (TF headstamp) brass, as it seemed to last longer and the headstamp made it easy to separate from the (evil) 9x19 brass at the range (much of which is Winchester). I still have 2000 or so new TF brass in Tupperware storage, but no one has imported it to the USA since EAA ran out many years ago now. I had a bad experience with a large soft lot of Starline brass (I still have 1000+ rounds loaded that I cannot fire in my guns), and stocked up on Tanfoglio (TF) 9x21 and Winchester a few years ago. I've not heard of any problems in several years with Starline, but once burned, twice shy.

I like the Oehler best, but the PACT chrono (or timer with chrono option) are nice as well. The Oehler makes two measurements on each shot, so you can readily see a questionable measurement as it's made. The built-in printer is important: keeps you from spending all your valuable time scribbling in your reloading notebook (you *do* keep a reloading notebook, don't you???). There is also an optional HP printer for the PACT IV timer with chrono option, and I used it for a long while. It uses an IR link, so there are no wires between printer and timer/chrono. In general, I would pick a chrono that doesn't put all the electronics in the general direction of the path of the bullet to be measured. By all reports, all the available chronos measure within a few percent of each other, but some work with a wider range of light conditions.

Philip: 1) Try 115gr JHP (if in the US or Canada). You'll never go back to 124gr! 2) Try Vectan SP2, VV 3N38, or Hodgdon HS7, something slower than 3N37 or 4756. 3) Don't try to hug the current power factor. Find out what power factor/bullet weight your gun prefers, in terms of felt recoil and the ability to put the dot back on target for the second shot. You may find that your gun works *much* better at a 180 power factor than 160 - 165. Keep you eyes on the goal! I shot a lot of 125 gr loads using 3N37, and was very satisfied with it. I experimented with 115gr bullets, and the gun worked better. I tried SP2 and the gun worked better. The difference between the current load and the old 125gr load with 3N37 is significant in my gun, and I'd never go back (even though I have 6 pounds of 3N37 in my powder closet!). Experiment!

It is a basic rule of reloading that you should choose your powder to meet the needs of the load, not choose a load based on what powder you have available. I loaded 255gr LSWC for bowling pins several years ago to power factors 230 and above, and used them in two semi-auto 1911s and a S&W 625. Not a load I'd want to use all the time (for my sake and the life of my guns), but it scared the pins off the table! Try Universal Clays / Unique. It's a powder that's been used for years to propel heavy-bullet loads, and works well.

There is a call for Nationals courses in the November/December Front Sight (see page 23). In the case of my courses, they just got picked out of my original "Sourcebook of USPSA/IPSC Courses of Fire". I'd sent copies to John Amidon and Andy Hollar when I first "published" it.

I've used HS7 quite a bit in 9x21 with 125gr FMJ, and had no problem making 180 power factor from a 5-port hybricomp barrel with 6-port end compensator. I tried one load with 115gr loads, proved to myself that it was practical, and then went back to using SP2, my powder-of-choice. You'll find several listings for W571/HS7 loads with all bullet weights on the ".38 Super IPSC Loads List" at http://home.columbus.rr.com/jmaass/index.html.

Jody: I'm always open to adding loads to the IPSC Loads Lists, as I receive them. Loads that don't simply duplicate those already on the Lists are likely to get added quickly. The others I add as I have time. I would particularly like to add more loads for some of the newer powders, including 3N38, and the RAMSHOT powders. I have plans to do some load development again someday, when work lets up a bit. I bought 4 pounds of 3N38 when it first came out, with the expectation that it might be the new SP2, but I haven't had a chance to try it yet! Since I load to 1.250", I have more case capacity to play with. You might try 3N37 in your short space.

I've been shooting Vectan SP2 in my 9x21 Caspian guns since it became available in the USA (several years). I love it! There are a few loads for SP2 in 9x21 for 115 and 124/125 grain bullets in the "9x21 IPSC Loads List" (http://home.columbus.rr/jmaass/index.html). I've not loaded it for the "9x21 shorter" variant, and none of the listed loads are for the short OAL. If using these reported loads as reference, back off the starting spot by 15% or 20% to allow for the decreased OAL. You can also start with the published reloading data for 9mmP on the Vectan site (there's a link on the "IPSC Loads List" web page), and work up to where you want to be. SP2 is a little dirtier than the various ViihtaVuori powders, but it's a fine-grain black grunge that doesn't harden and cause problems with reliability. I've gone as many as 1000 rounds without cleaning (not recommended!). (Edited by jmaass at 5:45 pm on Oct. 14, 2002)

I have added 19 previously-unpublished courses of fire to the IPSC Resources Page. The courses, designed by John Kimball, TY-21000, have been shot at our local matches in Circleville OH over the past three years. They are in Adobe PDF format, with stage description and scoresheets. The direct link to the Courses of Fire page is: http://home.columbus.rr.com/jmaass/stage.htm

Hodgdon HS7 and (the now discontinued) Winchester WW571 are the same powder. In .38 Super/9x21, I've used HS7, and it's not too dirty, but doesn't have nearly as nice a "feel" as Vectan SP2 in high-pressure loads. .40 S&W will be different, of course. Like most slow-burning powders, HS7 is cleanest in high-pressure loads, and will likely be dirty in .40 S&W. I suggest that you try Hodgdon Universal CLAYS for your pin load. It is the same powder as Unique, and handles a wide range of heavy-bullet loads. If HS7 is available, you can certainly find Hodgdon Universal CLAYS. I have a .45ACP load using 255gr LSWC and Universal CLAYS that makes a 230 power factor in my S&W 625 and 220 power factor in my old Clark 1911. Pins shudder before the first shot!

I agree that CLAYS is a bad choice for you with 200gr LSWC...it's just too fast for the purpose. If you feel the need to stay with Hodgdon, try *Universal CLAYS*, which has the same burning characteristics as Unique (they recently announce officially that it is the same powder!). You can find a number of loads on the IPSC Loads List at: http://home.columbus.rr.com/jmaass/index.html Too many people pick a load based on what powder they happen to have on hand at the time. Eventually, that container of powder is gone, and they have saddled themselves with a lousy load! In the grand scheme of things, powder is cheap. Pick a couple of good candidates (that's where the IPSC Loads Lists can help, by telling you what other people are using), and buy a pound of each. Work up a good load for each of them in your gun, and keep a record for later, when Hodgdon discontinues Universal (can't happen? remember 452AA? WAP? TRAP 100? WSL? WW571?)

Much is to be learned by taking advantage of the experiences of others. What proved accurate for one gun may be close to optimum for yours, but at worst could provide a good starting point. Way too many variables for a cookbook approach to work. There are many sources for that. For many years, Handloader Magazine has published a Pet Loads column, and I got my reloading start poring over the many 9mmP loads there. Reloading articles (notably by Layne Simpson) include sets of data in the author's particular gun(s), although he tended to favor heavy bullets (130+) in .38 Super long after most everyone else moved to lighter weights (125 and down). The idea that putting all this information together would provide a roadmap and safety double-check was the reason that I started gathering the "IPSC Loads Lists" for my own use. I can tell for a new powder / bullet combination what has been tried, and that puts me within a few tenths of a grain of a safe load for my guns. Once you have a safe load, you can test and tweak for accuracy. The variation between guns can be amazing, though. An accurate Major load in your gun might be minor or a stinker in a friend's. That's part of what makes reloading an interesting endeavor!

Quote: from Greg G on 5:31 pm on May 29, 2002 Hi all, I've lurked on this board for a while and got some really interesting info so thanks to Brian and all who post regularly =) This may be a little off topic as it is in regard to tumbling finished ammo. I have heard/read that it may not be a great idea to tumble finished ammo for very long as it can change the size of the powder grains in the case and lead to different powder chacteristics. I don't tumble finished ammo myself but I know some who do. Is there any actual evidence showing if tumbling does effect velocity/accuracy? I guess brand of powder, powder speed, powder size, etc would also be factors Any thoughts? We just had a long discussion on this on another bulletin board at http://www.loadyourown.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000120.html My conclusion, based on my testing and testing by others, is that cleaning handgun rounds in a vibratory "tumbler" for 10-15 minutes is going to have no effect on the performance of the round. Rounds are not going to blow up in the "tumbler" (and if they did, they would not represent any kind of safety hazard). Back in 1998, rec.guns denizen Geoff Beneze decided to gather some real, rather than apocryphal, data on whether tumbling had a measurable effect on the powder in loaded rounds. He loaded rounds with flake, (Unique), Ball (W748) and extruded (IMR 4064) powders. He chronographed and retained a baseline sample of each reload. He began "tumbling" (in Dillon vibratory cleaners) the rest. He ran the "tumblers" 24/7 for **four weeks**. He removed a sample of each load at one-week intervals, and chronographed them along with rounds from the baseline control sample. None of the "tumbled" ammunition was measurably different from the control group, even after sitting in the "tumbler" for four weeks (672 hours)! He also examined the powder granuals under magnification, and could not see any difference in the visual appearance of the "tumbled" powder from the stuff in the can. Does this mean that it's safe to tumble rifle rounds using extruded powders for long periods? I dunno. Tumbling my 9x21, .40S&W, and .45ACP rounds for 10-15 minutes removes the lube for me. Not removing lube prior to firing is an actual safety issue. If anyone has *evidence* that shows a hazard to tubling live ammunition, please present it. Anyone ever had a round set off while cleaning in a vibratory "tumbler", or know anyone who has?

There are examples in the VihtaVuori Reloading Manual (even the freebie pamplets) showing the effect in varying OAL on both pressure and velocity, as well as the effect of temperature on pressure and velocity. Seating the bullet deeper in the case has a much larger change in pressure than in bullet velocity (4% vs. 0.7% for a -1% change in case volume for the example they show). Actually, I'll just reproduce the table of the example: CHANGE IN CHANGE IN VARIABLE CHANGE VELOCITY MAX PRESSURE Bullet Weight +1% -0.4% +0.8% Charge Wt +1% +0.8% +2.0% Temperature +1 degF +0.04% +0.08% Cart. Case Vol +1% -0.7% -4.0% Lots of very interesting reading in the VV loading manuals!

No promises, as I don't speak for Dillon, but every case I've heard of people sending back an entire press for service resulted in a completely updated/rebuilt press. It's easier (and likely cheaper) for them when they have to get revised parts in inventory to fit together. I had a minor problem back 2-3 years ago with my XL650, and they told me to send back the press and they would rebuild it. I was waiting for the end of the shooting season to send it, and happened to order a RL1050 (which I'd been planning on for a second press) before sending it. Long story short, I never got around to sending the XL650, as I've been loading only one caliber, and use the RL1050 for it. If I can remember what the problem was, I may still send it in... 8-)

The purpose of practice is to prepare for the "real thing", whether that be competition or self defense. You should practice with something that feels the same as your competition load so that your timing is not upset when you switch back. A 173 power factor load with lead bullets in a .45ACP gun is *not* going to unduly wear the gun out, at least not for the first 70-100K rounds! (This assumes, of course, that you are not using one of the pot-metal guns for competition.)

Iwas holding the information I had close-to-the-vest, but since none of the folks involved asked me to keep it secret... Graf & Sons (http://www.grafs.com/) has arranged to import a quantity of Vectan SP2, and they should have it in stock Now (or Real Soon Now). This was confirmed to me by people in the know both at NobelSport and at Graf & Sons. (I did an inventory, and I have 29 pounds in my powder storage spot, so I don't need any more right now for my personal use!) KBear38S, I highly recommend that your try Vectan SP2. N340 is too fast (yes, I know, SR7625 is even faster), try something much slower (in the burning rate range from WW540 to N105). People started using SR7625 after Todd Jarrett did a personal load development study of pretty much every suitable powder several years ago. He found that the burning curve of SR7625 was ideally suited to his gun with it's springs and it's compensator. Most people who have reported loads for the IPSC Loads List use loads with much slower powders, and report that this results in better compensator function and a less "abrupt" recoil.

Jim Anglin asks why I've stayed with 9x21. The answer: Why Not? 8-) When I had my first racegun built (well, the first one that wasn't stolen/destroyed by scum gunsmith Chuck Warner, Jr.), I looked at .38 Super and 9x21. This was in 1994, before the various rimless .38 Super options were available. My goals were 1) Reliability, 2) Reliability, 3) Accuracy, 4) Reliability. The 9x21 rimless case was, it's supporters argued, more reliabily able to feed in double-column magazines like my Caspian's. As my new gunsmith, Matt McLearn, had just won both the 1993 USPSA Nationals and the World Shoot with 9x21, I took his advice and had him build me a Caspian in caliber 9x21! When the time came for a second racegun in 1996, I revisited the issue of caliber. By now, Matt was selling his own rimless version of the .38 Super case, and 9x23 was just appearing. The Starline options (SuperComp and 9 Supercomp) were six or nine months down the road. I was seriously considering 9x23 for the new gun, and converting gun # 1 at the same time. I talked to Matt about it, and he asked a couple of questions: 1) Has the gun been reliable? 2) What do you expect to gain by switching to 9x23? The answers were 1) Yes; and 2) Nothing I can think of, except a wider range of powder choices. So, I stayed with 9x21. The new gun ran for 12 months firing 18,000 rounds with *four* feed failures/stoppages. Three of those occured in practice (where I don't inspect my loads as closely) and the rounds were recovered and found to be my fault (2 uncrimped, one with a crumpled case mouth. One occurred at a local club match, and I never recovered the round to find out what caused the problem. A 0.02% failure rate is pretty impressive, and I can't say I've ever regretted choosing 9x21 or Matt McLearn! Now scum gunsmith Chuck Warner, that was another matter completely!

I obtained a stock of 3N38, but haven't had a chance to do load development for it. Yes, the SP2 spillage problem has been with me from the first day I used the powder, but it is, by far, the best feeling powder I've ever tried in my 9x21 raceguns (at 182 powder factor). I put up with the spilling. I expect 3N38 will be good in my guns as well, since it's right in the burning rate range I find works well, and in a form-factor that will fit in the limited-space 9x21 case.

After the cases are resized (it's important to measure **after** resizing!), measure the length of the cases, good and bad. There will be variations in cartridge case length based on manufacturer and usage history. The Dillon press depends on the powder measure pressing down on the mouth of the case to activate the drop of powder. If you did your adjustments on a case on the long end of the variation extreme, and then encounter cases on the short end of the variation extreme, you may not properly activate the powder drop devise. Likewise, if your resizing die is overly generous and doesn't reduce the case mouth diameter enough, and if your powder drop/expander is on the smallish side, the drop may not be properly activated. Have you discussed this with Dillon, or are you "Suffering in (relative) Silence?

Vectan SP2 has become hard to find in the USA, and since it's far and away the best powder I've ever used in my 9x21 IPSC guns, I've been checking around to find out what seems to be going on. I have it on good authority that the flow will be improving Real Soon Now, with a new distributor in the USA. Now, does anyone know of a reliable source of VihtaVuori 3N38?

jhgtyre: Can you cite *just one* actual case where this was an issue in a shooting?