matt2ace

Had another discussion on this topic with my friend....he added that the choice of powder is also a factor (density, burn-rate, etc.) This is pretty complex when you think about it. I am surprised that there is not more data from mfr or even in reloading books on this topic. Perhaps the lack of info is intentional, there may be liability issues involved in publishing data on very light loads.

Mick, DCPA (www.DCPA.org) in New York State is about 2 hours from Springfield. We shoot on Sunday June 28 if you don't mind the long ride. While you are in Springfield, don't forget to make a trip to the Springfield Armory museum. One of the best museums for a shooting enthusiast. You get to see the evoluation of the 1903 rifle and the 1911 pistol with displays of eary prototypes. A great way to spend a few hours.

Glyn, Check out the USPSA page.....looks like 18 stages shot over 4 days. 5 Stages the first 3 days, 3 stages on the last day. I would estimate close to 400 rounds.

I have to agree with Bart on this one. I had a discussion with a very experience commercial reloader about loading light 44 magnum loads and he warned me against it for just the same reason as the 38sp described by Bart. As he explained it, case volume is another factor in the dynamics of very light loads. 38/357, 44, and 45LC cases are relatively high volume which provides a lot of room for powder or a lot of space for pressure to build up. The idea that a low volume of powder in a high volume case burns very different is the likely reason for these blow-ups. 44 special cases are lower in volume for just this reason, to allow for a lighter load without risk of over-pressure. For those running light 40 or 9mm loads, these cases are relatively short and low volume when compared to the calibers I cite above. Light loads in these cases still take up a reasonable precentage of overall case volume. These light loads burn much the same way as heavier loads which is why there is little concern for light loads in 9mm or 40.

I have them done by James Shanahan at APS. He does C-mores for ~$80. Grip prices on the website. He does a great job with texturing and paint. Color options and patterns are up to you. He has one option that fits right with you avatar...... http://www.advancedperformanceshooting.com/wst_page8.html

Don't forget CMJ (complete metal jacket) bullets from Montana......another alternative to JHP or IFP.

I did quick check of your classifier score using the the calculator from the website below. It is pretty close to what you will end up with from the USPSA site. 47.15% is a good solid C performance on that classifier. Way to go! Points are solid, speed will come with practice (and more practice). I recommend Steve Anderson's books for help with dry and live-fire drills. http://www.classifiercalc.com/

That's a good price, though brass is not cheap. If the gun is being sold locally, I suggest you get it to a good/trusted gunsmith and have it inspected for fit and function. If the gun gets his blessing, I think its worth the purchase. The Caspian frame is a bit narrower which makes it nice for smaller hands. As others have stated, 170mm mags are not cheap (~$170, check the forum) but they are available. Even a few $100 additional investment would still make this gun a good buy.

I had a similar problem with SPS mags. A friend recommended wrapping the mag with a strip of 800grit wet/dry sandpaper and running it through the grip several times (remove slide). This very fine sandpaper takes off any high-spots and smooths out the inside of the grip. Don't forget to blow out any removed material from the TOP of the grip. It seemed to work for me.

I tried out 3N37 for my 9mm major and found it worked quite well at 7.5-7.6gr. I switched to Silhouette based on other posting in this forum. It cost ~1/3 less and makes major with the case about 3/4 full at 7.5gr.

Where can you still shoot 115gr? I'm just returning and understood that you have to use at least a 120 or 121gr projectile now. Freddie, I think it is very similar to the 160 vs 165PF difference between USPSA and IPSC. Each organization has chosen to apply slightly different values to the minimums.

Just got back from shooting my first match with the Gans gun using my latest load (7.5gr Silhouette, 1.185 OAL, Wolf SPM primers). I inspected as many cases as I could pick up and found NONE showed any signs of bulging or over-pressure. The cases were all Remington headstamp, once-fired. I had marked may cases so it was easy to id the empties. I checked 15-20 cases from every stage.....they looked perfect! Another proof that this problem is all about the ammo and not about the gun or barrel. This ammo made 168-169PF last week using a PACT chrono.

I took some better pictures of both barrels with and without a loaded round to clear up any question that about the condition of both. They are definitely fitted differently when it comes to the area where the extactor sits. The first 3 pix are from the Gans barrel, the last 3 from the KEAL. The round appear fully supported in both bases. The AET barrels have larger chambers, they are not a tight fit for the rounds. If read the article on the Shuemann site, you will see that this is done by design as several others have posted. We can debate the differences in barrel fitting work, but neither of these barrels are hack jobs. I plan to try the heavier spring experiment when I get to the range next week.

You are incorrect........ I have done NOTHING to either gun with the exception of polishing the ramp on the KEAL gun. I stated several times in this thread that I do not hack or tune my guns. I use qualified and trusted gunsmiths to do all work. The GANs gun is brand new, just from the builder. The KEAL gun was built a year earlier and it a completely different configuration. Both of these builders have extremely good reputations for quality and integrity. To have exactly the same problem from 2 different guns, built by 2 builders is very hard to believe. I consider your comments unfair to say the least. Perhaps the pictures I have taken are not at the best angle to see how a good case fits into these barrels. I will work on a few more pix, using a loaded case to help with this discussion. I am contacting Wil Shuemann to discuss the comments by many of the posters here. I believe that it is time to get Wil's input on these barrels. If nessasary, I will send the barrels to Wil for inspection. One question I have related to firing out of battery.......if that were the case here, would I not expect to see any fired rounds show signs of bulging, no matter what PF? I have clear and extensive evidence that, with my loads, anything less than 165PF NEVER shows signs of bulging. I have inspected alteast 200 cases from my own loads ranging from 155 - 165PF without and signs of bulging. I have also shot 100 rounds of 147gr loads using Power Pistol at ~140PF without bulging. Finally, I shot 50 rounds of 124gr factory 9mm without signs of bulging. It is only when I push my loads above 165PF, using magnum primers and OAL <1.75 that I see evidence of bulging. My experience so far indicates that it is the ammunition that is the problem, not the guns. I have shot 3n37 loads using SRM primers through this gun (170+/- PF) without any signs of pressure. I will be testing ammo from others shooting a similar load to mine using Silhouette, but with SRM and SP primers to see how the cases look through these guns.

I agree with you about chrono variability......light conditions can have a big effect. A friend just build a chrono box that we will use for the next pass of testing loads. This should give us the most constant conditions for testing. In the end, I am looking to hit ~172PF to allow enough guard band. Based on all my testing to date, I do believe that I was using an over-powered load based on low velocity readings when I originally set the load up last year. Add to that the additional spike from Winchester magnum primers (WSPM) and you get way too much pressure. I never use anything other than my chrono up until recently. I have learned a lot over the past few weeks and believe I have a safe load making close the PF I want. BTW - Yea, it was scary. I am lefty so I got a full face shot of powder blast, but no fragments........lucky to say the least!

I do place the Chrony atleast 8-9ft from the muzzle. I had gotton some ERR2 readings which can occur when the muzzle blast interferes with the reading at the first sensor. The comparison we did with the PACT place both chronos 8-10ft from the muzzle. I may just be my Chrony. Move your chronograph back farther from the muzzle to make sure you're reading muzzle velocity without muzzle blast affecting your reads. Years ago I ran 2 Cronys on each side of an Oehler. Chrony-Oehler-Chrony. The difference between the 3 readouts was negligible. Less 15 fps on a 3,000 fps round.

My experience with adjusting this load implies that longer OAL does seem to help, though I believe that the primer change had a larger effect on pressure. 7.5gr seems to run 169-172PF very consistently, yet signs of over-pressure vary depending on the primer and OAL I use. Lower pressure does not imply lower impluse to the bullet. The dynamics here are much more complex including primer choice, OAL, and even case type (volume can vary by mfr). Many people are loading 7.5-7.6gr of Silhouette, but are they using magnum primers? I have pms implying that others do see similar problems that I have reported. I think this is more common than any of us believe. I prefer to run 170-172PF consistently. For major matches I use only once-fired brass with the same head-stamp which provides for much greater consistency in PF (with the same load) than the mixed cases I use for local matches and practice. I plan to continue to experiment with this load until I get the PF to where I want it without concern for over-pressure. I may have to accept some signs of over-pressure until I can get standard primers. I generally agree with the view that this bulging is happening as a dynamic part of the slide/barrel movement. Just look at the burst case, it could not occur until the round was alteast partially out of the chamber. It ruptured right at the base/rim interface and the bulge is much larger than the diameter of the chamber. Keep the discussion alive gentlemen, its very educational. If you lower the pressure you'll lower the velocity....do you really want less fudge factor than 169PF? My load has gone between 171-174 (same exact batch actually) at a bunch of matches and it went 166.1 at Nationals. Changing sizing dies isn't going to change the volume of the case any significant amount....what's .001" in volume? Even if it did make a measurable difference in volume you'd just be dropping the velocity with the pressure. In other words, you can't lower the pressure and still keep the current velocity....no free lunch Edit to add: But hey, you're making progress, which is the important thing!!!

Used a PACT chrono vs my Chrony F1 and found what I suspected....the Chrony is running on the low side for velocity readings. It was consistently 80-90FPS slower than the PACT. I am going to try a CED next to verify. I am now down to 7.5gr Silhouette (from 7.8gr) at 1.185OAL using Wolf SPM primers making 169PF with the PACT chrono. Cases look good enough to use this lot for now, but I think there is still opportunity to lower the pressures. Next step is to try ammo from a friend who is using Wolf SR primers at the same 7.5gr charge of Silhouette. I also have a standard sizer die on order which will increase case volume slightly to help reduce pressure more.

Slot arrived yesterday.............paperwork and $$$ went out this morning. Time to start planning the trip!

The parallax is significantly lower with the Barry mount.....

OK....back from the range with a positive report. Using WOLF SPM primers with 7.4 and 7.6gr at 1.175 OAL definitely improved the apppearance of the cases. Out of 100+ rounds shot, I found 3 cases showing any signs of bulging and one of the was a GECO. 7.6gr made a 168PF on this pass. The last pass with this load using WSPM at 1.7 and 1.8 OAL were at 170/171 PF......only now there is very little sign of bulging/over-pressure with either gun. I am going to move the OAL up to 1.180 to give a little more volume in the case. Just to be clear, I have done no modifications to the barrel or chamber on my own with the exception of a little polishing of the ramp on the KEAL gun. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with either gun. IF this problem was a headspace issue, it would imply that Shuemann has built 2 completely different AET barrrels over a year apart with exactly the same problem. Since I observe the same bulging problem from both guns, I really do not believe it is either gun. The load is the source of the problem. I have also received several PMs from others who have observed this same type of bulging with 9mm major shooting Silhouette and HS6 loads. I did try to push back a chambered, empty case per suggestion from OLP73 and could not see any movement towards the breechface. The case is not setting back when the gun is in full battery.....either gun. I took some more pix of a loaded round and spent cases from today. One case was slightly buldged, the other looked fine. I don't see much, if any difference in the depth of any case. See the attached pix. The GANS gun still makes 8-9pt hight PF at the same load vs the KEAL. I am going to focus on the GANs gun at this point, the KEAL is my backup and will go up for sale as I posted earlier. 7.4gr / 1.175 OAL Wolf SPM primer GANS Avg 1321, ES 40, SD 17 PF 164 KEAL Avg 1254, ES 40, SD 18 PF 155 7.6gr / 1.175 OAL Wolf SPM primer GANS Avg 1354, ES 21, SD 9 PF 168 KEAL Avg 1294, ES 28, SD 13 PF 160 Pic 1 -3 = KEAL gun: loaded case, good used, slightly bulged used Pic 306 = Gans gun: same order Finally (for now), I do have differnt ammo on the way from a friend. I have a local friend who should have his 9 major SV open gun in a few weeks. SV has recommended 7.5gr Silhouette so we will be able to compare loads in both guns. If I only had some non-magnum primers, I could clear up the impact of magnum primers on these loads. I will keep posting as I get more data..........thank you all for your help and advice. Keep it coming.

Brian....as I read this thread and your post in particular, I saw a parallel to a goal I set for myself. I found myself getting angry at other stupid drivers for doing things that either endangered my or those around me. The temptation to make a gesture or just get angry at the person was easy to give in to. I began to realize that there was zero value in getting angry, offered no real satisfaction, and usually carried over into other aspects of my life. I have decided, with mixed but increasing success, to follow the same path you are forging. I came to realize that the 'pause' is part developing these better habits. I apply the 'pause' more and more in all aspects of my life and work. I find that I gained more peace (maybe peacefullness) and balance as a result. I have to credit some of the posting on this forum for helping me along this path.

I will give it try tonight......thanks for the suggestion. Still, it is hard to believe that I have 2 guns with the same problem.

These cases are bulged as the pictures show. I did not try to push them in farther, I was only trying to illustrate that the cases could bulge out while in the chamber. I normal case does go farther into the chamber as do loaded rounds. I have never own a 1911 design in 9mm, but it seems to me that the camber is extremely short. I have a 9major EEA/Tanfoglio, if I take a spent case and put it in to the camber like in the pictures the hole case is supported even past the extractor notch. Is this how it is supposed to be in 1911?

There has been all sorts of debate about how these cases could bulge without the gun coming out of battery. I pulled apart both guns and took a couple of buldged cases and slide them into the chamber. They go in completely....yes, the fit is tight, but I did not have to push hard and could pull them out easily. I took some pix of the cases in/out of the barrels just to illustrate. This leads me to believe that it is completely possible for this problem to be over-pressure in the cases and not an out of battery situation. If the cases were bulging out due to out of battery situation, I would expect them to expand even more and not fit into the chamber at all, atleast some of the cases would not fit. I tried about 20 bulged cases and every one of them fit back into the chamber as illustrated in the pictures. The first 3 pix are a case fit into both barrels. The last 2 are a GECO (worst headstamp for bulging) in the KEAL gun barrel. Notice how the bulge in the first case is flattend on the sides. I think this is a result of the case expanding (bulging) in the chamber and flattening on to the walls before being extracted. This flattening in the bulge is what most of the cases look like (except GECO headstamp).