racer-x
-
Posts
327 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by racer-x
-
-
Good info.
Does anybody Loctite this 1 lock screw?
Seems like a good place for a dab of 243.
-
4 hours ago, BoyGlock said:
I admit mine is a bit over crimped at .375". I used to just remove the bell in the case mouth to avoid deforming the bullet for accuracy but I experienced intermittent ftf accross 3 of my 2011s in .38sc. Not so frequent but usually comes in the most crucial matches. Recently it became a bit more frequent. A clubmate who also reloads his own .38sc noticed my dilemma and suggested to try increasing my crimp. I did and to this date I still have to see that ftf again after about 500 rnds.
Measuring crimp at the very mouth of the shell is a bit hard to be consistent. But it can be done. I do it just for comparison. I agree eyeballing it is good enough as I do it most of the time. But somebody here opined strongly against it so I took the measurement and posted it here. Otherwise Im ok how it looks.
Wow, I had almost the same experience!
I adopted my current crimping technique after multiple seemingly random FTF's in in my 38SC culminated my frustration at 2010 Nationals. My gunsmith suggested I tighten up the crimp a little (1/12 turn) and I noticed when I pulled the bullet it left an indentation ( measured .353). Have not experienced that problem again since. I shoot 6" steel at 50 frequently and groups as well from time to time to verify zero. Accuracy is absolutely NOT affected ( at least not with the MG JHP's I use).
I understand that way too much crimp reduces the hold of brass on the bullet, but I don't believe this is any factor with the level of crimp I am using. It takes a very solid blow with the kinetic puller to eject the bullet from case.
Any other reasons a very slight indentation in bullet may be a bad idea?
-
172PF loads in CK Arms Thunder 9 (PVD barrel)
Bullet - 115gr Montana Gold JHP
Primer - CCI SPP
Powder - 8.6 gr HS-6 -or- 7.4 gr WAC
OAL - 1.130
The HS-6 load feels best to me, but both are nice.
-
Many CK Open 9's come with short throated barrels - mine did.
First thing you need to do in working up a load is determine how long you can safely load OAL for YOUR guns barrel using your bullets. Do the 'plunk test'.
I shoot Montana Gold 115 & 124 JHP's in my guns. These just barely contact the leade at 1.140 OAL. I'm currently loading at 1.130 OAL to give a little clearance.
Longer loads like 1.165 OAL are definitely preferred in 9 major to increase chamber volume & reduce peak chamber pressure. But NOT if they are pressed into the leade.
Shooting longer loads like 1.165 OAL in a barrel like mine is asking for trouble including:
- increased chamber pressure
- possible failure to go completely into battery (this adds risk for case rupture or FTGB)
- possible bullet extraction when unloading chamber
To be safe, check your barrel first and be sure.
-
Trying to measure the very, very, tip edge of the brass where the brass & crimp end is pretty iffy. I do not trust that method at all.
Better is to just eyeball the cartridge, while adjusting lighting and reflection off the brass, looking for a very slight contour inwards. Hard to see if there is a little "too much" crimp like this, but you can definitely see "not enough".
Best way I found to reliably measure correct crimp is this:
1- measure bullet diameter (.355 in example picture)
2- pull a bullet from cartridge you just loaded
3- look for a very slight indentation ring in the bullet where the tip of the crimp was (tip of knife in picture).
4- measure bullet diameter at the crimp ring (.353 in example picture)
My experience is that this is best if .001-.003 less than full diameter measure (I.e. .355 - .353 = .002 ).
This method is 100% repeatable; just need a bullet puller.
-
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.
-
Looking good!
-
11 hours ago, racer-x said:
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.
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.
-
10 hours ago, racer-x said:
Use the smaller side of Dillon seating insert for MG JHP's.
Facing up in pic below with the ring around it.
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.
-
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...
-
Use the smaller side of Dillon seating insert for MG JHP's.
Facing up in pic below with the ring around it.
-
7 hours ago, Shmella said:
Wow you must have super spidey senses compared to me because In my experimenting when I first got an open gun, I couldnt even tell the difference between HS6 and Autocomp. There is a slight change in feel but IMO One isnt drastically better than the other and I certainly couldnt tell you which is which. Load them up in the same mag with the same bullet at the same power factor and dont tell me which is which and I could not put one over the other or tell you what is what and thats the honest truth. I certainly couldnt tell if more wind was blowing in my face than the other that is for sure.
I read alllllll the hype about this powder is so much different than this one and only use HS6 ect. and when I finally shot multiple different loads back to back after a lot of wasted time and effort and money, none of it mattered. I still sucked and the gun shot ALMOST the same. Im throwing this out there for the reader who reads this like I would have when I first started playing with open and spent way more time thinking about powder to use looking for the magic recipe instead of just spending my time loading a bunch of rounds with whatever powder I had (that is safe of course) and shot them.
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.
-
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.
-
11 hours ago, d_striker said:
Denser than WAC?
Can you fill an entire case and weigh it for us?
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.
-
7 hours ago, Dr Mitch said:
Aftecs are spotty and standard are extrememly reliable. Aftecs wear out, Aftecs break. Listen carefully, and you'll hear many more negative stories about Aftecs than standard extractors.
I find that standard extractors are generally very poorly tuned, if at all, hence the market for a quality-optional product like the Aftec. My Limited gun has 30,000 rounds on a standard STI extractor, tuned once by me. A local Open GM had a new Aftec fail at match on Sunday. He explained that he should have been using two springs, and DNF'd the match. I listened and ignored. Aftecs are spotty. I would never use one.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
14 minutes ago, 357SIG said:
My point is that using anything but the slowest powder is just asking for trouble and looking at burn rate charts to come up with a load is not a good idea. I've seen guys loads on this forum that exceed the charts by quite a bit with a particular powder and I'm sure you have too.
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.
-
54 minutes ago, theWacoKid said:
One of the problems with burn rate charts is how the tests are conducted. If tests are even conducted. One of the biggest variables to powder burn is pressure. Depending on test method, powders can be measured under sets of conditions that may or may not be representative of using that powder to actually propel a bullet.
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).
1 hour ago, theWacoKid said:#3 - $40 or so from Manson and on the shelf ready to ship.
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).
-
12 hours ago, theWacoKid said:
1) Slowest powder you can make work.
2) OAL. Longest you can make work.
3) Buy a throater. Use it.
4) Look at your brass before you load it.
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.
-
I tested & chrono'd some True Blue & HS-6 loads tonight.
All loads at 1.135 OAL.
Glad I tested the True Blue... ruling it out.
My first 7.8 gr load (MG124JHP) was much higher velocity than predicted. The flattened primers at only 175PF seem to confirm True Blue is a faster burn rate than the others on my list. Way flatter primers compared to same PF using WAC, 3n38 or HS-6.
Even with the heavier charge to get there (compared to a MG124 on top of 6.9 gr WAC at 1.135 for example for 175PF in same gun).
The primers weren't this flat with my True Blue loads when I was loading longer (1.185) for my old gun. At 175PF tonight, the gun was harsh with lots of flip. Worst feeling load I've shot in this gun by a large margin.
The HS-6 with 115's shot nice, really nice. Even though my heaviest loads only made 169PF. Dialed in my 115 & 124 loads with a little more powder and can't wait to work more with both at 172PF. Gotta say, at this point HS-6 with 115's is right there as the best feeling load I've tested. Primers looked nearly identical to same PF WAC loads.
-
I've been reconsidering N350 as an alternative based on its placement in the charts. Vihtavuori ranks their own N350 burn rate in between 3N37 and 3n38, yet N350 takes less charge to deliver 170PF. This seems conflicting?
Ramshot TrueBlue was my favorite for years, but I became concerned it may be too fast for 9major (based on some burn rate charts and I had 2 slides crack)? However, one burn rate chart places True Blue in between Longshot and N350 - much slower region of chart. My relative charge weights above seem to place it in that slower range as well. Who knows.
WAC vs HS-6
The latest Hodgdon chart places HS-6 on the fast side of WAC. The relative charge weights put it much slower. In fact, WAC has the lowest charge weight for 170PF of any powder I've tested. Is it the fastest powder of this crew?Looking for the least objectionable, from the slow side of this list up...
AA#7 performs good but is very dirty
3N38 performs good, pain to load, very compressed, OAL's will increase sometimes
3N37 performs OK, pain to load, very compressed, OAL's will increase sometimes, very hot in gun
True Blue - performs good, very clean
HS-6 - performs good, dirty -
Lots of cracked slides these days caused by less than perfect metallurgy, hardness, fitting, etc.. compounded by high pressure 9major loads.My goal in developing a great load is to maximize performance while NOT destroying me or my gun.The common sense recommendation is to use a slower powder to reduce case pressure.
OK, slower powders measured & ranked how?
Powder manufacturers charts are considered 'guidelines' as to 'relative' burn rates, and should maybe be considered most accurate with their own product?
Add to this, the different burn rate charts available have conflicting ranks among the most popular powders used for 9major.And now for the rule of thumb
Slower powders usually require more charge weight than fast powders to achieve the same velocity (assuming same bullet, barrel, primer & cart.).More conflict.So all of this has got me thinking... (probably over-thinking)The following is compiled from my own 9major load data over the years.
This is a high level comparison - not a true apples to apples, since this is with 4 different barrel configurations, different temps, etc..
The last column is the charge weight of a 100% full 9mm case. Nice for relative density comparisons.
-
Dark grey, like the powder. Maybe a little darker.
Not yellow or light in color as described earlier in this post.
RTS2 elevation adjustment
in Open Pistols
Posted
So it does not loosen and allow my zero to be compromised ?
Its a metal screw in a metal body, right? Why would this be bad?