nYdGeo

In my STI that is a .38 Super/Supercomp load!

What charge are you using?

I am shooting 8.0gr of N350 behind a 124 at this time, but was shooting 8.8gr or 8.9gr behind a 115. I do have holes in the barrel. Before the barrel porting, it was 7.8gr of N350 behind the 124, and 8.6gr behind the 115. Very similar to 7625, but the N350 had a hair more recoil and shot a hair flatter.

Everything matters when reloading, primers, brass and projectiles. In my experience and with regards to ammo, the powder & bullet weight make by far the biggest difference in how the gun shoots. I have everything worked out, but I'm still searching for a new powder. I'm also having difficulty finding the type of data I seek by searching the forums. The majority of the open-class shooters that I know seem to have strayed from the logical pursuit of 'the biggest charge of a clean burning, high gas volume, reasonable pressure powder that will fit in the case behind the lightest bullet that the pistol will shoot accurately' in their open guns. With the right powder selection this formula has always worked well. However, new technologies emerge, new discoveries are made with items that have been around forever, and there also seems to be a trend with the priority moving away from the flatter shooting combo and towards the softer shooting. I know what powder Max Michel Jr. (and Sr. for that matter) prefer and use, which is the very popular, 'how the heck does such a fast burning powder work in an open gun' IMR7625. Back in the late 90's I was in Todd Jarrett's squad at an Area 4 match. He was even so kind as to make an LED shield for my C-More using a paster, and got me to switch from an 18lb recoil spring (I know, hahaha!) to a 14lb which was what was optimal for that design at that time. He was shooting a cone-comped pistol with two, nicely nozzled ports through the top of the slide/cone/barrel. He won that match beautifully, and if I recall correctly he was using 7625 way back then, long before I ever heard of anyone else using it in an open gun. But, I have tried great 7625 loads (7.7gr w/125gr FMJ) in my pistol and although they are soft and reasonably flat, they are not the flat shooters that I'm looking for. The N350 loads are a hair less soft, but a hair more flat. All of this has me back looking mostly for info regarding using big charges of #7, HS6/540, or other like powders, especially behind 115gr projectiles. If anyone has related info for .38 Super please let me know. I'm interested in alternatives as well, but I'm far less interested in soft shooting as I am flat shooting. There has to be a load that can make my STI shoot as flat shooting as my old, custom EAA did, but I'm really surprised that its so difficult to find. If 571 was still available I'd be using it. It was a little faster/higher enrgy than #7 (used to be), I found it to be a clean shooting powder, and it worked an open gun very, very well. I used to compress 10.0 under a 124gr or 10.5gr under a 115gr at 1.160" for a 178PF in my EGW-built EAA open pistol back in the late 90's. When I ordered the compensator from Fred Craig he said, '10-grains of 571 behind a 124'...it was that easy. It was hell on brass so I looked, but I never found a better 9x21 major load. Those loads in that pistol shot flatter than 7625 loads (168PF) or N350 loads (166PF) shoot today in my .38 Super STI that's in my profile pic. I hope to find a powder that can make my STI shoot that flat, and don't have the budget to play around with 8-10 powders to find one that's close. So far the best intel I have appears to be around 10.5gr of HS6/540 behind a 115gr, but this is my first time inquiring. I'm searching the forums still, but most of the more current data I'm finding is for 9mm Major, and/or .38 Super loads using smaller charges of faster powders that i believe will shoot softer and not flatter. So, if anyone is shooting a similarly configured .38 Super and like me, values the flattest possible shooting combo, and wouldn't mind sharing powder/load information, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time. DVC

Joe - I kinda doubt this. WAP is already being sold as Ramshot Silhouette. I present WW296- H110, W231-HP38 WAP being sold as Silhouette isn't really relevant. But It may not be WAP in fact from comparing the data the new powder seams to give a little more velocity with the same powder charge which would lead me to believe it's a tad faster than WAP making it even more worthless for open major. Of course it could just be a variable in my older data or test barrels used. The science really isn't as easy as fast or slow. I knew loads of people that used and liked Action Pistol as their open powder way back when, though I did not. The 'too fast for open major' statement becomes irrelevant once we move out of the dark ages and realize that burn rate is little more than a baseline tool, and is almost meaningless to loading. IMR7625 has a faster 'burn rate' than both of these other powders and yet remains an extremely popular powder for open major in 9mm, .38 Super, Supercomp, etc, with many M & GM shooters and more than one National champion preferring it. If burn rates are 'the guide', then 7625 should be a horrible powder for open major. A powder that sits so close to AA#2 in burn rate should be like a limited load in an open gun, shooting very soft but not working the ports well at all...yet somehow it appears to do both. I provide the info above without bias as I don't use 7625 myself; I've always been more the 'huge charge of #7 or N350 behind a 115gr' kind of loader for 9mm or .38 Super as this has always provided me with the flattest shooting performance. Another great example, VV-N350 has a burn rate only slightly slower than 3N38 yet uses a much smaller charge to achieve the same velocities; the science of this put very simply is that N350 has a much higher specific caloric rate...it produces more energy per grain at much the same burn rate. On a personal note, I believe that anyone that says that they had difficulty making major or saw bad pressure signs loading major in 9mm with N350 is doing something very wrong. I believe that as long as we retain some of these old ideas as facts in our minds, like too slow or too fast for "x", it is in fact very difficult to objectively test different loads. Our belief system absolutely will flavor our results. It's part of our being human and flawed by nature. Along with other personal preferences, this is why in various threads you'll read not only conflicting but absolutely contradicting data regarding the performance of the same loads through nearly identical pistols. A single load may indeed feel very different in two pistols of near identical construction, but I do not believe that the exact same load of "x" powder, bullet and brass cannot burn super-clean in one pistol of type ABC and burn absolutely filthy in another pistol of type ABC. I also believe that it is highly unlikely that the same load in two nearly identical pistols can shoot 'soft & flat' in one pistol while providing 'heavy recoil and I lost my dot' performance in another, but that is simply my belief and certainly not established fact. Much of the above is why blind testing is the only way to get truly objective results. The evidence based on burn rate alone may suggest that Autocomp should not be a good open major powder, but in these forums we appear to have a couple of proper blind tests where two different human beings that at that time did not use Autocomp in their current load, chose the Autocomp powder as the best overall performer. To me, these are truly objective, valuable results. Finally, if any of this sounded lecture-ish, I apologize as this was not my intention. My only goal is to hopefully improve the understanding and objectivity of load testing, and thereby provide us all with much more valuable test data. Thank you for your time.

There are plenty of narrow steel guide rods in the world that will accept ISMI springs, available, among other places, from ISMI: http://www.cpwsa.com/ISMI_Products.htm True, I'm aware of them, and if I was going to use a steel rod the ISMI wouold be the one I'd use. But since the polymer ones work fine and seem to work more akin to the original Glock guide rod functionality, I just stuck with them. If I could see a definite advantage to a steel one I'd use it, but since I've used both in the past and found no benefit for me personally, again, I just stick with what I'm using. I know that others may indeed find the extra weight of the steel rod to be beneficial, I just wasn't one of those folks. DVC

Thank you for all of the questions, suggestions and information. I'll check the things suggested. A few answers: I can let go of the grip completely and they still won't fall, empty or loaded. Haven't had any grip work down; fortunately it fits my hand nicely as it is. All of my mags work great, and I'd rather not modify them unless I have to. One curious recollection: The last time I shot this pistol before observing this issue was at an indoor range. I was there for another purpose, but decided to fire a few rounds through the STI just because its fun. While doing so I located a particular round that, sparing all of the details, got loaded into a very old case that I had retired but accidentally got mixed into this batch when I loaded it. I knew that one brass fell in there...anyway, I located that bad round when I had a case blowout. Got some blast on my hand, felt a bit on my face, but didn't blow-out the mag, the bad brass ejected, the next round chambered, bullet went through the target, etc. I unloaded the pistol, field stripped it, found no debris or visible damage that I could identify, reassembled it, put the same magazine in it, cycled the slide, and shot the rest of the mag before putting it away. This case blow-out might have altered something that I am unable to identify and is causing the problem. I'll examine it again, and if I cannot find the problem I'll bring it to my gunsmith. Again, thank you all for the input. If anyone has any suggestions as to what that event may have changed, bent, or otherwise altered, I am all ears! DVC

I am no expert an anything, but will recommend that you bear in mind that human nature has us recommend what we like, what we've heard and believe, etc. Also, a person who's mind is already made up that something will not help or make a difference will find that he is right about 99% of the time. I built my first open-class glock back in 1995 because someone told me that I couldn't do it. Back then all that existed was Accumatch barrels with their heavy little two-port comps. Over the years I built several, all of which are gone except for one built on a model 23 with a LoneWolf barrel/comp and an original FirePoint sight on the slide. As a reference, this pistol has a reduced-power striker spring (Glockworx) along with an old, extremely light Lightening Strike titanium striker and has never had a failure to fire due to a light strike. It also has a Glockworx 3.5lb connector and their heavy trigger spring. I have used Wolf and ISMI recoil springs and in my experience the ISMI works better for me. They seem to hold the lockup better, working more like the factory springs, but that is my perception alone. Nothing is as good as the factory springs, and I wish more than anything that whoever manufactures the factory recoil springs for Glock would market them in different spring weights. Also, because there is no hammer to hold the locked up when rounds are fired, I've never used any of the super-light spring some folks use. Okay, I should say I've never used less than a 14lb recoil spring with 100% reliability in a Glock pistol. The only other thing is that though I've used metal guide rods and know that they work, I began only using an aftermarket guide rod that is made of a polymer much like that factory rod. This is because looking into the designed functionality of Glock pistols, part of this design is for the guide rods to flex as the pistol cycles. I don't know how critical this is since again, metal ones appear to work fine as well. But, the metal ones I had wouldn't work with ISMI springs, so I got this thin, polymer one. Anyway, just my observations, thoughts and opinions. I hope that assist someone.

Good day! I am new to the 2011 pistol format, the pistol in this case being an STI Competitor in .38-Super. It was bought, shot for a few hundred rounds and then sat in a safe for the next 6-years or so, and now I've purchased it from the original owner. I had a brilliant, local smith lighten the slide from 12.5oz to 9.75oz bare. Next, I'll have him install an extended ejector as amazingly enough this pistol did not come with one installed. I replaced the 17lb mainspring with an ISMI 15lb, and using a Wolf 9lb variable recoil spring, I'm reasonably happy with it. My problem is this: starting with the last match that I shot, every one of my magazines is hanging in the grip. I along with others have examined the pistol and determined that the issue is that the magazines are rubbing the inside of the grip front & back. Trying to hang on to Glock pistols which I love but find rather slippery, I developed a bad habit of using far too tight a grip. Also, I squeeze only front to back, applying next to no pressure on either side of the grip. I am told that over time I have reshaped the grip so that where my middle and ring fingers squeeze the grip it is now physically shorter front to back. First, if this is even possible I am astounded. It never happened to any of my Glock pistols and I have over 50K rds through a couple of those as compared to less than 1K rds through the STI. Anyway, I am told that I can shorten my mags slightly in a vise to work around this; I was also told that this is often part of magazine tuning. So, here are some numbers. My factory STI tubes are wider in the front than they are towards the rear. The front of the mags measures right at 0.933" wide, the rear slightly smaller at 0.928" wide. The middle section is narrower still, but I am unable to get a measurement. Measured front-to-back, they are also slightly inconsistent, but the largest measurement I got is 1.380". I have access to a huge, machinist's vise along with the assistance of a machinist/gunsmith. I was wondering if I might coax someone with a nice, 'tuned' STI magazine tube to measure the tube front-to-back and provide me with a dimension to shoot for. I would appreciate that very much as I'd like to use the pistol this weekend. Also, can anyone tell me if the magazine tube should be wider towards the front than towards the rear and narrower still in the middle? None of the mags for any of my other pistols are made this way, but maybe it is normal for STI mags. Thank you in advance for any constructive information and/or assistance.

Back when the 9x21 ruled the roost, there were 175PF major 9mm loads everywhere because in any form of P9 (EAA-Tanfoglio, CZ, Springfield, etc) it’s really the same thing; we were all officially limited to the same 1.169 OAL, though in reality...reliability pretty much said 1.150-1.155. You need major 9mm loading info? Search for 9x21mm data, and you'll find it going back into the early '90's. Example: http://www.k8nd.com/documents/hl9x21.pdf On that document you'll see my old load, compressing 10.5gr of HS7/WW571 under 115gr Ranger Black Bullet. They were much like the Precision's but very hard-cast. A couple times a year I had to dig some lead out of the comp, but I had next to no barrel wear and the price was great. This made a 180PF, generated a solid recoil impulse, and shot extremely flat; I never lost my dot. We created comparable loads with HS6 which were a little softer and shot a little less flat...the trade-off. I stuck with the HS7/571 loads. I had no primer issues using Winchester SMP or SR primers with the HS7 loads, and I got about 5 reloads per case before rolling them. 124gr loads using the same powder at the same PF gave 1-2 reloads before they had to be roll-sized; for some reason that combo produced much higher pressures. Earlier on I used many other loads, including 7.4 of AA#7 under a 145gr LRN. It wasn't nearly as flat shooting, but was soft as my Buckmark .22, I could reload the brass indefinitely, and it was a very inexpensive load to shoot. I did dig some lead out of the comp, but at those low velocities, not nearly as much as one might think. I also successfully shot this load out of a Glock 19 with an original AccuMatch Glock 19 barrel/comp combo reamed out to 9x21mm. It had someone's dual ghost ring iron sites on it and I won Open C-class in several local matches with it...before EGW built & delivered my EAA 9x21mm. Never shot that 19 again. After the .38 Super (and variants) dominating the scene for so long, many folks are skittish about loading major 9mm, but especially with the 165 major PF, it can be done a lot of ways, safely and reliably. Just carefully follow the normal safe approaches to building your loads. Those doing so in 2011-based pistols have it even easier because you can load longer. One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is the simplest tuning done to the pistol itself: have a reasonable set of different rate recoil springs available. If your pistol's default is a 10lb spring, I'd say have from an 8lb - 12lb in you bag. Changing the load, especially in an open-class pistol, is very global...it affects the entire functionality of the pistol. That load that feels super soft but has too much muzzle rise with your 10lb spring might be picture perfect with the 9lb. If it’s super flat shooting but sharply pounding your palm, try the 11lb. Shooting EAA's using the 180PF 147gr LRN loads, most of us used 16lb or18lb recoil springs. Using 124gr loads the 14lb springs were the popular ticket. Shooting my 115gr load I used a 14lb spring, but then went to a 12lb which was perfect. I sheared many factory slide-stop pins doing this (due to the one true flaw in the design of those pistols) but the EGW pins were strong and cheap them. I hope that this has not constituted a thread hijack or worse...a rant. Mostly I hope that it provides someone with useful insight. Sometimes a brief history lesson can be quite valuable. Shoot straight, be safe, and have a great day!

Would love to help, but have EGW Magwell welded to my old battle horse small-framed open gun. Nice to see more alternatives for the wonderful yet almost forgotten TF pistols.

One option, the option that is going on my STI and my EAA open guns when finished will be J-Points on top of this mount by Arredondo: http://www.arredondoaccessories.com/catego...6cqdmj&GID= Just get the undrilled model, mill off the bottom to get the height right for you EAA/TF, drill it to match the holes in your frame, mount your J-Point/Doctor, and rock on! Certainly not the only way to go, but certainly not a bad way either. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread about the bad thing about slide mounting a J-Point/Doctor type sight was having to machine the slide; while this can be a cool thing to do it is certainly not necessary. I have an original Fire Point site sitting on a Glock mount that goes inthe factory dovetail, and haven't a problem in the world with it. If I can find an adaptor plate that will go into the dovetails on either of my two open guns, I'd not hesitate to try it. On my Glock I never loose site of the dot during the cycle, but that may not be the case with another type of pistol. If it doesn't work, that Arredondo mount will work just fine.

Good day, everyone! I’ve found that my experience regarding recoil spring-rates agrees more or less with the masses with regards to the Glock 35. Using 180gr loads with something like N310-N320 a 15lb spring seems about perfect. Another 180gr load that I use for other purposes uses N350, more of a mid-speed open power that has more push left when the bullet leaves the barrel. I find that the factory weight 17lb spring soaks these up a bit nicer. It has long been said that the Glock factory calculation for spring rates is a flawed system, supposedly being based solely on slide-weight. Therefore, I am here to ask if anyone has any advice regarding recoil spring weights for major loads from a Glock model 23. The default is an 18lb which for major loads is probably close. I tried 15lb or 16lb, but this produces a huge wallop when the slide smacks the frame when fully opened and throws the pistol all over the place. In testing using that 180gr N350 load, it seems to cycle reliably even weak-hand using a 20lb & 22lb spring, and most of the time using a 24lb. I know that we’re in search of that perfect balance…the lightest spring that, well, works best all the way around. So, back to my question…any thoughts on recoil spring rates for a Glock 23 using 180gr major loads? Secondarily, I hear the same about my little model 27. I understand that they are softly sprung and I only fire full-power loads through it, and carry Corbon 135gr for defense. Even with the dual-spring system, the 16lb default seems light with that extremely light-weight slide. Would anyone have any recommendations regarding moving to a Wolf 18lb, 20lb, 22lb or 24lb spring set? I know that what works for one will not work for another and the thing to do is purchase the calibration packs. But if someone has already tried say the model 27 22lb & 24lb recoil spring sets with something like Corbons, and has experienced unreliability or just very unpleasant behavior, that may save me from wasting that bit of time and money. Regardless, any constructive input regarding recoil spring rates for either the model 23 or 27 is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!

I agree. Over time I have used Precision, Ranger (long gone I guess), and Bear Creek through Comps. Do they lead? Yes, but not nearly as much as plain lead. I have found that the Precision poly-coated bullets seem to lead the comp far more than the Bear Creek projectiles do, but that is simply my observation in my experience. However, they all shot accurately, reliably, your barrel will last an amazingly long time, and the wallet stays much fatter. I guess that I just didn't mind cleaning a little lead out form time to time.

Hmmmm....I think that's pretty short sighted. Two words: Caseless ammo. It's being used now and when it eventually filters down to us the game will change....far less recoil and capacity increases. And for the'lifestyles of the rich and famous crowd'. When if it finally makes it down to civilian availability if will be quite some time before the ability to handload it becomes avilable if at all. It will likely remain factory manufactured only for some time to come, and you'll pay their price for it or not shoot it. Just food for thought...

I definitly agree with you on one point...the worst thing to ever happen to Tnafoglio in the USA is EAA. In Europe, but large and small-framed TF's are affordable, servicable alternatives. But thanks to EAA, TF's are all but a joke to the shooting masses. Pity...

Caspian builds are very nice shooters. Run great (Steve Anderson's runs as good as a stock Glock). Give max capacity. (George Jones has a legal mag that goes 30+1) The two top USA shooters at the last World Shoot both run Caspians. (KC and Travis) KC has won a zillion Steel Challenge matches with one. Travis wins with one whether it's Limited or Open. World Champ uses a Tanfoglio. Henning runs circles around people with an EAA/Tanfoglio. Todd Jarrett has won every match around with a Para. Robbie, with a Springfield. I've seen a guy kick some butt with a 9mm Beretta with a red dot riding the slide. Most of those people are... "Happier than a itchy pig rubbing against a rail fence". Simply put, thank you.

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.

I have several friends shooting various 124gr & 125gr projectiles using 6.6gr-7.0gr of IMR 7625. They use Wolf regular small pistol primers (not magnum or small rifle) and see only the slightest bit of flattening. I don't understand exactly how that powder does what it does, but to my hands it is the softest powder I've shot in 9mm major, and yet still works comps & ports. I'm a recently returned, old school, 9x21mm loader from way back when the formula was the largest charge of the slowest powder that made major was the way to go. Huge charges of no.9, no.7, HS7, etc, were 'the way to go'. I hope you're sitting down; I used to compress 10.4gr of HS7 under 115gr black bullets in my 9x21mm brass which made major nicely, and was extremely flat shooting. It also produced a brutally harsh recoil impulse that broke many a slide-stop pin. Some of the other old school loaders that I know simply report that 7625 is a much faster powder and cannot work the ports as well...blah blah. There is more to powder than just burn speed. The thing is that different powers also have other characteristics, such as a specific caloric rate, or how much energy (usually measured in BTUs (=heat energy)) per grain is produced. There is more to it, with the point being that there are a number of factors that make different powders feel and behave differently. I believe that 7625 is a near magical combination for 9mm major. Powder charges that fit nicely, a fairly quick recoil impulse with very soft results, yet enough gas volume and pressure to work comps and ports. As I touched on earlier, I am somewhat baffled as to how this works so well, but for me it is the way to go at this time with 9mm major loads. Certainly not the only way, just the best for me.

I'm glad to be the bearer of good news. I'm pretty excited about finding these. I think that one of my two is going to go into redoing my old top-end (standard slide, tiny yet amazing, old Craig comp) possibly dedicated to minor for steel, and the other will probably go to Rich with that 9mm long-slide I bought from you for a nice, major, cone-comped top-end. The old top-end had EGW's awesome frame-to-slide tightening done to it which is still pretty tight after over 50K very major rounds, and I was very happy to learn yesterday that Rich can do this also, and tighten the new slide to match my frame. That process made my old 9x21 a tack-driver! So, the future is just that little bit more exciting now. Have a great day!

I'm glad to learn that I'm not alone in finding this great news. Contact Gary at www.briley.com to grab one before they're gone.

Does anyone care which major barrel manufacturer just discovered a dozen 6", 9mm match EAA barrels sitting in their stock (because I called them and begged them to look)? I just bought two of them to rebuild new top-ends for my old, small-frame friend, and I'm really curious if anyone else wants to know.

Another nicety...the CZ mags are straight-walled and need no milling to use long, high-cap extended base pads! Easy to make a 2rd 9mm mag from one.

I think that many of us would love to be doing that. I'd rather be loading more powder into a .38 super-sized case. I also wish that money was no object, but with the cost of reloading supplies now, I like my $30 per 1000 once-fired 9mm brass much better than the average cost of any super brass. I would like 23 rds & 29rds over 22rds & 27rds though...in Open-class sometimes every round counts.

It can be done, at least on my old mid-90's, small-frame Witness. I have all of the trigger travel (including reset) of an average 1911, and the entire trigger & safety functionality is completely stable. If you'dlike ot know how, I'll have to take the parts out whenI get home to see how the heck I did it...it has been 13 years.