njl

If he has nothing and hasn't reloaded before, I think the 650/750 is probably overkill and will bust the budget considering all the other assorted stuff he needs (tumbler, media, calipers, powder scale, etc.). Also, what good is a reloading press if you can't buy powder & primers? Have you shopped SPP yet?

My limited experience trying to load SWC and watching others is that SWC in the subcompact Glock .45s (30, 30S, 36) are an exercise in futility. It'll work sometimes. It'll fail to feed more often. The 21 is far more tolerant of SWC. Due to the RSA redesign, I'd say if you want to load minor PF .45, you're better off with a Gen3 gun. I really like my Gen3 21SF. I also have both the 30 and 30S and 41. I'm toying with the idea of shooting the 41 in IDPA CDP. I've been shooting 9mm (first a Gen4 19, then Gen3 17, and finally settled on my Gen3 34) in IDPA SSP for the past ~3 years. If you don't want to risk the reliability issues with SWC, there are some reasonably wide flat round nose bullets in the ~200gr range that make nice big clean holes in cardboard. My Gen3 21SF will function with stupid slow 230gr ball ammo (~600fps...I started with Universal and Hodgdon's data, and it was way too conservative...I don't intentionally load my ammo that weak).

And the crappy grip that caused one miss either happened .2s before or after the other shot that was a nice centered alpha and didn't affect any of the other targets? Bottom line is, I know what I hit (at this distance...if it were much farther away, this thread wouldn't exist) and I understand that the rules are not on my side in this case. Maybe a scoring overlay would have helped...but I've never seen one at a match, and there's no mention of them in the current IDPA rule book, so I don't know if they're even permitted. My guess is no.

That's a good question. I'm not an SO. In such a scenario, if you're shooting from retention and totally miss the target, and the SO sees your shot impacted the ground under the target, is that an alpha (no extra holes in the target with the down-zero cut out) or mike (because if you hit the ground under the target, you certainly didn't hit the target)?

Does anyone else LOL at the irony of this statement and the others that my double must have been an alpha - mike? "It's so close, you don't even need sights, but you must have missed the target entirely, because perfect doubles just don't happen." I know I didn't miss. Regardless, I'm pretty sure I made the right call not making a fuss about it at the match.

Not entirely true, at least in IDPA. As mentioned above, 4.12A allows for the use of stationary targets at 3yds or closer with the down-zero cut out, and the assumption that all shots at those targets that don't leave holes outside the down-zero went through the cut out.

Clearly, I'm not at that level. I'd have to cut my draw and transition times in half to approach that kind of speed, and then hopefully still be accurate at that speed/distance.

These were 3yd targets. I did a bit of practice today, and and decided to focus on speed for most of the shooting. I setup 2 targets a bit more than 6 feet apart at 3yds. The drill was draw and fire 2 rounds into each of them. I don't consider myself to be terribly fast. In matches, I generally make up for lack of speed with accuracy. In the 5x5 classifier, the past couple of times I've done it, I've landed at the faster end of SSP SS (25-25.5s). I expect I'll eventually make it at least to EX if I can shave some time off my draws, reload, and maybe go a little faster SHO without giving up any points. Anyway, I was able to do this drill fairly consistently in the 2.5-3s range (more often right about 2.5s), staying down-zero. Splits on each target were generally 0.2s +- a few hundredths. My draw was typically 1.5s or more, and transition time 0.7s +- 0.1. This was probably about the speed at which I shot the above mentioned portion of the stage in the match. I guess I should have tried...but I don't know that I can manipulate the trigger any faster than this (for splits on a target) without totally ignoring the sights.

Burns clean if you use enough of it. If you try going too low, it doesn't even completely burn up. Honestly, 147gr minor loads, you can make nearly anything work. I've used as fast as Titegroup and Promo and as slow as Universal and Longshot. I've shot thousands of 147s over Universal and Promo, and really only prefer Promo because it's cheaper and a bit more versatile for making soft shooting loads.

Neither of those happened (in either case). Also, looking at the IDPA rule book, I think there would have been a reasonable case for arguing for the double. So, a stage starts with an array of 3 targets at 3yds or less, requiring 2 hits each. T1 & T2 have tight groups in the down-zero. T3 has 1 hole in the down-zero. 4.12 allows for assuming all shots pass through the cut out down-zero on close targets unless holes are present elsewhere on the target. Granted, in the case of 4.12, everyone would get that same benefit of the doubt. But I think the spirit of 4.12 is "nobody's going to totally miss a stationary IDPA size target that close." GSSF rules have a similar phrase about benefit of the doubt going to the shooter...so again, on a CoF like 5-to-Glock, if you put up nice tight all down-zero (not that GSSF uses that term) groups on all the targets, but can only find 5 of the expected 6 holes (in a tiny group) on the 5yd target, it's not unreasonable to assume one of those 5 is a double. Like I said in the first post, I know I didn't miss. If the target were out at 20yds or more, I'd be far less certain. But this close, if I was off target enough when the shot broke to completely miss the target, I'd know. Being credited with the miss annoyed me, but I chose not to argue because, at the time, I knew of no basis for such an argument, and I figured "it's a local match, who cares what the posted score says?" BTW...when I say I'm generally pretty accurate, that +5 for the "miss" was more than 1/3 of my total PD for the match.

I totally understand, that as the shooter, regardless of what I think happened, I can't expect the SO to assume any hole is a double if it doesn't look like one. i.e. They can only score what they see. OTOH, we do sometimes have even closer targets with the down-zero cut out, and then the SOs do assume any shots not leaving holes outside the cut out down-zero went through the down-zero. These are typically un-aimed shots from retention. Where's the line between that and "I know you didn't miss, even though you're short a hole?" This is why I asked about bullet profiles. I should have mentioned in the first post, I'm shooting 9mm. I wonder if going back to a FP style bullet would make perfect/near-perfect doubles any more obviously doubles? I suppose for really close arrays, I should practice horizontally stringing the shots rather than trying to drill a single hole in each target.

I didn't say I was good enough to shoot perfect doubles, but I am generally accurate enough, especially at very close range (5yds and in), that it does happen from time to time. Sort of a combination of skill + luck, though in a match, perhaps bad luck.

This isn't necessarily a match screw-up, but I wasn't sure where else to post it. I seriously doubt I'm the only one who, especially on close targets, will occasionally literally put two shots through the same hole. I've done it numerous times in practice, at least once at a GSSF match (5yd 5-to-Glock target) and most recently in an IDPA match. At the GSSF match, I had nice tight groups (really tight on the 5yd target), and when the targets were scored, each target should have had 6 holes. The 5yd one only had 5. None was clearly a double (mostly, but not perfectly overlapping hits), but the SO gave me the benefit of the doubt based on the group sizes, and assumed (correctly, IMO) that one of those 5 holes was a double. Same sort of thing happened at a recent local IDPA match. The stage began with 3 targets at about 3yds, each requiring 2 hits. I double-tapped each and moved on. When scored, one of those close targets only had 1 hole. There was no doubt that I'd fully engaged it (firing 2 shots per target), but no clear sign that both shots hit it. I know I didn't miss, but I was credited for a miss. At a local match, this is fairly meaningless, though it actually bugs me more now than it did at the time. At a higher tier match, it could matter. I shoot iron sights, and I think my eyes are getting slower at changing focus. I generally find that while I'm shooting a stage, I can't see my bullet holes in targets, so slowing down enough to detect the rare occasion of "2 in one hole" is not really practical. Short of that, are there any tips for avoiding this? I don't see why it would, but could bullet profile have any impact on the likelihood of a second bullet passing through an existing hole without leaving any additional signs? At the moment, I'm shooting round nose coated (no lube groove) bullets.

Mountain bike inner tube. There's no adhesive to worry about, but depending on the size you have, it can be a serious PITA to get it pulled up onto the grip. I find it to be seriously grippy with no abrasive grit.

Yep. I was going to post the question here, but figured I'd do a search first. I've been shooting various flavors of coated bullets since Precision and BBI (long before they switched to hi-tek) were the only options. I primarily shoot Glocks, mostly Gen3, some Gen4. I recently bought a Gen5 34. I knew from reading others posts that the chamber would be "less accommodating" than all my other Glocks, and sure enough some of my recent coated bullet loads won't pass the plunk test in the Gen5. My Brazos 135gr load does. After shooting a few hundred rounds of Brazos and giving the Gen5 its first real cleaning, I was shocked to see a couple of strands of "lead wire" at the muzzle end of the bore, pointing in/forward. The same ammo in my Gen3 34 has never done that. After giving the Gen5 barrel a good scrubbing, I've put a few hundred rounds of FMJ and JHP through it. I plan to try coated bullets in it again in the near future. I'm really not going to be happy if that barrel just can't do hi-tek bullets without leading.

Anyone who's done much bowling pin shooting knows PF (momentum) and not muzzle energy is king when dealing with reactive targets. A 115gr 9mm and 230gr .45acp can have nearly the same muzzle energy, but the .45 will transfer more energy to the pin.

I started out with 124s, did 147s for a while, and have settled on 135-138gr. There's not quite as much load data, but it's a good compromise in bullet price and slide speed.

What powder did you use with them? Someone I shoot with also had leading issues with SNS and Titegroup. He shoots Acme now, still with Titegroup.

Did you work up to that or get the load from one of your buddies? That’s right on the edge of max / getting into +p territory according to Alliant’s published data. A friend gave me a bit of Sport Pistol to try. The only 147 I tested was Precision (coated, but not the more common hi-tek). I did a bunch of googling in advance and only tried one charge. 3.2gr gave me 133pf from my G34 and 125pf from my G26.

Believe it or not, I read all of your original message, but have only read a few pages of the replies. You got some bad advice. Really bad advice. I started reloading about 12 years ago, and like you, did a lot of research before ordering the press and supplies. I too, was going to start with 9mm, but had plans to load a number of other pistol and rifle calibers, and I love shooting, so I bought a "better" press to start with (Dillon RL550B, bought new). After that, powder was, IMO, the most important decision. I started out with Universal Clays, primarily because I read it was low density, and also because I believed it would work well for both 9mm and .45acp. It actually didn't work so well for the reduced recoil .45acp I wanted, but that's a different story. In 9mm, it's great because with most bullet weights, you simply can't double-charge a case without being painfully obvious or spilling powder on the shell plate. A high density/fast powder like Titegroup, paired with heavy bullets, and a newbie reloader was a recipe for the disaster you ended up with. The way that case was torn apart, I have no doubt you double-charged it. As someone else said, the more you stop and break routine on a progressive press, the more chances you introduce to screw things up. Another reason Titegroup was the wrong powder, is it burns really hot. I'm aware of a number of instances of people having leading issues with coated bullets loaded with Titegroup...the theory being, it burns so hot, it burns the coating off the bullets. You'd have been much better off with a low density powder, regardless of burn rate. i.e. Universal Clays (medium) and Red Dot/Promo (fast) both work fine for 9mm, and I use both. Promo has the advantage to also working well in other lower pressure pistol cartridges where Universal doesn't work so well. I had no intention of ever using Titegroup given the things I'd read about it, but did eventually buy 2lbs some years ago during a prior components shortage when there was literally nothing else available and I needed a faster powder than Universal.

I've tried at least 8 different brands of coated bullets after initially only loading jacketed and then some plated. First, most of the coated bullets will be 0.001" or a little more wider than jacketed bullets, so you can run into gauging issues, especially with some of the brass headstamps where the walls are thicker or get thicker closer to the case mouth. Second, as you found, not everyone does as good a job as the best at applying the coatings. I've seen inconsistent thickness, exposed lead, lube grooves not coated, etc. Even the brands I'm happy with and currently using, I'll occasionally come across an imperfectly coated bullet or an outright reject. You just have to pay attention and load these a little slower than jacketed.

Same issue. “Best OAL” is highly dependent on the bullet and to some degree the barrel or barrels it needs to work in.

I don't believe there is a "best" load. There are so many choices in bullet types, weights, powders. For games where PF matters, if you want reduced recoil, you probably want heavier than 115gr. I started with 125gr, then shot 147gr for a while, and have now compromised on 135gr.

What's to like about the 150 per tray?

My only complaint with Fiocchi SPP is the 150 per tray packaging. Nobody else does that, and the magazine on my RL550 only holds a little more than 100.