njl

I assume from an unused dryer sheet, and you're basically running it lengthwise down the hopper?

So, my new frames came in, and I had Costco make a set of progressive lenses for them in my new Rx (stronger distance correction and stronger ADD for reading). They had to do it twice, because they screwed up the PD measurement on the first attempt. The end result is a pair of glasses I don't think I can use for much other than driving My old/original progressive lens Rx, the distance vision correction is, I guess, weak enough that I can still focus reasonably close (like a computer screen about 24" away from my face). The issue was, I wasn't satisfied with the distance vision clarity. So, the new Rx gives me sharper distance vision, but pushes my near focus distance out to more like 36". I can't focus on a computer screen or front sight using the distance part of the lens, and as I work at a computer all day, I'm not willing to move my head around as much as would be required to see the screen(s) through the transition portion of the lens that allows me to focus close, but not reading lens close. I guess my options at this point are: Keep the new ones as "driving glasses". Return [the lenses] to Costco for a refund. Go back to the optometrist and figure out a compromise Rx that gives me as clear distance vision as I can get without pushing out my near focus beyond about 24".

I finally got out to the range this past weekend (it'd been a few weeks) and did an hour of IDPA practice (draws, double taps into a target, transition to another target, double tap it, mixing in some 2 to the body / 1 to the head) and did this in my old Rx daily-wear progressives. It worked well, and I think I was seeing better than I do with my Rudy Rydons + distance-only Rx insert. I'm waiting for frames I ordered to arrive so I can order a new Rx in progressives, and it'll be interesting to see if I can shoot in those, but worst case, I think for the time being, my current / old Rx progressives will be my shooting glasses now, at least for non-reactive targets shooting.

You can't accurately shoot an iron sighted pistol without a reasonably clear front sight. The only issue with a slightly fuzzy target is even less chance of seeing bullet holes (knowing if it's worth firing make-ups). I've gotten to the point where I'm curious about shooting in progressives so that hopefully I can get both clear sights and clear targets. One thing I'm curious about (is there an optometrist in the house?) is varying lens heights and progressives, and who/how it's decided where the transition section of the lens begins and ends (i.e. how big the sweet spots are for distance vision, near vision, and how much is used for transition). Is that just formulaic based on the height of the lens, or is it something that can be specified when the lenses are ordered? I was speaking to a coworker the other day who's also in his first set of progressives, and he said he hates them and won't do it again. Comparing our frames, he had much taller lenses, and his biggest complaint was having to look down more than he's comfortable doing to read up close. My daily wear progressives are only about 35mm tall. I have a really old Aviator style frame that has nearly 50mm tall lenses. I wonder, if I got a similar style new frame with PALs, how the layout would compare to my current ones, and if that would be better or worse for shooting (or just different and hard to adjust to)?

In the plastic insert that uses fishing line to hold the lenses, or one of the full frame metal ones?

I was getting kind of bummed after finding that Costco and Sam's Club offer lenses for WAY less than pretty much any other optical shop, but neither will do my Rudy Rx insert. Costco's excuse was it's safety glasses, and they won't do safety glasses. Sam's Club's reason was they get all their lenses done at a remote lab, and if you provide your own frames, they somehow trace the frame and send that info to the lab where the lenses are cut, and then they get assembled at the local store...but with the plastic insert that uses fishing line, there's nothing to trace. Then I found that Rudy sells two metal full-frame inserts, one of which is specifically intended for progressive lenses. I'm guessing Sam's Club might be willing to work with this, and the progressive lenses will end up costing right around $200 installed. Other places, progressives are $500-$600. What insert have any of you using Rudy's with progressive lenses used, and where did you get the Rx lenses done?

If your Rudys have your normal progressive lens Rx in the insert, what adjustment is needed to switch from your daily glasses to the Rudys?

I guess I’d have to say a combination of fear and doubt that all my issues can be solved surgically. My current Rx has correction for distance, astigmatism, prism (for convergence insufficiency), and as of a couple years ago, reading.

So your Hunters Gold glasses are "dedicated shooting glasses" but in your everyday progressive Rx? I suppose the difference between them and your daily wear glasses is better protection and they're probably more secure? After I get a new Rx set of progressives, I'm contemplating whether I should just get another set of progressives for one of my Rudy inserts.

I've been wearing Rudy's for a while now (initially Magster, then Rydon). About 3 years ago, I graduated from single vision to progressive lenses. At that point, I got some "reader" lenses from Rudy for my Rydons, and have gotten by with just distance correction inserts and the bifocal reader part of the outer lens for up close (like my phone, stage descriptions, or the score pad). I just got an updated Rx for one of my inserts and found with the additional correction I needed for distance, I can no longer focus close enough to get a sharp front sight on a pistol. I don't have this problem with my current progressive lenses, but they're not the updated Rx yet. I also pretty much never shoot in my daily wear progressive lenses. I wear the Rydons (with the bifocal outer lenses) for better protection and because they're far less likely to fall off. AFAIK, progressive lens tech keeps getting better (i.e. first there were bifocals, then progressive, now digital progressive, and I was just told that the "custom digital progressives" I got 3 years ago were the best available at the time, but now there's even better). I wonder how many are doing action pistol type shooting with progressive lenses vs the older solutions like having a set of glasses with front sight focus in the dominant eye, distance in the other, or bifocals with the ADD lens higher in the frame than usual? Another option I'm considering is just going without correction. I don't really need correction for up close...the targets will be quite blurry, but maybe not so bad that I can't differentiate threats from non-threats. I also wonder if a set of "computer" glasses would work? I guess the final option is give up on iron sights and go carry-optics, but I'd rather not.

Hmm. That’s not especially short and certainly not weak. Mark your mags (if you haven’t already) and if only one / certain ones ever do this, see if maybe the feed lips have opened up on those.

Saying a little something about the load spec might be helpful. Looks like bluebullets. Weight? Length? Power factor? Do you have room (chamber & magazine) to load longer?

I got out this past weekend and chronographed. The R187 (Zero "Nosler copy" JHPs) that I loaded by accident when I meant to be loading PD 185gr JHPs over 4.3gr Clays were stupid soft. They did cycle my stock G21SF and G30SF, but they were so low power (139PF avg) that I wouldn't trust them for match shooting. The R185 Zeros run closer to PD 185gr JHP velocities for the same powder charge.

Ugh...I guess I officially have too many different/similar bullets. My sample of R185 arrived. I just went upstairs to compare them to others...and I realized the ammo I loaded last night, and the load I mentioned above, are the wrong bullet. The 4.3gr Clays load was with Precision Delta 185gr JHP. Last night, I grabbed from the wrong box and substituted Zero R187 while the press was setup for loading the PD 185gr. The end result is, "so that's why this batch came out a little long (1.215" when I was expecting much closer to 1.200"), and I now have 200 rounds of a load I've not chrono'd and just had to separate out the handful of cartridges loaded with the last of the PD that happened to be in the bullet tray when I started last night. Fortunately, PD and Zero 185s are pretty easy to distinguish just by looking at the HP cavity. The R185 are pretty close in length to the R187, both of which are shorter than PD 185gr JHP, and obviously much shorter than Zero 230gr JHP. The HP cavity is nice and wide/deep looking, even compared to the 230gr version.

It can't hurt to compare loads, but I've got a couple with the "Nosler copy" R187 that I like...the latest of which was 4.3gr Clays, Federal LP, loaded to 1.200". I think the "problem" with this load in the G30 is mags that have slightly more spread out feed lips let the bullet go too soon [for the G30] and they can end up jamming against the underside of the barrel hood. Those same mags work fine in my G21 (when I shoot the G30 in GSSF, I use G21 mags)...so I just have the base plates marked and only use ones known to work in the G30 in the G30. I should have a sample of R185 soon, and if I don't see any issues with them, I'll order a few boxes and test some of the R187 loads with them (at least the powder charge...I assume at longer OAL).

I was just doing some bullet browsing, and noticed this on Roze Dist's main page: The R185 looks more like the Zero 230gr JHP, I'm guessing just shorter in length. I'd never heard of the R185 before. Presumably, it was available quite a long time ago, then discontinued, now re-introduced. I'm curious if anyone has any experience with them? I've used their other 185gr JHP style that's apparently a copy of the Nosler 185gr JHP. Price is the same...so I'm wondering if there's any advantage to either style? The truncated cone style, I have to load pretty short, and my G30 gets finicky with them. I've had to mark my magazines to differentiate which will reliably feed the 185s in the 30. I wonder if the R185 can be loaded to a longer OAL?

I've never seen .45acp as thin as 0.009". If I'm loading .452 plated or coated bullets, crimp is only to about .473" or the bullets get a crimp ring.

Why small rifle magnum for pistol ammo? I like S&B SPP for range ammo. When they’re available, they’re cheap. They load and work fine for me. Fiocchi is a close second, and better in one way. S&B are just brass and will build up corrosion if treated badly. Fiocchi are nickel plated and so corrosion resistant. They’re usually cheaper than most of the other brands (other than S&. The only real annoyance with them is their packaging in trays of 150. Dillon pickup tubes/primer magazine can’t handle much more than 100 at a time. I’ve used both of these (and CCI) in a variety of Glocks and pre-lock S&W K-frames, and had no problems.

Try clean media without any polish/additives. It’ll still get the brass clean enough. Used dryer sheets to soak up dust shouldn’t be a problem. Definitely don’t try using unused sheets.

If he’s only going to shoot 9mm and only a few hundred per month, the SDB May be just right. It’s a lot less $ than a fully loaded 650. I’ve been loading on a 550b for ~10 years. I knew I wanted to do rifle in addition to 9mm and .45, so the SDB wasn’t an option, and being brand new to reloading, I didn’t want the added complexity, cost, or noise of a 650 & case feeder.

It’s largely a question of time and $. At 5k/yr, you could probably load that in under 2hrs/month on an SDB. A 650 or 1050 will get it done faster, but for several times the $ in press costs.

How long have you been there? I contacted PD years ago after finding a number of 124gr FMJ bullets with split jackets. Don’t think I ever heard back. IIRC, I didn’t load them, so I don’t know if accuracy would have been affected. I’ve since moved on to using primarily coated bullets.

Spilled powder on a 550 is far more likely to cause binding in the shell plate than the primer slide. At such a low round count, I’d guess your problem is primer housing alignment. Disconnect the primer slide return spring. Start pulling the handle, then back up a bit, and remove the primer arm. Then pull the handle all the way down. You should be able to easily manually move the primer slide all the way forward and back without any resistance/binding. If you can’t, either the primer housing is out of alignment, the bolts securing it were over-tightened, or another possibility is the cup on the primer slide is crooked. Loosen the two bolts that secure the primer housing just until the housing can wiggle. See if you have free travel of the primer slide. If you do, it’s an alignment or tightness issue.

I'm pretty sure the magazine tube tip is not the problem. I think what's happening is galling as the primer arm exerts a torque against the primer slide, and the slide rubs on the primer housing. It kind of makes me wonder if anyone's ever done alternate materials for the housing base or slide (i.e. brass for either one)? I guess I may try one of those primer bearing plates with an actual bearing on it to counter the primer arm torque.

I've had that happen a few times, but it's not what was happening recently. If I can gently tug on the primer slide, and get it to move the remaining fraction of an inch necessary to pick up a primer, there's nothing blocking it. For the past few years, I've been using a primer slide bearing similar to the one above, minus the roller bearing. A friend of mine that does some metal work made one based on the OEM bearing plate and images I sent him from someone who'd posted the "original" version of that idea here. I really wish Dillon would come out with an official upgrade for the RL550 priming system that works better/longer/more reliably than the current one.