BallisticianX

What barrel Smith uses vs Glock in their polymer guns is a mood point to me. With my personal experience as the basis of my opinion; neither of them (excluding the specific target models) are built with consideration to accuracy potential and for a good reason. Its not cost effective when meeting a price point to take extra steps to gain accuracy when the guns intended design is for close range self defense or tactical Law/Military purposes. You only need a suitable level of accuracy for that purpose..minute of man at 7 yards. So neither are that wowing and both require an aftermarket barrel to gain any respectable target accuracy. Both companies target models put more emphasis on accuracy, and is so reflected on the price for added work, but still not a gain that cant be exemplified by a good quality aftermarket barrel, especially if its an over sized gunsmith fit. I cant speak to what S&W actually did on the newer 2.0 variants but its said they improved the reset and a newer barrel update, Apex trigger kit and barrel (or KKM) will remedy anything it lacks. I can speak on my M&P9 Full size that was pre 2.0 by about a year, it had a 1 in 10 twist (standard lands & grooves rifling) and only shot 147's at 3" at 20 yards. 115 or 124gr pills opened up to 5" To prove my point after I installed a drop in KKM barrel in my M&P9 it can group my 124gr load into 1-1/4" at 20 yards.

Agreed. I did it once trying to help a guy learn to reload. I don't like replacing damaged parts or having my setpoints knocked out of whack...and of course the expense! Because sharing means they arent caring LOL

Sil was accurate and a good choice for 9mm major but I did prefer HS-6 over it in my setup. I wouldn't be against using Sil if it was all I could get. I think your guns setup (comp chambers & popples or not) will dictate if either powder does better than the other. But Id lean towards the advantages of HS-6. HS-6 definitely produces more gas as its slower than sil and therefore requires a higher charge weight. (More volume of burnt fuel produces more mass of combustion byproduct). Also with HS-6 being slower it has a higher muzzle pressure potential to feed the comp gas at higher velocity. With 2 setups, M&P9: 124 Zero JHP, KKM barrel, Carver 4 chamber comp, no popples; TANFO Gold Team: 124 Zero JHP, factory barrel/ comp/popples) I could notice all those benefits as my dot return was a tad faster with no overgassed dipping. I also liked HS-6 as it showed lower chamber pressure. I noticed primer flattening was always less with HS-6 vs sil at 170pf in the same gun/bullet/primer lot.

This is correct. I myself wont reload for anyone. No matter what happens, even if end user error that had nothing to do with ammo, the source of the ammo is at risk for backlash!

Practice and be determined and get those classifiers in and see where you end up. Dont talk yourself out of success!

A steel challenge stage at an ICORE match is "in the style of" and any SCSA rules do not govern said stage. The Match Director approves the stage designer's stage procedure and penalties as long as it adheres to the general ICORE guidelines. The stage designer creates the procedure and how the plates are engaged. It is correct that the rule 6.5 dictates how the total time for score is acrued. The fact there is no specific rule governing Steel Challenge type stages in the ICORE rulebook therefore means the stage brief/procedure ultimately dictates what is considered the end of total time. For example: "Such as Audible start-Last Shot" or "Par time of XXX". So if If the stage brief says "Once the stop plate is struck time stops" That means that's the end of a scorable run. Now if it were followed up by "additional shots on a plate will count towards total time" then that would allow the penalty or added time. I personally don't agree with the whole additional shots striking a stop plate shall count business. My point of view is its a stop plate and once hit the time stops, period, and you score from there. The only reason it was imposed in officially sanctioned SCSA matches was to eliminate the extra time it took for an RO to recall the first hit on the stop plate within the timer. Frankly I don't see how that's so difficult, only takes a moment. But I believe the lack of understanding by some RO's in how to operate the timers to correctly recall the shots was the actually time consuming element. So a RO training on the deployed timers would be the solution rather than adding another penalty risk to the shooter.

I dont know what the Apex kit achieves in a J-frame as I just dropped in a Wolf reduced power mainspring and a 11lb rebound in mine. I did a mid level action job, bobbed the hammer, and got a 7lb DA pull that will set off all 38 special ammo in my model 36 J frame.

Well dont get down....everyone has to start somewhere. When I started I was battling a bad back injury and did my fair share of sucking too. Put your mind to being better and it will happen!

You dont suck....your too hard on your self Mark!

My experience with bullseye was that it was temp sensitive. I dont recall the pf swing from cold to hot but it did change. That was one of the reasons I switched over to Titegroup, it was more forgiving with temp changes. All powders are temp sensitive. Its just how much they engineer them to limit it. Bullseye had nothing in the formula to combat it where titegroup does and my experience shows it.

Kinda what I meant, I dont think it was a bad spring as he told you. Just a mis-adjusted one that was too light. It happens. When you arch the mainspring I look to go about 4-5 ozs higher than where I want to be to account for the spring to settle in after a few dozen cycles. SO if he set it for 6lbs out of the gate, after you ran a few cylinders down it's possible to settle into 5lb 12oz and just be on the edge of the necessary energy range for your setup. But once they settle in they are good for many thousands of cycles before they may start to settle again. I have Wolf Type 2 springs I've ran for years without issue. If you dont have one, get a trigger pull gauge. Once your confident this spring is set for 100% ignition, check and note the DA pull weight. Then check your DA once a month, you can catch a problem or see nothing changed for piece of mind.

I personally never did. No reason why they shouldnt work as the cylinder specs are for the .357/38 diameter case and so is the bore. I know a 38 did drop in mine as youd expect it to in a 38 chambered gun. I had money tied up in 9mm moonclips and brass so I just stuck with that while trying to work it out. I fell into the range brass savings and shorter case advantages for an impulse buy. All I got was a developed a hatred for the 6-1/2 barrel and that Ti cylinder. So I shall now rant on the 929 and why I steer clear. Honestly when it comes down to it, any moonclip fed revolver needs to have a good fit between the clip and the brass. Brass, whether 9mm or 38 varients the extractor groove varies by brand. 9mm is a bit more forgiving in that dept but still is a factor. So for proper clips you need to match the brand of brass to the clip intended for that brass. So whether its 9mm or a 38 variant your either sorting brass or more wisely buying a bulk order of brass of a single brand (worth it as you dont lose any like an autoloader) and buying an appropriately matched clip. So with that considered the perceived advantage in 929 range brass use is, in my opinion, a draw between the two. Anyone that says otherwise is probably the same person who tells you their gun is laser accurate as 4" groups at 15 yards impresses them (insert sigh here). Moving on, your using .357" or .358" bullets to be accurate so your using the same bullets as if you had a 38 variant. Then the Ti cylinder, its inherent inability to hold a chamber polish, premature cylinder stop notch peening, and stuck cases on extraction unless you use slower powders of which doesnt help half the time....I dont see any advantage to it over a 627. SO why bother and just get the 627; 5" barrel has a good sight radius and better maneuverability than the 6-1/2" 929. 627's Stainless cylinder can be worked/polished with ease and is more durable and wear resistant to hold a polish and resist peening. It extracts fine with any brass and powder combo. Also more versatility: you want 9mm length loading/extraction with a little loss of accuracy, throw in short colts. You want a better mix of accuracy and shortness, throw in Long colts. Got a ton of old 38 specials lying around or someone (you trust) wants to give some away, throw em in and eat em up for practice, you wanna carry it while hunting, throw in .357 magnums. And best of all, after shooting those lead .38's throw in a cylinder worth of magnums and it flushes the lead away for easier cleaning latter on. Accuracy is equal potential between the two, with facory loaded ammo going to the 627 as you have the correct diameter bullet, factory 9's at .355" wont pair well with the 929 that needs 38 bullets. Boom, rant done...more gun, more convenience, and more versatility for the same or less money.

NO videos Ive ever seen. STI frames have varied over the years and the dimensions are all over the place. SO the exact fitment for your frame may not be the same for another anyhow. Ist thing to do is makes sure the grip doesnt just go on out of the box and get lucky, if you havent already. It should slide on with just a little bit of resistance for a minor slip fit. If its snug dont force it as it can bend and put stress on the frame. Dykem the inside of the grip and slip it on the frame until it wont easily go anymore and then carefully remove and check where the dykem was scratched off and you know the ares to address. Using hand files remove material lightly and constantly check your work by more dykem and sliding it on. Once you get to the point of it slipping on all the way and the grip screw holes still dont line up be sure to check that you have clearance between the top edge of the grip to slide stop/safety plunger housing as well as the top flat above the trigger guard drops into the frame recess, both areas may need some trimming. I mention that so you dont continue to file inside in case those two areas are hanging the alignment up. Ive done a couple of them on STI frames 1 was easy easy and one I had was a real Mother$*#*@(. USually they slip right on a newer Bedell made frame and I believe also the Atlas frames. Good luck.

Its nice to see Burris releasing new models except that usually results in dropped models latter on, usually the ones I liked lol. But if its a Burris it will be tough and worthy. I own many of them and no problems! Id be curious to check this out and thanks for the posting as now I know to look for one as I have not seen them on display in any place near me and its been a year since this announcement apparently. Ill need to compare the glass on this new unit compared to my XTR 1-5x24 currently on my 3 gun rifle. The XTR glass is very clear and works well in the wooded low light long range stages. So I hope this newer tube is close to that optically quality. Im a firm believer in best quality glass at a little lower power will see better than a lesser glass with a tiny more magnification. (I can see a target at 200 yards clearer and hit it more consistently with my XTR on 5x power than I could with a strike Eagle on 6x).

For some reason the trend is for Euro manufacturers (FN for Hi-Power barrels as an exception) to run shallower throats in handgun vs our american counterparts. I had a tanfo 9mm that had this issue. my usual COL's for M&P, Hi-Power, or 1911 9's would be too long.

I forgot about the fluffy N320. I dont use it as I found A#2 is like a poor mans substitute. Its cheaper, more dense, meters perfectly, just as accurate, and is soft. In all my handgunning I have 4 core powders for minor loading I always end up using for the right mix of accuracy, cleanliness, and feel. Those are Titegroup, A#2, WSF, & HS-6. TItegroup works well in the .45 for any lead, coated, or plated bullet for a major PF, in the 38 varients it works well for lead, coated, or plated bullets with 147 gr or lighter bullets, and 9mm plated bullets of all weights (it does not work well with lead or coated in 9mm). A#2 works well for for all the 38 variants of lead, coated, or plated with most weights but especially likes the heavier bullets in the 158 -165gr. WSF is my go to for heavier (135 gr and up) lead or coated in the 9mm. HS-6 is my jacketed 9mm powder for 130 pf minor on up to major. The powders I have tried and do not like are E3; dirty and meters horribly with variation like crazy, Clays; low charge weights with crappy metering makes for inconsitancy and pressure issues, Unique; another metering frustration with severe case position sensativity, and Power pistol: always felt sharp and accuracy was ok but not as good as others. The sport pistol I have not tried, it sort of intrigues me to check it out. But most of these newer marketed flavors of the week dont do anything more than most of the established flavors.

200 gr cast (Saeco mold) Hi-Tek coated Semi Wadcutter. 5.0gr Titegroup Fed or Win large Pistol Primer COL 1.260" 850 fps

After a lengthy discussion with S&W PC hierarchy they admitted; 9mm models use the same barrel diameter tolerances for the .357/38 models. So your bore will land between .3565" up to .3575". The 929 I had liked .357" sized bullets and was horrible with any .355 9mm pill and slightly better with .356 pills. Leading increased with coated bullets at .358". As an added bonus the 9mm cylinders are based on .357/38 cartridge diameters with just a shorter throat. Never could fall in love with the 929.

Not sure either....Only reason to worry about fill rate is avoiding a compressed load or the spill factor on a progressive press both of which are more of an issue for major loading. Some schools of thought correlate the case volume to accuracy potential...this comes from the flake shotgun/pistol crossover powders (like unique) in low pressure calibers like 38 special or 45acp that suffer from powder up or down position variations. Use a ball, flattend ball or ganulure type powder and position/volume dont make much difference in a 9mm.

Titegroup likes near max loads in 45, it does not like to be downloaded like bullseye or WST for light plinkers. That is why its window of charge weights is usually narrow. But I have noticed If you load it at its starting point there's more velocity deviation. Temp may exacerbate those light charge weight to create the OP concerns. But at the top or max it settles and becomes eerily consistent, all the time. I exclusively run TItegroup in 45 ACP with a 200 gr bullet at 168-170pf. Never noticed any difference in feel or major velocity drops/increases with temp changes. I always found it to be the most consistant powder in the .45 as far as accuracy and velocity deviation at major pf. Ive also noticed this enigma in 38 special, it likes hot loads with heavy bullets or medium to hot with lighter bullets from the added charge volume with the lighter bullets.

Glad to hear your all fixed up. I am curious to ask what was your gunsmiths determination for bad wolf springs? Ive never had a bad main spring from them, Ive had them weaken and settle, basically wear out over many thousands of cycles. Im curious to hear what happened.....

I had the opposite end of the spectrum. I chrono'd at 60 degree's at 800' elevation 1 week before the IRC and was at 128pf. When I chrono'd at the IRC in AZ at 85-90 degrees at around 1900' I was only a 122pf. I expected a result similar to yours so Im still suspicious about it. Unless A#2 is reverse temp sensitive to elevation/temp (cant find any indicators it is) Either my Chrono or the match one was off.

Are you sure you didnt have a light strike somewhere along the lines, pulled the bullet and it was thrown in the spent cases bin for reloadin?. Id think that to be a much more viable reasoning. I just cant see how an already ignited primer could be ignited again. Primer compound is basically modified Nitro glycerin and its inherent instability explodes quite throughly and if by chance any residual remained upon the hit the the powder burn blowing back into the primer would surely eliminate it. Not to mention the firing pin crater left from a previous successful firing would not leave any clearance for the cup to be crushed anymore into the anvil to promote any ignition. Just some analytics to consider.

Every revolver's factory internals have variation. Because of that the DA pull for reliability with OEM internals will depend on what level of attention you give it and what primer brand you intend to use. With just some surface smoothing on the frame and hammer/trigger rotational areas and rebound/mainspring spring changes 7-1/2 lbs is very realistic to set off most primers including magnums. Now add stoning all surfaces, smoothing cylinder rotation drag (straighten yoke, smooth yoke spindle & ratchet thrust face and breech face), eliminating Hammer & trigger drag, bobbing the hammer, and extended firing pin like the Apex can get you 6-3/4lbs realistically with most primers, (CCI magnums may be iffy). Or with the same work you can go realistically to 6lbs and use Federals for 100% reliability. I personally dont like going below 6lbs DA as I feel the further reduced rebound spring tension required to do so makes rebound lazy and you lose the feedback to your finger.

I use A#2 in loads with heavier bullets in a given caliber and always liked it. Very accurate, meters with little to no variation, and has been clean. Moreover I found it to be one of the softest shooting powders in the heavier bullets range.