BallisticianX

I always found HS-6 to meter well. Titegroup does as well. Most all ball or fine granular pistol powders meter well. The crossover shotgun/pistol flake powders are usually the problem, clays, E3, red dot etc.

Agreed.

Im familiar with Pine Bush. I would get my high end rimfire ammo from Monell's on Red Mills Rd. I had stopped going to DCPA for awhile when they built that roof contraption over range #2. Between the blast of every shot reverberating under that thing and the darkness I hated it. The day I had an earplug come off in 2015 while shooting an open Tanfo with 8 or 10 popples and went crossed eyed I stopped going. I did brave it again this year and shot their matches up until August when the gentleman who ran the USPSA matches past away suddenly. Im not sure if they resumed and found someone to take it over. Ive shot just about every Albany match from 2009 to date.

With todays lubrication chemistry I think most firearm specific oils provide ample lubrication. Ive used many over the years and only encountered a few I avoid. One is Ballistol on friction/moving applications. Ballistol is the best for corrosion prevention as a surface protectant but not on moving parts. The two I used most is M-Pro 7 and Lucas extreme duty oil. Both leave a good film on parts after firing 100+ rounds and doesnt evaporate off. As long as your oil doesnt "disappear" during a healthy day of shooting its fine. I tend to use the Lucas more now as in my AR platform its seems to be more "wet" after an outing than anything else Ive used. Recently here in the winter months in the Northeast Ive been shooting as much as I can. In temps as low as 18 degrees Ive not noticed any gumming or problems from the Lucas nor previously from M-Pro 7.

Here in the frigid northeast Ive developed and chrono'd loads in the winter and chrono'd again in the spring and checks here and there...Ive noticed variations of 1 maybe 2 pf in some extreme cases. So for steel develop a load that feels good and gives you positive target feedback and and never mind a pf or the minimal, if any change, with temp. Just remember too puny of a load wont give you hit feedback and can mislead you into unnecessary make up shots.

Your load looks fine. One thing to consider is Glocks have the "picture window" at the breech face striker protrusion and displaces a lot of primer cup into that window upon firing. Comparably the M&P has the tear drop in the same area. Those bigger recessed areas allow more primer metal to flow and weakens/thins the cup. With a softer federal primer add an overzealous striker spring and that could be all it is. Ive picked up a few pieces of range brass with the signature glock and M&P strike and saw residue in the indent on federal case stamps. I noticed it in my own M&P here and there with federals. With CCI primers it would not happen. I put in a reduced striker spring and it ceased happening on federals and still set all others off. Something to consider.

If you were on the 32 corridor Im guess you were in Plattekill or Milton/Marlboro on the 9W corridor. Did you ever shoot at DCPA between 2010 and when you left? If you did we have probably met before.

My current 3 gun load in an M&P9 4.25” KKM barrel is: 124 gr. JHP (Precision Delta) 6.1gr HS-6 CCI #500 (SP standard) Mixed brass COL: 1.110 1045fps (129.5 power factor)

Hogue grips are all a monogrip 1 piece design that utilizes the grip sliding in from the top. So I dont think a closed backstrap is possible or without too thick of a backstrap resulting. I will look into that. Hogue does offer some custom shop work and might be able to figure something out. Send me a PM with details of what your looking to have as a finished product and I ll get a hold of Hogue to see what options they have for you.

To not get good ignition until 8-10lbs with a federal primer means theres an issue with excessive headspace, severe hammer drag after release, firing pin channel obstruction, or timing issue. Also the whole holy grail of having a 4.5 lb double action is not all that wonderful. To achieve that your mainspring is so light that the slightest little thing off causes FTF. Also you have to lighten the rebound spring so much your making the reset lazy and lose the feedback to your finger. I agree with a couple other posters, anything below 6 lb becomes more of a disadvantage. How smooth and free of resistance you work the action is more important. A well worked 6lb DA will feel lighter than it is while more crisp and responsive than a lazy 4.5lb action! And finally....only thing a dremel tool is used for on a revolver is to bob a hammer or contour the trigger face. Any action work is done by controlled dexterity of the hand with india stones and arkansas stones.

Ive owned a few sets of Nill's. They are a quality grip but favor euro angles etc. Nill grips are usually larger than anyone else's. The palm swells are positioned slightly lower than say a Hogue or Pachmayr. That sets your hand lower from the boreline and I didn't like that. Also the closed back strap makes for a longer length of pull, it's tolerable on a K/L frame but unmanageable on a N frame. Open back straps are a must with the larger heft! On the back strap, the curve on either the closed or open has a steeper angle towards the bottom for that Euro pistol angle feel. The 3 sets of Nill's I previously owned I majorly modified to feel right for me. I bought the Nills also because I wanted a fatter grip, but in all cases the fat was not in the right places. Since I tried my first wood Hogue Grip Ive never used anything else. I know it may be taken as I'm partial to the Hogue's...and I am but I shoot for them because I already used their grips not the other way around. The Wood Hogues are dimensionally bigger than the Overmolded varieties. They also put the bulk where its needed and maintain a higher grip position. I suggest to find someone with a set of wood Hogue's to handle before you buy the Nill to maybe save some money and have customer service that's not on another continent if something needs repairing or fitting etc.

Nothing wrong with Small pistol standards for major work. I shot them back when I used 9 major for awhile when primers were scarce. I had a couple pierced ones out of however many thousands that didnt. I think standard primers are less prone to possible piercing in 38 super than 9 (lower chamber pressures in 38 super from larger case and usual use of slower powders etc). I just think the mag primers give the best balance of pressure resistance, sealing, and uniform ignition. I also feel the small rifle craze is overkill and unnecessary. But in this great sport of endless possibilities I say whatever works for you...go with it!

Ill look it up and get back to you.

I was in Florida for the IRC in the first week of Nov. 2017. I left your neighborhood at 85 degrees, drove home, 36 hours later I arrived to 28 degrees to start my woodstove. Ive been thinking about more southernly pastures ever since. What area did you live in up here in the communist Regime of NY?

If you need Ice Ill send some down from here in NY....gonna have plenty to spare come Sunday!

HS-6 has some rough critics but I always had great luck with it in 9mm, both in minor, and it was my 9 major powder as well. Its my current 9mm minor load for my 3 gun pistol. Never found it to be dirty and always felt soft and was accurate. Use that HS-6 and youll like it! For a chrono I have a CED M2. Its been a great reliable unit.

Usually the Small rifle primer does have a tougher cup from a harder brass alloy or just a thicker wall. What the manufacturers do exactly at any given time is only known to them. But the Rifle flavor of primers are built to withstand the elevated pressures found in rifle cartridges as compared to pistols. The magnum primer does offer higher heat range and flame mass as compared to standard small pistol to ignite "slower powders" found in the magnum handgun range of suitable powders. The powders often used for major are at the beginning of the magnum powder range on up. The uniform ignition advantage correlates to the flame retardant additives in the powders formula to retard the burn. Its simple physics/chemistry; The more resistant a material is to burn the higher the heat and volume thereof is required to ignite. The quicker more efficiently you ignite the more uniform the burn from case to case. My extensive time chronographing a given major load with only changing the primer showed improved consistency with velocity and group size at 35 yards with a magnum pistol primer vs standard. The small rifle primer was also more consistant vs standard primer. As far as Clays powder goes, I dont like it. Despite the rage about it some years back I never saw anything that impressed me. I dont see any advantage to using it but can see issues instead. The flake design meters horribly with considerable deviation from charge to charge. Then considering the low charge weights that deviation in metering makes some significant velocity and pressure changes. Then as far as accuracy, even with hand measuring each charge I never found it to be wowing. I could put together loads with the same bullet at the same velocity with Bullseye, Titegroup, & A#2 and hold tighter groups. I also never noticed it being that much softer than those others either. If anything A#2 felt softer.

Untreated Walnut or Corn Cob...tumble, load, fire, repeat. The treated stuff like the Red (rouge) you should wash. There is an Ammonia content in the rouge. Brass tumbled in that and left to sit for a period of time tends to develop the copper color blotches where the alloy is being etched and weakened. Considering the additive does not clean any better but rather just polishes more for shiny like new finish its not worth the rinsing effort. Brass comes out plenty clean with straight walnut and I dont care how shiny it looks....It will be tarnished again anyway!

I agree with you. I often find the older powders often perform equally or still better in some cases than the newer miracle blends. They are still around for a reason. Also I can say I never had a bad load with Bullseye. Not a bad choice, I use it for low volume accuracy loads in my non purposed handguns. For high volume competition shooting I personally find an alternative powder for the sake of soot reduction especially in revos. They tried cleaning it up some years ago but its still soots the hell out of the host gun. For a 100 year old formula its still hangs with the powders of today in terms of accuracy though.

How I setup my crimp for Jacketed bullets. Using new brass that hasnt been work hardened by several firings/sizings (eliminates spring back variable); size a case and do not expand the case mouth. leaving your crimping die backed out and loose in the press bring the sized case into the crimp die (press ram all the way up) and leave it there. Now screw the crimp die down slowly and feel for it to contact the case mouth, back it off just a little and lock it down. now expand the case, seat a bullet and send it through the crimp die. Take the dummy round and measure using Grumpyones mentioned formula of wall thickness multiplied by 2 plus bullet diameter. If you dont have a tube micrometer to measure case wall thickness take a measurement of the loaded round diameter a little more than a 1/16" below the case mouth, note it, and then measure the case mouth, they should be the same and the case mouth profoundly visible so it will properly headspace. Adjust accordingly. As a footnote if you achieve the case mouth measurement target on the first try it could be misleading, disassemble the round with an inertia bullet puller and inspect the bullet for how much of a crush ring is on the bullet. If its substantial back of the crimp die and try again until the mouth measurement grows then you know where your at. Also as others have said bullet setback prevention does not solely rely on the amount of taper crimp, it can add a slight bit of resistance but the case tension is what firmly holds that bullet. As a new reloader know that as cases are fired and re-sized the brass work hardens. As a result you get more spring back and lose some of that case tension. Also straight wall handgun cases tend to shrink with repeated loadings. Oh and different lots/brands of brass vary in length. So monitor your crimp, if you see less crimp after awhile dont get paranoid the press adjustments changed...probably just cases getting shorter. Hence newer brass for matches, older brass for practice.

9mm, 38 Super, 40 auto's feed best with OAL on the longer end of the spectrum. If there is published load data I always load to the max published OAL and check mag fit and plunk test and never look back. If no published data on a bullet load long with careful consideration it fits within the confines of your mags, has enough bullet seated into the case to be held concentrically and not easily separate during firing, and passes the plunk test in the intended guns chamber. Then test fire for function, adjust OAL if feeding issues occur.

Ive shot special brass, SC, LC and LC shortened to .900. As far as reloads go if the clips/brass are held snugly and straight any of the three drop in just as fast. But for ejection is where, to me, the shorter cases do have an advantage. They're lack of length clears the cylinder better lessening the chance of a case hitting a grip edge and hanging in the cylinder etc etc. But over the years of load development, specific to a .357 mag chambered gun Ive found accuracy deficiencies with Short colts from excessive bullet jump in two 627's, a model 19, and a 586. Heavier longer bullets were less dismal than lighter shorter bullets and that supports the bullet jump issue. Despite seeing people say they shoot "like lasers" Ive not seen it and wont recommend it! But Long colt and Specials will however shoot equally and very accurately out of a .357 chamber. A trimmed down LC to .900 showed good results as well, but the time to trim does not warrant the lack of gain for such a small amount. So my suggestion, for a good mix of Accuracy, ejection reliability, and lower charge weights...the Long Colt case.

+1 on the Double Alpha Racemaster.

For a competition revolver; an action job is always a plus and preferred of course but not necessary. An extended cylinder release is always good for positive manipulation. Cylinder work is probably most critical for problem free ejection and reloading. A good charge hole chamfer as mentioned above does wonders for smooth loading. Its important to break all the sharp edges not only on the top of cylinder body but to the entire ejector edges as well (a step overlooked by the factory). Also on some revolvers (627/929 comes to mind) the cylinder body edges directly beneath the extractor protrude slightly past the ejectors edge. That sharp shelf needs to be slightly rolled over or it will hang up rounds. Despite the previous statements against it I am a proponent of honing the cylinder chambers on stainless cylinders, not so much on Ti as the return isnt long lived. A smooth chamber surface reduces friction and will only help extraction...done properly any smooth surfaces on a moving interaction is advantageous and cant be argued. This is especially helpful if you have chambers on the tighter end of the spec. Flexhone for firearms cylinder hones work wonderfully for this. Other than major in depth detail work that will get you up and running and competitive!

Ive worked on several 617's as well and just finished one yesterday as a matter of fact. So let me elaborate; when I say an extended pin does not help I specifically mean if the OEM pin is of the .490" spec I've found a longer .495" pin performs the same (no added advantage) with the disadvantage it will hit the chamber edge whereas the .490" spec does not. Honestly with the mainspring set to a given pull, and only swapping pins from an in spec factory .490" pin to a .495" pin I found no change better or worse. If it shoots 100% with a .490 it shot 100% with a .495, if it had a 10% fail rate with one it matched the fail rate to the other. However, of which does fall in line indirectly of what you say (and Smith & Wessons QC), Ive found a few factory pins at .486". In the case of a shorter .486" yes the ignition does improve with .490". Ive experimented with pin length on these testy revolvers along with pin tip profiles by modifying others pins and machining some of my own. Tried pointy, extreme blunt, narrowed rectangle (like a rifle flat pin), and a few different round profiles all at .490 and .495". I found the factory .490" with a slight ojived curve profile (a little more aggressively angled than a concentrically domed curve) worked best. The flat rectangle (rifle like pin) and pointy were worst.