Gun Geek
-
Posts
741 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Gun Geek
-
-
Well, I exaggerated a bit.
I went and tried it today.
From absolute start to finish for 1000 primers (clean bench to 10 loaded tubes, 100 ea) took 29:30. With all the stuff laid out neatly on the bench, it took 22:17.
So, I exaggerated a bit, 22:17 or 29:30 is still pretty good. You couldn't do that with the regular pick-ups.
PS,
I suddenly had 1000 primers loaded up in tubes, now what to do with them...
-
I'm also in the camp of the Vibra-prime thingy. I use the heck out of mine. At the price you can buy 2 or 3 and be way ahead on $$. If you loaded the volume for pro competition, it probably wouldn't hold up, but then neither would a lot of things. The VP is on sale now for $24.99 (I think). The extra tubes are also on sale, so buy a bunch. Takes me about 20mins to stuff 1000 primers in the tubes.
There are a few things to check, though. Find a drill bit that sharp and just a smidge bigger than the inside of the tube and run it down into the plastic piece at the top. This removes burs and buts a little chamfer on the entrance of the tube. also, lightly dampen a cleaning patch with a little silicone (I do mean a little) and run it through the tube. I've also used mica powder (the stuff benchresters use to lube the inside of case mouths). Put a little in the tube, hold your fingers on both ends and shake. Smooths things out.
The tubes that come with the VibraPrime are a a little too big to go into the blue Dillon plastic nipple, conversely the Dillon tubes are a little too small for the plastic locking collar. I have used a drill bit to expand the Dillon nipple and I have epoxied the collar to the tube. However, it seems that the best solution is to just use the tubes that come with the VP. I've found that you don't really need the blue nipple to keep the primers from spilling when you put them in the press.
Enjoy
Geek
-
Kent:
Did you figger this out?
-
Raider:
Below is a list of all the parts that set up a 650 for a cartridge. Don't panic this is not nearly as tough to manage as it first seems.
Complete Conversion Kit
Shellplate Number
Locator Button
Funnel
Station 1 Locator
Casefeed Adaptor
Arm Bushing
Body Bushing
Casefeed Disc
Primer System
Powder Check Rod
By looking at the part numbers for each of these cartridges, you can see that some are the same, and some are different. Below is a break down of those. When you order the press, you choose a cartridge and Dillon sets it up that way. So, you'll have to either share the common parts and buy the others individually, or just buy the other conversion kit. My observation is that if you have to buy shell plates, it is not worth ordering individual parts, the shell plate is most of the cost and having spares around can be helful.
I don't have much insight on using parts other than Dillon's listings between 45 and 40. I don't have any problem philosophical problem with it, I just don't load 40 so I can't tell which can be interchanged other than what Dillon lists.
You will have to get 2 priming systems (Large and Small), the 45 takes a large, the 40 takes small.
I agree with Nik, get a second tool head, stand, and powder measure. This will make things much faster. I also recco the power casefeeder. This component speeds things up considerably since you don't have to handle the cases.
Don't even think about not getting the powder check. It will keep you from making potentially dangerous mistakes.
Sorry about the Glock dig - I think they are engaging in a little revisionist history so they don't have to mention other manufacturers in their literature
Hope this helps.
Parts that are the same between the 2 cartridges
Casefeed Adaptor: (Red) 13143
Arm Bushing: (Red) 13403
Body Bushing: (Med) 13604
Casefeed Disc: (Large Pistol) 21072
Parts that are Different between the 2 cartridges
40S&W (Now called 40 Auto by Glock)
Complete Conversion: 21120 (includes all the parts listed at top)
Shell Plate: (W) 13310
Locator Button: (2) 14062
Powder Funnel: (W) 13600
Station 1 Locator: 13267
Primer System: Sm
Powder Check Rod: Med
45ACP (Now called 45 Auto by Glock)
Complete Conversion: 21071 (includes all the parts listed at top)
Shell Plate: (1) 13204
Locator Button: (1) 13930
Powder Funnel: (E) 13782
Station 1 Locator: 13595
Primer System: Lg
Powder Check Rod: Lg
-
Dog:
We may be in violent agreement - at least on the part that counts.
I agree with what you said in #5 - Shooters can tell the difference and they do lots of stuff to adjust the feeling. You're also right that the most important measure is split times.
So we're good there.
Where we disagree is on the more academic part of the discussion. Normally academic discussions aren't worth arguing over, but you come to a conclusion that I don't think is correct
Issac Newton and my now long dead college Physics professor rolled over in their graves when you wrote the part about the difference between mass and weight. Mass is a property of matter like density, temperature, hardness, etc, while weight is the force created by the attraction of gravity. You're right that since the relationship between mass and weight is linear (that relationship is Force (weight) =mass x accelration), it won't matter which one we use as long as we don't need the distinction. On the earth, accelration is 32ft/s^2, but it is different on the moon and Mars, so the weight of an object is different on the moon and Mars.
However, you use the assumption that weight and mass are the same to go on to equate momentum and power factor, and those simply aren't the same. The units do matter. Here we need the distinction. The actual numbers you compute may come out to be off by small amounts, but short cutting the thought process leads you off in the weeds.
Also your interpretation of the recoil impluse - "the recoil impulse is equal to the momentum of the bullet plus the momentum of the powder" isn't correct (recoil impulse does not equal momentum). Impluse has units of distance x time, momenum has units of mass x velocity or (mass x distance)/time
I understand what you're doing with the assertion that since mass and weight have a linear relation you can ignore the differences. As I said above, that is true as long as you are comparing apples to apples. The shortcut falls apart when you start trying to make other conclusions - such as the conclusion about to powder weight adding to the power factor. It doesn't. It adds to the impulse pushing the bullet, but not to the momentum of the bullet.
By equating mass and wieght, you equated recoil impulse, momentum, and powerfactor, then decided that powder weight should be a component of the powerfactor. PF is designed as a description of the bullet once it leaves the gun - it doesn't matter how it got to that factor (accelerated quickly, accelerated slowly, it is going fast and weighs little, going slow and weighs a lot, launched by flea fart or a nuclear explosion). So I don't agree that powder weight should have anything to do with the calculation of power factor. All you need is speed and weight.
To be more rigorous, IPSC and IDPA could have used momentum, but because bullets are discussed in terms of weight not mass, they kept it familiar and defined their own unit called powerfactor. My guess is that if we used grams and meter/second, we would be calling it momentum.
Are we having fun yet?
-
There 's a thread about this, but Eric has graciously given a detailed explanation of the issue. Complete with legal disclaimer...
-
Kent:
Per bompa's comment, I measured the part that does the expanding. On a 650 (which is what I have) it is the powder funnel.
You need funnel E and mine mic'd at 0.44800. You might check to see if you have funnel E
Also make sure that the outside of the funnel is clean (no rust, etc). This could be stretching the cases a little too much. The funnels seem to rust easily. I keep all my funnels in a plastic box with a cleaning patch soaked in Breakfree.
If it is set too deep you will see lots of belling of the case mount. You want the minimum amount here so that you can start the bullet straight and no more. I think it usually only about 2 or 3 thousandths.
Hope this helps.
-
Angus:
Seems like it would be tough to shoot with only 2 fingers. I guess it depends on which 2 you have.
-
Wait - Erik
Hair - I'll swap with you. I was getting ready to do the mod on your website, but if I don't have to I wont!
-
Sorry for being MIA, been travelling for work. What a drag.
Dog:
You got me thinking a little, so I did some research.
First the thing about the momentum of the gas coming out of the barrel having some impact on the recoil. The answer is ABSOLUTELY. Recoil is comprised of 2 components; the impulse that you discussed as well as the ejection of the gas (same physics as a jet engine or a rocket motor). The momentum of the gas is why a compensator/muzzle brake works. It reduces the recoil and muzzle lift experienced by the shooter by redirecting some of the gas stream - Like the reverse thrusters on an airliner.
On the energy thing. I agree that KE is not really the thing that is conserved for just the reasons you said (heat, friction, sound, etc). It is, of course total energy that is conserved (1st law of thermo?). However, if you assume that those things are roughly equal when comparing 2 loads, you still get to the issue of lowering velocity lowers recoil more than mass. I didn't like that line of thinking so I looked a little harder (thank you Google!).
I found that there are several calculators on the web that will calc recoil energy. This one has some pretty cools stuff http://www.zvis.com/bali/bvjtools.shtml I used their formulas and set up a spreadsheet. The things you need to know are Bullet weight, Powder weight, Gun weight, and Muzzle Velocity.
Bullet Weight Velocity Recoil Energy
155 1129 13.21
185 945 12.79
200 875 12.37
230 760 11.96
255 686 11.45
These calcs show that using a heavier bullet (at lower velocity) will produce less recoil. I thought that these numbers were not really that different (11.5 up to 13.25) but as I looked at some other references, that really is a pretty big swing. High power rifles (30-06) will be in the 17 - 25 range and real butt kickers will be in the 30 - 40 range. Check out this link. http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table_exp.htm. A 50BMG is about 95.
Again, the key is that with the heavier bullet you can go slower to meet powerfactor and this drops recoil faster than dropping mass.
Now I thought about another statement you made: "Impulse is force x time, and is the same as momentum, which is mass times velocity, which is power factor." It sounded reasonable to me but the analysis above contridicted it. I think the problem is in the units and the screwy issue of weight vs mass. I think in the english system we use something called ergs to represent mass. In the metric system it is of course grams. In the english system we use pounds, grains, ounces, for weight (force), in the metric system we use Newtons.
Power factor is given as weight in grains x velocity in ft/s. This is NOT mass x weight. Remember that F = ma (Newton's 2nd or 3rd?) or weight = mass x acceleration. Putting this into the PF formula you get PF = mass x accleration x velocity. When you work out the units this stuff you get a miss-match. In the metric system:
Momentum is mass x velocity = grams x (meters/seconds) = (gm)/s
Powerfactor is weight x velocity = (grams x (meters/second^2)) x meters/second = (gm^2)/s^3 (or gram-meters squared over seconds cubed).
So, I don't think powerfactor is the same as momentum
I don't mean to be disrepectful, and this is more than an academic discussion. Lowering recoil does lower my times in IDPA and IPSC shoots. If I'm out in left field, let me know, I'm always up for something that will improve my shooting.
Geek
-
I just sort out the trash.
When I first started loading I went through this and decided to do a little study. I loaded up a bunch then sorted out the major types in my pile of range brass. Typically S&B, WW, PMC.
I then fired from a sand bag 25 rounds of each type (full size Kimber stainless target). I also mixed up batches of 25 rounds randomly and fired them.
The net is that I couldn't tell any difference in group size. I was shooting 15 yds and getting clover leaf holes - about 3/4 - 1 inch, which is much better than I can do free hand.
Net is that I sort the trash (steel, AL, cracked, distorted) and load it up. I pick up range brass and fire it until it breaks. I load to light pressures and I have some brass that is at about 25 loadings. I can tell the mouths are starting to get brittle from so much working.
BTW I do use a Lee FCD. I decap then tumble (cleans the primer pockets). I use a uni-decapper so I don't scratch a sizing die with dirty brass.
-
I've been very happy with Clays - Clean, low charge weight (economical), no unburnt powder, cycles my Kimbers quickly.
-
Nick:
I shoot plated bullets (Berry's, trying West Coast). They seem to work great and the perform more like jacketed bullets than lead, but they are cheaper.
-
Nick:
Here's what I shoot for IDPA - a 255gn SWC over 3.1gn of Clays. The reason I do this is to keep the recoil down! I've seen a couple of threads about this on this forum, as well as explored it a little myself.
OK, strange, huh?
Here's my thinking - a little physics.
1
Newton's first law - equal and opposite reaction and all that jazz.
2
The energy that goes out the front of the muzzle (because of 1) is the same amount of energy that produces recoil. To reduce recoil, reduce energy. I think this is thermodynamics?
3
Kinetic energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity (v squared). Energy is affected more by velocity (square term) than by mass. 2x velocity gets 4x the energy while 2x the mass gets 2x the energy. We must get the velocity as low as possible to lower recoil.
4
Powerfactor fixes the relationship between mass and velocity (product must equal 170,000)
5
A 255gn SWC was the biggest I have tested (don't want to take up too much room in the case and sky the pressures)
6
a 255gn bullet can go 667fps (170000/255 = 667) and be legal, while a 230 needs to go 740, and a 200 needs to go 850fps.
7
Kinetic energy (in the metric system) expressed in Joules. When I crunch the numbers I get the 200gn generates 434,953 Joules, while the 255gn generates just 78% as much energy at 340,458 Joules.
I know you're saying "How can a heavier bullet produce less recoil?" the key is that energy (recoil) are affected more by velocity than by mass. Since the Powerfactor lets you lower the velocity by upping the mass, it works pretty cool.
I thought about the problem of shooting a bullet this slow. At the ranges you shoot in IDPA there is no important change in impact point. Also, my brass seems to last forever, less heat, less stress, less everything. You must adapt your shooting just a little because the bullet will impact higher on the target. I actually like this because the sites don't block out smaller targets (steel, thin sliver of shoot behind no shoot, etc).
Also the SWC puts big holes in the target. I can see them while firing (often quicker to take another shot than to take that -3). And I think it has helped a few "on-the-line" scores go my way.
Subjectively I do clearly feel a difference. I mixed the rounds in a mag (a buddy loaded them) and shot. I can 100% of the time pick out the 255gn and the (in my case 230gn).
I use bullets from national bullet co, but I'm going to try some from West Coast. Best thing to do is start low with a load and increase until the chrono gives you the right number (individual milage may vary)
Hope this helps (may confuse you!). Drop me a line if you want more info!
-
OK, I love them, too.
However, I do need to throw a bit of reality water on this discussion.
I have a 650. I load both handgun and rifle calibers, and I am a victim of Magnum fever. In my case, 300WSM.
Dillon does not publish a 300WSM conversion kit for a 650, so I contacted them. It took me 6 tries
1) Sent an e-mail, no response
2) First guy I got on the phone said "why would you ever load that on a 650?"
3) Next try: "Can't load 300WSM on a 650, the shortness of the cartridge causes a 'timing' problem". Huh?
4) Called again, guy said no published info, so I'll have the sales manager call you. No return call for 3 days.
5) Called again. "No info available. Round is too new and not many people using it (hogwash), so we haven't worked up a kit."
I did a little homework - looked at cartridge drawings and found rounds with a similar case footprint. Made up my list of parts that I thought would work.
6) Called again. This guy was helpful. Told me why there was no kit - they don't have a case feed adaptor big enough to allow a WSM (300, 270, etc) to drop through. He confirmed that all the other parts I had listed should work. He HELD ON THE LINE WHILE I WENT AND GOT A 300WSM CASE, A LARGE ADAPTOR, AND CALIPERS! We did a little measuring and I could tell that all that was needed was that the adaptor needed to be opened up a little. I ordered the parts.
When the parts came, I checked it all out, and they were pretty close. I needed 2 mods - the one above (opening up the adaptor), and the locator pins were just a little tight. I used sandpaper wrapped around a 30-06 case stuck in a drill press on the adaptor (it is aluminium), and the sandpaper on the pins in the drill press.
My 650 now loads 300WSM with no problem. And yes, they are accurate - .75" at 300yds out of a production Savage 12VBSS. One 8 point buck and 2 does at 400, 275 and 250 yards.
I think I should have gotten the answer that I got on the 6th attempt on the first attempt. I know I'm not the first to ask about the WSM cartridge, and it would seem simple for Dillon to have a canned answer. Even if it is "The parts need mod, and we won't replace moded parts, so purchase at you own risk"
-
Got the Lee feeder adapted.
It is kinda bodged up right now, I have to pick up a tool to make it "professional".
Works about 90% of the time. I think when I do a better job mounting, it will get much better.
Next effort is to make a hopper deal (like the Dillon case feeder). Been tinkering with a couple of ideas.
I'll post details when I get it nailed down.
Now we're having fun!
-
I use a program called RSI Shooting Lab that tracks all this stuff. It also does IB, XB, target analysis, and lots more.
Go check it out.
-
Got the Lee bullet feeder. Looks pretty doable.
I'll keep you up to date.
-
Guys - ordered a sample in 45ACP. Let you know what I think...
-
Bob:
I like your ideas.
My plan is to work the placement issue first, then tackle tackle automating the feed.
-
Guys:
Just waiting on the Lee bullet feeder from Midway. I'll keep you up to date and post photos.
I'm sure I'll run into problems, or over complicate somethings, so maybe together we can whip this.
Keep the ideas flowing!
I guess we'll have to sign over the IP rights to BE since this is his forum...
-
I've already got one of the Lee units on order (don't let Mike Dillon see that!)
Lee has a new system that lets you put on 4 tubes at once, looks like about 100 bullets.
Things are about to get interesting...
-
Shred:
I did a little searching here and there was some discussion, but it quickly went off into high volume production.
I was wondering if anyone actually managed to do this before I start devoting brain cycles to it. I have a couple of ideas and the fact that so much of the 650 is Aluminim makes it easy (read cheaper tools) to work.
My last project was couple of devices to stop the cases from feeding and the primers from feeding. Pictures coming someday. Materials are some 1/4 AL rod, tap&die, 3/32 brass rod. Pretty simple and easy. No I'm ready to tackle something a little more complex.
It should be doable if you don't try to get it to work like the case feeder (just pour the bullets in a hopper). Just keep a tube filled up.
Maybe someday...
-
Wolf:
I too am on the side of the CED. It seems to be accurate, it is easy to use the controls, and as per the discussions above, with the infrared kit - it works in ANY light condidtion that I have tested it in. Won 5 bucks from an old timer who said it would never work. Actually he was suckering me - he won back his 5 and an additional 10 on another bet, but that's another story.
Anyway, the CED has been the savior of a couple of IDPA matches because it worked when others wouldn't. It does just fine in an indoor range.
I did have some problems in the beginning with the power cables for the IR screens. They made the cables from this very light coax stuff (kinda like the speaker wire that goes to your computer speakers) and I had a couple of times where the cable would short and spark/smoke. That's really cool at the range.
I remade the cables with the right wire (Thank you Radio Shack) and it works fine. I think someone was saving a penny or 2.
Oh, another thing I use it for is placing it down range and determining down range velocity. This lets me get pretty good numbers for BC when I plug the data into my software (RSI Shooting lab). The numbers are big enough to be read at 150 yards through a scope. You don't have to, the string is recorded, but I'm always curious...
Need .45acp Load For Idpa/cdp
in 44/45 Caliber
Posted
Hey I'm just having a fun. Unfortunately, figern' out stuff like this is fun to me (thus Gun Geek!). My guess is that Dog feels pretty much the same way. I haven't thought of anything he has said as "fightin words"
But in the interest of sending everyone else to the mad house, I'm happy to leave things right where they are.
Dog and I agreed a long time ago that you still had to pick the load combination that provided the best results for you.