cautery

Can you explain to me what your specific objection is? How does allowing someone to load their stock M&P 40 mags to 15 (as designed), an equipment race? In limited, I have a +5 base pad on the stock mag... for 20. In open, I'd have the option to use a 170mm mag. Not the same thing... Right now, Production Class Rules artificially REDUCE the magazine capacity of the vast majority of Production guns as sold... Arbitrarily reducing mag acpacity is for totalitarian governments, not USPSA... Actually, we don't have a "Production" class... we have Production-10 Class. Actually we don't have either. It's Production Division. It will become an expensive equipment race because those stock M&P's, Older XD9 and XD 40s and others will not be competitive with 12 to 15 rounds. When you have guns like CZ Shadows that can start with 19+1 in production I'd say that's a big advantage over other pistols. But what-evs. If production changes to these new rules I will not shoot it any more. It will no longer be production. That's including grip/frame modifications, external trigger mods, capacity increases etc. It's the fastest growing division so obviously we have to jack with the rules. It isn't broken, but it will be if the BOD doesn't stop jacking with the rules. All the proposed changes are going to accomplish is convincing me to go to limited or single stack. Excuse me... I was thinking division, wrote class. Fair enough... I was just currious as to what your reasoning is for you opposition to a capacity bump.... which is the ONLY change I support at the moment. Definitely don't support a whole new DIVISION. I don't shoot Production... I went straight to Limited, and frankly like it there.

If this idea gains some traction, which it seems to be doing, I would prefer to not use a number but instead say load to magazine capacity. My M&P 40 can load 15 but my M&P 9 can load 17. I don't want to give up those two rounds just because everyone says load 15 in the magazine. This is actually a much better idea than a 15 round "limit". The "limit" should be whatever the normal mag cap is... so it will turn into an equipment race and make some nice guns (like production .40 guns, for example) obsolete overnight? I guess that makes sense (not really). We have a division where you can load to mag capacity already, 2 of them, in fact. Can you explain to me what your specific objection is? How does allowing someone to load their stock M&P 40 mags to 15 (as designed), an equipment race? In limited, I have a +5 base pad on the stock mag... for 20. In open, I'd have the option to use a 170mm mag. Not the same thing... Right now, Production Class Rules artificially REDUCE the magazine capacity of the vast majority of Production guns as sold... Arbitrarily reducing mag acpacity is for totalitarian governments, not USPSA... Actually, we don't have a "Production" class... we have Production-10 Class.

If this idea gains some traction, which it seems to be doing, I would prefer to not use a number but instead say load to magazine capacity. My M&P 40 can load 15 but my M&P 9 can load 17. I don't want to give up those two rounds just because everyone says load 15 in the magazine. This is actually a much better idea than a 15 round "limit". The "limit" should be whatever the normal mag cap is...

I'll play... L2682 - Limited

^^^^ This!

I've got to ressurect this thread... Put my "Futuristic Magnetic" (FM) holster on my belt today and made a few draws to check it out... Not a single adjustment and I don't even have the thigh pad on, and my draw times were measurably much faster. Can't wait to shoot it this weekend... It's a 3 matches in 2 days weekend! Don't anticipate that you could entice me to remove this thing from my belt without the use of a loaded weapon and the willingness to use it!

I always have good luck with http://www.mcmaster.com

There most certainly is. Your original question related to making up a bunch of SHTF ammo - IOW stockpiling. And you stated it was to be for different rifles. To me, that means you want something akin to the WWB you started with. Which, by your own measurements is slightly under spec. You then proceeded to layout a plan of action which was to do the exact opposite - build precision ammo. Since that now seems to be your goal, then I'll just suggest that you ignore anything I have said since I was answering a different question. No need to get testy there Graham. We simply have different definitions for "TEOTWAWKI (aka: SHTF)".... and precision apparently. I'm not building precision ammo; I'm building consistent ammo, better than average commercial rounds, that will work in all three of our rifles. It just so happens that my personal rifle, which is built more compatibly for long range shooting, has a chamber that measures very close to SAAMI minimum specs... My goal/plan hasn't changed at all. It appears that we have somehow gotten off on the wrong foot.... For my part, I apologize, and I'd like to try and fix that... Hi there! My name is Clay Autery. Been a member here for years. Love shooting and reloading. Nice to meet you!

Bullets arrived today (Nosler 69gr.)... FInished most of the work I planned on the dedicated 223 Powder Measure. Still need to test it to see of what I did to it helped make it more reliable/consistent for use with Varget... Have 150 cases sized (+/- 0.001" to chosen headspace/DL). Still need to trim, swage and tumble them. Need to choose a trim length... Still 10 weeks out from receipt of the Giraud, so I'll have to fall back on and use the Redding Trimmer...

Thanks, Dan.

Neither of my two benches are mounted to the walls or floor, but they are heavy to begin with... modified NORMA plans. They also have a ton of weight on them. But the biggest reason they don't move is that I installed leveling "spikes" on the legs sort of like you do with big speakers or a sub-woofer so the vibrations won't allow them to move, et al. I installed threaded inserts in the 4"x4" legs with counter-bores beneath them to clearance the 3/8" "spikes" in them. I put hex nuts on the bolts for use as leveling stops to keep the bolts from turning once set. The legs now rest on the head of a 3/8" bolt... not a spike, but it works... it concentrates the entire weight of the bench on less than 2 square inches of contact space. And the bench tops are dead level to boot.

Ever since that guy posted that link, this bench has been in my mind... It won't work for my reloading bench needs, but at 24", it would be almost perfect to replace the crap work bench I have in the garage.... Hmmmm....

That's the issue right there. You stated in your original post that you wanted to make up a bunch of plinking, zombie, SHTF, etc ammo. Unless you have a true .223 with pretty much match grade components, you are making ammo for a 5.56 which has so much slop built into it that you can darn near pick up any mil surplus ammo and shoot it. So, why would you want to make something akin to match grade ammo for this rifle for this purpose? There is no issue Graham, at least I don't have an issue with anything. There does however appear to be some confusion around what I was/am asking for help on. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my OP. Let me clarify. My FIRST task in .223 loading is to load up a large lot of ammo that is 100% reliable functioning in all three of our current rifles. This ammunition is NOT "plinking, zombie", play, or blaster ammo. (Apparently, my defintion of "TEOTWAWKI (aka: SHTF)" differs from yours, et al.) It's the best ammunition I can make, within the constraints placed on me by component availability and budget, that will still be reliably functional in all three rifles. The ammunition will be stored for emergency use, and is a common use ammunition because in an emergency, I don't want to have to worry about which cans of ammo match which rifles, etc. Just because I am loading a "common use" ammuntition does not mean it can't be quality ammunition or that "SLOP" is "BUILT IN". I've never intentionally put "SLOP" in anything I've built/made in my life. IF a larger tolerance is allowed in ANY dimension, there is ALWAYS a reason for it. That's just the way I do things, what can I say. After I finish this task, I WILL be producing "match grade" ammunition for each of the three rifles. (if by "match-grade" you mean ammunition tailored specifically to a single rifle by controlling all dimensions for magnitude and variance for use in situations requiring maximization of the rifles capabilities in accuracy). My rifle is brand new. I don't even have a proper iron-sight battle sight zero on it yet, but it is a quality built rifle. My wife's two rifles are not "stock" either, and she has used both of them in 3-gun, successfully. I have no idea what the performance limits are on any these rifles, but I will find out in due time. (I believe that one should know the performance limits of all the tools you own. Else, how do you know if you have the tools you need to acquire.) As I posted above in the sentence following your quote of me: But I am trying to learn rifle reloading, and some day I MIGHT want to load for LR precision and/or benchrest, who knows. I am trying to build my knowlege base and skills such that should I ever need them, I will have them. In fact, I am quite sure that I will, at some point, want to load for much more demanding purposes, so I'm not quite sure why it would be hard to understand why I would be learning about and to some extent practicing those skills now... My original post was INTENDED to ask two basic questions. Perhaps I should have explicitly and specifically asked them at the end of the post instead of integrating them into the data/description portion of the post. Oh wait, I did... Is my analysis logical? Flaws? Are my conclusions valid? I simply asked if the analysis that I made was logical, and if my conclusion that sizing the cases to the SAAMI minimum based on the Clark Custom rifle's chamber (in terms of headspace) would be the best decision as it applies to my current mission: to load ammo that will function reliably in all three rifles. I didn't ask anyone to formulate or express their judgement on whether what I had done or was doing was "over-analyzing" or necessary or if I was spending my time wisely, etc, etc... only if the conclusions I had drawn from the data I had collected and evaluated was logical. I'm perfectly capable of deciding what/how I spend my time and whether or not the time is well-spent or not. Thanks!

Well, it looks like the sizing task is largely licked... Set the sizing die as accurately as I can, and sized 25 cases. Result: All 25 cases registered < (+/-0.001") on the Redding Instant Indicator'd dial indicator. Verified that the instrument calibration was still dead on with the gauge after sizing operation. Dead on. I'm assuming that less than 0.001" either side of desired DL measurement is acceptable. I'm going to process a batch of 100 cases to use as a test batch for working up a load. Now, just have to wait for the bullets to arrive (en route), and the micrometer to cure in my large powder bar, so I can finish "Project Varget Powder Measure".

Ahhh... I see. Well, I've never used WSH, but looking at the data, it looks like there's plenty of flexibility there. Good luck!

Absolutely.... First time I've seen an SL900 in action... I'd like to try one if I was sure I could automate it... Get/build a solid/anchored bench for that press, and your life will be better... guaranteed. I'm very partial to the NORMA desgn (slightly modified). I have one stock one, and one I modified to make longer, et al. ROCK solid with my leg mods, don't have to bolt them to the wall, and you can disassemble and move them.

Got any Titegroup around? You can load 1-1/8 oz from 1090-1255 fps in 2 3/4" REMINGTON STS, NITRO 27, OR GUN CLUB PLASTIC SHELLS or 2 3/4" WINCHESTER COMPRESSION - FORMED AA & HS TYPE PLASTIC SHELLS I used it for several years for all my 12GA clays ammo until I switched to Clays... STS hulls, NobelSport 209 primers, Titegroup, Downrange wads, and new or reclaimed ALR shot. Published Hodgdon data available... PS - Only reason I switched to Clays was to conserve my Titegroup stores for pistol... PPS - There's also a TON of load data for WSH under 1-1/8 oz lead shot available at the Hodgdon data center...

As it so happens, that is exactly what I proposed above. I will be sizing to the minimum SAAMI spec to fit the tightest of my three rifle chambers... If I do as you suggest, I would be sizing the cases to BELOW minimum SAAMI specs by something on the order of 15/1000ths.... that's 150% LESS that the entire range specified for the cartridge. Are you recommending that I ignore the SAAMI limits for cartridge headspace? If so, I need to understand why. As an aside... I realize that it LOOKS like I am over analyzing... and I guess I am for this particular application. But I am trying to learn rifle reloading, and some day I MIGHT want to load for LR precision and/or benchrest, who knows. I am trying to build my knowlege base and skills such that should I ever need them, I will have them. Did the same thing for pistol 20+ years ago...

Decided to convert this thread to contain all my work-up data and questions for my first seup to load .223. The OP was on setting up the sizing die. Additional posts/questions will be made as necessary. _________________________________________________________________ Need a second set of eyes to validate my analysis and conclusions as to how to set my sizing die to size brass for loading a lot of ammo for use as TEOTWAWKI (aka: SHTF) ammo for use in any/all of our ARs. Went to the range today and fired 5 rounds of the same lot of Winchester "White Box" .223 ammunition through each of our three AR rifles. Collected brass and bagged/labeled separately for each rifle. Here is an image of the spreadsheet data: ** Note 2: "DL" is the abbreviation for Datum Line. The Instant Indicator indirectly measures relative chamber headspace based on the Datum Line measurement of well-formed, fired cases. Datum Line on the .223/5.56 is located on the case shoulder at the point at which the case body diameter is 0.330". This is the reference line from which headspace and other dimensions are specified. 1) Am I correct at the outset that I should load the common use ammunition to the tightest chamber in terms of headspace? In this case, it would appear that my Clark Custom Guns built AR clearly has the smallest Datum Line measurement growth over the Control Case dimension out of all three rifles, and thus indicates this rifle has the smallest headspace measurement of the three rifles. 2) The "Control Case" is actually sized UNDER the MINIMUM SAAMI headsapce specification. I only pulled 1 bullet, and a larger sample would be needed to increase confidence in this conclusion, but I don't want to tear up a bunch of commercial ammo. This one member sample does what is intended, which indicates that the unfired rounds are sized smaller than my CCG Ar and thus are firing with some positive headspace. In this case, assuming an approximate 0.001" brass bounce back, my CCG rifle has a positive headspace of approximately 0.0019", which seems to be just about perfect for a semi (as long as it functions reliably...which it does.) 3) Thus, I should size my reloads for this common lot based on the CCG rifle and test for reliable function on each rifle. 4) I should use the largest DL measurement attained in the CCG sample to calculate sizing needs... which in this case is 0.0009" 5) If I size the cases such that I bump the shoulders back to the SAAMI minimum (as verified by the Redding instrument), I will be bumping the shoulder back about 0.0009", resulting in a minimum headspace on my CCG rifle of 0.001", and a slightly larger (but well within the specified SAAMI 0.010" range) headspacing on each of the other two rifles. In this case, 0.0058" on the Armalite, and 0.0069" on the Olympic Arms. 6) I will use the actual CCG fired cases to set the sizing die and verify the setting with the Redding instrument. (NOTE: the die will NOT be touching the shellplate as indicated in the Redding Instructions (with cam-over) or the Dillon Instructions (just kissing, no cam-over). I like this. Specifically, I will back the die out to insure that it won't touch the shoulder and back the decapping stem out to avoid decapping. I will size the case, measure on the Redding instrument, and move the die towards the shellplate in small increments until the die sizes the case down to SAAMI minimum. Lock the die down, and verify the sizing with a second fired case. REPEAT until sizing is set right at SAAMI minimum on a case sized only once. Then adjust the expander/decapper to depth just sufficient to reliably decap. 7) Process a small batch and load 'em up. Test fire at the range for function prior to sizing the rest of my brass. Is my analysis logical? Flaws? Are my conclusions valid? Thanks for your help!

In case there might accidentally be someone reading this thread who does not KNOW and PRACTICE the following: DO NOT USE reloads that YOU did not PERSONALLY work up and load..... PERIOD! DO NOT use ammuntition for which you do not know the source. Exception can be made for re-manufactured ammuntion by a reputable and licensed ammunition manufacturer.

I'm guessing you don't shoot much IDPA? Chrono at an IDPA sanctioned match is bound to follow the rules, which actually specify tilting the muzzle up prior to each shot over the sensors. It might be BS in your book, but not in IDPA's. Same for the "benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter" in IDPA scoring. It's right there in black and white from HQ. Mmmm.... nope. I don't doubt you at all that those things are in the IDPA rule book. It was not my intention to cast dispersions on any gun sport. Whatever gets folks to shoot is great. My reference to "BS" was my opinion as it relates to the thankless and exacting job of being the chrono guy/gal. They have enough to do without injecting additional (and IMHO, needless) procedural requirements into the mix. I'm not well-versed in the rules for IDPA, in fact, I don't think I have ever read the entire rulebook thru word for word. My opinion is based on my experiences and training. And my opinion is based on a simple philosophy in this regard. The shooter is responsible for his conduct on the range and making sure that his equipment is safe, functional, and meets the minimum standard set forward in the rules for the "game". In IPSC, there is a power floor and a power threshold separating minor and major. It is a critical factor in scoring. In our book, there is no provision for "only requiring power factor/floor to be met under a single/special set of circumstances.... The weapon is used in multiple attitudes, angles, etc... and the ammo should function and meet standards under all required circumstances. BTW, Hodgdon advertises Titegroup specifically to be consistent no matter how the powder is oriented in the case upon ignition. I love it. YMMV. So, far from "picking" on any game, my point is that perhaps one shouldn't ride so close to the edge unless you are willing to risk falling off.

I would see it more as standardization and repeatability rather than 'accomodating marginal ammo'. Why not use similar procedures as the SAAMI specs require? As a USPSA RO the whole "Benefit of the doubt" deal gives me the "willies". Here's my question... Why on earth would you work up a load using a powder that fills so little of the case volume? Especially, if you want conisitent SD/ES or are hangin' onto Major (or worse the power floor) by the skin of your teeth. I use Titegroup in my 40S&W ammo and it doesn't fill the cases as much as I'd like, but I make allowances for the chronoman... I don't try to run 165 on the dot... Choose a different powder... I would make a HUGE stink at any match I was at (as a shooter OR RO) if they started dicking with the chronoman trying to institute some BS gun manipulation procedure...

Hey, you're talking to the king of OCD when it comes to a lot of things... reloading is one of them. I get it. I'm not AS picky as I used to be, but it's a process that a lot/most good reloaders go through. I STILL get super picky if/when I make up test lots of ammo for projects and stuff. Hard to explain, but I think some folk's brains are wired differently... Mine is... I HAVE to understand HOW the watch that I am reading the time on is made. If I don't know how it's made, I can't trust the accuracy of the reading. The more you learn and the longer you do it, the better you will learn when and where to be a picky SOB... I REALLY want one of those scales that can accurately weight ot the hundredth of a grain... Don't need it, but I want it.

I'm considering something like that for my Redding T7... I have ZERO space left on either bench in our loading room...

I can't give you that.... The Instant Indicator measures true headspace from the base to the Datum Line, which for 223 is the point ON the shoulder where the body diameter is 0.330" (pretty sure of that number). It's just some random once-fired 223 we got a long time ago... No idea where it came from... it's possible that it was picked up on an IPSC/USPSA range after a match... which might well explain the well-manicured military brass...