Yondering

Were the cases tumbled with car wax maybe? That almost looks like flakes of automotive wax, although it seems unlikely. I think the suggestion to look for wear spots is the most likely (and the most important thing to address soon!).

You probably already know by now - Power Pistol is one of the most flashy pistol powders we can get, along with Blue Dot, 2400, and H110/296. I like Power Pistol for some things, but a shorty 357 defensive gun isn't one of them. I'd be interested to hear your results with Blue. Low flash is very desirable sometimes.

Case length has nothing to do with OAL. Zip. I'm different than Sarge though; I prefer to understand what causes variations so I can minimize or eliminate them. As the saying goes, "knowing is half the battle." The idea that there are so many variables we can't control is not true either. We can control almost all of the variables if we take time to understand them. I often get the impression that a lot of this stuff is black magic to some reloaders, but all of it is within our capability to understand.

I specifically said I was not putting them in ammo boxes though. Looking back at my post, I should have added "for me" in the second paragraph as well to make it more clear. I don't use the 100 round ammo boxes for a specific reason - most of my match shooting is GSSF, where we need to have exactly 10 rounds in the mag. Using factory boxes with the sliding sleeves, it's easy to dump 10 into my hand to load mags, which is faster than pulling them out of a flip-top box and less risk of losing count than pulling them from loose bags or boxes. I do get the point about holding multiple rounds in your hand to dump in the Hundo - but I do that for gauging with the barrel too. It's probably faster to get the ammo gauged with the Hundo, but I'd lose a lot of that time when I load mags (taking one or two rounds out of the box at a time vs dumping 10 in hand at once), so it's pretty much a wash, for me. That small time difference for gauging doesn't mean much to me when I'm only gauging match ammo. Never seen a need to gauge all my practice ammo. Since the time works out about the same in the long run, or close enough to not matter for me, I absolutely prefer to gauge in the actual barrel. Like I said, when using oversized cast/coated bullets for best results, a lot of the rounds will fail a tight case gauge but fit perfectly in the barrel. Using a tight gauge at that point is not sorting out 3-4 flaws in a batch, it's sorting out a very large percentage (or even all) of the batch. Minimum dimensions are not ideal when you're shooting lead for accuracy, and I'm not going to do that just to make the rounds fit a gauge that doesn't simulate my barrel. I don't buy into the argument that you can learn which failures are OK; if the round doesn't fall all the way into the gauge, it's not checking near the case head or the ogive length. Nobody here is saying not to gauge ammo, so I'm not sure who those comments are aimed at.

I've never had a good reason to gauge my practice ammo. I do check match ammo. Since I don't store my ammo in 100 round boxes, a Hundo is the same amount of work as just using the barrel that the ammo will be used in. With that choice, I'd far rather use the barrel, especially since I'm shooting coated bullets which need to be oversized for accuracy. If someone made an automated system to drop the ammo in a Hundo or some other case gauge, that might be a different story. But dropping them in a 100 hole gauge by hand is no more efficient than dropping them in a single hole, and it costs another hundred bucks...

If you're using softer coated lead bullets, yes; excessive neck tension can size the bullet down. Undersized bullets are bad for accuracy. With more common commercial hard cast or jacketed you won't experience that issue.

Maybe I'm being picky about terminology, but "headspace" is not a verb. It is not a thing that we do; it's something we can check, and that should have been set correctly when the chamber was reamed in the barrel. Checking headspace can be important in rifle cartridges, but is not as critical in most pistols. It's important to understand that headspace is the relationship between the cartridge brass and the barrel's chamber, specifically at the controlling feature in the chamber. That controlling feature is usually the shoulder in bottleneck cases, and the front lip of the chamber in straight wall pistols. Why is this important? - because changing the brass changes headspace; it's not an attribute of only the gun itself. A bottleneck case with the shoulder bumped back or a straight wall case trimmed to short can cause excess headspace, while the correct brass dimensions in the same gun would have correct headspace. Straight wall pistol cartridges are very tolerant of a wide range of headspace, so it's really not that important to check in most pistols. In fact, many don't realize this but a lot of pistol case lengths vary enough that the extractor ends up controlling headspace some of the time with shorter cases. This is perfectly acceptable.

Simply removing the flare without actually adding a crimp is adequate (and often ideal for accuracy) if neck tension is good, so you're right that you can get away with seating and crimping in one station for match rifle bullets, if you need to. Since most match rifle bullets are boat tailed (took me a minute to figure out what TMK was flat base - I think that 125gr .308 is the only one?) you don't need to flare the case at all, as long as the case mouth is chamfered after trimming. If hand seating the bullets, you don't even need to flare for flat base bullets.

I use a target focus with both eyes open for almost everything with iron sights. However, in the past few years with certain red dot sights (mostly on rifles), I've needed to close one eye to avoid double vision. I'm not sure if that's the optic, since it doesn't happen with all of them, or my eyes since I hit 40 a couple years ago. I've noticed it especially pronounced with some Aimpoint H1/T1 and Trijicon TRO optics. I do not have that problem with magnified optics, since I can easily distinguish between the magnified and unmagnified views from either eye and choose which to use mentally.

Some brands definitely have more variation than others. With most of them though, you should still have less variation than with mixed brass. However, be aware that a few brands have put their headstamp on brass from different manufacturers or made significant changes in brass over the years, so you can end up with 2 or more "groups" of varying case capacity within the same headstamp. This is more noticeable with rifle brass, but can be significant (as you're discovering) with pistol brass when you're pushing the limits with max loads. If you decide to sort by headstamp, FC brass might give you the least variation; that has been my experience although I haven't used a large volume of Hornady 9mm to compare.

With a 124gr at that length he shouldn't be getting into the case taper on any brand of brass, and case length has no effect on OAL. That load is probably a compressed charge though, and different case capacity of various headstamps does affect the amount of compression, which has a direct affect on OAL. OP - you should see a lot less variation with a Minor load that is not compressed; the exception being if you use a long bullet that seats into the case taper on some brands, that'll cause OAL variation too.

Yes. Dawson MOS-height suppressor sights (at least that's what they called them a couple years ago) cowitness with a DPP in a milled Glock slide. You do have the option of eliminating the Glock dovetail and using the DPP rear sight, but after doing that method myself, I'd suggest keeping the dovetail and using Dawson sights front and rear. The DPP has some tendency to work loose unless you goop up the attachment with plenty of Loctite, and doesn't have much advantage over a properly sized slide mounted rear sight. To the other person's question - if the gun is intended for anything other than strictly competition, I'd definitely want co-witnessed irons.

Also, instead of bending the rod you may just need to lower the rod hanger a little bit. The height of the hanger adjusts how much the rod pushes the primer bar out.

What kind of car wax are you using, and do you mix it with water or use it straight?

I do the tumbling in my basement. No dust with corn cob. Tons of dust with walnut. If you've got dust in the air with corn cob, something's not right; add some polish or a capful or two of mineral spirits. I'm not guessing here, like I said, been doing it for over 20 years and many many thousands of rounds... Besides, if you're dry tumbling after a wet soak or tumble, where would the dust come from? It's not from the corn cob, and the cases should be pretty clean, just not shiny yet.

To be clear - tumble with corn cob and case polish (the Dillon polish works well and lasts a long time), not just dry corn cob. There is no dust from the corn cob media, and anything cleaned off the brass gets picked up by the case polish. There just isn't any dust to deal with when doing it that way, speaking from experience of the last ~20+ years. Every few years I've scraped some built up crud out of the tumbler bowl; that seems to be where the "dust" goes. When you tumble with walnut shell, most of the dust is from the media itself; corn cob doesn't do that. You can add strips of paper towel to walnut media to pick up a lot of the dust, but it's still dusty and messy; corn cob tumbling leaves the cases clean and bright.

Yup; overtightening those screws is a sure way to make the primer bar stick. The other cause is just powder and primer grit, cleaning fixes that. Do you guys oil your primer bars, or run them dry? Obviously opinions will vary on that, and oiling has the potential to pick up more grit. I've done both ways over the years, and settled on keeping it wet enough with oil to wipe itself clear of debris. That seems to be more reliable in my machine.

Hey OP, what 135gr mold are you using? (Partly interested because I cast too.) The powder charge you need (and even the powder type, depending on bulk) will change depending on the bullet design and how much case capacity it takes up.

What Sarge said. I've tumbled a lot of rifle and pistol ammo (and sometimes have forgotten it in the tumbler most of the day) and have never seen any indication of powder breaking down. The only problem I've ever had with tumbling ammo is small corn cob kernels packing into rifle bullet hollow points, or flakes of it between bullet and case mouth if the flare isn't removed completely. I do avoid tumbling my match hollow point rifle ammo for that reason, although even that probably doesn't really matter on target.

That is interesting. Clays was switched to the Canadian version a little before I started really using it in high volume, so that may be why I haven't seen that issue. I do remember some velocity changes and vertical stringing with my first bottle of Aussie Clays though in 45 ACP that could be related though. At the time I had concluded that it just wasn't an appropriate powder for that load, but this was back when Clays was a pretty new powder and I had a lot less reloading experience under my belt. I've been loading canadian Clays in high volume for about 4 (or 5?) years, but the last few months have spent more time comparing it to Titegroup loads. In my mild 9mm loads (coated bullets, and at or a bit lower than Minor), I've found almost identical accuracy and velocity with either powder. For equal charge weights, I'm seeing ~15 fps or less difference between the two powders, grain for grain. That's in 5 different guns, mostly with 100 gr and 125 gr cast/coated bullets. I should also not that I have not had such good accuracy results with Clays and some jacketed bullets, but it's been exceptional with cast bullets which are 99% of what I shoot in volume. With 115gr HAP bullets for example, I had a hard time finding accuracy with Clays, but they shot great with some other powders. One comment on metering with Canadian Clays - powder measures vary of course, but I've never seen more than +/- 0.1gr variation with this powder in my Dillon dispenser. I have seen a lot of variation from some others (Unique and Blue Dot are good examples), but not Canadian Clays.

That first link is an article by Scheumann about pistol barrel twist rates. It talks about stabilization and how that affects the bullet, and does mention the two potential problems of too many RPM: - outward expansion of the bullet from centrifugal force (sometimes a problem in high velocity rifles with thin bullets, not a pistol velocity problem) - exaggerated imbalance of an unbalanced bullet that is either started poorly in the barrel or has a defect The second of those is the one that applies to us the most - with an imperfect bullet or one where the seating depth and nose runout did not produce a straight start, a slower twist rate minimizes the imbalance. Such a bullet is still less accurate than one started straight with no defects, but a slower twist can be more tolerant of variations in bullet quality. Note that there is no particular twist rate where a bullet is "over stabilized"; it's just a gradual effect as that increases with twist rate. The first of those above (and the second to some degree) is something that has been a problem in some rifle applications, particularly fast twists and high velocity with thin jacketed varmint bullets; a fast twist rate intended for say 77gr 223 bullets could cause bullet blowup with 40-50gr bullets if velocity was high enough. Because of this, many older shooters claim the twist rate has to be matched to the bullet. However, modern bullet construction is much better, and it's common to achieve excellent accuracy with light varmint bullets in fast barrel twists; one of my own examples is a 1:8 twist 5.56 that shoots great with the 75gr BTHP, but shoots even more accurately with the 50gr Blitz despite the fast twist. Keep in mind that with pistol bullets, we still have a large selection of lower quality bullets available; some plated and coated bullets fit this category (although a good coated bullet can be your most accurate option). The Scheumann article also talks about how the twist rate is important for stabilization, but velocity mostly does not matter. I.e., we're not trying to match a bullet to specific RPM, which would mean a specific velocity, we're just trying to match the bullet profile (length and diameter) to the twist rate. It mentions the transonic velocity region and how that can upset bullet flight and degrade accuracy; this is why some shooters claim a 9mm shoots best above a certain speed. The truth is simpler - accuracy is better if you can avoid the transonic region. Subsonic muzzle velocity avoids this completely (note my example above about the 100gr RF at 1,000-1,050 fps), which is what we get with most 9mm 147gr bullets and standard loads, but is achievable with any bullet weight. The other option is to keep muzzle velocity high enough that the down range velocity will not drop into the transonic region; this is a major consideration for long range rifle shooters, and results on target often show accuracy going wild after a certain distance. The article goes on to talk about their experiments in accuracy, using the 1:32 vs 1:16 twist, and eventually concluding the 1:24 twist is best for 9, 40, and 45. The one big omission (at least relevant to this thread) that I saw in the article was that they didn't talk about how much affect the different twist rates have on accuracy, only what it does. It's important to keep in mind that the effect of using a faster twist is less than other significant factors like using good bullets, seating them straight, and shooting in a quality barrel. Most likely, switching to a good match grade barrel of any twist rate (could be a Scheumann or many others) will net you more accuracy gain than changing to an ideal twist rate. Also keep in mind the difference between comparing 2" and 2.5" groups at 50 yards, and 2" to 8" groups at 25 yards; twist rate may be important in the first instance, but is most likely insignificant in the second. Hope that helps.

If you dry tumble with corn cob instead of walnut shell you won't have the dust to deal with.

Smokeless powder doesn't "expire". It can go bad if stored in the wrong conditions, but otherwise will last for a long long time. I have cans of powder old enough to be in brown cardboard tubes (including a 4 lb keg of old Unique that's still sealed, kinda neat) that has been stored well; all of it that I've used was good as new. Like others said above, look for a weird smell and/or appearance, but if it looks and smells normal it should be fine. The advice on working up from a mild load with old powder is good regardless, partly because some powder formulations have changed over time.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from sharing either; I would just hate to see the OP get sent down a rabbit trail of chasing relatively minor effects like twist rate and neglecting more important factors. And regarding distance - I'm not the one who said 25 yards, although that may be most relevant for the OP. I routinely practice at 50 and 100 yards whenever I can, and my comments are not just based on close range shooting.

while that's an interesting warning to consider, it probably depends a bit on the powder measure. I've certainly never seen any hint of Clays (canadian) bridging on my Dillon 550 over many thousands of rounds, even as low as 2.2gr. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but I look at every powder charge and haven't seen it yet. The clear advantage of Clays over Titegroup for light charges is that it's bulky enough to see it in the case. A sub 3gr charge of Titegroup is pretty hard to see in a 9mm case on a 550; I use it some but don't like not visually verifying the powder charge. Not sure about your comment of the flakes being bigger though. Maybe there was a change from years ago? Modern canadian Clays has relatively small-ish (and very thin) flakes compared to most flake powders. They aren't tiny flakes, but aren't as big as many others (Compare to other common examples like Unique, Blue Dot, and Green Dot, etc.) Something like 800X though - now those are big flakes, and weighing every charge can be important. I'm not disregarding your warning, but do wonder about the details of those old threads and if there have been changes since then. My only complaint about Clays is the fine flakes tend to get into unwanted places on the press.