GBertolet

I had a magazine catch that had a casting seam burr on the left side of the catch. It was dragging on the magazine, when the button was pushed, occasionally causing the magazine not to want to drop. I used a Dremel tool with a stone that matched the radius, and carefully took off a few thousandths, eliminating the burr. With that little extra bit of clearance, all magazines drop fine now.

I use red locktite (271) on all my dovetail front sight installations. The sights don't move, but still can be cracked loose for removal if necessiary, with a little effort.

Drop the load to 4.2 gr of Bullseye and you will be good. 1.250 is a good OAL to work with for the 230 gr RN.

I found you need around 4.3 gr of Bullseye, with the 230 gr lead, to meet the 165PF.

After much comparison between the Bladetech OWB and Comp-Tac International, I went with the Comp-Tac International. I don't think that there is that much difference between them, quality or price wise. Fit and retention of the Comp-Tac were perfect right out of the bag for me. Comp-Tac's 30 day, no BS refund or exchange policy, if you are not satisfied for any reason, was the deal closer. UFO, I do like your idea of the spacers. I believe for SS, the USPSA rules do allow up to 2" offset from the inside of the belt. That is definitely a good idea for additional clearance.

What is the most popular holster for SS division? I now have a Helwig Yaqui Slide type holster that I got for free that I had been using. I find it sits too close to the body. If I am not careful, I get some shirt on the draw, and I dislike the forward rake. Better for CCW, but not competition. I finally deceided to try something else. What do other shooters like to use, and why?

A few days after my original post I was offered some Nobel Sport Vectan BA10 powder. This is a French powder that I believe is relatively new in this country. This is a very fine cut stick powder that I just got the chance to test recently. There is not that much independant loading data out there for the Nobel Sport line of powders. Using a 230 gr cast RN @ 1.250 OAL, and WW LP primers, out of a 5" 1911, I got 3.8 gr = 783fps, 3.7gr= 761fps, and 3.6gr = 745fps. Shot to shot variation was extremely low, often within 5 fps for 5 round strings. I went with the 3.6gr load. Accuracy and POI are similar to Clays, and so is the perceived recoil. I burns just as clean also. This powder comes in 1.1 pound, (1/2 kilo) cans and is relatively inexpensive compared to N310. The factory compares it's burn rate and performance characteristics to N310. I mixed seperate magazines of this load, and my old 3.7gr of Clays at a local USPSA match, and could not tell the difference. Looks like I have found a winner.

Thanks guys, I hope to take a road trip tomorrow, and come home with some N310 if available, or if not, something else suitable to try.

I am looking at N310 as a substitute for Clays. Solo 1000 and Clay Dot are unobtanium. I see VV N310 more available. How is this powder compared to Clays, in recoil and cleanliness? I know it costs considerably more, but at this point I don't care. Although the Clays line of powder is back in production by ADI, it is to be phased out this year in favor of a new line of powders. I don't know if any of the current production is even being exported from Austrailia to the U.S..

I have installed the EGW flat bottom FP stops on several 1911's. I don't even radius them, and they work just fine as is. You know it's doing the job when extra effort is required to cock the hammer using the slide. This will slow the rearward slide velocity down. The advantage of the flat bottom FP stop is not for muzzle rise reduction, but rather it allows you to use a lighter recoil spring, which reduces muzzle dip, when the slide goes forward into battery. This will improve your doubles in competition. They are not a bad deal for $15 at Brownell's.

I think a possible cause may be the bullet being swaged in seating or crimping. If you use range brass of varying headstamps, you might get one here and there, that the case walls are thicker than the rest. Thicker brass will resist the bullet being seated more, possibly swaging, and also taper crimping with the occasional thicker walled brass, may swage the bullet somewhat. I would first try an easy fix of backing off the crimp a little and see what happens. Depending on your bore diameter, and how close your bullets are to it, it may not take much swaging to cause tumbling issues. If all your bullets tumbled, I would suggest pulling a bullet from a loaded round, and measuring it, but since the issue is at random, that might not be conclusive. It would not hurt to slug your barrel to get a bore size measurement. Some 9mm bores slug .357 or larger.

I think the .357 38 cal. plated bullets should work. They are close enough to start with, and being fairly soft they will obturate to make up the additional .001. Rainier makes a nice 38 cal .357 125 gr truncated plated bullet, that I have had good experience using in an oversized 9mm auto barrel. I imagine Berry's makes one also. You don't want too long of a 38 cal bullet, as the 9mm is a tapered case, with the brass getting thicker towards the bottom. One potential issue with loading 38 cal bullets in 9mm cases with lead or plated, the expander ball commonly issued with 9mm dies are for .355 jacketed bullets. Forcing a 38 cal cast or plated bullet into the case will often swage the bullet down, defeating the purpose. Loading a dummy round, pulling the bullet, and measuring the diameter will tell if this will be an issue for you. I purchased a seperate 38 cal expander ball and modified it for my RCBS 9mm die. This eliminated this potential problem for me. In most cases bullets up to .358 will chamber in the 9mm. If you don't want to go with all this bother, you could use jacketed bullets designed for the 38 Super or .357 Sig, which are nominaly .356 or .357 diameter and be done with it.

I do remember, as you, there was a person on another forum who had the same issue last year. He was using WW primers also. He had a go round with Winchester. They wanted to examine the slide, and after examination, they eventually agreed to replace his slide. His slide did appear to have more severe pitting than yours though. I don't know if the replacement was a P.R. related write off, or did Winchester really find something with their primers. It looks like your pitting is around the case rim area of the slide, rather than the firing pin area. Maybe it's not a primer issue? Although undesirable, the pitting you have so far is harmless.

After the old sight is removed, try the new one in the dovetail. It will not likely start go in at all. If it goes in maybe 15- 20%, you are lucky, and just use your pusher to finish. If not, to do this job right, you will need a 60 degree triangular sight file for the Bo-Mar cut. Brownell's has them. They are safe on two sides. File on the dovetail of the sight, not the slide, using trial and error, testing frequently for fit. When you can get it started somewhat, use the pusher to finish. The reason to file on the sight instead of the slide is two fold. First you always modify the cheapest part, in case you screw it up. Secondly all sights have manufacturing tolerances. The sight you have now may be on the plus side, and if you open the dovetail on the slide up for fit, and change sights again, the next one might be on the minus side, and be too loose.

Has anyone tried this weight bullet in their 40? The recoil impulse should be pretty soft. 750 fps will make major PF. My slide has been lightened somewhat, which should offset some of the cycling sluggishness. SAECO and some of the semi custom mold makers have this weight available. I have a 1911 barrel (Nowlin), that is throated a good bit, so the extra length won't be a problem. This is a fairly long bullet, so accuracy and stability in the standard 40 cal barrel twists comes to question. Are there any success or failure stories on this bullet use? Not much is ever said about this weight bullet.

I would first look into a personal liability umbrella policy, as a rider to your homeowners insurance. An umbrella policy covers all kinds of situations, and picks up where your homeowners and auto insurance end, provided the same company insures all. Depending on where you live and what insurance company you have, you can get a million dollar umbrella policy for about $200 a year. It wouldn't hurt to at least check with your own insurance company and see what they offer for coverage.

As mentioned in the previous post, there is no corelation between power factor and bullet energy among different bullet weights. PF is more of a measure of bullet momentum, rather than energy. In early IPSC, a ballistic pendelum was used instead of a chronograph at major matches. In the 45 over the years, I tried bullet weights from 152 gr up to 250 gr. Loaded to the same PF, the lighter bullet loadings are much more powerful, and do recoil more. As you go up the ladder in bullet weight, the recoil correspondingly lessens, because the bullet energy is reduced. I found the 152 gr loadings are very harsh, and the 250 gr loadings operate the slide too lazily for my taste. I found, as many others have, the 200 and 230 gr loadings tend to be the most civil, and therefore popular.

The Federal primer issue is mainly concerned with tuned revolvers. These guns as part of their tuning process, have substantially weakened hammer falls, especially in the double action mode. The increased sensitivity due to their different priming compound mix aids reliability. Autos, with the exception of some striker powered ones, do not have any issues with primer types, as their primer strikes are more forceful.

I shoot 4.3 gr of Bullseye @ 1.250 OAL with the 230 gr cast RN. 740 fps from a 5" 1911. Easily makes major.

The controversy on using the Lee Factory Crimp die with cast bullets is, the cast bullet can be swaged down by the die to an undersized diameter if you are not careful. This die has a carbide ring that sizes the loaded round also, if out of Lee's specifications. I use one in the .40 with good results on cast bullets.

I don't believe Lee develops their own data. I think they just copied it with permission from Alliant. Often, data listed in powder manufactures load selections, is missing critical information. They sometimes don't list pressure, under what conditions their figures are achieved, and what test firearm is used. Often it is a universal test receiver. Real world firearms occasionally act differently than these test guns. Various tolerences in chambering and bore sizes are also major players in this area. The purchase of a chronograph might be a good inverstment for you. An inexpensive one can be purchased for under $100. This will give you an idea of where you are at ballisticly during your load development. In first starting out reloading, I had a similar experience with a different powder in the .357 magnum. The ballistics listed in the manual I used, seemed very impressive, so I had to try the load out. The result was, I had to pound the cases out of the cylinder, while using a listed "safe" load. No harm done, but it was a quick lesson. This, and your experience, just reinforces the old addage, "start low and work up your load, while watching for signs of high pressure, and other abnormalties".

5.0 gr of Bullseye will equal the factory hardball ballistics. You are beating your gun to death with that load of 5.5 gr. 4.3 gr will make IPSC major easily. I don't have my loading manuals handy, but the 5.5 gr seems like an overload. The 5.0 gr range is considered maximum in most data. The 5.5 gr load would be +P+. I would certainly back off before something bad happens.

15 thousandths might equal 10 fps in the 45ACP. Likely less than .01 grain powder adjustment needed for velocity compensation. Is there any particular reason it is necessiary for maintaining the exact 780 fps ?

Scroll down the page to the listing of the clays powders. It says that right along side of the powder. It's printed in red.

http://www.ballisticproducts.com/Shotgun_Pistol/products/291/ That's my source.