Blacksamwell

D'Oh! That's too easy. It worked! Thank you.

I tried, but this didn't work. Cloning the match was not a problem. Renamed it and changed the date. Renamed and changed the date for the match on my device. When I uploaded the scores for the one flawed stage it still replaced the scores from the original match. I suspect that I will have to import the cloned match registration using the Match PIN# to my device. The only problem with attempting that is the cloned match is not providing the option to view the PIN.

Thank you! I suspected that I needed to start on the Practiscore web sight with a new match in some way but wasn't certain about the best way to go about it. I was picturing having to re-enter all of the scores for 73 shooters manually. That's why I came here for advice. I figured someone smarter and more experienced than myself had solved this problem before. I will give this a shot.

Scoring SNAFU for one of our match stages led to us throwing out a stage. It was simple to delete the stage from the master device after syncing all of the scores and we posted the match results from the remaining 5 stages. No problem there. Now we'd like to be able to provide the scores, flawed as they are, from the problem stage just so our shooters can see their stats. What's the best way to get that single stage posted to Practiscore where our shooters can access the data? What I tried so far was copying the match to a second device, renaming it, deleting all but the bad stage, and uploading those scores. That just replaced the match results from the 5 good stages with the one bad stage. A re-upload from the original device fixed that. Any suggestions?

I bought her book after buying and reading three of Stoeger's books and was looking for more material that I could learn from. I didn't know who she was but the Amazon description intrigued me and I made the purchase. For reference I'm a B-class shooter who wins the occasional local club match. What I like: She's done her homework. The book is full of citations from medical journals and other publications where people smarter and more educated than myself have carefully considered the problems and issues involved with moving efficiently. There are contributions from top level competitors that help the reader see how her movement techniques are applied. I did learn enough to make the cost worth it. What I think could be done better: The book needs some better editing. The final chapter or two feel like they were cobbled together from leftover material and/or repeat information that was already presented better in an earlier chapter.

I just consider it a consumable part and make sure I have fresh ones on hand. Mine tend to last a season of shooting +/- a handful of matches. After a season of use I use them for practice and save the fresh ones for important matches.

To the best of my knowledge there's no other explanation for why the bullet stayed in the throat other than it made contact with the lands. When you extracted the bullet and inspected it, did it show contact marks that match up with the rifling? Do you perform the plunk test with your loaded ammo to ensure it will chamber properly? If you've only given yourself 0.003" it is entirely possible that normal variances in seating depth will mean that some portion of your loaded rounds are going to be too long. I think the recoil spring is a red herring in regards to explaining why the bullet got stuck.

I've used S&B, Winchester, and CCI. Haven't had issues with any of them. They've all consistently gone BANG exactly when required. I'm running the stock hammer spring, firing pin, and firing pin spring.

The data Hodgdon has online for the 180 gr "BERB FP" is where I'd start. The Berry's bullet is copper plated, and the data for plated will be close to what's needed for your coated bullets. Hodgdon's data uses an OAL of 1.125" so you'll need more powder to make the same velocities at your longer OAL. Start in the lower end of the range provided by Hodgdon and work your way towards your velocity goal using the data from your chrono as a guide.

Using N320 and 180gr cast bullets from Missouri Bullet Co I reach major at 4.3 grains with an OAL at 1.125".

Just as you write that, there are those who write the contrary. Doesn't mean much either way. lol Citation? Who are these folks that say otherwise? What evidence have they presented to support their claims?

For the same power factor, using the same powder, you should expect the recoil from lighter bullets to be greater than the recoil from heavier bullets. Whether you like that additional recoil or not comes down to personal preference. Some shooters like it. Your OAL is 0.014" longer than the VV load data listing so you'd expect to see a little reduction in velocity compared to the load data. As long as you are not seeing pressure signs and assuming you have a chrono you could continue slowly increasing the charge until you reach the max velocity listed in the VV load data or you start seeing pressure signs. Of course, you only have 50 FPS left before you reach that max velocity. The other detail to look at is your standard deviation and/or your accuracy on the target. If the SD is getting worse as you increase the charge and this shows up on the target as a worse group then I'd just give up making major with that combo of bullet/powder and try something else.

That looks exactly like the bulge a shooting buddy of mine created in his M&P Pro barrel after failing to recognize a squib, racking the next round into the chamber, and firing the next shot. He was exactly three shots into a match when it happened. We had to carefully cut the barrel out of the slide with a Dremel cutoff wheel.

If there was powder in those squib rounds that was somehow not ignighted by a light primer strike you would have seen all of that unburned powder in the chamber and action of your pistol. Was that the case?

Yup, I've seen write-ups on using JB Weld to shape the hole in the charge bar. Different approach that gives the same results. When it came time to try dropping less than 3 grains of titegroup I had to remove the adjustable center portion of the micro-bar and sanded down the points of the face of the moving bar. That let it close a little more and I was able to dial it down to 2.9 and 2.8 grains. I was plesantly surprised to see that it still throws consistent charges with such a low throw weight. But then again I was using titegroup and it flows very well through measures. I wouldn't expect the same with a flake powder like CLAYS.

^^^This. Within reason, most of the suggestions to simply bump the load up until the Power Factor is 5 or 10 above the minimum will work. But it all depends on how much variation your load gives. Too much variation and that 5 to 10 point buffer might not be enough. I use the twice-standard-deviation method listed here. I will take the average velocity, subtract twice the standard deviation, and use that adjusted velocity to calculate my power factor. Using this method I'm confident that 95% (or more) of my loads meet the power factor requirement. I've entered a formula into my spreadsheet that automatically calculates the power factor after subtracting twice the SD.

For what it is worth, I really like the micro-charge bar. I had to tune the powder measure a bit to ensure consistent function, but now that it is dialed in I get very consistent drops and I really like being able to adjust the charge without taking anything apart. To make it work consistently I had to coat the elastomer wiper in powdered graphite to prevent the wiper from deforming and jacking up the flow of powder. I also had to adjust the throw a bit. With the measure assembled and on the press I stood on a stool to look down into the measure with a flashlight. I could see that the micro-bar was not pulling back all the way under the hole. This forced the powder to flow under a lip to fill the charge bar and, of course, it won't do this consistently. I pulled the measure apart and filed a little bit of material from the end of the powder drop tube. This will adjust the position of the charge bar at rest, moving it more fully under the hole where the powder flows down out of the hopper. I went slowly and kept fitting it until I could just barely see the front wall of the charge bar appearing when I looked down into the powder measure when it was installed on the press. Before I'd made these adjustments the micro-bar would randomly give inconsistent/light loads. After making these adjustments I've used nothing but the micro-bar for my 9/40/45 loads. Drops are extremely consistent and I'm getting standard deviations in my velocity data that's in the single digits. YMMV.

My load development process involves shooting 10 test rounds from a rest over my chrono at a fresh target. I save the targets and scan them into my load database so I can see the 10 shot group and compare the results of different loads. I've logged 285 different loads so far and many of them are not as good as the results you've achieved. Congrats.

I worked on a major PF load for the 200gr Xtreme w/ N320 for my CZ TS but never acheived the necessary velocity and gave up. N320 worked for plain cast lead 200gr slugs and is a fantasticly soft and accurate major load. But the Xtreme bullets were substantially slower and less accurate with the same powder charge. I pushed my Xtreme loads all the way up to 4.0gr of N320 at OAL of 1.160 and 1.130. This data was collected on a hot July day with a temp of 92 F. I was using mixed brass and S&B primers. Xtreme 200gr RNFP @ 1.160" w/ 4.00gr N320: 776 Average, 36 ES, 11 SD Xtreme 200gr RNFP @ 1.130" w/ 4.00gr N320: 783 Average, 39 ES, 14 SD My 200gr cast lead loads with N320 give me major velocity at 3.90gr of powder at the 1.160" length with standard deviations as low as 5fps. The Xtreme loads weren't showing any of the usual pressure signs but their standard deviation figures were getting worse as I added more powder. That along with the worsening groups lead me to declare the major power factor experiment for that bullet/powder combo a failure. Others with more tollerance for playing with high pressures could likely make it work.

Buy extra slide stops. They break. Mine are lasting about one season of shooting so it's an annual replacement thing. I'm getting a season of use out of the CZC mag springs. They'll last a little longer, but after having them crap out in a match I don't mess around with trying to extract the last possible use from them any more. CZC sells them cheap so I just replace them at the start of each season.

When chamber differences result in velocity differences at the muzzle then you'll begin seeing differences at the target. However, in the thought experiment proposed, identical bullets leave identical bores at identical speeds. In this scenario, any influence of different chambers has been eliminated through the parameters of the thought experiment. Right?

I would second the issue with certain headstamps and primer issues depending on caliber. For 45 ACP all headstamps have worked fine but for 40 S&W I have to cull out the "CBC" and "HRTRS" brass. If I swage the primer pockets of those CBC and HRTRS brass they'll go through the loadmaster without issue.

Buy a second spring for the bottom of the powder return chain and use two of them together. I haven't broken the ball chain through about 15,000 rounds since I added the second spring. Pull the elastomer wiper out of the powder measure and thoroughly coat it in powdered graphite before re-installing it. Prevents the elastomer from sticking to the disk and flexing sideways which causes random and intermittent light charges. Use a sizing die in station 2 with the decapping pin removed. This centers the case for the priming action at the top of the stroke and will improve your priming action. Some loadmaster owners use the universal decapping die in station one and the sizing die without decapping pin in station two. I use a standard sizind die in station one with decapping pin and an undersized sizing die in station two without the decapping pin.

Well... SAAMI specs don't fully agree. Granted, the taper for the MAK is tiny, but technically still there. And there are other small variances between the 9x19 and MAK. If the MAK FCD is merely a carbide ring sized to the rim of the MAK then for those 9x19 bulges so large that the FCD actually touches them you're only reducing the bulge to rim diameter, not spec case diameter with the included taper, right? Final reduction to spec dimensions would then be accomplished by the standard sizing die, correct?

I'm familiar with the 9mm FCD. It has a tapered carbide sleeve that matches the tapered profile of the 9mm case. As such you cannot use it as a pass through die. Is the 9mm MAK FCD built differently? Does it merely have a carbide ring matched to the 9.95mm rim diameter of the MAK? Being tapered cases, does the carbide ring in the makarov FCD touch anything except the rim? The average diameter of the case body from rim groove to neck is 0.019" smaller than the rim diameter. Doesn't that mean that any bulge that the MAK FCD would touch on a standard 9mm case would need to be about 0.020" larger than the case spec? All smaller bulges would go untouched by the MAK FCD pass-through, correct?