PAcanis

Thanks, Superdude. And I agree. It was getting a bit frustrating trying to explain it to him. I felt like asking for his email and sending him one of the multitude of links explaining what nosedives were. I told him that when he has some spare time, to load some 1911 magazines to capacity and push the top round or two off with his thumb and watch them before they leave the lips. And then I explained my problem was further compounded by my cases being semi-rimed and that changing the angle they set in the magazine. He just wasn't getting it. He did know his crimping though. And hey, I learned something.

OK. Finally. After further conversations and suggestions yesterday with Dillon and Speer; and also I took note that the feed ramp in this Caspian was much shorter than my 38 Super Commander or my compact Kimber (45acp), that uses a ramped barrel, I attacked things head on. First I lengthened the feed ramp by taking the "hump" out that the bullet tip of the first two rounds was hitting. Then I adjusted the tip of the metal follower so the first round loaded into the magazine and the subsequent rounds sat at a slightly steeper angle. This was suggested by Speer so the first couple rounds would not nosedive as far. Dillon's TS actually told me that in "40 years of building 1911's" he had never heard of a round nosediving... I found that odd. Maybe he doesn't own a computer. Adjusting the ramp and follower cured the feeding problem, but I was still getting setback. Even if only one round was loaded into the magazine I would get setback as it fed. And just for the heck of it I loaded one round into my Commander's magazine and also experienced setback. Obviously I was having a problem setting up the crimping die, and this is where Dillon's TS really helped. I found the optimum length to be 1.260", right where Speer said they tested the ammo at. 1.280 actually fed smoother, but I would get major setback. 1.260 and I did not get setback. This was after following Dillon's instructions on how to set up the crimping die. He said to run an empty case up into the die and keep screwing down the crimping die until it looked like I was barely getting a roll on the top edge. He said to ignore the 1/4 to 1/2 turn rule. That I should start seeing a shiny ring around the case mouth, but if the ring was 1/16" I went way to far. This adjustment ended up being more than one full turn from where the die first touched the case. Maybe the cases being nickel had something to do with them being harder to taper crimp as compared to straight brass, as nickel is a harder metal. Anyway, once I got the die set up to where I knew I was crimping the mouth, no more setback. I chambered the eighth round in the mag three times and it held right at 1.260". Then, just to see if I could, I dropped the recoil spring to 16lbs and everything was still hand cycling fine. Nothing left to do now but live testing, but there's snow on the ground now and I don't feel like losing brass. I'm pretty confident there won't be a problem.

Trying a different bullet has crossed my mind, but I bought 1000 of these. I didn't think I'd be running into this problem. Lesson learned. I'm using Magtech nickel plated brass. Semi-rimmed. I took a break while I ate dinner and just tried a fresh bullet. The other one was getting pretty beat up being seated and re-crimped. I seated the fresh bullet to 1.280 with half a turn on the crimp die. It fed smoothly, but setback was 1.265. Trying to seat that same cartridge again jammed it and pushed the bullet further in, to 1.210. Very frustrating trying to fine tune this to handle 8 in the mag. Maybe I do need the feed ramp adjusted.

Whelp, I gave this a rest a while and just had at it again. What I found was loading the magazines to capacity caused the top round to jam up due to the nose dive. And also the next 2-3 rounds were good candidates to jam in the nose dive position, too. About a third of the time. I adjusted the followers slightly to give them more of an angle, hoping to hold the nose up more starting from the first round in and translating to number 8. This worked well as long as I only loaded seven rounds. Sometimes the first round felt a little "clunky" loading, but no more jams. But I wasn't happy yet. This was loading to 1.260" OAL. I found an ammo manufacturer online that used the same Speer GDHP bullets and the OAL was listed at 1.241", so I loaded a dummy round and put it in the mag as the eighth round in. Jam. Maybe the fact that I have a Caspian frame is the problem and my feed ramp is the wrong angle, As I am not having this problem with my Colt Commander. Anyway, the shorter OAL wasn't making sense to me anyway. That just meant the round could nose dive more as it was stripped from the magazine before hitting the ramp, so I went the other way. I seated a bullet to 1.278, loaded it in at number 8 and hit the slide release. And the slide slammed shut! Eureka! BUT... even with a slight taper crimp I had setback. The round measured 1.262. Almost my original length. So I guess technically speaking, I'd have been fine shooting it (if it was live). I'm assuming though that all eight rounds are not going to setback the same as the angles change and the magazine empties, so I'm going to increase my crimp until I don't get anymore setback. My only other option is to try to change the angle of the feed ramp, but that's above my pay scale. I suppose I could pick up a protractor and at least compare it to my Commander, but if I can solve the problem my simply adjusting the seating depth, that seems like the easy way out. I'll just need to rework my loads to maintain my velocity. That's where I'm at anyway.

I've noticed that I've gotten more sideways primers using the CCI small pistol primers than I ever did using the Winchester large. This is my first time loading for something using SPP's, so I don't know if it's a CCI thing or a small primer thing that I've been getting them fed sideways.

Thanks for your input.

Hah. Wouldn't you know. I've got a problem with feeding with the one mag. I should have checked all three out before I assumed I had a good OAL. Back to the drawing board.

It's a homebuilt 1911 with an unramped Kart barrel. It has a stainless frame and I am more familiar working with unramped barrels, so that's what I went with.

Interesting. Thanks. Like I said, I've never run into different loads or seating depths for the same style of bullet before. For .45acp I've been loading 230 gr Berrys plated RN the same as 230 gr Raniers plated RN. And I've been using three different castings of 200 gr LSWC, yet have loaded them all the same. I'll have to do some more digging into the differences. I guess I've been lucky simply going by the Lymans manual. This is where I'm at: I'm seating at 1.250 - 1.252 I'm throwing 6.1 grains of Unique, but being a flake powder I've measured 6.0 - 6.2. I just shot five rounds with a high of 1200 fps and a low of 1165. That's more of a spread than I am used to, but it is what it is. I'll load up some more, as these are feeding fine, not exceeding the published 1208 fps, the primers look normal and they *feel* like they are shooting just fine. Next I'll throw up a target and see how accurate they are.

There was only one load published, not a range. And the fps was lower than the published fps for the Magtech ammo I had been shooting. It seemed like a good starting point.

Thanks, H-P. Yeah, Unique really fills the case. I'm not sure why I chose Unique... probably because I wanted to save my Bullseye for .45acp because I shoot that a lot more.

Thanks guys. The thing that's throwing me, that I haven't seen before, is .38 Super loads are different for the make of bullet. I'm used to seeing loads for JHP in a certain weight, not loads specific to the Speer GDHP in a certain weight. Maybe that's because of the concave bottom or the bullet is unique in some way. HI5-O, I'll use your OAL as guidelines. And thanks for BE's method of determining OAL for a given pistol. But obviously if I keep seating the bullet further to hit the ramp right, I'll be raising pressure, right? How can I tell if I'm raising pressure too much? I only have a chronograph. Is there a formula on how much faster the bullet can go above the published fps? Or do I want to do it like I said, drop my powder charge to make up for the added seated depth? Great links Superdude. thanks. It certainly seems like loading .38 Super is a different animal.

What bullet are you using? My Lymans reloading manual is all over the place for OAL and the bullet type and weight. Doesn't it make that much of a difference?

As you mentioned, the OAL is flexible - if you perform the Plunk Test, you can determine the longest your rounds can be. Thanks. I wasn't sure it was flexible because it said 1.260 was the min length. Yet they were not feeding... Plunk test was fine with the rounds that would not feed and of course now, too. You don't mention what velocity you're loading to ?? Major or minor?? If you're loading Major, I wouldn't try to make Major on the first go around - I'd start 10% low and work up slowly with the chrono. Sorry. The recipe on Alliant's site said my fps should be 1208. It simply said 6.2 grains of Unique, 1208 fps, so that was my goal. Like I said in my post, the rounds where the bullet pushed in a little were very close to the velocity. The ones that fed afterward were a bit low, more like 1170. Major or minor? No idea what that means. You didn't mention which powder you're using, or the amount, either. Sorry again. I didn't know the powder affected OAL or feeding. 6.2 grains of Unique, but like I said in my other post, I dropped it back to 6.1 because I was seating further and crimping more. Good way to check for pushback is to push the cartridge into a firm object (like your reloading bench); try that with 10 cartridges, push as hard as you can, and then re-measure the OAL. Good test. Thanks. They aren't moving anymore, so I think I'm good.

I went ahead and seated the bullet a little further, plus added a little more crimp. The first round off the magazine feeds fine now without setback, whether I slingshot the slide or use the slide release. I also dropped the powder charge .1 gr. I guess we'll see what happens when I shoot over the chronograph. Hopefully it's around where I'm supposed to be.

Hi guys I got the equipment and bullets today to start loading for .38 Super. My reloading book did not have data on the bullets I purchased, Speer 124 gr Gold Dot jacketed HP's, but I found two loads online like I mentioned in my primer thread. Both (two different powders) call for an OAL of 1.260". Is that number flexible? Can it be shortened? What I'm getting at is, the Lymans book says 1.275 for 230 gr .45acp, but who really seats that length. 1.262 works for me and I know some go a lot shorter. The reason I'm asking is, I had a feeding problem at first racking the slide of my 1911. I got bullet setback as the slide drove the round straight into the ramp. I ejected and tried again and then they fed fine. And the fps was right in line with where I was supposed to be on those two rounds. The rest of the rounds in the magazine fed just fine cycling on their own. I was a little low on their velocity according to the recipe I was using. If they also received setback I wouldn't know as I did not eject to measure, but I'm thinking the lower velocity is telling me they pretty much stayed at 1.260. BTW, I only crimped the bell out, so it's not much of a taper crimp at all. Maybe adding more crimp would allow the round to feed better because there wouldn't be any "give". For comparison, the 130 gr Magtech JRN are 1.250 OAL and they feed just fine. And my feed ramp is polished. Dirty, but polished. Any advice or input? I don't understand when it is allowable to shorten OAL from what is published.

Is the FPS difference a result of the primer's powder itself, or how quickly it ignites the powder? Or are those one in the same? In other words, if you fired a round without powder in it, would one make primer push the squib further than the next?

CCI 500. They had choices, but 1, there were a lot of positive experiences with these primers mentioned here; 2, they were what was called for in the two loads I found and 3, it can't hurt having one brand LPP and one brand SPP just to keep track of things.

I hope to hit my favorite gun shop today, so we'll see what I come back with.

Thanks for all the feedback.

Interesting. My new build (in 38 Super) doesn't have the hardest primer strike either.

Thanks a lot for the information. And that's interesting about Winchester's not being uniformally round. I've noticed they seat a little harder than others I've used. I actually like that. It makes it easy to tell when the cup didn't pick one up. Good info on being able to use small rifle primers, too. Just in case I can't find any sm pistol. Thanks again.

Sorry if this has been asked before, I did a search... But does it really make a difference which make pistol primer to use for a specific load? Especially is this day and age of beggars can't be choosers. I use Winchester large pistol primers for 44 mag and 45acp. They are labeled for either standard or magnum loads. I am getting the things together to reload 38 Super and looked up some loads last night using powder that I have. They both called for CCI 500 primers using either Unique or Bullseye. Does it really make a difference if I can't find CCI 500 small pistol primers? I guess I never really thought about it before, but since these reloads will be on the hot side, I figured better safe than sorry. I'm rather fond of the Winchester primers and it seems that's what the shops have been able to get.

Thanks for the tips, Dillon. I didn't know scales had to warm up. I will turn it on well before I start using it. And flaring the mouth more... maybe that will help with the occasional flakes that I see falling from the die as I lower the tool head. No amount of tapping here and there seems to prevent this, but it only happens about 1 out of 7 cartridges. Still, it makes a mess after time. Yesterday I adjusted my load down and the scale wasn't being near as jumpy. No real change in weather or anything, so I'm not sure what's up with that. Powder was still varying by .1 to .3 grains though, with the occasional .5 low. I've resigned myself to the fact that it just doesn't meter well. As versatile as this powder is supposed to be, I'll keep it soley for my .44 mag. No way I want to be measuring each and every round of .45acp. Of course if the powder shortage ever eases I'll probably tuck that 700x away somewhere for lean times and buy something not in a flake.

Thanks for your feedback. I guess I'll know more when I shoot them over my chronograph. And it certainly won't hurt to pick up a backup scale. Probably a good idea. I've got the powder now, so I'll make do as best I can.