ltdmstr

That post doesn't say anything about cycling the gun. I've done plenty of subs with 150s and single shot they work just fine. But none generated enough gas to cycle the gun and keep it running. I've tried skeletonized bolt carriers, the lightest buffer/spring combination possible (basically hollow plastic ends and a Tacom super lw spring), and pretty much everything else, and couldn't make enough gas to cycle. If I can find some Lil Gun I'll try his load of 8.5g.

100% correct.

Not sure what your point is. The problem with 150g subs is a lack of pressure. And yes, subs will cycle an AR just fine if you're using a heavier bullet and the gun is set up correctly. But the OP inquired about 150g subs, which is a different story. I'm not aware of any subsonic load with a 150g bullet that will cycle an AR. If you have something that works, please share it. The fact that subs work fine in a blow back pcc is completely irrelevant.

You can measure the base and compare to SAAMI specs if you want to know for sure. Or run a few through a sizing die and then try the case gauge.

That depends on the chamber of your gun(s) and how much the case expands. Even though the Case Pro rolls the entire length, the mouth springs back more than the base, so if you have a large chamber and lots of expansion, chances are it's not going to drop into the case gauge until after you put it through a sizing die. For example, the fired brass from my 1911/2011s drops into a case gauge even before rolling or resizing because they all have tight chambers. With a Glock, it's probably not going to drop even after rolling in the Case Pro.

I tried a number of different subsonic 150 loads and couldn't get them to cycle in an AR. Tried lightweight bolt carrier, lightest buffer I could find, and pretty much everything I could think of.

If there's galling you should be able to see it. Also check the slide/frame fit with the barrel, etc. removed and see how it feels. If the ejector isn't pinned it could be shifting on impact.

I still pin the ejectors, and don't see any benefit to not doing so. Either way, I would disassemble and check the ejector fit in the frame, because pinned or not it should be snug and not move at all. Then check the ejector clearance on the slide. You should be able to see some daylight between the parts. If it needs replacement, I prefer the EGW ejectors and typically cut and shape the nose depending on the gun, cartridge, etc.

This is simply not true. It's an industry with low barriers to entry, and if it made sense, lots of other companies would jump in. The reality is, it's a low margin boom and bust business, and that doesn't attract investment. And with the federal, state and local government and major corporations now focusing on ESG, it's going to be even less attractive. I agree that the ammo and component shortages make the sport less attractive, and are problematic. But the ammo companies aren't the ones causing the problem.

As stated, I would start by going to a 9lb recoil spring. I would also check/adjust the extractor tension and tune the hook if that's not done already. What magazines are you using?

Pretty sure this is it. https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/the-truth-about-ammo-gunsamerica-exclusive-interview-with-hornady/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20210125_BlogDigest_414&utm_campaign=/digest/the-truth-about-ammo-gunsamerica-exclusive-interview-with-hornady/

You're better off with an NRA static weight set. It's more accurate and you can add as much weight as you want.

That's definitely part of it. Just saw an interview today with someone from Hornady. Basically, he said: Their ammo production is up 30% over last year, when a typical year is +5-10 percent. So that's huge. Inventory turnover for them this year was 18x, compared to 6x for a typical year. If you know anything about manufacturing, that's also huge number. They're experiencing supply chain issues with materials, including components and packaging, that are beyond their control, as well as rising prices for those materials. For higher margin stuff, they're absorbing some or all of the cost. For low margin stuff, they have no choice but to pass the costs on to consumers. The unemployment rate where their plant is located is 2.9 percent, which in economic terms, is pretty much full employment. So even if they had more equipment and materials available, they can't get people to run them. He also flat out said they're in business to make money, like everyone else, and if they had a way to produce more ammo, they would, because right now, they're selling everything they can make, as fast as they can make it. So, in all, it pretty much confirms much of what's been said already. And despite suggestions to the contrary, manufacturers are doing everything the can to meet the demand. For those who continue to argue otherwise, and think that the ammo companies are holding back for some reason, you might find better support for those ideas over at 4chan vs. here.

Well, this might have something to do with rising costs. Manufacturing Rebound Has Suppliers Struggling to Keep Up Manufacturing Rebound Has Suppliers Struggling to Keep Up Bob Tita | Photographs by Nolis Anderson for The Wall Street Journal A quicker-than-expected recovery in U.S. manufacturing is resulting in supply disruptions and higher costs for m...

1. If the opportunity made sense they'd do it, don't you think? What would be their reason not to? Just to screw us over? Seems companies are making a decision that it's not cost effective or profitable in the long run to increase capacity to meet a spike in demand and then have that additional unused capacity when things return to normal, which they will. That's a perfectly reasonable business decision. 2. Prices go up for a lot of reasons. Some or all of an increase may be profit. That's their choice and they get to live with the benefits and consequences. But some or all may be due to increased costs, like increased labor/overtime cost, increased utility costs, increased maintenance on equipment, increased material costs, unusual costs like Covid related stuff, lots of things. 3. Yes, they must know what it costs to add capacity, and also know how long it takes. If it could be done in a reasonable time, that would be a factor in deciding whether to increase demand. You seem to think they have a big empty building somewhere or vacant space where they can put a bunch of machines and start cranking out more stuff. That's probably not true. Adding a facility, outfitting it with machines, and staffing it isn't going to happen in the year and a half you projected for this spike in demand. So, what they end up with is no additional sales and an idle facility plus a huge increase in cost. At that point, I'd guess you're not going to be CEO any more.

I'm not exactly sure. But the statement that "they may choose to meet new demand or not as they please" isn't accurate. They're already at max capacity and can't meet demand. And there's no way for them to increase capacity in a reasonable time frame. So what are you suggesting they do? They can't just go to the store and buy more equipment, or hire more people when there aren't more machines to run. And adding more machines takes a lot of time, space, and capital. Yes, they're free to choose whether to add more capacity and increase supply in the long run. But that's not going to help the current situation and really has no impact on the new demand they're faced with now.

Primers will be available when ammo demand subsides. Until then, we're SOL. And prices will be up in general for a variety of reasons. Winchester already announced across-the-board increases on ammo and components and you can expect the others will follow. As for the gunbroker auctions, big surprise there. Lots of people are lazy and/or just plain dumb. As of last week, I found a guy selling Federal primers at $760/10k. Not exactly cheap, but pretty reasonable considering the circumstances. There's still stuff out there for not so crazy prices, just takes a little time, effort, and a functioning frontal lobe to find it.

How much a machine is run doesn't have anything to do with how much it costs. Assuming constant demand, It's really determined by the mean time between failure. Things like repairs, routine maintenance, etc. that take the machine out of service. As for automated machines, they don't exist. It's not like the ammo companies can call 1-800-reloadingsupplies and order some up. The stuff is all custom made, which takes a lot of time and capital. Chances are, if they wanted to add significant additional capacity at this point, by the time that stuff is ready to go things will be back to "normal" and they'll be stuck with a bunch of idle equipment. So bottom line is, they're doing as much as they possibly can with available resources so they don't screw themselves over in the long run.

I was surprised by that too. Was also surprised that the production number is as high as it is. Seems like for most local matches out of 80 or so entries, production is typically down to single digits.

I have an RHT holster and my G17/5 has wear marks after only a couple trips to the range.

From what I've been told, nDLC can't be re-applied, so a "factory re-finish" isn't an option. The slide undergoes two heating cycles in the process to apply the coating. Exposing it to two more cycles could cause brittleness in the slide, something which is understandably unacceptable. As I hear, they won't even refinish cosmetic blems at the factory. They just get culled in the Quality Assurance process.

Here's the current breakdown for the 2021 IL Sectional. Division Limited 50 Limited 10 0 Open 34 Production 35 Revolver 0 Single Stack 20 Carry Optics 42 Pcc 10

As Schultz alluded to, it's cosmetic and not going to make a difference in terms of the protection offered by the treatment they're using. But as far as the cosmetics go, the holster isn't the problem. It's the durability of the top coat, for lack of a better term. And there's really not much you can do about that other than refinish it with something more durable.

Yeah, pretty funny they market their Gen. 5 guns as having DLC finish. My SV with DLC is 5+ years old and 70k rounds through it, and doesn't have a mark on it. My three month old Glock 17/5 has wear marks just from normal handling. So, not sure what the finish is, but it's definitely not DLC. On the plus side, people pay a lot of money for worn Cerakote finishes to mimic that look. So, it may not be to your liking, but I'm sure it'll be popular with the tacticool crowd.

Works good for PCC too.