soflarick

I really enjoy plinking with the 9 ar pistol, and it currently has a functional BHO feature. Bolt is from Rubber City with the weight intact. I've fiddled with buffer springs and buffers, and I'm currently using an Orange Sprinco and Taccom buffer. Feels like if I were to remove the bolt weight, the return to battery wouldn't bounce as much, but I've noticed the cases aren't as carboned up with the heavier spring and weight. Has anyone found a good trade-off setup? I can tinker on my own, but thought I'd ask here in case I miss something.

Same case brand/year, or random cases? That has an effect on the results because of alloy and neck thickness not being consistent among manufacturers. I rotate the case while pressing into the trimmer, then every so often run a q-tip through the case holder to clean off any debris or layer of schmutz that accumulated. I get pretty consistent results.

Test it yourself. Seat your bullet into a sized case you use, no powder or primer. Measure the cartridge overall length. Place into magazine, seat mag into rifle with bolt to the rear. Release bolt catch. Slowly extract the uncharged cartridge, and measure the OAL again. Did the measurement change? That will help determine if you need more neck tension or a crimp. I like to run the same cartridge a couple times to make sure the length remains the same.

LC brass. Deprime, swage, cut, wet tumble, anneal, size, trim. Found wet tumbling after sizing and/or trimming causes peened case mouth.

Reently completed a pistol 9mm AR. 7.5 oz buffer, longer supposedly for 9mm, 7.5" barrel. I tested 3 different buffer spring: JP tuned 223 carbine spring, 308 rifle spring, Tubb 308 spring. The standard 308 spring kept the bolt from going all the way to the rear, and was also the harshest on recoil and bolt reset; I assume coil bind, but the reset was excessive. The JP tuned spring was pretty good, no real complaints. The Tubb 308 spring had the softest (most pleasant for recovery) feel of all 3. Not by much over the JP 223 spring, but I could feel it. Did not use the timer to test. I'm still tinkering. The trigger is a CMC 3.5 lb 9mm unit. My understanding with blowback systems is that the springs, buffers (if used in that system), and hammer spring all have an effect on how quickly the bolt opens. Obviously, a system that keeps the bolt closed as long as necessary is desired, with the trade off being heavier springs and/or buffers. A delayed roller system, like the HK systems, is probably the best 9mm carbine shooting I've done. The MP5 made anyone look like an expert. BTW, the JP and Tubb springs allowed the buffer to fully enter the buffer tube. After reading this thread, I now understand why people try to limit travel. Perhaps one of those polymer buffer spacers at the back of the buffer tube would be a better idea than a stack of quarters. I'm surprised my buffer allows full retraction of the bolt, as it's supposed to be longer than a standard carbine buffer, and restrict full cycling of the bolt. I'm still playing around. I'm hoping to find a nice compromise so the return to battery isn't so jarring. The Tubb spring is supposed to have more seat pressure than open pressure, whereas the JP is supposedly 7% stiffer through it's range. THat is what I felt when comparing the two. Another question, not related to this subject: I'm using a standard AR upper and dedicated 9mm lower. No last round hold open feature. I found the manufacturer of the lower has a "matching" upper with the feature and side charging. Does anyone have feedback on those issues? It'd be nice to have the LRHO feature, and the side charger appears to keep the pistol engaged on target while manipulating the bolt, but I don't want to spend the 200+ if not really necessary. I will, though, if the features are worth the cost. I just don't know due to lack of experience in the matter.

Nevermind. Ghost has a warranty, so if a tab breaks, they'll replace free. Got them separated without issue. Ghost emailed warranty info just in case. Thank you.

If they offer it in 6.5x55.......oh dear.

What tumbling mixture are you using to achieve that result?

Bayou and SnS samples arrived. Going to use TG and WSF to find an accurate, soft shooting load among the 3 weights I chose.

Ordered coated 115, 135, and 147 samples from a couple places. I was running 3.2gr TG with 147 plated at steel challenge. What TG charges have people found appropriate for 115s and 135s? OAL with the SnS 147s I set at 1.14 to cycle in a variety of magazines and chambers (plunk test passed). Crimp is with a FCD set at case wall x 2 + bullet OD. Mixed yellow brass. I'm not looking to compare powders at this point. I'm more interested in testing out the different weights from different manufacturers. Tried Clays; didn't perform as well as TG for me with 9. I presume TG and WSF are also good in another high pressure round such as .40?

After finding more sights to compare, theories behind them, I think the TTI would be the right direction to go right now. Just like optics and other parts, one winds up with a pile to sell in the classifieds hehe.

I've never been to Meeker; IIRC, it's not far. I've liked how TG performs in 9. Haven't tried the WSF yet.

G34, as stated in another recent thread, used for steel, 3gun, plinking, etc. Transitioned to coated from plated. I have been using 147gr SnS in it and another company's 9mm semi. Very pleased with the push instead of snap recoil. Using Titegroup, and sometimes PowerPistol to emulate standard pressure carry rounds. Recently shot some of a friend's Berry's 115 plated with a light load of 700x. Since it's a G34, recoil was minimal anyway. Even with the hotter loads, the 34 handles recoil with aplomb. Therefore, I'm more focused on accuracy and POA/POI than felt recoil (to a limit) with the G34. I only have 147s on hand; I intend to order some sample packs to compare. The friend's 115s appeared accurate. The SnS147s with 4.2 PP were just silly accurate. I've got some WSF on standby to try, since so many here swear it's the stuff in a 9mm. I am interested to learn what people running a G34 or longslide 17 have discovered concerning bullet profile, weight and accuracy. The 135s are intriguing, but I have not tried any. I intend to stick with coated for target and matches, whether it's SnS, Bayou, or Blue. BTW, the SnS feels far more slick than Blue bullets, but that means diddly comparing it between feeling and how it goes through a bore. I did do a long-ish search, but found a rather broad spectrum of opinions dating back a while, so I wanted to learn about current experiences. Thanks.

I've been leaning toward the Dawson in your last statement. Have any of you noticed an actual difference between serrated and flat rear sights?

Thanks. I wanted to show that I researched the topic before posting, and my intended purpose is important to the recommended use. The Warren has performed well, but I'd like to see more light transmission from the front sight, and a full face rear sight with no additional fiber optic or tritium.

G34. Used for steel, 3gun tactical irons, plinking, etc. I have a set of Warrens on another firearm, and don't notice the lack of serrations, but I have not the experience to know if the rear sight serrations are a benefit. Since I am trying to learn to shoot with both eyes open, the scalloped edge of the Warren rear sight makes it difficult to focus for me. The full, flat rear sight seems to make it easier to focus with both eyes open. Since the G34 is used mostly for steel and 3gun, I'm not concerned with a 6 o'clock hold, or the traditional top of the front sight in line with half the bullseye. There are so many options now, I would like some experienced advice. I did notice some of the fiber optic front sights allow light underneath the fiber, creating a brighter front sight.

I don't think it's been mentioned in this thread, but I separate the yellow from the nickel plated brass. The plating adds another variable, and cracks more quickly. There's a local store that has E3 on the shelf. I guess I'll grab a lb and give it a try.

How does E3 compare to Bullseye, Titegroup, 700x, Clays, Clay Dot, Red Dot in terms of smoke, soot, accuracy, cost? It just started appearing around here, but I've got plenty of Clay Dot, Red Dot, TG, and Bullseye; a little 700x. Normally run TG for 9, Clay Dot for 45, Bullseye in either. I'd like to narrow it down to one or two target powders for 9, 40, 45.

I would like to try a standard, non-pistol grip, stock on a 930 at events. I have not contacted Mossberg to purchase one; assumed it'd be pricey. Perhaps my search-fu needs a tune up, but I have not been able to find one online for sale. Before I call the manufacturer, I thought asking here would be a last resort. Thanks.

Suggestion: box fan, 2 cheap-o fiber HVAC filters from store, some leftover plastic window screen; put screen over one filter, brass, second filter, fan under first filter, milk crate under fan. Fan pushing up, the second filter over the brass sitting on the screen; helps circulate air around and eventually push out. I almost bought a FA dehydrator until I figured I figured it was one more gimmick, I had parts at home, my fun area is already a mess, I can't spend more money, etc. If primers are already removed, dry brass in under an hour. If primers intact, I let fan run overnight. Very few spots on brass, even if I don't move the brass around by hand. Quite a few pieces can be completed at one time via this method.

Ok, thanks. I already discovered preloading the L&L press with 5 pistol cases before setting OAL. That reduced variances. The rest I attribute to the bullets being different lengths, and whatever else outside my control. Rifle just gets powder and seating.

This concerns more than one handgun caliber. I recently have been working up loads for 9mm and 40cal, using plated Xtreme, and SNS coated bullets. I established overall lengths of both calibers by determining the longest overall length all my firearms will safely accept with each bullet. The primer was consistent. Powder was Power Pistol. Crimp was using FCD, and the bullet diameter+case wall thickness(2)= XXX, then adjusted for .001 crimp on the plated, and adjusted on the coated bullet to the same diameter as XXX. Now that I have determined what are likely the most accurate powder charges for each cartridge between calibers and bullets, should I now start adjusting overall length to see how accuracy is affected? I have experienced in the past even a small adjustment in OAL most definitely had a change in pressure and felt recoil in a handgun cartridge, so I presume that will throw out my powder charge selection. Is it "better" to run each powder charge at different overall lengths, and test those batches? Say, adjust each batch, same charge, but .01" difference in length? I'm not trying to split hairs, but thought a better understanding would be a good learning experience. Thanks.

THAT is very interesting. Thanks for posting your findings. Empirical rather than speculation.

Has anyone noticed their wet tumbled brass having a "peened" appearance? I'm tumbling for only 1.5 hours. Compared to dry media, the wet tumbled cases appear to have a distressed appearance, and the mouths, to me, look beaten. Would this have an effect on the hardness of the brass, esp at the mouth? I understand trimming removes the edge from the case mouth, but if one doesn't have to trim every time, wet tumbling seems to require it be done nonetheless. Has anyone experienced a change in useful life span and accuracy/consistency with wet tumbled brass as compared to dry tumbled? Some data would be useful.

RL15 is good with the heavier bullets. RL10, CFE223, H335, Benchmark are good with the lighter bullets.