HesedTech

The way you are looking at the gauge is not measuring the length, it's measuring from shoulder (where the brass tapers to the neck) to the base of the brass. Length is shown on the other side of the gauge where the neck sticks out. The shoulder will effect this if it is too long. If you get a chance to read rifle loader forums they will talk about "bumping the shoulder." As the previous poster stated, slightly screw out your sizing die to make the base fit properly in the gauge. Dillon has a page describing how this is done. Range brass in not an issue, except rifle case volume variance is more of an accuracy issue for long range shooting and anytime when loading at or over max. Also if you trim, do it after resizing the brass. Hope this helps.

rbx, mount your dot and go shoot, the best way to figure out what you like. But, don't forget the "bling." These guns are also personal, so make it look and function the way you want it to.

You know this comment is really uncalled for. The poster wanted ideas about options and got them. Now it’s up to him to decide how the gun will be set up. Be civil please.

Actually very little difference. I put on LOK grips and the only thing I noticed is if my strong hand is rotated too far forward/the right I have trouble pushing the mag release, kind of weird. I index my draw with my wrist against the mag and found I had to move my arm slightly further back to get my hand directly under the beaver tail. Lot's of large handed people shoot Shadow 2s very well. Just get the palm swell grips over the factory ones. The mags and reloading are not an issue. Indexing my finger is the same for both despite the size difference. Indexing on the target requires a slightly higher placement of the gun. The only thing I miss is the 8lb recoil spring on unloaded starts. The 13 pound I have now does require a more positive grab of the slide. I have a 10 and 11 coming to compare. The 13 lb spring does dip the barrel slightly more than the 8 on the TF, but the better balance and accuracy almost completely compensates for this. That's about it.

My Shadow 2 was milled by CGW and the SRO is really low. My previous CO gun also had the SRO mounted as low as possible and I removed the front sight, so I too was worried the Shadow sight would be annoying. Didn't want to destroy a $40 sight (of course I milled the slide so really that's pointless) after removing the fiber I can assure you I never noticed the post once. It's a non-issue for me. However, I have seen people cut it off and file it smooth. I admit visually it looks better that way on the gun. Since guns are personal, make it yours.

No one sells a plug for the front sight cut. At around $40. for a front sight what I did was remove the fiber and presto I haven't noticed it once while running around shooting the targets. With CO a shooter needs to be "target focused" and bring the dot to the intended point on the target for the shot. I guarantee after a bit of practice you won't even notice the sight.

Truthfully I have a collection of Tanfoglios, however for USPSA I started with Stock 2 in Production, switched to CO a couple of years ago and had a slide milled for a Vortex Venom dot. I made the mistake of trying an SRO and yes on the clock it is slightly faster due to the size of the window. So I bought a Stock Master and had it milled for the SRO. Up to the SM my Tanfos all ran great, however to get a 2.5 SA and 5.5 DA I have to run Federal Primers. Now the Stock Master has been a real disappointment. It is nose heavy, the fit and finish is sloppy for a new gun, The barrel has play at the front of the slide when locked up and the final straw is this; even after doing every tuning and polishing trick on the extractor it just won't eject and load reliably. So I bought a Shadow 2 from Cajon with the full Pro package. Here's the differences from the Tanfos: 1. No stacking in DA (6 1lb pull) 2. Fit is vastly superior. 3. Accuracy is noticeably better at 25 yards. 4. 1000 rounds later not one failed to extract or feed (my Stock 2s have never been an issue either). 5. Gun is better balanced than the Stock Master (not nose heavy). 6. With the CGW package, 11.5# hammer spring all my hard primers go bang, not one light strike in DA or SA. (2.8# SA) As far as general shooting goes, that DA with no stacking helps with the first shot accuracy. My take is out of the box the Shadow 2 is a superior gun and had it been available when I purchased my first Tanfoglio S2 I would have gone that route. Hopes this helps. I do own a couple of small frame Tanfoglios, one steel and one polymer. No real issues with them except same DA stacking and to get light trigger pull have to use Federal primers, I just shoot them for fun. Of course it's all fun and I never forget to remind myself this is a hobby.

This guy: https://spinalflowyoga.com/shooters-elbow/

I made two of these for rifle loading on my 550: https://github.com/stro/powdershaker#:~:text=PowderShaker is a small add-on device for Dillon,provide the housing for components and the mount. Works great. But you need a 3D printer to make the plastic parts.

Like cars, eventually the issue becomes the cost of repair. If the guns are still shooting well, just use em. If not replace the worn parts. One area which may wear beyond use is the barrel lock up. When the the barrel locks up and is still really loose you can re-bush the slide. Replacing the slide with a new one and barrel heads into the cost of getting a new gun. Personally I just bought a new Shadow 2 from CGW and have been wondering why I spent so many years with Tanfoglios.

Hard to tell from video. One problem I had was the powder bar developed a gall between the bar and side. It caused the bar to hang up and not fully slide and deformed the brass. The measure body isn’t made of the finest metal. It’s pretty soft. galling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galling

Never used it. Based on what you wrote I did a quick search and yes it seems it also can "pack" and cause measure issues. I guess the only answer is to make sure it stay as sry as possible and you need to unload the powder measure after every loading session. Maybe even shake or "fluff" it up some how? For difficult powders I use an automatic powder trickler, but that's way too slow for any sort of volume loading.

I’ve run 10s of thousands of rounds without “cleaning” the Dillon powder measure. Of course when it was new I polished and smoothed everything out, in the funnel, bar and such. I’ve even had parts break, but it has always reliably drop the desired amount. I don’t know what powder you use, as you probably already know (speaking to the choir) some powders drop better than others. In rifle loading Varget and anything with a similar shape, stick, doesn’t meter as well. I found WST also doesn’t drop as consistent. Anytime there’s an anomaly I recommend pulling the powder measure, make sure the funnel area is free and clear and the mechanism/actuator functions correctly. Other than that there’s not much else to do. It’s not really a super refined piece of machinery, it just works or it doesn’t.

Yes switching primers can change the velocity, but unless you're loading at minimum PF or near the max pressures recommended it will be an insignificant change. What is a potential issue is the depth of the primer, especially if you're using light hammer springs. I have found substantial differences between depths of various primers enough so to make sure the seating depth in the brass is checked and adjusted (Dillon 1050).

I bought the Stock Master, large frame, last year and to be honest the balance of my Stock 2 is superior to it. The Stock Master feels substantially nose heavy. Additionally the build quality of my Stock 2 (7 years old) is superior to the Master. Barrel fit, extractor issues, slide fit to frame, hammer spring hole/well is shorter/not as deep (more stacking in DA) have all been annoying and required more detailed tuning. Personally if you're looking to buy a new gun and don't have any investment in Tanfoglio parts, get a CZ Shadow 2. Even better yet get a Shadow 2 from Cajon Gun Works with their full "pro" package. Out of the box all that has to be done is load the ammo and go shoot.

I know you are getting a lot of push back on this, being honest I have not paid for 9mm brass since I started reloading. Every match and range I shoot at always has brass for the taking. I typically have about 20K in rotation. It does save money and these days primers have grown to the most expensive part at around 10cents each.

Kind of. The roll sizer is meant to resize the lower portion of the brass. It generally sizes down to the grove and will flatten some marks in the rim. What it does not do is resize the upper part of the brass, which means the brass still has to be resized with the die. I have also found with 223/5.56 brass damaged rims will not be repaired by the roll sizer. So what's the point of using a roll sizer since it adds one more step? It allows the brass to be uniformly sized where the dies misses and theoretically means a more consistent finished product. While I do roll size my brass, the truth is if you are not experiencing any sizing issues with only a sizing die a roll sizer is really an expensive luxury with minimal return for the extra step and cost. In the past 40SW brass had a lot of problems with Glock unsupported barrel bulges. Roll sizing is a superior way to restore this issue.

Haven’t used this particular bullet but here’s some help from my experience with similar ones. 1. 147s load deep. 2. Unless everything is identical to the factory load, there really isn’t a way to compare directly. 3. If you are using different brass some have an earlier thickening/taper closer to the opening and will bulge with deeply loaded bullets, CBC is the biggest culprit here. 4. Even the best coated bullets swage slightly as they are pressed into the brass and encounter the inside taper. Which means you can get away with a little more. 5. Crimping size only matters to smooth out belling use to seat bullet. 6. FMJ 147s, because of their harder exterior, will bulge the brass more as it is seated deeply. Ultimately if you want to duplicate a Hornady factory load you need Hornady brass to match the bullets. Everything else is an experiment to figure out what works. As far as OAL goes, take and make dummy rounds, no powder or primer, using all the head stamps you have and experiment with different lengths to see which brass works best. Hope this helps.

Yes, Check the USPSA web site and they have a list with the coupon codes for discounts. As far as powders go here's what I have found; for 9mm and 40 anything around the same burn rate as Sport Pistol, Clean Shot, N320, TG will work fine. Minor differences in how clean they burn and meter in a powder drop. When you're on the line under the clock no one really notices the differences. Right now the real issue with powders and primers is availability and that tends to be the deciding factor.

^^^^ This. The Beretta looks like a nice gun, but you need parts, service and aftermarket availability, CZ Shadow 2 has it all. But it will cost you at least 2K to make the switch. Gun, optics and milling, trigger work, mags and extended base pads, pouches and more.

Good stuff. 147s and some 124s, depends on OGIV/profile, will bulge cases when inserted, especially at OALs less than 1.10". This is why all ammo has to be checked for reliability. I personally in 147s have had the best results with the FP profile. They load and plunk at 1.14" in all my guns and feed great. Here's a picture of the Blue Bullet version: I found .355 or .356 are my preferred sizes and most vendors sell this weight and profile.

The bulge is from the heavier bullets with a blunt OGIV (nose profile) being deeply seated in the brass. It bulges the lower part of the case, especially with CBC brass. Chambers have different tolerances amongst guns. My Tanfoglios are slightly larger than Glocks but have a shorter throat or rifle landing. I can load fatter but not longer for the TF than a Glock. My PSA 9mm PCC has the shortest and tightest chamber of anything I own. Again, we load for the guns we shoot, and all rounds should easily and smoothly chamber and then drop out when tilted upside down. If you have to force or apply pressure to load or extract it then it is too tight and you need to work on your load. If you peruse the forum most reloaders (if not all) use a sizing die which slightly undersizes the brass. A Lee "U" die and the stock Dillon dies are such. You will also notice most set the crimp, not by size, but by the mark it leaves on the bullet, which should be hardly noticeable. Hope this helps, but you really should search the forum because all these things have been discussed many times over. And no the round should never fail to chamber easily and a heavy recoil spring is not a fix for badly prepared and loaded rounds.

As people read this thread don't forget the issue is a stuck round, one which won't chamber completely. If this is true it isn't a feed issue, it's a quality of reload problem. OAL, or a case bulge are the only two things which may cause this. Of course the chamber could be so fouled they get stuck, but I doubt that is the problem. Answers to these questions may help sort it out: 1. Bullet profile, weight, and size, i.e. .355, .356, .357, .358. 2. Which brass manufacturer is getting stuck? 3. What reloading equipment/tools are you using? dies, press, etc. As has been previously stated, a round which plunks shouldn't get stuck in the chamber. Yes it's an adventure and challenge to perfect your reloading process.

Nope checking every round is not too much, that is if you want the ammo to not be the problem. While this is fun and a sport it is also competition. That means a failure to feed is lost time. Practice like you compete. I use a Hundo, however, I also chamber check during development with a new bullet to determine the maximum OAL needed. Then knowing the length use the Hundo to check for bulging and primer issues. Yes a short OAL in some guns can contribute to nose dives, but as others point out the whole package needs to be tuned.

Are you checking every round after loading? I learned very early in the reloading process every single round has to be checked, especially if one is using a Lee progressive press. All my ammo, not just pistol, get a chamber check after reloading. Reliable chambering is essential. What length does, beside chamber OAL issues, to feeding is contribute to nose diving when coming from magazine.