HappyCamper

Update on this: Waiting forever for Brownells parts. Apparently they got a new computer system and everything fell apart. Ain't technology great? Anyway, I put new extractor and spring in the bolt, after cleaning it down to the shine. I've not had the opportunity to shoot it, but, every round I racked through it ejected with much gusto.

I did not. I just cleaned under it where it grabs the case rim with a dental pick and then a toothbrush and Hoppes. I didn’t think to flex it because I didn’t think it was a problem in the first place. but that’s good advice and I appreciate that.

I just ordered new springs and rubber oring from Brownells, just for good luck.

Troupe, not sure on the gas but most failures were with factory so I would assume enough gas. Dirty gas tube .... dunno. Don, I guess I can infer that you think the extractor is the problem then. I'm on the road now. I'll tear it apart when I get back home and see. And I'll be sure to get it back together correctly. Thanks for the help.

I did not actually remove the extractor. I did run a brush under it to scrape out all the gunk.

On a recent helicopter hog hunt, my AR, in 223, frequently jammed. At $20/minute while the rotor was turning, I didn't have a lot of time to analyze the problem. But, I think what is happening, is that the spent case is being extracted but not ejected. Then, the bolt scoops up a fresh round which sometimes gets its nose or sometimes most in the chamber, but of course the fired case gets jammed in there too. I just cleaned it before the trip so that should not be an issue. I used both reloads and factory and it seemed to be worse with factory. Of course, I used many different mags. I was thinking maybe the extractor claw, for some reason, may not be holding tight enough and was dropping the case early? I lubed after cleaning but maybe not enough? Any ideas what to look for first? Thanks

Well, Chills, good to know I'm not the only one with this thought. Maybe I can start a support group. Nolan: I roll a couple handfuls of brass on a lube pad with Hornady lube and then spray the rest of the cases with Hornady dri lube. I've not had any problems with the cases getting stuck but now and then they are hard to size. But, mostly, that is the LC brass. As for the smell, my preferred cologne is Hoppes #9, and, when my family smells that they know I'm home. But, I'm willing to try your recommendation. Thanks for the info.

Well, thanks for the info. That actually answers a different problem I've had. Some brass is miserable to resize. I noted on the headstamp a + inside a O, Nato, and thought that was the common denominator. But now that you mention it, it is also all stamped "LC". I was focused on the Nato and I did not connect those LC dots, but, when a piece of brass stops the presses or won't chamber, it's one of those. I've been sorting that stuff out and figured I'd deal with it somehow later. Maybe buy a roll sizer or small base sizer on a single stage press, or maybe just trade or toss it. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Back to your comment on the BC, my point is not what exactly is the BC (as my friend Tony pointed out it is not a hard and fast measurement). I was simply pointing out that I found it odd that two bullets that have even very visible differences in design are listed as having the same BC. I find that hard to believe, and, therefor, it makes me wonder what else is wrong with their data? That is, I don't care what the BC "really" is, but if that is wrong then Hornady may have other errors that maybe we should be aware of. Like, I just saw a box of Hornady bullets on the shelf that said "Twist rate 7-12"". Really? 7 revolutions in 12"? That's pretty fast. I would guess they mean a twist rate of between 1-7" and 1-12" but whatever they meant, it is not clear. So, I question everything. Nullius in verba. And to the original question, the loading manual, which I understand is "salt to taste," says load to 2.20 COL and crimp on the cannelure, but both cannot be done. Either I load to COL and ignore the cannelure or vice versa. So, instead of guessing or loading something potentially dangerous, I thought I'd ask the good people of this forum for their knowledge and experience to help me solve the dilemma. I will load to COL. And I thank you all for the info.

No, not reading too much into this. I'm just trying to understand where to go with this information. And, I question everything. Just my nature. The cannelure is for the purpose of crimping, right? But, in order to hit that, the round has to be loaded very short. That seems odd. Manufacturing defect? Maybe. Misprint in the manual? Maybe. I'm just trying to find out. Did I buy bullets that are for something other than an AR15 in .223? Or, am I reading this all wrong? Also possible. But I find it weird to have instructions to the thousandths of an inch and then, basically, load it however I want. I run restaurants. If the recipe says 1 TBS of salt, then, the cooks better use 1 TBS of salt. If the recipe said "salt to taste" then that's a different thing. And, I figure asking questions is a lot easier, and safer, than making a huge mistake. The BC only enters into this as further "evidence" that something seems wrong with the data. My guess is, Hornady changed the design of this bullet, maybe "improved" it, and did not edit the data in the manuals accurately. Appreciate the input. Thank you.

As Alice would say, this is getting curiouser and curiouser. Although Hornady treats these bullets as though they are the same, the one with the BT is .725 nose to base, and the FB is .699. More interesting is that the nose to top of cannelure on the FB is .468 and on BT is .429, or, .039 closer to the nose on the BT, hence the need to seat deeper/shorter in order to crimp on the cannelure, even though load data states the same COL for both bullets, as my new friend Chills1994 showed above. Also of interest, it is clear to see that the BT has a much straighter ogive and the FB is more curved. So, how is it that the BT can have a sleeker ogive, longer length, and a boattail, yet, the BC for both bullets is listed as .235? Wouldn't all those physical differences change the BC at least a little?

I just emailed Hornady tech support to ask why the ambiguity in listing the bullet, and, do I load to COL or load to cannelure. I'll post their response if I get one.

Well that's really weird. I have #10 manual and I looked at #11 at the store and did not see that (must not have looked close enough). But, just last night before I posted this thread, I bought the Hornady reloading app, #11, complete with a $20/year subscription, and it does not show that bullet. Also on the app, there is a section on bullets. It shows #2266 as a "SP with cannelure" (flat base). By it, there is a button that says "View online." Clicking that goes to the Hornady website, where it shows #2266 as a "SP Boattail with Cannelure." Not the first time I've seen a typo in a reloading manual. Hope the next typo isn't catastrophic. So, you are saying to load to 2.25 and ignore the cannelure, right?

This is getting nutty. I loaded 1000 rounds of 55gr SP w/cannelure. They have a flat base. Hornady manual has product #2266 and gives a COL of 2.2. As a matter of fact, the manual shows every one of their 55gr bullets has a COL of 2.2. At that length, the cannelure hits the case mouth perfectly. Then I bought Hornady 55 gr SPBT w/cannelure. Same bullet but with a boat tail base. The Hornady reloading manual does not list them at all. They show a FMJ with BT, but not a SP. The Hornady product number is also 2266 for both the flat base and the BT base. I figured I'd load them just like the other #2266 bullet, but, at a COL of 2.2, the cannelure is nowhere near the case mouth. I will have to shorten the COL by quite a bit to hit the cannelure. I would assume hitting the cannalure is more important than staying at the 2.20 COL, but this seems weird. It's also weird that this bullet is not listed in the Hornady manual, #10, #11, and even the phone app. Anyone have experience with these bullets? Suggestions welcome. Thanks in advance.

Yes, always lube carbide dies, no matter what the advertising says. Ask me how I know.

I can try setting the sizer lower, but, the instructions say that carbide is brittle and can break if it hits the ram. I think I'll buy a small base and experiment on my single stage. But, also, I noticed that some cases I've run into actually have a base/rim that is oversized. As a test, I took a little off on my grindwheel and then it chambered. Not sure what's up with that.

I think I'll buy a small base die and put it on my single stage just to deal with these cases, instead of tossing them out. Everything else works great going through my brand new Dillon 1100 (just to brag a little).

Yeah, I hear you on the sorting of brass, but, I swear I sort that stuff until my eyes cross and yet, here comes the small primer pocket anyway. Ugh. Also, I am going to steal your latin quote.

I have no personal experience with the small base dies so I don't know this for certain, but, if they operate like full length dies, I don't think they would be able to size the case close enough to the base to work. Now that you mention this, that gives me the idea that a roll sizer may be what is needed. Most of my brass is scavenged so I don't know it's history, and, maybe I hit a pile of identical brass that was all full auto fired. But, so far, the only brass I have had problems with all have the same headstamp. That's why I was wondering if there is something up with that kind of brass. Kinda like that 9mm brass with the stepped case wall thickness or 45acp with small primer pockets, which both have made my reloading life more difficult than it needs to be. Thanks for the replies.

Reloading .223 and frequently I have cases that will not chamber. I thought it was a shoulder issue, and adjusted the sizer until my fingers blistered. But now I think that some brass just won't work. If I put brass, unsized or sized, into the chamber check base first, most brass goes in easily and about halfway. But some brass, mostly headstamped with a + inside a O and LC and what looks like a date (96, 00, 12,06) it won't go in backwards and no amount of sizing will make it chamber. Also, a fair amount of Federal brass FC also is pretty tight, including factory new. I tried to chamber in both a .223 and a Wylde with same results. Any thoughts? Thanks

Wow. Great info. Much appreciated.

Thanks. I sent them an email to get some info. They do not list these on their website so I hope they are still in the biz of building them. Did they actually manufacture it or did they do a build on an existing model? Do you know what the orig manufacturer was?

I went to their website and sent an email looking for recommendations. They guns look really nice. I have zero experience with the AK style and prefer AR ,but, maybe it's time for me to learn the AK. thanks for the help. I'll research it further

I am looking for an AR style mag fed, hi cap, 12 gauge. My plan is to use it for hog hunting, mostly helicopter. #1 requirement is reliability. I know this may be like asking “what’s your favorite religion” but “what’s your recommendation for a solid AR style mag fed 12 guage?” Thanks for any input.