George
-
Posts
5,748 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by George
-
-
"That is also the main problem I have with people saying minor is so much easier to shoot than major. It isn't."
----------------------------------------------------
Not to be contentious or anything, but I don't choose minor because it is easier to shoot. I choose minor for my Glock 17L because that is the right power factor for the configuration it's in. I shoot my thuddy8 snooper in major if it suits me to use that platform. I never said minor is easier to shoot, in fact it is harder, for reasons other than recoil/sight recovery.
I still stand on my experience with the heavier payload giving me faster sight recovery (at equal PF). The fact that the slide doesn't lock with the heavy bullet says that slide velocity is down, and that means less muzzle flip for sure.
As I mentioned earlier, my comparisons were based on a heavy bullet vs. a lighter bullet at the same PF (129). I would tend to extrapolate that to mean that the same results will be had with higher PF's, but I do not have any actual data to support that, and will have to look to other folks experience for confirmation, or denial here.
Regards,
-
My experience with 9mm minor is the same as Steve's. My 147gr LSWC @ 875fps has a lot less muzzle flip, and less sharp recoil impulse than my 124 JHP @ 1040 (both loads are 129pf).
The 124 load locks the slide back consistently on my Glock 17L, whereas the 147 load will not.
I have no experience in calibers other than 9x19 & 9x21. But I definitely get these results in 9mm.
BTW, I have been using the 147gr @ 875 in IPSC minor for over 10 years now because of how soft it shoots. The heavy lead projectile also has more authority on poppers than the 124gr payload at the same PF.
Regards,
-
Every "Bargain" scope I have stacks up poorly against every Leupold scope I own. The Leupolds are optically, mechanically & cosmetically superior to all lesser scopes.
IMHO, buy the Leupold, there is no substitute.
-
The L.E. Wilson drop in gauge will do a fine job if you check a fired case from the specific rifle you are loading for and adjust the die until you get about .002 setback. This is easy to see, as the Wilson headspace check step is .004 deep.
I definitely agree that the Stoney Point is indeed more precise, but you can measure the setback in the Wilson drop gauge quite well enough to be sure. In fact it can be measured very precisely with the depth gauge on a caliper.
The point to remember here is we are making a leap of faith by starting with the assumption that the fired brass is the same size as the chamber that it came out of. Then we add an extra bit of clearance and call it macaroni. Ther are a lot of little factors that can give you little differences, which are ok until they stack up in the wrong direction.
I still load some inked up dummies and check by slam chambering them as I mentioned earlier. It's the only way to be absolutely certain, as different brass has different springback properties and a fired case may not accurately reflect the specific rifle's actual chamber shoulder to bolt face clearance. This also assumes that you always use same brand brass, as mixed brass will skew the whole shebang due to different amounts of springback after firing, not to mention the malleability differences that will effect the re-sizing result.
--
Regards
-
The info on barrel break-in at this link is one of the better treatises on the subject that I have found.
http://www.zediker.com/articles/articles.html
There is some pretty good stuff there if you are interested in rifles.
-
The Scharch 1x brass is about 99% LC of recent vintage. Usually 70-80% same headstamp. The 100% processed Scharch brass is a perfect diameter fit in my L.E. Wilson gauge, but is a little tight (base area only) in my JP gauge. The out of box Scharch brass reads near the top of the L.E. Wilson headspace indicator notch (.004 deep notch). Fired brass from my JP open rifle drops in right at, or just barely above the bottom of the headspace indicator notch in the Wilson gauge. When I set my Dillon sizing die to give me enough base sizing to get less than 5% rejects in my JP gauge, I wind up with about .001 more depth in the Wilson headspace indicator after sizing. This gives me a perfect fit when I slam test a sized case in my JP rifle. I get indications that I am running about .001 clearance (and maybe even a little less). This headspace setting assures functioning in all the rest of my rifles since they are known to be a little looser than the JP.
BTW, fired cases from my Colt HBAR-15 are usually a little too bulged to drop fully back into the Wilson gauge without forcing them, but the ones that will go in are at or near the top of the headspace indicator notch ( about .004 of shoulder expansion). The cases from my Eagle EA-15 split the difference (.002). This shows how much headspace can vary in different rifles and how important it is to set for the worst case.
Glenn Zediker (author of "The Competitive AR-15 & Handloading For Competition) ( http://www.zediker.com/ ) says that .0015 - .002 is a good amount of setback if you are going to use cases in the same rifle. I am having no problems from like .0009 up to to .004. The important thing here is to make sure that you size for the tightest chamber you will shoot the ammo in. More is better than less for reliable functioning.
I always fully resized my WW High Power cases (.004, or more set back) and got 5 plus firings from them before I stopped using them. In fact I only stopped using them because I got tired of case trimming. I have no idea how many firings I might have gotten from them even with all of the brass working they were subjected to, but I am sure they would have gone at least a couple more firings.
I find the LC cases to be very similar to the WW cases I have used, maybe just a little harder/springier. I have yet to fire any LC cases more than 3 times (including the initial firing), so I can not speak to their longevity as I can to the WW cases. I have run through about 4000 of the Scharch 100% processed cases in the past year and a half ((that's about 6500 total firings after range losses). I only fire the Scharch 2 times because I am big time lazy and do not want to trim .223 anymore.
As far as size die setting goes, I have found that all of the dies that I have used will set cases back so that they drop flush with the bottom of the Wilson gauge, if they are set to firmly contact the Dillon 550 shell plate (just touching, plus 1/8-1/4 turn). I get the same results on my Rock Chucker with an even tighter setting (1/4-1/2 turn). The only difference I have noticed is that the Dillon dies seem to require less force and give me fewer cases with "base bulge" problems at the same time. For these reasons, I no longer use my RCBS or Lee dies. I especially like the Dillon "straight" crimp die. Warning, Do not set carbide sizing dies like this!!!
I do not like the Dillon seating die however. It marks my Sierra MatchKings in a thin line about halfway down the ogive. I switched to the Redding micrometer die for all my heavy bullet loadings and just use the Dillon seating die for my practice ball loads. The Redding Mircometer seating die also lets me use one toolhead for two different bullets because the settings are repeatable and I use the same powder under my 69 & 77 grain loadings.
IMHO Varget rocks as a heavy bullet propellant for .223, but AA 2520 meters a whole lot better in the Dillon and TYPICALLY replaces the same charge weight (not volume) of Varget under a heavy .223 bullet (one should always run tests to be sure).
Regards,
(Edited by George at 8:16 pm on Nov. 15, 2002)
(Edited by George at 8:24 pm on Nov. 15, 2002)
-
Old John,
After tightening the shell plate as Eric mentioned, make sure that you reset the sizing die. Now that the shell plate is not wobbling the setting will be a little bit different.
As I mentioned earlier, running the shell plate all the way up and then threading the sizing die in until it contacts the shell plate will pretty much guarantee a properly sized round with the Dillon .223 die.
Trim length is 1.75". They can be a little bit longer, or shorter. What is important is that they are all the same length (or real close). Variances in length reduce accuracy and cause inconsistent crimping.
I only fire my brass twice nowadays. Since I start with a uniform length and use the second firing as practice ammo I don't worry about trimming anymore. I used to go 5-6 firings with my Hi-Power cases (WW Brass) and they would need trimming after every other firing. Now I just leave them on the range after the second firing and let someone else do all of the work it takes to fire them again.
The Scharch Manufacturing 1x, 100% processed brass is a very good deal at $39/thousand. http://www.scharch.com/
(Edited by George at 11:02 am on Nov. 9, 2002)
-
BSeevers,
I do prefer to shoot open class, I just use the Glock platform now (that's a whole 'nuther story).
I still use the rock chucker all of the time for my precision rifle loading. Wouldn't think of retiring it.
DVC
-
BSeevers
Thanks for the informative response. I was thinking of switching to VV powder for the old stooper anyway since I only have a couple of lbs of AA7 left.
The chrono is still giving me the right numbers with the same charge weights I have always used so I guess now would be the time to switch.
As much as I use the scooper lately, it would probably last a long long time running AA7 anyway :~)
BTW, I quite agree about Dillon. but there will always be a place in my heart for my good old rock chucker.
Thanks again,
(Edited by George at 9:12 pm on Nov. 5, 2002)
-
I use a camera tripod that my wife got at a garage sale real cheap. I throw the whole shebang in a padded sports tote bag I had laying around.
The tripod I have is a "shorty" that extends up to just over waist high at maximum. I typically shoot off of a 28-32" high range table. I find that I never need the skyscreen mount bar more than a few inches higher than the surface I am shooting from, so the shorty tripod is perfect.
The Pact seriously rocks!! Make sure you get Brian's book too!
(Edited by George at 7:01 pm on Nov. 5, 2002)
-
I have also heard from various sources that AA7 will erode barrels, but I have not seen a problem from AA7 in a sooper that I run with it.
16lbs of AA7 & about 15,000 rounds later, the Bar-sto barrel still shoots tight and shows minimal/normal throat erosion. About 60% were 147gr lead, the rest were 124gr jacketed. Most of the lead was at 178-180 PF.
I also ran about 20k rounds of 147gr LSWC @ minor PF through a Glock 17L with AA7. The barrel bore/throat still looks and shoots like it's new.
Like I said earlier, I have heard the erosion story but have seen no real evidence of it. Bottom line for me is that nothing really bad is happening to my barrels (not yet anyway).
I would like to actually get some evidence of the problem put in front of me sometime. All I ever hear is "Oh, AA7, that stuff ruins barrels". I have yet to see a barrel that was actually "ruined". If I get another 5-10k rounds on my sooper before it's barrel is "worn out", I would have to say that's about right for a soopcan pushing major (20-25k is all I expected from the barrel in the first place).
(BSEEVERS. I would be very interested in some data/info on this)
Regards,
(Edited by George at 6:26 pm on Nov. 5, 2002)
-
I just checked my load records and found that every super loading that I have used goes from 1.210 to 1.255 in OAL.
These lengths were established by gradually changing the seating die with a test round (no primer & powder,) until optimum magazine length was found for each bullet type (RN@1.210, JHP@1.255 & LSWC@1.250). I went for an eyeball clearance of about .10 for each bullet type in singlestack Gubmint model magazines.
I have never played with these OAL's once I established them, and have never had any problems with them in usage.
Hope this helps.
(Edited by George at 2:46 pm on Nov. 5, 2002)
-
It is not the same bullet (Cast Lead), but it is a similar load that worked well in a two port super.
Bullet =147 gr. Hard Cast LSWC (sized .357)
Powder = AA#7 8.5gr.
Primer = WW Small Rifle
OAL = 1.250”
Muz. Vel. = 1139 fps avg.
Power Factor = 167.4
(Edited by George at 12:59 am on Nov. 5, 2002)
-
If a case seats fully in a gauge, it is resting against the shoulder and the headspace is correct. If it does not seat fully in the gauge, it can be for several reasons.
1. Base Bulge (most likely In My Experience)
2. Grit & Grime In The Gauge (next most likely IME)
3. Out Of Round Mouth
4. Too Little Headspace (least likely IME)
If a fired case drops back into the gauge flush, then your rifles headspace is pretty close to right on. This does not negate the need for full length re-sizing to prevent problems due to item #1 above.
If a re-sized case seats too deep (head below flush or limit marking) then you have too much headspace and a problem with your die. The fastest way to get this problem is to trim the die base to get more sizing. Trimming the underside of the die should only be done if you need more headspace, not more base/wall sizing.
I have found all of the dies that I have used (Lee, RCBS & Dillon) will consistently give correct headspace if they are set to just contact the shell plate. Adding more pressure (1/8 - 1/4 turn) at this point just gives a little more sizing to the base in my experience, and does not measurably increase the headspace once firm contact with the shell plate is made.
I consider case diameter to be the most important dimension for reliable functioning. OAL takes #2 on my list of function concerns. Headspace will almost never be an issue if sizing dies are set properly and your rifles headspace is within specification (chamber shoulder to bolt face distance).
Putting an even coating of stamp pad ink on the head and shoulder of a properly sized dummy round and pushing it into the chamber and then dropping the bolt on it will give you a good indication of your rifle/ammo headspace situation. In a perfect world, the ink will show even to minimal chamber/bolt contact on the shoulder and head of the case. If you get no contact indication at all, or excess contact indication (shoulder dents & thin/bare spots etc.), then you just might have a problem.
An ammo gauge will not tell you if the headspace in YOUR chamber is absolutely OK. Only a contact test (as described above), or a real headspace gauge (Stoney Point) will tell you that. An ammo gauge is best used in conjunction with an actual test/measurement of your rifle chamber.
BTW, NATO chambers are going to typically have more headspace, and be a bit looser in dimension than SAAMI chambers.
Safety Note: A tiny (I stress tiny) bit of headspace variance is not a really big deal, but having a little more is usually better than a little less.
A large amount too much can leave the round loosely hanging from the extractor after chambering. This is not a real, real bad thing. In most cases it just fire-forms the case shoulder a bit more than usual and degrades accuracy. It can also be a cause of light primer strikes (A tight fitting extractor can mask this problem).
A severe headspace shortage is definitely bad news and usually results in a complete failure to go into battery. It can also allow an out of battery firing situation in some rare cases.
(Edited by George at 5:53 pm on Nov. 4, 2002)
(Edited by George at 6:38 pm on Nov. 4, 2002)
-
Howdy Bill,
I do not know of anyone building really good IPSC rifles in this state anymore. I would say your best bet is Accuracy Speaks in Arizona.
http://www.accuracyspeaks.com/
My guess is that if anyone will be able to build you up a great M1A, M1 Carbine, or Mini-14 it will probably be them.
-
Hopefully this will help to muddy the water some more.
I recently purchased a J-Point from JP Enterprises (June, 2002). It had documentation printed by JP Enterprises which referred to the sight as a J-Point. The actual sight was an Optima 2000 with the Tasco Logo on it and the cover.
BTW, I paid $199.00 at that time.
I am waiting for JP to finish a Glock 17L right now. I am having a J-Point melted into the slide (along with a lot of other things). I will let you all know what kind of sight I actually get when it arrives (3-4 weeks from now I am told).
Regards,
-
Let's not dig too deep into the fact that magazines are expendables. They wear out and have to be replaced on a somewhat regular basis.
How that is done here in Kalifornia is still a mystery to me ;~)
BTW Erik, I love the term Caliban. It sums up my feelings perfectly.
-
Concerning fired cases fitting in ammo gauges without re-sizing. I have noticed that fired cases from my Colt HBAR (NATO 5.56mm Chamber) will not fit back into the L.E. Wilson ammo gauge (.223 SAAMI). In fact they stop about halfway in.
Only about 30-40% of fired cases from my JP open rifle will fit back in the JP gauge (the ones that go in are a real tight fit at the base). Cases fired in the JP rifle will always check OK in the Wilson gauge without any resizing.
I have an Eagle EA-15 upper that has a fairly tight chamber and fired cases from it consistently stop about a 1/4" from fully seated in the JP gauge. But they will also almost always fully drop into the Wilson gauge.
This tells me that full length re-sizing is the hot ticket, and that the L.E. Wilson gauge is cut closer to the SAAMI maximum than the minimum.
BTW, almost all factory ball that I have checked is a nice fit in the JP, and a very loose easy fit in the Wilson. I also find about 1-2 per hundred in factory ball that will not fully drop in the JP gauge. And I have even found a couple of factory rounds that wouldn't check in the Wilson gauge (about 1 in 500). The moral here is to get an ammo gauge that reflects YOUR chamber, and then religiously check everything before firing. I can not tell you how often I see fellow shooters loading factory ball into mags at big matches right from unopened boxes. It only takes one bad round to ruin your whole day.
-
My .02 worth
I used to use RCBS & Lee .223 dies too. I switched to Dillon dies for all my .223 loading last year. I also used to use the L.E Wilson .223 SAAMI ammo gauge but stopped trusting it for match ammo after I had some malfunctions in my open rifle that traced back to oversized cases. The gauge that I use now is the JP Enterprises one. It is cut to minimum SAAMI dimensions. In my experience, ammo that drops in & out of it will function in most anything.
I set the Dillon sizing dies to just contact the shell plate (RL-550) and the crank them in an additional 1/4 turn. About 95% of cases pass the JP gauge with this setting. Any less and it starts to get nearer to 50%. I firmly believe that semi-auto rifle cases should be full length resized every time you load them. Function is (just about) everything!
I also taper crimp with the Dillon die (just a little). To get the best crimp results I chamfer the outside of the case mouth at 45 degrees with an RCBS de-burring tool, and then ream the inside of the case mouth with a Lyman VLD reamer. These extra steps give me a very polite crimp that (I believe) seems to strike the best balance between accuracy and safety concerns. The hand work on the case mouths also gives me a good feel for cases that have odd wall thickness and gives me a chance to weed them out prior to loading.
I use the Scharch Mfg. 100% processed 1x LC brass and have been getting very good results with these methods. BTW, I hit the cases with a little bit of the Dillon lube and run them right through the press in one pass just like pistol loading. When I do the final gauging of my match ammo, I wipe the lube residue off by hand to keep them from being a little tacky. Practice ammo I just shoot it like it is. I have had no problems with this lube & load method for about the past two years.
I use 1x cases for all my match ammo. Whatever I get back is the loaded once more as 55gr ball practice ammo and then not picked up after the second (third, actually) firing. I used to load my WW cases 4-5 times for Hi-Power, but that is a different story, and different brass. I also agree with LC cases not liking to be worked a lot of times.
(Edited by George at 2:02 pm on Nov. 4, 2002)
-
I would leave this damned state in a minute if my business wasn't tied to the local market. If/when the legislators here starting making more stupid moves, all considerations go out the window and I'm gone!
(Edited by George at 11:47 pm on Jan. 6, 2003)
-
The .30 caliber M1 Carbine is another good option that will shoot real well out to 100 yards (maybe even 200 if the wind ain't too bad). A 110 grainer moving 1900-2000 fps meets USPSA minor by a decent margin. The little carbine handles real well and would be a winner on short hose courses. I think it's a pretty good looking gun too!
BTW, hi cap magazines would be the biggest hassle with any choice you make. Ah, Kalifornia, I love you so ;~)
Regards,
-
Howdy,
If you don't already own an AR-15 type rifle (prior to December 31, 2000), you won't be getting one in Kalifornia (my home state too!).
This limits your choices to the M1A, or the Ruger Ranch Rifle (Mini-14).
I have seen customized Ruger 223's do very well against AR type rifles. The M1A will do a good job too!
Check out this link for the pros & cons of the M1A
http://www.brianenos.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...2&topic=228
Regards,
-
See My Vest
in Humor
"From what I've heard, there's so many of the things running around, they have to bolt cow-catchers on the fronts of their cars. At least that's what my friends told me when they visited."
Right you are Eric. They are called "Roo Bars" and everybody that drives much out in the boonies down there has them on their vehicles.
I figure that you would also need good windshield wipers too ;-)
(Edited by George at 3:29 pm on Oct. 22, 2002)
-
I have tried a lot of lube options and have decided to stay with light-medium oils, in & on the bolt carrier for my open rifle. It lets me clean everything real fast with no muss & fuss, and allows for semi-dry running in real gritty/sandy conditions. I would not want to get a lot of dust into a heavily greased upper receiver. That’s lapping compound.
Where I do use lithium greases or SlideGlide is in the buttstock spring cavity. This I keep well greased and only clean and re-pack once in a great while. It really cuts down on operating clatter, and smooths out the cycling impulse a bit too.
I only lube the bearing areas where the bolt carrier is actually contacting the upper receiver (inspect the wear marks). Use lots in non-gritty conditions. Use minimal lube and clean often in gritty conditions. I use BreakFree (or anything similar) for all bolt lubrication. Keep putting a few drops of lube in the bolt carrier holes as you shoot and it will keep the bolt from getting hinky as carbon builds up.
I tried the heavy grease routine in my HBAR for Hi-Power shooting. It was OK with full on gas systems and hefty loadings (S69 @ 2800fps) in that venue. When I used my HBAR for IPSC I soon found that it was not as slick for many reasons :-)
At the moment I am using MolySlide (NECO) on my HBAR bolt carrier, with the buttstock spring cavity full of SlideGlide and BreakFree on the bolt lugs and rings. Hows that for a mongrel method of lubrication! Haven't done anything but dribble some breakfree into the bolt carrier holes and swab the barrel out for quite a while now.
For my JP rifle, I use lithium grease in the spring cavity, JP#1 lube on the lo-mass bolt carrier, and JP#2 inside the bolt and on the locking lugs. The upper receiver and bolt assembly are cleaned and re-lubed every 150-200 rounds. This regimen has given me 100% reliability with properly sized ammo.
The bottom line is function. If the rifle runs reliably, then the lubrication method doesn't matter that much.
I am wondering what other folks favorite lubrication recipes might be.
(Edited by George at 10:31 pm on Oct. 8, 2002)
(Edited by George at 8:48 am on Oct. 9, 2002)
(Edited by George at 11:21 am on Oct. 9, 2002)
Recoil - Kick vs. Flip
in General Reloading
Posted
Hey there ItlianStalion,
I am taking nothing personally here so don't get me wrong, but the "childrens caliber" thing, sure does sound like the old "mouse gun" thing that I used to hear while shooting an AR-15 in NRA High Power Rifle back in the late nineteen hunnert and eighties.
Now if you walk up to the line at any High Power Rifle event, all you can see in every direction is the little black rifle, interspersed with a few bolt action shooters (Yeah, OK, there are still some M1A shooters doing very well too, but there are no new M1A shooters coming up, and they are getting thinner & thinner).
The "mouse gun" is the real (hands down) winner in that competitive venue now, and always was. It was just waiting for technology to catch up with it. Shooting the Sierra 69grainer at 600yds back then was real humbling and I paid a certain price in humility to think different at that time. But it was definitely worth it in the long run to get the chance to see the same guys who chanted the "rodent rifle" routine back then, raving about how well their AR-15's shoot now.
I have a funny feeling about the niner now, and wonder what time will tell for it now that it is in more widespread usage than any other pistol cartridge in history. There is no question that the itsy bitsy teeny neener can do very well in competition (in any of it's flavors). And in another unrelated venue, there is nothing childish about a 124gr JHP @ 1250-1275 fps.
No slight intended, but I believe that it is not so much the tool that matters, but the tool user's proficiency with the tool of his choice that will ultimately cut the mustard (or not).
BTW, I only need six more posts to get to fifty and stop being a "gatherer". So, I figure if we can get a little more mileage out of this here thread, then I'm there :-)
Regards,
(Edited by George at 10:38 pm on Nov. 16, 2002)