D. Manley

If you're talking about extracting the best accuracy the gun is capable of, you'll just have to do the work. I'm probably the odd guy in the room but my G35 seems more tolerant of 165's. By that, I mean it's not very picky and it seems to me easier to work up loads that shoot really well with 165's. That said I, like many others, prefer 180's for most shooting. My favorite load of 3.5 grains TG -or-4.0 grains N-320 are not the most accurate loads (benched) but they are "good enough" and shoot nicely enough to more than compensate. "Accuracy" is a relative term.

+1...

Got an email update from Dawson Precision tonight: DP Perfect Impact Sights for 1911 Taurus Pistols At long last, We now have a rear sight for the Taurus 1911 and a matching front sight. The rear sight requires a .180" tall front sight. The rear sights are available in Target, Optic, and Tritium. The front sights are available in Optic or Tritium. You also have a choice of width, either a .100 or a .125". Can't get into the site right now, seems be down (or may be getting hammered) but anxious to actually see them. To now, lack of good sights has kept the Taurus off my best-buy list but if these are good as other Dawsons, may have to reconsider.

+1 I prefer auto-indexing. +2...and, a very bright light.

FWIW, I went to the range today and benched 147 grain loads at 3.0 and 3.2 grains in 10-round groups. Point of impact was a bit off with both loads and groups opened up noticably. Just as a benchmark, shot a 10-round group with the 3.4 load, spot-on and by far the tightest group. I could'nt tell any difference in the appearance of the primers (all Federal 100) from 3.0 to 3.4.

Thanks for being the bearer of bad news...dang-burn it, that REALLY sucks. N-330 is hands down my favorite powder in 9MM. I've shot N-340 and I thought it was OK but a whole different feel from N-330 to me. I have about 1.5 Lbs. left and I guess I'll start to ration it out...knew I should have loaded up last time I found it.

That's the salient point. In .45 (don't know about other calibers yet), results mirror published data pretty well both in the way the loads feel and over the chrono. In 9MM, a lot of guns do not cycle even with, their mid-range data. I normally run a 15 LB ISMI spring in my G-35 and although it cycles and ejects the 3.4/147 grain combo fine, it don't exactly send them flying...and this gun feeds & cycles with very soft loads. I'm sorry but I'm just skeptical of the pressure information they provided (as an "estimate", of course).

Yes, I have but only enough to find I don't care for TG there. My favorite use for TG is in .40 caliber Minor loads where it seems to me, a whole different story. It shoots well enough in 9MM but there's other powders there I prefer. To me, Solo seems cooler, cleaner and softer than TG...in any caliber I've tried it in. That said, I've not shot it in .40 yet but plan to soon.

+1. If TG melted FO sights, the range would be littered with them. Either broken or improperly installed initially.

And from my experiences, it probably felt very soft shooting too, yes? I'm aware of course that you can't go by "feel" but the lack of pressure signs is puzzling to me and a lot of other people. According to Accurate, your load is .7 grain (20%) above max and yet, your measured velocity equates to their max load of 3.5 grains. Bullet weight: 124/125grains Start load: 3.1 grains (900 -950 Fps) Maximum load: 3.5 grains (975 -1025 Fps) It really is a very nice powder for lots of applications and no doubt, I'll continue using it. Sure would be nice if Accurate would provide some actual pressure information. Just my opinion and at the risk of sounding totally incompetent, I think their 9MM data on Solo is skewed toward the low side by quite a bit. The only other caliber I've actually used it in so far is .45 and there, it's a different story. Even the starting loads would make major.

My primers feed fine but I still have a little "bling" on my follower rod...only use I had for a little nickle G.A.P. case I'd picked up.

I agree completely. Their .45 data has always seemed askew to me...starting data thumps pretty good where other caliber's starting loads will barely (and may not) cycle the gun. I just don't believe they've ever put any research into the Scot powders they "acquired" and since they provided only pressure estimates, it's a fair bet it's a software-based projection. I hope they will at some point develop some "real-world" data and roll it into their database...S-1000 is a sweet powder but you're sorta' on your on to a large extent.

Got a reply from the ballistician this evening: Calibers such as 9mmP does not show pressure well sometimes. Did you perhaps measure the velocity? I estimate your pressure to be in the 34000-36500Psi range. All I can say is, if the numbers are right it sure fooled me (and a lot of other people). I would never have thought this was anywhere near that pressure. I'm going to dial it back a bit and re-shoot...if it works, good and if not, I'll move to something else under these bullets.

+1 I always use a 10-drop average and do that three times (minimum). .1gr +/- is good for an average variation, and it could be half that since the scale is going to round up for anything .05 or higher and down for .04 or lower. R, +1. IMO, by far the way to arrive at the most accurate throws. I make it a practice to validate the electronic scale with a balance beam when doing it too...requires no extra time since you're only weighing averages. If you get in the habit of doing this you might be surprised how long it takes some powders to settle down for real accuracy. Saves a bit of time to go past the desired throw weight (on Dillon machines) and then reduce to target weight...I suppose, because backlash in the powder bar adjustment is minimized this way.

The Accurate data was provided by Johan Louber, Ballistician for Ramshot/Accurate powders. I think I'm gonna' follow up and see if he has the pressure data to accompany that provided. I'm certainly not smart enough to dispute this but frankly, I'm having a little trouble wrapping my brain around it. As for the other caliber data, below is that he provided for .40 S&W and the 2 attached .PDF files contain the .38 Special and .45 (unchanged from prior data): Caliber: .40 S&W. Barrel length: 4” Powder: Accurate – Solo 1000. Bullet weight: 135 grains. Start load: 4.8 grains (1100 – 1200 ft/p/sec) Maximum load: 5.3 grains (1175 – 1275 Ft/p/sec). Bullet weight: 155 grains. Start load: 4.3 grains (900 – 1000 ft/p/sec) Maximum load: 4.8 grains (1000 – 1100 Ft/p/sec). Bullet weight: 165-170 grains. Start load: 4.2 grains (850 – 925 ft/p/sec) Maximum load: 4.6 grains (950 – 1050 Ft/p/sec). Bullet weight: 180 grains. Start load: 4.0 grains (825 – 875 ft/p/sec) Maximum load: 4.5 grains (900 – 950 Ft/p/sec). Bullet weight: 200 grains. Start load: 3.7 grains (800 – 850 ft/p/sec) Maximum load: 4.1 grains (875 – 920 Ft/p/sec). FWIW, I have a copy of the old Scott Powder data and it actually had lower recommendations for 115 than the new but the 124 grain loads are significantly higher. The old data had no Solo-1000 listed for 147 grain bullets at all. 38_S_W_Special_pages_97_to_98.pdf 45_ACP_pages_137_to_139_revised.pdf

I requested some updated information from Accurate on Solo-1000 in several calibers and got an email response today. The data provided for the other 3 calibers (.38 Special, .40 S&W and .45) were about as expected but I was a bit surprised at the 9MM recommendations, below: Caliber: 9mmx19P. Barrel length: 4” Powder: Accurate – Solo 1000 Bullet weight: 115grains Start load: 3.7 grains (975 – 1025 Fps) Maximum load: 4.2 grains (1050 -1125 Fps) Bullet weight: 124/125grains Start load: 3.1 grains (900 -950 Fps) Maximum load: 3.5 grains (975 -1025 Fps) Bullet weight: 135 grains Start load: 3.0 grains (825 -875 Fps) Maximum load: 3.3 grains (935 -990 Fps) Bullet weight: 147 grains Start load: 2.7 grains (775 - 850 Fps) Maximum load: 3.0 grains (825 -875 Fps) The 115 grain load is right where I expected it to be but I was a bit surprised at the sharp drop-off in charge weights with heavier bullets, especially 147 grainers. I've been shooting 3.4 grains under a 147 FMJ at 1.130 in my G-35 and thought them to be both very soft and very safe...no pressure signs that I can see. Now, I'm wondering.

I would try if I can find it. N320 is nice, but then again I always thought N350 was nice for open until I tried True Blue this weekend. I am not so enthusiastic about spending too much time looking for N320... still looking for an alternative other than Tite Group or Clays. I found the last jugs of N330 at Recob's Target Shop. They have an on-line store but best to call for an "eyes-on" inventory check. I like the Ramshot powders too but I actually prefer Silhouette to True Blue. True Blue meters like powdered water, no...?

I must be odd man out, I like N330 better in both 9MM and .40 than N-320. Think N320's hard to find available regularly, try N330...only about 10% of on-line VV dealers bother to stock it and it's virtually gone when they get it.

Truthfully, hard to tell anything today...the indoor range was a zoo. CCW class in one of the bays, eveyone else (including one guy rapid-firing his AR next to me) in the other so, range was smoky even with vents on. I've shot Solo a long time in .45 and not noticed excessive smoke so I doubt a 9MM charge would be a problem. I can't say about lead, these were Remington's 147 FMC "Match" bullets. I shot rested, 10-shot groups of 5-different powders today: 3.3 grains TG 3.5 grains N-320 3.8 grains N-330 3.9 grains N-340 3.3 grains American Select 3.4 grains S-1000 S-1000, N-330 and N-340 were superb. Biggest disappointments were the TG & N-320 as far a groups went and I double-shot them just to be sure. Those 2 were'nt that bad, just not nearly as good as the best 3. Worst by far was the American Select. I didn't bother to "ladder" any of the powders, I just shot one load of each. Any would probably do well with a little tweaking but hey, I'm happy having 3 good choices with this bullet and besides, I have a love/hate relationship with load development anyway.

+1. I've not seen anything quite like it. A normally "guppied" case is bulged much closer to the extractor groove and your's looks more like maybe the chamber itself is out of spec. I'd replace it if nothing else, for the peace of mind.

And though hard to believe and for some to accept, based on my own dealings your experience was typical. For you, at least you came out a little better after being screwed over on the purchase. For Dillon, they've earned another customer for life...a good deal for both I'd say. Enjoy your now-new press.

I've been loading and shooting the lighter bullet weights and never bothered to turn left or right...until, now. I've always known heavier bullets / fast powders equaled less perceived recoil but since a 9MM is well, a 9MM, never bothered with the concept there although do go that way with .40 and .45. After reading about some of you guys success with Solo under lead 147's I decided to give it a go under some 147 FMC. Today was range day. Bottom line, I still can't believe how good this stuff shoots...in every respect. What I found was that 3.4 grains of S-1000 is not only a real hoot to light off, they're incredibly accurate in my G-34 and every bit the equal to my other, best loads. Unlike the lighter bullets which seem to require a lot more "zip" to group really well at 25 yards, that big, ole' long bullet just loafing along will do the job. A couple of other test loads with the 147's also did very well but the S-1000 is the SCHNIZZEL! Thanks guys.

I'll be using these in a G-34 and since Glocks have fairly deep throats, it generally digests most shapes that will feed through the mags. I dug around through some OEM loads last night and found some Federal 147 grain HST's. Although a JHP, the profile is remarkably similar to the Remington Match bullets. The Federal were loaded to 1.130 so I'm comfortable with that to use initially. Thanks again for the input.

Thanks, Doug. I'd like to run them as long a possible but I was worried that flat meplat might cause a problem. As I said, the Speer TMJ is the closest match to the shape I can find and their last 2 books mirror what you said, 1.130 so I'm gonna' try them there. Do you run these on a regular basis?, I checked & they seem pricey for running on a steady diet.

Getting ready to load some of these I picked up a while back and find load data scarce both in my manuals and on-line resources. The bullet is sort of a round nose/flat point similar to Speer's 147 TMJ. Anyone have any experience with these in Glocks? I trial seated a few and unless I find a reason to go another way, seems to me around 1.12/1.125 should be close. Any deeper puts a lot of bullet in the case and any longer really seems too long with that big flat point.