Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 1911maker

  1. Up dated the data. If any one has data for BE-86 I please pass it on. I called Alliant and that was a waste of time. 3N38 based on rate and energy looks ideal given both #7 and blue dot were not "quite" right. I found comments on another forum that claims for shorter barrels, the ideal is a bit faster burn rate with a lower energy content. If the assertion is true, 3N38 should be idea for the 155
  2. It does seem a bit slow for that short of barrel but I was hoping some one has had experience with the two and compared them in a Tanfog 4.5 gun. I have a 7 inch 1911 and a Stock III with the Poly rifled 4.75 inch barrel. My chrono is showing a consistent higher velocity between the 4.5 and the 4.75 and over 100 ft/sec faster on the 7 inch barrel. All with the same assortment of ammo (both factory and reloads) the current off the web data below is confusing as it has N105 for the 155 but not 3N38, and 3N38 for the 165. I suspect its like some one on here said, testing is expensive and they can not test all combinations. I do not have 3N38 in the chart below but I did look, the 3N38 is a bit faster but has less PHE. this suggests that it might work better for the 155 versus the 165. the caveat is the barrel length, the VV data is for a 5.5 Barrel. The 3N38 has lower heat then Blue dot with about the same Burn rate suggests the 3N38 might be a good compromise. Blue dot, BE-86 and AA#7 are all doing ok, but I am not getting velocities that match the published data, and Fed 150 primers are getting flat even then. The same load (even used the same piece of brass and same lot of bullets (Horn Jacket 155, old stock not XTP) and CCI 300 are not flat........but we all know the Fed 150 are softer. Primers as a indicator for pressure in handguns is always iffy due to the lower pressures involved, even in 10mm. With the above caveat in mind I did work the loads with BE-86 higher until the CCI 300 got as flat as the Fed 150, velocity still did not match the published data (it was higher). Published data is for 5 inch barrel for the none VV powders, but my 4.75 is close enough to 5 inches I would expect the velocity to be better. But I seldom get "LOADING BOOK" velocity from my reloads........ I am risk adverse and seldom have the same exact components the reloading books are published with. AND......powder is not the same lot to lot. The 4.5 gun is a Witness Steel owned by a friend, he wants the 155 XTP for CC..........this will not be a load he shoots a lot of, but I still want a load that is not stressing the gun. I have chrono data for both Buffalo bore and Underwood in his gun and my STOCK III (assorted bullets), the velocities are lower then what those two companies publish (not surprised given the short barrel). The 4.75 barel was a bit faster then the 4.5, I wonder if its barrel length or the Poly Rifling, if any one has real data or info, please pass that along. He is willing to buy ammo, but that makes my Dillon feel marginalized. https://www.vihtavuori.com/reloading-data/handgun-reloading/?cartridge=62
  3. Looking for the max velocity out of a 4.5 inch barrel with the 155 Hornady XTP bullet
  4. The following info from the included link/thread inclines me to think the Titan will be better then the stock hammer. But..............$160 (sear and hammer), the cost is fine if it is a significant creep reducer. The titan hammer is the far one and the stock hammer is the close one. The hammer legs are at the same position in this picture and when the sear rests against the legs the sear is able to drop lower in the stock hammer (reason why the titan hammer in SA is so crisp). The sear dropping lower into the hammer allows the sear leg to lift higher to engage the FPB this is the reason for the Extended FPB to be installed with the titan hammers. Although I am still not reaching the FPB to engage it for safety for my USPSA matches
  5. I will not be shooing more then 1000 rounds a year, ever. I have the Wolf 20 lb recoil spring in the gun . I shoot both full power and reduced loads. The main question I have for the Titan hammer and sear, will it reduce the creep (not the pounds) more then my reducing the hammer hooks on the factory parts did? I suspect I can reduce the hammer hooks more with out having Doubling etc, but so far no one has offered up a Min safe hammer hook dimension. The sear to hammer hook geometry is difference on the titian parts, I suspect, but would like confirmation that the different geometry of the titian parts reduces creep compared to the factory parts with the hammer hooks reduced in length.. With my current factory parts and the reduced hammer hooks ( I did not change the sear angles, just a very light polish to smooth the sear) as the trigger is pulled in SA, I can see the hammer move back (being cocked ever so slightly) before sear release. Will the Titian parts eliminate this due to the different geometry? and I understand that a safe min hammer hook dimension will be gun dependent because of other tolerance stack-ups. thanks for the input
  6. Thanks for putting the post in the correct place. This also now pointed me to a area I had not found.
  7. I could not find any good reloading data for the 140GR Lehigh bullets. The STOCK III poly barrel is returning consistently higher verbosity then the 0.25 inch shorter STEEL barrel. I "assume" this is the polly rifling, but like input if any one knows more. Powders tried so far: Blue Dot AA #9 BE-86 AA #7 Lehigh 140 and AA#7, 10.3 gr 1154 FT/sec This is faster with less powder then the Lehigh data lists. I suspect the Lehight data has a miss print and am reluctant to go to the listed max. Does any one have any other Lehigh bullet data? The link below is for the Lehigh data and bullet I am using https://www.lehighdefense.com/400-caliber-140gr-xtreme-penetrator-lead-free-hunting-and-defense-handgun-bullets.html
  8. I am old, retired test engineer. I just got a Tanfog STOCK III in 10mm. This will be my 3rd or forth (lost track ) 10mm A friend just got a Tanfog Witness steel so questions and such may apply to that also. I am using this as a test place to learn how this board works, Please advise if I should post in another area. I will move the reloading questions to that section. The link above ( if it copied correctly) is a good start on getting my SA pull down. I reduced the hammer hooks to about 0.016 on the factory hammer and lightly stoned the sear. From comments here, the factory parts are only surface hard. I did not change the sear angle or hammer hook angles as a result. This level of "change" in addition to ditching the spring in the fire pin block did improve the trigger pull in SA a lot. Question: IF I cough up the cash for the extreme hammer (Titan) and the EGW one piece sear will that give me a way better SA trigger pull? The configuration of my guns often change.
  • Create New...