My Little Nuggets.....

[MikieM]

I thought I'd throw out a couple of pics of my two bundles of joy.

The Titanium gun is running the 10.5 inch Faxon barrel with a Taccom extension and lightweight hand guard. The upper is a Thunder, and the lower is a New Frontier. Trigger is a Hiperfire 24C with no shoe. Safety is an SI. Plunger tube is a Magpul, and the butt stock is a Lead Star. Grip is a Magpul MOE. It has an Odin extended mag release. Optic is a Holosun 65/2. It has a Blitzkrieg hydraulic buffer and a (blue) enhanced power spring. The gun weighs 5 pounds, 15 ounces with no magazine.

The black gun has the same internals as the other, but is a Quarter Circle 10 upper and lower, and uses the Taccom Tension (ramped) barrel with the shorter hand guard, and a C-More Railway. It weighs 6 pounds, 1 ounce with no magazine.

The Titanium has been through a match and shoots exceptionally well. Very accurate and soft.

The black gun has only been test fired, but no malfunctions at all in 80 rounds. I hope to chronograph some loads through it come Sunday. This gun should be even softer shooting because I can reduce the powder charge even more than the other gun. Accuracy should be first rate, as well.

Just between you, me, and the lamp post, these PCC guns are way more fun than those things you hold in your hands. 

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by MikieM

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: Those are some pretty cool PCC's. Thanks, Eric

[TGibe]

Very nice. I really like the red parts on the black one.

[Flatland Shooter]

Very nice.  I really like the titanium two-tone effect.

 

The titanium gun with the Taccom extenstion, does it have the mid-barrel brake?

 

What bullet weight and PF to get it accurate and soft?

 

Thanks and enjoy your new toys.

 

 

[tattooo]

Real nice rigs !

[balmo]

That's some sweet looking PCC brothers!

[MikieM]

1 hour ago, Flatland Shooter said:

Very nice.  I really like the titanium two-tone effect.

 

The titanium gun with the Taccom extenstion, does it have the mid-barrel brake?

 

What bullet weight and PF to get it accurate and soft?

 

Thanks and enjoy your new toys.

 

 

 

Thanks. That's "Shoeless Joe". It does not have a brake. I tried a mid-brake on an 8.5 inch barrel, but I didn't care for it that much. Comps, and brakes, are a bit problematic to me. To get them to work well you have to increase barrel pressure. The only way to do that is to increase powder charge. Where does it end. It's kind of like having a limp in one leg, then shooting yourself in the other to make them match. To me, lower powder charges are always the best.

Right now the load for this gun is: 3.6 grains of N320 under a 124 grain PD RN. PF is 128.

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by MikieM

[L9X25]

20 minutes ago, MikieM said:

 To me, lower powder charges are always the best.

 

 

I tend to agree, the more recoil you create, the more there is to compensate for.  And compensation is a percentage game where you can never get rid of it all.  

 

Where my gun is now it is almost like shooting a .22, I cannot see where reducing the recoil is going to let me shoot it any faster.  

 

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: I would agree about the lighter powder charge so that is why I like the 16" barrels. My load for 124's is only 3.1 grains of Tite Group and is 131PF. Thanks, Eric

[mahamoti]

34 minutes ago, Aircooled6racer said:

Hello: I would agree about the lighter powder charge so that is why I like the 16" barrels. My load for 124's is only 3.1 grains of Tite Group and is 131PF. Thanks, Eric

Wow.  PD 124 FMJ over 3.5gr TiteGroup only gets me 127pf out of a JP 16".

[JAFO]

14 minutes ago, mahamoti said:

Wow.  PD 124 FMJ over 3.5gr TiteGroup only gets me 127pf out of a JP 16".

 

You must be using a much harder bullet than Eric.  My pistol load is coated lead 124's over 3.6gr Titegroup, and it gets 149PF out of a 16" Nordic barrel.

[MikieM]

2 hours ago, L9X25 said:

 

I tend to agree, the more recoil you create, the more there is to compensate for.  And compensation is a percentage game where you can never get rid of it all.  

 

Where my gun is now it is almost like shooting a .22, I cannot see where reducing the recoil is going to let me shoot it any faster.  

 

 

That's a very good way of putting it. Thanks.

[MikieM]

1 hour ago, mahamoti said:

Wow.  PD 124 FMJ over 3.5gr TiteGroup only gets me 127pf out of a JP 16".

 

There's not a thing wrong with that number.

Here's the way I look at it. If I can chronograph 10 rounds that give me an averaged PF of 125, I'm tickled pink because according to USPSA, that's legal.

[mahamoti]

1 hour ago, MikieM said:

 

There's not a thing wrong with that number.

Here's the way I look at it. If I can chronograph 10 rounds that give me an averaged PF of 125, I'm tickled pink because according to USPSA, that's legal.

I’ll actually be adjusting that up a bit.  I like to be around 132pf, for stubborn poppers. Had a one that didn’t fall last weekend and cost me an M classifier.

Edited December 7, 2017 by mahamoti

[MikieM]

4 minutes ago, mahamoti said:

I’ll actually be adjusting that up a bit.  I like to be around 132pf, for stubborn poppers. Had a one that didn’t fall last weekend and cost me a M classifier.

 

The problem with that maha, is (again) where does it end? Who ever said 132 PF will consistently knock down poppers? Why settle on that number?

A popper is supposed to go down at a 125 PF. If it doesn't it isn't your ammo's fault, but rather the fault of the popper itself, and you are entitled to request a re-calibration of the popper and a re-shoot.

[mahamoti]

33 minutes ago, MikieM said:

 

The problem with that maha, is (again) where does it end? Who ever said 132 PF will consistently knock down poppers? Why settle on that number?

A popper is supposed to go down at a 125 PF. If it doesn't it isn't your ammo's fault, but rather the fault of the popper itself, and you are entitled to request a re-calibration of the popper and a re-shoot.

Well not exactly... you’re entitled to the calibration process, which screws more people than it helps.

 

Loading sub-130pf also means living dangerously at the chrono for majors.

[troupe]

Great looking rifles. It does not end with the AR PCC. There are so many options for PCC and there will be more coming at the Shot Show.  PCC is growing fast gang.

[MikieM]

Just now, troupe said:

Great looking rifles. It does not end with the AR PCC. There are so many options for PCC and there will be more coming at the Shot Show.  PCC is growing fast gang.

 

Thanks, troupe. Lots of options, and you can bet the Shot Show will have every variation under the Sun on display.

I personally believe that when the smoke clears we'll find PCC's moving toward two major areas of build. Light weight, and long barrels. 

Light weight for obvious reasons. Quicker transitions, faster target acquisitions. Speed is the name of the game in our new sport and heavy carbines only slow you down. We may see new alloys in the receivers, new machining techniques to lighten them further, and even new designs specifically for 9 PCC. No more AR15 platforms. 

As for barrels I think the norm will be 10.5 inch (with extension) and longer with a predominance toward thin lightened 16 inchers. Comped barrels will go by the wayside. There's just not enough case capacity to make them worth their weight.

I also predict a new 12 inch barrel with an ultra-light extension to be introduced sometime soon.

It's not hard to make PF in PCC so the goals will be to make them fast, and make them accurate.

Thus sayeth Mikiestradamus.  

 

[L9X25]

15 minutes ago, MikieM said:

 

Thanks, troupe. Lots of options, and you can bet the Shot Show will have every variation under the Sun on display.

I personally believe that when the smoke clears we'll find PCC's moving toward two major areas of build. Light weight, and long barrels. 

Light weight for obvious reasons. Quicker transitions, faster target acquisitions. Speed is the name of the game in our new sport and heavy carbines only slow you down. We may see new alloys in the receivers, new machining techniques to lighten them further, and even new designs specifically for 9 PCC. No more AR15 platforms. 

As for barrels I think the norm will be 10.5 inch (with extension) and longer with a predominance toward thin lightened 16 inchers. Comped barrels will go by the wayside. There's just not enough case capacity to make them worth their weight.

I also predict a new 12 inch barrel with an ultra-light extension to be introduced sometime soon.

It's not hard to make PF in PCC so the goals will be to make them fast, and make them accurate.

Thus sayeth Mikiestradamus.  

 

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I am not sure about the Comps going away.  They will likely be smaller, lighter (aluminum or Ti), but they will not likely go away.

I have one of the small Taccom comps and it is doing work.  I might replicate it in aluminum, but it only weighs 2 oz as it is.  

 

I think that we have come a long way tuning these guns and they are good enough that we are already reaching diminishing returns.  When you can doubletap 2 A's out to 30 yards,

the guns barely recoil, are very light, I am not sure what can be done to allow us to shoot significantly faster.    

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: The KAW Valley/Faxon 16" barrel only weights 19ozs and is a fast barrel. At least the ones I have seen and used. Comps on the end add a little weight which helps keep the muzzle down some. Lightweight handguards and upper receivers are also out there. The big thing that does the most is a good load and a great buffer/bolt setup for the AR9mm. I think you may see more gas operated 9mm's in the future. Thanks, Eric

[TGibe]

42 minutes ago, Aircooled6racer said:

I think you may see more gas operated 9mm's in the future. Thanks, Eric

 

I'm looking forward to the evolution. I ordered the CMMG Guard because I can't stop tinkering and like to try new stuff (a common theme here LOL), which will be my third PCC but certainly not my last. I guess PCCs are like potato chips...

[bladewurk]

20 hours ago, Aircooled6racer said:

Hello: I would agree about the lighter powder charge so that is why I like the 16" barrels. My load for 124's is only 3.1 grains of Tite Group and is 131PF. Thanks, Eric

Thank you for this..I plan on trying Titegroup as I just started loading my own 9mm.. 

I saw an older post that you used to load WST in your 9mm AR,  and I have a ton of it.

I am starting testing at 4.1 Gr with 124 Xtreme plated at 1.145 oal. Any tips on what worked for you?

[MikieM]

54 minutes ago, bladewurk said:

Thank you for this..I plan on trying Titegroup as I just started loading my own 9mm.. 

I saw an older post that you used to load WST in your 9mm AR,  and I have a ton of it.

I am starting testing at 4.1 Gr with 124 Xtreme plated at 1.145 oal. Any tips on what worked for you?

 

If I may butt into this conversation a bit, I think your starting load is a tad high. WST is about midway between Titegroup and N320 as to burn rate, so you might want to consider something around the 3.5 grain mark. Just a thought.

[MikieM]

Having said that, if AC has used WST in the past then he would be the guy to go to, making my comment totally irrelevant. 

[bladewurk]

I have found data all over the place, including Hornady data going up to 5.4 grains. I guess the current WST lots, barrels and chambers make a big difference as the more current data seems much lower.