What OAL for JP GMR-15

[IVC]

I have a JP PCC on order, but I'm also in the process of changing my press  OAL for reloading 9mm to fit some shorter-chambered pistols, primarily several CZs. So, I would like to have an idea about how the JP chambers tend to run and what OAL works for you. (I'll do the plunk test and all that when I get the actual rifle, just trying to figure out what I should expect.) 

 

My guess is that they would run longer, correct? 

[egd5]

Do you plan on a separate load for the pcc? If not I'd just use whatever is the shortest you need. More than likely you will need to run what you need for your mags. I have a TF Goliath and they say no longer than 1.125. I use 1.120 for my oal.

[TeedOff]

1.120” works in my gmr-15 with TF base pads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roy T]

The GMR-15 will handle much longer loads so if you want to only have one load then make your pistol happy and the JP will smile also. If you choose to pick and play with loads just for the PCC then you can go much longer on the OAL and see if a different load is the ticket for that use.

[IVC]

Great - thanks everyone. That's what I thought as far as the chamber goes. 

 

A separate, but related question - feeding. My Limited SVI uses 1.200 (in .40, obviously) which was recommended by the manufacturer and which helps in feeding. Any similar feeding issues with shorter OAL in GMR-15, i.e., does it prefer longer loads for better feeding? My magazine tube is stock Glock with different base pads (one MBX 57, couple +10 TTIs). 

 

I don't want to create a separate load for PCC if I can help it, particularly since OAL and powder charge are finicky to get back to the exact value if I were to switch between the loads. OAL adjustment is particularly tedious since I use coated bullets and variance in shape and weight makes it less than a quick process. If I end up having to create a separate load, I'm almost better off getting another toolhead, albeit they are pretty expensive for 1050...

Edited November 15, 2019 by IVC

[rowdyb]

As someone who shot both CZ pistols and a GMR15 I had to abandon the idea of having one load between them as it wasn't ideal for both. Due to the short length I needed to run in the CZ I would for sure choose a round nose profile over any other. This will get you the longest oal in the cz and be a good compromise for the jp.

 

Your one load to rule them all will have to be a balance of powder, bullet weight , profile and cartridge oal.

[Silverscooby27]

1.130

[TeedOff]

1.130

Unless you are using Taylor Freelance extensions. Any longer than 1.125” will jam in the extension.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Silverscooby27]

13 minutes ago, TeedOff said:

 

Unless you are using Taylor Freelance extensions. Any longer than 1.125” will jam in the extension.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for telling me what works and doesn’t work in MY gun

[LowSpeedHighDrag]

1 hour ago, TeedOff said:

 

Unless you are using Taylor Freelance extensions. Any longer than 1.125” will jam in the extension.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Haven't seen a problem with MBX extensions at 1.130".

 

[TeedOff]

Thanks for telling me what works and doesn’t work in MY gun [emoji849]

Just telling you what the TF instructions say. YMMV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SteelCityShooter]

On 11/15/2019 at 6:09 PM, IVC said:

I don't want to create a separate load for PCC if I can help it, particularly since OAL and powder charge are finicky to get back to the exact value if I were to switch between the loads. OAL adjustment is particularly tedious since I use coated bullets and variance in shape and weight makes it less than a quick process. If I end up having to create a separate load, I'm almost better off getting another toolhead, albeit they are pretty expensive for 1050...

Micrometer seating dies, like Redding's or Hornady's, make changes in OAL predictable and reproducible.  

[IVC]

I have Redding competition seating dies (on each toolhead) and they are quite nice for small adjustments, but I found them not to be quite as reproducible as I would like. I didn't test it in any rigorous manner, so I might be wrong - I would take a photo of the configuration (easier than writing it down) and then try to go back to it. It didn't quite work. Reminds me of taking scope off of a rail, then putting it back on. There is enough variation that it requires re-sighting in. 

 

Do you get good consistency when changing OAL? If so, I might take some time to evaluate it properly and confirm. It would be great if it worked, though, and it would be time well-spent to figure it out.