BB 147s and CZ..

[twodownzero]

4 minutes ago, HesedTech said:

The head space is measured on a pistol round from the surface in the picture I posted to the base of the cartridge where it leaves the chamber just like the image of the rifle round. This, to the best of my knowledge and experience, is the standard method. The throat erosion on a rifle is very noticeable while on a pistol I would challenge you in a hardened CZ barrel to be able to measure with any significance the changes after a couple of thousand rounds of coated lead bullets.
 

I load both high power rifle, tens of thousands of 9mm pistol and from experience throat erosion just isn’t an issue or really noticeable in a pistol. Just consider the difference in heat alone between a 9mm with 3.1 grains of powder drive soft bullet going down a 4.5” barrel and 43+ grain driven 6.5 CM FMJ going down 20+ inch barrel. The temperatures, pressures and velocities are substantially different 
 

What’s the point? Don’t over think this, load an OAL that always fits in your pistol and a PF that meets the needs of the shooting requirements. Now rifle reloading and precision is a whole different game. 

 

 

You can throw around buzz words all you want, people call what I'm talking about different things, the most common term I believe is "freebore."

 

I shared my experience that a finishing reamer--which can cut the surface where the ogive touches the rifling--may not reduce the interference between the bearing surface just past the case mouth touches the barrel.

 

I'm not talking or worrying about "throat erosion" or any of that.  I'm just saying that for my situation, I sent my barrel to be reamed, and when it was returned to me, not all of the interfering metal was machined away by the reamer because it was unable to cut down the freebore surface just forward of the chamber.

 

Your chamber, your reamer, and your bullet profile may vary, which is why this is my experience and may not match yours.

[HesedTech]

18 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

Your chamber, your reamer, and your bullet profile may vary, which is why this is my experience and may not match yours.

Without getting into an ugly exchange, all I’m trying to point out is two things, the first is this, new CZ barrels can’t be reamed for more freebore without a special reamer because they are hardened.
 

The second is, other than for convenience and possible feeding issues, it really isn’t needed for the Shadow 2. I’ve loaded RN bullets as short as 1.05” OAL (because of the ogive profile) which ran without a hitch in my guns. 
 

KISS method is what works for me. But, I’m obsessed with reliability and repeatability in my process and guns.

 

PS Headspace, body, shoulder, neck, freebore, leade, bore and throat are not “buzz words.” They are accepted descriptions of the chamber of a rifle and non straight walled chambers. Obviously straight walled cartridges don’t have “necks.” In rifle loading the “jump distance” of the bullet is part of determining the OAL. We “plunk test” pistol rounds. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by HesedTech

[twodownzero]

21 minutes ago, HesedTech said:

Without getting into an ugly exchange, all I’m trying to point out is two things, the first is this, new CZ barrels can’t be reamed for more freebore without a special reamer because they are hardened.
 

The second is, other than for convenience and possible feeding issues, it really isn’t needed for the Shadow 2. I’ve loaded RN bullets as short as 1.05” OAL (because of the ogive profile) which ran without a hitch in my guns. 
 

KISS method is what works for me. But, I’m obsessed with reliability and repeatability in my process and guns.

 

PS Headspace, body, shoulder, neck, freebore, leade, bore and throat are not “buzz words.” They are accepted descriptions of the chamber of a rifle and non straight walled chambers. Obviously straight walled cartridges don’t have “necks.” In rifle loading the “jump distance” of the bullet is part of determining the OAL. We “plunk test” pistol rounds. 

 

The person who reamed my barrel did so with a carbide reamer.  The reason that it can't be reamed for more freebore is that the reamers that are available don't touch that surface.

 

You might think that it is safe to run ammunition that short, but I do not share your opinion.  I think the industry should be more transparent and that guns should chamber all readily available bullet profiles at SAAMI max.

 

And yes, they are buzz words because they don't have precise definitions.  But as long as we know what we're talking about, they suffice.

[waktasz]

I don't care about the safety of ammo that short, I just don't feel like adjusting my loads and press, chronoing again, etc when I've been shooting the same recipe for 10 years just to shoot my p10. 

[HesedTech]

2 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

And yes, they are buzz words because they don't have precise definitions. 

Okay I get it, from my registered “Profession” we were told not to describe ourselves as a “professional” because there wasn’t a precise definition. At yet there are generally accept definitions. Who’d have thunk. I’m and un-professional now, it’s called retired.  Yes!
 

4 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

You might think that it is safe to run ammunition that short, but I do not share your opinion. 

Well, that may be so, but at minor PF there’s basically zero pressure signs in 9mm. Again in Precision rifle I’ve experienced rounds which were over pressure and yes “unsafe” in one gun and yet ran well below over pressure in another barrel chamber of the same caliber. 
 

And this is why we test and check loads before cranking out a huge volume. 

 

Point is this, OAL isn’t a measure of a “safe” or “unsafe” load. It’s the total load package and gun it’s running in. 
 

Again simple is good. 

[HesedTech]

4 minutes ago, waktasz said:

when I've been shooting the same recipe for 10 years

Love the the idea, however bullet, powder and primer availability has made changes necessary. Right now have enough for about 10k of the same bullet, powder and primer. I buy what Is available at the moment. 
 

 

Good point though. 

[twodownzero]

3 minutes ago, HesedTech said:

Okay I get it, from my registered “Profession” we were told not to describe ourselves as a “professional” because there wasn’t a precise definition. At yet there are generally accept definitions. Who’d have thunk. I’m and un-professional now, it’s called retired.  Yes!
 

Well, that may be so, but at minor PF there’s basically zero pressure signs in 9mm. Again in Precision rifle I’ve experienced rounds which were over pressure and yes “unsafe” in one gun and yet ran well below over pressure in another barrel chamber of the same caliber. 
 

And this is why we test and check loads before cranking out a huge volume. 

 

Point is this, OAL isn’t a measure of a “safe” or “unsafe” load. It’s the total load package and gun it’s running in. 
 

Again simple is good. 

 

Smart reloaders don't rely on pressure signs alone--they begin with published data and then verify in their application.

 

There is no published data for a 147 grain bullet at 1.080".  So my choices were to ream or to experiment.  I chose the former.

 

By the time there are pressure signs, you're WAY over pressure.

[HesedTech]

40 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

By the time there are pressure signs, you're WAY over pressure.

I have never had a sign of over pressure in 9mm rounds; ever! I start by reading what others did before me with the powder and bullets they successfully used. Then worked a load for minor PF around that. Use a chrono. 
 

If you check out rifle shooters the same applies , the best load for a gun often will exceed the recommended max load by the manufacturer. You realize in our litigious culture the manufacturer has to give starting and max recommendations, anything else is on the user. 
 

Spend some time viewing load development by precision rifle shooters on YouTube. There are many good and thoughtful people out there sharing their knowledge and experience. To name a couple, Fclass John, and the Ultimate Reloader. There are also multiple articles and threads across the net about ladders and such. It’s all done to optimize the load for an intended use. And whether you like it or not looking for pressure signs is a part of process. 

 

Do what makes you comfortable and happy. Remember, it’s a hobby and the exploration and finding of an optimal load combo is part of the joy. 
 

 

[rpm8300]

Just additional data points - I run 147 BB FP at 1.08 in both my CZ Shadow 2 and IFG Stock Master - neither have been reamed.  Thousands of rounds fired with no issues, just FYI.  Powder wise, I've tried everything from Titegroup to Autocomp - again, no issues.

[VeilAndrew]

As an additional data point, I load BB 147gr RN with 3.9gr AutoComp @ COL of 1.135" with Federal SPP in a Cajunized Shadow 2 with no problems.

[Covfefe]

Looks like 147 grain seems to be best weight for shadow 2 carry optics use. Is that pretty close to consensus? 
 

Thoughts on what feeds the best? JHP vs FP, RN? 

[waktasz]

JHP not relevant. Most people are using coated bullets. TC/FP or RN doesn't really matter. 

[Covfefe]

2 hours ago, waktasz said:

JHP not relevant. Most people are using coated bullets. TC/FP or RN doesn't really matter. 

Are people using coated options for cost savings alone?
 

I see that MG JHP are about a penny and a half more per bullet. 

[OptimiStick]

I've had a variety of my barrels reamed to allow for longer loads, as my standard load / profile didn't fit in some of my newer , shorter throated guns. The guy who did most of mine - wouldn't do my Shadow2 due to the hardened barrel and the fact it chews up his reamers. Most people I checked into had the same feedback/policy. A member on here with a reamer did my first Shadow 2 for me and it worked great - I was able to use my normal load (flat point 147s out to 1.15)

 

For my newer Shadow 2 I just sent the barrel out this week to PD to be reamed. I sent some dummy rounds with it. So I'll report back.