A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Reloading Bench

[sinclair]

A Hitchhikers Guide to the Reloading Bench:

Since there are a few reloaders here, some with considerable experience, and several other members who seem to have an interest in reloading, it seemed a good idea to start a thread for generic reloading issues (problems) we have experienced and how we solved those problems.

My intent is not to write a reloading manual, or even a good guide, but rather to address problems we have encountered that the typical reloading manuals do NOT address and talk about how we overcame the difficulty.

As a broad problem category, lets talk about our difficulties in terms of these steps for reloading:

1. Case cleaning (or not - I know of a reloader who does not do this)

2. Case re-sizing (the act of firing results in the case expanding thus it must be returned to standard size. Yes I know cases from and for the same firearm need not be re-sized fully, but cases for automatic actions should always be. )

3. Case de-capping (removing the expended, fired primer)

4. Case priming (install a new primer)

5. Case mouth expansion (primarily pistol cases where the re-sized case mouth is a smaller diameter than the flat base of a new bullet - the shape of most high speed rifle bullets compensate for the re-sized case with beveling or boat-tails, plus rifle re-size dies expand the neck from the inside on the removal stroke.)

6. Case recharging (adding powder)

7. Bullet seating (inserting a new bullet)

8. Bullet crimping (a mechanical means of retaining the bullet location after it is seated.)

9. Final and complete quality check. (a reloader checks everything he does all along the way and inspects each process. I include this step separately because I know very few reloaders who regularly perform a final step to VERIFY your ammo is up to industry standards.)

[sinclair]

Reloading Issue - Related to step 2, case resizing.
Title: Stuck Case Removal

OK, I will kick this example off by talking about an issue that caused me grief back before the internet when research was a royal pain. This issue deals with step number 2 above, Case re-sizing. Generically, case re-sizing involves restoring the case to the SAAMI standard case size for the caliber, and is usually a straight wall "type" or a bottle neck "type". Usually, a straight wall case refers to the short, pistol calibers, although there are larger straight walled rifle cases. The pistol cases being rather short respond very well to "carbide" resizing dies, meaning that the carbide size ring is so slick for a short pull that the brass case can be pressed through the die without the need for lubrication. And this has been my experience. I have never had or seen a problem with carbide re-sizer dies on pistol cases.

Not so with the bottle neck "types". Even though "carbide" dies are available for some bottle neck cases, all such cases require lubrication as a result of additional forces encountered in re-sizing.

PROBLEM: I was new to reloading and had no data source other than the manuals I had obtained. All the manuals, even today, will tell you that you must properly lubricate bottle necks. Too much lubrication will result in hydraulic case dents, too little will mean a case stuck in the die. But the "how" to achieve the "proper" part is not well explained, even today. So, time to experiment. Back then, I had a lube pad and some super honey-like, very gooey and messy lube. I glop it on the case, bolt the reloader and dies to the Earth's core, and ram the case into the die. I remove it, and ugh ! I figured out right away what a hydraulic case dent means. Several tries later, each with less and less lube, I finally have a case without dents. Success. That technique seems right. I was happy. THEN it happened. I was lightly lubing and ramming away and wham. Resistance. I tug harder and the case just won't come out. I really tug and the handle comes free as does the base of the case. The rest of the case is just, well, stuck.

SOLUTION: Lets skip forward in time about three weeks later when I received my order for an RCBS Stuck Case Removal tool. The instructions say to remove the die de-capper and drill and tap the base of the case in the primer hole to allow the removal tool to be screwed into the case and with the attachments, allow the case to be removed with a bolt pulling it out via the tap hole. Well, this tool does NOT apply if you have broken the base of the case off.

Long story short, I finally threw the die and stuck case in the deep freeze. Took it out and pushed from the top with a small wood dowel and the partial case fell out. Be sure to clean and oil the die a bit cause it will be dripping wet from the condensation. They do rust easy.

[sinclair]

Reloading Issue - Related to step 1 - case cleaning
Title: Static Cling

I will not take any credit for this one. I have seen it in several places and do not know who originated the idea, but when I tried it, I have been amazed at the way it works so well.

Case cleaning for me has evolved into a two stage process. First, a vibrating tumbler with walnut media for the first, rough clean. Next, a rotating tumbler with corn cob media spiked with Dillon Rapid Polish 290, to really sparkle the brass.

PROBLEM: The cleaning media and the resultant residue means the media gradually becomes a mix of the media plus fine, silt-like hazardous dust. Primer residue like lead styphnate and other harmful stuff. Eventually, this dust begins to inhibit the media's cleaning and polishing capabilities. That's when you change it out and technically, this is most likely a hazardous waste.

SOLUTION: Bounce Scented Fabric Softener. No Kidding. The first few times cut a single softener sheet into four pieces and throw into the tumbler with the cases. Clean as usual and remove the softener sheets and carefully discard. After a few times, you only need two cuts (half sheet). This one is incredible. All the hazardous dust collects on the sheets, the media looks like new and just keeps on going like the ever-ready bunny. No fine poison dust to worry about breathing or handling.

Big Grin ==> And your cases smell really good and no static cling to the powder you add.

Just try it before you point at me to tell others I am a nut case.

[Grampa]

I know that you haven't gotten to case charging yet, but.......
Have you ever had your digital scale take a dump on you?
Have you then run out and bought a cheap one to get you by?
When you got it home and calibrated it, did you realize it did it in grams?
Did you realize that it stayed in grams when you were reloading?
When you took your new reloads to the range did you find the recoil excessive?
Did you then get your friend to try them in his gun, where he also found the recoil pretty harsh?
Lesson: New equipment doesn't always work like old equipment, and just because I've done it before doesn't mean I know what I'm doing.
Disclaimer: No firearms were actually harmed this time, but I better watch things more closely in the future.

[sinclair]

I know that you haven't gotten to case charging yet, but..

That's ok, I can always go there next. Your feedback is full of potential safety issues which always surround case charging. Some very good things here to discuss, and thanks very much for that input. Of all the steps listed, case charging, I think, is the source of most problem areas with reloading and most of the more dangerous possibilities. But not ALL of course.

Consider the boundaries for case charging which is (A) too little or (B) too much.:

(A) Generally, no powder at all (or even too little powder) results in what is known as a "squib" load. A primer, with little or no powder in front of it, can potentially drive the bullet out of the case with enough "oomph" to enter the barrel and lodge there. This is normally easy to clear, PROVIDED you are aware it has occurred. With good hearing protection, you may not have an audible clue to a squib. If you are in rapid fire, you may miss the other clue which is lack of recoil. Given the rapid "clear the jam" training in self defense shooting, I can see where a squib might result in a rapid, and automatic reaction to rack the slide and insert a new round. Which would mean a near disaster when the next round fired impacts the bullet lodged in the barrel. With a revolver, the danger would be interpreting the lack of recoil as a misfire. Cock and fire the revolver on the next round and "Boom".

And it gets even more fun with the long guns.

Top is a S&W Model 29 having fired a factory squib load.
Bottom is Ruger PC4 Carbine 40 S&W having fired a factory squib load.



http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/squibs.JPG



(Grampa, I will get to your questions in a manner that I hope to turn into a Problem/Solution kind of thing.)

[sinclair]

To continue the above discussion lets go to the second boundary condition for case charging,

(B) too much, or an overcharge.

Too much powder is far more likely in pistol cases than in rifle cases since the faster burning pistol powders are volumetrically much less than the case volume. It is even possible to triple a maximum charge in some cases without affecting the bullet seating. Most reloaders check their load charges by weight (in grains, where 1 lb. = 7000 grains) but usually only check the "average" consistency of their powder measure, which, like black powder measures, actually operates by volume rather than weight. Translated, this means that reloader's tend to set the volume measure then check its weight consistency only every 25th or even 50th round or so. That means all rounds in between have not been weighed, thus without any additional checks, an overcharge or a squib becomes a statistical probability. The ammo factories have to deal with this same probability which they reduce by various additional check procedures. Some reloader's do not approach this problem very seriously, others become paranoid about it (like me).

The danger with an overcharge is that, unlike the squib, there is no warning. With a squib, the warning is a "pop" instead of a "bang" and no recoil. The overcharge is a big "boom" instead of a "bang", usually a destroyed gun and potentially injured shooter and bystanders.

To avoid confusing the overcharge with what is being called the "KaBoom" or "Glock KaBoom", I selected some samples to show that no matter how strong the gun, an overcharge will destroy it. The top sample is a Colt Anaconda 44 Magnum and the bottom sample is a Ruger Bisley in 45 Colt.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/AnacondaBisley.JPG

[sinclair]

OK, Grampa, lets take a look at your questions.

Have you ever had your digital scale take a dump on you?

I have never owned one nor considered one. The gravity powered scales never need batteries, but I have discovered two things to avoid with gravity scales. Never position the scale near a fan or air vent, as it will alter the scale reading. Clean the weight station bench of all non-essentials, especially plastic/foam case blocks, as the static charge that can accumulate on such items will alter the magnetic scale damper and can change the reading.

Have you then run out and bought a cheap one to get you by?

I have only one, purchased in 1985, and despite constant use, it has never failed in any way other than mentioned above. By today's standards, I do suppose that it would be considered a cheap one.

When you got it home and calibrated it, did you realize it did it in grams?

The gravity models are graduated ONLY in Grains. To get grams would be an exercise with conversion factors and a calculator. Calibration, to me, means checking the scale with precision weights, which I always do for each load setting.

Did you realize that it stayed in grams when you were reloading?

I am aware that digital scales with "bells and whistles" create that as a possibility. It is one of the many reasons I have never considered owning one.

When you took your new reloads to the range did you find the recoil excessive?

Recoil is subjective and not a good indicator if the new reloads have been set up and measured and graduated according to a gentle, incremental set of charges. This question is very good in that it opens up a hundred or more safety issues on load testing. It almost sounds like you bought a new scale (a major change in your reloading equipment) and went straight to your proven load recipes without any kind of test verification ? You said nothing about excessive pressure signs. Were there any ?

Did you then get your friend to try them in his gun, where he also found the recoil pretty harsh?

Ugh ! Hard to comment here. Back in the old days when I did a bit of reloading for others, I always insisted on test loads and procedures for the gun the load was being developed for. When, even if it was a friend, those procedures were not met, I would not reload for that person. That was before the ammo liability laws went into effect. Since then, my reloads are ONLY developed for and fired in my guns.

just because I've done it before doesn't mean I know what I'm doing

I got a good chuckle out of that. But it does not take an expert to BE SAFE. I may not know what I am doing either, but I am CONFIDENT that I am doing it safely and always on the lookout for new tips and tricks to enhance the safety and minimize the hazards. If you ever reach the point where you think you know it all and quit seeking safer ways to do this type of hobby, then that is when you will KNOW you have lost it....and don't know what you are doing.

Thanks for making me really think about case charging. Now I can do a good job with the case charging-Problem/Solution thing coming up next.

[Grampa]

Quote: "I got a good chuckle out of that" ;)

That was my goal sir.

[sinclair]

Reloading Issue - Related to step 6 - case recharging
Response to request from Grampa

Title: Paranoid about powder

This is one of those steps in reloading where it is easy to become paranoid, and if you are, then use the paranoia to focus on safety. If you notice the somewhat humorous discussion between Grampa and I, you should be able to tell that I am totally paranoid about case charging. If you look really close, and under the humor, I think you will see that Grampa is as well.

If I were an ammo factory, I would be in a statistically risky business which would demand that I take a statistically altered (very expensive) approach to quality checks throughout the production process. I do not have that kind of investment capital, but since I am producing ammo for myself, I have a strong motivation to do everything I can to reduce the possible hazards to myself to zero.

I do have an advantage over an ammo factory in that my own time is available to add in exchange for lacking capital to buy all kinds of sensors for QC checks. Hopefully, I can show you how that works, and use my approach or not, the added safety factors are there.

PROBLEM: I am so paranoid about squib and overcharge loads that I am willing to devote as much additional time to the reloading process as necessary to reduce the probability of such an event occurring at my reloading bench to zero (the goal). To do this, I continue to research the sources of errors in reloading with respect to squibs and overcharges. I believe the primary source to be a combination of the use of powder dispensers and inattention or distraction during the charging process.

SOLUTION: What I have reached is an elimination of the powder dispenser as a means of dumping powder. Since I have a Dillon Progressive, the powder station is still there but kept empty and sealed, since I use that station for case mouth expansion ONLY. After case mouth expansion, I remove all cases (usually in lots of 50 at a time) to a separate bench where I manually dispense powder into the weigh scale one case at a time. Every case is hand-weighed and hand filled. After this, each lot of cases are positioned for inspection and all 50 cases have to look like clones of each other. When these cases come back to the loading bench, each case is examined again before placing the bullet and entering the bullet seating station. As to the weigh scale, it is calibrated before and after each 50 cases by using a mix of precision weights that EXACTLY equals the powder charge weight desired. To illustrate this, in the picture below, I show my scale along with a blowup of the precision weight set for calibration. This whole process adds about 20 minutes of time to the powder charge step (for each lot of 50 rounds), which I consider to be my own version of the equivalent of factory quality check sensors.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/scale0001.jpg

[Grampa]

You must get a just unreal degree of consistancy with that kind of patience. I think the factory standard has more tolerance.

[sinclair]

You must get a just unreal degree of consistancy with that kind of patience. I think the factory standard has more tolerance.

Thank you. I have seen enough differences to make it a practice on everything I load. Even plinking.

It shows up distinctly in all rifle calibers and really helps with the auto pistols in terms of reliability. I have tried many things over the years where some things work for me and others do not. I used to hang with a nutty group of Bench Rest shooters where I learned a key towards determining what works and what don't. It is not so much what you try to increase the ammo consistency, it is the ORDER that you try it.

Many folks out there will say that a thing is not good because it does not work for them. But looking closer, lets say that step A will increase accuracy by 10 percent. Step B will increase accuracy by 1 percent. If you try step B without doing step A, then step B apparently does nothing for you. Said another way, whatever you try will not work unless you have ALREADY done those things that have an even bigger impact on what you are doing.

Even so, some things still will not work for you if your own shooting ability is not up to the improvement you desire. Recognizing that, there are some things I no longer do. I no longer weigh lots of cases to find those with the most consistent volumes. That is one of those things that is a 1 percent improvement that I probably will never be able to detect. Other things may not be needed for the average shooting session.

For example, I no longer perform flash-hole uniforming/de-burring on any case that will not be a hunting round, and I have never seen a personal difference with any pistol round I have tried it on. Of course that may only mean that something else needs doing before this shows a result.

With that bit of discussion, there is something else that I have seen distinct results with, and also involves a safety issue. So on the topic of being paranoid, I am also that way about primers, which will be the next topic for problem/solution.

[Grampa]

Sinclair, what happened? You already have me out looking for a balance beam scale. I'd thought of it before but now it looks like an even better idea. What's the story of primers? Do I have to go shopping some more? Come on, you're getting us hooked. :D

[sinclair]

Sinclair, what happened? You already have me out looking for a balance beam scale. I'd thought of it before but now it looks like an even better idea. What's the story of primers? Do I have to go shopping some more? Come on, you're getting us hooked.

Heh Heh. Surely by this time, Grampa, you of all people should understand the nature of "Honey-Do" projects, and how they can really interfere with available hobby time.

As to the scale, mine is going strong after incredible use. That says a lot for the RCBS 10-10 scale. But if mine died, I would be inclined to also look at this one:

http://www.dillonprecision.com/content/p/9/pid/25215/catid/7/Dillon__039_s___039_Eliminator__039__Scale

Primers will be easy, I just have to write it up and I need to take another picture. Unfortunately, if you catch my primer paranoia, you will be inclined towards another purchase. Hopefully my own experience can save you a few bucks. Between that area and the process I use on charging, the results for reliability in automatic actions is incredible. So much so that I no longer trust factory ammo.

[sinclair]

Reloading Issue - Related to step 4 - case priming

Title : Paranoid about Primers

When I first began reloading, it was the priming process that gave me the most grief. Every manual I consulted said that primers need be inserted such that they were about 4 thousands of an inch below flush with the base of the case. Many were the suggestions about primer insertion tools but nowhere could I find anything about what to do if the primers would not seat even flush, much less below that level. It seemed logical to me that high primers were a very bad thing even before I had been introduced to information about "slam-fires". I had so many high primers that my early reloads were fired single shot in both revolvers and automatics. My first attempt to solve the problem was to really look at a de-primed case and figure that the sludge left in the primer hole was enough to prevent a new primer from seating correctly. I invested in about every primer pocket cleaner on the market, but to no avail. I even started tumbling de-primed brass just to clean the primer pockets. I also tried every brand of primer I could find.

I tried re-seating primers with much greater force, which would bring them flush but deformed looking. That is with a ram-prime style tool. I broke several Lee Hand Primers trying this technique. I finally stumbled across an article, Guns and Ammo I believe, that talked about how brass cases in the primer area should deform slightly when fired, and would thus need some "repair" before reloading. Now that worked. Here it is.

Problem: High primers or primers that cannot be seated below flush with the base of the case. Cause suspected to be a deformed or slightly shortened primer pocket.

Solution: Primer pocket uniformer tool, not to be confused with pocket cleaners or military crimp removing tools. The uniformer will hand machine (or by drill with appropriate attachment) a primer pocket back to the specified depth for the specific primer size used. I tried the most inexpensive first. Yep, cured the problem right off. But the tool broke with not much use. Same with the next. I ended up with a custom set for large rifle, large pistol (different depth than rifle), and small pistol (same depth as small rifle) with a hand tool from my namesake "Sinclair". Great, much use, and still going. All my primers compare directly with factory ammo. Throw the pocket cleaners away. These re-machine the pocket brass and that includes the sludge as well.

http://www.sinclairintl.com/product/10922/Primer-Pocket-Tools

See how the pocket shines when the base is set back to specs ? The orange cap is the protective cover to protect the carbide cutting blades.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/uniformer.JPG

[sinclair]

Yet to come, how to extend the life of pistol cases. Care with bullet seating.
Bullet crimping as a fine art. A no muss, no fuss sure way to perform a final
inspection or your ammo and have the "factory" confidence that it will be good
to go.

[sinclair]

My turn to ask.

Grampa, what happened ?

I could use your excellent feedback to help me focus the next posts.

[Grampa]

Sorry, been busy these last few weeks. I've been checking the forum every couple of days but really been to fraggled to write a lucid response.

I've had several cases that wouldn't seat the primer all the way, all with one batch of once fired Winchester brass. Because I'm not too bright, I thought the problem was with my 550. I'd take it apart, clean and lube it and crank out some more. Once that one bunch of brass went through I've had no other problems. I assumed it was something to do with that box of primers or something with my press. Never thought to ream the primer pocket, but I don't have a pocket uniformer tool anyway (yet).

That is some good info to pass on Mr. Sinclair, something I really hadn't given all that much thought to. Thank you very much for the heads up. :)

[Grampa]

I've bought new, unfired brass, used my own once fired brass and accepted used brass of mixed manufacturers from friends. The ones with the most problems have always been Winchester. New, unfired .45 Colt brass had case length deviations of as much as .020 all in the same batch. I don't mic the primer pockets but I can tell from the effort in seating a new primer on my progressive press that the pockets aren't uniform either. Has anyone found a brass manufacturer with consistantly in spec. brass? I have good results with Starline and Magtech. Is there anything else out there?

[sinclair]

Reloading Issue - Related to step 1 - case cleaning
Title: Case Tumblers

The third post on page one talks about how to control dust in case tumblers using scented fabric softener. This is a follow up post to talk about the tumblers themselves. There are two basic types. The vibrators and the rotary
tumblers. Both have their uses and will do the job. I believe the rotary tumblers will last the longest, but they cost more. They also will seal so that liquid media can be used. Most vibrators have the motor attached to the
bottom of the bowl such that they will leak liquid on to the motor, thus they are not recommended for liquid media.

Over the years I have evolved the following generic cleaning method. Toss the brass (after sorting to avoid mixing calibers) into the vibrator and walnut shell media. My vibrator cleaner is the smallest size so it does not do well
with a massive number of cases. In the picture below, the vibrator cleaner is on the right, and is shown with a hundred 45 ACP cases. For larger cases, like 45 colt, I only clean 50 at a time, or 25 rifle cases. I run them for
about three hours. It cleans them fairly well, but I prefer a new, shiny look. For that, I use the rotary tumbler with a small amount of liquid polish (I use Dillon Rapid Polish 290) added to the corncob media, which does a fine clean and spiffy polish. I run the rotary about an hour. That is after the basic first clean. The rotary is on the left side of the picture below.

The two step procedure I use can be accomplished with only one case cleaner, but you will be constantly changing the media back and forth, and liquid additives are a risk with the vibrators. (Just use a tiny amount and let it absorb in the media before turning on the vibrator type.)

The rotary tumbler has seen many uses (including lapidary work) and is 25 years old. The vibratory tumbler is about a year old and has failed twice. Both times, the power lead to the motor broke at the solder joint and was re-soldered. This was due to lack of vibration protection of the motor wire connections. I suspect most vibrators will be susceptible to this failure mode. The rotary occasionally fails due to the metal roller gears wearing the plastic bin edges smooth. I correct this with quarter inch flexible door seal tape and it works great for about six months till the tape wears off and needs replacing.

Special Note: The vibrators are very loud. I run it outside. The rotary is really quiet so I run it indoors.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/case_cleaning.JPG

[Grampa]

Do you deprime the cases before cleaning?

[sinclair]

Do you deprime the cases before cleaning?

Well, yes and no. How to explain that ? If the first, basic walnut clean really gets them spotless, yes, I deprime them before the final clean. That only happens when they are fresh from the range. If the cases are dirty and have been for a long time, the first clean does not leave them as smooth as I like before running them through the dies. More and more, I am just doing both cleans before running through the dies. The real decider for me is the primer pocket uniformer. It really processes the primer pockets well and is a good opportunity to check the flash hole for obstructions or deformities. When I deprime and then do the final clean, there is a second inspection needed to clean the corncob media out of the flash holes. I punch it out with a paper clip. I like that less and less, and am beginning to not do that very much.

I've bought new, unfired brass, used my own once fired brass and accepted used brass of mixed manufacturers from friends. The ones with the most problems have always been Winchester. New, unfired .45 Colt brass had case length deviations of as much as .020 all in the same batch. I don't mic the primer pockets but I can tell from the effort in seating a new primer on my progressive press that the pockets aren't uniform either. Has anyone found a brass manufacturer with consistantly in spec. brass?
I have good results with Starline and Magtech. Is there anything else out there?

A lot of good topics in there. I like your observations on the colt 45 brass, and on the Winchester brass as well. I am getting ready to process a group of those as soon as Colt 45 gets some primers to me. I think it may be a good topic to write up how I address the different case lengths during loading. I have a two step process thats works pretty good, not perfect, but good. It also is the area to work out right to extend the life of straight wall pistol cases.

Since I uniform all pockets without even checking, they all work right so I just do it. As far as really good brass, most claims in that area center around Norma brass or Lapua Brass. I don't know if the claims are true since those brass manufacturers want a chunk of change for the brass. Its a bit above my budget but I will get around to trying it. I like Starline but the Magtec brass has the same problems I see with WW and winchester cases.

[Colt 45]

A lot of good topics in there. I like your observations on the colt 45 brass, and on the Winchester brass as well. I am getting ready to process a group of those as soon as Colt 45 gets some primers to me. I think it may be a good topic to write up how I address the different case lengths during loading. I have a two step process thats works pretty good, not perfect, but good. It also is the area to work out right to extend the life of straight wall pistol cases.

Sorry I haven't been around lately sinclair. I have been having health problems and I know you have been busy. We are planning to be in Alamo next weekend for a variety of things, maybe even the charity match. Not that I would be competing...

Anyway, maybe we can meet up? I'll get in contact with you.

Max

[sinclair]

New, unfired .45 Colt brass had case length deviations of as much as .020 all in the same batch.

I have not seen that wide a deviation in the same manufacturer's brass, but the assortment of brass Colt 45 provided has given me a look at what seems to be a real problem that needs to be addressed. Most of the brass manufacturers he provided me with deviate around 0.010 inches in length, which does not seem too much of a problem to deal with. However, he had some Hornady brass that is definitely shorter than it should be, by 0.050 inches, and consistently so. Now that I have had an opportunity to deal with this problem, here are my findings and the way I chose to handle it.

PROBLEM: Brass much shorter than the standard length.

Here is a good visual for the problem. The Hornady examples are on the left in the photo.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/ShortCases.JPG

As far as the loading steps, the short cases will resize and prime without change being needed for die adjustments. Where the short cases were a problem was in the neck expansion die and the crimp die. Since over-expansion of the neck is one of the primary causes of short case life, I decided to re-adjust this die for the short cases, then re-set them back for the standard length. To keep internal pressure at the same level for all cases, set the seating die for an overall length and maintain that length for all cases, The short cases can be visually picked out since the bullet seats further out. These short cases would not crimp with the normal die setting, so the die must be adjusted far down to crimp them, then taken back up for the standard length cases. The best way to make these adjustments is with "die-set cases", that is cases picked solely for setting the dies. I picked out three of the less polished cases for die setters. If Colt 45 is reading this, you just donated three of the 45 cases as die-setters used for solving this problem.

The final result of the short and standard length cases are shown here. The Hornady is in the center and I think there was a Top Brass sample and a Winchester sample on either side of it. Look carefully at this photo and you will see the seating difference necessary for the center Hornady to have the same internal pressure as the others with the same load weight. Now back to the crimp die so I can properly crimp all these shorty cases.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/Shortcaseseating.JPG

[Colt 45]

Glad to make the donation Sinclair! Do you have any idea why the Hornady cases are so much shorter? I bought the Hornady stuff recently . The brand is Lever Revolution for what that's worth.

Great job solving the problem!

Max

[sinclair]

Do you have any idea why the Hornady cases are so much shorter?

That got me interested as well. There were 30 Hornady cases in your lot of 45's. All of them measure the same with almost no deviation. Thus it is not a mistake but very intentional. The Hornady site examination I followed was not helpful regarding the case length but it appears to have a great deal to do with their line of FTX bullets (flex tip).

http://www.hornady.com/store/45-Cal-.452-225-gr-FTX/

I am assuming by the bullet design that Hornady could not maintain the maximum OAL for the 45 Colt, and other calibers without shortening the case. It appears to be a common shortening with all the cases they offer in this FTX line. The other thing to note is that the Lever Revolution brand involves this FTX (Flex tip bullet) and is intended for Lever Action Rifles. It allows a spitzer bullet tip (flexible) to improve the bullet ballistic coefficient and be used in a tubular magazine.

Reminds me of my own discovery of many years back. I found the 30 30 Winchester to be a magnificent performer with spitzer bullets. But I sold my Marlin 30-30 to prevent me from ever using spitzers in its tubular magazine. A magazine chain fire accident was something to give me the shudders. I still love the 30-30 spitzers but I only shoot them in the TC Pistol and never allow others with lever actions to try the special rounds.

It would seem that Hornady is bringing spitzers to the lever rifle crowd by designing plastic tipped spitzers to prevent the magazine chain fire problem, but at the cost of having to shorten cases below the case specifications for all calibers involved. I still do not like the idea of spitzers (sharp points) against primers in the tubes, even if they are plastic.

The idea behind the Lever Revolution

http://www.chuckhawks.com/leverevolution.htm

Fortunately, Hornady did not exceed SAAMI pressure for the Colt 45, and the Lever Revolution stuff is not advertised as + P ammunition. It does appear to be designed for performance at the greater velocities achieved by the longer
rifle barrels, so you wasted your money on that ammo by firing it in a short barrel pistol. Otherwise, no reason not to reload it, other than it being a pain in the butt for die adjustments. At least I learned something from the exercise.
That's always a good thing.

[Colt 45]

Thanks Sinclair! I thought it must have something to do with the bullet. I'm sorry for the headache.

When I bought them I specifically asked if they were ok to shoot in my Colt. They told me they would be fine. Other than the bullet looking somewhat odd, I did like the ammo. It seemed to be dead on with my revolver. I had resisted buying the Hornady ammo before but at the time it was the only stuff I could find.

They also make it in 45-70. I have been thinking of trying that as well, although my rifle is a single shot Sharps and not a lever action.

The easy way (for me) to reload it is to have another set of dies set up for them. If I had a lot of those cases it may be worth it for me to do that.

Max

That got me interested as well. There were 30 Hornady cases in your lot of 45's. All of them measure the same with almost no deviation. Thus it is not a mistake but very intentional. The Hornady site examination I followed was not helpful regarding the case length but it appears to have a great deal to do with their line of FTX bullets (flex tip).

http://www.hornady.com/store/45-Cal-.452-225-gr-FTX/

I am assuming by the bullet design that Hornady could not maintain the maximum OAL for the 45 Colt, and other calibers without shortening the case. It appears to be a common shortening with all the cases they offer in this FTX line. The other thing to note is that the Lever Revolution brand involves this FTX (Flex tip bullet) and is intended for Lever Action Rifles. It allows a spitzer bullet tip (flexible) to improve the bullet ballistic coefficient and be used in a tubular magazine.

Reminds me of my own discovery of many years back. I found the 30 30 Winchester to be a magnificent performer with spitzer bullets. But I sold my Marlin 30-30 to prevent me from ever using spitzers in its tubular magazine. A magazine chain fire accident was something to give me the shudders. I still love the 30-30 spitzers but I only shoot them in the TC Pistol and never allow others with lever actions to try the special rounds.

It would seem that Hornady is bringing spitzers to the lever rifle crowd by designing plastic tipped spitzers to prevent the magazine chain fire problem, but at the cost of having to shorten cases below the case specifications for all calibers involved. I still do not like the idea of spitzers (sharp points) against primers in the tubes, even if they are plastic.

The idea behind the Lever Revolution

http://www.chuckhawks.com/leverevolution.htm

Fortunately, Hornady did not exceed SAAMI pressure for the Colt 45, and the Lever Revolution stuff is not advertised as + P ammunition. It does appear to be designed for performance at the greater velocities achieved by the longer
rifle barrels, so you wasted your money on that ammo by firing it in a short barrel pistol. Otherwise, no reason not to reload it, other than it being a pain in the butt for die adjustments. At least I learned something from the exercise.
That's always a good thing.

[sinclair]

They also make it in 45-70. I have been thinking of trying that as well, although my rifle is a single shot Sharps and not a lever action.

I am glad you brought that up. During the time I was looking for more information, I did run across a discussion that seems to indicate a reloading
problem with the 45-70 lever revolution cases. As I understand it, some die sets in that caliber (one of the few I do not reload) have a physical
design that does not allow the proper reloading of shorter cases. You might want to have a look here: Farmland has posted a picture of the 45-70's
that look remarkably like what I was trying to show above for the 45 Colt.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=380760

[Colt 45]

Yes they do look a lot like the problem with the .45 Colt. I bought a set of RCBS carbide dies for 45-70 when I bought got the rifle. But in all the time I've had it, I've only book a little over a box of rounds through it. I've never been much of a rifle shooter, but am getting the "itch". Now that ammo for the 45-70 is more available, I think I'll stay away from the Lever Revolution ammo and save the hassle in the event that I do start reloading it.

If you've never reloaded 45-70 before, maybe you would like to share in the project of working up some test loads and see where it takes us, if you have the time and desire for it.

I see that 45 Colt ammunition is becoming more available as well. That is a caliber that I am sure I will reload a lot, as I have in the past with the exception of what I have learned here and from you in person.

Max

I am glad you brought that up. During the time I was looking for more information, I did run across a discussion that seems to indicate a reloading
problem with the 45-70 lever revolution cases. As I understand it, some die sets in that caliber (one of the few I do not reload) have a physical
design that does not allow the proper reloading of shorter cases. You might want to have a look here: Farmland has posted a picture of the 45-70's
that look remarkably like what I was trying to show above for the 45 Colt.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=380760

[sinclair]

If you've never reloaded 45-70 before, maybe you would like to share in the project of working up some test loads and see where it takes us, if you have the time and desire for it.

Sounds to be fun. Although there is 8 inches of snow outside and its about 16 degrees out there. I presume you mean when sane environmental conditions return ?

"That is a caliber that I am sure I will reload a lot".

And on that topic, here is where we stand. You will have just over 350 Colts ready when we next get together. Plan for enough time to do the finish work. You will finish the last 15 cases for charge and bullet. Plus Four of our prior test load cases to load thru all the steps. Load data will be as follows:
Bullet: Rainier 250 Gr. Plated FP. Powder Unique, 7.3 Gr. Primer - Winchester Large Pistol. COL 1.590 inches.

You told me the Rainier Box you provided was around 400 bullets. It was more than that. After 350 plus reloads you can see by the photo below that you will have 115 left. Plus just over a half keg of Unique, maybe around three quarters just by eyeball. (That was not in the photo - the keg I mean)

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/ColtLoads.jpg

[Colt 45]

Yeah there's no hurry let's wait until the weather is better. Sounds good I'm looking forward to it!

When I get the dies and some bullets I would like to start working on 45 auto as well. That ought to be a challenge!

Max

Sounds to be fun. Although there is 8 inches of snow outside and its about 16 degrees out there. I presume you mean when sane environmental conditions return ?

"That is a caliber that I am sure I will reload a lot".

And on that topic, here is where we stand. You will have just over 350 Colts ready when we next get together. Plan for enough time to do the finish work. You will finish the last 15 cases for charge and bullet. Plus Four of our prior test load cases to load thru all the steps. Load data will be as follows:
Bullet: Rainier 250 Gr. Plated FP. Powder Unique, 7.3 Gr. Primer - Winchester Large Pistol. COL 1.590 inches.

You told me the Rainier Box you provided was around 400 bullets. It was more than that. After 350 plus reloads you can see by the photo below that you will have 115 left. Plus just over a half keg of Unique, maybe around three quarters just by eyeball. (That was not in the photo - the keg I mean)

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/ColtLoads.jpg

[sinclair]

Reloading issue - related to step two, case re-sizing.
Case lube and carbide pistol dies.

Carbide pistol dies, straight wall, are advertised as never needing the case to be lubricated when resizing. For years, I have used these dies without lube and never had a stuck case. So what is the issue here anyway ? I have been reading the experiences and claims of some who say that lubing does have a place with carbide dies. Likewise. I have been reading the experiences of some who seem to think that Redding Imperial Sizing Die Wax is the greatest thing since sliced bread. For those who may not have noticed the Ice Age this year, thus not much good shooting weather for me, why not experiment a little. I have never tried this supposedly magic Imperial Sizing wax, nor have I ever tried lubing pistol cases for carbide dies. So if this stuff is really great, then using it on cases for carbide dies should make some kind of impact, ...or not ?

Turns out I ran across a small tin of this stuff for the monstrous price of $5.89. The only instructions on the tin are: "Use Very Sparingly". That's good, since I am using carbide dies, and if I get too little on, then I know the die wont stick no matter what. Well, they are not kidding about that one instruction. A little goes a long way. I barely touch the wax with forefinger and thumb and I rub it over three cases before re-touching the wax. (45 Auto for this experiment)

Wow ! Just WOW ! The feel of resizing pressure is gone. I have to look to be sure there is a case in the die. There is almost no pressure feel from the press until the de-caper pin hits the spent primer and removes that. Cleanup is easy as well and this stuff wont effect the primer or powder if you don't clean it up. I am impressed, really ! And I am sold. This stuff is so easy to apply, use and clean up, and the press runs almost friction free.

Conclusion: For those who say carbide dies never require case lube, you don't know what you are missing. I am changing my ways with these dies, starting now !

[sinclair]

When I get the dies and some bullets I would like to start working on 45 auto as well. That ought to be a challenge!

You are right. It is a challenge. And an excellent topic. Thanks for the idea.

maybe you would like to share in the project of working up some test loads

The overall idea is to write up the guidelines I use for test loads but not written to specific reloading steps, but for generic reloading practical application. Lets see, need a quick title for a summary. How about the difference between reloading for revolvers versus autos ? Hmmmm...That's probably the better title, but the real difference is actually between autos and non-autos. Except that non-autos is so inclusive that it would allow for a never ending search for the perfect loads. That's a problem because I want to show the "never ending search" part for autos, rather than the other way around. Ok, how about I try to make debateable points and let the reader decide what the title should be ? We will start with a tentative title of "Test Loads" unless a better one shows up.

Most reloading manuals talk to this topic so I have borrowed techniques over the years from many manuals and from other reloaders. I will try to summarize what I do now but the credit for techniques comes from many places. How to organize ? This might require more than one post.

Lets try this:

Test Loads Part 1. Gage checks for assembled ammo, or quality checking your product. (A no muss, no fuss sure way to perform a final inspection or your ammo and have the "factory" confidence that it will be good to go. )

Test Loads Part 2. A post to organize overpressure signs as the thing we are testing to AVOID.

Test Loads Part 3. Preparing test loads for safety checks in the test gun, be it auto or not.

Test Loads Part 4. Once the safe load range for a gun has been verified, then preparing test loads within that range to find the most accurate for that gun.

Well, that doesn't cover everything but it is a start. Feel free to chime in. I can and will adopt practices from others when they feel to be safer than what I use now. (I also think that statement is how to determine if you should be a reloader or not.)

[Grampa]

This is quite a bit of technical writing your taking on Sinclair. I really enjoy your thoroughness and attention to detail in reloading. I promise to try to abstain from my usual wiseacre comments and just appreciate a true craftsman at work.

[sinclair]

This is quite a bit of technical writing your taking on Sinclair. I really enjoy your thoroughness and attention to detail in reloading.
I promise to try to abstain from my usual wiseacre comments and just appreciate a true craftsman at work.

Thank you very much.

I look at it as an extension to an already enjoyable hobby. As to your comments, maybe you should scan back through the posts in here and count
the number of times I have quoted you and used your remarks to spark an idea for comment. As to true craftsman-ship, I think you illustrate that better
than I have. A true craftsman is a person with a craftsman's attitude, no matter the skill level. That attitude is to always improve, never being satisfied
with your current level. When going back through these posts, notice that it is you who most clearly shows what you like and wish to improve.

[Grampa]

:confused: OK, I have no idea how to respond to that, so I won't. You're the professor here Sinclair, the rest of us are just trying to absorb some of the input. I read somewhere that it's cheaper to learn from other's experiences than from your own mistakes, and I've made more than a few. But then, that's part of the fun, isn't it?

[sinclair]

No need to respond, it was a compliment you earned, with the quick reference to back it up. (Smile). I just hope I always remember to give credit to those who so freely give me ideas to write about.

I need to take a couple of pictures and collect some more references for Test Loads Part 1.

On that note, maybe you can input another spark?

While waiting, can you describe for me what you do now when you finish reloads from your press ? I think most reloaders tend to box up their reloads, maybe visually check their ammo while doing so ?

[Grampa]

I visually inspect the round, check the primer for presence and seating depth (just run my thumbnail across it to make sure it's not protruding) and mic the round for col.

[sinclair]

I visually inspect the round, check the primer for presence and seating depth (just run my thumbnail across it to make sure it's not protruding) and mic the round for col.

Excellent. (I will come back to that) After many years of reloading, the "feel" test is great for primers. I can tell by "feel" when they are correct. Most long time reloaders develop this as well. Checking the rounds for COL can be time consuming if you do that for every round. I usually just sample a few, then use the gages on all of them. That's going to be the write up for part one. But before that, I will talk a bit about gages to avoid confusion as to which type of gages I mean.

I will not be talking about shoulder bump gages and issues for rifle ammo. I will probable mention "headspace" while referring to pistol ammo. And also talking to cartridge case gages when referring to SAAMI ammo specs. This is not to be confused with "headspace gages" like the Forster ones which come in three sizes, "go", "no-go", and "Field". These latter gages are for measuring the headspace in your rifle's chamber, where the "go" gage means the chamber is correct, the "no-go" means excessive headspace, and the "field" means that headspace is acceptable but at the very maximum tolerable. What I will be talking to is the pistol "cartridge case gage", and even there, they come in different types.

Back when I first started reloading, I would occasionally get to the range only to find that an occasional reload would not chamber. If that happened during a set of incremental test loads, it could ruin the day. This was most often true of 45 Auto more so than others, but I was not reloading very many calibers then either. My conclusion was that I needed something better than a visual check to catch ammo that just don't fit. It doesn't matter how careful and meticulous you prepare the round, if the ammo packaging is out of spec for your gun, you cannot shoot it safely. My first solution was to remove the barrel from my 1911 (45 Auto) and use the chamber to check all 45's that came out of my reloading press. That is what I mean by using a gage. The chamber of that 45 became a gage to check every round. And all is well and good until you reach the point of multiple calibers and multiple guns for each caliber. Field striping your auto pistols for each reloading session can get painful fast. Now is a good time to thank the folks out there who are making pistol case gages.

I have seen two types of pistol case gages so far. I believe the maximum cartridge gages from Lyman and Wilson are representatives of the gages that are cut to SAAMI maximum cartridge specifications. The Dillon case gages (per Dillon) are cut to the SAAMI minimum chamber specifications. Think about the ever so slight difference there. It means the Dillon gages should be slightly looser than the Lyman or Wilson. But either type of gage will do the job I want done. And that job is to replace my auto pistol barrel being out on the loading bench. By using SAAMI gages, I also expect other advantages over the pistol barrel.

The pistol gage will check my rounds to the industry standard tolerance and gets rid of the barrel's ramp that might miss a section of the case.
The pistol gage is a quick length check for the case and maximum OAL for the bullet seating.
The pistol gage takes the entire cartridge and will check the rim of the case as well.
The pistol gage is fast and exposes the base for "feel" and visual check of the primer with no additional time or effort. (Thanks Grampa, an excellent final check)

Finally, I am writing up the final ammo check first because it is more of a "package" check. No matter how careful the ammo assembly and checks are, the "packaging" can ruin the effort if it does not chamber. The check I use is fast and I use it on every piece of ammo that leaves the press. I am confident enough with the results of checking it all that I do two other things now. I mark all ammo I box up after checks as "quality checked", and I even check factory ammo this way when I occasionally buy it. I am laying out my gages for a photo. I will include one rifle gage just for comparison but I am referring to pistol gages for part one. I EXCLUDE bottle neck pistol cartridges (such as the 357 Sig) from this write up because I avoid them entirely. I also exclude the 40 S&W because I avoid it entirely.

[sinclair]

Test Loads for Pistol, Part One (Pistol Gage Checks)

Test Loads should be the reloaders most careful and closely checked product. The goal is to use that product to verify that the gun to be tested will be safe for the load range desired. Because of this, any negative performance factor other than the test load pressure should be minimized to allow for a high confidence that the pressure will be the primary observation.

To begin the discussion of test load preparation, I will start with the end product rather than the beginning. The reason for this is that no matter how careful we are with the component assembly, the final product is useless if the round does not or will not chamber for firing. The final assembly is so critical to the specifications for the gun chamber that a package assembly problem negates all other efforts to produce the load.

I also believe that final assembly checks that are fast and confidence building can easily be applied to all loads, whether they are test loads or for recreational shooting. If the check is to be fast, then we need some kind of gage to check the package parameters we wish to certify by our own standard. I know of a reloader that claims he can check everything that needs checking with his calipers, and that is all he needs. I certainly will not disagree. But if I can get the same confidence from a less time consuming method, I prefer the time savings.

Now I have a test load leaving the press. What I wish to know is that this load will chamber in the test gun. What if I do not have the test gun, or I am making up the test loads for an unknown firearm ? (say I haven't decided what manufacturer's weapon I want to acquire) The easiest solution I have found so far is the pistol gages. For auto pistols, the gage will check maximum case length (proper headspace on the mouth), proper case size, maximum OAL, and case rim deformation or other diameter problems. For rimmed cases, the check is similar except these cases headspace on the rim. Even so, the entire case, including the rim will enter the gage if the gage SAAMI standard is met. If the case slips in and out of the gage with no resistance, it should chamber in any firearm for that caliber, without a problem. If not, set the round aside for further examination. My experience so far with gage-rejected rounds has been primarily with older (several reloads) 45 auto. As a side note, almost all of these rejects were quickly made usable with a flat file to the rim. Some 1911 style 45 autos are rough on case ejection and ding the rim out of round so a slight touch where the rim is hitting the case gage will drop them right in. And as a side, side note to that, cases with a lot of reloads, at least in my guns, tend to get shorter after multiple firings. When they get short enough, they no longer headspace on the case mouth but seem to headspace on the ejector instead. The 1911 design has a beefy ejector, and when a round is headspacing a bit on it, I suspect this is causing the case to get beat up on ejection.

A case gage could not be easier to use. Drop the round in, "feel" the primer, slip the round out and on to the next. You are doing a visual check as well. Takes longer to write than to do. All of my pistol gages are Dillon simply because Dillon makes them in stainless steel, which I prefer. As noted in the earlier post, there are other good ones out there. Due to the very slight cutting differences, I suspect the slightly tighter gages would give more rejects. I picked the Dillon as the slightly looser cut and because they are stainless.

Time for a photo. The rifle gages have some important differences which I will not be talking to in this post, but I have included a .223 beside my pistol gages for comparison. In the photo, notice that there are two cases (44 Mag and 357 Mag) that I am using to simulate rejected, rimmed rounds. They in fact do fit the gage but when placed on a flat surface, they protrude, simulating a "fail to fit". (These two are not reject rounds, since they are intentionally exceeding OAL and the flat surface is what makes them protrude. They were loaded and seated further out in tune with Contender barrel rifling where overall cartridge length would necessarily be exceeded.)

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/casegages.JPG

view larger image
http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/casegages.JPG

[sinclair]

Test Loads Part 2. Testing for safe load range and overpressure indicators

After looking around, I have to say I have had a real surprise for this section. Over the years, I have always tested loads for just about any firearm I could get close to. I always thought I had a handle on what to test for and what would be a danger sign. Can you imagine my surprise at discovering how wrong I have been ? Not so much for rifle but certainly for pistols. The procedures I adhere to are still good, but not for the reason I used to believe. So I start this section with a controversy with regards to the pistol ammo.

There are no "reliable" indicators for overpressure loads in pistols because there are overpressure loads that provide no indication whatsoever, and over time can lead to a catastrophic failure through metal fatigue. Without exception, every indicator I used to think was definative has turned out to have several exceptions that are not pressure related. Even the classic revolver indicator of "hard to extract" can be caused by dirty chambers, even if the gun was clean. Many properly assembled test loads usually start low (at least 10 percent below max pressure), and those loads can show "low pressure" signs such as extruded (but not flattened) primers and powder burns around the top of the case. If the powder is not clean burning, the low pressure can be getting the gun far more dirty than normal, and before the high pressure test loads are reached.

Rifle pressure levels are on the order of double the typical pistol pressure levels, and sometimes well into the range of elastic brass flow. I still believe the classic high pressure signs for rifle have direct utility, but in order to see these in pistol test loads, you will have already passed the maximum allowable pressure from the SAAMI standard. The place to start for overpressure indicators is with rifles. And the best reference I have found there is by "unclenick". It is a long read but well worth the time. He covers other possibilities that can cause overpressure signs as well.

Sample of rifle pressure signs from Scotty at

http://accurateshooter.wordpress.com

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/pressurescotty.JPG

unclenick's pressure reference - excellent postings

http://www.shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=58763

For pistols, where does that leave me ? Fortunately, I believe in the procedures I use. Here they are.

a. I select the test load range from the Lyman manuals. I check the start and max loads against at least two other sources.

b. I do not start below the minimum load listed and I do not go beyond the max listed. I am not into "hot" loads and experimentation. I leave that for others.

c. I carefully examine each test load after firing before proceeding to the next higher test level.

d. I keep records of the components used, and the test load parameters, and results. I use once-fired brass for test loading wherever possible.

I believe these procedures are very good because of step b. I used to believe it was because of step c, but I was looking mostly for high pressure rifle signs. If there are no RELIABLE pistol signs, I have been looking for the wrong things, and I would be in trouble if any of the serious rifle indicators showed up. At best,I might see primer flattening, hard case extraction, particularly in revolvers, bulged case heads in some autos, and if enough loads are tested, maybe battering of the recoil system/recoil buffer if applicable, but that takes time to accumulate. Recoil is subjective but if it seems more severe than similar factory loads, stop shooting them. Be alert for anything out of the ordinary, and use common sense and good judgement. If something does not seem right, it probably isn't.

Have I ever detected overpressure in a handgun using these procedures? I think so. It was a Rossi snub nose revolver in 38 special. A friend had asked me to see if I could load something that would be easy to extract. He said all the factory ammo he had fired in it had to be punched out of the cylinder. I was barely above the start load range when I found the same problem. Also, the rounds, once extracted, would not go back into the cylinder.

With only one exception which I will not cover here, I do not load + P ammunition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpressure_ammunition

For those who buy factory + P ammo, you should carefully test it provided the gun manual recommends it. Otherwise don't buy it.
For those who buy + P + ammo, I think you are nuts and would prefer you do not shoot next to me at the range, with only one exception. John Linebaugh is always welcome.

John Linebaugh on heavy loads for SA revolvers

http://www.foxwebdesigns.com/Area51/JLSixGun/articles/gunnotes.html#bullet

If this post makes you nervous, I think that I have made my point.

[sinclair]

Test Loads Part 3. Preparing test loads for safety checks in the Revolver

Yes, I had to break part three up into two sections, Revolver and Automatic.

It is time to get a little specific to write this section. Technically, any time you change major components, or make a major measurement change to your components (such as OAL), you should work up your loads - load testing - again. In this case, we will select components for the load test and are casting the components in concrete. Ergo, mass loading based upon these tests will be done using the same components and dimensions.

Revolver test loading example:

Our first test will be for a revolver and we will choose "one of the most successful handgun cartridges ever". The 38 special was designed by Smith and Wesson and introduced in 1902. From its introduction and into the 1980's, it has been a popular police service cartridge and has seen military service as well. The current ANSI/SAAMI pistol pressure specification for this cartridge is 17,000 psi (max average pressure) and 18,500 for the 38 special + P. Our testing will not exceed the basic pressure (no + P loads).

First, lets select our major components. Once fired cases, boxer primed brass or nickel plated brass, preferably from the same lot, or at least same manufacturer. Small pistol primers, I prefer CCI 500 (We will source load data from the Lyman 49th edition, page 353, which favors CCI thus we have a better probability of duplicating their results). I really like 125 grain JHP's for the 357 mag so I tend to have a quantity laying around. Unfortunately, these tend to need some healthy velocity to expand properly so that will be one criteria for selecting the powder. The other criteria is a powder with a good working range between the start and the full pressure load. In this example, here is what I am looking for: There are five + P loads listed for this bullet and thus a spread of five laboratory velocities. (Test gun was 4 " barrel.) Several powders shown can reach the velocity spread range of the + P loads without exceeding standard pressure. Apology, can't resist, but when ever I see this I can't help asking what + P loads are supposed to accomplish, besides additional wear on the gun? Now examine the weight range from start to max for each of those powders that can enter the + P load velocity range. I was going to suggest the widest range but I just saw Unique listed with a great even number range of 4.0 grains to 6.0 grains max. And at the max load (non + P) it will deliver a velocity in the middle of the + P load velocity spread range. The moral is that we want this bullet as fast as we can without exceeding the standard pressure. If we can get this thing up to a + P velocity level without the + P pressure, seems to me that is like having your cake and eating it too ? But I have digressed. Our last major component is the powder : Unique.

Now, lets check the Lyman load range against other sources we trust. I have been unable to reach the Alliant reloading site all evening, which would be my first choice since they currently manufacture Unique powder. The next choice would be the reloading data from the bullet manufacturer (Sierra) in this case. Ooops, haven't been there in a while, and now they are "pay to play". Apology, folks, but I aint gonna pay to write this short article. But as long as I am doing extra lookups, I may as well show you what you are likely to run into when checking multiple sources. Lyman says 4.0 start load and 6.0 grains for maximum load, unique powder. Here is a typical reference that lists only ONE weight which they call maximum.

38 spl 125 grain JHP using unique powder listing 5.3 grains as maximum load.

http://www.reloadammo.com/38loads.htm

38 spl 125 grain JHP using unique powder listing start as 4.0 grains and maximum as 7.0 grains.

http://stevespages.com/357p_7_125.html

So what's the deal here anyway ? One reference is well under our chosen source and the other is way above it. A good read and close examination of the first link reveals that the source is posting safe loads (safety margin) but without pressure test data. That is the safe way to do it. The second reference makes me a bit uncomfortable. Looking at the site and the data leaves me with the impression that the author pushes the safety margin far more than I care for. Here is a quote:
"I thought it was really neat to fire five rounds, and then have the barrel so hot that you couldn't lay a hand on it. This was the true indication of a really "hot load"! Then I found out about barrel erosion, throat erosion, barrel wear, and how much it cost to replace the barrel on a rifle. It was about the same time that I found out that even a Colt Government model could only take so much of a beating before yelling for help!"
The real decider for me was to note that he is using CCI 550 (small pistol MAGNUM primers) in all his 38 special load data. His load data definately exceeds our pressure limitations and is well into the + P range, even though he has no pressure data. If we discard this reference check, we still need a second to back up Lyman. Looks like the Alliant site is back up now, good timing. Lets use it.

Alliant Reloaders guide (Same OAL I selected below of 1.440, same primer, only one load listed, 5.7 grains unique, so we will increment up one tenth grain at a time from 5.7 to the max listed in Lyman.)

http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/default.aspx

The bullet we selected has a channelure for roll crimp into the bullet. The OAL of our loads will be selected by roll crimping into the center of this channelure. That's what it is for. Never roll crimp into the solid jacket, as this will deform the bullet. One exception I am aware of is copper plated bullets such as Berry's or Rainier. These have a soft lead core and usually lack the channelure. You can roll crimp into these but not excessively, as the plating can easily be cut and damaged. As for assembling our test loads, we carefully clean, resize/de-cap, prime the case, hand weigh every charge with a known (calibrated scale) accurate scale. We seat the bullet and adjust the crimp correctly and will have an OAL of approx 1.440. This OAL may vary, depending on which type of 125 grain JHP is used. Lyman says 1.470 but I have never tried the Hornady version so my Sierra's are shorter or the channelure is located differently. Here are the weights I selected. One round each at 4.0 grains, 4.5 grains, 4.8 grains, 5.0 grains, 5.3 grains, 5.5 grains, 5.7 grains, 5.8 grains, 5.9 grains, and 6.0 grains.

So, are we ready to shoot ? Before we start, lets think about what we are going to do and what the dangers should or should not be. Primarily, we are NOT intending to shoot loads above the ANSI/SAAMI maximum average pressure. Lets try to understand what that does for us. It gives us a safety margin that should be there for any firearm, with the possible exception of antique guns of questionable condition. That is too easy to say but better seen with a little chart. Back to SAAMI standards and we have this:

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/specialpressure.JPG

I have included the original design weight bullet (158 gr) for the 38 special in the chart, mainly to show that velocities will vary but the Pressure Standard does not. I am assuming that our test revolver is an unknown firearm. Even so, if it was manufactured in the US, it has been proof tested between the pressure range in the chart. Since we are confident that our test loads are all either below the SAAMI max or equal to it, note that our safety margin for this test series is close to 50 percent. That is why I avoid + P loads or other experimentation. Opps. Forgot. If the unknown firearm was not made in the US, it has been tested but to a different standard. Seems the rest of the world uses the Commission Internationale Permanete (CIP) standards for ammunition.

[sinclair]

Test Loads Part 3. Preparing test loads for safety checks in the Automatic Pistol

I think the best way to open this post is to talk about the difference we will encounter when we start loading for an automatic versus a revolver. Stay with me here, this is much simpler than it sounds. Speaking generically, when we fire a revolver, the first thing that happens is we "pre-cycle" the round to be fired. The act of cocking the revolver (SA) or pulling the trigger (DA) mechanically rotates the cylinder to a new round position. The energy to cycle a new round is provided by the shooter. With an automatic, only the first round fired, assuming you have one in the chamber, has been "pre-cycled". Whatever you did (rack the slide, etc.) was the shooter providing the energy to pre-cycle the first round. With every subsequent round in the magazine, the previous round fired has to provide the proper recoil energy to "post-cycle" the next round. This will naturally complicate our test loads for automatics. We now have multiple test objectives. Just like the revolver tests, we need to be sure the test load is safe in the pistol. We also need to check the test loads for proper recoil to cycle the pistol. My choice of wording is talking to "blow-back" designs rather than the gas cycled automatics. Test loading for the gas-guns would be another topic (and yes, they are more of a challenge).

Just like the revolver, we will prepare a range of test loads for the automatic to verify the gun is safe through the load range. But unlike the revolver, we will have to use duplicate test rounds in order to check the proper cycle of the automatic. Notice that whatever we loaded for the revolver will test without additional rounds necessary, but the automatic may not "like" certain weight load ranges as far as the recoil/cycle goes. The primary cycle function of the automatic will depend mostly on bullet weight, then on the powder burn rate, then the powder charge. Notice I said nothing about the recoil springs of the pistol, nor the weight of the slide. There are a lot of methods to approach loading for automatics and I will not critique other methods. The method I am talking to is the one that works for me. I intend to tune the bullet to the pistol, as it comes out of the box. I am not going to customize the pistol with custom springs and so on. Even if I did that, my method would start all over as the pistol becomes a new (different) firearm.

Before selecting components, there are some things I anticipate and need to watch for. I expect the heavier bullet weights to give me more of the test load range available to properly cycle the automatic. I expect the faster burning (pistol) powders to be best for light recoil springs and slide weights. Stiffer springs and heavier slide weights should function best with the medium to slower (pistol) powders. Likewise, lighter bullets should perform well with light recoil springs and slide weights; stiffer springs and heavier slide weights should function best with the heavy bullets. If you have not had much experience loading for automatics, this is a very general pointer to avoid multiple testing. Time for a story. I once had an opportunity to load 9mm for a Cobray M-11. I tested loads for 125 grain Ball ammo with the powder being "Bullseye". The gun would only cycle in the top quarter of the test load range. I was pleased, never mind that there was almost no cycle load range left for accuracy development. In that same time frame (long ago) I decided to tackle loading for an Uzi Carbine. Attempting to repeat the first success, I quickly found that "Bullseye" would not cycle the Carbine even at the max load. Changing to Unique powder (slower than Bullseye) allowed the carbine to begin cycling in the top quarter of the test range. In this example, the bullet weights were not changed, only the powder burn rate. In both guns, a successful bullet/powder combination was found to cycle the action reliably. In Part Four of this series, we will talk about why these two combinations were not satisfactory for accuracy testing.

Once again, we select a "classic" to test loads for. John Browning chambered his masterpiece, the Model 1911 pistol in 45 ACP and the legend was born. Although replaced by the 9mm Beretta in 1985, the 45 ACP continues its military service with Special Operations units even today. Next year, it will reach its centennial mark for military service. Can you name any other that has done this ?

Time to select our major components for test loading the 45 ACP. Even though many 1911 pattern pistols have a reputation of not functioning well with anything other than round nose bullets, we will check for this as well by selecting a hollow point design. Page 380 and 381 of the Lyman 49th edition, we will be using Hornady 185 grain JHP, same as Lyman so we expect the same OAL of 1.175 ". I am out of CC! 300 primers but acquired a carton of Winchester Large Pistol primers last week at Dave's Gun Shop. After doing load tests for the 45 Colt with Max a while back, we used both CCI 300 and Winchester Large Pistol with nearly equal results in revolvers. So my purpose for these test loads will be to compare the performance of all components of a previous test with the same loads except for the Primer difference in the automatic. In the previous test, I used Unique (again) and CCI 300 primers. The bullets we have chosen have no channelure because we cannot use a roll crimp. The 45 ACP headspaces on the case mouth. Repeat, never roll crimp a case that headspaces on the mouth. NEVER. We will use a very light touch with a taper-crimp die instead, mainly to assure full removal of the case mouth "belling" which allows for easy bullet seating.

The Lyman Load range is 4.8 grains start to 7.8 grains max for Unique. (185 grain JHP). Since we are using a Hornady bullet, their reloading manual would be a useful reference check, except they do not list Unique powder with this bullet. In their place I will use loaddata.com, but not giving a link because it is pay to play. Loaddata.com lists this bullet from 6.1 grains to 8.2 grains, but longer COL and higher max pressure. It is therefore a good check with Lyman. Using the Alliant link in the revolver portion above, we find only the max load with 185 grain speer bullets and Unique at 8.2 grains. The speer bullet they used gave a OAL of 1.200". If we wished to test loads beyond the maximum listed in Lyman (7.8 grains) we would incriment up one tenth grain at a time to the maximum of 8.2 grains from our other references. The reason I will not be doing that is because this is a test with prior knowledge. The earlier test with CCI primers led me to believe there was a harsh recoil situation at the 7.8 grains Lyman max. The gun being re-tested will be a Colt Combat Elite 45 Auto. The manual for this gun does NOT recommend + P loads. Selecting the test loads will be as follows. One round each of all the following powder weights. 4.8 gr, 5.0 gr, 5.5 gr, 6.0 gr, 6.3 gr, 6.5 gr, 6.8 gr, 7.0 gr, 7.3 gr, 7.6 gr, 7.7 gr, and 7.8 gr. We will make duplicate rounds (a second round) for all weights starting at 6.0 gr. and up. This makes use of prior test knowledge. With the CCI primers, this gun would not cycle below a powder weight of 6.0 gr. I do not expect the Winchester primers to have any noticable change to the cycle point. (While different primers might alter peak pressure and bullet velocity, recoil energy is the sum total effect, a different animal) Here is what I expect to confirm. The first three charge test weights will not eject the empty case although the 5.5 gr charge may stove pipe the case. I expect the remaining charge weights, with their duplicates, will cycle properly. Somewhere around the final three charge weights, I expect to notice a change to the recoil which is hard for me to describe but I believe this is where the gun will start to tell me it really would like a shock buffer on the recoil spring.

Safety note. If any of the duplicate rounds results in a feed jam (probable ram-force seating the bullet deeper), make note of it and remove the round for later downloading and component salvage. Never fire a test round
that may have been seated deeper than you originally wanted. As far as that goes, you should make that a practice with factory ammo as well.

And on the topic of safety, lets look at another chart to check our safety margin for this test series.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/pressure45.JPG

I have included the standard 230 grain military load in the chart for comparison.

[sinclair]

Test Loads Part 4, finding the most accurate load for your gun, Revolver portion.

Yes, once part three was split into two parts, it is only logical to maintain the split for part four. This time around, lets talk about a disadvantage that the revolver has but the automatic does not. An automatic pistol has a single chamber. (There are always exceptions but I am not talking to those.) The revolver has as many chambers as the cylinder had been machined with, historically, six, but these days 5 is becoming common in the pocket pistols and I have seen as many as twelve in 22 caliber rimfire revolvers. Technically, during our load testing in Part Three, we should have fired a test round in each of the Revolver's chambers to be sure of the safety of our loads. The reason I did not is because it is an effort that coincides with the accuracy testing I will be advocating in this write up. Like the load testing, the accuracy testing will be throughout the safe load range starting with the lower charges and incrementing the charge weights up but this time with all the chambers in the cylinder loaded with test loads. And if you think about that and what we covered in Part three, we see an immediate advantage the revolver has over the automatic. The revolver does not need proper recoil pressures to cycle to the next round, thus the ENTIRE load range is available to us for accuracy testing.

What do we want to accomplish with accuracy testing ? Personally, I want to find the best load for our test range that will allow the gun to perform at its proper potential. I prefer to thus tune the LOAD to the GUN. Sure, adjustable sights are nice and allow for variations in the ammo. But what about "fixed" sights ? Many classic revolvers and their clones have fixed sights. Even my latest acquisition, a Ruger New Vaquero, has fixed sights. I do not wish to set or file fixed sights without very good reason. So far, I have never had to. Proper accuracy testing should allow me to match a load to the sights, so to speak. It does mean I have to do my part of the equation, which means using a pistol rest so I can most likely evaluate the ammo and not my own shooting ability, or lack thereof. If we want to be statistically valid we can use a student "T" distribution and with enough samples, can compute a confidence level. But being a bit lazy in some areas, I am not inclined to prepare that many test loads. You can achieve a "ballpark" level of confidence with five or six samples, even with the T distribution. That's good enough for me. I like loading and shooting but I do not enjoy keeping test loads properly sorted and organized in any large quantity. It is a means to an end which, if limited, can still be fun without the pain of needing a tackle box to keep them sorted. That reminds me of another thing I am not going to worry about. In the first paragraph above, we looked at the multiple chambers of a revolver. While it is possible that each chamber may suffer slightly different alignment with the barrel, I do not mark the cylinder or worry about which chamber goes where. If the gun has been made well, the alignment errors with modern revolvers are so well handled by the cylinder timing that they tend to be much smaller than the error induced by the shooter's grip physics. In the unlikely circumstance of a problem like that showing up, neither the ammo nor the shooter will be able to fix it. Have the timing repaired by a good gunsmith.

THIS PARAGRAPH IS NOT FOR RELOADERS BUT FOR THE AVERAGE GUN OWNER

I will start with the purchase of a new gun. I go shooting. The gun does not seem to be the performer I had hoped. I try different ammo. Eventually, if I am persistent, I find an ammo brand the gun seems to like best. For the revolver, that means most accurate. You can spend a lot of time and money doing this because although you are changing your loads until you find a good match to the gun, the only control you have is to buy a different type of ammo. A reloader can shorten this process greatly because he knows specifically what is changing and is fine tuning that change as his means of control.

Why is this so ?

I am going to quote Unclenick from the FiringLineForum because I have never seen it so clearly explained as he has done.

The heavier bullets recoil more, but go slower, for any given powder charge. They spend more time in the barrel while it is recoiling upward. Thus, they exit at higher angles of barrel elevation than lighter weight bullets over the same powder charge. Increased powder charge also causes more recoil, but it also speeds the bullet up, so it exits the barrel sooner. The net result is that the angle of barrel elevation at bullet exit is changed relatively modestly by the charge increase. That's why bullet weight, rather than charge, affects short range (up to 25 yards or so) pistol point of impact (POI) most. Rifles don't always follow this rule because barrel whipping can sometimes overwhelm recoil elevation in them. But for the shorter barrels in most pistols, this rule seems to hold.

How much effect there is on POI depends on both range and that final angle of barrel elevation. A light gun or a gun with a barrel line high above the grip frame will elevate more in recoil than a heavier gun or than a gun with a lower barrel line. It's just the vector physics of the recoil direction and the mass inertia involved.

A friend of mine got a Ruger Alaskan in the .454 Casull cartridge. That cartridge elevated the muzzle of that 2.5" gun so much that the rear sight could not be set low enough to avoid a high POI with 300 grain bullets. The frame and rear sight want a longer, heavier barrel. I think we were about a foot high 10 yards. A bit too much for best comfort, so a taller front sight insert was needed.

Where this POI issue could make a difference in SD shooting would be in employing the Mozambique drill or other emergency head shot practice. For center of mass hits, it shouldn't be a problem at the usual distances. I've often set or filed sights to be close to spot on with a somewhat light bullet, then used a 6:00 hold on a paper bullseye with heavier bullets. 200 and 240 grain bullets in .44 Special in my 3" Bulldog, for example. Just as long as I know where the bullet hits, I'm OK.

Despite the short distances normal for SD, Gunsite taught us that you keep the range as long as you possibly can in a gunfight because you are the better trained shot. No point in spotting the BG an equalizing factor if you don't have to. There's not a lot to choose at mugging range, but in clearing your house after hearing a bump in the night, you have some choice in the vantage point you look into a room from. I find accuracy capability beyond what is required also offers a psychological advantage. Excessive precision may not help, but it doesn't hurt anything. The reverse isn't always true.

Thanks, Unclenick. The only place we have a slight disagreement is that I am not going to file my sights down for any bullet. I am going to use the load range to adjust the POI. Now, recalling from the Revolver part three post, we successfully tested a load for the 38 special with the intent to get high velocity for a hollow point bullet. If you want bullet expansion over accuracy, then we achieved that with a + P velocity without the + P pressure. My own goal would be to look for the best accuracy in the upper velocity range. I would prepare six (for the revolvers I typically like) rounds each at 5.5 gr., 5.6 gr., 5.7 gr., 5.8 gr., 5.9 gr., and 6.0 gr. Comparing the result of firing each group from a rest, I would select the best group and thus the charge weight for mass loading of that bullet for the gun. If I ever wanted light recoil plinkers, or milder loads than the full charge, a similar load test will usually find very accurate loads for any portion of the load range we tested. I tend to divide the load range in quarters for such testing. With a very wide load range such as the one we used in Part three, it has been my experience that suitably accurate loads can be found throughout the load range.

[sinclair]

Test Loads Part 4, finding the most accurate load for your gun, semi-auto portion.

To contrast this section with the revolver, lets reverse the problem discussion to talk about the disadvantage the semi-auto faces against the revolver. The revolver can function on most any ammo that will exit the barrel, since the ammo feeding technique is powered manually by the shooter. The semi-auto cannot function properly unless the ammo not only exits the barrel cleanly, but must provide adequate cycle energy to operate the semi-auto when the bullet is fired. This constraint potentially overrides the desire for accuracy. It simply does not matter how accurate the semi-auto can fire an ammo sample if that ammo sample cannot properly cycle the semi-auto. The reliability of a semi-auto is paramount to its usefulness. If it cannot cycle properly, it becomes a single shot firearm and thus has lost its claim to fame. The problem with finding an accurate load for a semi-auto is then subordinate to the problem of getting the semi-auto to function reliably. What this means for those who really are seeking the best accuracy is that the useful load range will be significantly reduced from the available testing range. And our first criteria must be proper cycling before we even look at accuracy.

In part three for the semi-auto above, we talked about finding a cycle range for two guns that would function well but left very little test range available for finding the most accurate load. The reason I believe that is so has to do with the cycle range itself. If the cycle range is very limited, it has been my experience that selecting the center of the cycle range places the cycle performance of the semi to its best advantage. Drop the cycle range to the lower edge and stovepipe ejection jams start to show up. Move to the upper end of the range and fail-to-feed jams start to show up. Change the gun, like replacing the springs and you start all over again.

When I selected the components for testing in the part three semi portion above, I made use of prior knowledge and experience more so than I alluded to. The given example for the 45 ACP and charge weights listed provide a wide enough cycle range to allow the example gun to be tested for accuracy as well as proper function. It did not just happen. It resulted from testing many component combinations (particularly the powder) to find one that would grant a sufficiently wide cycle range to search for accuracy as well. In the given example, I loaded five rounds for each bullet weight from 6.0 gr, up to 7.5 gr. Note that I did not go beyond 7.5 gr. for the reason I discussed in part three. What I found was two charge weights that gave distinctly more accurate results than the other weights. These were 6.8 gr. and 7.0 gr. Over the years, I have mass loaded many rounds at both charge weights and I STILL cannot tell the difference in their accuracy.

This is where the "never-ending" search for accuracy comes in for semi's. To beat the accuracy found here would require searching for another combination of components that would give me as wide or wider cycle range to test from. As it is, I already have a problem with the example I used. All of the load development and accuracy testing was done with an old powder supply of unique powder. I am now out of the Hercules Unique powder. The new Unique powder is now Alliant Unique, which has been greatly changed. While it supposedly duplicates the performance of the old Hercules Unique powder, it is cleaner burning, which suggests to me that I should expect changes from my historical efforts. Thus, I will check this season using my notes here and with the Alliant Unique powder.

I want to wrap up this section by discussing another problem with loading for a semi-auto. I picked the 45 ACP as an example for very good reasons. I knew I could find a wide cycle range for accuracy testing with that cartridge a lot easier than can be done with the smaller semi-auto case designs. To show why, lets take a quick look at the 380 auto case. This is the smallest case I will ever load for, and will probably be my greatest challenge to find an accurate load. The Lyman manual shows a start load using Titegroup Powder (90 gr bullet) of 2.4 gr at 13,000 CUP and a maximum load of 2.7 gr. at 15,600 CUP. Lets suppose that I find the gun I test will only properly cycle in the top quarter of the safe load range. That would mean a load range of a single charge weight, 2.7 gr. How to break that range up for accuracy testing given available reloading equipment ? If you follow my logic, then you see the point here. This season I will be searching for a powder that grants me a cycle range with enough of a charge weight range to allow the search for an accurate 380 auto load. To try and do that with even smaller cases is not a reasonable proposition so I will never go there.

This concludes the series on Test Loads for Pistol.

Grampa, any comments or something you think I left out ?

[sinclair]

After some additional testing this summer, and with no further feedback from Grampa, it would seem appropriate to add an additional post to the test loads section. I will itemize the test objectives I wish to try in one trip to the range.

First of all, I have a large number of light-weight bullets for the 45 LC (212 gr Penn Cast) which exceeds what I will likely shoot in that caliber. They are the same diameter as the 45 ACP. How about developing load data for that bullet in both calibers ?

Second, I have been reading about how competitive shooters of late are beginning to use Brass Jacketed (versus copper jacketed) bullets for better accuracy. Brass being about twice the Brinell hardness of copper is a consideration here. Remington now markets their Golden Sabers in several handgun calibers, which are brass jacketed bullets. I would like to try some of these.

Third, even though the primer shortage has abated somewhat from last year, I still have not yet been able to fully replace my supply of Large Pistol in the CCI 300s. After working with Max on his 45 LC's with Winchester Large pistol primers, I have recently procured a supply of these until the CCI's are available and would like to do comparative testing between the Winchester and the CCI large pistol, besides what we have already done with 45 LC.

Fourth, is it possible to get some idea of the difference between the "old" Unique (Hercules) versus the "new" Unique (Alliant) ?

The first test objective will make use of the practices discussed earlier but with some safety considerations. The Penn cast bullets have a crimping channelure which seats the bullet rather deep into the 45 LC case. This is not a pressure concern for the 45 LC because the bullet is very light for the caliber, which normally shoots 250 gr bullets. However, my instincts tell me that this seating depth would be too deep for a 45 Auto case as it would likely result in the tendency for a taper crimp to begin roll crimping into the channelure which would risk altering the case mouth seating of the 45 ACP. Also the closest lead bullets to this one I can find all show seating depths less than the relative depth in the 45 LC case. I chose a seating depth of 1.210 in the ACP as this is far enough away from the channelure to prevent the taper crimp from forcing the bullet into the channelure with any roll crimp type force and matches the depth of a similar weight cast bullet for the ACP. Based upon prior cast lead testing, I will not test the entire range, but have selected the range I suspect will contain the most accurate powder weight. Load weights using Alliant Unique will be 6.0 gr, 6.3 gr, 6.5 gr, 6.8 gr, 7.0 gr, and 7.2 gr. To allow for our third test objective, each load weight will be done twice, once with a Winchester LP Primer, and once with a CCI 300 primer.

For the second test objective, I have obtained some 45 caliber 185 gr. brass jacketed hollow points, made by Montana Gold. As you can see from their web site below, they do not currently list recommended load data for their bullets.

http://www.montanagoldbullet.com/

After reviewing many comments by those who are shooting these, the consensus is that they are being loaded using copper jacketed data. And recalling from our testing above, we used a 185 gr copper jacketed Hornady for testing. After checking dimensions, the Montana Gold are very very similar to the Hornadys already tested. Still, I personally have never tried the brass jacketed and I always prefer an additional safety margin where possible. So the best way to do that with prior test knowledge (The 185 gr copper jacketed hornadys). We tested those in part three - semi-auto above at a COL of 1.175. Our additional safety margin will be to extend the COL (slight pressure reduction) to 1.185 and based upon the prior knowledge of how the Hornady's performed, we will examine an abbreviated weight range as follows for Alliant Unique. Using 5.5 gr, 5.8 gr, 6.0 gr, 6.3 gr, 6.5 gr, 6.8 gr, 7.0 gr, and 7.3 gr. Again, there will be two loads in each weight range, one using Winchester LP primers and one using CCI 300 primers.

The third objective, to compare the performance of Winchester LP's to that of the CCI 300's in 45 ACP has been covered in the first two objectives by setting up each test with load duplicates except for the primer difference.

The fourth objective turned out to be the most interesting and perhaps very controversial. I think I pulled it off but my assumptions and observations certainly involve concepts beyond my expertise level. It could also involve a patent idea that I will split out in a separate post and throw it out for anyone who wants to try something like that.

Special Note: In reviewing the test load posts, it would seem I left out the technique I use to verify proper functioning in a semi-auto. It is different for the different styles of semi's, but in the case of the 1911 style, the last round fired, slide remains fully open is what I use for a single round test. The test round is the ONLY round in the magazine. This round has to properly and fully eject, leaving the slide properly locked back and open for the next magazine with its only test round. When you get to the accuracy testing, that is when you add the multi round testing for proper function with a full magazine. As I have said many times, if you have an alternate technique, I am all ears and would love to hear it.

Time for a photo. The test results were obtained at Dry Canyon on 2 July, 2010. Test gun was a Colt Combat Elite. In the next post I will show how I log the results.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/multitesting.JPG

click below to enlarge the image

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/multitesting.JPG

[Descreet38]

Reloading Issue - Related to step 6 - case recharging
Response to request from Grampa

Title: Paranoid about powder

After case mouth expansion, I remove all cases (usually in lots of 50 at a time) to a separate bench where I manually dispense powder into the weigh scale one case at a time. Every case is hand-weighed and hand filled. After this, each lot of cases are positioned for inspection and all 50 cases have to look like clones of each other.

I have one friend who takes it many steps further.

1. weighs and sorts every case, bullet and primer to the 1/10 of a grain.
2. Loads powder with his Dillon 550 and 650 powder measure.
3. Weighs each completed round to see if he is + or - 1/10 grain of what it is supposed to be by adding up the case + bullet + primer weight then adding the powder drop to come up with the exact weight each completed round should weigh.

Due to all of his prep time it takes him about 20 - 30 times longer to load a box of 50 than it takes me on the same equipment. In 30 + years of loading (knock on wood) I have never had a squib or a ka-boom. In that same 30+ years I average loading about 6,500 - 10,000 rounds per month in 19 calibers but mostly in pistol.

my methodology is to set up accurately and then
1. dump and weigh charge for the first 10 rounds. If that goes well +or- 1/10 grain then I -
2. dump and weigh the 50th round and then every 100th round (unless I find my measure out of the = or - 1/10 grain

[sinclair]

Descreet38

I was wondering when you would come in here to share some of your experience. Your "friend" sure sounds like a dedicated Bench Rest shooter. I used to hang out with some of those crazy ones. And I adopted some of their practices, like weighing the cases to assure consistent volume. I said as much in the first post, at the top of page two. But these days I only go to such extremes for my hunting rounds (rifle cases). Although I would never critique their methods, I do think they are crazy but I have to admit they are the only folks I have ever seen able to consistently put their shot strings into a single, ragged hole at 200 yards. I will challenge your memory on the friends point number three. The way you worded it makes the practice mathematically unsafe and is not what I remember those guys would do. Read your point number three carefully and you will see that you imply the final weight appears to be adjusted with the powder, never mind that the components (case and bullets) are orders of magnitude greater. If these guys were really doing that, there is a good probability they will have a squib or overcharge as the result of a scale error. I bet if you really look at what your friend is doing you will find that he (they - BR shooters) do weigh all components including powder and then total the weight. They do not use the powder to adjust the total weight. But they select only those rounds within a statistical range of the total weight as competition rounds and those outside the range are for practice. I suspect that is what your friend is really doing in step three.

If you ever get a chance, it is worth the time to watch those guys. They tend to show up at the range with a copious amount of neat equipment. From concentricity checks to micrometer bullet seaters. The best one I remember was a guy who would walk out on the range and twirl a wet-bulb thermometer set to get his relative humidity measurement, then go and do some calculations and somehow derive the final weight for his powder. Using the neatest mini-reloader I have ever seen, he would assemble his ammo just before he began firing. And before you laugh, yes, he was one of those that would put all his shots into the same hole. All in all, the BR shooters tend to use a lot of statistical approaches to reloading.

Which brings me to your own methodology. You are also using a statistical approach to your powder charging. Which leads me to surmise some things due to the quantity you are reloading. I would surmise that in order to load those quantities, you would depend on tried and proven recipes, very infrequent equipment changes or modifications, and very similar components and powders. Particularly powders that meter well. The powders I most like to use tend to meter poorly, and that's in Dillon powder measures. (The IMR "lincoln-log" rifle powders for example). I have never found a way to get IMR 4895 to meter reliably to plus/minus half a grain, much less a tenth of a grain. Since I have found this powder to be magnificent for load developing in many gas-guns, I do away with the powder measure (except for pistol case mouth expansion) entirely and have never looked back. Once I got in the habit of hand weighing every charge, it was easy to extend that to everything. It also avoids needing a statistical approach to the case charging process. Thus, I further surmise that you only use powders that meter well, and that you have a safety buffer by not using maximum charges. And finally, to have the safety record you do, your concentration while reloading is exemplary, or you never suffer interruptions. The evidence for the prior statement is your description of the lighting modification to the Dillon you once posted somewhere on the forum. This last point could be very important for re-loaders wishing to do progressive reloading. Most of the progressive reloading errors I have read about are caused by some form of losing concentration or interruptions that inadvertently cause steps to be repeated without awareness. Seems to me that you could really give some safety tips to future progressive re-loaders.

I even have a title for you

Avoiding Condition White on a Progressive Re-loader

[Grampa]

Ok, Mr. Sinclair, I'm back on the net and it looks like I've got a lot of reading to do. :)

[sinclair]

Welcome back, Grampa. I figured you had a computer issue or access issue the way you disappeared back in April/May.

Take your time on the reading as I asked and would appreciate your feedback at the above conclusion of the Test Loads Series.

Meanwhile, I hope Descreet38 is considering the suggestion to add Progressive tips to the Guide here. He has the qualifications and safety record to be a very credible source, which I lack because I do not load in a progressive manner.

[Grampa]

OK, I have a few minutes here, after finally getting through all that (I had to read it a few times to make sure I got it all in). Do you find the most accurate combination then measure velocity? Or have you found the velocity your pistol/revolver tends to prefer by bullet weight, build up to past where you think that should be, then chronograph it to check? I've found that I will work up to a sweet spot accuracy wise, then it will fall off a little as I go a tenth of a grain or two more. Right now I'm playing with keeping that sweet spot but trying to get the softest shooter with the cleanest burn. Am also playing with different bullet weights. Isn't this stuff fun? :)

[Grampa]

OK, let me put that in another way. For a specific weight bullet, there is a specific velocity at which it will be the most accurate. The next step is to find the powder/primer/seating depth combination that will achieve that velocity with the lowest pressure, while still having enough pressure to cycle the pistol reliably. All the while keeping in mind that some powders don't burn well at some of their lower charge weights, even though they are still within the posted spec. for that particular load. After all that, do you chronograph the load to quantify the test and to see if you can duplicate it with another powder/primer/seating depth combination? Or, like me, do you call it good until you've expended your supply of powder and have to start all over again? At some point, I need to knock it off with the reloading bench and just go shooting. :eek: Ah, I just love this stuff.

[sinclair]

Do you find the most accurate combination then measure velocity? Or have you found the velocity your pistol/revolver tends to prefer by bullet weight, build up to past where you think that should be, then chronograph it to check? I've found that I will work up to a sweet spot accuracy wise, then it will fall off a little as I go a tenth of a grain or two more. Right now I'm playing with keeping that sweet spot but trying to get the softest shooter with the cleanest burn. Am also playing with different bullet weights. Isn't this stuff fun?

Great questions as usual. I have not answered since I am in the midst of converting from windows XP to windows 7, and many things need work to make the transfer over. In particular, still fighting with my camera software.

I find the most accurate combination by shooting from a rest. Velocity is nice data to have but not necessary for typical pistol ammo. My goal is fairly simple. I prefer to be on the higher end of velocity for pistol ammo, I prefer to do this with a nice safety margin, and as I have grown older I find my tolerance for recoil is a problem. Putting that all together means that a lighter than normal bullet weight for each caliber automatically yields the upper end of velocity for the caliber, a reduced felt recoil, and an increase to safe pressure/load weight safety margin. Without getting into the target effectiveness arguments, I accept that I am obtaining a flatter bullet trajectory as a trade off to some loss in target knock out power.

Your observations on a "sweet spot" are right on but much harder to obtain in a rifle, where barrel whipping can become an over-riding problem. For pistols, once the barrel gets too short, finding a sweet spot is almost a waste since it reduces to being "somewhere in front of the barrel".

But yes, this is certainly fun for some of us, but I suspect many do not appreciate that.

[sinclair]

OK, let me put that in another way. For a specific weight bullet, there is a specific velocity at which it will be the most accurate. The

next step is to find the powder/primer/seating depth combination that will achieve that velocity with the lowest pressure, while still having enough

pressure to cycle the pistol reliably. All the while keeping in mind that some powders don't burn well at some of their lower charge weights, even

though they are still within the posted spec. for that particular load. After all that, do you chronograph the load to quantify the test and to see if

you can duplicate it with another powder/primer/seating depth combination? Or, like me, do you call it good until you've expended your supply of powder

and have to start all over again? At some point, I need to knock it off with the reloading bench and just go shooting. Ah, I just love this stuff.



Please allow me to add the complicating part to your first comment. For a specific bullet weight, there is a combination of pressure and burn rate which will be the most accurate for a specific gun. The reason I leave out velocity is because finding the sweet spot has been done for years and long before economical methods for velocity measuring were available (pistol). Your next comment about powders with variable performance due to charge weight could easily be a stand alone topic, well worth the research. For pistol powders, I avoid that situation by staying away from the "hard to light" powders or those advertised as "magnum" powders.

I do not chronograph pistol ammo. Rifle ammo is probably the best candidate for a chronograph because of the much higher velocities where ballistic coefficients play a critical role and high supersonic velocity data is almost a necessity to deal with trajectory stuff. That does not mean I have not done so, but my lessons learned file says this: A short pistol barrel and a properly set up chronograph yields a very high probability of shooting the witness screens of the chronograph, destroying same, in an attempt to obtain data that is not critical at typical pistol velocities. Plus a rifle is far easier to set up with a chronograph and minimize the danger of shooting your chronograph.

Once I find a combination of bullet weight and charge weight that satisfies my desire for accuracy, I proceed to mass loading. That means I load till I am out of powder and other components. Again, talking pistol only. Rifle is another story and is where the extremes of load development are.

[sinclair]

I think this thread is deep enough now to bury an answer to reliability in ammo for reloading that I use with great caution. (For the site administration, feel free to delete this post if you feel any trepidation about it.)

I have had a few folks ask me (when firing my weapons with my loads developed specifically for those weapons) how I achieve such reliability in my ammo. Specifically, semi-auto ammo. Besides the obvious ammo consistency I strive for with reloading techniques, there is another test in loading that adds the extra edge I want for reliability. I have found that reloading for full-auto weapons is different than for semi-auto, and particularly so for the gas guns. When a load is fully developed for proper full-auto cycle, that load seems to be about as reliable as can be obtained for a semi-auto selection on the weapon.

(special note: these determinations and observations were ALL made with registered NFA Title II firearms.)

The question then becomes how to make this reliability edge transferable to generic firearms. For serious load developers, there are techniques to do this but recently, three of those techniques have left the barn, so to speak, and is beginning to draw unwanted attention. I am making this post only because some of these techniques are now public knowledge and I do not know where it will lead. There are some who argue that the skill I am about to describe is a survival skill for a SHTF scenario. Personally, I disagree. I think the skill is useful for load development only, and is dangerous as well. It is not conducive to accurate shooting and violates many gun safety conditions.

When I first came across the techniques quite some time ago BTW, they were transferred by word of mouth as FAST (Full Auto Simulation Technique) shooting. It would appear that some of this stuff has recently gone viral, or on its way there. In its current viral form, it is being called "bump" firing and those who appear to be posting youtube videos are not the best examples of gun safety I have ever seen. Let me repeat, I do NOT advocate this technique for anyone else or for any reason other than reliability load development. No generic semi-auto is designed to handle high fire rates and the technique is inherently dangerous since the "skill" required means you no longer have proper control of the weapon. The skill required is one of balance. The gun hold hand pulls the weapon forward against the trigger finger so that the gun hold hand is providing the force to activate the trigger spring. By carefully balancing this forward force with the trigger spring, fire rates of 600 or better rps can be achieved. The only thing close to a safe method with some form of gun control left is to use a "push" force with the hold hand, rather than a "pull". This is the method I use in load development and is the one I will show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ahCljuHt6w&feature=related

There are other methods but I regard them as grossly dangerous, particularly the "pull" method and the "belt loop" method. Here is why. This guy is pulling forward with the hold hand and forgets to stop and forgets to move his finger off the trigger when he lifts the gun away from target, letting one fly free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNjSBj7q1v8

And this is an accident looking for a place to happen with a 1911.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UumQvPGQNis&feature=related

Remember, load development of any kind must be done as safely as possible.

[Descreet38]

Case cleaning is the easiest part for me. My brother in law owns a tire shop so when I have 20,000 cases ready for cleaning I just have him break the bead on all 4 tires on by big F350 and put 5,000 cases in each tire along with 1 pint of ammonia. Drive for a week and then go back to the tire shop and have the cases removed.

Works great but I haven't figured out what all the shaking in my front end is all about.

LOL, and as a disclaimer - DO NOT try this at home!

[sinclair]

Hah ! Good laugh there. I appreciate the diversion and why, thank you. And the joke is one of those which just might actually work, except for one small thing. That is the pint of ammonia. I am making this reply to BOLDLY SAY NO TO AMMONIA.

NEVER, NEVER, EVER mix ammonia with ammo brass. Brass cases are the magic gasket that protects us from some ugly stuff when the ammo is fired. It is sufficiently over designed enough so that reloading is possible. You do NOT want brittle gaskets. Ammonia + Brass = Brittle.

These are the folks and papers that prove it, so any counter argument is with them.

http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/SOURCE_PAGES/STP64.htm

[sinclair]

While we are diverted on the subject of case cleaning, I will mention that all techniques I have tried leave my cases acceptable and clean for running through the dies. Still, I am not satisfied. I would love to get my cases as clean as factory, and pristine even inside the cases. It seems to me that a rotary cleaner with the right media, wet or dry, should be capable of this. I think I have found the solution. Stainless steel media and the proper liquid mix. Unfortunately, Stainless Steel media is not at all cheap but you only have to buy it once. It appears to last forever unless you lose it and is advertised to leave cases mint and factory fresh. I have decided to spring for some of this and try it out.

http://www.stainlesstumblingmedia.com/?gclid=CIH3ycXJ1qMCFQXt7Qodblwftw

The downside is the liquid mix in the SS media. A vibratory tumbler is not suited for liquids so I will be using this in the RCBS sidewinder which is liquid media mix capable. Also, the cases have to be properly dried. Seems to me a visit to the hardware store and I should be able to duplicate the homemade airstream case drier which is shown by "STS-Staff Sergeant" towards the bottom of this post.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2000891

[sinclair]

Reloading Issue - Related to step 4, case priming.
Title: Handling Primers

Yeah, gotcha with that title ! I know, you never actually handle primers with your hands. But the reason is not what you think. I had always heard arguments of old that said the chemicals in your skin and the oils can de-activate a primer. I have never experimented to find out but I suspect that is simply not true. What is true is that some of the chemicals in primers might just de-activate YOU ! The worst is the lead styphnate which can be absorbed directly into the skin. While elemental lead is not particularly harmful outside of being shot or making a habit of holding lead bullets in your mouth while reloading, like I have seen folks do with nails when using a hammer, some compounds of lead are indeed rather poisonous.

Derived from styphnic acid, lead styphnate is a toxic explosive used as a component in primer and detonator mixtures. When dry, it can be readily detonated by static discharges from the human body. Lead styphnate does not react with metals and is stable in storage, even at elevated temperatures.

http://www.powerlabs.org/chemlabs/lead_styphnate.htm

MSDS data
http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/LE/lead_styphnate.html

Now we can see two very good reasons for careful handling of primers, and not with the hands. One is the skin absorption and the other is the sensitivity to static discharge from the human body. For those of you who wonder how we can so casually handle ammunition with this stuff in it, remember that an electric discharge must get to the compound. When encased in ammunition, it is completely enclosed in a Faraday Cage, thus pretty much immune to electric discharge. The problem becomes one of getting this stuff into its Faraday cage safely, and as fate would have it, messing with primers invariable involves some becoming loose around the area through a multitude of wacky causes. Eventually, a reloader must manipulate a primer or primers in some fashion.

When handling primers, I usually wear jeans and almost always wear a cotton shirt. But the main safety feature is handling primers around areas that do not easily allow the accumulation of a static charge. Wood is good. A grounded metal bench is better. A wood floor is good, a concrete floor is better. The biggest bad thing would be doing this on a nylon carpet. Once you are satisfied with the work environment, then absolutely, always wear eye protection. Now we start.

For mass primer handling, and for me that is 30 or less primers at a time, which constitutes a primer tube with 30 grains maximum of high explosive, using the Dillon primer pick up tube according to Dillon's instructions, I move the primers from their storage box to the primer insertion tube.
As shown in this first illustration.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/primerpickup.JPG

Sooner or later, you will need to pick up a loose primer or gently manipulate one. Tweezers are good for this and I use two different types as shown in

the second illustration below.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/primertweezers.JPG

Occasionally, a primer can get lodged in a priming device such that tweezers are not a suitable manipulator. I find that an inexpensive pair of forceps is the ticket. As shown here. As always, if you know of another and perhaps safer technique, post it up.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/primersforceps.JPG

[sinclair]

October Surprise and a Safety Caution

Background: I have been working my way through various pistol calibers, testing Trail Boss Powder and really beginning to like what I am finding. Since most of my shooting fun involves targets or just plinking at cans and such, my primary desire is accurate and consistent shots without a huge, knuckle-busting recoil. Trail Boss really seems to do that for everything I have tried it in so far. I really like the safety of this powder in that filling the case up to the base of the bullet yields a low pressure round with no risk of an overcharge. Plus this powder is being extended into the heavy caliber rifle round category for high accuracy, subsonic rounds. Here is the "factory" how-to-load manual.

http://www.imrpowder.com/PDF/Trail-Boss-data.pdf

I have tried this powder with plated bullets and it seems to work very well, but IMR does NOT recommend it be used with jacketed bullets. (It says so right there on the powder jug). The only negative I have seen is hints that compressing this powder may be a problem. Strike that last statement, replace with "IS DEFINITELY A PROBLEM."

Test Loading: I have been using the IMR data from

http://www.imrpowder.com/data/handgu...ss-feb2005.php

primarily because not many of my favorite sources have published Trail Boss data yet (Relatively new IMR powder offering). Remember when developing test loads I demonstrated how to check MULTIPLE, reliable sources for load data. My first problem here was that I had great difficulty doing that, so I pressed on with ONLY the manufacturer's load data. Fortunately, as time goes on, more information about Trail Boss is becoming available.

I prepared test loads for Trail Boss using the second reference above and on 2 Oct I proceeded to the range. Lets take a look at the results.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/trailboss.jpg


Look carefully at the two cases removed for full view. The left case (5.2 grs.) was noticeably hard to extract from the cylinder. Yet it shows typical signs of LOW PRESSURE, the primers are backed out slightly but without any flattening and the case mouth shows out-gassing around the case (which means the pressure was too low to blow the case mouth against the cylinder wall for full seal) Now look at the right case (5.3 grs). I have never experienced a case split quite like that before. Usually, straight walled pistol cases will eventually split from the case mouth down about a third or less due to metal fatigue (A type of hammer forging). The case split here appears to originate at the BASE of the seated bullet location and progress all the way down to the end of the annealed section. This was quite a shock as I would not have expected any adverse test signs from Trail Boss, nor did I believe an overpressure of any sort was possible with this powder. Thus, I conclude that I am operating on a bad assumption and have done something wrong. But what ?

Analysis: Yes, I did something wrong. After reading everything I can find about Trail Boss negative issues, I have concluded that I experienced a pressure spike, as opposed to overpressure, and it was localized probably just under the base of the bullet. How could that be ? Simple, it seems. The ONLY load data I had specified a bullet type, weight, powder charge range, and COL. (Combined Overall Length) While I used the same bullet type, but most likely not the same manufacturer, the bullet lengths may differ even using the same COL. But why would that be a problem ? I have carefully weighed amounts of the highest three powder charges (against precision weights) and placed them in several different case brands. While they visually look OK, slap my hand ! I used a visual check which is not OK. Caliper measurements show the following in all six sample case brands: at 5.0 grs, the bullet brand I used (Penn) clears the powder with a visible gap. At 5.1 grs, the powder touches the seated bullet base. At 5.2 grs the powder is being compressed. At 5.3 grs the powder is being compressed slightly over a tenth of an inch.

Conclusion: Trail Boss is great for consistency when filling a case to the bullet base and very safe under those conditions. DO NOT ALLOW BULLET SEATING DEPTH TO COMPRESS TRAIL BOSS AT ALL. Now with that little puzzle solved, on to mass loading. Here we go, all loads at 5.0 grs. and I am confident these will be great shooters.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/massloading.jpg

[sinclair]

In reading all this for the third, fourth and even fifth time, I keep coming back to the same question. Where do you get your pressure data?

While there are many places to find portions of SAAMI data on the internet, until recently, you either had to be a member of SAAMI or buy their Performance Standard books to really get a handle on this stuff. They typically would charge around $35 for each volume. So here is a big thanks to SAAMI and their new approach to Safety for all ammunition handlers, including reloaders.

Just for you Granpa, I am going to walk you through how to get some of the very best manuals in the whole world, a must, I believe for those who reload.
First of all, you may not need the whole set, so I will list them by title before we go and get them. Also, be sure you have a working and fairly current Adobe Akrobat reader on your computer so you can read/print the PDF files we will get.

1. File name: 205.pdf (size of file 2,526 KB)
Document Title: Voluntary Industry Performance Standards for Pressure and Velocity of Centerfire Pistol and Revolver Ammunition for the Use of Commercial Manufacturers

2. File name: 206.pdf (size of file 3,893 KB)
Document Title: Voluntary Industry Performance Standards for Pressure and Velocity of Centerfire Rifle Sporting Ammunition for the Use of Commercial Manufacturers

3. File name: 208.pdf (size of file 781 KB)
Document Title: Voluntary Industry Performance Standards for Pressure and Velocity of Rimfire Sporting Ammunition for the Use of Commercial Manufacturers

4. File name: 209.pdf (size of file 1,940 KB)
Document Title: Voluntary Industry Performance Standards for Pressure and Velocity of Shotshell Ammunition for the Use of Commercial Manufacturers

5. File name: 207.pdf (size of file 2,581 KB)
Document Title: American National Standard Voluntary Industry Performance Standards Criteria for Evaluation of New Firearms Designs Under Conditions of Abusive Mishandling for the Use of Commercial Manufacturers

Now proceed to the official SAAMI site here

SAAMI official site
http://www.saami.org/

There are several ways to get to the manuals but the fastest is to look in the welcome address and click on SAAMI Publications. On the Publications page, look down to the section titled "Performance Standards developed for the American National Standards Institute". You will see the hard copies listed and the price if you order them, but if you click on the Title, it will download as a PDF. Once downloaded in your web browser, you must save it to your computer or you lose it.

Again, many thanks to SAAMI, Kudos as well.

[Grampa]

Now for that I'm most appreciative. All this time I've been getting by with the manufacturers manuals which are incomplete and sometimes conflicting. Mr. Sinclair, you are a true gentleman.

[NMDawg]

I reload .45acp. I have used .451 caliber bullets so far. I see .452 caliber for sale. Besides the obvious size difference, what is the scoop on .452 caliber bullets and it's relationship to reloading .45acp?

Any and all help will be appreciated.

[sinclair]

Now for that I'm most appreciative.

Thank you for the compliments both here and elsewhere.

And we both thank SAAMI very much. Lets use our new manuals (the first one anyway) to answer NMDawg.

I reload .45acp. I have only loaded .451 caliber bullets thus far. I see .452 bullets for sale Besides the obvious size difference, what is the scoop on .452 caliber bullets and it's relationship to reloading .45acp? Any and all help will be appreciated.

I think I knew where you were going even though you did not finish your first post. Most reloading manuals will recommend the .451 for 45 acp. Those same manuals will recommend the .452 for 45 colt. Where this gets interesting is that the SAAMI manual shows that both the 45 acp and 45 colt have the same bore diameter and groove diameter. I had a similar question when I obtained some Penn cast lead bullets for the Colt 45. I obtained the .452 and wondered why I could not also use these in the 45 acp. (Bullet weight was 212 gr.FP) My first reaction was to load up some test loads and go see for myself. If you check back on page five of this thread, 5th post down titled: Other Test Objectives and Multiple Test Objectives, look at the photo at the bottom. I ran the Penn .452's along with the Brass jacketed test loads for the .451's, also testing different primers. They tested out just fine.

Does that mean I would recommend you do that ? Not without further discussion. Pre WWII Colt 45 revolvers almost all have groove diameters of .454. Modern guns of either 45 Colt or 45 acp have a SAMMI groove diameter of .450, which tends to hold in older 45 acp guns as well. I suspect that the .452 size recommended for 45 Colt takes the Pre-WWII revolvers in consideration and yields a compromise diameter suitable for both the early and modern guns.

However we need real caution when extending this to 45 acp. The SAAMI manual shows some very real differences between the two calibers. While the 45 Colt is truly cylindrical, the 45 acp is not and tapers very slightly towards the case mouth. The same is true for the chamber. It will not take much of an oversize in bullet diameter to cause the 45 acp to fail to chamber. While my .452 Penns passed my SAAMI Chamber checks, many reloaders do not perform such checks on their ammo, and might risk jamming and high pressure situations. For this reason I urge caution and extra checks if you use .452 bullets in the 45 acp.

Up to this point I am talking about cast lead bullets. I would NOT recommend a larger diameter than .451 for jacketed bullets of either copper or brass. Plated bullets I treat as cast lead bullets. The hardness (Brinell number) of cast lead can be 8 - 20 whereas copper jacketed is 25-50, and brass jacketed is around 100. As the hardness goes up, so does the chamber pressure when driving the bullet down the barrel and into the grooves.

[NMDawg]

Thanks for the info Sinclair. Very good stuff. I am going to go back and read more of the reloading posts. As far as the first post well that was an ID10T error on my part.

[sinclair]

Recently, while testing loads at Dry Canyon, I noted a pile of brass left from a previous shooter that really caught my eye. While the headstamp on the brass was 222 Remington, the brass had obviously been fired in a chamber other than the 222 Rem chamber. Have a look for yourself.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/oddcase.jpg

This brass has chamber dimensions of 223 Remington to within a couple thousandths of an inch. In the photo above, note the ring near the neck of the bottom case where the case has clearly been blown out (Fire formed) to the 223 chamber dimension. The 222 cases were all marked FC 222 Rem and none of them show reloading indications, so I conclude these were factory (Federal) loads.

I am aware of folks that work with "wildcat" cartridges, and I have done a bit of that myself, but when fireforming a wildcat, special low pressure loadings are necessary to form the case to a larger dimension bullet. Smaller or same dimension bullets are formed with special dies, not fire formed. Further, based upon the quantity left there, (about 20 rounds) it would seem that fireforming was not the objective.

Finally, SAAMI does publish and update their research on unsafe firearm-ammunition combinations. Their currently posted data sheet, page 7, clearly shows that 222 Rem fired in 223 chambers meets their criteria for unsafe.

Is there any possible reason for doing this that I may be missing ? Do any of you know someone who may be doing this ? My own conclusion is that there may be someone locally who really is trying to push his medical insurance to the limit.

[sinclair]

Thanks for the info Sinclair. Very good stuff.

Thank you for the compliments. I try very hard to be factual and helpful for those who wish to do this sort of hobby. If I have helped even one person to be safer and enjoy this hobby more, then my time spent has been fully rewarded. In that spirit, it is time to take a diversion into the dark side of the hobby. So lets take a look at the detractors to this hobby. The negatives and the nay-sayers. Yes, there are some.

I will not call this example the worst case but it is getting close. Worst case because this example and others like it are out there. For those new to reloading or considering getting started, this type of misinformation can be very discouraging. For those who are experienced reloaders, such as Grampa, Descreet38, Sam, Jizzle, Colt 45, and NMDawg (That I know of) I think your reaction to this will be similiar to mine and the other reloaders in the second example who are reacting to this reloading "hit" piece. To be fair to the author, he claims to be a NRA certified handgun instructor, and a Rangemaster at Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. I have not seen any claims he makes as to being an experienced reloader. With that introduction, here is his opinion on the negative side of reloading.

http://firearmresource.com/?p=155

For those who may be new or considering getting into the hobby, I am sure you will encounter the negative arguments even if I did not include them in this topic area. Its kind of like getting a drivers license. Why do that ? Don't you realize that once you start driving, you could be in an accident and be killed or kill someone else ? On that note, here is what other experienced reloaders are saying about the above article.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=441848

[NMDawg]

Sinclair, I think he works for an ammo manufacturer or importer.:D For me and I bet for others too, I like making something with my own hands. I like dealing with the precision involved. I like the research. I like learning. It is relaxing and enjoyable.

And on to the research portion. I use Clays powder under 185gr HP and FMJ SWC. Both are or have been to this point reliable and accurate. But I have been wanting to boost the velocity on the HP (I use Hornady 185gr XTPs). I carry a Kimber Tactical Ultra II (3 inch barrel) and I reload for it. The SWCs that I use for target practice are fine but the XTPs will not achieve a velocity that will allow them to expand properly. I get around 500 - 550 fps on both of these loads. My carry ammo is Hornady's Critical Defense and the velocity is 830 fps.
So to my question. Would a faster burning powder help achieve the velocities required? I know there are faster burning powders out there. Also does a faster burning powder decrease muzzle flash?

And again, Sinclair, thanks for all the great info and discussions here.:)

[sinclair]

Sinclair, I think he works for an ammo manufacturer or importer.

Grin. Great ! I missed that. I do believe your observation is on the mark. What other possible bias would cause his cost estimates for reloaded ammo to include charging for his own time spent? I wonder if he charges himself for other enjoyment time, such as watching a movie or going out to dinner ?

So to my question. Would a faster burning powder help achieve the velocities required? I know there are faster burning powders out there.

Also does a faster burning powder decrease muzzle flash?


Do you realize that is one of the all-time best questions I have seen on any gun forum? It shows up in the most in depth discussions and usually involves all the "experts". And they seem to never agree on the answer. Too many variables and even more opinions. I am not trying to dodge your question, but rather to savor it and save it for the next post. Hint: when wisdom seems to be lacking in punch, try common sense. And despite the name, its not as "common" as we think.

Meanwhile lets do some background on your question. You said you were using Clays to launch 185 gr HPs. For velocity, you are on the right track. Using a bullet that is lighter than design weight for caliber automatically gives you a higher velocity in trade for loss of momentum. Which reminds me of an old joke for illustration. It goes something like this:

Two guys walk out on a vacant silhouette range. First guy says "I can hit that ram from here with my (insert appropriate firearm here) super Glock route 66, 40 caliber Tyranasaurus Grizzly loads." Bang! Ring! Bang! Ring! and on till empty. Second guy pulls his old 45 ACP, aims, Bang! RING-WHAM! The steel ram goes down. First guy says "I don't understand this. I got prolly twice the muzzle energy you do, so how come you were the one that knocked it down."

Second guy says "Basic Physics. What knocked that ram down was momentum transfer."

Momentum has its place, so does velocity. In your case, velocity is more important. No matter what weapon you have, the critical factor is your 3 inch barrel. You said it yourself, you would like the velocity to properly expand those HPs. Tough, but not impossible. First though, is you got a great gun to work with. If I could not have a Colt 1911 design, I would have either a Kimber or Wilson Combat. But I would not prune the barrel length. The 5 inch barrel is easy to work your problem with. The 3 inch is what makes the job tough. Hopefully, we can solve your problem, but all my experience will be based upon the Colt Combat Elite (5 inch) shown here:

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/colt-series80.JPG

[NMDawg]

Thanks Sinclair I appreciate all the help and advice.

[sinclair]

Oops. Need a bit more data points.

What is the charge weight you are using with the Clays and the 185 grain ?

How good is your velocity estimate for that load ?

How good is your velocity estimate for your carry ammo ?

[NMDawg]

Charge weight for the reload is 4.7gr of Clays. Velocity is 550fps give or take 50fps.

Velocity on the Hornady 185gr critical defense is 830. Published velocities by Hornady are 850fps.

These velocities were measured through a chronograph.

[Grampa]

Pardon me, I'm kind of butting in here.
550 fps seems really slow even for a short barrel. Just saying, you know?
On to the other guy/reloading guru..........I take it that he was giving all the reasons he doesn't reload.
1. He doesn't know how to measure
2. He doesn't know how to weigh
3. He doesn't trust his own work
If these three things are true, then reloading is a really bad deal, for him.
Again, just thinking out load.

[sinclair]

Great Laugh, thanks. Grampa, now that there was really funny! You sure have a way of cutting someone off at the knees !

You did it so well that I feel the need to cut that author a bit of slack. Maybe he wrote the article for others who don't trust their own work and can't do careful things? Then he is properly advising others who share his.....uh, characteristics ? Not sure which I like better, your direct ax swing on the author or NMDawg's theory that he is a commercial ammo-profiteer who wants to kill reloading to increase his profits.

And this is a good opportunity to delay the answer to NMDawgs questions a bit more. Truth is, I don't know the answers but that ain't stopping me from trying to figure it out. Besides, the more the merrier. And this insight is a good one:

550 fps seems really slow even for a short barrel. Just saying, you know?

I agree. About the only caliber I ever ran into that was really limited to that kind of maximum velocity is those tiny 25 auto things.

But with a few of us on it, it should be fun to reason this thing out. NMDawg did not say but my own checks show his load of 4.7 gr Clays to be maximum or near maximum depending on which loading manual you use. Also, Clays is a fast burning powder. But just how fast is it ?

Depends on where you look. I was going to compare it to the fastest powder I have lots of experience with which is Bullseye. Woah ! Lets see, Western Powders Comparative Burn rate chart shows Bullseye as number five and Clays as number 14. GADS, the burn rate chart from Hodgdon Powder shows Clays as number seven with Bullseye at number 9. Here is the quick place to see BOTH charts together if you want to check my observation.

http://www.frfrogspad.com/burnrate.htm

I think the point I am trying to show is that powder burn rates are ballpark to begin with and are not measured in a manner that will help to answer NMDawg's question. Besides, there are lots of forums out there with their own "experts" who debate the burn rate question to no end. I do not claim to be an expert, but I will claim that I try to do this sort of thing as safely as I can. And with safety as my primary concern lets begin to look at NMDawg's first question:

Would a faster burning powder help achieve the velocities required? I know there are faster burning powders out there.

The safety aspect tells me that I actually DON'T know that there are faster powders out there. I can find some listed as slightly faster but which powder manufacturer's list do I trust ?

OK, guys, lets start applying our common sense here. Lets take the burn rate charts to be ballpark accuracy. Clays, Bullseye, whichever is really faster don't matter, they are in the same ballpark, and at the FAST end of the scale. We have NO room to maneuver here, so whatever the "experts" say about faster burn rates does not apply unless we have room to make a real change. We don't, so we are faced with reality. Our only maneuver room is going to slower burning powders. Thus, in NMDawg's specific case with Clay's and his firearm, the answer is that we are already in the Fast area, so the only place we have to maneuver is in a slower area. Now, before we press on, its time for a little tutorial so we can all be on the same page with our terminology.

http://www.frfrogspad.com/intballi.htm

Now, if you enjoyed that, then we can start to play a real "expert" on the internet as soon as we can get someone to give us one of these:

Personal Ballistics Laboratory

http://www.oehler-research.com/model43.html

Failing that, we are stuck with two things to use. First, the "experts" don't agree with each other but it many cases, they violate "common" sense.
Second, all we need to do is try our best to use what many of the "experts" violate......common sense. Sounds really easy to me. My money is on us.

[sinclair]

Hmmmm....I did not think that tutorial would take so long to read. I was expecting a bit of feedback on the powder burn rate speculation.

Go back and look at the first post on page 5 of this thread, where selecting a test load that would give +P velocities without the +P pressure was a stated goal. Sounds kinda like what NMDawg wants to do with his shorty Kimber don't
it ? Think about that and how the goal was approached.

See anything in common with NMDawg's velocity desire ? And to make this really fun, if you see that, does it hint at a way to add his last question in as a bonus without having to test every pistol powder on the market ?

[NMDawg]

I was just rereading your last post last night Sinclair. I was planning out a little experiment with different charge weights (Clays) and different COLs using Hornady's 185gr JHP (45100). I am having to wait a bit till my chrono is available again (that is another story). As far as the burn rate issue... well my Lyman reload manual has a burn rate chart this different again. It shows Clays at 7. Anyway... going back to page 5, first post. Thanks Sinclair

[sinclair]

I was planning out a little experiment with different charge weights (Clays) and different COLs using Hornady's 185gr JHP


Caution there. You are near maximum charge with Clays now. Do not reduce your present COL. Looking at various pressure curves, I think you would most likely spike the burn pressure even higher, and shorter in time, without any gain to velocity. What we need here is a flatter pressure curve. Remember that PSI is basically force per unit area. The most average force on the bullet base will give the best velocity. We want a safe peak pressure but we also want that peak to be flatter, and last longer. Just reducing COL shortens the spike of the peak and pushes it (time wise) back towards the chamber. This is the opposite of what we need.

Finding good pressure curves for various powders is still difficult but we can infer what we need from sources like Lyman. Lyman is more of a true test lab in that their results are not being used to push their own products. What I can infer from the Lyman tests is that the faster powders seem to be more useful for accuracy than velocity. The slower powders (pistol) appear to be more useful for velocity but not very efficient as to muzzle blast or accuracy.

Now that you have looked at the first post on page 5, lets see if I can get you looking at the same thing I am trying to reason out. (I assume you are using the Lyman 49th edition ?) Go to the top, right chart on page 381 (45 acp/185 gr HP). Look at max load pressure. To infer the flattest pressure curve with the most velocity, look for the LOWEST peak pressure with the HIGHEST max velocity. And do NOT race out and buy that powder. We got a bit more study to do.

[NMDawg]

Okay, I have read and reread the posts. Facinating stuff. I believe I understand what you are striving for, more velocity less pressure. Faster bullets (more expansion) and easier on the gun. From the chart (page 381 Lyman 49th edition) looks like Clays is the lowest pressure (not by much) but velocity is lowest. Power Pistol and Titegroup are second as far as lowest pressure but Power Pistol Pistol has the highest velocity.

Question: looking at the firearm barrel length used (5 inch), how does that equate to a 3 inch barrel? (maybe I am getting ahead of myself and this tutorial). I am biting at the bit to load up and head for the range.

Another question: does higher velocity mean less accuracy? Higher pressure mean less accuracy? HP-38 looks to be midrange on velocity and higher on pressure but the most accurate (according to the chart).

[sinclair]

I believe I understand what you are striving for, more velocity less pressure.

Excellent ! You got it. Lets amplify on what we are talking about. We must control peak pressure cause that is what is bad, for the gun and for us as well. Once we accept a peak pressure we do not wish to exceed, we can still vary that pressure a bit. For the purpose of velocity, we want that safe pressure level to be held as long as we can.( F = M * A, or Acceleration = Force / Mass) Now lets say your quote above in a more direct way. More velocity will come from a higher AVERAGE pressure (averaged over the barrel length). A higher average pressure tends to mean less of a spike at peak pressure and more of a gentle round curve (flatter). Whether or not the pressure spikes or is more rounded, flatter, the top of the pressure curve is the value we want to minimize no matter what our goal is. Since we lack true pressure curve data, I was trying to get you to see how to use what data we have to infer something about what we need.

Power Pistol and Titegroup are second as far as lowest pressure but Power Pistol Pistol has the highest velocity.

Good work ! Of the powders we can look at with Lyman (not that many, really) Power Pistol looks to meet your needs the best. Darn near the lowest pressure and the second highest velocity listed.

Question: looking at the firearm barrel length used (5 inch), how does that equate to a 3 inch barrel? ... I am biting at the bit to load up and head for the range.

Patience, Grasshopper. We are getting close. There are generic computation methods to estimate the loss of velocity versus barrel length but they are not real accurate for the very reason of the pressure curve thing we are looking at here. My own best guess is that the Lyman velocity listed for the 5 inch will vary between a loss of 200-350 ft. per second for 3 inch depending on the PRESSURE CURVE we end up with. If we can get a really good curve, then we should be in the ballpark of 800 ft per second. A well designed 45 ACP 185 gr HP bullet should be capable of expansion at that velocity.

Another question: does higher velocity mean less accuracy? Higher pressure mean less accuracy? HP-38 looks to be midrange on velocity and higher on pressure but the most accurate (according to the chart).

Wow, you are really thinking about this stuff. Those questions are endless debates on many gun forums. Yes and no and it depends on the gun, the caliber, volumetrics, harmonics, and a heavy dose of tea-leaf reading. Don't matter what the velocity of the bullet, when it leaves the barrel it is surrounded by a plume of high pressure gas which is moving much faster than the bullet. A lot of it is still burning as well, and supersonically, thus generating a healthy "bang".

Lets focus on the pressure side of your questions, since that is what we are limiting ourselves with here. If we can get a greater average pressure (longer time) on the bullet base while it is in the barrel, we will get more acceleration, thus velocity. That also means that the pressure behind the bullet at barrel exit will be greater than it is now with your 550 fps loads. Will that impact your accuracy ? We are certainly changing factors that affect your bullet trajectory. I have found that the faster powders, like Clays or Bullseye are easier for me to find an accurate load with, but at somewhat reduced velocities. Yet I can still find accurate loads with slower powders, and usually at higher velocities. Takes more work. The answer is I really do not know.

Still, I think we are close to an agreement that Power Pistol is a candidate powder for your goal. Before you go get it, lets take a look at your last, way back when, question.

Also does a faster burning powder decrease muzzle flash?

I am not sure. A faster burning powder should consume more of its burn weight in the barrel, but muzzle flash also relates to visual intensity. I have seen some IR data on muzzle flash which is really interesting. It suggests to me that some powders flash more in the IR band than in the visible light band. I only know of about three powders that seem to do this reliably. Only one is a pistol powder, Ramshot Silhouette.

Now, stay with me on this little speed bump. Back to Lyman, notice the powder at the bottom of the chart. It does NOT meet our selection criteria but is interesting for another reason (True Blue). Assuming the Lyman burn rate chart is a better ballpark than other charts (for reason I listed in above prior post), then True Blue is slower burning than Power Pistol. If so, we are inferring that velocity performance peaks somewhere around the burn rate of Power Pistol then drops off again. Ramshot Silhouette is faster than True Blue (also made by Ramshot) and in the Lyman burn rate chart, it is almost on top of the rate of Power Pistol. Given what we have seen of burn rate variance, I would believe they are the same rate.

Unfortunately, Lyman does not list Silhouette in our load data chart. A quick look at Ramshot's data really will catch your eye. Here.

http://www.ramshot.com/powders/

This is their pistol load data pdf. Look on page 6 near the top left column. True Blue for a Hornady 185 gr HP XTP will be our sanity check with the Lyman data. Ramshot pressures are in PSI, Lyman pressures are in CUP. Ramshot COL is 1.230, Lyman is 1.175. Primers are different, but COL is where pressure can go up rapidly. The MAX load of True Blue in Lyman is the START LOAD listed in Ramshot pdf. Danger, Will Robinson ! under no circumstance should the Ramshot data be used with a lesser COL than THEY listed.

But here is the real thing to notice, after we have a gut feel for how to compare Lyman to Ramshot data. Just under the True Blue data, is the data for the same bullet, same COL, Silhouette. Look at the velocity for Silhouette AT THE STARTING LOAD, not Max load. If that is not a typo, you just found a powder that can deliver +P velocity at normal pressure. (But only for this particular load circumstance, not generic)

So here is your assignment. Research multiple sources for load data and pressure on Ramshot Silhouette, 45 ACP, 185 gr HP. Then, we will discuss the safest way to proceed in testing. Only buy a pound (I can't afford much more) and if this stuff don't do the trick for you, I will buy what is left (prorated) from you. It won't eliminate the "bang" but the shorty barrel flash should be mostly in IR and not visible light.

[NMDawg]

Assignment accepted!!! Please be patient with me, it may be a couple of days before I can respond. A good friend is in from out of town and he keeps me busy while he is here.

again, thanks Sinclair. I am really enjoying this!

[NMDawg]

Okay, Sinclair

I have been looking over the past few days but all I have found is load data from forums and other "nonmanufacturer" pages. Some look good on the surface but when I look closer at the data it is missing bits. Mostly the OAL for the load. I did find out that Ramshot Silhouette is the same as Winchester's WAP. I looked for data on that also, same results.

I have two other reload data manuals besides the Lyman 49th edition and they do not have Silhouette data. I even called my brother and asked him to look in his Hornady manual and nothing with Silhouette.

Frankly the only data I am comfortable with is the Ramshot data. Perhaps I am not looking in the right places.

As far as the powder, I am still looking for it. Found it available from Cabela's but the $20 one pound container will turn into almost $50 after shipping and hazmat. Going to see if my local dealer will order. They had some Ramshot products but not the Silhouette.

[NMDawg]

Guess what? Went to my local gun shop to order the Silhouette powder that they didn't have last week, and there on the shelf was Silhouette. So I nabbed a pound of it. Let's reload!

[sinclair]

So I nabbed a pound of it. Let's reload!

He He. I am with you there, except I have not got any yet. Unless you sell me yours if it don't work out. My own research has convinced me that I gotta try some of this stuff. Looks ideal for eliminating the flash from shorty barrel 357 mags like the Ruger SP101. You are correct about this stuff being the same as WAP (Winchester Action Pistol). It appears that WAP was famous for helping IPSC shooters reach Major Power Factor with the 9 mm. That is an extraordinary feat with the 9 mm. I have also read that Winchester used it to safely control pressure when developing the SW 40 cal for Smith and etc.

OK, did you get the Ramshot reload manual I linked above, version 4.5 ?

Page 6 says: Silhouette 185gr HDY HP XTP 8.9 gr start at 1,037fps 9.9gr max at 1,152 fps at 20,900 psi for max and COL 1.230 inches. Naturally this data is for a 5 inch 45 ACP barrel.

My own checks indicate what you have found to be about all that is out there, which means no correlating data from other reliable sources. What I do in a case like that is to e-mail the powder manufacturer, tell them what gun you have and what you are trying to do. Then ask if they are aware of any cautions you should be aware of with the powder, caliber, and firearm combination you will be using.

Now, a checklist.

1. You have a good caliper to measure (and not be less than) a COL of 1.230 inches ? Maximum COL for the 45 ACP is 1.275 (to fit magazines) so this COL should fit well, probably a close fit but OK.

This step will be critical, as will be the crimping. Do you taper crimp ? With the 45 ACP, any bullet set back (due to chambering difficulty) will increase chamber pressure but not too grossly. Does your firearm manual specifically state that it can be used with +P ammunition ? If so, then we have a safety margin. If not, we have to make a margin we will be comfortable with. Note that the Ramshot Manual quote above says the max recommended load they
list was at 20,900 psi. That is a safety margin of only 100 psi below SAAMI max for the 45 ACP. I am not comfortable with going to max load for test without knowing that the firearm in question is approved by the manufacturer for + P loads. +P loads for the 45 are at 23000 psi. We use that as a safety margin if it is there. Here is why. If a 45 ACP were to experience a worse case set-back of 1/10th inch due to chambering difficulty, chamber pressure can go up 2000 to 4000 psi depending on powder burn curves, which would still keep our test load in the range of a +P. If the gun is not +P rated we need a bigger margin.

2. How do you accomplish test loads, from primers to charge weight, etc.? Give me a description.

3. What is your charge weights you have selected for test ? And why ?

4. Have you weighed a few sample bullets to see how close they hold to the 185 gr advertised weight ?

[NMDawg]

Ok, to answer your questions.

Yes, got the reload manual.
No, as of this post I have not emailed Ramshot.
Yup, got a good set of calipers.
As for the crimp, I use Lee carbide 4 die set. One of the die is what Lee calls a factory crimp.
I am loading for a Kimber Tactical Ultra II. Haven't had an opportunity to call Kimber,YET. But from some reading I have done, others have and Kimber says it is ok to shoot +p but not on an everyday situation. Enough for reliability and accuracy testing but not as general everyday target shooting.
Haven't weighed any bullets, but will to verify.
For test loads, this is really the first real work up testing I have done. It has usually been staying inside the published charge weights using Clays, seat the bullet and go shoot. Not till recently have I had access to a chrono and materials to check expansion. I am using CCI300 large pistol primers.
The only way I know to test is to start at the low end of the powder charge, making double sure of case length, charge weight, that primers are seated correctly, bullet is in and crimped correctly and the COL is right. Check velocity in the chrono and for expansion in the materials I have which is basically hydrostatic (milk jugs filled with water). Also take good notes.

Question on brass. Is there one brand of brass better than another. I am using nothing but previously fired brass. I tumble them pretty. Pop the primers and resize. Then deburr in and out and clean the primer pocket. I even, with the help of my granddaughter, sorted them by brand.

[NMDawg]

Also, I won't hold you to the offer of buying left over powder if this doesn't work out. This is my experiment and I should be the one pay to for it. But I do appreciate the offer. Besides I don't think I could afford the schooling you are providing here. Your experience and knowledge is invaluable. If you want I can pick up another pound, meet you half way or something and sell that one to you.

[sinclair]

If you want I can pick up another pound, meet you half way or something and sell that one to you.

If this stuff works as well as I think, you will probably end up keeping both pounds. But I do need to check the local source first, which I have not done yet. If that does not work out, I like your plan there.

Now, lets get focused on safety first, and what we really want to avoid, no matter what. The only sample I have of an overcharge situation in the 45 ACP is with a Glock. Not that I have a particular dislike for Glocks, but their 45 design is modifying a 9mm design and overextending that such as to create an apparent weakness that will eventually start to show up. Here is the photo posted by Sturmgewehre at the credited source lable on the photo.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/45acp-unsup.jpg

Look closely at the chamber area where the glock chamber has split out. It is almost paper thin there. This is an example of a chamber that definately should not be +P rated. It also has one of the largest UNSUPPORTED chamber areas on any 45 ACP. With these characteristics in mind, take a look at your Kimber chamber area to get a feel for the depth of material and chamber support we would want to declair the thing to be + P rated. Since I cannot look for you, I am pointing you where to look to feel comfortable with the strength of your firearm, or not ? (grin)

Now, the reason for an email to Ramshot is to explain what you are trying to do, and reference the specific load data they list on page 6, version 4.5. We have only one credible source, and we MUST be sure there is no typo in that data, or other cautions. That assurance would be a specific check request to Ramshot, as I have found typos in every manual I have procured.

On Brass, yes there are two really good brands, I suspect, but I have been unable to afford them in any large quantity. Try to insure you will be using the same brand for test, and only Once-fired brass. Some 45 ACP has small primers. Do not try to use these for test loads. Some 45 ACP brass has larger than normal flash holes, but still large primers. Do not use these for test loads. CCI 300 is good, but check the flash holes before priming the cases.

How do you intend to weigh the test charges and be sure the scale is correct ? Said another way, where does your confidence in the test charge weight come from ?

[NMDawg]

Went to the Kimber site to get their email or phone numbers and discovered a FAQ. So I checked it out and found this:

What type of ammunition do you recommend for your handguns?

We recommend using quality American-made ammunition. Choose from trusted names like Federal, Winchester or Remington because ammunition by these makers has proven to be of consistent high quality. Our function testing is done with Federal 230 grain FMJ.

+P ammo manufactured to SAAMI specs is fine to use as a defensive round or for occasional range use only. Our pistols are rated to handle +P ammo. However, we do not recommend a steady diet of them, as they are rough on the pistol and will accelerate the wear on the gun and may shorten the life of the recoil spring.

The use of reloaded or remanufactured ammunition may be dangerous, and any issues related to its usage are not covered by warranty.

Haven't heard back from the Ramshot people yet.

[NMDawg]

Here are some pics of my Kimber barrel

[sinclair]

I am assuming your Lee Crimp die is a taper crimp for 45 acp, not roll crimp for 45 Colt, and you know how to adjust it just a hair below the point where it will remove the case belling you do to allow easy seating of the bullet ?

Now we begin. With your selected cases (I recommend 10 for this exercise) priming is the first thing. There are several ways to be sure the primers are correct. While I can tell by feel, most new to reloading have yet to develop that. The bottom end of your calipers against the case base with the rod protrusion moving gently towards the primer is the numerical method. Four thousandths ain't much. When in doubt, I use an optical flat (no sharp edges) to sit the primed cases on. Any photograph frame glass cover will do but watch the sharp edges. This is an automatic and rapid double check that the primers are recessed enough to avoid protrusion. Next, I bell the case mouths slightly and move them, one at a time, to the weigh bench. (This is separate from my load bench as I never prepare test loads fully on the loading gear.)

You have not said yet how you will prepare the charge weights. I use a gravity scale (do not trust digital scales) and calibrated check weights FOR EACH CHARGE WEIGHT. I insert calibrated weights for 8.9 grs, check for zero setting against the scale setting for 8.9 grs and adjust the zero. Remove check weights and replace with 8.9 grs of powder. Transfer powder to first case, take case to loading bench, position bullet and seat, then crimp, then verify proper OAL, check with SAAMI gage, mark case and place in test load block. Now I start all over with a second case for the next step up, which will be 9.0 grs. Which brings us to the selected weights for test loading. Lets do a visual.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/Preping_test_cases1.jpg

The quick way to organize test loads is to use some sort of load block, then apply a label area of scotch tape and use a laundry marker. Unfortunately, the above photo is washed out by being too close with the flash. Test loads are actually much darker and easy to read than it shows.

Now is also a good time to discuss the test load weights and why, assuming you hear from Ramshot and we feel the recommended weight range is good to go.

Edit to add: Your Kimber is very good case support and the multiple views gives me the confidence to believe it is + P capable.

[NMDawg]

For measuring the charge weights I have a balance beam scale and an electronic scale. I had planned on using both scales on each charge.

Yes the crimping die is a taper crimp, in fact the whole die set is for .45acp

Now for a question or two. "then verify proper OAL, check with SAAMI gage" . Can the barrel of my Kimber be used? I read somewhere the barrel of the gun, removed of course from the gun, can be used.

Also brass recommendations? I have Winchester, CCI, Independence, Federal, one marked CBC (not sure who that is, haven't researched it). I believe I have enough of each of these to run this experiment.

Also haven't heard from Ramshot.

[sinclair]

I had planned on using both scales on each charge.

That will work. I have used multiple scales as a check before I obtained precision check weights. What ever you use, you, personally, need to feel absolutely confident that your test weight is very very close to what you have marked it as. And I do mark each case as well as the loading block in the event that the rounds get spilled out of the block before I get to the range. I can still put them back in order instead of pulling them and starting over. If you use a permanent type marker, it serves as a good reminder not to use those cases for test loads again.

Can the barrel of my Kimber be used?

It most certainly can, especially since that is what you will fire the test loads in. (See the third post from the bottom of page 4, third paragraph, this thread.)

Also brass recommendations? I have Winchester, CCI, Independence, Federal, one marked CBC (not sure who that is, haven't researched it).

Here is a great place for case headstamp lookups.

http://cartridgecollectors.org/headstampcodes_bottom.htm

While the above site identifies CBC as Brazilian, it lacks the information that CBC is the parent company for MagTech, which usually carries the same headstamp. Not familiar with Independance, nor does the above site show anything for that headstamp. In a 45 acp, and other than my lack of familiarity with Independance, I have no reason from experience to suggest one over the other. I do believe that Winchester, CCI, and Federal are all working on lead-free primer compounds and due to the differences in these various compounds, they have changed primer pockets a bit. Win NT headstamp is one that I think uses a small primer. WinClean brand ammo uses a larger than normal flash hole. I have seen larger than normal flash holes on several other case headstamps as well. The Winchester site says that the larger than normal flash holes are reloadable, and I have tested this for confirmation with Unique powder only. Still, I would not use them for Test Loads. I toss any 45 acp with small primers in the recycle bin.

1. While waiting on a response from Ramshot, put your thinking cap on. Any idea why I am recommending a near complete test of Silhouette at tenth grain intervals, especially since I did not do that in prior test load posts ?

2. What will you be looking for when you test the loads ? What will you expect ?

[NMDawg]

In the case of the Independence rounds. First off the head stamp I saw from the first boxes I bought showed *I* I ignorantly took this as Independence. According to the website you provided and according to the head stamp *I* is brass from India. I checked a couple of boxes of the Independence in my stash and that brass is stamped Blazer. With some investigation I found out that Independence is made by Ammunition Accessories Inc. and they are owned by ATK Commercial Ammunition Company Inc. which owns companies like:

Federal Premium and Estate Cartridge ammunition
CCI, Speer, Lawman, and Blazer ammunition
Gunslick, Outers and Shooters Ridge gun care and shooting accessories
RCBS reloading equipment
Champion clay targets
Weaver optics and mounting systems
Alliant Powder gun powders for sporting re-loaders and ammunition manufacturers
Eagle Industries law enforcement tactical accessories
BLACKHAWK! tactical, military, shooting sports, and law enforcement equipment.


Answer to question 1:

With the pressures and velocities involved it would be prudent to work up slowly especially since there is not much in the way of load data to compare to the Ramshot data. I am curious why just one round at each charge weight?

Answer to question 2:

I will be looking for anything out of the ordinary. Funny sounds from the gun, proper brass ejection, proper operation of the gun, any signs of over pressure from the brass, head separations, splits. I expect nothing to go wrong! Seriously I expect for the gun to work correctly and the velocities to be just short of the published range due to the short barrel. Also I expect the bullet to perform as it is intended to perform by expanding out as advertised.

Also I have chosen CCI brass for this experiment.

[sinclair]

Your answers are very good. Put them in your reloading notebook as pre-comments before you test the loads. Then prepare the data and note blocks for the loads themselves. I have not done an example of that yet but I can use my recent testing for 380 auto in the Bersa to illustrate.

"I expect nothing to go wrong". I agree, that's why we do enough preparation with safety considered to be sure. Well thought out preparations combined with meticulous load assembly allows us to go to the range with exactly that confidence. Sure beats the other extreme of: "What, me worry ?"

You are curious about only one round for each load increment. Re-read the first part of your answer one again. Well done and applies to breaking up the load testing into separate tests as well. I am going to do an overview of your first test procedure.

Test Procedure (Load Safety verification)

1. Each test round will be placed into a magazine such that it is the ONLY round in the magazine. When all else is ready on the range, insert the magazine, load the ONE round into the chamber, and fire it down range. Check to see if the recoil was sufficient to activate the slide hold-back for last round fired. Note this.

2. Place the now safe weapon down, and look for the empty case. Examine and replace back in the loading block.

That was short and simple. No requirement for accuracy or chronometer. We do those things after we are acquainted a bit with this powder. But you do need to really concentrate on the "feel" of your gun with each test load. Now lets look at your answer number two. If something don't seem right, stop and start troubleshooting. Do not proceed until you have identified the cause. Here is an example, however unlikely. You pulled the trigger, and "click", no fire or recoil. Continue aiming the gun downrange for 20 to 30 seconds. While extremely rare, a slight bit of moisture in the powder can cause a delay (fizzle) fire. This habit assures you are not examining the gun if such a thing occurs. Next, re-cock the gun and try another fire attempt (1911 only - never do this with revolvers). If it does fire on the second try, it means your primer was not seated fully until the first hammer blow, which properly seated it for the second, successful attempt. If no fire again, wait the appropriate seconds BEFORE clearing the round from the gun, then check for a possible squib jam (bullet lodged in the barrel).

Notice that we are now doing things counter to our self-defense conceal carry training. In a self-defense situation, if no fire or jam, we quickly do our whack and clear drill. When testing experimental loads, that may get us into big trouble.

A. Feel of the gun. If you are not really used to the gun with your regular loads, bring some and fire a few to calibrate how the gun usually feels. If you are most used to firing Clays powder, the burn rate difference between Clays and Silhouette should go from a recoil over short time to recoil over longer time. I call it going from a snap to a push. I can feel this easily when I go from Bullseye to Unique. As you go up in charge weight, the caution in feel should be going from a harder push to a push-snap. This is hard to describe but I think it is when the recoil spring slows the slide by not enough and then the metal parts of the gun contact harder. There may be a different sound associated, but hard to detect since you WILL be wearing both hearing and eye protection. Functioning of the gun you leave to whether or not the last round slide hold-back is engaged. As you go up in charge weight, I would also expect the case to eject further with each charge.

B. Examine the cases. It is an unfortunate side effect of low pressure pistol cartridges that the pressure is not sufficient to show a true flattening of the primer, as occurs in rifles. Look back on page nine at the blown case in the glock chamber. Note the round edge of the primer. It is not flattened. While the primer base does look flatter than the new one beside it, this is not uncommon in pistols and can really look dinged in a revolver at MINIMUM loads where the primer is blown back and the case does not come back and reseat the primer. Thus leaving a somewhat flat, high primer after firing low pressure loads. The other thing to watch for at the lower pressure loadings is powder burn blow-back around the mouth of the case, where the pressure is not high enough to seal the brass against the chamber, thus allowing powder burns around the case mouth. If you see this, note it and where it starts to disappear. Once it is gone, you are really looking then for "hard extraction" or worse than normal extractor marks. With our estimated pressure range (below SAAMI max) I do NOT expect any split cases and certainly no case-head separation with once-fired loads. If such, examine the brass with an eye for probable defective case.

C. After this safety test, we will review how the gun felt and functioned through the test range and start multiple loads for accuracy and chronometer checks.

[Grampa]

OK, I've been reading this for a while now. Mr. Sinclair really know this stuff, and has more patience than anyone I know. NMDawg is trying awfully hard to follow the pattern. But when are we going to get to shoot something?
Just kidding guys, I know you are trying to find the magic load, as are we all. Hope you get close with this one!

[NMDawg]

Grampa,

I'm working on it. I want to shoot something too! I am acquiring the use of a very sensitive scale. It isn't designed for reloading but is easily adapted. Also I can only use it on weekends. I want to make sure that everything I do on this experiment is as precise as I can possibly make it.

I should be able to do that this weekend coming up.

[sinclair]

OK, you two. Such impatience, so I guess I will shoot something for you. Also an example sort of, but using powders I am well acquainted with.

Entries from reloading notebook

Date: 9 Dec 2010, La Luz Range

Preliminary test comments: Loads were prepared using once fired cases and CCI 500 Small Pistol primers with two different bullet types. The 95 gr. Rainier plated bullets were sample weighed and found to run on the light side by about half a grain. The Winchester FMJ rounded flat points were sample weighed and were right on the 95 gr advertised weight. Both bullet types were tested with Bullseye and Unique powder but tested separately because the bullet style required significantly different COL even though the weights were similar, and because the Rainier are closer in characteristics to lead rather than copper jacketed. The Rainiers were loaded to a COL of 0.985 inches, the Winchesters to a COL of 0.966 inches. The test loads were fired down range with only one test criteria (besides safety verification) and that was whether or not the Bersa cycled the magazine last-round test to the slide hold-back position. None of the test loads were intended to exceed SAAMI pressure limit for the 380 Auto. The COL for the Rainiers was selected to insure a lower pressure than that of the Winchesters (typical for lead bullet testing) but still allow the use of the same charge weight tests for each type of bullet.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/test380.jpg

The above results are charted very simply. The "OK" means that the gun did eject and cycle properly to slide hold-back position. This was a surprise for me as this is the first automatic I have ever tested that would do that throughout the test range, and for both powders. Usually, the lower pressure end of the range will not sufficiently cycle the slide. The asterisk is added to denote a change in feel of the gun. In this case, it denotes the gun changing to the Push-snap as discussed earlier. I would also note low pressure signs but for this gun, the powder burns on the case were not highly visible and did not change that much through the testing. I should add that I have never tested 380 auto before, nor have I ever used such small charge weights. At the low pressure end, case ejection was right into my lap. At the high pressure end, case ejection was about 10 feet right and 4 feet to the rear. There were no signs of hard extraction or unusual marks on the case.

That was the completion of the safety verification for the selected powders and bullets in the 380 auto.

I did conclude from the results that if the test gun was representative of the brand and model, it should be very forgiving of the ammo that is run through it.

[NMDawg]

Ok, New scale and check weights on the way! Just wasn't comfortable with the electronic or the Lee scale.

[Grampa]

You guys have some serious patience! How long has this been going on now? You haven't got to shoot anything for going on a couple of months now! Is there anyway I can help out? I'm serious (for once). :)

[NMDawg]

No Grampa, there is nothing you can do for me. I appreciate the offer. I just have to get my stuff in one sock, and that is what I am trying to do. I also appreciate Sinclair's patients. Looks like my reloading tools weren't up to par. As soon as I get the new scales I am going to roll'em up. Then we can continue.

[NMDawg]

Okay, scales are in. Primers seated properly, charges weighed and loaded into the cases. Bullets seated to proper depth and taper crimped. Everything triple checked. I am going out tomorrow after work to test the rounds for proper gun function and feel. I will post a report tomorrow evening.

[sinclair]

Been a long time coming, but sure sounds good so far. I think I will enter your experience in my own notebook as well, prior to my own work with this powder. I suspect Grampa is very interested as well.

[Grampa]

:D:D:D:D:D:D Yahoo!!!

[NMDawg]

Ok, went out and shot the test loads. Recapping, using once fired brass, CCI large pistol primers, Ramshot Silhouette powder used for the charges. 8.9 grain through 9.9 grain. Bullets are Hornady 195 grain HP XTP. Each round was shot for the primary purpose of gun function. Each round was loaded into the magazine by it's self and chambered. Then once all safety aspects were checked (eye and ear protection, clear range) I fired. Before firing the test loads, I fired 5 each Independence 230gr FMJ and reloads using 4.9 gr of Clays under 195 gr a Hornady HP XTP as a comparison. All the test loads cycled the gun and the slide locked back. The recoil felt like a firm push only increasing slightly as the loads got larger. The recoil felt smoother. At least that is the way I perceived it. The Clays rounds seemed more like a sharp kick. I was able to recover all the brass and most landed around 6 to 7 feet to my right. With exception of the 9.4gr load which landed on my head. I didn't really shoot for any king of accuracy but I was getting close to what I was aiming at. :)
131

132

133

134

[sinclair]

Congradulations. Very very well done. If you feel good about your project so far, you deserve a hearty good slap on the back/ high five.

You sound like you really do have a good handle on this stuff. Never forget that when a reloader enters the area of experimental loads, we have an even greater responsibility to be safe than do normal gun sport folks. You did mention that above but I will add another safety note. When you clear range, add that ANY observer/bystander cannot be standing forward of or perpendicular to your firearm location angle. Make sure others in the area are well BEHIND the gun location angle.

Lest you get too cocky about this success, I am going to critique you. Don't take this wrong. The first critique is humorous and the second one I will use as a safety emphasis to demonstrate WHY we will always plan a safety margin.

Critique

Point One. With exception of the 9.4gr load which landed on my head

I have a hard time trying to figure out how that is possible. Please tell me that you were not firing that one with the gun sideways, gang-banger style.

More seriously,

Point Two.

From page 7 when we first started this project you said "(I use Hornady 185gr XTPs)"

From page 8 you said "using Hornady's 185gr JHP (45100)"

In your above test report, in both places you are referencing "Bullets are Hornady 195 grain HP XTP"

I believe, in your excitement with this success, that you made a typo there. If you did that in your test notes, then correct them. But lets say for this test that we researched and talked about 185 grain HP's and then you actually used the heavier weight of 195 gr through some unknown circumstance. Would this test have been different ? Well, your top load of 9.9 gr Silhouette under a 195 gr HP bullet seated as we discussed would have definately been a + P load. Given how you are learning to "feel" your gun, I believe you would have felt a real difference in your top three loads. Even this typo alone is justification for our planned safety margin. If you had really used 195 grainers by mistake, or really poor quality weight control from the manufacturer, your test gun should have taken it in stride.

OK, next up is.......what ?

You are acquiring a safe, experimental mind set. Use it. Where do you think we should go from here ?

[NMDawg]

Sinclair, constructive criticism is always welcome. An obvious novice as my self would be foolish not to heed the words of someone who is vastly more experienced. I thank you for your help, and never stop critiquing, only makes me better.

As far as range safety goes, I really shouldn't admit this but, I was the only one at the range. Thinking back I probably should have had at least one other with me in case the unthinkable happened. But in my situation on this day there was no one else to go. The place I go to shoot that is closest is just a basic pit with some real high hills and burms that are good back stops. It is one of those places that has been around forever that everyone uses to go shoot. The organized range I go to is 40 minutes away and I would never use them for conducting this type of experiment due to the amount of people on the range. This mainly because of their safety and range rules.

Yup, I did have a typo. It is a 185 grain Hornady HP XTP. Not sure why I did that. Thanks for the catch. Corrections made.

What's up next? Well...

My thought is to make up 3 or 4 rounds at each charge weight and fire through the chrono. After we have velocities established do some accuracy work. Somewhere I would like to see how a magazine full reacts in the gun.

[Grampa]

:) Butting in again. You got your reloads up! Most outstanding, bet you're happy!

[NMDawg]

I certainly am happy. It was a little frustrating for bit. But I wanted to make sure it was correct. Now I feel confident that I can make even better cartridges than before and be more consistent too. I really do appreciate Sinclair's patients also.

[sinclair]

Now I feel confident that I can make even better cartridges than before and be more consistent too.

And you do not have to do much more than meticulous test load procedure to produce better than factory.

Had time for additional testing yet ? Curious to see if these made the grade on velocity for you ?

[NMDawg]

Sorry, haven't had time yet. Summer has got in the way. Granddaughter and grandson, baseball, gardening, geocaching, yard work and of course shooting and training. Doesn't leave much time for reloading. But I will get to it soon, I am really curious as to the velocities and the functioning of the hollow point.

Another question for you Sinclair. I was wondering about the development of a cartridge where the load data is not published by the manufacturer? Is this even wise? Is there a process for this? Would one need a way to measure pressures before beginning such a project?

[sinclair]

Got a chuckle out of that, summer getting in the way I mean. Don't it always ?

As far as the development of a new cartridge, you probably need to walk pretty good before you try a record 100 yard dash. Read up some on Elmer Keith. He is credited with developing the 44 magnum, or at least doing most of the testing that led to the commercial version. He blew up a lot of guns though, but I don't recall him ever getting injured that way. Another more recent developer was a gun smith by the name of John Linebaugh. Quick reference here.

http://www.gunblast.com/500Linebaugh.htm

Those of course are pistol cartridges. I would suggest leaving the rifle developments to professionals, or at least those who have access to ballistics lab equipment. Since rifle pressures tend to be so much higher than most pistols, if you blow up a rifle, the probability you will be injured is significantly higher.

You might look at a middle ground area, which is what I have done. Wildcat cartridges have already been experimented with and usually load developed but not adopted by or produced by any ammo factory. I did considerable research back in the 80's, looking for a sort of magic cartridge. I had just started reloading and my desire was for the most efficient cartridge I could find. I ended up purchasing from the Remington Custom Shop, one each, XP-100 chambered for the then wildcat 7mm BR. It was a super meticulous process then. I had to make my own cartridges. Start with 308 Win rifle cases, cut off about a quarter inch, anneal the case and re-neck it to 7 mm. The final product looked like a "short magnum" before the "short magnums" were introduced. Just when I thought I had enough and would never make any more, Remington announced to those who had their chamberings that they would custom make the brass. I bought and am still shooting from that brass lot. BTW, this is my ONLY bolt action pistol.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/IMG_0328.JPG

[sinclair]

My apology, I was re-reading your comments and found that I missed an important one.

My thought is to make up 3 or 4 rounds at each charge weight and fire through the chrono.

I would recommend always testing at least five rounds. Our government has done considerable research in statistics to find the minimum test levels that will give a statistically significant result, especially when testing is so expensive as to preclude many repetitive tests. The downside is that a single failure in the five tests is also statistically significant, meaning that you do not just run a single test to make up for the problem. You must fix the problem and have a new series of 5 tests successful.

[sinclair]

Added excellent Load reference;

As indicated in Grampa's "Just Saying" load thread, credit to him of course, here is an excellent multi-page manual from VihtaVuori for those who use their powders. It is rather well written and worth the time to look at even if you do not use their powder.

http://www.eabco.com/VihtaVuori01.pdf

It is a 374KB download, 66 pages, and even includes proper load note blank pages for you to print out.

[NMDawg]

My apology, I was re-reading your comments and found that I missed an important one.



I would recommend always testing at least five rounds. Our government has done considerable research in statistics to find the minimum test levels that will give a statistically significant result, especially when testing is so expensive as to preclude many repetitive tests. The downside is that a single failure in the five tests is also statistically significant, meaning that you do not just run a single test to make up for the problem. You must fix the problem and have a new series of 5 tests successful.

Been a really busy summer. But I am finally getting back to the reloading bench. Going to roll up a minimum of 5 rounds each and hit the range soon. I will let you know what happens as soon as I do. :D

[sinclair]

My wife has been looking to get her own defense firearm, rather than using one of mine. She wanted a 357 Magnum but only if the recoil could be reduced.

It was a tossup between the Lady Smith and the Ruger SP101. So my task was to keep as much performance in the 357 as possible while reducing the recoil to more pleasant levels. After she tested several loads, here is the load she really likes and it should be safe in any 357 chambered gun.

125 grain Penn SWC bullet, CCI 550 primer, Trail Boss powder at 5.0 grains, and COL of 1.590 inches.

This load gets around 1000 ft per second with recoil less than a 38 special. She also wanted me to modify her gun. Picture below.

http://www.concealcarrychat.com/gallery/data/500/medium/380ccw_003.jpg

[Bman505]

Very nice!

[sinclair]

Thank you very much Bman.

Though it is almost off topic here, in line with keeping good references in one place, let me just brag a bit on the source for the pink pearl grips. They need to be final finished, which is not that much work, and this is the only source for really specialty grips.

http://www.tombstonegrips.com/

The owner is great to work with and he does really good work.

I am thinking on doing a gift for my son, same gun but with gold pearl grips and a gold medallion insert. I suspect that will be especially striking with the black rubber-boot type outer grip.

I am also beginning to really like the loads we developed for my wife. In a snubby, full up 357's are not that fun for a long range session. Her loads I can shoot all day and they are darn accurate.

[sinclair]

Now is the time to start lining up some reloading projects for the spring and summer. These projects will be things I have never tackled before so I want to make them fun, hopefully not too humorous, but full of challenge, and as always, safety comes first.

To start out, feel free to comment and offer suggestions even if you do not reload yourself. I intend to have fun with these so the only referee here will be safety first.

I will be bouncing back and forth between projects and keeping score (progress) in here.

This post is intended to be an outline of the upcoming tasks.

For want of a better name, the first project I shall refer to as "Recruiting" The thumbnail description goes like this. I have a good friend (whom I will not name in here) who recently acquired a batch of reloaded ammo as the result of an estate settlement. Or something like that. I do not know nor have asked for other details. His first experience with this stuff was that it seemed really "hot stuff" but also a lot of miss-fires. Knowing me to be a re-loader, and given his initial concerns, he has asked me to give him an opinion and otherwise assist with this circumstance. I found this to be a real challenge. Think about it a bit. As a re-loader, what have we gone through to be able to trust our own loads ? If you suddenly found yourself in a position to assess the products of another re-loader, how would you do that ? What would you do to reach the level of trust with another persons products that you have done with your own ? I will report the opinions and directions taken as this circumstance moves towards a conclusion. As a hint to the really alert folks here, the direction I have chosen to take is hidden in the name for this project.

For want of a better name, the second project I shall refer to as "Hi-Point", as in Hi-Point Firearms. I do not believe anyone in the gun hobby arena would find Hi-Point to be a gun brand that does not generate an immediate reaction. There is no middle to that road. Awesome or junk ? I have gotten so curios about the brand as to decide that I will reload for one. Reloading for a firearm is a circumstance that I have found to generate an intimate familiarity with the gun. It is not difficult to find massive negative reactions to the brand, just look closely on most any firearm forum out there. Likewise, the defenders of the brand are fire-breathers as well. I do not intend to review the firearm. I will acquire one, and like every other firearm I have owned, I do NOT own a firearm I cannot reload for. I will simply develop loads for it as I have for other guns, and record the results. I do not wish to introduce bias in the results. My only expectations are that I can find good loads for it, as I have for all the others.

While a better name may exist, a better description does not. Thus I refer to the third project as "not knowing when to keep my mouth shut". Or alternately, "not using my paws to halt my flapping jaws". The story goes like this. Once upon a time, back when ammo liability laws were not so stringent as to prevent us even reloading for ourselves, I had occasion to develop loads for a long time shooting companion, who shall not be named in here. The most interesting of those load developments was an M-11. Anyway, to keep the story short, it was really fun. Not long after that, some of the historic flaws of the M-11 design showed up, turning the weapon into a safe queen and non-shooter. I had an occasion to flap my bragging jaws over this subject, to infer my prowess at restoring "safe queens" (which I totally lack), and thus end up in an uncomfortable situation. So the third project is in two parts, restore the safe queen as best as can be done today, and re-develop loads for the restoration. At least to my advantage, I do know this much about gun-smithing; never mix a dremel with gun repair. Well, having gone this far, I shall report progress or lack in here, no matter how embarrassing it may be. If nothing else, it may be a good punishment for myself.