Quantcast
Recovery from a Reloading Faux Paux - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Ammunition, Gear, and Firearm Help > Handloading and Reloading

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 23, 2015, 04:35 PM   #1
rdtompki
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 26, 2014
Posts: 77
Recovery from a Reloading Faux Paux

I'm early in my reloading "career". My wife and I will be shooting 147gr 9mm exclusively and I've worked up a 3.6gr WSF load at 1.15" OAL that works well in both our Springfield 9mm 1911s. My wife wanted something softer than 3.6gr so in anticipation of a steel challenge I built up 500 rounds at 3.5gr forgetting that the last time I loaded 3.5gr the OAL had been 1.13". These rounds were a disaster, but I re-sized them to 1.13" with my fingers crossed.

Went to the range today and I lucked out and the shorter OAL makes the rounds serviceable certainly for steel challenge where you're ok if the slide doesn't lock back. Lesson: Never build up a bunch of ammo unless you're positive it will work in all your guns. I was not looking forward to takiing 500 rounds apart.
rdtompki is offline  
Old January 23, 2015, 04:41 PM   #2
WestKentucky
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 1, 2014
Posts: 2,307
Measure twice cut once...always double check when making things, whether it be a doghouse or a crate of ammo.
__________________
Spellchecker and autocorrect is ran by anti-gun people who think that a "hi-point" should be "hip ointment" and a "parabellum" is a "parable lump" and so forth. Please excuse idiotic things that the electronics think I said that I never said. http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/
WestKentucky is online now  
Old January 23, 2015, 08:51 PM   #3
gamestalker
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 10, 2008
Location: SW Arizona
Posts: 7,978
You know what I do that helps reduce mistakes like that, I log everything as I prepare to do it, that way I am less likely to have something slip by.

500 round though, yuck! I hope you have a collet puller, can't imagine pounding out 500 of them.

GS
gamestalker is offline  
Old January 23, 2015, 08:54 PM   #4
FROGO207
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 7, 2008
Location: Mount Desert Island Maine
Posts: 5,112
FWIW the longer you reload the more refined your process will become. Also you will incorporate many safety steps/checks that will assure you make safe accurate ammo. IMHO the step of proofing the load for function is one of the most important before making a pile of them. Just sayin.
__________________
The west was not won with a registered gun!!
Don't let our government make us into outlaws
NRA Life Member.
FROGO207 is offline  
Old January 23, 2015, 10:53 PM   #5
rdtompki
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 26, 2014
Posts: 77
Fortunately, the 3.5gr load at 1.13" OAL (which I had previously tested) cycles fine in my gun, but we've settled on 3.6gr at 1.15" which we've shot a lot. If I had my druthers I'd go to 3.7gr to have a bit more margin, but the Hornady powder drop is very consistent. We'll see how it goes tomorrow when my wife puts 300 rounds down range at a steel challenge match; I'm going to shoot the shorter stuff to use it up. It's an object lesson in the power of 0.02" difference in OAL.
rdtompki is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:45 AM   #6
il.bill
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: December 9, 2011
Location: FOID Land (Illinois)
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdtompki View Post
... I built up 500 rounds at 3.5gr forgetting that the last time I loaded 3.5gr the OAL had been 1.13". These rounds were a disaster, ... .
In what way?

Did they not want to feed, not cycle the action, not give acceptable accuracy, or what?
il.bill is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:50 AM   #7
rdtompki
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 26, 2014
Posts: 77
Wouldn't cycle the action reliably on either my 9mm 1911 or my wife's: very weak ejection and/or stove pipes. 3.6gr at 1.15" OAL works just fine. Upon further reflection I've decided on 3.7gr/1.15" for myself and 3.6gr for my wife.
rdtompki is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:52 AM   #8
il.bill
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: December 9, 2011
Location: FOID Land (Illinois)
Posts: 657
Sounds like a plan. Happy shooting to you both!
il.bill is offline  
Old Yesterday, 02:39 PM   #9
judgedelta
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: September 12, 2013
Posts: 247
I'm sure you've looked at the Hodgen (Winchester) web site: http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

which calls for a higher starting load and longer OAL...

Good luck and be safe.
judgedelta is offline  
Old Yesterday, 05:06 PM   #10
rdtompki
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 26, 2014
Posts: 77
I did look at Hodgdon and was originally loading at 1.169", but other sources (Lyman, I believe) had a much shorted OAL for a 147gr lead bullet. Now I didn't have the dimensions of the bullet for that short load, but worked my way to 1.13". I changed to 1.15" after speaking with Donnie at Bayou Bullets who indicated that he found WSF in that load range to work really well at 1.15".

There are discussions around about the 1.169" OAL which indicate that this is the original Winchester data and Hodgdon hasn't chosen to do any other testing on Winchester powder since taking over the line. The use of this OAL appears to indicate that this is the only OAL at which Winchester did their testing.
rdtompki is offline  
Old Yesterday, 05:27 PM   #11
ArchAngelCD
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 18,582
Are you saying the ammo with an OAL of 1.13" would not cycle but @1.15" it will? Most presses won't even do .02" differences reliably. Not only that but it's usually the reverse, the longer OAL can cause problems. I am confused.
__________________
Remember boys and girls, gun control only prevents law abiding Americans from owning guns because the Bad Guys donít obey the laws, no matter how restrictive or lenient the laws are!
ArchAngelCD is offline  
Old Yesterday, 05:32 PM   #12
rdtompki
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 26, 2014
Posts: 77
Quote:
Are you saying the ammo with an OAL of 1.13" would not cycle but @1.15" it will? Most presses won't even do .02" differences reliably. Not only that but it's usually the reverse, the longer OAL can cause problems. I am confused.
3.5gr@1.15" - won't cycle reliably
3.6gr@1.15" - cycles
3.5gr@1.13" - cycles

I think this behavior is as expected, but does indicate that with the 3.6 gr we're on the edge. The 1.15" is probably +-.005" unless I get a round which is really hard to size which will slightly throw off the round being seated at the same time. I find with my Hornady LNL AP press I need to re-adjust the seating die slightly as I start to run in progressive mode (seems to be the norm).
rdtompki is offline  
Old Today, 12:49 AM   #13
tcanthonyii
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 9, 2012
Posts: 220
I'm in a similar situation. Loaded up 1k 45 and they function perfect in my XD, the only 45 I had when i loaded them. My SR1911 hates them, too long so I tested shortening them. Fixed the problem so now I'm working on those. Got them all shortened and now need to run them through the Lee FCD and then my case gauge just for good measure. Will be nice to have that all done.

I'm evil though, I put the kids to work today running the press to shorten them.
tcanthonyii is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.