Effect of an empty station on a Dillon progressive loader

[Walkalong]

this load is VERY accurate.

Then what’s the issue?

 

[JJFitch]

Bullet = Hornady 115g HAP (excellent quality, and the pure narrowing cone ogive makes bullet seating more accurate)

I want 1300 fps or more muzzle velocity, and I don't want to have to use a "maximum load" to get it. VV 3N38 gives me that velocity halfway up the load table.

I have no other powders yet, and I don't think there is another powder that will give me the above velocity at mid-table number of grains of powder AND burn very clean (I get NO muzzle flash at all), AND run at comparatively low peak pressure (3N38 burns very slow, so the high velocity is a result of longer burn at lower peak pressure).

Jim G

You are experiencing some of the same issues I saw when developing a recipe to duplicate the Winchester 147 grain RNFP. The first hurdle was finding canister powder that didn't exceed max and allowed room to seat the bullet and then match the velocity and accuracy of the factory round. We were left with powders in the neighborhood of HS-7.

What is the factory velocity of the Hornady HAP 115 grain bullet?

Smiles,

 

[Nature Boy]

All my pistol loads get fed a steady diet of HP-38, whether they like it or not

 

[packetloss]

All I can say is with a 650/750 I get variances from the first few rounds and the last few rounds when there are no cases in stations 2-5, 3-5, 4-5, 5, 1, 1-2, etc. I don't really worry about it, but if it's a big concern, just make sure you always have cases in every station and then the shell plate tension should be pretty static throughout.

 

[CMV]

Isn't 3N38 typically used to make major power factor and such a high charge it results in a compressed load? Don't know - don't use that or try to make PF. Sounds like you're chasing velocity for some reason, but it seems you're also trying to do it staying short of major PF. Almost like you're copying what they (competitive shooter, 9mm major PF with a 115gr), but then scaling it back. I'd ask around the competitive guys who are using VV3N38 - the compressed load might be key with that combination?

I'm curious to your load data. VV3N38 doesn't trail that far behind HS-6 on burn rate chart (and I know there can big gaps just a few places apart), but 1300+ fps would be a very stout HS6 load so seems strange "midway up the load table" is pushing it that fast yet you'd have to darn near fill the case for 1400 fps. Or is your "data" some guy's major PF load (which would be +P+ at least) and you scaled back a few tenths? Maybe my brain isn't engaged today, but something doesn't add up or sound right - it sounds way too hot for a standard pressure load. A novice reloader is going to take a Hornady HAP + W231 and make exceptionally accurate rounds very quickly and stay at "typical" 115gr 9mm velocities. It's just not that difficult or complex a task.

 

[JimGnitecki]

It’s been long ago discontinued but I prefer HS-7 to 3N38. N350 might be worth a try too. I would have expected better out of 3N38 though, seems like an awful large ES using that powder.

I guess, at 8.0 grains, you are over their published maximum for 3N38 with any jacketed 115gn bullet they list.

https://www.vihtavuori.com/reloading-data/handgun-reloading/?cartridge=89

No I am NOT over any load they list. Check out the Berry's 115g loads in the VV load tables on the website. I am midrange on powder in that load.

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

Isn't 3N38 typically used to make major power factor and such a high charge it results in a compressed load? Don't know - don't use that or try to make PF. Sounds like you're chasing velocity for some reason, but it seems you're also trying to do it staying short of major PF. Almost like you're copying what they (competitive shooter, 9mm major PF with a 115gr), but then scaling it back. I'd ask around the competitive guys who are using VV3N38 - the compressed load might be key with that combination?

I'm curious to your load data. VV3N38 doesn't trail that far behind HS-6 on burn rate chart (and I know there can big gaps just a few places apart), but 1300+ fps would be a very stout HS6 load so seems strange "midway up the load table" is pushing it that fast yet you'd have to darn near fill the case for 1400 fps. Or is your "data" some guy's major PF load (which would be +P+ at least) and you scaled back a few tenths? Maybe my brain isn't engaged today, but something doesn't add up or sound right - it sounds way too hot for a standard pressure load. A novice reloader is going to take a Hornady HAP + W231 and make exceptionally accurate rounds very quickly and stay at "typical" 115gr 9mm velocities. It's just not that difficult or complex a task.

I am targeting to get a 1300 fps or slightly higher load, but NOT a high pressure load, for good reasons too lengthy to describe here in detail again. The load is indeed midrange in a Vihtavuori load table on their website for a Berry's 115g plated bullet. Brad Miller PhD (who writes a lot of loading article for Shooting Times and elsewhere) has vetted the load as being safer than when using the Berry's bullet because the Hornady HAP 115g bullet I am using is shorter than the Berry's bullet, and thus makes lower peak pressure. QuckLOAD and GRT agree, but each does state that their simulation might be off due to only 70% of the popwder burning before the bullet leaves the muzzle.

VV 3N38 is the ONLY powder I have fopund that will generate 1400 fps withOUT going over SAAMI limits *VV certifies on their website that all loads they list comply with SAAMI). And I am midrange in their Berry's 115g table at 8.0 grains of 3N38. QuickLOAD and GRT both predict peak pressure at only about 25,000 psi or so.

Both VV and Brad Miller acknowledge that some of their lVV powder loads are compressed, and that's not a problem. 8.0 grains however is NOT compressed. It's close to being compressed at the 1.142" COAL with the HAP bullet, but not actually compressed. VV says that at the 8.7g max load it is definite;y compressed, but still not a problem and pressure is still SAAMI compliant even there.

And finally, the load DOES SHOOT. Even my bad groups at 25 yards are under 1.5 inches, and good ones are sub one inch.

Also Brad Miller's articles in Shooting Times, for both 9mm and 9 Major say goods things about thre VV powders, including 3N38.

So, yes, I intend to pursue this further and see where I can take it.

Jim G

 

[jmorris]

Check out the Berry's 115g loads in the VV load tables on the website. I am midrange on powder in that load.

Berry’s are plated bullets, not jacketed. Are you using electroplated bullets?

 

[CMV]

That Berry's bullet also has a hollow bottom cavity where the XTP is flat. Interesting you are picking the one example of their 115gr 3N38 data that is the most dissimilar to the projectile you are using but discounting the other 2 115gr pill examples they publish that would be over max, but you think you are midrange.....

Anyway - the 'almost compressed' might be an issue. Totally different animal and stick powder, but 308WIN I had issues with 'almost compressed' - either not at all or crunch, but right there at what you might call slightly compressed gave me lots of unwanted variation. If your neck tension isn't real good, you can also have compressed loads kind of spring back and push the bullet out just a little.

Might not be a bad idea to re-check the variables you are inputting that calculate 25k PSI because that's around starting load for most anything else. Your gun, your fingers & eyes, do whatever you're comfortable with.....just sounds "off"

 

[dcloco]

Bullet = Hornady 115g HAP (excellent quality, and the pure narrowing cone ogive makes bullet seating more accurate)

I want 1300 fps or more muzzle velocity, and I don't want to have to use a "maximum load" to get it. VV 3N38 gives me that velocity halfway up the load table.

I have no other powders yet, and I don't think there is another powder that will give me the above velocity at mid-table number of grains of powder AND burn very clean (I get NO muzzle flash at all), AND run at comparatively low peak pressure (3N38 burns very slow, so the high velocity is a result of longer burn at lower peak pressure).

Jim G

I prefer to use a powder that approaches a 90%+ case fill rate on pistols. Besides the ability to see obvious double charges, most of these powders burn rather well......or at least as can be expected in pistol cases.

HS6 seems to be the favorite in this house....for everything: 9/38/357/40/44/45 acp.

 

[JimGnitecki]

Berry’s are plated bullets, not jacketed. Are you using electroplated bullets?

No I am using the Hornady HAP jacketed hollowpoint bullet, but the load has been vetted by Brad Miller.

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

That Berry's bullet also has a hollow bottom cavity where the XTP is flat. Interesting you are picking the one example of their 115gr 3N38 data that is the most dissimilar to the projectile you are using but discounting the other 2 115gr pill examples they publish that would be over max, but you think you are midrange.....

Anyway - the 'almost compressed' might be an issue. Totally different animal and stick powder, but 308WIN I had issues with 'almost compressed' - either not at all or crunch, but right there at what you might call slightly compressed gave me lots of unwanted variation. If your neck tension isn't real good, you can also have compressed loads kind of spring back and push the bullet out just a little.

Might not be a bad idea to re-check the variables you are inputting that calculate 25k PSI because that's around starting load for most anything else. Your gun, your fingers & eyes, do whatever you're comfortable with.....just sounds "off"

The HAP bullet I am using is the most common bullet used by Action Pistol shooters using the 3N38 powder at much higher powder loads to achieve 9 Major muzzle velocity (They use number of grains beyond the 8.7 grain max shown by VV).

I agree that the "almost compressed might be an issue, and maybe that slightly shorter COAL gave such superior statistics BECAUSE it changes the load from "on the border to being compressed" to "compressed". The degree of compression at 8.0 grains would still be slight compared to the 8.7 grain maximum load that VV shows as being compressed (They did not show the symbol for compression until I pointed out to them that the load MUST be compressed, since 8.0 grains (versus the 8.7 they show as max) leaves only about .15" for bullet seating, and next day they added the "C" symbol)

I also agree on the neck tension issue, but early on I did test by pushing the tips of sample cartridges against a 2x12 board and I was unable to move the bullets at all.

I've checked and rechecked the variables, in both QuickLOAD and GRT, and found no errors in the input data, BUT as I said above QuickLOAD and GRT both acknowledge in their screen reports that the simulation may be off because of the low (70%) powder burn. But they also both agree that the 8.7 grains that VV shows as the max load does get very close to the SAAMI limit of 34,000 psi. So, while the 25,000 seems very low for MOST powders, remember that this powder burns SO slowly (only 70% burned by the time the bullet exits the muzzle) that that is why it is favoured for Action Pistol use: It achieves high velocity via extended burn time versus via higher pressure, and it even provides lots of gas to operate the compensator as a result. And again, Brad Miller has experimented with this and other VV powders a lot, for both 9mm and 9 Major, and likes them for that role.

Jim G

 

[jmorris]

No I am using the Hornady HAP jacketed hollowpoint bullet, but the load has been vetted by Brad Miller.

Jim G

Have a link?

If it’s this one.

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/fast-9mm-loads/388612

He is using hollow base plated bullets, not JHP.

 

[JimGnitecki]

Have a link?

If it’s this one.

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/fast-9mm-loads/388612

He is using hollow base plated bullets, not JHP.

View attachment 990324

I have better than a link to an article. Brad Miller personally sent me an email via Shooting Times after I asked him about doing this via Shooting Times. He knew exactly what I was planning and asking (VV 3N38, with number of grains compliant with the VV load table for the Berry´s, HB RN TP, using the Hornady HAP 115g, at the recommended 1.142" COAL). He even gave me guidance on pressure and number of grains with shorter COALs if my pistol might require that.

Jim G

 

[jmorris]

Interesting he thinks two different bullets one has a hollow point, the other a hollow base, seated to the same depth and have exposed surfaces of two different materials comply with one another pressure wise.

In any case, if you are following his advice, you might try the 6.7 grains of 3N37 load. much closer to the same bullet you are using and far more accurate, in his tests, than anything else...and you’ll get another 169 rounds out of a pound of powder vs your 8.0 grain charge.

 

[JimGnitecki]

Interesting he thinks two different bullets one has a hollow point, the other a hollow base, seated to the same depth and have exposed surfaces of two different materials comply with one another pressure wise.

In any case, if you are following his advice, you might try the 5.7 grains of 3N37 load. much closer to the same bullet you are using and far more accurate, in his tests, than anything else...and you’ll get another 353 rounds out of a pound of powder vs your 8.0 grain charge.

Which VV load are you talking about? (i.e. which 115g bullet?)

Jim G

 

[jmorris]

Fixed it, the only one he had under an inch at 25. The XTP and HAP are much closer to an apples to apples comparison than either to any plated bullet. If you don’t believe me just buy a box of them and let us know what you think after you shoot them.

 

[JimGnitecki]

Fixed it, the only one he had under an inch at 25. The XTP and HAP are much closer to an apples to apples comparison than either to any plated bullet. If you don’t believe me just buy a box of them and let us know what you think after you shoot them.

View attachment 990340

I agree that the 3N37 load with the XTP is accurate and achieves the 1300 fps or more that I want. BUT . . .

1. It takes the MAXIMUM load in the VV table to achieve the 1300 fps, which means it is at or near SAAMI limit for pressure at 1300 fps. My 3N38 load on the other hand is only midway up its load table at 1300 fps, which verifies what QuickLOAD and GRT are saying: The pressure is far lower than what 3N37 needs to make the 1300 fps. It takes 8.7 grains of 3N38 to hit SAAMI limit, and that gets a shooter 1400 fps, versus the 1300 fps maximum for 3N37.

2. The XTP bullet costs $.324 Canadian each, whereas the Hornady HAP, which is per Hornady identical except no expansion promoting slits (since Action Pistol shooters don't WANT the slits) costs $.209 Canadian each (35% less) at the same seller.

3. In too many of my groups, 4 out of 5 shots are in the same 0.6X" range as Brad's 3N37 accuracy results, suggesting strongly to me that the 5th shot is MY problem, not the load's problem, especially since the 5th shot is NEVER part of a symmetrical pattern. Michael Ransom told me that if the pattern fired on a Ransom rest is not symmetrical, than there is something wrong with the handgun, its mounting in the Ransom rest, or the stability of the bench that the Ransom rest is clamped onto. It's not the inherent accuracy of the load or the handgun. he was adamant about that based on decades of experience.

So, I gotta ask: How is the XTP 115g with 3N37 powder a better load? I agree it is an excellent load for someone willing to run at a higher pressure, but it IS higher pressure and surprisingly more costly.

I am going to reduce my COAL to 1.142" like I had it in the earlier testing, and see if the lower SD and ES repeat.

Jim G

 

[CMV]

I didn't read that as a suggestion to change your bullet, but to use load data for an XTP which is so extremely close in construction to the HAP that you can call them same thing. I did same above not even thinking about it as i make no distinction in my loads for a HAP or XTP.

One could also easily make the leap your intent is to interchange them at some point or you wouldn't be trying for so much muzzle velocity outside of PF consideration. Assumption, but many problems here are diagnosed by super smart and greatly experienced people (like J Morris) diving into the 'why' someone is doing it beyond the technical of 'what' they are doing. I think above is an excellent illustration of that - he gave you an alternative based on the 'why'.

I didn't realize you were using a Ransom rest. What is the ultimate goal for the load? What type of shooting? Reason I ask, is what is recoil impulse like with your load? I don't have a P210 but some similar size and weight like Shadow2 & X5 Legion. In a heavy, accurate, fast pistol like that, not only do I want an extremely accurate load, I want something that takes full advantage of all that weight and has lower perceived recoil. I want to run it as fast as a .22 and just transition targets as if I were using a nerf gun Otherwise, I don't particularly want to be holding something that heavy for long periods.

A bit ironic noting the cost difference between an XTP and a HAP when you're using powder that costs 1.5x as much and then using almost 2x as much charge. But regardless, yes stick with the HAP.

Another note/question - have you tried 124gr or 147gr projectiles? I have a lot of Sigs. Anything larger than P365/P938 of mine prefer 124gr over 115gr for group size. It's not uncommon for me to go thru a 30 cal can of 9mm in a month so I use 115gr mostly for the economy of it, but i don't buy HAP or XTP projectiles in 115gr because for me it defeats the purpose of an accuracy load. They work fine, I just get better results with a 124 or 147gr projectile in any pistol I'd try to group as tightly as possible.

How smooth is your 750 cycling? i have a 650 and even playing with different thrust bearings, phenolic balls, roller bearings, etc. it just 'snaps' from station-to-station a bit too much that it will spill specs of powder from a 9mm case - and I'm filling them a lot less than you are. Just curious how much better they did with the 750.

 

[jmorris]

1. It takes the MAXIMUM load in the VV table to achieve the 1300 fps, which means it is at or near SAAMI limit for pressure at 1300 fps.

i had to go back and read Mr. Miller’s article just to see if my assumptions in #40 were correct. They were not and I can’t say I disagree with much of anything he wrote.

“The values it (the Quickload software) gives are estimates and are no substitute for actual pressure measurements under controlled lab conditions.”

“Handloaders have to be careful to make sure their loads stay within safe pressure limits, so it is important to follow published load data closely. Changing components can dramatically change pressure. The important things to watch are bullet manufacturer, overall length, brand of brass, and primer. Changing any of these can change pressure.”

“Cartridge overall length (COL) is an especially important variable. Pressure increases as the bullet is seated deeper in the case, so handloaders must be very watchful of COL. For example, the Speer Reloading Manual #10 showed a 9mm Luger load that produced 28,000 CUP (copper units of pressure) went up to 62,000 CUP when the bullet was seated 0.030 inch deeper—an increase of 34,000 CUP (121 percent).”

“When seating the bullet to a depth greater than that listed in the manual, the powder charge must be reduced to keep the pressure the same.”

Then in “results” he finds.

“The fastest standard-pressure load was with VV 3N38 pushing a Berry’s 115-grain plated hollowbase roundnose bullet to 1,321 fps. This is fast! And it’s faster than any of the +P loads used for this bullet weight.

It’s unfortunate that he didn’t go further into the why. How does the Berry’s bullet travel down the barrel at lower pressures than all the other 115gn bullets, even at higher pressures?

It’s actually two reasons, the first is plated bullets have less friction than jacketed bullets so it’s slicker and requires less pressure to spit out. You can confirm this yourself by buying a box of Berry’s plated bullets and otherwise identical jacketed bullets and load them with the same powder charge to the same seating depth and see what one exits faster.

The second he also touches on in his article.

“When you have to seat the bullet deeper and then make changes in the charge to maintain the same pressure....Conversely, if you can increase the COL, you can increase the powder charge and velocity will go up. This is a method for getting the most speed from your ammo. Load as long as possible, increase the charge weight as you go, and you’ll get more speed.”

How much additional volume the hollow base adds to the case volume under the bullet would have to be calculated but the added volume it gives would have the effect of seating the bullet longer.




In any case, I have loaded my fair share of major 9 loads for competition so I understand what not going by the book is and it seams you are happy with what you have there and that makes me happy for you. So, this is more of a caution for others on blindly substituting components and assuming everything else stays the same.

 

[jmorris]

3. In too many of my groups, 4 out of 5 shots are in the same 0.6X" range as Brad's 3N37 accuracy results, suggesting strongly to me that the 5th shot is MY problem, not the load's problem, especially since the 5th shot is NEVER part of a symmetrical pattern. Michael Ransom told me that if the pattern fired on a Ransom rest...

I didn’t catch that you added another machine to the mix. Mine is mounted to the corner of a steel fence in concrete, so the base is much more ridged than the C clamp a board to a bench.



and capable of getting decent results like this very high and slightly right 10 shot 25 yard group.


However, it seems dependent on the user as a friend of mine gets different results than I do using it. Not greatly, mind you but there is difference enough that it doesn’t seem to completely remove the effects of the human.

First thing I can think of, if it’s throwing only one from every 5, is to have 6 or more in the mag. Perhaps a larger number of shots in a group would give you a better statistical representation of the load but I understand wanting to keep them to fewer shots too.

The machine itself can also be improved upon but that’s another story.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/ransom-rest-rabbit-hole.877388/page-2

 

[JimGnitecki]

I erred in not explaining my reference to the Ransom rest. I did not mean to imply I am using a Ransom rest. I am NOT. I meant to say that Michael Ransom's comments on an asymmetric group shape apply whether the "shooter" is a Ransom rest or a human.

If the shape of the group fired is reasonably symmetrical - i.e. more or less round and not vertically or horizontally strung - then you are measuring the inherent combined accuracy of the firearm and the ammunition load. If however the shape of the group is obviously distorted - e.g. vertically strung - or is mostly symmetrical but has just one "flyer", or if the groups "move" relative to the point of aim, then you are showing a deficiency in the Ransom rest or the human, not the ammunition.

My best groups are pretty symmetrical and small. My less than best groups typically fit into 1 of 2 categories:

Category 1. They are simply large rin diameter because my eyes have gotten tired, but still rarely exceed 1-1/4" in overall size

or

Category 2. They have 4 shots in a nice group that is 0.6X" to 0.8X" in diameter, and 1 shot that is way outside the other 4

These are not symptoms of bad ammunition. They are simply symptoms of aged eyes trying to focus on a gunsight through progressive bifocal eyeglass lenses. When the groups from a handgun are that small, it is I, not the ammunition, that is causing the deviations.

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

Good commentaries! See my comments in blue font (I remember that one of you on this forum cannot see "red" font)

I didn't read that as a suggestion to change your bullet, but to use load data for an XTP which is so extremely close in construction to the HAP that you can call them same thing. I did same above not even thinking about it as i make no distinction in my loads for a HAP or XTP. VV used a wide array of bullets for their website 9mm load guide. The only XTP load that VV lists, so they incldued only one load for the XTP. That low requires maximum powder charge to reach 1300 fps. That was counter to my insistence on NOT using a maximum load.

One could also easily make the leap your intent is to interchange them at some point or you wouldn't be trying for so much muzzle velocity outside of PF consideration. Assumption, but many problems here are diagnosed by super smart and greatly experienced people (like J Morris) diving into the 'why' someone is doing it beyond the technical of 'what' they are doing. I think above is an excellent illustration of that - he gave you an alternative based on the 'why'. My "why" is easy but not understandable by most shooters and especially not by shooters who are competitive: I don't like to "game" the rules by shooting powderpuff loads that barely meet the rules of a shooting game. I like to shoot loads that more honestly simulate what a shooter wanting honest stopping power in the real world would use. Part of the reason for that attitude I suppose is that I worked at a law enforcement agency for a while and heard the stories from street officers. I came to understand the wisdom of handgun loads like the 9mm 115g 1300+fps and the 357 SIG 125g 1400 fps. The 9m 115g HAP at 1300+ fps is the easiest, and most cost effective way, to get those kind of ballistics, and the VV 3N38 is the only powder I've found that can deliver those 9mm ballistics at safe pressures, and with superior accuracy from my SIG P210A Target pistol.

I didn't realize you were using a Ransom rest. See my Post 47 above. What is the ultimate goal for the load? See text above. What type of shooting? IPSC. Reason I ask, is what is recoil impulse like with your load? Recoil impulse is VERY MILD. I don't even notice it. It's a pussycat compared to other loads I have fired, and that attests to its low pressure. I don't have a P210 37 oz. but some similar size and weight like Shadow2 & X5 Legion. In a heavy, accurate, fast pistol like that, not only do I want an extremely accurate load, I want something that takes full advantage of all that weight and has lower perceived recoil. I want to run it as fast as a .22 and just transition targets as if I were using a nerf gun Otherwise, I don't particularly want to be holding something that heavy for long periods. I don't find 37 oz to feel heavy at all.

A bit ironic noting the cost difference between an XTP and a HAP when you're using powder that costs 1.5x as much and then using almost 2x as much charge. But regardless, yes stick with the HAP. Hey, powder cost even with the VV 3N38 premium price is still only $.059 Canadian out of $.401 Canadian TOTAL cost per round! The difference in cost for the XTP bullet would raise the total cost per round to $.52 Canadian! I pay attention to where the REAL costs are!

Another note/question - have you tried 124gr or 147gr projectiles? No, not yet at least. But if I am getting great accuracy, 400 to 450 ft lb of muzzle energy, modest recoil, and relatively low cost per round, why would I go looking for a heavier load which would automatically cost more and provide less kinetic energy versus what I have? (Having read and heard the officer street reports about stopping power, I am a firm believer in KE stopping power versus "larger holes" stopping power) I have a lot of Sigs. Anything larger than P365/P938 of mine prefer 124gr over 115gr for group size. It's not uncommon for me to go thru a 30 cal can of 9mm in a month so I use 115gr mostly for the economy of it, but i don't buy HAP or XTP projectiles in 115gr because for me it defeats the purpose of an accuracy load. They work fine, I just get better results with a 124 or 147gr projectile in any pistol I'd try to group as tightly as possible.

How smooth is your 750 cycling? i have a 650 and even playing with different thrust bearings, phenolic balls, roller bearings, etc. it just 'snaps' from station-to-station a bit too much that it will spill specs of powder from a 9mm case - and I'm filling them a lot less than you are. Just curious how much better they did with the 750 The XL750 is a LOT smoother and of course operator technique is a big part of getting smoothness. You can see from my cartridge measurements in posting 1 that I do have a pretty good consistency in my loading which is only possible with good technique.

 

[JimGnitecki]

JMorris: In the Ransom rets fired target you show in Posting 46, the group illustrates the very issue I have been talking about: The group is so oddly shaped that it clearly does NOT represent the limitations of either the firearm or the ammunition.

There is both a horizontal stringing AND 2 "flyers" that are clearly separated from the rest of the group.

There's likely something wrong with the setup of the ransom rest. It could be:

- The human activating the trigger may be doing so inconsistently (whether activating the trigger directly or via the Ransom remote setup.

- The metal fence rails that the Ransom rest is attached to may be vibrating at an unfortunate frequency that is manifesting the stringing and the 2 closely spaced flyers. yes, I know that the fence is set into concrete at ground level, but that would not stop the top rails from vibrating when a shot is made. (Just like plucking a tensioned guitar string that is firmly attached at each end still makes a vibration that we find pleasant, and whose frequency can also be UNpleasant if plucked incorrectly).

- The grip inserts might be either not properly tensioned, or not the exact ones intended for that firearm

etc.

Jim G

 

[jmorris]

JMorris: In the Ransom rets fired target you show in Posting 46, the group illustrates the very issue I have been talking about: The group is so oddly shaped that it clearly does NOT represent the limitations of either the firearm or the ammunition.

There is both a horizontal stringing AND 2 "flyers" that are clearly separated from the rest of the group.

There's likely something wrong with the setup of the ransom rest. It could be:

There are actually 4 impacts outside the larger cluster, in that group, 2 at 9:00 and 2 at 7:30.

When I finally got one, more than a quarter century after Chuck Ransom (guy that invented it) had passed, then used it then took it apart and measured it, I wasn’t as impressed as some are with the machine. That said, I don’t own one he made and don’t know if tolerance/materials changed after his passing.

It’s certainly a quick way to test loads “A,B,C&D” with the same firearm but I also don’t feel it’s the end all be all of testing methods.

Instead of scrapping the entire concept he used, I just altered a few of them on the machine rest I built, linked to at the bottom of #46.

This is another 10 shot 25 yard group from the same pistol, ammunition and mounting point as the ransom shown in #46 but using my machine rest.