Interesting muzzle velocity behaviour with TiteGroup for Cowboy Action Shooting

[JimGnitecki]

I have been working to develop a handload for my Cowboy Action Shooting (CAS) Cimarron Model P (replica of Colt Peacemaker) revolvers in 357 Magnum, and my 1873 replica rifle, and have encountered an interesting result: The almost identical powder load used with 2 different weights of bullets (a 158g cast .358" RNFP bullet and a 130g cast .358" RNFP bullet) delivers almost identical muzzle velocity from the revolvers.

I knew going into this project that it might be somewhat difficult to find a load that will work well, in both the revolvers and the lever action 1873 replica rifle, because:
- the only powder currently available to me in a reliable supply stream is TiteGroup
- The 357 Magnum case is a very LONG case with lots of internal case volume
- TiteGroup is very lightweight powder per cubic inch, BUT any CAS load will occupy only a very small portion of that volume.

One GOOD thing about TiteGroup is that it is apparently very insensitive to position in the case.

CAS shooters on the SASS forum recommended a 130g bullet so that recoil would be limited, as CAS is a VERY fast-shooting sport where the shooter's speed of shooting is more important than accuracy, because the targets are large and at close distances, but the winning shooters's 5-shot strings sound like VERY fast semiauto strings despite the revolvers being replica single action requiring manual cocking for each shot, and the rifle being a replica lever action.

Initial ladder testing with the 130g. bullets at 1.580" COAL, with TiteGroup at 3.6, 3.8, 4.0, 4.2 , and 4.4 grains identified 2 good nodes at 3.8g and 4.4g. The 4.4g load was better because it was more reliably accurate in 5-shot groups at 25 yards and the 3.8g proved incapable of reliably knocking down our CAS club's knockdown 8" diameter steel targets.

The 4.4g load had the following statistics:
Muzzle velocity (via Labradar) = 857 fps (Low recoil with power factor = only 111)
Std dev = 16
Extreme spread = 61
Average 5-shot group size at 25 yards = 5.4" for LEFThand revolver and 2.9" for RIGHThand revolver

Although the std dev is not that bad, notice the high extreme spread.
Notice also that the LEFT revolver performed with much inferior accuracy versus the RIGHT revolver. The left versus right revolver accuracy difference occurred also at other loadings.

I attributed the high extreme spread to the unhappy combination of small powder load in a large case. I attributed the difference in accuracy between the left and right revolvers to something mechanical in the left revolver being inferior to that of the right revolver (Both have the same .006" cylinder gap, both have .362" (too large) throat diameter for the .358" bullets, but the relative forcing cone quality and barrel groove diameters are unknown to me).

Subsequent testing at higher TiteGroup loads at 4.6g and 4.8g showed that both were good, but 4.8g was slightly better than the 4.6 and the 4.4g loads:
Muzzle velocity (via Labradar) = 907 fps (High for traditional CAS, but PF still only =118 )
Std dev = 21 (a bit worse than 4.4g)
Extreme spread = 70 (similar to 4.4g)
Average 5-shot group size at 25 yards = 4.5" for LEFThand revolver and 3.0" for RIGHThand revolver. Again, the LEFT revolver is consistently less accurate, but better than it was at 4.g.

Then I received a test batch of 158g bullets. My initial examination of these bullets revealed a potential issue: The crimping groove was located relatively nearer to the nose of the bullet than I would have expected. If I crimped into that groove, the COAL would be only about 1.525", which is about .055" shorter than the 1.580" I was trying to maintain with the 130g bullets, because SAAMI says 1.590" or slightly less, and I was being careful to stay UNDER 1.590" to avoid locking up the revolver cylinder with rounds that might be on the high side in COAL (COAL varies more with cast bullets than with jacketed bullets).

I queried both the seller and a very experienced friend, and also did my own calculations on how much the case volume would be reduced (about 8%), and we all agreed that the reduction in COAL would not be unsafe, AND the seller assured me that this bullet had a good actual use history with multiple CAS club shooters.

The Hodgdon load table for TitGroup with a 158g cast bullet however showed me that the usable "window" for this bullet with TiteGroup is VERY narrow, being just 4.5g to 5.0g:




I did not want to be at either the minimum load or the maximum load, so loaded just 2 different loads: 4.6g and 4.8g.

The predicted velocities in a 10" test barrel would apaprently be in the 1000 to 1100 fps BUT with my 4.75" revolver barrels, they would certainly be under the 1000 fps SASS rule for the revolvers, and certainly not "significantly" higher in the 20" rifle barrel - certainly well under the SASS rule limit of 1400 fps for rifles.

The actual results were very interesting, with the 4.6g results being slightly better than the 4.8g:

Muzzle velocity (via Labradar) = 923 fps (High for traditional CAS, but PF still only = 146)
Std dev = 13 ( significantly better than for the 130g bullet at 4.6g and 4.8g)
Extreme spread = 41 (significantly better than for the 130g bullet at 4.6g and 4.8)
Average 5-shot group size at 25 yards = The same, about 3", for LEFThand revolver AND " for RIGHThand revolver.

The significance is that the 158g bullet, loaded to a short COAL of only 1.525", not only produced the same accuracy as the 130g bullet at about the same powder load, but also about the same muzzle velocity, AND apparently "corrected" whatever was bothering the LEFT revolver, allowing it to produce about the same size groups as the RIGHT revolver.

I have a THEORY on WHY I got this unanticipated result.

I think maybe ANY CAS-level load in a 357 Magnum case is inherently far from ideal simply because any powder, other than the now discontinued Trail Boss and Tin Star powders, occupies way too little of the case volume under the bullet.

The position of the crimp groove in the 158g bullet I received FORCES a handloader to load with a shorter than normal COAL, because, the seller tells me, the lead alloy used is too hard to permit crimping into the bullet away from the crimp groove. But this reduces the case volume, because not only is the crimp groove relatively higher on this bullet, but the bullet itself is also longer than the 130g bullet. So, the net effect is about a .069" reduction in the height of the case volume underneath the bullet.

That is only an 8.5% reduction in volume, but remember that very narrow Hodgdon loading range for this weight of cast bullet with TiteGroup? I am theorizing that because this range is so narrow, that 8.5% reduction in case volume happens to produce a favourable impact on the powder's performance. Just look at how the muzzle velocity with the 158g, 22% heavier bullet (923 fps) is HIGHER than the muzzle velocity of the 130g bullet (907 fps), despite the charge being 4.6g for the 158g bullet versus 4.8g for the 130g bullet.

The 4.6g powder with 158g bullet is a more efficient package than the 4.8g powder with 130g bullet.

I cannot however explain why the heavier bullet improved the previously consistently poorer accuracy of the LEFT revolver compared to the RIGHT revolver. What could be the explanation for THAT? Both bullets are apparently nominally .358" diameter. The 158g bullets apparently use a harder lead alloy.

By the way, 3" to 4" groups at 25 yards for replica Colt Peacemakers are apparently "good", especially since my specific 2 replica revolvers are replicas of the ORIGINAL 1873 Colt Peacemaker, not the later 1895 "Pre War" model. The sights on the original model are VERY small and VERY indistinct (Blued not brass, only .045" wide, no serrations, rounded arch top, rear sight is just a tiny "v" cut into the top strap), and I have 72 year old eyes, so apparently I should be pretty satisfied with 3" groups when I can get them! But using those sights in an actual high-speed-shooting match, where you cannot take half a minute to align the sights, is another story.

What do you guys think about my theory on the velocity and what do you think could account for the improved accuracy of the LEFT revolver?

Jim G

 

[N555]

Can you use 38spl?
I like 38spl hot loaded with fluffy single base powder.

 

[JimGnitecki]

Can you use 38spl?
I like 38spl hot loaded with fluffy single base powder.

No, I have a generous supply of .357 Magnum cases. And TiteGroup is the only powder reliably available to me as I stated above.

Jim G

 

[fxvr5]

Jim,

The same ammo will produce different accuracy results in different guns. Your results of one gun not liking load A, while both guns like load B, is not unusual at all. Don't overthink it.

 

[fxvr5]

Jim,

As for velocity, the same powder charge with different bullet weights often results in the heavier bullet going faster, probably because the powder has less space to work in and the heavier bullet will produce more pressure, and this can yield higher speed. The article below shows a heavier bullet generally producing more speed than lighter bullets when they all have the same powder charge. See Table 2.

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/power-factor-recoil-bullet-weight-gives-edge/99399

 

[JimGnitecki]

Jim,

As for velocity, the same powder charge with different bullet weights often results in the heavier bullet going faster, probably because the powder has less space to work in and the heavier bullet will produce more pressure, and this can yield higher speed. The article below shows a heavier bullet generally producing more speed than lighter bullets when they all have the same powder charge. See Table 2.

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/power-factor-recoil-bullet-weight-gives-edge/99399

Thank-you fxvr5 for the link to that article! I recognized Brad Miller's name as the author. Brad personally helped me develop a high speed (1375 fps) 115g 9mm load for my SIG P210A a couple years back, and I got fantastic results - one inch accuracy 25 yards when the shooter did his part! So I know Brad is good on this kind of stuff.

This article is particularly interesting for those who will never likely read it - Cowboy Action Shooters. That game really puts a premium on speed versus absolute accuracy, so recoil reduction is important. Interestingly, many CAS shooters shoot 130g bullets in .38 and .357 Mag revolvers, thinking that the low bullet weight will reduce recoil. But, if the recoil is reduced TOO much, the bullets won't reliably knock down the steel knockdown targets commonly used in CAS.

Some CAS shooters have told me that they get away with loads like 130g at 750 fps, but that's a power factor of only 97.5, and I have found via actual onsite testing at our local CAS club's range that even a PF of 110 will not reliably knock down the targets. You have to hit them "just right" near the TOP of the circular target plate, which of course makes the target harder to hit and not miss.

So, I am pleased that the 158g bullet I now have at 923 fps gives me a PF = 146 while keeping the recoil pretty tame for faster shooting.

Jim G

 

[Roverguy]

Fxvr5 has given most excellent advice: “don’t overthink it.”

In days of component scarcity and high cost, you have found a load that works. It’s not as if CAS requires fine accuracy, so “it works” is good. Enjoy.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Sorry if I misunderstood what you said. You are saying the Right revolver is more accurate than the left revolver. Are you shooting one handed? If yes, is it possible you just don't shoot as well with your Left hand?

Why do you have a L &R revolver? Have you switched hands with the 2 guns?

I might be way off so please clarify...

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I have been working to develop a handload for my Cowboy Action Shooting (CAS) Cimarron Model P (replica of Colt Peacemaker) revolvers in 357 Magnum, and my 1873 replica rifle, and have encountered an interesting result: The almost identical powder load used with 2 different weights of bullets (a 158g cast .358" RNFP bullet and a 130g cast .358" RNFP bullet) delivers almost identical muzzle velocity from the revolvers.

I knew going into this project that it might be somewhat difficult to find a load that will work well, in both the revolvers and the lever action 1873 replica rifle, because:
- the only powder currently available to me in a reliable supply stream is TiteGroup
- The 357 Magnum case is a very LONG case with lots of internal case volume
- TiteGroup is very lightweight powder per cubic inch, BUT any CAS load will occupy only a very small portion of that volume.

One GOOD thing about TiteGroup is that it is apparently very insensitive to position in the case.

CAS shooters on the SASS forum recommended a 130g bullet so that recoil would be limited, as CAS is a VERY fast-shooting sport where the shooter's speed of shooting is more important than accuracy, because the targets are large and at close distances, but the winning shooters's 5-shot strings sound like VERY fast semiauto strings despite the revolvers being replica single action requiring manual cocking for each shot, and the rifle being a replica lever action.

Initial ladder testing with the 130g. bullets at 1.580" COAL, with TiteGroup at 3.6, 3.8, 4.0, 4.2 , and 4.4 grains identified 2 good nodes at 3.8g and 4.4g. The 4.4g load was better because it was more reliably accurate in 5-shot groups at 25 yards and the 3.8g proved incapable of reliably knocking down our CAS club's knockdown 8" diameter steel targets.

The 4.4g load had the following statistics:
Muzzle velocity (via Labradar) = 857 fps (Low recoil with power factor = only 111)
Std dev = 16
Extreme spread = 61
Average 5-shot group size at 25 yards = 5.4" for LEFThand revolver and 2.9" for RIGHThand revolver

Although the std dev is not that bad, notice the high extreme spread.
Notice also that the LEFT revolver performed with much inferior accuracy versus the RIGHT revolver. The left versus right revolver accuracy difference occurred also at other loadings.

I attributed the high extreme spread to the unhappy combination of small powder load in a large case. I attributed the difference in accuracy between the left and right revolvers to something mechanical in the left revolver being inferior to that of the right revolver (Both have the same .006" cylinder gap, both have .362" (too large) throat diameter for the .358" bullets, but the relative forcing cone quality and barrel groove diameters are unknown to me).

Subsequent testing at higher TiteGroup loads at 4.6g and 4.8g showed that both were good, but 4.8g was slightly better than the 4.6 and the 4.4g loads:
Muzzle velocity (via Labradar) = 907 fps (High for traditional CAS, but PF still only =118 )
Std dev = 21 (a bit worse than 4.4g)
Extreme spread = 70 (similar to 4.4g)
Average 5-shot group size at 25 yards = 4.5" for LEFThand revolver and 3.0" for RIGHThand revolver. Again, the LEFT revolver is consistently less accurate, but better than it was at 4.g.

Then I received a test batch of 158g bullets. My initial examination of these bullets revealed a potential issue: The crimping groove was located relatively nearer to the nose of the bullet than I would have expected. If I crimped into that groove, the COAL would be only about 1.525", which is about .055" shorter than the 1.580" I was trying to maintain with the 130g bullets, because SAAMI says 1.590" or slightly less, and I was being careful to stay UNDER 1.590" to avoid locking up the revolver cylinder with rounds that might be on the high side in COAL (COAL varies more with cast bullets than with jacketed bullets).

I queried both the seller and a very experienced friend, and also did my own calculations on how much the case volume would be reduced (about 8%), and we all agreed that the reduction in COAL would not be unsafe, AND the seller assured me that this bullet had a good actual use history with multiple CAS club shooters.

The Hodgdon load table for TitGroup with a 158g cast bullet however showed me that the usable "window" for this bullet with TiteGroup is VERY narrow, being just 4.5g to 5.0g:

View attachment 1148179


I did not want to be at either the minimum load or the maximum load, so loaded just 2 different loads: 4.6g and 4.8g.

The predicted velocities in a 10" test barrel would apaprently be in the 1000 to 1100 fps BUT with my 4.75" revolver barrels, they would certainly be under the 1000 fps SASS rule for the revolvers, and certainly not "significantly" higher in the 20" rifle barrel - certainly well under the SASS rule limit of 1400 fps for rifles.

The actual results were very interesting, with the 4.6g results being slightly better than the 4.8g:

Muzzle velocity (via Labradar) = 923 fps (High for traditional CAS, but PF still only = 146)
Std dev = 13 ( significantly better than for the 130g bullet at 4.6g and 4.8g)
Extreme spread = 41 (significantly better than for the 130g bullet at 4.6g and 4.8)
Average 5-shot group size at 25 yards = The same, about 3", for LEFThand revolver AND " for RIGHThand revolver.

The significance is that the 158g bullet, loaded to a short COAL of only 1.525", not only produced the same accuracy as the 130g bullet at about the same powder load, but also about the same muzzle velocity, AND apparently "corrected" whatever was bothering the LEFT revolver, allowing it to produce about the same size groups as the RIGHT revolver.

I have a THEORY on WHY I got this unanticipated result.

I think maybe ANY CAS-level load in a 357 Magnum case is inherently far from ideal simply because any powder, other than the now discontinued Trail Boss and Tin Star powders, occupies way too little of the case volume under the bullet.

The position of the crimp groove in the 158g bullet I received FORCES a handloader to load with a shorter than normal COAL, because, the seller tells me, the lead alloy used is too hard to permit crimping into the bullet away from the crimp groove. But this reduces the case volume, because not only is the crimp groove relatively higher on this bullet, but the bullet itself is also longer than the 130g bullet. So, the net effect is about a .069" reduction in the height of the case volume underneath the bullet.

That is only an 8.5% reduction in volume, but remember that very narrow Hodgdon loading range for this weight of cast bullet with TiteGroup? I am theorizing that because this range is so narrow, that 8.5% reduction in case volume happens to produce a favourable impact on the powder's performance. Just look at how the muzzle velocity with the 158g, 22% heavier bullet (923 fps) is HIGHER than the muzzle velocity of the 130g bullet (907 fps), despite the charge being 4.6g for the 158g bullet versus 4.8g for the 130g bullet.

The 4.6g powder with 158g bullet is a more efficient package than the 4.8g powder with 130g bullet.

I cannot however explain why the heavier bullet improved the previously consistently poorer accuracy of the LEFT revolver compared to the RIGHT revolver. What could be the explanation for THAT? Both bullets are apparently nominally .358" diameter. The 158g bullets apparently use a harder lead alloy.

By the way, 3" to 4" groups at 25 yards for replica Colt Peacemakers are apparently "good", especially since my specific 2 replica revolvers are replicas of the ORIGINAL 1873 Colt Peacemaker, not the later 1895 "Pre War" model. The sights on the original model are VERY small and VERY indistinct (Blued not brass, only .045" wide, no serrations, rounded arch top, rear sight is just a tiny "v" cut into the top strap), and I have 72 year old eyes, so apparently I should be pretty satisfied with 3" groups when I can get them! But using those sights in an actual high-speed-shooting match, where you cannot take half a minute to align the sights, is another story.

What do you guys think about my theory on the velocity and what do you think could account for the improved accuracy of the LEFT revolver?

Jim G

Perhaps next we can have an in-depth study of shoe-tying? It's probably at least as complicated.
It's strange but I have been loading woods and range accurate .357Magnum and .38Spl - yes, including "Cowboy" and Silhouette loads - since I was 13 years old using Bullseye and Unique and never considered it particularly complicated. I did have to pass a test before being accepted into my uncle's reloading garage: I had to prove I had sufficient concentration and hand-to-eye coordination to make a "decent" cup of coffee using whole beans, a camp percolator and a hot plate. I passed with flying colors - aged 10.
Jim, you are WAY overthinking over-complicating what is perhaps the easiest cartridge in all of the firearms world to reload: the .357Magnum. I shoot right and left handed and always have but have never had identical results from each hand, nor have any of the other ambi-shooters I've known. That is normal.

 

[JimGnitecki]

Sorry if I misunderstood what you said. You are saying the Right revolver is more accurate than the left revolver. Are you shooting one handed? If yes, is it possible you just don't shoot as well with your Left hand?

Why do you have a L &R revolver? Have you switched hands with the 2 guns?

I might be way off so please clarify...

Yes, the right revolver seems to be more accurate than the left revolver. No, I am always shooting two-handed. There are a couple of CAS competition categories in SASS in which a shooter shoots each revolver one-handed, but I don't do those categories.

All CAS competitors need TWO revolvers for each stage within a match (plus a rifle and a shotgun).

The reason I refer to my two revolvers as "left" and "right" is because they DO shoot differently, and it is important to know which one you are shooting at any specific point in the match. The less accurate one can be used on the close and/or larger targets where accurayc is less important, and the more accurate one can be used for the longer range or smaller targets, If the two revolvers shot exactly or at least similarly, I would not need to keep track of which is which.

I make it easier for myself to call the less accurate one the "LEFT" revolver which is always in the LEFT holster, and the more accurate RIGHT revolver is always in the RIGHT holster. Then, at each stage of a match, I just decide beforehand which one to draw and fire first, based on the target range and size.

Beyond the group size accurayc, the two revolvers each have an unintentional windage error in their sights from the factory, proven via laser boresighter. The left one shoots about 2" left at 25 yards, whereas the right one shoots about 4" left. Combining the windage magnitude and the group size magnitude, it would be easy to miss targets even at the short ranges typical of CAS matches. The revolvers are scheduled to go to the gunsmith next week to try to correct the windage errors. That is not a non-gunmsith job on a Colt Peacemaker replica. It requires some special tools and some specific experience.

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

Perhaps next we can have an in-depth study of shoe-tying? It's probably at least as complicated.
It's strange but I have been loading woods and range accurate .357Magnum and .38Spl - yes, including "Cowboy" and Silhouette loads - since I was 13 years old using Bullseye and Unique and never considered it particularly complicated. I did have to pass a test before being accepted into my uncle's reloading garage: I had to prove I had sufficient concentration and hand-to-eye coordination to make a "decent" cup of coffee using whole beans, a camp percolator and a hot plate. I passed with flying colors - aged 10.
Jim, you are WAY overthinking over-complicating what is perhaps the easiest cartridge in all of the firearms world to reload: the .357Magnum. I shoot right and left handed and always have but have never had identical results from each hand, nor have any of the other ambi-shooters I've known. That is normal.

I know this is normal, GeoDudeFlorida. This posting was intended to discuss why the heavier bullet gave the same or slightly higher velocity than the lighter bulelt when using nearly identical powder charges. fxvr5 answered that both with his direct reply and the link he posted. My comments about the 2 revolvers shooting differently were simply intended to show WHY I was looking for better accuracy than I have had until the 158g load: the combination of group sizes, windage error, and not good sights were creating problems for me. I could not reliably hit 8" circular metal target plates at 17 yards, so some improvements to both load and sights were needed.

And no, it is not a shooter error. I have been shooting for over half a century and I have shot my SIG P210A 9m with handloads and gotten 1" groups at 25 yards, and I shoot 0.25 MOA with my F-Class rifle at 300 yards. I have just needed to improve both the load and the sights on these revolvers so that they shoot to where I aim, and do so with reasonable sized groups resulting. Nothing exotic.

Jim G

 

[FROGO207]

OP you might have that gunsmith check the cylinder throat sizes and the fit of all of them to the barrel as well while they are there. This can be a problem when trying to obtain good accuracy and stopping barrel leading. I have improved several revolvers accuracy by opening up and equalizing the sizes of the cylinder throats when using lead bullets. You are lucky to find that load that works well with components that are available.

 

[lordpaxman]

One GOOD thing about TiteGroup is that it is apparently very insensitive to position in the case.

I’ve seen the same thing in all the tests I’ve run, be it revolvers or semi-autos. But most of the faster powders in the same range I’ve tested have this characteristic.
I also have found the lowest SD/ES load doesn’t usually produce the best group size - that is precision. In pistols, anyway.
Your findings regarding precision and accuracy between two different bullets doesn’t surprise me at all. Diameter, bearing surface, composition, all can change holes on target. Just wait till you obtain another powder .
Sounds like you’ve got a winning combination, let the games begin!

 

[JimGnitecki]

OP you might have that gunsmith check the cylinder throat sizes and the fit of all of them to the barrel as well while they are there. This can be a problem when trying to obtain good accuracy and stopping barrel leading. I have improved several revolvers accuracy by opening up and equalizing the sizes of the cylinder throats when using lead bullets. You are lucky to find that load that works well with components that are available.

Yes, I plan to have the gunsmith check all the potential variables. And yes, I am VERY lucky to have found a load that works when I have only 2 bullets and 1 powder to choose from at this time of unreliable availability!

 

[JimGnitecki]

I’ve seen the same thing in all the tests I’ve run, be it revolvers or semi-autos. But most of the faster powders in the same range I’ve tested have this characteristic.
I also have found the lowest SD/ES load doesn’t usually produce the best group size - that is precision. In pistols, anyway.
Your findings regarding precision and accuracy between two different bullets doesn’t surprise me at all. Diameter, bearing surface, composition, all can change holes on target. Just wait till you obtain another powder .
Sounds like you’ve got a winning combination, let the games begin!

Thanks for contributing, lordpaxman. I was hopnig that you and the other most experienced reloaders on the forum would "check my work".

Jim G

 

[jmorris]

CAS shooters on the SASS forum recommended a 130g bullet so that recoil would be limited, as CAS is a VERY fast-shooting sport where the shooter's speed of shooting is more important than accuracy, because the targets are large and at close distances, but the winning shooters's 5-shot strings sound like VERY fast semiauto strings despite the revolvers being replica single action requiring manual cocking for each shot, and the rifle being a replica lever action.

Some here did the same in your March thread on the subject.

I have never seen any SASS stage that required anywhere near that accuracy. Most of the “partners” I know are running 125’s with tiny charges of Clays.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...underperforms-crimping-issue-or.917246/page-2

I am not sure if you are interested in competing to win or just something to do. Nothing wrong with either but since you will be shooting at large targets at very close ranges.



You would be much better off (from a competitive standpoint) to develop a load going for the smallest splits on a shot timer than being able to hit a golf ball at 25 yards.

If the clock is running and all you have to do is hit the steel plate anywhere, putting them all in the center is Unnecessary and if it takes you more time, counter productive.

I’ll give you and example. This is 10 rounds from a 9mm load I worked up for accuracy at 100 yards.



This is the load I have won the most IDPA matches with, not even all 10 hit the target but I have lots of wins with it. Not just class wins but division and even overall. That said, targets are not out at 100 for the game.



Don’t get stuck in the details that don’t matter, for the game being played.

Getting a short stroke kit to cycle as smooth as butter would be time better spent, if you want to improve placement.

 

[Jim Watson]

remember that very narrow Hodgdon loading range for this weight of cast bullet with TiteGroup?

The "narrow range" comes from the fact that TiteGroup is a fast burning, low charge weight powder and the conventional reduction to Start (not "minimum") is 10%. So if you were using a maximum 10 grain powder, the start load would be 9 grains, which is a wider range by number but not by percentage.

TiteGroup is not nearly as position insensitive in a long case as they would like you to think. I had on hand 700X, W231, and TG. I loaded them to about the same velocity and chronographed after coming slowly level from muzzle down, then muzzle up. W231 had the widest spread, 700X the least, TG not much better than W231.

The position of the crimp groove in the 158g bullet I received FORCES a handloader to load with a shorter than normal COAL,

1.590" is not the "normal COAL", it is the SAAMI Maximum and what Hodgdon picked to test with. A correct revolver load crimps into the crimp groove and you take the COAL that you get. You can see this in Lyman manuals where they use bullets from Lyman molds.

I have found via actual onsite testing at our local CAS club's range that even a PF of 110 will not reliably knock down the targets.

Interesting, when I was shooting CAS hereabouts they did not require targets be knocked down, your run was scored by ear and the lack of dirt flying. Real powder puff loads. (Not me, I shot factory equivalent smokeless .44-40 most of the time.) I see now SASS recommends but does not require "reactive targets." I think my old posse would grumble about the time and effort to reset knockdowns.

 

[JimGnitecki]

Some here did the same in your March thread on the subject.


https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...underperforms-crimping-issue-or.917246/page-2

I am not sure if you are interested in competing to win or just something to do. Nothing wrong with either but since you will be shooting at large targets at very close ranges.

View attachment 1148325

You would be much better off (from a competitive standpoint) to develop a load going for the smallest splits on a shot timer than being able to hit a golf ball at 25 yards.

If the clock is running and all you have to do is hit the steel plate anywhere, putting them all in the center is Unnecessary and if it takes you more time, counter productive.

I’ll give you and example. This is 10 rounds from a 9mm load I worked up for accuracy at 100 yards.

View attachment 1148326

This is the load I have won the most IDPA matches with, not even all 10 hit the target but I have lots of wins with it. Not just class wins but division and even overall. That said, targets are not out at 100 for the game.

View attachment 1148327

Don’t get stuck in the details that don’t matter, for the game being played.

Getting a short stroke kit to cycle as smooth as butter would be time better spent, if you want to improve placement.

Thanks, Jmorris! I was hoping to hear from you. I have zero chance of "winning" a CAS match - I am a decent handgun and rifle target shooter, but way too slow in my reflexes to be 'competitive' in CAS. I also can't see as well as I used to, primarily because I find that at my age I need WAY more light to see small things even in daylight. I believe they call it the start of macular degeneration. It's genetic. My Mom had a similar issue, but much worse. She was legally blind for the last couple of decades of her life.

I am not trying to fix both the windage errors in my revolvers and their miniscule sights because I hope to win a match. I just like my tools and toys to work as well as they can and should, not just "good enough". So, I routinely apply an iterative process of improvement to any tool I own until its performance pleases me.

I have made some great progress in improving my CAS tools and techniques within the past few weeks.

I have experimentally determined that my 2 revolvers have a consistent windage problem. One of them shoots 2" left of POA at 25 yards. The other shoots a bit over 4" left. These errors are consistent in magnitude regardless of the ammunition load used, which is to be expected since a laser boresighter has verified the errors. These built-in errors are fixable by the gunsmith next week.

The revolvers also both shoot 3" low, but that is an anticipated issue, and is really simple to fix myself once I am SURE about the load being THE load I want to shoot. I just then need to file down the front sight blades by maybe 0.02" and reblue.

The size and shape of the sights is a BIG problem though, and not so easily fixed. Those front sights being only .045" wide, being pure gun blue finish with no serrations or beads, having an indistinct "arch" shape versus a clean-edged top surface, and the rear V being so tiny, make it very hard for me to see the sight picture reliably and consistently. I did already did one thing that has helped a lot: I temporarily painted the rear face of each front sight blade gold with a Sharpie(i.e. only the part of the sight I look at). This morning proved how important this sight problem is. I went to the range very early, and the weather featured sunny periods and cloudy periods as clouds passed overhead. When it was sunny, I could see the sights and I actually shot a few groups that were under 1.75" - with BOTH revolvers. Those were when The sunlight was bright (very bright because we are at 3000 feet elevation where I live). However, whenever a cloud passed overhead, the groups fell apart becoming 3 or 4 or more inches and even some flyers. I simply could not see the sights well enough to get a solid sight picture. And even when the sunlight was present, it took me way too long to get a decent sight picture. I am going to explain all this the gunsmith and ask him how best to modify those sights.

I also went to my eyeglasses provider and we both realized that with my need for more light, we needed to eliminate the "phototint" on my eyeglass lenses (the feature that darkens them in bright light and lightens them in low light), because the tinting never completely disappears when outdoors, and with my eye condition, that's a showstopper problem. So, the shop is remaking my lenses, at no cost, withOUT any tinting feature. This morning, I shot without wearing the eyeglasses (because it will take the eyeglass provider a few days to deliver the new untinting lenses), and instead temporarily used the drugstore "progressive reading glasses" that my wife suggested I use temporarily. That is one of the reasons I got betetr results today then before.

Notice I said that I fired some really good groups this morning, and with BOTH revolvers. This is because I also figured out finally why the left revolver had been not nearly as accurate as the right revolver: The left revolver's cylinder pin keeps loosening, because the screw that traps it in proper position is unthreading itself while the handgun is being fired! I am told this is a known problem with replicas of the original Peacemaker (versus the revised "Pre-War" later version). It is apparently one of the reasons why Colt replaced that screw on the later version with a springloaded cross-pin that is "captured' in the frame. I figured this out after firing one particularly poor group, checking that screw, and finding it loose and the cylinder pin out of position. I made a point of checking it after each group fired after that, and did not experience any more of those large groups.

The ammunition is now darn near perfect, with standard deviation running only 13 to 15 fps, which for lead cast bullets, and COMBINING the statistics for the 2 somewhat different revolvers in the one Labradar report, is pretty good. And the average muzzle velocity of about 925 fps gives me a power factor of 146. This is enought to reliably knock down the knockdown targets our local club has (Theirs are NOT adjustable for required knockdown force), while also being light enough on recoil for me to not even notice.

And I do have a killer CAS wardrobe that includes a Mernickel holster rig, a very long black "Tombstone" coat, a proper "wild rag", a homebuilt gun cart that actually looks like something that could have existed in The Old West AND fits fully assembled under the pickup truck's tonneau cover, and even a mechanical wind-up pocket watch withOUT the unauthentic modern "window" into its interior.

So, I am getting their slowly, fixing or at least improving everything that is hurting my performance, and I am really enjoying the process.

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

ps. guys: My Uberti Competition 1873 rifle came from the factory with a short stroke kit, but the gunsmith is going to smooth it up, lighten the trigger, and replace some of the springs, etc.

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

The "narrow range" comes from the fact that TiteGroup is a fast burning, low charge weight powder and the conventional reduction to Start (not "minimum") is 10%. So if you were using a maximum 10 grain powder, the start load would be 9 grains, which is a wider range by number but not by percentage.

TiteGroup is not nearly as position insensitive in a long case as they would like you to think. I had on hand 700X, W231, and TG. I loaded them to about the same velocity and chronographed after coming slowly level from muzzle down, then muzzle up. W231 had the widest spread, 700X the least, TG not much better than W231.



1.590" is not the "normal COAL", it is the SAAMI Maximum and what Hodgdon picked to test with. A correct revolver load crimps into the crimp groove and you take the COAL that you get. You can see this in Lyman manuals where they use bullets from Lyman molds.



Interesting, when I was shooting CAS hereabouts they did not require targets be knocked down, your run was scored by ear and the lack of dirt flying. Real powder puff loads. (Not me, I shot factory equivalent smokeless .44-40 most of the time.) I see now SASS recommends but does not require "reactive targets." I think my old posse would grumble about the time and effort to reset knockdowns.

The COAL thing really surprised me. I am used to loading really accurate long range rifle ammo (0.25 MOA at 300 yards) and hot 9mm ammo, where the operating pressures require you to never let COAL gat shorter than the published recipe. So, it was a total revelation for me that cast lead bullet loads could be safely loaded at much shorter COALs than the SAAMI maximum.

SASS probably changed to the knockdown requirement for practical reasons:

1. No more arguments about whether the shooter hit the target, or the CORRECT target in sequence, or not. If the target does not go down, it's scored as a miss with zero debate tolerated.

2. No more having to repaint the metal targets between shooters

3. Regional and national matches have a LOT of competitors, and time is of the essence when trying to get several hundred shooters through all the stages before The Sun goes down. 1, and 2, above combine to make things go a lot faster.

Jim G

 

[Jim Watson]

The COAL thing really surprised me. I am used to loading really accurate long range rifle ammo (0.25 MOA at 300 yards) and hot 9mm ammo, where the operating pressures require you to never let COAL gat shorter than the published recipe.

I have no idea how my target rifle OAL relates to a book number. Distance to lands is what I go by. My .223 is way over magazine length.

Loading hot 9mm to a recipe, I trust you are using the exact same bullet as specified because the seating depth and consequently the powder space depends on the nose shape.

 

[jmorris]

I also figured out finally why the left revolver had been not nearly as accurate as the right revolver: The left revolver's cylinder pin keeps loosening, because the screw that traps it in proper position is unthreading itself while the handgun is being fired!

New style or old?

 

[JimGnitecki]

New style or old?

View attachment 1148489


View attachment 1148488

Thanks for drawings, jmorris. Both of my revolvers are replicas of the "original", not the later "pre-war" model, so do not have the nice spring-loaded crosspin, and both have only "3 clicks" and a movable firing pin. I knew from the beginning that I needed to engage the relief in the cylinder pin that is closest to the end of the pin that slips into the hole in the recoil shield. The way I do this is I place the revolver in half-cock, I place the cylinder into the frame, slip the cylinder pin in, UNcock the hammer completely so that its face is touching the frame, slip the cylinder pin further rearward until it tries to LIFT the hammer, then relax my grip on the cylinder rod so that the hammer falls back into the fully UNcocked position.

Then, I start to thread the miniscule screw (5/16" total length and very small head) into the frame, using the special "gun" screwdriver of the correct thickness, and try to tighten it without being hamfisted. IF it does not fully thread in, thta means I "missed" the rearmost relief in the pin, so then I move the pin a tiny amount to see when I CAN thread the screw in. Once the screw seems to be threading into the relief, I tighten it just enough to secure it but not strip the threads or the slot in the head,

The revolver then fires properly, shooting nice groups.

But if left unchecked for a number of 5-shot groups, the groups deteriorate and I find that the pin has moved forward, introducing some play into the cylinder of course since the rear of the cylinder pin is no longer properly supported.

This screw is a known problem with Peacemakers and Peacemaker replicas. It's one of the reasons that Colt went to the crosspin (the other reason of course was toolless disassembly and reassembly of the cylinder pin for cleaning).

You cannot Loctite it because you need to remove it and replace it every time you clean the firearm, and Blue Loctite would gum up the threads enough to further deteriorate the already marginal "feel" of when the cylinder pin relief is aligned with the screw.

A buddy suggested trying to put an o-ring under the screw head to add some friction, but that would not be easy since the frame has a relief to accommodate the screwhead, so the o-ring would have to be a very specific size and would also cause the screwhead to be proud of the frame surface (it's supposed to be only partially exposed when correctly installed with the aligned pin. A longer screw would also be needed of course.

Jim G

 

[jmorris]

You might remove the cylinder and pin and install the screw, note how the driver slot is “clocked”. Reinstall the cylinder or just the pin and lock the screw down as you just did. Is it at the same depth or is the slot clocked in a different location?

If it’s different, I have heard of people shortening the leading edge of the base pin screw so it locates the cylinder pin but does not bottom out on it (where the retention screw can’t be tight against the frame, because it’s bottomed out on the pin).

If I did this, it would be to a new screw I ordered, not the original.

I don’t like using even blue (243) loctite on little screws I often remove. Purple (222) is a better choice but I would probably try 542 (brown) first. It’s actually a thread sealant but has worked well for little things I have to move but don’t want vibration to keep moving them around.

The best method I have found for keeping things in the same place, even if they are not tight is making the fastener lock in place with nylon like these but it’s probably not a DIY job on tiny fasteners unless you have a mill.

 

[JimGnitecki]

You might remove the cylinder and pin and install the screw, note how the driver slot is “clocked”. Reinstall the cylinder or just the pin and lock the screw down as you just did. Is it at the same depth or is the slot clocked in a different location?

If it’s different, I have heard of people shortening the leading edge of the base pin screw so it locates the cylinder pin but does not bottom out on it (where the retention screw can’t be tight against the frame, because it’s bottomed out on the pin).

If I did this, it would be to a new screw I ordered, not the original.

I don’t like using even blue (243) loctite on little screws I often remove. Purple (222) is a better choice but I would probably try 542 (brown) first. It’s actually a thread sealant but has worked well for little things I have to move but don’t want vibration to keep moving them around.

The best method I have found for keeping things in the same place, even if they are not tight is making the fastener lock in place with nylon like these but it’s probably not a DIY job on tiny fasteners unless you have a mill.

View attachment 1148507

Thanks again! I really like your idea of shortening the end of the threaded screw! I can understand how the tiny end of the screw bearing on the relief in the pin would not be enough to secure the screw. You need the much larger surface area of the screw head.

And I like how threading the screw in withOUT the pin in place can diagnose whether or not the screw IS too long. If it clocks the same with the pin in or out, it is NOT too long. If it clocks differently, that proves that the screw tip is hitting the relief bottom, instead of the screwhead being tightened onto the frame.

I forgot to mention: Both revolvers come from Cimarron with TWO screws each. One screw has a slotted head, and the other has a head that is much larger in diameter and has a serrated circumference so that it is installed and removed by hand versus via screwdriver. Both revolvers had the serrated version installed as delivered. I initially left the serrated screws installed, but found that they unthreaded themselves too easily. I was told by another Colt owner that you are supposed to replace the serrated head screw with the slotted screw. No one has been able to explain to me why Cimarron ships them with the serrated screwhead installed if that is the case! I think it is part of the Colt mystique.

I am going to examine the screw length on the torublesome left revolver using the test you described!

Jim G