Reloading questions for a newb

[TacticalBacon]

thank you to everyone for your replys

i know i am asking alot of questions and i thank you for answering them

reloading for rookies is like drinking from a fire hose but you have to find the fire hose in 1k acres of forest

 

[teerex.otw]

Re: seating depth, most straight-walled pistol bullets will have a crimp groove that roughly corresponds to proper depth. Most autoloader bullets are taper-crimped, so with those go by the data listed.
Two examples where it could make a difference…some 9mm loads can almost double the chamber pressure if the bullet is seated .030” too deep. this is because of the very small case capacity. On rounds like .38 spl. and .45 colt it won’t make that drastic of a difference…however, years ago I got a Lee .357 155gr. swc/gc mould that had a short nose/long body and seats deeper in the case than a standard 158 gr swc. Even though it’s 3 gr. lighter, it changes capacity. No data was available at that time for that specific bullet, so I compared all the 158 data I had and went for the lowest charge of a medium-rate powder (Hercules Unique) and just enough crimp to prevent bullets from walking out under recoil. First test was 10 rounds, they worked fine, so slowly started working up from there. Although it doesn’t always work this way, as I worked upward accuracy got better, then it got worse, so (and this is where notes came in handy) I knew the limits for this particular combination of ammo components (and gun).

 

[TacticalBacon]

Hats off to the OP for jumping right into a progressive press.

well i wasn't sure which is the best option, but my method of thinking was ''get it while the getting is good'' as it seem economic and political factors are making it harder hand harder to do anything involving pew pew stuff. i have a single stage that's a hand me down, i can learn on if need be, but progressive seemed more practical to me as i shoot alot of ammo i mean ''alot'' , it seems the processes are not much different, just you dont have to set up and tear down as often it seems i can still check my progress along the way as i would with a single stage

i feel that i made a sound decision but maybe i didnt, i dont know much ATM in terms of reloading, my very first cartridge will be coming hot off the press prolly next weekend. not literally ''hot'' not ready for that yet, lets hope its not a hot load

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

Just take your time. And of course questions are always welcome here.

 

[TacticalBacon]

Re: seating depth, most straight-walled pistol bullets will have a crimp groove that roughly corresponds to proper depth. Most autoloader bullets are taper-crimped, so with those go by the data listed.
Two examples where it could make a difference…some 9mm loads can almost double the chamber pressure if the bullet is seated .030” too deep. this is because of the very small case capacity. On rounds like .38 spl. and .45 colt it won’t make that drastic of a difference…however, years ago I got a Lee .357 155gr. swc/gc mould that had a short nose/long body and seats deeper in the case than a standard 158 gr swc. Even though it’s 3 gr. lighter, it changes capacity. No data was available at that time for that specific bullet, so I compared all the 158 data I had and went for the lowest charge of a medium-rate powder (Hercules Unique) and just enough crimp to prevent bullets from walking out under recoil. First test was 10 rounds, they worked fine, so slowly started working up from there. Although it doesn’t always work this way, as I worked upward accuracy got better, then it got worse, so (and this is where notes came in handy) I knew the limits for this particular combination of ammo components (and gun).

will there ever be an instance where seating depth must be altered compared to the examples listed above, and if so how can i gauge that for success. is there a physical attribute that will tell me yea you need to seat a little lower or a little higher if the boolit is does not have a crimp groove, or needs to be altered away from the groove because of load? or is it one of those put it on the groove or reference data and dont deviate seating depth?

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

Go by the data for each bullet weight and profile. It will show correct seating depth.

 

[AJC1]

will there ever be an instance where seating depth must be altered compared to the examples listed above, and if so how can i gauge that for success. is there a physical attribute that will tell me yea you need to seat a little lower or a little higher if the boolit is does not have a crimp groove, or needs to be altered away from the groove because of load? or is it one of those put it on the groove or reference data and dont deviate seating depth?

Yes, when you conduct the plunk test and then a function test that will give you your oal. If your lucky the book numbers will work.

 

[TacticalBacon]

ok... so to summarized my understanding of what i have learned so far from all your awesome comments


In the event that i drop a casted boolit and its weight does not match 1-1 with one in the book, it is safe and acceptable to

1. find a load in book for a boolit with a similar profile and material composition and within +/- 5 gr of the boolit i intend to use after added weight from lube
2. use the Starting load data for that boolit, and powder combo i am using
3. use the OAL for that Load from the Book
4. work up powder charge from there until i see accuracy deviations


As it pertains to Alloys and casting

1. lyman #2 alloy will work but is too hard for pistol calibers and i should find a more lead rich alloy
2.casted boolits will drop at various weights not all as advertised based on factors such as temp, timing, alloy ext.
3.the lube i intended to use is not optimal and should be changes to liquid alox or toilet bowl gaskets
4. powder coating boolit is the way to go if at all possible
5. DONT USE THE CAR BATTERYS LEAD

are my understandings correct or am i missing anything so far

 

[Hugger-4641]

Recommended OAL are a guide not a concrete datum. Generally you will want the longest OAL that will cycle in your gun, give acceptable accuracy, and have a min seating depth as close as possible to the diameter of the bullet.
Certain powders are more sensitive to seat depth.
Titegroup and CFEpistol are two powders that are sensitive, but less so in 45acp than say 9mm or .380.
To answer your question: it is rare that you will have to adjust seating depth due to a pressure issue unless you are at max charge levels. More likely you will adjust seating due to accuracy or seating groove location.

 

[TacticalBacon]

Yes, when you conduct the plunk test and then a function test that will give you your oal. If your lucky the book numbers will work.

im assuming the plunk test is when you drop the cartridge into the chamber to see if it seats flush where it belongs

would that tell me if i must seat the boolit lower or higher to achieve that perfect seating and all i need to do is just that, or if it doesn't seat appropriately i should go back to the drawing board and choose a different load from the book that has a OAL more catered to my chamber

 

[AJC1]

im assuming the plunk test is when you drop the cartridge into the chamber to see if it seats flush where it belongs

would that tell me if i must seat the boolit lower or higher to achieve that perfect seating and all i need to do is just that, or if it doesn't seat appropriately i should go back to the drawing board and choose a different load from the book that has a OAL more catered to my chamber

You drop the dummy cartridge into the barrel and spin it. If it spins free it passes by headspacing on the rim as designed. It fails you seat the bullet .005 deeper and retest.

 

[TacticalBacon]

Recommended OAL are a guide not a concrete datum. Generally you will want the longest OAL that will cycle in your gun, give acceptable accuracy, and have a min seating depth as close as possible to the diameter of the bullet.
Certain powders are more sensitive to seat depth.
Titegroup and CFEpistol are two powders that are sensitive, but less so in 45acp than say 9mm or .380.
To answer your question: it is rare that you will have to adjust seating depth due to a pressure issue unless you are at max charge levels. More likely you will adjust seating due to accuracy or seating groove location.

ok this makes sense to me so OAL is not like a end all be all, it can be adjusted based on needs within reason, and if its not absolutely dead nuts perfect and adjusted for chamber, powder charge , pressure, it wont blow my firearm up unless im just stupid and seat the boolit within an unreasonable expectation

and that there is room for experimentation or weapon function testing so to speak

its not like ''oh i seated it slightly too low now my gun is a tool to give me the new name of stumpy ''

 

[RandyP]

I upgraded from a :Lee Classic Turret to my new Lee Six Pack progressive, their upgrade/replacement for the Loadmaster. You might want to check it out. It's IMHO is a better deal for similar $$. Lots of YouTube vids and a GREAT tutorial on THIS forum about it. Also called the Lee Pro 6000.

 

[LiveLife]

boolit ... weight does not match 1-1 with one in the book, it is safe and acceptable to ... find a load in book for a boolit with a similar profile and material composition and within +/- 5 gr of the boolit i intend to use after added weight from lube

In general, we can reference load data for bullet weight that is slightly heavier for the initial powder work up as you can always go higher.

So if you can't find load data for 200 gr bullet, you can reference load data for 225/230 gr bullets.

use the OAL for that Load from the Book

Not quite.

Published load data is usually developed from chamber pressure testing with single shot universal barrel fixtures (To test multiple calibers) and OAL/COL listed is simply the maximum cartridge length that worked for that barrel.

If you shoot your reloads out of pistols that feed from the magazine, you must determine the cartridge length that will work with your pistol/barrel/magazine:

1. First determine the Max OAL for the barrel using the "Plunk Test" - https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/reloading-tips-the-plunk-test/99389
2. Next, determine the Working OAL by feeding dummy rounds (No powder, no primer) loaded to Max OAL from the magazine without riding the slide. Often Max OAL can be used as Working OAL to reliably feed rounds from the magazine but if they don't, incrementally decrease the OAL by .005" until they do.
3. Then using the Working OAL, conduct your initial powder work up. If your Working OAL is longer than published load data for same weight/nose profile bullet, you do not need to adjust the start/max charges. If your Working OAL is shorter than published, consider reducing your start/max charges by .2 to .3 gr.
4. For greater accuracy or developing match loads, if the powder charge that produced smallest groups is not at max charge, incrementally decrease the OAL by .005". If shorter OAL produces smaller groups, use shorter OAL.

Amazon digital calipers
Rcbs digital pocket scale

For reloading, your scale/calipers need to verify known "standards" to .1 gr and .001".

For check weights, I recommend Troemner 50 gr to 0.5 gr NIST Class F check weight set for $18 (Made in USA) - https://www.amazon.com/Troemner-1512-111-50GN-0-5GN-Certificate-Stainless/dp/B078H4P55D/ref=sr_1_8?

For pin gages, I recommend Vermont Gage .452" Class ZZ pin gage for $4 (Made in USA) - https://www.travers.com/product/cla...t-gage-111245200-class-zz-pin-gage-58-204-520

 

[NMexJim]

Attached is a photo of the Lee 45 ACP-45 Auto page covering 230 grn lead bullets. This should do you.

Reading over your list, I don't see a super accurate quality scale. The RCBS pocket scale is ok; just make sure you warm it up for 15 minutes or so and double-check your readings. Don't get me wrong, it'll work, just kinda watch what you're doing and double-check occasionally. Maybe later get a better scale. Personally, I keep a set of balance beams handy to check my larger digitals. I got this way from fine-grained powders. Anyway, lots of good stuff in these threads for you to work with.

If you don't have a bullet lube, search this forum for suggestions.

 

[TacticalBacon]

In general, we can reference load data for bullet weight that is slightly heavier for the initial powder work up as you can always go higher.

So if you can't find load data for 200 gr bullet, you can reference load data for 225/230 gr bullets.


Not quite.

Published load data is usually developed from chamber pressure testing with single shot universal barrel fixtures (To test multiple calibers) and OAL/COL listed is simply the maximum cartridge length that worked for that barrel.

If you shoot your reloads out of pistols that feed from the magazine, you must determine the cartridge length that will work with your pistol/barrel/magazine:

1. First determine the Max OAL for the barrel using the "Plunk Test" - https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/reloading-tips-the-plunk-test/99389
2. Next, determine the Working OAL by feeding dummy rounds (No powder, no primer) loaded to Max OAL from the magazine without riding the slide. Often Max OAL can be used as Working OAL to reliably feed rounds from the magazine but if they don't, incrementally decrease the OAL by .005" until they do.
3. Then using the Working OAL, conduct your initial powder work up. If your Working OAL is longer than published load data for same weight/nose profile bullet, you do not need to adjust the start/max charges. If your Working OAL is shorter than published, consider reducing your start/max charges by .2 to .3 gr.
4. For greater accuracy or developing match loads, if the powder charge that produced smallest groups is not at max charge, incrementally decrease the OAL by .005". If shorter OAL produces smaller groups, use shorter OAL.

you sir are a gentlemen and a scholar thank you so much for this information this make so much sense to me

so basically we are are using the plunk test to to get us where our OAL needs to be using a dummy round for that specific firearm, which would turn our max OAL into our Working OAL "hints it works in the gun" then we can use our new working OAL to gauge how it compares to the book value and adjust our powders accordingly

am i correct in my understanding

 

[AJC1]

you sir are a gentlemen and a scholar thank you so much for this information this make so much sense to me

so basically we are are using the plunk test to to get us where our OAL needs to be using a dummy round for that specific firearm, which would turn our max OAL into our Working OAL "hints it works in the gun" then we can use our new working OAL to gauge how it compares to the book value and adjust our powders accordingly

am i correct in my understanding

Correct, dummy plunk, then put in your mag and verify feed.

 

[TacticalBacon]

Attached is a photo of the Lee 45 ACP-45 Auto page covering 230 grn lead bullets. This should do you.

Reading over your list, I don't see a super accurate quality scale. The RCBS pocket scale is ok; just make sure you warm it up for 15 minutes or so and double-check your readings. Don't get me wrong, it'll work, just kinda watch what you're doing and double-check occasionally. Maybe later get a better scale. Personally, I keep a set of balance beams handy to check my larger digitals. I got this way from fine-grained powders. Anyway, lots of good stuff in these threads for you to work with.

If you don't have a bullet lube, search this forum for suggestions.

is there any scales you would recommend preferably not in the hundreds of dollar range a good one to learn on and not break the bank

 

[LiveLife]

we are are using the plunk test to to get us where our OAL needs to be using a dummy round for that specific firearm, which would turn our max OAL into our Working OAL "hints it works in the gun" then we can use our new working OAL to gauge how it compares to the book value and adjust our powders accordingly

am i correct in my understanding

Yes.

And for utmost accuracy, if powder charge that produced smallest groups is not at max charge, you can incrementally decrease the OAL to see if group size decreases further.

 

[TacticalBacon]

Correct, dummy plunk, then put in your mag and verify feed.

since the plunk test is barrel specific is there a way i can plunk test and get a working OAL that will work with the vast majority of my .45 firearms as i have a few firarms in 45 acp

would it then become a game of averages plunk testing each one or is there a gauge tool that preforms a plunks test that puts the working OAL in a range suitable for most .45 chambered firearms

 

[LiveLife]

since the plunk test is barrel specific is there a way i can plunk test and get a working OAL that will work with the vast majority of my .45 firearms as i have a few firarms in 45 acp

Use the Working OAL that works in all the pistols you have.

Since barrel with longer leade length (Distance from chamber to start of rifling) will accept longer OAL, use the shortest Max OAL to determine your Working OAL.

And use the shortest Working OAL that works for all the pistols to conduct your powder work up.

 

[NMexJim]

[QUOTE="TacticalBacon, to learn on and not break the bank[/QUOTE]

I think you should use what you've got for a while. You should start to notice the little issues that crop up on smaller scales, and that's valuable learning it and of itself. When you can, graduate to a bench model - may be either RCBS or Hornady. The RCBS Rangemaster is $119, and the Lyman Accu-touch $146. The trick is to get one with an electric adapter. With any, just double-check often.

I'm an old geezer and I have a trust issue w/ digital. The first ones were a PITA. When you get rich, go to a high-end unit.

 

[TacticalBacon]

In general, we can reference load data for bullet weight that is slightly heavier for the initial powder work up as you can always go higher.

So if you can't find load data for 200 gr bullet, you can reference load data for 225/230 gr bullets.

For pin gages, I recommend Vermont Gage .452" Class ZZ pin gage for $4 (Made in USA) - https://www.travers.com/product/cla...t-gage-111245200-class-zz-pin-gage-58-204-520

Does this mean that though my understanding is correct that we can deviate from boolit weight slightly when form a starting load, that we want to always use the heavier weight data and not lighter

wouldn't lighter be a more suitable reference data as the load for a lighter boolit would be less grains, meaning less chance of an overcharge?

or am i not hypothesizing correctly do to unknown factors

 

[TacticalBacon]

[QUOTE="TacticalBacon, to learn on and not break the bank

I think you should use what you've got for a while. You should start to notice the little issues that crop up on smaller scales, and that's valuable learning it and of itself. When you can, graduate to a bench model - may be either RCBS or Hornady. The RCBS Rangemaster is $119, and the Lyman Accu-touch $146. The trick is to get one with an electric adapter. With any, just double-check often.

I'm an old geezer and I have a trust issue w/ digital. The first ones were a PITA. When you get rich, go to a high-end unit.[/QUOTE]

im kinda like you i prefer old school

i would like to get a non digital standard scale but the cost of the ones i saw online far exceeded the cost of a smale digital, unless im not looking in the right places

 

[LiveLife]

wouldn't lighter be a more suitable reference data as the load for a lighter boolit would be less grains, meaning less chance of an overcharge?

or am i not hypothesizing correctly do to unknown factors

No.

Since heavier bullets use smaller powder charges, you always want to reference load data for slightly heavier bullets. Here's Hodgdon 200 gr lead load data for comparison.

• Hodgdon 45ACP 200 gr Lead SWC CFE Pistol COL 1.225" Start 7.4 gr (1,042 fps) - Max 8.2 gr (1,142 fps)
• Speer 45ACP 230 gr Lead RN CFE Pistol COL 1.240" Start 5.6 gr (809 fps) - Max 7.2 gr (989 fps)
• Hodgdon 45ACP 230 gr Lead RN CFE Pistol COL 1.200" Start 5.4 gr (816 fps) - Max 6.2 gr (942 fps)