THR Group Project - PISTOL - Advanced Reloading Concepts and Discussions

[50cal]

That's a lot of measuring. There are better more consistent ways to vet it. So if it mics ok then it shouldn't 'push' when it hits the feed ramp?

 

[murf]

50cal,

please share, with us, your "better ways".

i take your question as rhetorical.

murf

 

[50cal]

Ok.

Take a loaded cartridge, put it bullet down on a piece of wood, give it a firm push and measure COL

Pay attention when sizing and seating the bullet, is the effort consistent across all rounds

Use only good brass preferably your own and use a taper crimp

If you want to measure for COL lengthening, you might as well wait until you get a ftf. If it's accuracy you are concerned with (as opposed to reliability) then you are probably using 'good' brass and have no such tension concerns. Keep in mind, if you have no bullet pull, you may still have 'push' when the bullet hits the feed ramp - a more likely and more dangerous concern. As far as the question goes, measuring pre-chambered COL does little as preventative maintenance for 'set-back' when the round chambers. Testing with a little force may help.

Finally, my sincere apology, I meant no offense. May remark came across as snide and was uncalled-for and out-of-line.

 

[LeftyTSGC]

Seating depth - oal/col

SEATING DEPTH - OAL/COL

All,

To show my ignorance, i would like to start at the begining and ask:

I am specifically speaking about 9mm. All of my reloading handbooks talk about bullet jump of .010-.030 for RIFLE bullets. Unless i have missed it, does the same thing apply to Pistol bullets? Where can i find this data?

Assuming that it was a yes, this is what i have done:

My STAR30M 9mm (Mil Spec), has a 3.5in barrel measured from Case mouth to end of barrel. overall length about 4.34in.

I measure the distance (this was hard) from casemouth to lands, after 10 measurements i found it to be .145in. that is a lot of jump space but being mil spec i assume it was designed to handle most types of ammo.

right or wrong, used this to set my OAL of each type of bullet independently. I have noticed that you cannot group bullet types but need to find the OAL for each bullet.

So doing the math, (i can share if needed) to set my bullets at approximately015-.020 bullet jump i come up with: 124gr SPEER GDHP OAL at 1.120, Sierra 125 JHP OAL 1.075, 124gr Xtreme HP at OAL 1.100. the math may of been one or two off but found it easier to round up or down the few .000in difference. My BASE start for everyting else. Here is how i compelted this:

I took each bullet and did multiple plunk test, marked and measured where the lands touched the ogive. Compared that too the actual casemouth to land distance and started from there.

I sort my brass by headstamp to maintain as much uniformity as possible. I replunk, take the measurement to confirm the distance of casemouth to ogive, measure the overall length then subtract the bullet jump wanted which then provides me my actual OAL for that specific bullet. (yes i make sure it feeds).

So back to my question, is this needed or applicable to handgun bullets? I am thinking that if i can get my OAL as accurate as possible for EACH handgun (i do this for each one), then i can start working on different powder loads to see what accuracy and velocity i can achieve for the best results. This is what i would use as my BASE so i have a start reference for any changes, including playing with OAL. PLEASE COMMENT

 

[Potatohead]

Uh oh! Did someone say "advanced"? I better scoot on outa here..

 

[50cal]

While some of the concepts mentioned in the thread have relevance in some capacity or another, in practice the details introduce more complexity and confusion than benefit for recreational and handgun reloading. It makes for interesting discussion perhaps but little in terms of real-world application. If the cartridge is safe, runs reliably, produces consistent results and is accurate, the other factors become almost obsolete. We are seeing more speculation and less legitimate proof.

Most work-ups stemming from published data and a modicum of common sense will produce good results for individual preferences and circumstances. only when I experience undesirable outcomes do I delve deeper into the mechanics of what is going on and in many cases, it's gun/mag/equipment related.

When I think of 'advanced' reloading I think of velocity, bullet design and weight, powder energy and such - things I can measure or adjust to improve performance for a specific gun. I can produce better ammo now than when I just started reloading, but not by much and it's due primarily to experience, trying numerous variations and selecting good equipment and components. As a side note, I have a chrono but only used it a few times when I first got it over a 10 years ago.

that's my comment - you'll get change from the 2 cents.

 

[murf]

50cal,

no offense taken. just telling every one how I test for bullet pull and bullet setback in auto-loaders. I only do it once, after load development, just to make sure the cases are being sized correctly. just my way of doin things. there are a number of handloaders here that check bullet setback in the manner you described.nothing wrong with that, imo.

murf

 

[Blue68f100]

I think most 9mm chambers are pretty generous and over size. All of my 9mm have an over size bore, 0.357". Which makes getting accurate ammo a challenge unless your using lead. I have started out at max OAL and have settled on 1.135" which works in all my 9's. With one gun (BHP) reducing the OAL improved the group size. 4" to 2" at 10 yrds. Made no difference on my 229-9mm. It does not seam to matter whether I'm using the expensive XTP or plated. Though I have had my best groups with the XTP's near max load, using WSF. With the platted bullets, accuracy drops off when I get to mid range jacketed load. So I normally run 0.1 gr under that max point, 4.9gr WSF. I prefer to shoot the 124gr over the 115's. My next order I will be ordering bullets for a 357 to get the larger size hoping this will improve accuracy. I think the best groups will come with proper bullet fit and just enough velocity to stabilize the bullet. I don't think the Hyteck coatings will produce the best accuracy. If this was the case the BE shooters would already be using them. Most all have stayed with lead and now be forced to jacketed due to a rule change.

I'm not interested in sorting brass for the 9mm. I'm forced too on the 45 due to SP primers. does not take much more effort to sort out by mfg. Since head spacing showed to only impact the long line I do not sort by size. I have those full spec length brass separated out for that purpose.

 

[LiveLife]

While some of the concepts mentioned in the thread have relevance in some capacity ... It makes for interesting discussion perhaps but little in terms of real-world application. If the cartridge is safe, runs reliably, produces consistent results and is accurate, the other factors become almost obsolete. We are seeing more speculation and less legitimate proof.

Now now 50cal, perhaps a review of the OP may take some chill out of your post.

Advanced Reloading Concepts and Discussions

The reason why I titled the thread "Concepts and Discussions" was because that's what I wanted to do with some members, have discussions about advanced reloading concepts. A concept is an idea of what something is or how it works

There are some of us who like to ponder about things. After some pondering, some of us may even put our ponderance to test. These efforts are what drive THR threads such:

- What clever little things have you "invented or discovered" that you can share? - www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=218188

- Show us a picture of your reloading bench - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=218720

- Lee Pro 1000 Solutions - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=507454

As already discussed on this thread, some of these concepts may not produce big enough differences that can be measured or be overshadowed by other reloading variables to be noticed on target.

But I think discussions about these concepts are healthy and just as tolerance stacking can work against us, minute concepts can stack to perhaps result in measurable improvement in accuracy. And this is my goal for this thread while we have fun in the process.

We can start off loosely and perhaps over time fine tune the thread

We are in the "loose" phase of this thread and over time will "fine tune" so we can

so it becomes an indexed quick reference for us to use. After successful discussions, I can maintain an indexed summarized linked listings post with the necessary disclaimers Walkalong can be happy with

Think of this thread as "THR incubator" for advanced reloading. As such, not all concepts may work or be beneficial enough to matter. But I think an open discussion that nurtures fertile minds is productive as we may be able to put to practice some of these discussions that may improve accuracy. The "What clever little things have you "invented or discovered" that you can share?" thread illustrates the vast knowledge base of THR members and while some of the members may consider some things in the thread not beneficial, I do believe the entirety of the thread is worth the discussion as it has ensued over the years, IMHO.

This thread is for reloaders who enjoy the minute details of reloading to OCD levels in pursuit of accuracy. If you are that person, come right in and post away. If utmost accuracy is not that important and minute of gong is good enough for you, read on.

 

[LiveLife]

Update of topics:

Reloading Practice:

- MAX VS WORKING OAL/COL
Open - WORKING OAL/COL VS CHAMBERED OAL/COL
Open - SEATING DEPTH - OAL/COL
- WHEN TO USE SHORTER THAN MAX OAL/COL
Open - USING LONGER THAN SAAMI MAX LENGTH
Open - COMPENSATE FOR MIXED RANGE BRASS CASE LENGTH VARIATION
- CALCULATING BULLET SEATING DEPTH TO DETERMINE MAX CASE FILL
- CALCULATING POWDER CASE FILL TO AVOID COMPRESSED LOADS
Open - DECREASING OAL/COL TO INCREASE NECK TENSION/INITIAL CHAMBER PRESSURE (9mm FMJ/RN SPECIFIC)
- CRIMPS (Taper vs Roll)
- WHEN TO DOWNLOAD BELOW PUBLISHED START CHARGES

Reloading Components:

- POWER TYPES (Shape/Burn rate/Coating)
- BRASS CASE (Head stamp)
- BULLETS (design/weights/cannulas/gas checks/lube)
- PRIMERS BRANDS/SIZE DIFFERENCE/SEATING DEPTH

Reloading Equipment:

- POWDER CHARGE DROP VARIANCE
- ACCURACY OVER CHRONOGRAPH (MV/ES/SD)
- BARREL TWIST RATE/BULLET WEIGHT
- USING RESIZED/HAND PRIMED CASES IN PROGRESSIVE PRESSES
- HOW TO OBTAIN MORE CONSISTENT OAL/COL
- TUNING A BALANCE BEAM SCALE
- WHAT DIGITAL SCALES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR RELOADING

Range Testing:

- POWDER WORK UP
Open - EVALUATING PISTOL LOADS

 

[LiveLife]

- MAX VS WORKING OAL/COL
- WORKING OAL/COL VS CHAMBERED OAL/COL
- WHEN TO USE SHORTER THAN MAX OAL/COL
- USING LONGER THAN SAAMI MAX LENGTH
- SEATING DEPTH - OAL/COL
- COMPENSATE FOR MIXED RANGE BRASS CASE LENGTH VARIATION

9mm ... STAR30M 9mm (Mil Spec)

I measure the distance (this was hard) from casemouth to lands, after 10 measurements i found it to be .145in. that is a lot of jump space but being mil spec i assume it was designed to handle most types of ammo ... used this to set my OAL of each type of bullet independently.

What you measured was leade or freebore, the distance from the chamber to the start of rifling. Many factory barrels have longer leade and slower start of rifling (angle is gradual) like Glock/M&P and most match barrels have shorter leade (or almost none like my Sig 1911 and latest Lone Wolf G23 40-9 barrel) and quicker start of rifling (angle is sharp).

The longer leade will allow longer than SAAMI max dimension rounds and I was told (by more seasoned match shooters) was a safeguard to reduce pressure (maybe for NATO spec +P rounds?). If the bullet has to "jump" greater distance to start of rifling, more high pressure gas will leak around the bullet and will compromise initial chamber pressure build. To maintain more consistent chamber pressure, you would need to use longer OAL, even longer than SAAMI max as long as rounds reliably feed/chamber from the magazine.

I have noticed that you cannot group bullet types but need to find the OAL for each bullet.

Yes, bullets will have different nose profile (ogive), even for the same RN profile and end up with different bullet base/bearing surface length which will hit the start of rifling at different OALs.

I sort my brass by headstamp to maintain as much uniformity as possible.

If you are using mixed range brass, sorting by headstamp may not ensure uniformity. Instead, sorting by resized case length would better help with ending up with more consistent OAL in terms of amount of bullet's bearing surface sticking above the case mouth when the rounds are chambered vs start of rifling. Can you picture that?

So back to my question, is this needed or applicable to handgun bullets? I am thinking that if i can get my OAL as accurate as possible for EACH handgun (i do this for each one), then i can start working on different powder loads to see what accuracy and velocity i can achieve for the best results. This is what i would use as my BASE so i have a start reference for any changes, including playing with OAL. PLEASE COMMENT

Depending on the bullet manufacturer, consistency of bullet nose profile will vary. Since it is the bullet's bearing surface that engages the rifling (and not the nose tip), using the same OAL with a particular random sample bullet may not ensure consistency of bullet jump to lands for other bullets.

So what are we to do to compensate for manufacturing variance and mixed range brass?

1. One thing we can do is using the same length resized cases (I guess using same headstamp cases can't hurt) and load a random sample dummy round to see at what length the bullet's bearing surface starts to rub the rifling when fully chambered and spun. Once the range is determined, we can identify the OAL that will compensate for bullet variance.

2. If you don't want to sort resized mixed range brass by lengths, you can also measure the range of variance and subtract the variance from the working OAL to compensate and use this length as your "Compensated OAL".

To conduct load development for my match loads, my bullseye match shooting mentor had me use same headstamp brass with same resized length but unless I am match shooting at top regional level, I don't think I would bother with sorting of resized brass. But to improve the accuracy of my range practice/plinking load, I would use the longest OAL that compensates for bullet/mixed range brass variance.

Only exception I would make is for 9mm bullets with shorter bullet base as insufficient bullet base seated inside the case neck may not produce enough neck tension for consistent initial chamber pressure build up. So with 115 gr FMJ/RN bullets, I use 1.135" OAL even though my max OAL is longer than 1.169". Even with 124/125 gr FMJ/RN bullets with longer bullet base than 115 gr bullets, I use 1.135" unless depending on the powder/charge, up to 1.160" to not compress the powder charge (Yes I know, some fluffy powders can tolerate modest compression without spiking the pressures). I have this issue mainly with 9mm and to squeeze optimal accuracy, it is a balancing act of reducing high pressure gas leakage vs consistent chamber pressure build.

 

[vaalpens]

If you are using mixed range brass, sorting by headstamp may not ensure uniformity. Instead, sorting by resized case length would better help with ending up with more consistent OAL in terms of amount of bullet's bearing surface sticking above the case mouth when the rounds are chambered vs start of rifling.

I'm not sure who to thank, but this thread has already added some more time to my case prep process.

I have already sorted my brass by headstamp, but have decided to also now include a sort by length. This will only be done for the headstamps where I have sufficient number of brass to make it a viable option. This process also helped me identify some 357sig brass that was longer than .865". The sorted by length brass will be used for my load development where I can at least remove one of the variables out of the equation.

Thanks to everybody who contribute to this very informative thread.

 

[Toprudder]

Here is a link to a good article about OAL and all of the aspects that it can affect. It is written about 38 super, but applies to all bullets in semi-autos.

http://38super.net/Pages/Overall%20Length.html

 

[LeftyTSGC]

- MAX VS WORKING OAL/COL
- WORKING OAL/COL VS CHAMBERED OAL/COL
- WHEN TO USE SHORTER THAN MAX OAL/COL
- USING LONGER THAN SAAMI MAX LENGTH
- SEATING DEPTH - OAL/COL
- COMPENSATE FOR MIXED RANGE BRASS CASE LENGTH VARIATION


What you measured was leade or freebore, the distance from the chamber to the start of rifling. Many factory barrels have longer leade and slower start of rifling (angle is gradual) like Glock/M&P and most match barrels have shorter leade (or almost none like my Sig 1911 and latest Lone Wolf G23 40-9 barrel) and quicker start of rifling (angle is sharp).

The longer leade will allow longer than SAAMI max dimension rounds and I was told (by more seasoned match shooters) was a safeguard to reduce pressure (maybe for NATO spec +P rounds?). If the bullet has to "jump" greater distance to start of rifling, more high pressure gas will leak around the bullet and will compromise initial chamber pressure build. To maintain more consistent chamber pressure, you would need to use longer OAL, even longer than SAAMI max as long as rounds reliably feed/chamber from the magazine.


Yes, bullets will have different nose profile (ogive), even for the same RN profile and end up with different bullet base/bearing surface length which will hit the start of rifling at different OALs.


If you are using mixed range brass, sorting by headstamp may not ensure uniformity. Instead, sorting by resized case length would better help with ending up with more consistent OAL in terms of amount of bullet's bearing surface sticking above the case mouth when the rounds are chambered vs start of rifling. Can you picture that?


Depending on the bullet manufacturer, consistency of bullet nose profile will vary. Since it is the bullet's bearing surface that engages the rifling (and not the nose tip), using the same OAL with a particular random sample bullet may not ensure consistency of bullet jump to lands for other bullets.

So what are we to do to compensate for manufacturing variance and mixed range brass?

1. One thing we can do is using the same length resized cases (I guess using same headstamp cases can't hurt) and load a random sample dummy round to see at what length the bullet's bearing surface starts to rub the rifling when fully chambered and spun. Once the range is determined, we can identify the OAL that will compensate for bullet variance.

2. If you don't want to sort resized mixed range brass by lengths, you can also measure the range of variance and subtract the variance from the working OAL to compensate and use this length as your "Compensated OAL".

To conduct load development for my match loads, my bullseye match shooting mentor had me use same headstamp brass with same resized length but unless I am match shooting at top regional level, I don't think I would bother with sorting of resized brass. But to improve the accuracy of my range practice/plinking load, I would use the longest OAL that compensates for bullet/mixed range brass variance.

Only exception I would make is for 9mm bullets with shorter bullet base as insufficient bullet base seated inside the case neck may not produce enough neck tension for consistent initial chamber pressure build up. So with 115 gr FMJ/RN bullets, I use 1.135" OAL even though my max OAL is longer than 1.169". Even with 124/125 gr FMJ/RN bullets with longer bullet base than 115 gr bullets, I use 1.135" unless depending on the powder/charge, up to 1.160" to not compress the powder charge (Yes I know, some fluffy powders can tolerate modest compression without spiking the pressures). I have this issue mainly with 9mm and to squeeze optimal accuracy, it is a balancing act of reducing high pressure gas leakage vs consistent chamber pressure build.

bds,

Thanks for the detailed explanation, it really does help me to understand that what i am doing has some relevance and the guidance to fine tune everything is what i needed.

Still not sure if i want to measure all of my brass, I am not a BE shooter, but hey i do have time.

Based on you explanation:
"The longer leade will allow longer than SAAMI max dimension rounds and I was told (by more seasoned match shooters) was a safeguard to reduce pressure (maybe for NATO spec +P rounds?). If the bullet has to "jump" greater distance to start of rifling, more high pressure gas will leak around the bullet and will compromise initial chamber pressure build. To maintain more consistent chamber pressure, you would need to use longer OAL, even longer than SAAMI max as long as rounds reliably feed/chamber from the magazine."

I have thought about seating longer based on the "freebore" haveing so much space. But, my concern is, and i cannot find anything on it, is there a prescribed minimum amount of 'bearing surface" that must be used to safely fire a 9mm? As you mentioned i can theoretically use a longer than SAAMI spec OAL, of course making sure it would feed properly. Is there any way to determing the minimum surface needed, the amount of powder adjustment to support that longer seating. How would that work?

thanks,

Lefty

 

[LiveLife]

I think that's why some reloaders consider 9mm to be a difficult caliber to load for accuracy.

With 45ACP 200 SWC/230 RN and 40S&W 170 SWC/180 TCFP, using longer OAL (and even longer than SAAMI max for 40S&W) won't significantly decrease neck tension to affect initial chamber pressure build.

Using longer OAL/SAAMI max+ for 9mm 115 gr FMJ/RN could work but not ideal for lower powder charges. Even at 1.135" and W231/HP-38, I need to push the powder charge at near max to reliably cycle the slide. If I use SAAMI max+ OAL, I would need to use higher powder charges or over published max.

IMO, shorter OAL neck tension/greater initial chamber pressure build outweigh the reduction in gas leakage when using 115 gr FMJ/RN.

With 124/125 gr FMJ/RN, you may not have a choice with certain powders at near/max load data as there isn't enough case volume and you need to use longer OAL to avoid compressing powder charge which will spike chamber pressure.

FYI, 9mm Major loads are typically loaded long as it takes a lot of powder to push 124/125 gr bullets to 1450+ fps.

 

[WestKentucky]

How have we gotten this far without jumping into pcc talk. It's a discussion in and of itself. It also is very interesting when people start throwing around the notion of using slow powders in place of fast powders looking for more velocity in a longer barrel. Considering I like all things odd and intentionally incorporate meticulous bits into my reloading , it becomes particularly interesting when looking at grossly varying barrel lengths such as those seen in the TC contender or AR15 pistol. While there may be little difference in burn and efficiency between a 3 inch and 4 inch barrel there is certainly a huge difference when the round built for something like a 9mm duty gun around 4 inches, and an AR with a 16" barrel.

As folks often say, you should load only what is published...but that concept becomes difficult when loading rifle caliber handgun rounds, handgun caliber carbine rounds, and rounds for abnormally built guns. This conundrum hits home for me in my 7-30 waters (rifle round) 10" pistol barrel, 16" 44 mag carbine barrel, 15" .357 mag buntline, and right now I'm looking for another pcc but will not buy one until I figure out how to wring crazy performance out of one safely.

 

[LiveLife]

- STEPPED RN VS NON-STEPPED RN FOR 9MM KKM/LONE WOLF BARRELS
- CALCULATING BULLET SEATING DEPTH TO DETERMINE MAX CASE FILL
- CALCULATING POWDER CASE FILL TO AVOID COMPRESSED LOADS


I posted this in another thread but reposting here due to pertinence - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9889221#post9889221

How short is too short 124g MBC small ball?

On the mbc website it says load to 1.08" but with my lone wolf barrel they won't pass a plunk test until 1.04".

Alliant data for a 124 lead and be-86 oal of 1.12"

If you look at the comparison picture below of MBC SmallBall loaded to 1.080", due to shorter but more rounded nose shape (see comparison picture of SmallBall to "stepped" Dardas/ZCast RN at bottom), the bullet base/bearing surface of the bullet will hit the start of rifling sooner than FMJ/CN bullets with longer nose.

My Lone Wolf 40-9 conversion barrels for G22/G23/G27 with gradual start of rifling angle and like KKM barrel with longer leade/freebore, will accommodate MBC SmallBall loaded to 1.080"-1.100". But my latest Lone Wolf 40-9 barrel for G23 (change in Wolf logo on barrel) has shorter leade and sharper start of rifling (Like my Sig 1911 barrel) and I need to seat the bullet deeper.

Seating Small Ball with substantial bullet base deeper will definitely increase chamber pressure (not to mention compressing the powder charge which will spike chamber pressure). I would determine bullet seating depth by subtracting the bullet length from OAL then see what the max case fill is for the powder you are using (fill powder to bullet seating depth and weigh).

So with this barrel, when using powders/charges that will be compressed, I instead use "stepped" RN seated to longer 1.125" OAL as the stepping of the bullet base prevents bearing surface from hitting the start of rifling with shorter leade barrels (see bottom picture of Dardas/ZCast stepped RN).

Update of topics:

Reloading Practice:

Open - MAX VS WORKING OAL/COL
Open - WORKING OAL/COL VS CHAMBERED OAL/COL
Open - SEATING DEPTH - OAL/COL
Open - STEPPED RN VS NON-STEPPED RN FOR 9MM KKM/LONE WOLF BARRELS
Open - WHEN TO USE SHORTER THAN MAX OAL/COL
Open - USING LONGER THAN SAAMI MAX LENGTH
Open - COMPENSATE FOR MIXED RANGE BRASS CASE LENGTH VARIATION
Open - CALCULATING BULLET SEATING DEPTH TO DETERMINE MAX CASE FILL
Open - CALCULATING POWDER CASE FILL TO AVOID COMPRESSED LOADS
Open - DECREASING OAL/COL TO INCREASE NECK TENSION/INITIAL CHAMBER PRESSURE (9mm FMJ/RN SPECIFIC)
- CRIMPS (Taper vs Roll)
- WHEN TO DOWNLOAD BELOW PUBLISHED START CHARGES

Reloading Components:

Open - POWER TYPES (Shape/Burn rate/Coating)
Open - BRASS CASE (Head stamp)
Open - BULLETS (design/weights/cannulas/gas checks/lube)
- PRIMERS BRANDS/SIZE DIFFERENCE/SEATING DEPTH

Reloading Equipment:

- POWDER CHARGE DROP VARIANCE
- ACCURACY OVER CHRONOGRAPH (MV/ES/SD)
- BARREL TWIST RATE/BULLET WEIGHT
- USING RESIZED/HAND PRIMED CASES IN PROGRESSIVE PRESSES
- HOW TO OBTAIN MORE CONSISTENT OAL/COL
- TUNING A BALANCE BEAM SCALE
- WHAT DIGITAL SCALES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR RELOADING

Range Testing:

- POWDER WORK UP
Open - EVALUATING PISTOL LOADS

 

[LiveLife]

Adding "POWDER FORWARD/BACKWARD" to the list of topics. I am a relative newbie for revolver reloading so I will sit out this topic discussion.

Can someone post actual range test data of 38 Spl loads tested with filling material vs no filler?

remember... Tulala on board. Powder forward?

Large volume cases like .38 Spl with denser powders like W231/HP-38 (and even with fluffy powders like Unique/Red Dot/Promo), powder charge won't take up much space and will rest on the bottom of the case when the revolver ... is aimed. When the primer ignites, the flash will burn the powder charge from top down.

The preferred powder charge burn is from end of case (primer end) towards the bullet for more consistent/even push that will improve accuracy. Some powders are more sensitive to this and they are called "position sensitive" powders (before someone objects, actually all powders can be position sensitive if low enough charges are used). For this reason, many reloaders will tilt the pistol forward/back to ensure powder charge is against the primer/bullet prior to slowly raising/lowering the pistol to fire. Some even use filling material to pack the powder charge so it is pushed against the primer.

I think some prefer the "powder forward" as the expanding gas from primer scatters the powder charge less instead of scattering the powder granule inside the case (some even warn against detonation/explosion from this).

 

[jell-dog]

Deleated
JD

 

[LiveLife]

jell-dog, I think stickied threads go the way of blackholes of non-remembrance.

If the thread discussions are beneficial and viewed by interested members/guests, it will likely stay on page one and viewed like other popular threads and show up in Google search (Yes, top returns in Google searches).

Where are there reloading components for sale? - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=707473
Google search - https://www.google.com/search?btnG=...ere+reloading+components+for+sale?&gws_rd=ssl

Pay it forward in Reloading - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=698208
Google search - https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=reloading+pay+it+forward&gws_rd=ssl

Thank you THR - Pay it Forward - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=760272
Google search - https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=thank+you+reloading+pay+it+forward&gws_rd=ssl

Lee Pro 1000 Solutions - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=507454
Google search - https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=lee+pro+1000+solutions&gws_rd=ssl

Even these "Advanced Reloading ..." threads are already coming on top of Google searches - https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=advanced+reloading+concepts+discussions&gws_rd=ssl

So I don't think we need to "sticky" these threads ... and looks like members and guests will be able to find them without much trouble.

 

[LiveLife]

- POWDER TYPES (Shape/Burn rate/Coatig)

I had planned to do a more detailed summary of powder types but since I posted a reply to another thread, I will start with this - www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9890063#post9890063

W231/HP-38 is what I usually suggest to new reloaders as they usually won't load max loads and tend to use mid-high range load data and W231/HP-38 produces accurate loads even at mid range and meters very well.

Bullseye meters well but tends to produce snappier loads than W231/HP-38 because it is faster burning.
It produces accurate loads and "downloads" well (works below published start charges) to produce light recoil and accurate loads popular with Bullseye match shooters.

Titegroup meters well and produces accurate loads but has very narrow load range for some calibers/bullet weights and burns hot/violent and not friendly with some lead loads.

Red Dot/Promo produce accurate loads at lower cost point (especially Promo) and works well with lead loads but don't meter well and burns dirtier.

Unique has very wide range of caliber application and bulky to fill cases to prevent double charges but won't meter well.

I consider BE-86 the "modern Unique" with same burn rate that meters well and produces more accurate loads than other powders and recommend to new and seasoned reloaders.

WSF/AutoComp and other slower than Unique powders produce higher velocities than faster burn rate powders but require high-to-near max loads for optimal accuracy.

 

[50cal]

None of the comments in the quote above can be substantiated, nor are they accurate. At best the statements above is an individual's subjective opinion. Like most of the concepts in this thread. The opinions may work for you, or may not. Reloading depends on numerous factors (equipment, components, reloader, objectives, preference). No one should be making wholesale comments like above. For example, Bullseye is a dirty, clumpy powder that doesn't meter well in progressives. That's my personal opinion. Perhaps I use too much case lube in my resizing die. Bullseye is a widely used powder so there is a lot of data out there - maybe that attracts people. Terms like 'snappy load' 'burns violent' are good indicators that the information is somewhat lacking. .

I would caution anyone coming across this thread and thinking they have found the holy grail to reloading. It is at best a discussion on theory - some beneficial, some not so much. There is some 'meat' here but you need to sift through.

 

[LiveLife]

I would caution anyone coming across this thread and thinking they have found the holy grail to reloading. It is at best a discussion on theory - some beneficial, some not so much. There is some 'meat' here but you need to sift through.

50cal, why such a tone?

If you read the OP, you would have noticed that I did mention what you posted. The discussions will start out with "subjective" theoretical reloading "concepts" then move onto "objective" range testing (holes on target) to verify whether these concepts would improve accuracy (unless someone already has done that to share like Walkalong for "powder forward/backward" testing for 38 Spl loads). I posted - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=778197

I am thinking of a group project thread that covers more advanced reloading concepts and ... freely discuss the finer details of reloading to squeeze out more accuracy ...

I am open to discussing theoretical reloading concepts but prefer verifiable concepts (reloading concepts that can be verified by range test/equipment measurement). Just because I post plausible concepts that "sounds" good DOES NOT mean they are factual (my wife is laughing ). I think we should treat all concepts as untested until we are able to test the concepts in real life. Keep in mind that holes on target are more factual and instruments don't lie like we do.

... After successful discussions, I can maintain an indexed summarized linked listings post with the necessary disclaimers Walkalong can be happy with

We have just started this thread and barely opened topic discussions. As far as I can tell, all the topics are in the "open discussion" phase. Before we conclude any topic discussion, I would certainly offer any further discussion or rebuttal to validate the range test results. Only then would I consider topic discussion successful and conclude with the "objective" findings in terms of holes on target from range test (and "objective" range testing is one of the discussion topics as "EVALUATING PISTOL LOADS" ).

If you feel I violated any THR rules, please report me to Walkalong. If you feel I have not, then please respect the OP premise and participate in open and meaningful discussion or read from the sidelines for your amusement/entertainment (as a THR member, you are not required to participate in all the threads. ).

As to other members reading/following these two "Advanced Reloading Concepts and Discussions" threads, I do think these theoretical and conceptual open/free discussions have their place at THR "Handloading and Reloading" subcategory of forum discussions. It is my opinion that they allow incubation of potential beneficial discussions of reloading concepts that could be range tested to see if they can decrease the group size/improve accuracy.

One of many reasons why I started these threads is that many times in the past, when such "advanced" reloading concepts were posted by THR members out of curiosity, members such as 50cal slammed the suggestions by saying they won't matter much to the shot group size so don't bother sweating the details. Well, these threads are for those of you who have surpassed beyond the reloading basics and want to expand your reloading horizons and see what else you can do to increase your reloading consistency.

Sorry for the distraction.

Those of you interested and following the threads, let's get back to discussing the topics.

This thread is for reloaders who enjoy the minute details of reloading to OCD levels in pursuit of accuracy. If you are that person, come right in and post away. If utmost accuracy is not that important and minute of gong is good enough for you, read on.

 

[LiveLife]

- POWDER TYPES (Shape/Burn rate/Coating)

Continued from Post #71 - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9890073#post9890073

I had originally intended to start out with posting pictures of popular pistol powders I have on hand and discuss the each powder's pros/cons so here it is. For 50cal's benefit and others, yes these comments about each powder are MY OPINIONS based on MY EXPERIENCE:

Repost from powder comparison picture thread - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=744995

"Many reloaders, especially those just starting out may not be familiar with different powder types and appearances. Close up pictures were taken with W231/HP-38 as reference to compare flake size and texture. Comments regarding metering characteristics and application/usage are what I usually share with new reloaders and they are my opinion based on limited experience as I currently only load for 380Auto/38Spl/9mm/40S&W/45ACP/45Colt in pistol calibers.

Alliant Bullseye, Winchester 231/Hodgdon HP-38 and Alliant Power Pistol



W231 and HP-38 are coated flattened ball powders. They are the same exact powder sold by Winchester and licensed to Hodgdon in 2006 and W231 load data can be interchanged with HP-38 if your W231 was manufactured after 2006. Because of small size and smooth coating, W231/HP-38 meters very consistently and drops powder charges from Pro Auto Disk with less than .1 gr variance. The coating helps lubricate Pro Auto Disk surfaces and is my powder of choice for breaking-in new Pro Auto Disk. I use W231/HP-38 for all pistol calibers I load for as it produces accurate mid-range lower pressure target loads that produce milder recoil and is a good powder for new reloaders just starting out, especially if using Pro Auto Disk powder measure. It produces 9mm like recoil in 40S&W with start/low charges and moderate recoil with mid range charges. Because of small size and smooth flowing characteristics, I use it for 380Auto loads requiring small powder charges of 2.6-3.0 gr [successfully tested down to 2.0 gr] (below smallest Auto Disk hole) using this modification to my Auto Disk - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9318202

Bullseye is a small flake powder and meters with less than .1 gr variance. Bullseye can produce very accurate target loads (more accurate than W231/HP-38) but because it is faster burning than W231/HP-38, felt recoil generated is more snappy but manageable in 9mm and less comfortable in 40S&W. Bullseye downloads well (shoots accurate down to start charge) and is a popular powder with Bullseye match shooters (hence the name). Same Auto Disk mod works well with Bullseye to drop 1.8-2.6 gr [successfully tested down to 1.5 gr] - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9318360#post9318360

Power Pistol is a small flake powder and meters with less than .1 gr variance. Power Pistol is slower burning than W231/HP-38 and tends to produce larger than typical muzzle flash in some loads and is popular for 40S&W and other calibers for full-power loads.


Alliant Red Dot, W231/HP-38 and Alliant Promo



Red Dot is a large flake powder and meters with up to .2+ gr variance. If you look at Red Dot closely, you'll see occasional red flakes. Red Dot is a faster burning powder than W231/HP-38 (I think on par with Bullseye) and well suited for various pistol calibers. Despite the larger metering variance, it produces accurate enough loads for range practice/plinking rounds. If you find current load data from Alliant limited, you can find more FMJ/lead loads in 2004 Alliant load data - http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=182147&d=1364769070

Promo is a large flake powder and meters with up to .2+ gr variance. Promo burn rate is comparable to Red Dot and Alliant says to use Red Dot load data by weight as Promo is more dense. It is my favorite powder for lead 9mm and 45ACP practice/plinking loads as the same 4.0 gr charge is used for 9mm 124/125 gr RN bullets and 45ACP 200 gr SWC bullets. (Promo thread for 9mm/40S&W range test and 45ACP range test).

Although Red Dot/Promo can be used for 40S&W, like Bullseye, they tend to produce more snappy recoil than W231/HP-38 and slower burning powders with the exception of Green Dot.


W231/HP-38, Vihtavuori N320 and Winchester Super Target (WST)



N320 is cut extruded powder (like most rifle powder) that meters with .1 gr variance. N320 is a fast burning powder and many match shooters consider it to be the best 9mm match powder that burns clean and shoots accurate.

WST is flattened ball powder without the black coating. It is a fast burn rate powder that meters with less than .1 gr variance. [Although Hodgdon does not publish load data for 9mm, many match shooters use it. With 124/125 gr bullet pushed to beyond 125 power factor velocities, powder charge may be compressed to varying degree so anticipate spiking of pressure with higher than 4.0 gr charge with FMJ/RN loaded to 1.160" OAL/COL. Many seasoned match shooters told me WST was spiky at the top]


Hodgdon Clays, W231/HP-38 and Hodgdon Titegroup



Clays is a very clean burning fast burn rate powder that meters with .1 gr variance. It is capable of producing accurate light target loads.

Reloaders have either love or hate relationship with Titegroup. Titegroup meters with less than .1 gr variance and is a fast burning powder that burns hot and violent (spiky chamber pressure build up) at near max load data with very narrow load range for many loads (some may consider the start charge to be already near max ). It is a powder that I do not recommend to new reloaders, particularly with lead bullets. However, it is a popular powder with many match shooters as match loads that meet velocity/power factor requirements are less temperature sensitive than W231/HP-38.

Alliant Green Dot, W231/HP-38 and Alliant Herco



Green Dot is sized between Bullseye and Red Dot/Unique and has green flakes. It meters with .1 gr variance and I consider it Alliant's closest powder to W231/HP-38. I found I needed to use .2-.3 gr more powder than my W231/HP-38 loads and produces slightly less accurate loads but if you can't find W231/HP-38 or Ramshot Zip, Green Dot is a good alternative. It is particularly good powder for 40S&W as it produces lower pressure target loads with lighter recoil.

Herco is a flake powder sized comparable to Green Dot and meters with .1 gr variance. It's burn rate is listed between Power Pistol and WSF. I recently tested it in 40S&W and found it to be a clean burning powder with both lead and plated bullets - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=743416


Hodgdon Universal, W231/HP-38 and Alliant Unique



Unique is popular with many reloaders as it is versatile for most pistol calibers at high to full power loads. It meters with .2+ gr variance and while I tried to like it, since most of my loads are lighter mid-to-high range load data target loads, I prefer to use W231/HP-38 and faster burning powders that are able to produce accuracy at below high-to-near max load data. However, even if Unique was the only powder I had to reload pistol calibers, I would not complain.

Many claim Universal is Hodgdon's version of Unique as it too is versatile for most pistol calibers yet it meters better with .1 gr variance.


Winchester Super Field (WSF), W231/HP-38 and Winchester AutoComp



WSF is the powder I prefer to load full power loads, especially for practice/backup/near duplicate factory JHP rounds using bulk Speer Gold Dot HP and Remington Golden Saber JHP bullets for higher velocities it can produce. Walkalong suggested I try N340 for higher velocity loads and I am planning to do a comparison with WSF, N340 and CFE Pistol as soon as I get some. Like W231/HP-38, WSF is also coated flattened ball powder that meters with less than .1 gr variance.

Some suggested Auto Comp is WSF with flash suppressant but as you can see from the close up comparison picture, the granules are smaller and meters with less than .1 gr variance. I like AutoComp for 9mm/40S&W full power loads."

 

[Toprudder]

FWIW, I have tried every powder listed in the above quote (except WSF, which I have in stock but have not worked any loads up yet) and I agree with everything stated. I personally have not observed any of the behavior listed regarding Titegroup, but what is stated is an almost universal comment by people that have been doing this far longer than I have. I really like Titegroup but I don't want to venture too far up the charge scale with it. JMHO.