Monday, February 01, 2010
MY
WEEKEND: It's not often I get to be a
student these days, but it's important for any instructor to do so
now and again. Last week I got an invitation from
Jeff
Varner, one of ICE Training's
certified Combat Focus
instructors, to
sit in on his class in Vancouver. Unfortunately I had to cut out a
bit early due to a prior commitment, but I enjoyed the class
nonetheless. Thanks, Jeff, for the invite!
DRAW
FAST, HOLSTER SLOW: Tam alerts us to a ND that
happened at a Todd Green class. In his commendable reporting of the incident, Todd
says "Never be in a rush to
holster your pistol. We all know it, we say it, we teach it. Not
all of us do it." So true.
As instructors it's easy for us to forget that reinforcement, and
sometimes enforcement, are necessary parts of our job. Especially
when we're dealing with "advanced" students, we tend to go easy on
the reinforcement of fundamentals for fear that we'll be resented
for belittling their ability or experience. We have to resist that
tendency, and we need to do so consistently. When warranted,
enforcement (up to and including ejection from class) has to
happen.
The only instructor I've ever seen who is absolutely consistent in
this regard is Georges Rahbani (TBRIYNHO.)
Even in his advanced rifle classes, which are invitation only and
have stringent prerequisites, you will hear "safety on" and "finger
in register" (index, if you prefer) commands at the end of a string
of fire. He never wastes an opportunity for reinforcement at any
level of training or ability.
When Georges encounters failures to heed commands or instruction,
he has a way of bringing the point home to the student: he/she has
to publicly deposit a dollar bill into a pot. (The students have a
friendly shoot-off at the end of class to win the pot.) This has a
non-confrontational, yet still very chastening, effect on both the
offending person and the rest of the students; I've seen it work on
countless occasions. I don't know where the idea comes from, but
I'm giving Georges the credit.
THE PROBLEM WITH ELECTRONIC SCALES: I recently sat down to work
up a new .308 load. I turned on my RCBS electronic scale, waited a
couple of minutes, and starting weighing charges. Much to my
surprise, the weight of the charges thrown by my powder measure
increased each time! I'd forgotten that electronic scales need
protracted warmup periods before accuracy and repeatability can be
expected. After a half-hour of warmup, it settled down and gave
correct readings. Word to the wise: keep your mechanical scales
around to double check the electronic ones, or buy a set of check
weights.
HERE
COMES DA JUDGE: From The Unforgiving Minute comes this gem:
"The inexplicable
success of the Taurus Judge still depresses the hell out of me.
Taurus keeps cranking out new versions, each more grotesque,
hideous and nonsensical than the last, and people KEEP BUYING THE
GODDAMN THINGS. Just another sign that our culture is doomed, I
suppose."
(The opinions of the contributor do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Management of this blog. Then again, they just
might.)
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: combat.focus, gun.skool,
safety,
bloggers, georges.rahbani
Monday, June 15, 2009
Welcome to all the new readers from the U.S.
Concealed Carry Association!
(For those who don't know, I've written an article or two for their
various publications. Their editor, Kathy Jackson, is not all that
far away from me, and I've discovered it's pretty cool to be able
to say "sorry, can't make it - have to meet with my editor this
afternoon!")
---
Massad Ayoob is in town (well, in the region) this week, and I got
a chance to get together with him and his ProArms
Podcast partner Gail Pepin. Gail and
I recorded a fun little chat; what will happen to it is a decision
made at a pay grade higher than mine, but as things progress I'll
let you know.
---
Corvidae cuisine time: I've opined
that the Ruger LCR was so ugly that no one would buy the thing.
While I stand by my assertion that it is ugly, apparently people
are in fact buying them. I think that's great, actually, as it
shows that the marketplace is ready for innovation in even a staid
product category such as the revolver.
---
Jim Jacobe
recently bought
a Ponsness-Warren electric drive
for his Dillon
1050 press. Now he just sits on his stool watching brass go in and
rounds come out, with no more exertion than a silly grin. He likes
it so much he became a dealer for the things. If you're flush with
cash and tired of pulling that handle, drop him a note and get one
on order.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: uscca, massad.ayoob, proarms, ruger
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Busier than a one-armed paperhanger today, so I'm just going to
give you a link and some commentary.
On Monday I mentioned my attraction to wildcat cartridges. There is
one that still intrigues me, because a) it's an easy wildcat to
make, and b) it's a cartridge that SHOULD have been factory made
from the start: the .41 Special.
I've always wanted to play with it, but have never owned the
necessary .41 Magnum gun in which to shoot it. Since I'm not all
that much a fan of the .41 Magnum to begin with I doubt I ever
will, which automatically leaves me out of the .41 Special
fraternity. Unless, of course, I decide to do a conversion on an
existing gun! Here we go again...
(Oh, BTW - check out Ed Harris' comments on Monday's
post,
particularly the video. I've been jealous of his rook rifle since
he told me about it some time back; someday I'll one-up him by
building a double rifle in .32 Colt New Police, aka .32 S&W
Long.)
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: ed.harris
Monday, June 01, 2009
One of my interests, though I suppress it as much as possible, is
the field of wildcat and proprietary cartridges. The lure of a
cartridge that will give me something that I can't get anywhere
else, that will dramatically improve some aspect of my shooting, is
nearly irresistible. Of course owning and using something that
other folks may not have heard about, let alone used, is a strong
motivating factor!
Why do I suppress this interest? First, because I don't need yet
another caliber to reload. Second, because reloading non-standard
cartridges almost always requires extra work, and I've got enough
to do as it is. Finally, because they rarely do anything that can't
be done with something more mainstream, no matter how much I tell
myself otherwise!
This interest was kindled many years ago when I was tasked with
loading up some .451 Detonics for a local Detonics fanatic. The
.451 was a proprietary cartridge, supposedly made by cutting down
.45 Winchester Magnum brass, that was reported to throw a 185 grain
bullet in excess of 1350 fps. This collector had a large quantity
of virgin .451 Detonics brass, and wanted to recreate the defunct
cartridge.
Loading data was scant, but we proceeded to work up loads using a
rare .451 Detonics Combatmaster with an even rarer factory Seecamp
double-action mechanism. We stopped when the 185 grain slugs exited
that short barrel at 1325 fps - with recoil that can only be
described as fierce!
(I don't believe the Seecamp option was ever actually offered for
sale by Detonics. This collector, who was friends with someone from
the original Detonics company, told me that "several" Detonics
models were so constructed for test and evaluation, and he managed
to acquire a couple of examples.)
That experience hooked me on odd cartridges, and I fed the
addiction by purchasing a Dan Wesson in .445 SuperMag. Several
other non-standard cartridges followed, and then I caught the
wildcat bug. Wildcats are like crack cocaine to an oddball
cartridge addict, and I played with several. I even toyed with the
idea of developing my own wildcat, but luckily sanity (in the form
of my wife) prevailed and the project was forgotten. More or
less.
Most of my pet oddballs were eventually sold as my interest in them
waned. Well, that - and I got tired scrounging and/or forming brass
for them! I still have a few foreign military cartridges in the
collection, though I'm not sure they really fit into the
wildcat/proprietary motif.
My single remaining wildcat is a rifle chambered in 6.5-284. This
is now a semi-legitimate cartridge, as it has become popular enough
that Norma loads it and sells properly headstamped cases. When I
took up the cartridge, though, it was a pure wildcat requiring
forming cases from .284 Winchester brass. It's a wonderful
cartridge, flat shooting and horrendously accurate, and now that
it's become more mainstream it's much easier to load. Somehow, it's
also lost the allure it used to hold for me.
Must - resist - urge - to - acquire - more...
-=[
Grant ]=-
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
I hope everyone had a good Memorial Day weekend! The weather here
in Oregon was wonderful (for a change) and I made the most of the
sunshine and warm temperatures. In fact, I found it hard to come
back to work!
I've received several emails in the last few months with a common
complaint: unburned powder granules lodging underneath the
extractor, causing cylinder lockups. I believe the ongoing
ammunition shortage may be playing a big part in the sudden
increase of this problem.
Because ammunition is so hard to get, many people are either
turning to reloading their own, or sliding down-market and buying
reloads at the local gun show. In both cases there is a great
incentive to reduce the cost of these cartridges, and one way to do
so is to use a powder that requires a lower charge weight for a
given velocity. Less powder used, less money spent!
As the charge weight goes down, so does the space occupied by the
powder. This is referred to as 'load density', and is an often
overlooked aspect of powder choice. In many older cartridges, like
the .38 Special, .45 Colt, and .44 Special, the case volume is
quite generous. Putting a small charge of powder in these enormous
cases results in very low load densities.
The issue is that some powders work well at low densities, and some
don't. Hodgdon Universal Clays, which is one of my favorite powders
for autoloading cartridges, doesn't like to be loaded to low
densities at all. In a standard velocity 158 grain .38 Special
load, it will produce copious amounts of unburned flakes.
Increasing the load density by upping the charge weight to a +P
level, though, eliminates the problem.
The problems are magnified in larger cases like the .44 Special,
where Universal Clays proves to be almost unusable. Just because
the powder maker lists a particular load weight in a particular
cartridge doesn't mean that it works all that well!
In contrast, Alliant Red Dot handles low charge densities better,
producing a clean burn at target level .38 velocities. It is now my
powder of choice for low to mid velocities in the larger
cases.
Oddly, all the currently available load manuals (except for
Nosler's) ignore load density. I've made it a policy to avoid using
the very lightest powders for any given cartridge, and instead go
for the powders in the middle of the charge weight range (which
achieve the target velocity, of course.)
There are a couple of other factors in unburned powder issues, and
I'll get to those in a future article.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
A common complaint with progressive presses is the throwing of
inconsistent powder charges. Most people immediately blame the
equipment, but some times it's actually operator error.
We first need to admit that there are certain incompatibilities
with regard to some measures and some powders (Dillon's difficulty
with metering flake or extruded powder, for instance, is often
discussed on the various reloading forums.) However, even with a
powder the measure "likes" unexpected variances often occur during
a production run.
The variance usually comes as a surprise to the operator. During
setup, the reloader is careful to check the powder charge, and
finds that the measure it properly set up and is throwing charges
with little variance - say, within .1 grains. During the middle of
a run the person happens to check a random case and finds that it
is perhaps a half grain off. He stops, carefully throws several
charges, perhaps adjusts the measure, then settles down to again
crank out the rounds. Another random check, and the process repeats
itself.
Perhaps some attention to technique will cure the problem.
Those who reload rifle cases for extreme accuracy will agree that
one's technique with the powder measure is critical to consistent,
accurate charges. The same is true for the measure on a progressive
press!
As it happens, there is a "dwell time" when powder is being dumped
from the measure. The powder doesn't fall instantaneously into a
case, it flows - out of the measure's cavity, down the drop tube,
through the powder die, and into the waiting brass. That journey
takes some time, and if the press operator is impatient - or worse,
inconsistently impatient - there may be a few flakes of powder left
somewhere in the path when he decides to go to the next round in
the queue. That translates into a light charge for the current
case, and a heavy one for the next.
There is a solution: when you pull the handle down, pause for a
second at the bottom of the stroke to give time for all of the
powder to make the journey to your case. Most operators I've
observed don't do this - as soon as the handle hits bottom, they
immediately jerk it back up to get to the next round in the
shellplate. That may not give the powder enough time to drop, and
can lead to those inconsistent charges.
When I'm using my progressive, I think consciously about that pause
at the bottom of the stroke. When the handle hits the stop, I open
my hand then close it; the amount of time it takes to do that is
sufficient for the powder to drop completely (and has the added
benefit of keeping my hand and arm from tiring during long loading
sessions!) Yes, it will slow you down slightly; I think it's a
small price to pay for more consistent and accurate ammo.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
A question appeared in the comments to my last primer
article. The commenter asked about
magnum primers and their effect on the load.
First things first: I'll limit my comments to Winchester Small
Pistol Magnum primers, as those are what I have experience with.
(Winchester uses the same Large Pistol primer for both regular and
magnum loads.)
A couple of years back I was working up a 9mm +P load, to duplicate
a factory offering for practice purposes. (This is one of the great
benefits of handloading - the ability to make a cheaper equivalent
for range use, saving the increasingly expensive factory stuff for
carry.)
I started with some published +P loads using the Winchester Small
Pistol (WSP) primer. Those loads failed to achieve the necessary
velocities, even at the max charge weight. I wondered if a change
to a "hotter" (magnum) primer would make a difference, and
redeveloped the load using Winchester Small Pistol Magnum (WSPM)
primers. A velocity gain occurred at all charge weights, topping
out with a 115 fps increase at the maximum load.
Again, I haven't tried this side-by-side comparison with any other
primer brand. If you attempt this experiment, do not substitute
primers on maximum loads; as always, start low and work up. Pay
particular attention to pressure signs.
Speaking of my previous primer article...I mentioned that my
testing had revealed a substantial decrease in velocity variance
when comparing CCI and Winchester primers. Well,
someone over at leverguns.com posted this
interesting picture. He took his favorite .45
Colt load for his Rossi rifle, and switched primers between
Remington and CCI. Take a look - it would appear that CCI's
consistency pays big dividends in accuracy, at least in this
case.
If you are at all the curious type, reloading is your hobby - so
much experimentation to be done!
-=[
Grant ]=-
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
I'm not sure what's up with Winchester these days. No one seems to
have Winchester primers in stock, either walk-in or online, and
backorders aren't being taken. On the other hand, CCI primers are
(at least in my area) available in quantity. Odd.
(Something else odd: I rarely see Remington primers around here,
and it's been that way as far back as I can remember.)
Anyhow, every reloading resource I've ever seen is quite adamant
about the need to retest a load whenever anything changes -
including primers. I know many people who do not heed that advice,
assuming that a primer is a primer is a primer. (It's usually about
the time they say this that I make a mental note to stand well
behind them when they are shooting.) I, on the other hand, am
desirous of maintaining my appendages in full working order. Thus
when anything changes, I test thoroughly.
Because of the difficulty in obtaining my favorite Winchester
primers (which I've used exclusively for nearly two decades), I've
been reworking some of my loads to accommodate CCI primers. This is
more of a pre-emptive move than anything, as I still have
Winchesters on the shelf. Doing this before I need to allows me the
luxury of testing side-by-side, using the same powder lots.
I've found something interesting, and not at all what I expected.
The Winchester primers are "hotter" (producing higher velocities)
than the CCI, but the CCI primers are more consistent (smaller
spreads in velocity from shot to shot.) This appears to be the case
in both pistol and rifle sizes.
Example: a 170 grain load in the .30-30 cartridge. Using CCI
primers, I could not achieve factory-level velocities without
loading "over book" (putting in more powder than specified by the
reloading manual.) I have many load manuals, and both the bullet
maker and the powder manufacturer pretty much agreed on what was a
maximum load. Even at their maximum, the CCI primer still produced
a load that was 150 fps under factory ammo velocities.
(Before the emails start: I tested factory loads in MY gun so that
I had a real benchmark. Factory velocity data is not to be relied
on.)
The Winchester primers produced a load which easily matched the
factory offering, but both the extreme spread and the standard
deviation of the load increased markedly. This indicates that the
primer is not as consistent as the CCI equivalent. (Remember: same
powder lot, same bullet lot, same brass from the same lot. The only
change was the primer.) This should translate to lessened accuracy
for the Winchester primer, but results from a lever action rifle
using flat point bullets are so far inconclusive.
When I get around to it, I'll be doing the same test with my .308
match loads. I'll post the results of the accuracy tests, where I
expect the CCI to clearly best the Winchester.
Stay tuned.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Monday, August 18, 2008
A reader asked me to comment on successfully shooting lead bullets
in revolvers. It seems that he's been getting indifferent accuracy
coupled with severe leading, and would like to know the "secret" to
using lead in his gun.
I thought I'd covered this topic once before, but a thorough search
of the archives failed to turn up the expected article. Guess I'll
have to do this from scratch!
Please note that I'm not a "hardcore" cast bullet shooter. I don't
cast my own, which means that I'm dependent on commercial sources
for my projectiles. As a result, it's taken me longer to learn this
stuff than it would have otherwise. Thus I'm no expert; but Ed
Harris, who sometimes checks in here at the RLA, is - hopefully
he'll see fit to comment. (Ed, if I get anything wrong please drop
me a note - I'll make your response into it's own post.)
The first thing to understand is that your lead bullets need to fit
the chamber throats of your gun. If, for example, your throats
measure .358", your bullets should be no smaller than .358, and no
bigger than .001" over that measurement. Smaller bullets won't be
as accurate, and will let the erosive combustion gases blow past
the bullet causing severe leading around the forcing cone.
(Many bullet makers will size their products to your preference; if
they don't make that service obvious, just ask. A surprising number
are happy to oblige, usually at no extra cost.)
The forcing cone of your gun must also be in good condition;
roughness in that area will result in leading at that point.
Assuming that the gun part of the equation is in good shape, and
the bullets are of correct size, the hardness of the bullet becomes
the critical issue. Most bullet makers advertise really hard
bullets as being the "cure" for leading. It sort of stands to
reason, doesn't it? A harder lead won't smear as much as it goes
down the barrel, and will leave less residue - right?
Guess what - it isn't true. In fact, it's completely off
base!
Think about this: you probably have a .22 rifle hanging around.
Most .22 LR bullets are plain lubricated lead - very soft lead, no
less. Compared to your average hard cast bullet, a .22 slug is
almost like butter - soft as can be. Yet I'll bet that if you
looked at the bore of your rifle, you probably won't see much
leading - if any at all. My .22 rifles will fire a thousand or so
rounds between cleanings, and I've never seen lead in my bores
despite the bullet traveling at 1,200 fps.
What's the reason? Obturation.
A bullet, under great pressure from the expanding gases behind it,
grows in size to fit whatever hole (chamber throat, barrel bore) it
is being shoved into. This phenomenon is called obturation. As the
bullet obturates it seals the hole, and keeps the gases where they
belong until the bullet actually exits the barrel.
If the bullet doesn't obturate, the very hot gases will rush past
while it is in the bore. The lead where the gases pass is melted
and deposited on the barrel's walls - producing leading. This kind
of leading is the most difficult to remove, as it really "sticks"
to the bore - as if it's been soldered there. In fact, it
has!
It follows that we need to make sure that they bullet obturates in
our bore. In order for a bullet to obturate, the metal used needs
to be soft enough to deform easily under the amount of pressure
being applied to it. If the bullet is too hard, it won't obturate
and there will be no sealing.
So, the bullet has to be soft enough to obturate. Why not just make
all bullets out of super soft pure lead - won't that cure the
problem? No, it won't; a bullet that's too soft will also cause
leading, as it won't be strong enough to maintain the necessary
seal in the bore. It also won't be resistant to the heat generated
by the friction of travel down the bore. Both result in lead left
in the barrel.
The bullet has to be hard, but not too hard; soft, but not too
soft! The variable is the amount of pressure generated by the
firing cartridge.
The higher the pressure, the harder the bullet needs to be to
resist excess deformation - but remember that it has to be soft
enough to obturate properly. A mild .38 Special target load needs a
softer bullet than a fire-breathing .357 Magnum in order to
obturate; putting a too-hard bullet in a mild cartridge is as much
a problem as a too-soft slug in a hot one.
Bullet hardness is rated on the Brinell (BHN) scale. Pure lead is 5
BHN; "hard cast" bullets can be close to 30 BHN. Somewhere in that
range is the ideal bullet for any given cartridge; how do we find
it?
As it happens, there is a way to determine the optimum bullet
hardness. First, you need to know the amount of pressure your load
develops. That's easy - your loading manual will have that
information. (Pressure is listed in either CUP or PSI; they are
slightly different, but for this particular question either will be
close enough to get the answer we need.)
There are two formula: one for the ideal hardness, one for the
maximum hardness.
Ideal hardness in BHN = Pressure / 1,920
Maximum BHN = Pressure / 1,422
Let's say it's a .38 Special using 4.5 grains of Hodgdon Universal
Clays and a 158 grain SWC bullet. The pressure for this load is
16,700. Our formulae look like this:
16,700 '/ 1920 = 8.69 BHN ideal hardness
16,700 / 1422 = 11.74 BHN maximum hardness
You can (and should) round those to the nearest whole number. Thus,
for this load I want a bullet of around 9 BHN, but no more than 12
BHN for best results.
For a heavy .357 Magnum load, using the same bullet, the numbers
are dramatically different:
33,600 / 1920 = 18 (rounded) ideal
33,600 / 1422 = 24 (rounded) maximum
Big difference! If I buy bullets of 21 BHN for my Magnum, and use
them in the light Special loads, they won't obturate properly and
I'm likely to get leading.
Guess what? That's exactly what happened! It wasn't until I bought
some bullets of a nice 10 BHN for my Special loads that my leading
problem was solved. As I said at the beginning, it doesn't seem
logical that softer bullets leave less residue behind - that is,
until you understand the physics behind the problem.
With this information you can now go bullet shopping with
confidence. You'll probably find that purveyors of "cowboy" bullets
are your best choice to get the alloy hardness that you need to
keep the lead where it belongs: on the target, not in your
barrel!
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: accuracy
Monday, June 09, 2008
Someone emailed and asked me to detail my reloading die setups.
With pleasure!
For handgun rounds, my setup for .38 Special is typical (and, not
surprisingly, my most-used.) The sizing die is a Lee carbide, which
I've had for decades. I would prefer an RCBS die in this spot,
primarily for the better decapping pin system and easier handling
of it's knurled body, but the Lee is perfectly serviceable (and I'm
too cheap to spring for the new die.) For certain other calibers I
have RCBS or DIllon carbide dies, and as I mentioned last time I
find them all acceptable - but my favorite remains RCBS.
The next station on the press carries a Lyman "M" expander die. The
Hornady powder measure, like other progressive press measures, has
an integral case expander, but I still prefer to expand using the
Lyman die. It expands in a unique manner that reduces lead shaving
and promotes straighter bullet seating, and it works as advertised.
(I do reload a number of calibers for which I don't have "M" dies;
for those I rely on the expander in the powder measure, which works
perfectly well - the "M" die is just in a class by itself.)
The bullet seating die for all calibers is the Hornady with the
sliding bullet alignment collar. It is, hands down, the best
seating die I've used. That sliding collar definitely helps bullet
alignment, especially if the bullet tips a bit on the way up into
the die. The bullet seating depth is precisely adjustable via a
convenient knurled knob, and they have a micrometer seating
adjustment available as an accessory. Absolutely "best in class" in
terms of features.
I never crimp in the seating die. I know, most people do, but I've
found that crimping separately results in significantly better
ammunition. In .38, I use the superb Redding crimp die. This die is
unique, in that it applies a slight taper crimp first, then a roll
crimp. It produces the best .38 ammo I've ever made, and would not
be without it for any cartridge where I want to squeeze out that
last little bit of accuracy.
For all other pistol calibers, I use the Lee Factory Crimp Die. It
is different than any other crimp die: it has a carbide sizing ring
that sizes all the way to the base of the case, which is difficult
to do in the initial size/decap process. Then it applies a taper or
roll crimp (depending on the cartridge.) The neat part about the
crimp stage is that it is adjustable via a knurled knob, making it
a cinch to get exactly the right amount of crimp. The combination
of to-the-base resizing and perfect crimping make the FCD (as it's
known in reloading circles) great for all calibers, but an absolute
must for rounds going into autoloading pistols. If you're having
trouble getting your reloads to feed, the FCD will solve the
problem. (If you're using a Dillon sizing die, which doesn't size
are far down the case as others, the FCD is especially
useful.)
For rifle rounds I've taken then same mix-and-match approach. (For
those who don't reload bottleneck rifle cases, there are two
approaches to resizing: full-length and neck only. Cases going into
autoloading or lever-action repeating rifles must be full-length
sized for proper feeding. For a bolt-action or single-shot rifle,
you can get away with just resizing the neck of the case itself.
This results in much improved brass life and simplified reloading,
as lubrication isn't needed.)
As mentioned last time, my preferred sizing dies are Redding and
RCBS, for a combination of finish, smoothness, and decapping pin
arrangement. In full length dies I've decided to limit my choices
to RCBS and Redding, mainly because I haven't been all that happy
with Lee's internal finish. If neck sizing only, Lee's Collet Dies
are actually quite nice - I've had pretty good luck with them,
though I still prefer Redding or RCBS because of Lee's decapping
pin design.
When I'm reloading for rifles, I use the same technique that I do
for pistol rounds: I don't seat and crimp in the same operation, as
most rifle reloaders do. As I mentioned before, I've found that
seating and crimping separately results in better quality
ammunition, with more consistent seating depth and crimp
tension.
Again, the seating die of choice is Hornady - their alignment
collar is just as important for rifles as for handguns, and works
just as well. I adjust the die body so that the crimping ring never
touches the mouth of the case, thereby using just the seating
function. I buy a separate seating die to do the crimping, and
simply remove or adjust the seating stem so that it never touches
the bullet. I've found - again - the RCBS and Redding seating dies
are the best in terms of crimp quality. They don't shave brass from
(or deform) the case lips when they're adding a heavy crimp, which
both Hornady and Lee seating dies do. (This isn't important for a
single-shot rifle, but for a tube-fed lever action it sure
is!)
Sharp-eyed readers will note that I mentioned Lyman only once. This
is because I have very little experience with their products other
than the "M" die. Their external finish seems to be a notch below
RCBS and a couple below Redding, though as mentioned I am impressed
with the performance of the "M" die. Readers with more extensive
Lyman experience are encouraged to comment on their other
offerings.
As you can see, there is no one maker of dies that has everything I
want; I'm forced to pick and choose the best for my needs and
desires. It's taken me a long time (and no small amount of money)
to get to this point, but I'm quite happy with the results!
-=[
Grant ]=-
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
From the comments and emails I've been getting, there is a
resurgence of interest in reloading. At the price of factory
ammunition, I can see why!
I'd like to touch on some things that Jerry brought up in
Monday's
comments. Yes, I have rather
extensive experience with Lee, Dillon, and Hornady progressives.
Frankly, each will produce identical ammunition; properly set up,
there is no qualitative difference between the cartridges that come
off any of those brands. If someone is having problems with the
quality of their ammo, switching press brands is quite unlikely to
help!
The primary difference among press makers comes in the ease of
operation and long-term durability. In my experience, Lee presses
require a somewhat higher level of mechanical aptitude to run (and
keep running.) They also have a higher percentage of wear-related
parts replacement, though to be fair every press has certain pieces
that need replacement at regular intervals. It's just that Lee's
tend to be more integral to the operation, and have slightly
shorter life spans.
Again, a Lee will produce fine ammo - you'll just have to "fiddle"
a little more to get it to do so. (Jerry, don't lose hope -
bottleneck pistol cartridges like the .357 SIG are notoriously
difficult to reload, no matter what press you use!)
Jerry also asked about dies. In carbide pistol dies, I like RCBS,
Lee, and Dillon, in roughly that order. Lyman and Redding carbide
pistol dies are fine, in a single stage press. The problem with
them is that their carbide sizing rings have a very small chamfer
at the edge of entry. When operating a progressive press the
larger, rounded chamfer of RCBS, Lee, and Dillon dies results in
much smoother case entry into the die.
This does have a downside - the larger the edge radius, the further
up from the cartridge base the case is sized. That means that the
bottom of the case doesn't get sized as much, which can cause
feeding problems in autoloading pistols. Dillons are by far the
most radiused, which is why I place them at the last of my
"preferred" list. Lee and RCBS, in my opinion, have a much more
"balanced" approach between feeding and sizing. (The Dillon dies,
however, have the very best decapping pin arrangement and Lee the
worst. I guess you just can't have your cake and eat it too!)
The only pistol dies I don't like are Hornady's. Their TiN coating,
while hard enough for the task, isn't as polished as the carbide
rings the others use. Their dies require more pressure on the press
handle, and are noticeably less smooth. In fact, the only die I've
ever had that scratched cases - gouged them, actually - was a
.38/.357 Hornady TiN sizing die. (Hornady's bullet seating die, in
contrast, is the very best I've used. This goes to show that no one
- and I mean no one
- does
everything right!)
In rifle dies, all seem to produce accurately sized cases. However,
there is a big difference in the internal finish. Redding dies, not
surprisingly, are the best - very smooth, very consistent, very
nicely made. The RCBS dies are good as well, but some of the Lee
dies I've tried have been a little rougher than I would like. I
haven't had a scratched case with a Lee die, but handle effort
seems higher than the others. They certainly work well enough that
I don't feel a burning need to replace those that I have, but when
I buy new dies I'll stick with Redding and RCBS.
One of the nice things about RCBS rifle dies is their decapping pin
arrangement. Hornady makes a carbide sizing button to replace the
stock steel button on the RCBS decapping rod, which makes internal
neck lube unnecessary.
(Why not just use Hornady rifle dies? Their decapping pin
arrangement stinks. The only brand better than RCBS in that regard
is Redding - who make their own carbide buttons. See why my rifle
die preferences are RCBS and Redding?)
-=[
Grant ]=-
Monday, June 02, 2008
I recently received an email wherein the author took me to task for
recommending the Hornady Lock-N-Load AP as the tool for the
'serious' reloader. His claim was that 'serious' reloaders always
use Dillon, and nothing but.
Sorry to have to disagree.
My definition of 'serious' is the ballistic experimenter, not the
appliance operator. Someone who reloads for a number of both pistol
and rifle calibers and does a lot of load experimentation
(different bullets, powders, cases, and primers) is, in my mind,
far more 'serious' than the person who simply constructs a single
caliber/bullet/powder charge. Yes, I'll grant you that it's
arbitrary, but it is (after all) my prerogative to do so!
For the person who fits my definition of serious, the Hornady press
remains the progressive tool to beat. (Of course such a person also
needs at least one single stage press, preferably a Hornady that
takes the same LnL die holders.)
Allow me to illustrate. I've become (belatedly, perhaps) a fan of
the .30 WCF cartridge, also know as the "thirty-thirty." (My
odyssey from high-speed, pointy-bullet cartridges to the pudgy
.30-30 is a story in itself. I promise to recount it sometime
soon.) Aside from developing the "perfect" 170 grain hunting load,
I've also been working up a very light load.
This project is to give me a 100-yard load to use against animals
intent on raiding our henhouse (amongst other things.) This load
needs to be accurate, effective enough to kill a coyote-size animal
at 100 yards, low recoil, usable in a repeating rifle, and QUIET.
(Not that I have neighbors that are looking in the windows, but I
like to be considerate. Besides, if I have to get up in the middle
of the night to dispatch an unruly varmint intent on dining
at Che
Chicken, I don't want to cause my
ears to ring for the next 12 hours!)
When I conceived of this project I consulted Ed Harris, whose
knowledge of such loads is perhaps unparalleled. He suggested an
oversized, dead-soft lead bullet over a small quantity of
fast-burning pistol powder. The current long-term test is of a 115
grain flat-point lead bullet of about 5 BHN hardness, sized to
.311", over 4.1 grains of Alliant Red Dot powder. This gives me a
load that is just under supersonic at the muzzle, and from a 24"
barrel about as loud as one of the hyper-velocity .22LR
cartridges.
Once the load passes final testing, I plan to make a whole pile of
'em.
The Lock-N-Load system has proven to be a real time saver in
developing this load. The quick-change dies in the single-stage
press make it much easier to put together 5 or 10 at a time for
testing; when the load is settled, I'll just stick those dies
(already adjusted and ready to go) into the progressive AP and
crank out ammo! Nothing is as flexible, and when you're doing
things that are somewhat out of the ordinary you need that kind of
flexibility.
Enough about presses. In this project I needed to bell the mouths
of the .30-30 cases ever so slightly, so that the very soft slug
could be seated without shaving. Ever tried to buy a .30 caliber
mouth flaring die?
After searching I found the answer: the Lee Universal Case Expanding
Die.
It has a couple of interchangeable flaring spuds, one for small
caliber and one for large, which go inside of the die body which is
then topped with a threaded adjuster. You simply turn the knurled
adjuster knob for the precise amount of flare you need - and you
can vary it in incredibly small increments. Frankly, I wish I'd
found this thing years ago - it would have saved me tons of time
and effort.
Of course, mounted in a Hornady LnL bushing I can pop it into any
press setup as needed, so I don't have to buy a dozen of the
things!
Lee comes under fire on the internet forums for being the low-cost
gear supplier, but they have a lot of products that are both well
made and absolutely unique. The Universal Case Expanding Die is one
of them, and every serious reloader needs one on his or her
reloading bench.
(Ooops, there goes that word again...!)
-=[
Grant ]=-
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
It's been a while since I've written anything about reloading.
Given the upward spiral of ammunition prices, though, it's probably
about time to revisit the topic.
I presented my opinions on progressive reloading
presses some time back. Recently I
found a great piece by one Aaron Burns that directly compares the
Lee Loadmaster, Dillon 650, and Hornady AP. His analysis is
extensive, fairly objective, and in general my experiences mirror
his. (Warning: it is a PDF file, not an html page.)
Terrific reading for anyone contemplating the jump into "rolling
their own." If the expense of shooting is starting to cut into your
range time, you should consider reloading. It's easy, rewarding,
and many find it a relaxing adjunct to the shooting sports.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Monday, October 01, 2007
As I
promised, here are some more
reloading accouterment
that I've been
playing with this year.
I finally got tired of my haphazard brass organization and decided
to do something about it. At Wal-Mart I bought some Sterilite
6-quart plastic containers, which just happened to fit neatly on
the shelves in my reloading room. Into the containers went all of
my brass, and wonder of wonders - I can see what's in the box! (I
have, of course, labeled them as well.)

Big plus: I can see how much of each I have; no more digging
through cardboard boxes! They've really made dealing with brass
much more pleasant.
Here's an idea that someone gave me (though for the life of me I
can't remember who it was.) At my local pet emporium I purchased
this cat feeder, which has now been turned into a self-feeding
bullet dispenser!

Much better than a tray/bin/overturned box for those long reloading
sessions. Cost: $4.95. I'm looking for Dillon to have them made up
in blue plastic, with a price tag of $19.95. (I'm kidding, I'm
kidding! Sheesh, lighten up!)
Some months back I reported that I was experimenting with new
bullets and powder. I'd been using the Rainier Ballistics plated
bullets for some time, but could never get acceptable accuracy from
them. (This is, as I was to learn, not an uncommon complaint with
the product.) When my stock finally got low enough, I started
looking around for a better but affordable "bulk" bullet for
general use and gun testing.
I came across a polymer-coated lead bullet put out by
Master
Blasters, and gave them a try. I've
gone through about 5,000 now, and am fairly happy with them. They
are a definite step up accuracy-wise from the Rainier, though
they're by no means a top-flight match slug. (For occasions when I
need better accuracy, and can shoot lead, I continue to rely on the
superb bullets put out by LaserCast
- still the ones
to beat, in my book.) They are, however, reasonably priced and the
company is fairly quick to ship.
Along with the new bullets, I changed my "everyday" powder. I'd
used Hodgdon Universal Clays for years in 9mm, .45 ACP, and .38
Special +P loads. It is a great powder for those uses - extremely
clean (the cleanest I've used), and good accuracy. When I started
loading standard pressure loads in .38 Special and .44 Special,
however, a problem cropped up: Universal doesn't like light loads!
Once the loading density falls to a certain point, unburned powder
grains become a certainty. They really foul up a cylinder, and
always find their way under the extractor!
I searched for a powder that would burn cleanly and completely,
even with relatively mild loads. I ended up with Alliant Red Dot,
and it has performed very well. It's a bit sootier than Universal,
but burns completely in all loads - even very light .44 Specials.
I've used Blue Dot for years in Magnum cartridges, and was
impressed by it; the Red Dot is just as impressive. (I'm not a fan
of Alliant Bullseye, which I've always found far too dirty, but the
"Dot" line is really quite nice. The fact that you can readily
identify it in the powder measure - they really do have red flakes
and blue flakes mixed in - is a nice bonus!)
Happy reloading!
-=[
Grant ]=-
Monday, September 24, 2007
This last year I've been using a number of new reloading tools and
components. I'm generally one to "stick with what works", but that
doesn't stop me from looking for something better!
Late last year I bought a new Hornady Lock-n-Load progressive press
(known as the "LnL AP".) This is a five-station auto-indexing press
with a motorized casefeeder. I bought it after becoming
disenchanted with my Dillon and Lee presses - though I can always
find something to like about any press, I'd prefer to have all my
favorite things in one press which means I can never stop
looking!
(Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've often bemoaned the
lack of a true high-grade reloading press. No, Dillon fans, "Big
Blue" isn't it! If you've ever used a Star Universal, you'll
understand. If you haven't, well, go back and read my recent
article o you need a trigger job?">Do you
need a trigger job, and substitute "press" for
"trigger" - the rest of it is the same!
You may well ask why I don't use a Star if I'm so hot on them.
Well, it's because they're out of business and there are precious
few parts and accessories available on the secondary market.)
Back to the topic....the LnL AP uses the Hornady bayonet-mount die
system, in which the dies are put into adaptor sleeves and
adjusted, then simply popped in and out of the toolhead where and
when needed. Frankly, when this came out I thought it was the
biggest gimmick I'd yet seen. Using the press for a year has
convinced me otherwise. It is incredibly handy!
For instance, I often have the press set up for loading .38/.357.
It's not at all uncommon to need to prep a few pieces of brass to
test actions or extractors or some such thing. I can just pop the
needed die out of the toolhead, then pop it into the single stage
press (which I've fitted with the Hornady adaptor and adjusted so
that the presses have exactly the same die position.)
It also makes doing in-press changes easier on a progressive press.
For instance, I can have a die adjusted for .38 Special, and a die
adjusted for .357, and simply swap them in/out where needed. The
same goes for the powder measure; I can decide to put it in a
different place on the toolhead to accommodate production changes
or simply to experiment. You can't believe how useful the system is
until you've used it - and once you have, you don't want to ever
give it up!
I've come to the conclusion that if one is a SERIOUS handloader -
that is, reloading for numerous cartridges and constantly
experimenting - the LnL AP is the most flexible and most efficient
choice in a progressive press. As I said, I've owned Lee and Dillon
presses too, and while they both have their strong and weak points
the Hornady is just in a different class. Great piece of
gear.
Over the years I've used a number of reloading dies, and no one set
has had everything I wanted. I've gotten to the point that my die
sets are now pieced together with the dies that I like best, not
what a manufacturer has decided to give me.
In handgun sizing dies, I prefer (in order) RCBS, Lee, and Dillon.
I love the Dillon's spring-loaded decapping pin, but hate their low
profile, hex-shaped bodies. (Great when permanently mounted in a
toolhead, rotten if you frequently remove/replace/adjust them.) The
RCBS is much better in the handling department, worse for the
decapping pin; the Lee's decapper likewise is awful, but at least
their body is tall enough to get a grasp on - even if it is smooth
and a bit prone to slippage in one's fingers.
(I should take this opportunity to say that Lee's lock rings suck.
Then again, so do Dillon's, Lyman's, RCBS's, and Redding's, though
admittedly not as much. All of my dies, regardless of make, have
for years worn Hornady lock rings, and the first thing I do with
any new die is to ditch its lock ring and give it Hornady
ring.)
I've recently started using the Lyman "M" series expander die, as
opposed to the expander plug in the powder station. It sizes most
of the case to just a hair under bullet diameter, then has a slight
"step" to bell the mouth so that the bullet isn't scraped when
seating. This is said to promote straighter bullet seating, and in
that regard I believe it does. For me, though, the great part is
that the cases seem to "grab" onto the bullet when you insert it
into the mouth. Unlike with a plain flare, the bullet won't tip as
the case starts moving into the die. You can even put a pullet into
the case mouth and advance between die stations with no tipping!
This is another product that I thought might be "more show than
go", but I've grown to just love the thing.
While we're talking about seating, I think the best seating die is
Hornady's, and no one else is even close. Their sliding bullet
collar is a great idea for helping to straighten bullets as the
case goes into the die, and their seating adjustment is very
precise. All of my seating dies - handgun and rifle - are now from
Hornady.
I don't crimp in the seating die, preferring to do that as a
separate step. I've used Lee's Factory Crimp dies in the past, no
matter what other dies they were with or what press they were on.
I've been very pleased with their smoothness and ready
adjustability, but this year I started using the Redding Profile
Crimp die for .38/.357. It puts a taper crimp on the case, then a
roll crimp at the very end. It is of top quality, like all of
Redding's products, and produces the most consistent, best-looking
crimps of any die I've ever used. I'm hooked.
The major thing I dislike about the Hornady press (and Dillon's,
for that matter) are the primer tubes. I much prefer the Lee tray
loading primer feed, but of course I can't use that on the LnL AP!
I've found a solution in the form of a neat little tool from Midway
called the Vibra-Prime. It's a battery operated collator that fills
the primer tubes for you! Now to be fair, Dillon has a
bench-mounted device that does the same thing, taking about 2
minutes per tube and costing around $200. The Vibra-Prime was about
$30, and does the job in roughly 20 seconds. Hmmm...no contest
there!
Sadly, I'm told that Midway has discontinued the device because of
"poor sales." If you're tired of loading primer tubes one-by-one,
call Midway and tell them you'd like to see the Vibra-Prime
reintroduced!
That's about it for the hardware side. I'll write soon about the
software (bullets and powder) I've been using this year - I've made
some changes there as well.
To be continued...
-=[
Grant ]=-