SIG Talk banner

21 - 40 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
My Lyman 9mm Luger die set came with both a flat and curved insert for the bullet seating die.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
My Lyman 9mm Luger die set came with both a flat and curved insert for the bullet seating die.

The Dillon reversible die insert actually has one flat and one curved end, BUT neither one will catch the ogive of the HAP bullet before the flat top of the recess grabs the tip of the bullet. :(

Jim G
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
I just looked up the Hundo case gauge by Shockbottle. It's actually a Canadian product by the looks of it. But, the price is $145 + 12% sales tax + shipping. The writeup says they do NOT include a box (you have to buy 100 round boxes from other sources), and they apparently wear out too according to their writeup. All of that is a bit of a hard sell to me personally.

Jim G


I am puzzled as to how a .380" taper crimp could work given my bullet and case dimensions as shown above:
My Hornady cases size to 0.3705" (I use ONLY these Hornady cases)
Their wall thickness is 0.0101"
So case ID = .3503"
The Hornady HAP bullets average only 0.3548
So the 0.374" crimp gives me a .001" crimp
If I "crimped" to .380, my bullet with its 0.3548" diameter would be "flopping loosely" inside the 0.380" - (.0101 x 2)" wall thickness = .3598" ID of the case! (Instead of a crimp, I'd have .3598" minus .3548" = 0.050" clearance!!

Am I somehow doing the math wrong?

And, more importantly, why does the pistol shoot such fine groups with this crimp???

Jim G
Jim, I’m an ME too before joining the navy. I have since quit being too analytical and concern about certain things. I do however make sure that everything is correct when it comes to reloading.

What you’re missing is the fact that your resized case still have to be flared on the casemouth to accept the bullet. Your powder funnel flares the resized (.3705”) casemouth to an additional 0.020” iaw Dillon’s die setup instructions. Now you’re case mouth O.D. Is at least .3905” (.3705 + .020”).

Once you put your .3548” OD bullet on the flared (.3905”) casemouth, you now have to remove the flare/bell to ensure the reloaded round chambers smooth. Setup your crimp die to “crimp” the round to .378” just to remove the flare.

What keeps the bullet from getting setback into the case is the tension of the case because it was sized to .3503” ID. Your bullet diameter is bigger (.3548”) compared to the case ID (.3503”). .0045” difference between the two is enough to prevent bullet setback.

I hope I articulated it well enough. Demonstrating will be easier for me than trying to explain it in words 😆.


Edited to add:
Are you getting the .374” by subtracting the numbers you posted above or by actual OD measure to at the casemouth? Keep in mind that a 9mm case also has a taper inside close to the bottom of the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
Jim, I’m an ME too before joining the navy. I have since quit being too analytical and concern about certain things. I do however make sure that everything is correct when it comes to reloading.

What you’re missing is the fact that your resized case still have to be flared on the casemouth to accept the bullet. Your powder funnel flares the resized (.3705”) casemouth to an additional 0.020” iaw Dillon’s die setup instructions. Now you’re case mouth O.D. Is at least .3905” (.3705 + .020”).

Once you put your .3548” OD bullet on the flared (.3905”) casemouth, you now have to remove the flare/bell to ensure the reloaded round chambers smooth. Setup your crimp die to “crimp” the round to .378” just to remove the flare.

What keeps the bullet from getting setback into the case is the tension of the case because it was sized to .3503” ID. Your bullet diameter is bigger (.3548”) compared to the case ID (.3503”). .0045” difference between the two is enough to prevent bullet setback.

I hope I articulated it well enough. Demonstrating will be easier for me than trying to explain it in words 😆.


Edited to add:
Are you getting the .374” by subtracting the numbers you posted above or by actual OD measure to at the casemouth? Keep in mind that a 9mm case also has a taper inside close to the bottom of the case.
I have measured the finished rounds OD right at the casemouth, and they are .374".

I have my Dillon powder and flaring die set up to flare to only 0.380".

I'm reluctant to change anything since the pistol groups so well with these settings.

The chamber on a P210A Target model is pretty tight I think (as are the slide rail clearances). Many owners have issues with the tightness of the pistol until it has broken in a bit. Perhaps this is why it is all workign so well right now? (Despite my current inability to determine and control case to ogive measurement consistency).

Jim G
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
I just did some more measuring.

My fired cases, before resizing, are only in the high .370s - they are hard to measure accurately since they get beat up a bit from perfectly circular by the ejection process (the pistol throws them quite a distance onto a concrete surface), but they seem to be around .376 to .377., which means my .374" crimped OD cannot be too far off where it should be.

The "target" (and actual) crimping dimension was calculated as follows:
Uncrushed bullet diameter + (2 x wall thickness) - .001" interference fit
Which is .3548" + 2 x .0101" - .001" = .374". Seems reasonable. If I took your suggestions of zero crimp, I would be targeting a cashmouth diameter of .375". Anything more would leave the bullet loose I would think.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
If everything is working well and it’s accurate, I suggest to leave it as is then. However, your assumption of the bullet being loose is not true since the bullet is seated deeper into the case (.3705” ID) and past the casemouth crimp of .375”.

My CZ Tactical Sports Orange and Czechmate are similar to your P210 since the slides are fitted inside the rail. Both are still tight and accurate even after shooting thousands of rounds since I also use them in competition In addition to my X5 and MPX.

By the way, what made you chose 3N38 instead of N320? Just curious since both are similar in accuracy but you’ll get more rounds using N320.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
. . .

By the way, what made you chose 3N38 instead of N320? Just curious since both are similar in accuracy but you’ll get more rounds using N320.
Per Vihtavuori, I cannot get as high a velocity as with the 3N38. Per the current online VV load tables, I can get only 1188 fps with the N320, and only at the MAX load that VV recommends. EWhereas I can get 1324 fps with a MIDDLE of the table loading with 3N38, and 1401 fps at the maximum loading if I really wanted to, and still stay under the SAAMI limit (the regular SAAMI limit, not even getting anywhere close to the +P limit).

AND the peak pressure with the 3N38 will be lower since it burns so much slower than the N320. VV designed 3N38 that way to enable high velocities without really high pressures, for Action Shooting competitors who are loading for 9 Major, and who need the long lower peak pressure burn to get there, in fact need burn past the muzzle to drive their compensators.

Plus, the 3N38 at the moderate 8.0 grains loading, fills the volume of the case remaining under the seated bullet, and a full volume ensures the most uniform burn.

Jim G
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
Per Vihtavuori, I cannot get as high a velocity as with the 3N38. Per the current online VV load tables, I can get only 1188 fps with the N320, and only at the MAX load that VV recommends. EWhereas I can get 1324 fps with a MIDDLE of the table loading with 3N38, and 1401 fps at the maximum loading if I really wanted to, and still stay under the SAAMI limit (the regular SAAMI limit, not even getting anywhere close to the +P limit).

AND the peak pressure with the 3N38 will be lower since it burns so much slower than the N320. VV designed 3N38 that way to enable high velocities without really high pressures, for Action Shooting competitors who are loading for 9 Major, and who need the long lower peak pressure burn to get there, in fact need burn past the muzzle to drive their compensators.

Plus, the 3N38 at the moderate 8.0 grains loading, fills the volume of the case remaining under the seated bullet, and a full volume ensures the most uniform burn.

Jim G
I understand the burn rate and pressures associated with N320 and 3N38. Not sure if I stated earlier or not, but I also load 9 major ammo for my compensated gun. My current 9 major load is 10.4 gr of AA7 with a 115 Gr JHP. I had loaded 8.6 Gr of 3N38 with 124 Gr JHP and achieved a muzzle velocity average of 1385 FPS for 172 PF before but switched to AA7.

I use slow powders as mentioned to achieve the power factor required, have more gas to utilize the compensator and lower the peak pressure.

Just curious for the reason behind using that powder and wondering what your goals are.

By the way, what’s your average muzzle velocity with your 3N38 loads?

My question was just out of curiosity since
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
My average velocity with 8.0 grains of 3N38 at 1.142" COAL is 1324 fps with SD = 10 a d ES = 36.

Jim G
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
George16: 2 questions:

1. I found the Hornady Bullet Comparator online here in Canada, with either 0, 6, or 14 inserts, but no insert listed for "9 mm". Do you instead use the .338 ogive insert as a repeatable reference, or ?

2. Your photo shows the round piece that gets fastened to the caliper, with an insert in it. But what is the long red piece attached to the base of the case in your photo? I did not see that in the website photos in the ads for the comparator. Does that come with the comparator, or is that another available tool?

Jim G
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
George16: 2 questions:

1. I found the Hornady Bullet Comparator online here in Canada, with either 0, 6, or 14 inserts, but no insert listed for "9 mm". Do you instead use the .338 ogive insert as a repeatable reference, or ?

2. Your photo shows the round piece that gets fastened to the caliper, with an insert in it. But what is the long red piece attached to the base of the case in your photo? I did not see that in the website photos in the ads for the comparator. Does that come with the comparator, or is that another available tool?

Jim G
Jim,
1. I use the .358” insert for 9mm. It’s closer than the .338” insert since 9mm bullets range from .355-358” OD.

2. The long red thing is the Hornady OAL gauge which is used to determine and achieve the precise seating depth of the bullet. It doesn’t come with the comparator and it is sold separately. I used this to determine my rifles chamber depth so I can seat the bullet as close as I can to the lands to minimize bullet “jump”.


My 9.7 Gr load with 124 Gr jhp from Precision Delta

1375
1383
1397
1387
1384
1397 HI
1375 LO
1385 AVE
22 ES
7 SD
171.74 PF
1.162-1.164 OAL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
Jim,
1. I use the .358” insert for 9mm. It’s closer than the .338” insert since 9mm bullets range from .355-358” OD.

2. The long red thing is the Hornady OAL gauge which is used to determine and achieve the precise seating depth of the bullet. It doesn’t come with the comparator and it is sold separately. I used this to determine my rifles chamber depth so I can seat the bullet as close as I can to the lands to minimize bullet “jump”.


My 9.7 Gr load with 124 Gr jhp from Precision Delta

1375
1383
1397
1387
1384
1397 HI
1375 LO
1385 AVE
22 ES
7 SD
171.74 PF
1.162-1.164 OAL
Thanks for the clarification on the OAL gage! I see you are loading to COAL = 1.162 to 1.164". My SIG P210 will not accept a cartridge that long without hitting the rifling. In a plunk and rotate test, it starts to restrain rotation of the cartridge at about 1.155" maximum. I want to load to about 1.145" to 1.148" which allows for the approximately .003" variance that seems unavoidable on a progressive press, while keeping me safely above the 1.142" COAL that Vihtavuori says you must stay above. This also ensures that my bullet ogive does not hit the rifling, which would also raise pressure. With the Hornady comparator, I'll see how consistent or inconsistent my base-to-ogive measurement really is.

So you use the .358" insert versus the .338" insert. My HAP bullets run .3545" to ,3550" and average .3548". So, would they not "slip" past the .358" insert opening? Should I not use the .338" instead? I realize that I would then be measuirng a distance shorter than the true case base-to-ogive distance, but it does not matter, as long as the measurement is consistent AND the COAL (base of case to tip of bullet) is at least 1.142" but shorter than 1.148". Am I analyzing this correctly?

Jim G
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
996 Posts
I am puzzled as to how a .380" taper crimp could work given my bullet and case dimensions as shown above:
My Hornady cases size to 0.3705" (I use ONLY these Hornady cases)
Their wall thickness is 0.0101"
I think your measurement for wall thickness is a little low. SAAMI specs nominal wall thickness as 0.01225" (see below). I find in fired cases that the thickness at the case mouth may be 0.01 - 0.011", but this is only at the mouth. Otherwise the wall thickness is pretty much SAAMI or aobve. If you look at a cross section of brass you can see that thickness increases from mouth to case head. It is not uniform throughout.

387470
387471
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
I think your measurement for wall thickness is a little low. SAAMI specs nominal wall thickness as 0.01225" (see below). I find in fired cases that the thickness at the case mouth may be 0.01 - 0.011", but this is only at the mouth. Otherwise the wall thickness is pretty much SAAMI or aobve. If you look at a cross section of brass you can see that thickness increases from mouth to case head. It is not uniform throughout.

View attachment 387470 View attachment 387471
What you say about tapering thickness is true, BUT with a COAL of 1.142", the base of the bullet is only 0.148" inside the case, so the taper effect is pretty small at that shallow depth.

But yes, I likely have a bit more crimp than my .001" target.

Jim G
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
If you are serious about getting every last bit of mechanical accuracy out of your pistols. You should look into a ransom rest if you don’t already have one.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
Thanks for the clarification on the OAL gage! I see you are loading to COAL = 1.162 to 1.164". My SIG P210 will not accept a cartridge that long without hitting the rifling. In a plunk and rotate test, it starts to restrain rotation of the cartridge at about 1.155" maximum. I want to load to about 1.145" to 1.148" which allows for the approximately .003" variance that seems unavoidable on a progressive press, while keeping me safely above the 1.142" COAL that Vihtavuori says you must stay above. This also ensures that my bullet ogive does not hit the rifling, which would also raise pressure. With the Hornady comparator, I'll see how consistent or inconsistent my base-to-ogive measurement really is.

So you use the .358" insert versus the .338" insert. My HAP bullets run .3545" to ,3550" and average .3548". So, would they not "slip" past the .358" insert opening? Should I not use the .338" instead? I realize that I would then be measuirng a distance shorter than the true case base-to-ogive distance, but it does not matter, as long as the measurement is consistent AND the COAL (base of case to tip of bullet) is at least 1.142" but shorter than 1.148". Am I analyzing this correctly?

Jim G
The .358” worked for my bullets but you’re right, your bullet is smaller in diameter so you need the .338” insert.

Keep in mind also that the VV COAL measurement is not set in stone. It was the measurement they got when they tested the load using their gun and barrel which is different from yours. It’s only a recommendation or guide and not something set in stone to be followed to the letter.

Since your max is 1.155”, subtract .015-.20” from it and your max OAL will be 1.140- 1.135”. Keep in mind that pressure increase is not linear with an increase or decrease in CoAL but rather exponential.

I have loaded with an OAL shorter than VV says at 1.089 without any problems because that’s longest my shadow 2 allowed with the bullet I was using. I determine the max COAL of my reload by doing the plunk test and subtracting .015-.020” from the max. With that said, I also reduced the amount of powder I used. I do a ladder test starting at least 10% below the minimum listed in the book and chrono each batch. I then pick the batch that gave me the best accuracy and consistency. Sometimes, low SD numbers doesn’t equate to accuracy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
If you are serious about getting every last bit of mechanical accuracy out of your pistols. You should look into a ransom rest if you don’t already have one.
Couldnt agree more with this.

@JimGnitecki, I borrow a friend’s ransom rest to check for accuracy. Since I compete mostly In action shooting like USPSA, I’m not into spending too much time monkeying around my reloads trying to get the most accurate load. I spend those time instead in doing dry fire and live fire exercises. I just want a load that meets power factor requirement, allows me to hit the A zone and get the sights back in target for the fastest split time I can achieve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
If you are serious about getting every last bit of mechanical accuracy out of your pistols. You should look into a ransom rest if you don’t already have one.
That may come in the future, but right now, too many other expenses to incur and too much more work to do on COAL before I consume more ammunition!

Jim G
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion Starter #39
The .358” worked for my bullets but you’re right, your bullet is smaller in diameter so you need the .338” insert.

Keep in mind also that the VV COAL measurement is not set in stone. It was the measurement they got when they tested the load using their gun and barrel which is different from yours. It’s only a recommendation or guide and not something set in stone to be followed to the letter.

Since your max is 1.155”, subtract .015-.20” from it and your max OAL will be 1.140- 1.135”. Keep in mind that pressure increase is not linear with an increase or decrease in CoAL but rather exponential.

I have loaded with an OAL shorter than VV says at 1.089 without any problems because that’s longest my shadow 2 allowed with the bullet I was using. I determine the max COAL of my reload by doing the plunk test and subtracting .015-.020” from the max. With that said, I also reduced the amount of powder I used. I do a ladder test starting at least 10% below the minimum listed in the book and chrono each batch. I then pick the batch that gave me the best accuracy and consistency. Sometimes, low SD numbers doesn’t equate to accuracy.
I agree with everything you said here, but I have more fear of increasing pressure than you do, so will stay at 1.142" or greater for (TRUE) COAL. I hate to stray off a published load table.

Jim G
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
Couldnt agree more with this.

@JimGnitecki, I borrow a friend’s ransom rest to check for accuracy. Since I compete mostly In action shooting like USPSA, I’m not into spending too much time monkeying around my reloads trying to get the most accurate load. I spend those time instead in doing dry fire and live fire exercises. I just want a load that meets power factor requirement, allows me to hit the A zone and get the sights back in target for the fastest split time I can achieve.
Yes, I like this approach, but I take it the one step further: I can't help myself - I HAVE to get the best out of my firearm that I can within my practical and financial means! To me, it's just something I enjoy pursuing.

I've been inspired in the past by Elmer Keith's experiments and achievements. It sounds like he had a lot of fun. :)

The absolute most fun I've had was in Cowboy Action Shooting. The costuming, the fictitious scenarios, the revolver+rifle+shotgun shooting, and the humour built into most of the matches and stages, all contributed to the fun. But, having to buy 4 firearms just to compete, loading 3 different loads for 4 firearms, cleaning 4 firearms, and lugging everything around on a cart, just got to be a little much for my time, energy, and budget. Sure was fun though.

Jim G
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Top