AA#9 Squibs in 45 Colt cases

[BLUEDOT37]

It’s from the first production run Ruger did for Accusport and it was a basket case when I got it.

That's a shame you had issues with it right out of the box, but now it's probably even more special since you personalized it. I forgot to ask, in the pictures two of the targets have 5 holes each, but the 3rd only has 8 holes...where's the other 2 ?!?
(I always shoot in groups of five too.)

I’ve been shooting USPSA for a while now and I discovered the same thing with Remington cases.

That Remington brass is probably the oldest 45ACP brass I own...I'll never buy nickel plated brass again though.

Did you try, loading the cylinder full, shoot all but the last round, remove said round and measure the OAL to see if it had grown any under the recoil forces?

Yes & no. I believe I shot a full load, of five, with the "problem load", since I had made 25, but I can't say for sure if I checked them. The one load I definitely recall checking, in this gun, was a test batch of 45 Colt +Ps, 200 gr. Hornady XTP .451", CCI 300 & 20.5gr. of 2400 @ ~1300fps/750ME and 200gr. cast LSWC .452", CCI 300 & 19.0gr. of 2400 @ ~1280fps/726ME. Both of these did not have cannelures (45ACP bullets) & were taper crimped over the ogive or shoulder. I wanted to see how they performed & if the recoil would unseat the bullets. They both shot fine & the last bullet hadn't moved, which I was happy with. After I got this gun I spent most of my time trying different combinations of bullet weights, in small test lots, & experimented with H110, AA#9, & Lil'Gun. After "the squib" troubles this gun got pushed aside when I found a 325NG & started loading up ACP, Auto Rim & Super combinations for it. I need to get back to the 454 & continue work on my "Big Bang Theory".

 

[fltbed]

That's a shame you had issues with it right out of the box, but now it's probably even more special since you personalized it. I forgot to ask, in the pictures two of the targets have 5 holes each, but the 3rd only has 8 holes...where's the other 2 ?!?
(I always shoot in groups of five too.)

I’ve had “issues” with every gun I’ve ever owned and “personalized” every one of them. LOL
That Ruger is a good example. Was it safe to shoot? Defiantly. Was it within factory spec? Sure. Did it meet my needs? Not quite.

The pic was from February 2009. I was shooting up the hunting ammo I loaded the previous fall at the local gun clubs 25 yard indoor range.
280 gr. LBT
23 gr. H4227
Win 454 case trimmed to 45 Colt length
Rem 7 ½ BR primer
1100 f.p.s.

The three extra shoots on the bottom target were because I only had three rounds left and didn’t feel like running another target down range for only three rounds. LOL

Jeff

PS the trimmed down 454 brass is an ongoing experiment in case life with 45 Colt +P loads.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

PS: the trimmed down 454 brass is an ongoing experiment in case life with 45 Colt +P loads.

I've been using Hornady & Starline brass in my 45 Colt "+P", & "+P+" loads. I can't comment on how long the case life is/will be, but I know they're strong enough. Using H110, I've loaded them up around the 40-45K CUP range, shot in my 454 Casull, with no troubles. The Starline pricing in very reasonable too. Now, I only use my Starline Casull cases for 300gr.+ bullets & max. powder loads.

How's the H4227 working for you? I loaded some IMR4227 an eon, or two, ago. IMR's a rod powder, if I remember right? Is the Hodgdon a rod too? Do you see much difference between it & some of the other slow magnum powders like H110 or Lil'Gun?

I'll take your word on those "two missing holes"

 

[fltbed]

In the 80’s-90’s I tried Winchester, Remington and Federal brass for +P loads and of them, federal FC headstamps would last the longest (about 7-8 loadings) before splitting. Back in 1999 I was given 100 pieces of Winchester once fired 454 brass. I thought since the 454’s are tougher, I get more life out of them. So I trimmed them down to 45 Colt length and the experiment started.
So far, I lost one at loading #4, (cracked mouth) one at loading #9, (cracked mouth) one at loading #18, (split lengthwise) and one at loading #22. (split lengthwise)

H4224 (now only available as IMR 4227) is a good in between powder like 2400. It’s a short stick powder and measures fairly well. Doesn’t need magnum primers and can be downloaded safely. However, like 2400 it’s dirty, leaving little granules of yellow unburnt powder everywhere rather than the black and gray flakes like 2400. This past year, I’ve been experimenting with #9 for mid range loads and so far, I like it the best.

I like H110/296 for max loads. I worked up a load back in the late 80’s of 24.5 grains with Hornady’s then new 250 gr. XTP, @ 1300 f.p.s. and used it until the newer load data came out showing a start load of 25.7 gr. I was getting sticky extraction at 25.0 so I quit using it with light weight bullets. About that time Lil’Gun came along and I switched to 23.5 gr. with the same XTP, at the same 1300 f.p.s. but the cases would just fall out of the cylinder. With 270 gr.-360gr. Cast lead, H110/296 and Lil’Gun are very similar with the only real difference being that Lil’Gun is a little less temp sensitive. H110/296 has had a know issue with top strap flame cutting and cracking forcing cones in big magnums with light for caliber bullets, (according to FA, Lil’Gun is even worse) so I only use it with the heavy’s.

We only shoot 454’s out of my brothers FA and the only thing I’ve ever loaded close to factory loads are 260 gr. FA JFP with 35 gr. of H110/296 and a cast 310 gr. Keith SWCGC with 31 gr. of H110/296.
Since 92 the only load we shoot through it has been Speer’s 260 gr. JHP with18.5 gr. of Blue Dot for a bit over 1400 f.p.s. Boy, you can tell I’m getting old. LOL

<<I'll take you word on those "two missing holes">>

That’s my story and I’m stickin to it.

Jeff

 

[mtgianni]

My thoughts on the 45 and AA9.
Deprime with a depriming only die, do not size.
Size only the top1/2 to 1/3 of your case for the longest case life, omit this if you have more than one 45 and full length size.
AA9 needs pressure to burn well, a heavy crimp helps, bullet size helps more. I use a roll crimp and make sure that my cast bullets are larger than the cylinder throats and that the throat are larger than the bore.
I would not go lighter than 250 gr with AA9.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

Back in 1999 I was given 100 pieces of Winchester once fired 454 brass. I thought since the 454’s are tougher, I get more life out of them. So I trimmed them down to 45 Colt length and the experiment started.

I wonder if there's a material difference in case capacity (less?) in those cut-down W-W Casull cases vs W-W Colts?

H110/296 has had a know issue with top strap flame cutting and cracking forcing cones in big magnums with light for caliber bullets, (according to FA, Lil’Gun is even worse) so I only use it with the heavy’s.

There's always something/somebody trying to ruin our fun! (I stopped by the gun store & was suprised to find they actually had some 296 in stock, but not much else, so I grabbed some so I can continue to abuse my forcing cone.)

We only shoot 454’s out of my brothers FA. Since 92 the only load we shoot through it has been Speer’s 260 gr. JHP with 18.5 gr. of Blue Dot for a bit over 1400 f.p.s. Boy, you can tell I’m getting old. LOL

You had me thinking for a bit, where did you come up with a Blue Dot load like that, then I remembered FA had some good load data listed that I saved, & there it was. I'm guessing about 40K CUP, by their chart? My son bought a bunch of Blue Dot & then decided he liked my Power Pistol better . That's a good idea for burnin' some of it off.

 

[fltbed]

I wonder if there's a material difference in case capacity (less?) in those cut-down W-W Casull cases vs W-W Colts?

Back in 89-90 I ran some capacities test on the Federal, Remington and Winchester cases that were available. I forget the actual numbers, as I’ve long since lost my notes. IIRC, WW and R-P brass was the thinnest and held the most water. FC brass was the heaviest and held the least so that’s what I used. (That’s also what Bowen and Linebaugh were recommending to use at the time.) The Win 454 brass is slightly thicker yet and held slightly less water than the FC cases I was using. In testing though, my velocities were 20-30 f.p.s. less with the cut down 454 brass. I think is has to do with the small rifle primers in the 454 cases having less priming compound than the large pistol primers (Fed #155’s) I was using in the 45 colt cases.

There's always something/somebody trying to ruin our fun! (I stopped by the gun store & was suprised to find they actually had some 296 in stock, but not much else, so I grabbed some so I can continue to abuse my forcing cone.)

I first saw this with the 357 Max with 125 gr. bullets. Then with the Dan Wesson Super Mags in 445 & 455 using 180gr. & 200 gr. bullets. Then FA came out and said not to load anything lighter than 240 gr. bullets in their guns. (which I thought was funny cause the only jacketed bullets made back then, that could handle full power Casull loads, were their 260 & 300 gainers.) I’m still waiting to see if that holds true with S&W’s 460 mag using Hornady’s 200 gr. FTX or if they’ve come up with a solution no one else has thought of. Time will tell.

You had me thinking for a bit, where did you come up with a Blue Dot load like that, then I remembered FA had some good load data listed that I saved, & there it was. I'm guessing about 40K CUP, by their chart? My son bought a bunch of Blue Dot & then decided he liked my Power Pistol better . That's a good idea for burnin' some of it off.

I like that load a lot. Blue Dot burns very clean at that pressure level and the Speer bullets cost less than half of the FA 260’s.
That load has accounted for many whitetails and two black bears so far.

Jeff

 

[BLUEDOT37]

One of the things mentioned here was to use a stronger primer, like WLP Std/Mag, to aid ignition on slower powders. Curiously, I just read a fairly in-depth article, at Leverguns.com, testing large pistol (& rifle) primers in the .500 Linebaugh case with a moderate dose (30gr.) of slow powder (AA1680). FWIW, the WLP primer had the second worst in Standard Deviation & was the worst in Extreme Spread, in this test setting, while the CCI350 was the best ?!?

.500 Linebaugh Primer Test

...

 

[fltbed]

OK, I’m now sitting down to eat my full plate of crow.

I recently acquired some CCI #300 primers and loaded 10 of them up in some of my old Federal brass with 18 gr. of #9 and some 250 gr. SWC (Lyman #452424 cast with #2 alloy) I double sized the cases and put a firm roll crimp on them.

At the range today, temps were around 40 degrees, overcast and humid. The first five rounds chronoed:

1. 881 f.p.s.
2. 927 f.p.s.
3.1077 f.p.s.
4. 771 f.p.s.
5. 882 f.p.s.

Unburnt powder was present everywhere and three of the cases showed blackened sides from the brass not expanding and sealing the chamber fully.
For the second five rounds I tipped the muzzle vertical and taped the side of the cylinder to make sure the powder was resting up against the primer before firing each round. Those were:

6. 1144 f.p.s.
7. 1071 f.p.s.
8. 1027 f.p.s.
9. 990 f.p.s.
10. 1140 f.p.s.

The cases from these five looked normal but they still had over a 100 f.p.s. spread and besides, who wants to point their gun skyward just before firing every round.

I defiantly believe you and T (gaijin) are on to something with the CCI 300 and the 250 gr. cast bullets with #9 and I apologize if any of my remarks came off sounding condescending. Once I’m done choking down these feathers, I’ll start experimenting with different primers and bumping up the load till this pullet, powder combination settles down like I know it can.

Jeff

 

[gaijin]

Great to hear your experience mirrors mine Jeff.
I've been reloading for 35 yrs. and this was a new experience for me.
Please advise on any further developments with this!

T

 

[Hammerdown77]

This is a timely thread for me.

Several weeks ago I was shooting a 44 magnum load using AA9 under a 250 grain cast Keith bullet (429421). Load was 18.5 grains, and I used a Winchester WLP primer (which I use for all my slow burning ball powders). I had used this load last summer in a SBH and it shot very well. The gun I was shooting this time was a Smith 29-4.

Ambient temp was about mid to upper 40's.

About once or twice every cylinder, I had rounds that had noticeably less report and recoil. Even the guy spotting for me (I was shooting at a plate 200 yds. away) noticed the difference. I never stuck a bullet, but on a couple I opened the cylinder and looked down the barrel just to make sure.

I've never had this issue before with AA9, although to be fair this is the first time I've shot any below 50 degrees. I've always used a standard primer primer in small pistol (357 mag), and either a standard or WLP in the large pistol rounds.

Most of Accurate's reloading data specifically indicates not to use a magnum primer with AA9, one exception being 357, I believe. And like the OP mentioned, Accurate's "Ruger Only" load data for AA9 is ridculously conservative.

I was surprised they told you to up the charge that much and use a magnum primer. That goes against everything they say in their loading manual and product literature.

I have a co-worker who stuck a bullet in a SRH 454 Casull using AA9. He was using a book load, mid to upper range, and standard small rifle primers (not mag). I don't know if it was cold that day or not, I'd have to ask him again.

Last time out I upped the charge to 19, 19.5, and 20 grains in the 44 under that same 250 Keith. All shots felt the same as far as recoil and blast goes. Next time I will bring the chrono.

Clearly, the Accurate loading data is not the last word on how to use AA9 powder...

 

[garbler]

The longer you load and the longer you shoot the more you will be able figure this out but none of the reloading manuals are the last word — not by a long shot. In fact the first part of these books is packed full of information telling you essentially there are so many variables and we know so little about the users of this information or their guns that we are playing it SAAMI safe. The books are guidelines only. Those that load a lot use them as the first step and figure it out from there.

I really don't know why people or AA calls their powders like #2, #5, 7 and 9 " Ball Powders " cause they are not. They are spherical powders and most wildcatters and books like 'Propellant Profiles' and gunwriters call them as they should be. It may be a marketing thing I don't know but the true Ball Powder was developed by WW ( Western Cartridge ) and nobody else made this type of powder. It had a deterrent coating on it that controlled the rate of burn but also made it a bit harder to ignite. It am not sure but it may be that AA #9 also has a deterrent coatings on the spherical granules.

Primers and powder columns are always hard to nail down as far as reliable ignition. However when you read these reloading manuals most of the time they suggest one primer for the cartridge and then the rest is bullets, charge and velocity with a goal of selling their products as much as possible. Once you learn to read pressure and can find good ignition without vertical stringing then you can mix the load for your gun following the rules of the road so to speak.

Though some of my sources are a bit old I would strongly recommend Ken Waters 'Pet Loads' books for a good cross section of what works and what is typically a problem with certain cartridges and guns. Right now I read about half of the posts here and started to get dizzy just thinking about all the potential issues with your loads, setting up your dies and potential measurement problems with chambers on your gun. You just have way too much going on at the same time to be able to rationally figure out how to get a good load to shoot well in your gun.

I mean working up the best load for accuracy ( the only test as far as I am concerned ) can mean literally changing one component at a time, keeping records and gradually finding and eliminating the offender. It may be something as simple as changing from LP to magnum LP primers in which case look for vertical stringing a good indicator of ignition problems or primers. Then again is could be your crimp since the bigger cartridges like some resistance most of time to help the primer flame ignite the column and of course keep the bullet in the case during recoil and not lodged in the chamber mouth. Have you checked your primer hits to see if perhaps you not getting enough out of the hammer/firing pin. I have refaced a lot of hammers on Smiths due to insufficient nose penetration but just a guess and another possibilty.

If I were you I would first make sure mechanically your gun is correct and that mean chamber slugging and measuring. Then slug the barrel to make sure your cylinder should be living with your barrel. I could tell you horror stories of early Vacqueros with tight chambers swaging down bullets so they rattled down the barrels. Next insure you are getting good hits on the primers then go to your loads and take it from the beginning ground up. I am not trying to sound like a no-it-all but I have been through this so many times with so many guns for almost fifty years that I actually look forward to this kind of stuff and seeing if I can make a peacock out of a turkey. It's the challenge and variables involved in handloading that keep a guy from getting bored.

 

[fredj338]

Fltbed, you have me confused. If the expander die is under bullet diameter, then it won't do its job. It is meant to expand the top of the cartrdge ever so slightly to prevent the base of the bullet from shaving off when you seat it. I only expand, or bell, the mouth of my cases to the point that I can barely see the bell with the naked eye. The bevel base boolits I load then seat just fine without shaving off lead and the bell is done away with when I crimp.

Now I have heard of reducing the size of a neck expander in a bottle neck cartrdge to increase neck tension, but never anything of the sort on a straight walled handgun cartrdge.

Can you clear up my confusion. I don't think I'm understanding you correctly.

Not quite right. The expander has a straight shank & then a flared bevel The straight shank wants to be just slightly smaller than bullet dia, so for 452 bullet, 4515 would be ideal. Then you are press fitting the bullet for good neck tension. The flare is taken care of by the beveled portion of the expander. I do this on my 357sig dies to improve neck tension. The expander is 0.354", I don't get setback.
I haven't gotten around to trying AA#9 in my 44mags or heavy 45colt loads yet. I would try std primers first, but as with most ball powders, a mag primer will often give better ignition.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

OK, I’m now sitting down to eat my full plate of crow.

I defiantly believe you and T (gaijin) are on to something with the CCI 300 and the 250 gr. cast bullets with #9.

Jeff

Thanks for the update! I recently bought some WLP's (panic purchase) when I saw they actually had some primers on the shelf at the LGS & remembered I had plenty of regular large primers but not many for magnum use. If I load up some of the "problem childs" using the WLPs, instead of the CCI 300s before you, I'll post my results. I didn't mention it before, but all my shooting with this load was done either inside or outside when it was warm.

And by the way, I didn't take any offense to any of your posts so no apology needed... we're all just sharing knowledge, ideas & experiences.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

This is a timely thread for me.

Several weeks ago I was shooting a 44 magnum load using AA9 under a 250 grain cast Keith bullet (429421). Load was 18.5 grains, and I used a Winchester WLP primer (which I use for all my slow burning ball powders). I had used this load last summer in a SBH and it shot very well. The gun I was shooting this time was a Smith 29-4.

Ambient temp was about mid to upper 40's. I've never had this issue before with AA9, although to be fair this is the first time I've shot any below 50 degrees.

I have a co-worker who stuck a bullet in a SRH 454 Casull using AA9. He was using a book load, mid to upper range, and standard small rifle primers (not mag). I don't know if it was cold that day or not, I'd have to ask him again.

Last time out I upped the charge to 19, 19.5, and 20 grains in the 44 under that same 250 Keith. All shots felt the same as far as recoil and blast goes.

Got a couple questions:

- do you know how the cylinder throats compare between the SBH & the 29-4? My 29-2's are not particularly loose (~.4325") but could be tighter. Just wondering if loose throats could be a factor in this problem?

- the last time you upped the charge, & you didn't have any problems, was it just as cold as the previous time?

- does your co-worker's SRH 454 have "loose" throats like mine (~.4545)? Any idea what powder weight he was using with his squib? How about bullet type: lead or jacketed? (Sound like he was using Casull cases, vs Colt cases, by the reference to SRP?)

 

[gaijin]

Got a couple questions:

- do you know how the cylinder throats compare between the SBH & the 29-4? My 29-2's are not particularly loose but could be tighter. Just wondering if loose throats could be a common denomiator in this problem?...

My experience with Ruger revolvers of recent manufacture, in both .44 Magnum and .45 (Colt) chambering has been they are tight.
Tight enough to swage cast bullets to under bore diameter and drastically reduce accuracy.

The same was true of S&W revolvers of recent manufacture; specifically three 629-4 MG's, two 629-6, two 625-6 MG and a new "Lock/MIM" 625 MG.
The throats were tight enough I finish reamed with a Manson reamer- where accuracy improved dramatically with cast bullets.

The issues discussed with AA9/CCI 300 Primers and 250(+-) KTSWC's occurred with the cylinder throats reamed in my case.

 

[rwsmith]

Honestly what I think

I think they have mountains of data, but only pick and chose to publish what is guaranteed not to get them in trouble. I'm not saying to exceed published loads but one manual gives the excuse for lack of data as being all new when the piezoelectric testing became available. That's fine will me except that piezo testing and the accompanying electronics and software had been around for 20 years when their manual stated that. And at the same time they brag about their great lab and shooting tunnel, etc. The lack of recipes (and blank space) in this manual is astounding. So, to wrap up, I'd say that they have a whole lot more data than they are letting on, including on the internet.

 

[rwsmith]

Honestly what I think

I think they have mountains of data, but only pick and chose to publish what is guaranteed not to get them in trouble. I'm not saying to exceed published loads but one manual gives the excuse for lack of data as being all new when the piezoelectric testing became available. That's fine will me except that piezo testing with the accompanying electronics and software had been around for 20 years when their manual stated that. And at the same time they brag about their great lab and shooting tunnel, etc. The lack of recipes (and blank space) in this manual is astounding. So, to wrap up, I'd say that they have a whole lot more data than they are letting on, including on the internet.

 

[dla]

I wanted to see if anybody else has had the same issues I've had using Accurate #9 powder. I'd always used flake powders (Hercules/Alliant) in the past for my reloading but after I added a 454 Casull to my inventory I decided it was time to try some of the ball powders. I tried some different loads with H110 & was aware not to load it down & to use magnum primers, & have had no issues with it in any of my cartridges. Since I have a large quantity on-hand of regular primers, that I use with my 44s & 45s, I was interested in AA#9 when I saw that the Speer & Lyman manuals do not show a need to use a magnum primer in there data. Looking at Accurate's manual for the 45 Colt doesn't show a magnum primer "specifically", but more on this later.

I loaded up some 45 Colt +P (Ruger/TC) rounds using new Starline cases, 18.5gr. of AA#9, .452" 255gr. cast LSWC bullets with a heavy crimp at the cannelure ring, CCI300 primers firmly seated. This load is in the 23K psi range, & I fired them in my 454 Casull pistol. The new powder was individually weighed, then a bullet was seated to 1.605". I only loaded 25 to start & the first few rounds fired fine. After a few more I noticed one that didn't have quite as sharp a report, but otherwise okay. After a few more good ones I had one with a small delay/hang-fire. I debated the issue & decided to press on & after a few more good ones the day ended with a squib & the bullet stuck in the barrel/forcing cone, with a wad of partially burnt powder packed behind it.

Accurate's online manual, v3.5, shows a range of 15.8 - 17.6gr. of #9 for this bullet. My 18.5grs is more powder, but less than I've subsequently used in other variations in 45 Colt & Casull cases. I sent an email to Accurate describing the problem & asking for their ideas. I received a prompt reply & was told that AA#9 is a hi-performance powder, that they definitely recommended using magnum primers & that my load was of too low pressure & I should bring up the charge. He also included a couple small partial charts for 45 Colt & 454 Casull loads. The 45LC chart had a AA#9 powder range of 19.1 - 22.5gr. with a 255gr LSWC using Rem 2-1/2 primers, at 25K psi. The chart for the 454 Casull loads were similar, but different, than online & showed CCI400 primers. I sent a reply asking why the powder range he said I should be using for the 45LC was (& still is) different from the range in the current v3.5 manual. I also asked why the primers shown in his charts are non-magnum primers. I've never got a reply back, even though I sent it a second time.

So this is the rub, how can they show one thing online but tell me something different? Why, if #9 needs a magnum primer (all weight loads & calibers?) don't they show a magnum primer being used, like CCI350 or CCI450? Using Win WP primers or Rem 2-1/2 (one primer does it all type) doesn't let me know a "magnum primer is recommended". And why does Speer & Lyman manuals show their loads with regular primers, CCI300, for all their AA#9 loadings, even 44Mag.?

I've reloaded for over 40 years, try to be careful, verify data is safe, loaded for pistols from 38 Spcl. to 500 Mag & admit that I don't know everything. So what's the deal with this? Was this just bad luck or am I missing something? Have others out there had any related issues using #9, in 45LC or other cartridges? I lost confidence in AA#9 & haven't loaded it in anything else since.

Not sure who came up with the bright idea to use a standard primer in such a low pressure application. CCI350 is your friend here. AA#9 is a good powder but it is going to need a little extra help in this application.

Another thing you might consider - the Lee FCD. I know you think your roll crimp is adequate, but your application wont recoil enough to pull anything. The FCD takes the guesswork out of creating a heavy roll-crimp, and the heavier crimp will raise the start pressure - which will help your AA#9 to get burning before bullet movement drops the pressure.

 

[Hammerdown77]

Got a couple questions:

- do you know how the cylinder throats compare between the SBH & the 29-4? My 29-2's are not particularly loose but could be tighter. Just wondering if loose throats could be a common denomiator in this problem?

- the last time you upped the charge, & you didn't have any problems, was it just as cold as the previous time?

- does your co-worker's SRH 454 have "loose" throats like mine (~.456")? Any idea what powder weight he was using with his squib? How about bullet type: lead or jacketed? (Sound like he was using Casull cases, vs Colt cases, by the reference to SRP?)

Not sure on the throats between the two, seems like last time I checked a .430 bullet could be pressed through with finger pressure on both the Smith and SBH. I'll check here in a bit, though.

It was not as cold the second time I shot an AA9 load in the 29. So it's not a direct comparison.

Not sure about throats or bullet weight or charge on the co-worker's SRH. I think he was using XTPs, in a Casull case. He did tell me it was summertime when he had this happen, though.