SGT ROCK 11B
Member
I agree.
One of my reloading buddies had a similar problem and he did not have a set of weights. So he thought his triple beam was right, but it was off by a full grain.
Overpressure signs in a Model 66-3 with starting load data
- Thread starter PzShrekt
- Start date
I agree.
One of my reloading buddies had a similar problem and he did not have a set of weights. So he thought his triple beam was right, but it was off by a full grain.
pantannojack
US Veteran
I don't like to see the "power slap method" know it all show offs use. Ever wonder how ejector rods get bent?
Alk8944
US Veteran
This is still worthless information! The question was which specific propellant are you talking about? ALL Accurate propellants have been made by several different manufacturers in different countries from Western Europe to the U.S. to Australia. Saying you are loading a St. Marks product is worthless information unless you specify the specific propellant number or name!
Its the same as if you said you are using a Morton product but are not specific. Morton manufactures many products from table salt to rubber to rocket propellants and boosters depending on which of the Morton companies you mean, Morton Salt or Morton-Thiokol. All the same parent company.
Just like DuPont! Are you talking about Nylon, Dacron, Kevlar, paints,or even Black Powder or other propellents (before those lines were sold) Or literally thousands of other chemical products?
Now do you understand what I was saying?
Alk8944
US Veteran
To keep this germane to OP's original problem I will repeat what others have asked. How do you check your scale charge weights? Are you sure your scale is accurate or just assuming? Do you have a set of scale check weights? If not then buy a set and verify the calibration of your scale with them! Don't trust weighing a penny as I have often read.
The other consideration is that sticky extraction can be caused by other things than pressure! Case thickness and cylinder wall thickness are not reasons for hard extraction.
And, any time you feel it is necessary to start a sentence with "I have heard" stop and reconsider. Most of the time anything you have "heard" or "seen somewhere" is incorrect unless the source can be identified as definitely being trustworthy/authoritative. This includes what you may see on this or other forums!!! All too often erroneous information is posted on all internet forums, including this one! Be careful.
The other consideration is that sticky extraction can be caused by other things than pressure! Case thickness and cylinder wall thickness are not reasons for hard extraction.
And, any time you feel it is necessary to start a sentence with "I have heard" stop and reconsider. Most of the time anything you have "heard" or "seen somewhere" is incorrect unless the source can be identified as definitely being trustworthy/authoritative. This includes what you may see on this or other forums!!! All too often erroneous information is posted on all internet forums, including this one! Be careful.
I use two scales, a Lee Safety Powder Scale and a generic digital scale for checking and verification. The LSPS had a problem with losing zero whenever I removed the pan for measurements or slight bumps, so I put AS SMALL of a drop of blue loctite as I could fit on the tip of a toothpick on the brass threads the brass zeroing knob runs on to stop the thing going out of zero every time I move it.
I then verify with the digital scale, closing all vents windows doors, removing electronic equipment from the vicinity, and the closest light source is an incandescent bulb desk light 5 feet away on my bench. The bench itself is level too. I don’t even breath when I use that thing.
I verify my digi scale with the provided 50 gram weight, let it sit for about 30 minutes on, and then a final zero with the weight.
I have found that my LSPS will drop accurately and consistently down to less than 0.1 grains. I have verified this with my digital scale.
Thus, I have ruled out that there is a problem with my scales and method, I clean, and destatic the powder dropper every time I load, and all the drops are consistent down to around 0.1 grains every time; so if there’s a problem with my charges it’s go to be my scales, but what are the chances both are wrong? I’d say statistically unlikely.
I’ve recently replicated my usual load with PMC brass and CCI 500s instead of CCI 550, and the difference was night and day, there was practically no sticky extraction once I’ve switched to CCI 500s.
Yendor357
Member
Plz, as promised, I chronoed your load. Magnum primers. All my brass was already primed.
All 5 cases fell out. All charges thrown from my Redding. There is a frag hole near the center of the target. I use a steel plate for a backstop.
Yours is a very mild recoiling, very accurate load. Good numbers. It’s 5 pm, overcast. I saw no flash. Great load!
All 5 cases fell out. All charges thrown from my Redding. There is a frag hole near the center of the target. I use a steel plate for a backstop.
Yours is a very mild recoiling, very accurate load. Good numbers. It’s 5 pm, overcast. I saw no flash. Great load!
Attachments
Yendor357
Member
Fascinating, seems hotter than I thought, then again I load to 1.580” with CCI 550s and my 500s.
Think I might down load the 550 primed loads, the extraction seems like near max, but 500s seem to tumble out just fine with just slight pressure on the ejector.
Think I might down load the 550 primed loads, the extraction seems like near max, but 500s seem to tumble out just fine with just slight pressure on the ejector.
Cannister powders that we consumers buy.....
...HAVE to be within tight standards/specifications with very little variation. NONE of us have means of testing batches and the industry knows that. Ammo manufacturers can buy in bulk because they can test a sample and make changes accordingly. If anybody here has experienced a 'cool' or 'hot' batch of a pound - 8 lb jug of powder and can quantify it, I'd really like to hear about it.
...HAVE to be within tight standards/specifications with very little variation. NONE of us have means of testing batches and the industry knows that. Ammo manufacturers can buy in bulk because they can test a sample and make changes accordingly. If anybody here has experienced a 'cool' or 'hot' batch of a pound - 8 lb jug of powder and can quantify it, I'd really like to hear about it.
I agree with RWSmith, canister grade powders are held to within incredibly tight standards from one production lot to next lot. There will be minor variations, but unless you are at the very top of safe pressure levels or loading so low that you are close to sticking bullets within the barrel, you are not likely to notice a significant difference between one lot and another.
Agree with rwsmith and stansdds on this. Manufactures have the ability to do "closed bomb" testing on powder lots. This allows them to "blend" for given performance levels. What comes to us for handloading must be very close to same/same year in and year out. This is also controlled by the testing method and blended into something else, retardant added or whatever necessary so H-110 is H-110. I think statistical control and testing is so good in the industry today is the reason you are seeing powders such as H-110 & 296 being listed as the same thing as well as reducing manufacturing costs and of course the always present specter of litigious attack should there be a fail. All said powders are likely more stable and consistent than they have ever been...
When I am going to a new container of powder I load enough for 2 cylinders or 2 mags of rounds to take along with the last batch of rounds from the previous powder container/lot and shoot them at the end of the range session more for accuracy than anything else. I have never had any surprises or notable group changes. YMMV
When I am going to a new container of powder I load enough for 2 cylinders or 2 mags of rounds to take along with the last batch of rounds from the previous powder container/lot and shoot them at the end of the range session more for accuracy than anything else. I have never had any surprises or notable group changes. YMMV
Yendor357
Member
Pz, I re-chronoed your load, 12.6 A#9/158. This time with non magnum primers.
I went from CCI small pistol magnum to Fed 100s.
No difference. Same ave vel, same SD, same accuracy, everything.
The empties pretty much fall out, even with my tight chambered new production Python.
I went from CCI small pistol magnum to Fed 100s.
No difference. Same ave vel, same SD, same accuracy, everything.
The empties pretty much fall out, even with my tight chambered new production Python.
Your brass at 1.287" is just a bit long but it should work in most cylinders.
You stated "Clean gun" but has the cylinder had a lot of 38 specials shot through it?
If no "Crud" is inside the .357 cylinder, I do not know why your brass does not "Fall" out ?
As mentioned, you might need to "Qualify" your scale ?
Good luck.
You stated "Clean gun" but has the cylinder had a lot of 38 specials shot through it?
If no "Crud" is inside the .357 cylinder, I do not know why your brass does not "Fall" out ?
As mentioned, you might need to "Qualify" your scale ?
Good luck.
I clean them pretty good with a power drill and a .40 SW bore brush and some mineral spirits, followed by two patch wipe throughs, I can’t see any carbon rings, and I always shoot magnums before switching to .38 specials.
I got this thing second hand, so I don’t know how many rounds of .38 or Mags have been through this, but the FC doesn’t have that much material eroded from it, so I imagine a decent diet of magnums from the 90s have gone through it.
I will say that the stickiness only persists from roughly 3/16” from the case head and that the stickiness isn’t bad enough that have to hammer the ejector to get the cases out, only that I have to apply a good amount of thumb pressure to pop the cases free and tumble out, I think since my carbide die can’t touch that due to the case holder shielding that portion from the resizer, it might be slightly larger than normal.
Again I measure twice with all my loads, using a Lee balance scale and a generic Amazon digital reloading scale that gets left on with every use for 30 minutes, no CFC lights are near it, no electronics either, no breeze. The powder dropper drops to with 0.1 grains or less consistently.
Again, I reiterate, the cases don’t stick aside from roughly 3/16” from the case head, 80% of the case doesn’t stick to any of the chambers, and sometimes there’s one or two that occasionally just drop from gravity before I even touch the ejector.
If I use CCI 500s, I don’t get sticking at all until like 13.0+ grains.
I’m working on a download using CCI 550s, will inform you all in a few days on the result. I don’t have a chrono, but Hornady’s data says it’s safe in a Colt Python with Mag primers.
Use current data from Hodgdon. SEE PHOTO.
Data was posted above.Here it is again. Hodgdon data with St Marks manufactured data. FOLLOW CURRENT DATA.
Data was posted above.Here it is again. Hodgdon data with St Marks manufactured data. FOLLOW CURRENT DATA.
Attachments
Last edited:
CCI 550 Data Downloaded
Good news everyone!
I downloaded the JHP data from Hodgdon’s by about 10% from the starting load.
Notes are in the picture provided.
Long story short, AA#9 downloads pretty well by 10% of the max lead cast load. Kind of inline with Hornady’s 11th Edition. Their max with WSPM are 9.7 to 11.5 grs AA#9 with a 158 gr XTP. All my loads today range between 10.5 grs to 11.5 grains of AA#9 with either LRNs or JHP loads.
I substituted with Zero Bullet Company 158 gr JHPs and Bear Creek Supply 158 gr LRNs.
End result: all my loads extract with little to no thumb pressure on the ejector rod, I want to say for a majority of the higher loads in my notes, about 80% drop right out without working the ejector rod, the rest require just the slightest thumb pressure to fall right out. All the loads I have worked up today are from my 4 inch Model 66-3.
Loads using LRNs here have little to no leading, though I did feel a bit more lead shaving hit my face when I shot these vs JHPs. The Armscor brass seems to be the least sticky by far compared to Fiocchi’s. All the brass used has been loaded and fired at least two to three times using 12.4-12.6 grs of AA#9 using CCI 500s.
By far the most pleasant loads I’ve fired using Mag primers in a Magnum, they all felt like really stout .38 plus ps. Don’t feel underpressured at all, just a really pleasant .357 Mag load, feels lighter compared to my preferred load of 12.6 grs of AA#9 with a 158 gr JHP and CCI 500s.
Accuracy from a rested position at 10 yards are within 2”-3” apart. Had to hold under by around 2 inches from desired POA to hit DOC.
I guess CCI 550s don’t mix well with the 12.4 to 13.8 grains Hodgdon’s suggested for the JHP data, but download the starting load by about 19%-20% and it shoots great in my 4 inch K frame, if you have an L frame it could be a different story.
Good news everyone!
I downloaded the JHP data from Hodgdon’s by about 10% from the starting load.
Notes are in the picture provided.
Long story short, AA#9 downloads pretty well by 10% of the max lead cast load. Kind of inline with Hornady’s 11th Edition. Their max with WSPM are 9.7 to 11.5 grs AA#9 with a 158 gr XTP. All my loads today range between 10.5 grs to 11.5 grains of AA#9 with either LRNs or JHP loads.
I substituted with Zero Bullet Company 158 gr JHPs and Bear Creek Supply 158 gr LRNs.
End result: all my loads extract with little to no thumb pressure on the ejector rod, I want to say for a majority of the higher loads in my notes, about 80% drop right out without working the ejector rod, the rest require just the slightest thumb pressure to fall right out. All the loads I have worked up today are from my 4 inch Model 66-3.
Loads using LRNs here have little to no leading, though I did feel a bit more lead shaving hit my face when I shot these vs JHPs. The Armscor brass seems to be the least sticky by far compared to Fiocchi’s. All the brass used has been loaded and fired at least two to three times using 12.4-12.6 grs of AA#9 using CCI 500s.
By far the most pleasant loads I’ve fired using Mag primers in a Magnum, they all felt like really stout .38 plus ps. Don’t feel underpressured at all, just a really pleasant .357 Mag load, feels lighter compared to my preferred load of 12.6 grs of AA#9 with a 158 gr JHP and CCI 500s.
Accuracy from a rested position at 10 yards are within 2”-3” apart. Had to hold under by around 2 inches from desired POA to hit DOC.
I guess CCI 550s don’t mix well with the 12.4 to 13.8 grains Hodgdon’s suggested for the JHP data, but download the starting load by about 19%-20% and it shoots great in my 4 inch K frame, if you have an L frame it could be a different story.
Attachments
Last edited:
STORMINORMAN
Member
"...if you have an L frame it could be a different story."
Why?
Cheers!
Why?
Cheers!
Yendor357 utilized my load with magnum primers and std primers in his 4 inch 686, he said that they all tumbled out just fine, OTOH, my smaller cylindered K-frame had hard stickiness, could just be my just had a lot of magnums fired through it, maybe the chambers expanded a bit, but the cases tumbled out of his just fine, that’s why I say your miles may vary with a larger gun with thicker chambers walls.
Chamber pressure has nothing to do with chamber wall thickness. Assuming the chamber dimensions are the same, chamber pressure with a given load will be the same in a J-frame, a K-frame, an L-frame, and an N-frame.
