1st batch of 380 failing plunk test

Thanks for all the great feedback. I have and use a Lyman chamber checker for all the rounds I make. I'll continue to use that. I agree with you HiBC that it's the gold standard. 74A95 I appreciate your point, but I want my ammo to fit any 380 in case I upgrade a barrel or trade in a gun down the line. Also, I just want it to be the best I can make it, not just good enough.

Hammered 54, I also believe it should not be this difficult. I have no such issues with revolver cartridges. Since half of my rounds come out perfect and the other half fail, I believe it's my technique getting tilted bullet seating. I don't think it's the FCD because those rounds really struggle to get in and out of that die, while the others glide through smoothly. The bullets are just tilted, there's barely any contact to seat, they are so damn small.

I expect the Lyman M expander die to remedy this. If it were a bad die, I should get 100% failure or close to that, right. Since the Lyman M die also works for 9mm, It's a good value. I expect I may have a similar issue when I start reloading those (soon).

I'll return here and post back the results of my first batch with the Lyman M expander die. We'll see if that does it.
 
Don't know if this is a factor or not in OP's issue, but I had a problem with my RCBS 380 flare die a while back. It would apply a very minimum crimp, and when adjusting for a bit more crimp, the flare stem would place buckles on the body of the brass.

The seater stem was marked 38 caliber rather than 380 caliber. I called RCBS about this. The RCBS CS rep said RCBS was familiar with these complaints and had redesigned the flare stem for the 380 die set. A new stem was mailed to me at no cost. The new, redesigned stem was, this time, marked 380 cal.

The new flare stem does not buckle the brass and will apply a generous flare with no issues.

Not sure if this could be a factor in OP's problem, but I thought it would be worth mentioning.

Bayou
 
BondoBob,

I expect the M-die to fix the issue for you. Per the article 74A95 linked to, you need to place the bullets in and see that they are upright, and not just drop them in place, but you will get used to the feel of it rapidly. You will get a much more even bulge all around the case (though runout in neck wall thickness will still make it a little uneven in some cases). You can also look at range pick-up brass with calipers. A thinner neck wall (Remington is thinner in 45 Auto and may also be thinner in 380; you can check) will be less prone to producing an interference fit with a tilting bullet, but it also work-hardens from resizing more because it can expand more in the chamber, so it may not last as many reloadings.


74A95,

That article echoes my experience, though mine is with 45 Auto. I could never see an alignment effect on accuracy with jacketed bullets, but with soft swaged lead bullets, getting them aligned with the bore by seating them out to headspace on the throat reduced groups by about 40% and, as a bonus, greatly mitigated leading. Jacketed bullets seem to be tough enough to avoid the extreme distortion the softer bullets have scraping against the mouth of the throat and can straighten themselves on the way into the bore without distortion issues of any significance.

I think the author of the article was hoping that what applied to rifle bullets would apply to pistol bullets, but a little math shows it won't work out for several reasons. One is that rifle bullets generally have a longer aspect ratio than pistol bullets, especially in the ogive. A typical 7.62 ball bullet is almost 3 times longer in calibers than a typical 45 HP. That moves the center of gravity of the bullet further forward of the geometric center of the bullet bearing surface by a factor of that length ratio. A given in-bore-tilt angle around the bearing surface center of that rifle bullet produces 3 times the eccentricity of the bullet center of mass's spin around the bore axis of an equally tilted HP pistol bullet. As a result, the lateral jump caused by that eccentric spin is three times greater for the rifle bullet, even if you load it down to the pistol bullet's velocity in a barrel with the same rifling pitch. But that's not normally what you have. Normally the rifle barrel pitch is faster and its velocity greater. That means the rifle bullet is generally spinning faster than a pistol bullet. At exit from the muzzle, a 7.62 ball round from a 10" or 12" pitch barrel is spinning roughly four or five times faster than a round of 45 hardball from a standard 16" pitch barrel. That increases the speed of the lateral jump and its resulting lateral drift that stays with the bullet to the target. (This effect is the principal reason for not using an unnecessarily fast rifling twist in a rifle.) When the two differences are taken together, even if you assume the same time of flight to the target for the drift to work, the rifle is typically going to exhibit around a factor of 12 to 15 greater drift from bullet tilt than that pistol bullet does. If a tilted 30 cal rifle bullet can produce up to 1 moa of group growth, as A.A. Abbatiello, an Oak Ridge National Laboratories engineer found in his early 1960s study of Lake City NM ammunition, then the 45 will produce about 0.07 to 0.1 moa of difference from that source of error, which, for statistical reasons, is very hard to discern.

The reason the author's tilted bullets actually shot better in that article's test is something I can only make speculative guesses about. Some of the tilted round may have randomly centered their cartridges in the chamber better. No other reason occurs to me at the moment.

I've never had a Ransom Rest produce pistol groups as tight as I could get off bags by hand. I believe this is mainly because it registers on the grip frame of a gun, where a shooter registers on sight alignment. If a barrel fits up into the slide well, sight and barrel alignment should be consistent, but if the slide is not fit to the frame, registering on the grip frame still allows alignment of the bore and target to shift around by as much as the slide and frame can shift. I've seen it suggested that spring-loaded plastic rollers bearing on the side of a slide might help the Ransom Rest maintain alignment better, but I don't know anyone who has tried it.
 
The reason the author's tilted bullets actually shot better in that article's test is something I can only make speculative guesses about. Some of the tilted round may have randomly centered their cartridges in the chamber better. No other reason occurs to me at the moment.

You're assuming that bullet tilt matters for the typical bullet at a typical range of 25 yards. And you're guessing that it was a random fortuitous alignment of the stars (in this case bullets) that was responsible? That's not exactly the most parsimonious explanation.

Another explanation is that bullet tilt doesn't matter for the typical bullet at a typical range of 25 yards
 
Lyman M die update:

As a result of this discussion, I learned that Lyman offers a powder-through version of the M die. It's a multi-caliber set, with one die body and plugs for multiple handgun calibers. It sounded good, and the Lyman web site says, "Fits all standard powder measures."

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, I have learned to never accept any "Fits all" statements as infallible. I reached out to Lyman's marketing director and I asked if the #7767901 Multi-Expand Charge Die System will work with my Lee Autodisk powder measure. I just received a response:

Here is our tech’s answer to your question:

No, it does not accept the Lee Autodisk. It will work with other standard powder measures with a 7/8”x14 mounting thread.

Hope that helps!
Yes, that helps. It means I get to save $47.95 (plus tax and shipping).

It also means I need to look for alternatives if I want to get the advantages of the M die expander. I'm considering buying some Lee expander plugs for slightly larger calibers and turning them down on my hobby lathe.
 
74A95 said:
ou're assuming that bullet tilt matters for the typical bullet at a typical range of 25 yards. And you're guessing that it was a random fortuitous alignment of the stars (in this case bullets) that was responsible? That's not exactly the most parsimonious explanation.

Another explanation is that bullet tilt doesn't matter for the typical bullet at a typical range of 25 yards


Saying there is nothing to see here is only the parsimonious explanation when the group differences are small enough to ignore. So you're assuming there is no statistical significance between the group sizes produced by the Redding die (which the author said straightened bullets pretty well) and the group made by the crooked bullets. But the range between the two is about twice that of the 95% confidence level that their averages are not just randomly different in either direction. If the difference is likely real, then it is likely there is an explanation. As I said, mine is speculative. I await something better.

I suppose one path around the statistic of the significant difference would be to argue the top right hole in the Redding die group is an outlier, due, perhaps, to a bullet defect. Dropping that hole brings the size down to just about that of the Lyman group which is just barely under the 95% confidence level difference (about 1.089 times the smaller group size for this sample size). But one normally has to make a pretty good argument for discarding a point in the data because doing so leads to having to show why the most extreme holes in the other groups shouldn't be tossed, too.
 
Saying there is nothing to see here is only the parsimonious explanation when the group differences are small enough to ignore. So you're assuming there is no statistical significance between the group sizes produced by the Redding die (which the author said straightened bullets pretty well) and the group made by the crooked bullets. But the range between the two is about twice that of the 95% confidence level that their averages are not just randomly different in either direction. If the difference is likely real, then it is likely there is an explanation. As I said, mine is speculative. I await something better.

I have questions about how useful it is to calculate 95% confidence intervals when looking at group size.

Let's test it. If a gun shoots a 5-shot group that is 0.85", what are the predicted sizes of subsequent 5-shot groups.

If you'd rather not work with 5-shot groups, how about a 15-shot group that measures 1.07"?
 
There are tables for these numbers. The Lyman #47 has a good article on basic stats for shooters that includes the information for 95% confidence intervals. For five-shot groups, 95% will between 65% and 153% of the first group you fire. The remaining 5% can be bigger or smaller. The center of those groups will move around, with 95% being within two times the standard deviation divided by the square root of 5.

The main limitation of these kinds of numbers is they assume the shooter is consistent. That makes them underestimate variation if the shooter gets tired or the light changes or the shooter occasionally flinches. But with a machine rest's data, they tend to run true.
 
There are tables for these numbers. The Lyman #47 has a good article on basic stats for shooters that includes the information for 95% confidence intervals. For five-shot groups, 95% will between 65% and 153% of the first group you fire. The remaining 5% can be bigger or smaller. The center of those groups will move around, with 95% being within two times the standard deviation divided by the square root of 5.

The main limitation of these kinds of numbers is they assume the shooter is consistent. That makes them underestimate variation if the shooter gets tired or the light changes or the shooter occasionally flinches. But with a machine rest's data, they tend to run true.

Thanks for those numbers.

So, with the 0.85" value I gave, 95% should be within 0.55" and 1.30".

That value is from this article (https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2019/9/25/accuracy-testing-shortcomings-of-the-five-shot-group/) in which 10 5-shot groups were fired at 25 yards with the same ammo with the gun in a Ransom Rest, which meets your criteria, " . . . with a machine rest's data, they tend to run true."

According to the 95% interval rule of thumb only 5% should be outside that range. But using the data from the article, 7 groups (70%) of those values are outside that range.

It I apply it to the first group fired (as you specified), which is 2.29" and was the largest of 10 groups fired, the 95% interval is 1.49" to 3.50". From that article, 5 groups (50%) are outside that range.

It looks like the 95% intervals method does not match the actual data.

It sounds like the method assumes that the first group fired will be more-or-less in the middle size range of subsequent groups fired. Seems like a bad assumption.
 
Unclenick, I don't have access to that Lyman manual. Could you please check what the intervals would be for 15-shot groups, and I'll try it on some other data. Thanks.
 
I mistyped. I meant the average group size you fire, not the first group size you fire. It is not possible to know how close to average a single group is. It is only more likely to be near average than to be an outlier.

Fifteen-shot groups run 0.86×average to 1.16×average 95% of the time.
 
Back
Top