Check Out my 10mm Case and Primer

I've been quite happy with my Lone Wolf after market barrel for my Glock 35. But then I'm quite happy with the stock Gen 4 barrel that came with the weapon as well. Gen 3 and before had the more significant case bulge and glock smile problems. I can tell when I get range brass that came out of < Gen 4.
 
If you plan from the start to reload for the guns you shoot and you know the Glock requires special handling to remove a "standard" occurence bulge, and firing pins that are not retracted when the case xtracts (I've seen the primer torn open on pics posted); why would you even consider a Glock?
Click to expand...

I wasn't expecting the bulge when I got the gun. I had reloaded for my Glock 29 in the past, and I hadn't noticed the issue.

I got Glocks because they seemed reliable and durable, and because they're so common. Getting parts is never a problem. But the more problems pop up, the more I wonder if there is something better out there. I've noticed that Glock recoil springs blow up with ordinary loads, and Glock thinks it's okay, which is amazing.

Another nice thing about Glocks is that they're so ugly and lacking in charm, you don't feel bad when one gets scratched or banged up.

I like Springfields, but I'm not thrilled by the height of the bore.
 
I already made 100 of these, and they are impossible to pull,..
Click to expand...

Nothing is "impossible" to pull, if it were, you couldn't shoot it. Some things are more difficult than others, or require different methods or tools, but it can be done.

As to the couple fired cases and their condition, the reason is, you're shooting them out of a GLock.

I freely admit I don't like Glock pistols, GLock management & some of their history, and I detest the "fanboys" who have "drunk the Kool-Aid". But its not Glock bashing to recognize and discuss their features for what they are.

Glock, like some other firearms makers down through history has made a deliberate choice to do some things others didn't. Their focus is on operational reliability. (not a bad thing) One of the things they did, and do, is make chambers that ammo feeds into with a high degree of reliability.

The down side to this is that it often stresses the brass to just short of the failure point. But as long as it doesn't rupture and works ONCE the designers (and the military) are happy. Like the .303 British the "generous" chamber ensures that the ammo gets in, and works once. After that they don't care. Reloaders like us, care, the gunmaker and its major customers (military & police) don't.

When GLock began making .40s & 10mm, they kept the concepts that worked with their 9mms. This turned out to be on the ragged edge for the .40s and there were a significant number of "Glock Ka-booms" due to the chambers not supporting the brass enough. This is the reason for aftermarket (with more supported chambers) barrels, and Glock themselves slightly redesigning their barrels in the latest Gen models.

The Glock "smile", bulge, belly or what ever you call it is an issue for reloading. Standard dies may not "fix" it. There are "bulge buster" dies that do, but the case is being "worked" a lot, in a place its not meant to be.

Personally, I have my doubts about case life and the wisdom of reusing the very bulged brass. People are doing it, and it seems to be working well enough, but I think its something one needs to watch very closely.

watch things very closely, don't expect a lot of brass life, and be aware that the reloaded bulged case MIGHT fail at any time, even with light loads.

Glock knows this. They always have known this. Glock says don't shoot reloads. Glock voids your warranty if you do. (or they did when they first started out, I don't know if they've changed their minds since..)

I read somewhere ages ago, when Glock was new, that they required the fired brass (9mm) from their test ranges to ONLY be sold as scrap, and not allowed to be resold as fired brass for reloading, and the brass dealers buying their fired cases had to sign a contract stating they would not sell them for reloading, only for scrap brass.

This made sense, if you consider that cases fired from the "relieved" Glock chambers could not be counted on to survive another firing cycle. They often would, but in our CYA world, they couldn't be counted on to do it every time.

If you are wanting the longest practical brass life (and what reloader doesn't?) Glocks, even the improved chambers in the new ones, simply aren't the best way to go.

Balance that against the good features of the pistol, what it does well, and what you like, and decide if you can live with the bad in order to get the good. Your call, there's no free lunch.

Lots of people get aftermarket barrels with more fully supported chambers and are very happy with the results, getting the "good" GLock features and minimizing the "less good" things.

This means spending some more $$, of course, but balance that against the cost of a possible "ka-boom" and Glock's historical policy of not repairing damage "caused by reloads" as covered warranty work.

Keep an eye on your brass and remember that they can fail even with light loads.

Good Luck!
 
I finally got my old Chrony up on its feet. I shot 5 rounds out in the pasture, and I got an average speed of 1128 fps.

The Speer book says 1105 fps @10.0 grains and 1295 fps @ 11.0 grains. I used 10.7, and I hoped to do considerably better than 1128 even with a short barrel.

Is Blue Dot the wrong powder for a short barrel?
 
I think my scale is no good or my powder measure hasn't been doing the job. I have cleaned it up again and run graphite through it. When my new scale gets here, I'll pull some bullets and find out how much powder is really in them.
 
I think I have the scale working. Not positive. I moved it away from an air conditioner vent.

I loaded 6 rounds each: Blue Dot 11.0 grains and No.7 12.0 grains. I plan to test them tomorrow to see which is faster. I have a feeling I'm going to end up with No.7, since it worked in the past. Blue Dot didn't come close to the published figure, and it sure looks like the powder charges were correct.

The micrometer on the powder measure is odd. I have no idea what the units are, but I recorded the readings to see if I can save time setting up for these loads next time. No.7 is way more dense than Blue Dot.
 
The Speer book says 1105 fps @10.0 grains and 1295 fps @ 11.0 grains. I used 10.7, and I hoped to do considerably better than 1128 even with a short barrel.

Is Blue Dot the wrong powder for a short barrel?
Click to expand...

First point, what is the difference between the barrel in your loading data, and the barrel in your pistol? Different lengths?? How much?

Second point, even if the same length, there are going to be differences between what they got (and published) and what you will get.

As much as 100fps is possible. Not common, but not so rare as to be unheard of, with different guns and all the different factors involved.

Third, Blue Dot is not the ideal choice for the shortest barrels. Its in the middle range group, and performs better in medium and longer length barrels. Given enough barrel, it will give speeds higher than "fast" powder, and slower than "slow" powders at max load levels.

I have heard that Blue Dot can, at certain bore sizes and charge levels become "quirky" and some load data no longer list it. I have used it for light loads in the .44AMP (1200fps-ish) and had no trouble, but haven't used it in anything else, I can't give you personal experience in different calibers.

As for the scale, still air is best, and even an active vent, fan, or open window across the room can disturb the balance.

Some electronic scales can be "upset" by electrical sources nearby, as well. Some lights, or other devices can do this.

Calibrated check weights are best, but you can use a factory jacketed bullet to see if its working. +/- 2 or 3 grains, or less, off the stated weight means its working. Lots more than that, scale needs some tune up/calibration.

The marking on the drum of your powder measure ROUGHLY approximate the weight of SOME powders at that setting. Their real use is just to get "close" and so you can return to that same general setting in order to do final adjustment.

SOMETIMES it happens that what the drum reads is what you want, but that is serendipity, and should not be expected.
 
I shot 6 loads of No.7 at 12.0 grains, 6 rounds of Blue Dot at 11.0 grains, and 4 rounds of old ammo made with No.7. I am not sure of the weight for the old rounds.

Blue Dot 11.0 grains

1138
1169
1148
1153
1146
1163

Avg. 1152.8

No.7 12.0 grains

1081
1075
1054
1062
1055
1096

Avg. 1070.5

Old No.7 weight unknown

1176
1222
1231
1187

Avg. 1204

This means I got about 25 fps in exchange for adding 0.5 grains of Blue Dot. Not all that encouraging.

The new No.7 rounds were surprisingly slow, given the results posted by Nick_C_S in another thread. He said he was loading No.7 at 12.0 rounds and 1.255" OAL, and he got 1222 fps from the same gun I'm shooting. His OAL is 0.005" above Speer's recommendation. Hard to believe the thickness of a playing card could add 152 fps.
 
The new No.7 rounds were surprisingly slow, given the results posted by Nick_C_S in another thread. He said he was loading No.7 at 12.0 rounds and 1.255" OAL, and he got 1222 fps from the same gun I'm shooting. His OAL is 0.005" above Speer's recommendation. Hard to believe the thickness of a playing card could add 152 fps.
Click to expand...

"from the same gun"?? do you mean he fired them out of your gun, or just the same make and model you have? THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!

His gun is not your gun, his barrel is not your barrel, his ammo is not your ammo, exactly. They are pretty close, but not exactly the same. It is normal and expected to get slightly different results, no matter how closely you try to recreate someone else's loads.

Everything has +/- tolerances, including the powder. Maybe its the "thickness of a playing card" that is making the difference, probably its something else. Maybe his barrel is faster than yours. Maybe the lot# of powder he used is slightly different from yours. Maybe the stars line up for him, and not for you...there are dozens of different factors at work, at the same time, and which one is the cause of what is a matter of investigation, if it can be determined, at all.

DO not fall into the trap of thinking that because someone else got a certain velocity with a certain combination of gun and ammo components that you will too. You MIGHT, but you probably won't. Close is expected, but not guaranteed. The world just doesn't work that way.
 
I would have expected the results from two Glock 29's to be similar.
Click to expand...

The results are similar. Bullets go out then end of the barrel at somewhere within a few hundred feet per second of the same speed they do from your gun.
:D

the best indicator is your own loads. You loaded them all the same, right? yet you get 30-40fps or so difference in speed between individual rounds. Sometimes we get even more difference. We try to find combinations that minimize the "extreme spread" but we get some spread, no matter what. So we shoot several rounds, and use the average.

Two "identical" barrels can get different speeds shooting the same ammo. Usually the difference is small, but sometimes exceeds 100fps.

The way I look at it, if you used as close as you can get to what they used, and you get speeds somewhere within 100fps or so of what they got, you got essentially what they got.

I know I kind of harp on that 100fps number, but it is something I have personally seen, in 3 different 6" .357s, all shooting the same ammo. SO I know it absolutely can happen. And any other speed variation is also possible.

20-30-40fps difference between what you or I get and published data is NOTHING. Its nothing to be concerned about and nothing we have any control over.

I remember reading somewhere that powder makers use an allowable tolerance of 3% between lots of cannister grade powder. They usually do better than that, but as much as 3% can be on the shelves.
 
A velocity 152 fps lower isn't similar.

I'm wondering if the Wolf primers I'm using are screwing things up. I'm going to make a few rounds with a different brand. I've had some of these fail to go off. I thought they were just hard, but maybe something is wrong with them.

I figured they were fine for practice, but maybe I should save them for lead.
 
I agree that 150fps is far enough outside the usual rage of variation to not be "similar", and into the "I wonder what is different" group.

I'm wondering if the Wolf primers I'm using are screwing things up...
Click to expand...

This is PROBABLY your explanation. Did the load data you are recreating use Wolf primers??? If not, that could be the reason for the unexpected large difference in velocity.

ANY difference in the components used can make a difference. Sometimes, a larger difference than expected.
 
I think the recipe says CCI. Unfortunately, I didn't keep records when I made this stuff the first time around. Based on the old primers I still have from that time, it may have been Winchester. I'm trying Winchester today.
 
My new scale arrived. After calibration, the old Lyman reads 11.0 grains when the new scale reads considerably lower. I think this explains some things.
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering if you adjust your COL, the SD will change like a rifle cartridge.

btw, I've always wanted to mention this; if you ever see the possibility of a crack showing up on your casing, toss it. Decades ago before I ever heard of the Kaboom issue, my petload for my brothers G20 blew up. I thought I lost my fingers because it hurt so much. I'm especially careful looking at my brass now, especially those going into a Glock.
 
I'm sure people are tired of this thread, but I feel like I should let them know I have been successful, so their help was not wasted.

My old Lyman 1500 XP scale was the problem. It was giving me exaggerated readings even after I broke down and read the manual. I bought a Chinese Brifit pocket scale from Amazon. When it arrived, I learned it wouldn't measure odd tenths. I could weigh 12.0 or 12.2, but if a charge weighed close to 12.1, it would read 12.0 or 12.2.

My answer was to weigh two charges at once and divide by two. I believe my powder measure is pretty consistent, so I think this gets me closer than weighing one charge and praying. It weighs my Lyman test weight and the supplied test weight correctly to a tenth of a grain.

I don't know how closely the precision and resolution of this scale are related, but that's a problem for another day. The maker claims 0.01 g, or about 0.15 grains.

Results today:

1246
1222
1247
1232
1238
1237

Average: 1237.0.

This will get the job done for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top