More Powder Measure data

Well I tried some Unique powder today in my RCBS Uniflow

The grains are much larger than the Acura #5 and make it easier to handle and far less likely to spill.

It also gave better numbers

Count 70
Min 5.8
Average 5.966
Max 6.1
Stdev 0.0796
Within 99% 5.76< X <6.17
3 sigma 99.73% 5.73< X <6.20
Within 99.99% 5.66< X <6.28

The Max-Min divergence is much better, and the Stdev is better too.

I'm also running into resolution and accuracy issues with my scale. I've found I have to wait when the AC is on. A deflection means was selected in GBC.

When I get my own copy of the Lyman book I can check more centered in the safe range (4.8 to 6.2 grains). Here I was just running with 6.0 as my point of aim.

But I think with this powder I could have better results.

I'll need to test at the range of course.

One warning I did get was that Unique burns very dirty.

Some Powder Measure Data

The following was done using an RCBS Uniflow powder measure with an activated linkage in a Lee Turret Press. I used Accura #5 powder.

I had the rotation activation in so to get each powder measure the turret would do a full rotation. I used a Hornady GS-1500 scale with a resolution of 0.1 grains, in a room with some AC air blowing around.

For the 230 grain bullet at this load the range between starting and do not exceed is:
Jacketed : 7.8 grains to 8.7 grains.
Lead Cast : 7.7 grains to 8.5 grains.
Intersect : 7.8 grains to 8.5 grains.

First I tried the rig without any baffle:

Count 52
Min 8.6
Average 8.935
Max 9.2
Stdev 0.153
Within 99% 8.54< X <9.33
3 sigma 99.73% 8.47< X <9.39
Within 99.99% 8.34< X <9.53
99.999999% 8.06< X <9.81


Then I cleared out the powder dispenser and put a powder baffle in:
No changes to the powder settings.

Count 55
Min 7.8
Average 8.120
Max 8.3
Stdev 0.101
Within 99% 7.86< X <8.38
3 sigma 99.73% 7.82< X <8.42
Within 99.99% 7.73< X <8.51
99.999999% 7.54< X <8.70

The baffle has a definite improvement in performance.
(Note any numbers beyond a tenth of a grain are purely speculative given the limits of my measuring instrument)

Though the accuracy still leaves something to be desired.


The gents on GBC have some suggestions that I'll agree with. It could be the dispenser. A Dillion was recommended. It could be the the scale. It could be the airflow from the vents (using a three sided box with a top was recommended and is a simple test).

One thing is important, a scale with better resolution would be quite helpful. As it is now I'm just spitballing.

Though the difference between baffle and no baffle is at least large enough for me to see.

Next up is doing the enclosure test to see what that gives me.

Edit: Realized I goofed on my percent band calculations. Corrected

Back on the horse.

Or as Wally describes it "garbing the hair of the dog."

After yesterday's ka-boom I actually cleaned myself up, gathered the parts, and then fired 50 rounds out of my backup 1911 (an old Kimber Pro-Carry II).

Full disclosure the ammunition I used was from a lot I had made on Friday that was done at starting loads and that I had measured each casing.

And in more hair of the dog... well I went to the Indy 1500 today:

It's another used Kimber TLE. I didn't get this one for quite as good as good of a price as my last one, the splody, but this one is almost new and was still quite nice. And looking at the prices of new Kimbers they're still a bad joke. Hell, this one is mostly for sentimental reasons, and I can still make a fun range and fine carry gun with it.

The other is a new S&W 1911 E series. Which was also for a real agreeable price. And had a neat "blocky" style to it.

I took both to the range today and they preformed perfectly fine. Though I've only out about 75 rounds through each (74 for the Kimber, 81 for the S&W) so it's too early to tell how they'll really preform.

It was nice to have a fund set aside, as I was planning on getting a second full size 1911, just didn't plan on having to get two.

Also had a great blogmeet today. Will update more on that later.

Update: Here's Roberta's report

1911 Ka-Boom

On my 1911 I had a case rupture with the chambered round.

Edit: Sorry for the horrible quality on the photos. My camera sucks and I'm rather awful at taking photos.

That then detonated the next round in the magazine

Here you can see the two cases followed by the next in line

This was a 230 grain winchester loaded with Acura #5 to the Lee do not excede value

So I either overcharged it, the case was bad, or there was something else. The previous week I had a double fire that I thought was due to me not putting a primer in deep enough. And I did strip and check the gun.

Though now I'm wondering, as I inspected all the primers for today's shooting.

I also found this

Sorry for the poor image quality, but that little spec between the firing pin and the casing was found attached to the tip of the firing pin. It was either attached to the pin before and acting like some sort of extender. Which is very bad.

Or it blew off from the case that went boom and stuck to the pin. Note the hole on the primer of the ruptured case.

Very minimal damage to myself with some stippling to my cheek. So wear your damn glasses

The grips shattered. Slide looks okay, frame looks okay. I have to remove the bad case from the barrel. But I'll need to have it checked by someone who has an idea what's going on before I fire it again. I'll ask at the next blogmeet who is good to send it too.


I still have to do a full strip (of the lockwork) to see if I can spot anything obviously wrong.

I also have to take apart the remaining cartridges from the lot the kaboom came from to see what loadings they had.

Update:

I did a detail strip and found a few things that even I can tell are wrong.
1) The sear pin is bent. Visibly bent, bent to where it can't go back into the frame.
2) The firing pin block actuator is a little bit bent too.
3) Worst of all there's a frame crack.

I couldn't get a good photo of the crack itself, but it's in the back of the frame where the disconnector and sear would rest. The web of metal between those parts and the magazine well.

The crack goes the full length up to the top platform.

So as Wally says: one firearm passes, another is born.
I've stripped her down and an now in the market for another 1911.
At least some of the parts are reusable. I'll definitely get the sights swapped out and put on my other 1911.

Update2: I've weighed out the powders from the remaining cartridges from that lot. And found a couple ones that were heavy by half a grain of powder. Which is very bad with a batch that nominally was brought up to the Lee do not exceed limit.

I can see that being a very likely factor. Maybe add in a case that had been shot too many times (I have been using range recoveries). And then an out of battery issue.

Added: The out of battery issue was the occasional (twice) and non repeatable double fire. Which could have been caused by that bit of extra primer metal atop the firing pin, if it was acting like an "open breach" firing pin, and struck the primer prematurely.

In total that's where I could have had a cartridge go off before the gun is in battery and not only would it be less supported but overly hot charged. Multiple bad things adding up to a big boom.

Added Monday: Here's another embarrassing thing that's so basic I just thought to check: Round count. Based on the notes I took and the storage bags I put the parts in there were 6 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. I loaded that magazine with 8 cartridges. And my memory is quite clear this happened on the first trigger pull.

Thus after the first bullet was fired, the brass was extracted, ejected, and the slide came forward, picked up the next round, and then as it put it into the firing chamber detonated it without me hitting the trigger. Scary. And more support to the failure stack and how you have to do a detailed check when something starts going strange.

That seems like a failure stack.

So, stick with the starting throws, keep an eye on your powder measure consistency. And if you do any thing hot or weird with your loading measure every single case.

Lessons learned:

Wear your safety glasses. They're important and could save your eyes.

Inspect your ammo, especially if you reload. Check the casings and the powder loading.

Checking powder loadings goes double when you start to approach the do not exceed line.

Detail check your gun whenever something odd happens. A bit of debris may be in there or something may work.

Tre more lessons:

Bring a medical kit. Even for minor injuries having something to clean up with, and a mirror to check yourself out are handy.

Use a logbook. If you reload keep log of every lot you made, when you made it, and any changes in your system. Been a big help on diagnosing this.

Have backups if you can. I have another 1911 that I can use as a carry piece until I get a replacement.

Not a fun way to end a range trip, but could have been worse.

Some final notes and a solution plan:


1) When running red/hot loads check the weight of every single load. In fact use the rig to load them a bit light and use a powder trickler to put to full charge

2) Be more careful on inspecting brass. Especially for high pressure needs. Get more new brass to use for such roles. This also means scrounging for range brass is not such a wise idea.

3) Even when you think you've solved a fault, still do a full detail strip. As there may be more than one failure at work.

Also it looks like the frame can be restored with the crack welded and put to use as a dedicated 22 long rifle gun. It's too compromised for higher pressures, but that's a way to get something out of this. I also have the parts for the conversion.

Also I'd like to thank everyone at GBC for their help on diagnosing this: Phssthpok, Wally C-90_Fl and anyone else I may have missed.

If you can buy in bulk.

Especially if you get free shipping.

Which is always handy when you're ordering this:

That's one box of two. You see you get free shipping if you get two thousand. Which given that many bullets in .45" weigh about 65lbs it's mighty handy

At least now The Dog seems a bit more enthused.

On Slopes and Stupid Nannies

On reflection Mr. A said something else familiar yesterday.

He pulled the line of Of First World nations only the US doesn't take care of its people's health.

Nice to see all the Medicaid, Medicare, and other gov spending doesn't count.

Now note, that he is saying this in reference to Bloomberg banning beverages greater than 16 ounces, for your own good. The other First World Nations, even with the most socialized healthcare systsms, don't do that.

But who cares about a detail like that, his argument ad peer pressure justifies it! It's a healthcare crisis!

He also goes on to demand that maybe the US shouldn't count as a First World nation because people are too fat. Nevermind that having such an abundance of cheap food to the point where the poor can afford to be overweight is the definition of a "First World Problem".

This is using the modern usage of "First World".

Under the old usage the US and the West was the First World, the USSR and its allies was the Second World, and the rest were the Third World.

One would think a champagne socialist would like the US to longer be a First World Nation. Though the Second World failed, and that's why you don't hear that term much anymore.

Then he notes the UK also has very high levels of obesity.

Huh. So much for the US being unique among First World nations... Oh and then he stated that Mexico came in 2nd after the US. I didn't check his values or try to refute him for one important reason.

Unlike Mr. A I don't think having too many "fatties" means that the government gets to treat the public like a bunch of children. Our rights are not contingent on having a certain BMI. One wonders what obesity rate it'll take to start disenfranchising citizens.


Now he also used the exact same peer pressure argument to demand the US get Socialized Healthcare, and housing and everything else to "ensure all in the US have a First World Life."

Complete with "All the other nations do it" and "If the US doesn't then it shouldn't be First World."

Remember the old definition of First World Nation? Savor the delicous irony of the demand that entry to the First World club requires more socialism and vast command control and nationalization of entire industries. Of course much of Western Europe was very command control and socialzied, even (perhaps especially) after the War.


Also take note that his "First World Peer Pressure" doesn't count with the RTKBA. Because, well, he wants a gun.

Just for home defense you see. He thinks that carrying a gun is an unessicary gamble, because "You can always move to neighborhood safe enough to where the odds of needing it are vanishingly small."

(And this is the same man that'd take the idea that somoene should save up for their medical costs in a rainy day fund as being hopelessly out of touch and doesn't even cover sudden emergencies.)

But Healthcare is different!


But back to the peer pressure point. He wants a gun (partially because he fears societal collapse), and while he doesn't see the need to carry he doesn't mind peolpe carrying guns (and thinks he might need to some day).

But wait! Isn't the US unique among First World Nations in having permissive shall issue carry and other such RTKBA laws in the vast majority of the country?

But hey, just because the goverment doesn't want to trust the public with bottles of sugar water above a certian size doesn't mean that they're a mass of wanna-be aristocrats that dream of manor-houses, servants, and harnessing the good and noble peasantry.

I'm sure such mandarins would be okay with you having a gun.

I'm also reminded of this bit Roger L Simon said today:

The thing about modern liberalism that most liberals don’t see is that it is so unbelievably square and conventional, so hopelessly old-fashioned. It is the most unexamined of unexamined wisdom. It’s not even an ideology. It’s a pose.

Consider Mr. A's reflexive defense of proposed policies from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. How square. He had to be the "Parent" and lecture on about how such bans were for your own good young man.


Ah yes, the head of a massive gun control organization telling us what the "Founding Fathers fought for" Clearly the Founders fought for a country where a Mayor can tell the proles what size cups they can use.

And yes the Founders had no stances vis a vis state control of beverages. Nope none at all.
You'd think a man that reflexivly blames the Tea Party for every terrorist threat in his city would be a bit quicker on the uptake.

Though not all in the Baron's court are pleased with the action their mayor-for-life is taking.

Yes, this is a big deal. The City Council can’t kill the ban — when it comes to controlling what you eat, NYC is no democracy — but Quinn’s opposition carries political significance. She’s president of the Council and a Democrat and a Bloomberg ally and usually a supporter of his little health crusades and a very strong contender to succeed him as mayor. If she’s abandoning ship, it can only be because she’s not confident that the ban is being well received even in the deep blue utopia of NYC."

A tactical retreat eh? Well clearly folk like Mr. A and Bloomberg are simply ahead of the curve. Just too far ahead for Quinn's tastes.


And here's more on Bloomberg's Donut Day That shows a sinful hat-trick:

To celebrate the historical milestone, Entenmann’s will present a donation check for $25,000 to The Salvation Army, unveil the largest box of Entenmann’s Donuts ever created along with custom-made donuts 1-foot in diameter, and share a Proclamation Letter from Mayor Bloomberg.

So we have (1) a giant donut, (2) a record breakinly large box of donughts, and (3) Big Sugar giving blood money to "The Poor".
Via WeaselZippers

But don't worry, in a previous Proclamation the Baron of Manhattan has, in his infitint grace and generosity, declared that donuts are not a sin, if you meet his consumption in moderation guides. So enjoy your donut proles and rejoice!


Meanwhile the math of his donuts are okay, soda is bad doesn't even add up:

Bloomberg uses the 32-ounce serving size as a comparison, though, not the 20-ounce size. Assuming that a 32-ounce serving of Coke would equal 384 calories at 12 calories per ounce, how do donuts stack up? Four donuts on the Dunkin’ Donuts list exceed that calorie count — Apple Crumb, Blueberry Crumb, Apple Fritter (which was my favorite when I could still eat them), and Glazed Fritter. Three more come in at almost the same calorie count, at 380 calories – Maple Frosted Coffee Roll, Vanilla Frosted Coffee Roll, and Chocolate Frosted Coffee Roll.

While we’re at it, have a peek at the other breakfast options, too. Try the sausage, egg, and cheese sandwich on either bagel and croissant and you’ll ingest almost twice as many calories in that 32-ounce Coke: 640 calories. None of the breakfast sandwiches listed fall below that 20-ounce level of calories. And also note that these are the basic units of consumption for all of these choices; there is no smaller quantity available, as there are with beverage sizes.

Clearly, celebrating donuts while attacking a serving size choice in liquid beverages is not just hypocritical, but absurd. It’s a demonstration of the basic stupidity inherent in a nanny-state regime, and in the nanny-state martinets themselves.

This is my shocked face.

You mean that the ineffective, pointlessly infringing and intrusive law shows an arbitrary and unfair bias?

I'm sure Bloomberg will fix it by putting in some size restrictions for donuts next.

Unforced Errors of Statists.

It's funny that a so-called liberal, has an inate desire to defend controlling mandates and bans.

Though when your central thesis is "The people are stupid and the State should make them better", you tend to take sides of the barons looking to harness the proles.

No matter how ridiculous the law is, it seems Mr. A and his type have to jump up and roll around in it.

There's no: "Well yes, I see the noble intention of such a law, but really isn't it a bit much?"
Or: "Yeah it's a crazy overreaction to a crisis, we should look for more productive solutions."

Because that would imply that there are limits to what the State can do. And as the previous post shows, folk like Mr. A cannot accept that.

Unless it directly infringes on his lifestyle.