| Author | Message | ||
     Aaron_thomas |
Back to the original subject. I shot an LCR .357 about a week ago. Nice shooter with medium and low power rounds. Great with .38 special. Hot, or high power are a handful. also it is LOUD. My suggestion as a defense round would be the Glazer in .38 I think it would do well in the LCR. (Message edited by aaron thomas on February 12, 2014) | ||
| Reepicheep |
Cool info, thanks! | ||
| Macbuell |
I prefer DA only. I don't like a trigger pull that is different from the first shot. By the way, I read Springfield is making a 4 inch XDs. That has caught my fancy. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo, you are right that training is needed to operate any gun with switches, beyond the basics. ( safety, trigger pull, sight picture ) And I have no quarrel with the notion that simple works best under pressure. That's soooooo true. I like the Ruger LCR's a lot, and dang it, now I'm looking at those XDs's. http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/first-look-springf ield-armory-xds-9-4-0-more-of-a-good-thing-new-gun -review-2014-shot-show/ | ||
| Sifo |
Speaking of operating switches... This is a bit of a nit pick, but the slide lock has changed from the XD(m). They added a little wrap around guard molded into the frame just under the slide lock lever. It makes it much more difficult to lock the slide open. I'm not clear why the felt the need to do that. I actually find myself pushing on the guard instead of the lever. Once I get my thumb on the lever correctly, it takes a fair effort simply because the guard is in the way. I'm half tempted to shave the guard down to make it better for me. One other nit pick, the 3.3 has been shipping with a pair of short mags. The extended mag is an additional purchase. It looks like the 4.0 is going to ship with one of each. I would have liked that better. Again, I don't know why they did it that way. One final nit pick. This gun is clearly aimed at concealed carry, but ships with a holster that hangs on the outside of your belt. IMO an IWB holster would be a better option for this weapon. Of course options are available. I'm expecting on in the mail today as a matter of fact. 3.3 or 4.0? I find the 3.3 9mm to shoot just fine for a small gun. Putting any macho stuff aside, less recoil is always an improvement though... Assuming all else being equal... Which it never is. Everything compromises something. I wonder how the 4.0 would be in a .45? Field stripping the XDs is very simple too BTW. I would rather field strip and clean these than clean a revolver. Again, a nit pick, you have to pull the trigger in the field stripping process. With the XD(m) you don't pull the trigger. With the original XD you do pull the trigger. On the plus side, I read that they have a safety feature built in where it isn't supposed to fire when the lever is in the up position. I've heard that is the cause for many of the negligent discharges that happen. How people wind up field stripping a weapon with a round in the chamber, I don't know. I hope not to learn. Stuff happens. Don't be that guy. What was that first rule of gun safety again?  | ||
| Reepicheep |
I bet the .45 isn't much worse. I know the 9mm was supposed to be a "lower recoil" caliber, but I never felt that way. The 9mm is a shorter sharper recoil, which I like less than the .45 longer slower recoil (though it does likely have a little more energy). And when I reload, I put more grains of Unique in my 9mm cartridges than I do in my .45 cartridges... quite a bit more actually. | ||
| Sifo |
And when I reload, I put more grains of Unique in my 9mm cartridges than I do in my .45 cartridges... quite a bit more actually. I know it seems a bit counter intuitive, but I'm not surprised about that. It's all about the pressure developed in the chamber. All else being equal a heavier bullet does require a smaller charge. Just as an example...  Of course things get far less equal when comparing a 9mm and a .45. I do agree about the .45 being a slower recoil, making feel not as bad. There can still be significant muzzle flip that you have to deal with to get back on target, even though the recoil doesn't feel bad. Putting energy into a bullet isn't free. Have you tried any slower burning powders for your .45? It might fit better with the slower acceleration of the heavy .45 slug. Just guessing, as I don't currently load .45s. Or perhaps it should be a faster burning powder for the 9mm? I've been using Winchester 231 for the 9mm. I haven't seen 231 on the shelves for a long time though. I'm less that 1,000 rounds from having to switch if I don't find some soon. I've got a good supply of Red Dot that I know I can make work. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Yeah, I actually prefer bullseye for the .45. But I had 10 pounds of Unique to use up.  Unique is a b*&*$* to measure accurately as well. One of my kids HexBug's had to give it's life before I could get accurate throws (even with good dispensers). With the frankenstien hexbug glued to a AA battery bungeed to the dispenser, it works pretty well. | ||
| Sifo |
So I've been looking closely at a few things today. First the issue with having to pull the trigger to field strip. I tested with a spent round, and it is possible to pull the trigger on a spent round. Unless there's something that blocks the firing pin when the take down lever is up, it will fire. What you can not do is flip up the take down lever with a magazine in the weapon. This means that any round in the chamber should get ejected when the slide is pulled back, and a new round can't be loaded from a magazine in the take down process. If for some reason a round isn't getting ejected, I think it would fire as part of the take down process. It's a minor issue until someone shoots themselves in the thigh field stripping their weapon. I'm told that's possible with a certain very popular brand that I'm not personally familiar with. The XD(m) is a much better design in this matter IMO. Also I spent some time trying to understand exactly why a couple of my hand loaded semi-wad cutter rounds failed to chamber correctly. I think I found the problem. When it happened, the rounds didn't want to chamber fully. They were also tight extracting. I assumed that it may have shaved a slight bit of lead from the bullet that then bound it up going into the chamber. I tested something else though. I pulled the barrel and started sliding bullets into the chamber by hand. I found that I had a couple that were pretty snug right at the end. Checking with a caliper showed that these were just a couple of thousandths larger than new rounds. Checking my reloading dies, the sizing die wasn't quite coming up tight with the cartridge holder. After a slight adjustment it's sizing them down to fit smoothly into the chamber. I measured and the XD(m) chamber is about .001 larger than the XDs. I guess that may be just enough to matter. I'll have to make it a point to load some new rounds before next weeks shooting and verify that it runs smoothly with the reloads. I wouldn't blame the gun for this at this point, but would like to know for sure what's going on. I also plan to try shooting with my bifocal safety glasses next week. Yeah, my eyes are getting old. I'm wondering if it will matter with my shooting low. I'm thinking that with the shorter sight radius, any eye problems may get exaggerated compared to my full size guns. My "normal" sight picture has both sights blurry with a blurry target. With glasses, at least I can focus on the front sight, but the target gets way blurry. I don't practice with glasses normally simply because it won't be how I would be shooting if I ever HAD to. Whatchagonado? | ||
| Hootowl |
"I don't practice with glasses normally simply because it won't be how I would be shooting if I ever HAD to" Good idea. "Pardon me whilst I put on my glasses and grab my gun" probably isn't going to help you. Aim for the center of the blur. | ||
| Ourdee |
I also plan to try shooting with my bifocal safety glasses next week. Yeah, my eyes are getting old. I'm wondering if it will matter with my shooting low. I'm thinking that with the shorter sight radius, any eye problems may get exaggerated compared to my full size guns. My "normal" sight picture has both sights blurry with a blurry target. With glasses, at least I can focus on the front sight, but the target gets way blurry. I don't practice with glasses normally simply because it won't be how I would be shooting if I ever HAD to. Whatchagonado? Do you practice at home? SnapCaps and LaserLyte LT-PRO. Laser Trainer Pro fits in the bore of your weapon. Whet the firing pin strikes the snap-cap the laser dot shines briefly. It will show you where the gun was pointed when dry-fired. Old eyes in a dim room do not have time to acquire and align the sights on your defense hand gun like they do at the range. To use a knife for self-defense you don't sight it. Same with a handgun. It should be instinct. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Generally my failure to chamber reloads are the result of crimping too much... it crimps the top but bulges somewhere else and won't quite chamber. (And don't tell anyone, but with most lee dies you can full length resize a loaded round... shhh! ) | ||
| Sifo |
Do you practice at home? To some degree. I do occasionally dry fire, but not with a laser device like you describe. I do have a pellet gun range in the basement. I think that would qualify for home practice. Old eyes in a dim room do not have time to acquire and align the sights on your defense hand gun like they do at the range. To use a knife for self-defense you don't sight it. Same with a handgun. It should be instinct. Agreed. I do at times live fire at self defense range, just presenting the gun and firing without using the sights. It's surprising how tight you can group at 10-12 feet doing that. It's not marksman shooting, but solid center of mass. Generally my failure to chamber reloads are the result of crimping too much... it crimps the top but bulges somewhere else and won't quite chamber. I'm barely crimping these. Just enough that there's not a sharp edge to catch as it chambers. I'm a little surprised to see this happening, assuming I'm correct about it. I've never had this issue with my XD(m) or my 1911 9mm after many thousands of rounds. Testing will tell for sure. (And don't tell anyone, but with most lee dies you can full length resize a loaded round... shhh! ; ) ) They will get resized next time around. They shoot fine in my other guns. | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Reep: "Generally my failure to chamber reloads are the result of crimping too much... it crimps the top but bulges somewhere else and won't quite chamber." And Sifo: "I'm barely crimping these. Just enough that there's not a sharp edge to catch as it chambers." I hope you guys are talking about taper crimping those straight walled cases as in 9mm, 40 S&W & .45 auto because they head space on a very small ridge in the barrel and any roll crimp can cause real head space problems. | ||
| Aesquire |
G&Ammo has the new Remington R51 on the cover. It's a re-do of the old model 51, a very sophisticated design by John Pederson. Sold 1918-1927, while the new one may not have the same bluing it is very nice. Makes a Glock or the XD look like a lego. 9mm 7+1 & a unique operating system. Firing pin & grip safety. Slide release/takedown lever & mag release button . Period. In many ways an improvement on the original. Aluminum frame. You'd need to learn a new disassembly drill. Single action trigger. A very nice one per article. Good sights. I am in lust. "Xd, who's xd??" . | ||
| Sifo |
I hope you guys are talking about taper crimping those straight walled cases as in 9mm, 40 S&W & .45 auto because they head space on a very small ridge in the barrel and any roll crimp can cause real head space problems. Yep. G&Ammo has the new Remington R51 on the cover. ... Perhaps. Perhaps not. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/02/foghorn/g un-review-remington-r51/ I've been through "slide bite" shooting a Walther PPK. It really takes the fun out of shooting. Their point about being able to assemble it incorrectly is a pretty big issue too. The fact that it will "sort of" work when assembled incorrectly is a huge potential problem. This gun might be worth a look, but personally, I would really take a hard look and want to fire it some before a purchase. Not being able to test it would be a deal breaker for me. I was willing to chance the XDs. I also would have chanced the LCR had I gone that route. To be fair, the XDs had a pretty serious flaw when it was released too. They did a recall and got it sorted. Remington can likely sort out some of their issues too. The slide bite is probably there to stay though... If you have a knuckle that gets hit by it. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Correct, the lee dies are taper crimp. | ||
| Aesquire |
Thanks it is a new gun and the first reports are always uncritical. Still , the R51 looks great and I will have to try it to see if it fits or bites. | ||
| Sifo |
So I made a new batch of bullets to try out, but let me back up a bit first. This would certainly apply to anyone using the Lee turret press, and probably many others too. The instructions for the sizing die say to set it so the shell holder just touches the base of the die. That's how I set it up... But the Die holder has a bit of tolerance built into it, so when you push a shell into the die, the whole thing moves up just a bit. I've now readjusted the die to just touches the shell holder with the slop taken up. It's not much, but it does make a measurable difference. So I built a new batch to try in the XDs, and decided to test fit them in the chamber by hand. They are still pretty snug, but better than before. The slide seems to slam them into battery OK, but it's stiff pulling them back out. So I thought I would do some measuring and compare to the 9mm specs...  Image from Modern Reloading Second Edition by Richard Lee So the spec for the base of the shell is .391, I assume that's a maximum tolerance. My hand loads are sized to about .3885, well within the max spec. For comparison the Hornady Critial Defense rounds measured at .386, a bit smaller than the hand loads. Both are measuring .378 at the front of the shell, well within tolerance. The chamber of the XDs measured right at .391 at the base. That leaves room in theory, but doesn't leave much for any imperfections. I'm surprised to see the chamber right at the max spec for the ammo though. That would make ammo that is still within spec almost an interference fit. That just doesn't seem right to me. Anyone have experience with these details? I'm sure there has to be similar specs for the 9mm chamber out there. | ||
| Sifo |
OK, the SAAMI specs were easy to find. http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Pistol/9mm%20Luger%20-%209mm%20Luger%20+P.pdf  So as I understand this, the spec for the mouth of the chamber is .395 with a +.004 tolerance. Is that right? If I measured mine accurately then mine is .004 out of spec! Thoughts? I will be re measuring that later BTW. It's pretty easy to error on the low side measuring an ID. Hopefully I goofed with the caliper, but then why the snug ammo? I'm slightly frustrated at this point, but if a problem is confirmed, I have little doubt it will be made right. AAARRRRGGGGHHHH! | ||
| Macbuell |
Review of the r51 http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/02/foghorn/g un-review-remington-r51/ | ||
| Reepicheep |
The chamber is part of the barrel, right? So maybe a new barrel will do it for not too much $. And maybe a dowel rod with some 1000 grit sandpaper in the chamber will solve it in 15 minutes. You cleaned your brass, right? | ||
| Sifo |
I would thing that if it's down to a new barrel Springfield will take care of it. I haven't done any thing more yet, but yesterday I did compare the XD(m) barrel and the XDs barrel, and the XD(m) was about .001 bigger. That seemed perfectly reasonable to me at the time, but now I'm thinking that would also be undersized. There's got to be something I'm missing here.  | ||
| Aesquire |
How are you measuring the inside diameter? On a hole that small I would prefer an inside micrometer or vernier with pins. The flats on a regular vernier will read small. In a shop I would check my readings with a pin gauge, but I don'have a set at home. A good smith will be able to make a cast of the chamber. | ||
| Sifo |
I'm measuring with a dial caliper. It is very easy to get a under sized reading with that. Admittedly, I was doing a pretty quick measurement. I'm certainly not ruling out that I Bozoed the measurement... On both barrels... Almost exactly the same. I'm still wondering if I read the drawing correctly, but no one is explaining to me that I'm a dummy... Yet. Most times I've gone through this sort of thing, the light bulb eventually comes on and my face turns red. I'm still hoping that will be the case. Maybe tomorrow I'll get the motivation to strip the guns down and take some very careful measurements. Even on a bad measurement, I shouldn't be off by .004 inches. | ||
| Aesquire |
There's a small flat on the inside measuring part of a caliper. If it was a sharp edge it would dull quick and give bad readings. On an inside diameter it will measure small, but not usually .004 on a 3/8" hole. a bunch of "tenths" off though. and the error gets bigger as the hole gets smaller. you'd have to measure the flat & do the trig to get a correction number, and that measurement is a pain, because it's at the end of a taper. Also that .391" dia. is a half inch from the end of the cartridge. It continues to taper until you get to the extractor groove. You've only got .0003" clearance on a tight ( but good ) chamber. I'd say measure some factory new, loaded, ammo from Hornady to compare. They seem to be precise as all get out. Remember, this is all 18-19th century stuff, the 9mm cartridge is over a century old. | ||
| Sifo |
After remeasuring the chamber, it measures at .392. I compared to two other 9mm chambers and they were the same. Neither has a problem feeding this same ammo. I'm not sure what the issue is at this point, but I don't think it's as simple and obvious as too tight of a chamber. Could the flats really get me measuring .003 too small? I lack the practical experience to know, and that sort of math was never my strong suit. I'm happy with three chambers that measure the same. I did measure the Critical Defense rounds, posted the results earlier. They were very consistent at .386 near the base. I'll see how the new batch of hand loads feed. It's running great on factory ammo, so not much of a worry, but this sort of thing just bugs the heck out of me. That .391 measurement is .504 inches from the end of the casing BTW, not that I think that would change anything.  | ||
| Aesquire |
Tolerances can stack up... I'd look for bulges in the brass at the base of the bullet, 9mm's can be finicky depending on the bell you put on the case, and different makes of cases can have different wall thicknesses that mess with you. ( other times the 9mm is a breeze.....go figure ) The chamber could be fine, taking a cast may be the only "easy" way to tell. They make an alloy that shrinks when it cools in a very predictable way, ( you just read off the chart ) and melts at a low enough temperature that it won't hurt the barrel at all. Or you could be cursed. Annoy any witches?  | ||
| Sifo |
Laying in bed this morning the light bulb went on.  There's a couple of things going on. Or "Tolerances can stack up..." So when I got my 9mm 1911 I had some feed problems with that gun too. I read that because it was designed to feed a slightly longer .45 ACP, 9mm have some problems. These problems can be made better by setting the bullet slightly longer. It seems to have solved the feeding problems on the 1911. It caused no problems with my XD(m) either. The XDs though is choking. Simply setting the bullet about .010 deeper solves the problem. I think it's probably worse because I'm using semi-wadcutters, so there's no taper for a ways. I colored the slug's shoulder with a marker then put it in the chamber, running it up to the point of friction a few times to wear the marker off. Looking with a magnifying glass you can see it's worn pretty evenly around the circumference at the shoulder, so it doesn't look like I'm hitting the rifling yet, and shouldn't be looking at the chamber specs. It looks like the chamber specs show a taper between the end of the shell casing and the beginning of the rifling. I think it's hitting that taper, it doesn't look like rifling causing the wear. So this can be rectified, but I'll have to start over checking pressures again, depending on what notes I still have from a few years ago. Annoy any witches? When possible. | ||
| Aesquire |
That makes sense. Also good advice for a 9mm 1911. And shows a point in favor of revolvers. Mostly they don' t care what you feed them. They do insist on a good solid crimp. Especially in hard kicking light guns. If the bullet slides forward under recoil it can bind the cylinder and "tap-rack-bang" isn't the answer. |
