- Messages
- 3,032
- Reactions
- 6,259
Can we all come over and watch?? Will there be beer?
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Share your hand loading mistakes!
- Thread Starter Fieryotaku
- Start date
Okay, where is that "reloading mistakes" thread? Oh, here it is, 39 pages long.
My latest bonehead play. Prepping 430 nickel plated .223 cases. Which I planned to prime but not charge and seat bullets in. I got to the priming stage, went into the room where the cabinet is that I keep primers in. I reached in and selected a sleeve of Remington No. 7-1/2 small rifle ("Bench Rest," yeah, whatever). I primed 100 cases, then went and did something else. Later, I came back to resume the project. I went to the same cabinet and selected three more sleeves of what I thought were Rem. No. 7-1/2's. I went into the reloading area and got started on those. I had done 52 more cases (placed on top of the previous 100 done) before I discovered that the latest sleeves of primers were actually Remington 1-1/2, not 7-1/2. Which is bad news. Because Rem. 1-1/2 isn't even good for higher pressure pistol and revolver loads, much less .223. The cups are too thin. Use 1-1/2 in .223, there may be the experience of pierced primers, which damage bolt and breech faces.
I cannot completely deny responsibility for this mistake. In my defense, however, the packaging on the two is so similar it's easy to confuse at a glance. Which reinforces the doctrine of maintaining vigilance in every aspect of reloading.
Okay, remember I placed the 1-1.2 primed cases on top of the previously done 100 each 7-1/2's. I had 52 bad pieces to look for. I figured I'd decap the primers on all the cases laying on top, those were for sure bad. But how about that transition zone? After looking at samples of each, it was possible to detect a difference in the color of the priming compound. But not while the primers were seated in a case. Out of an abundance of caution, I decapped all 152 of them. Most of the 7-1/2 primers I was able to re-use. All 48 the 1-1/2's had been too tightly compressed to reseat properly in small pistol primer pockets.
I will never again buy a single Remington primer. Before the current famine, I didn't use Rem. primers. Simply because they always seemed to cost a dollar or two more per brick than competing brands. For no good reason that I could see. With the current famine, a few times I've had the choice of Remington primers or nothing. So, that's how I wound up with a product that I didn't prefer.
Next, of the domestically made primers, Remington are made the smallest in diameter. So they don't always seat with enough friction in the pocket to satisfy me. One thing I really hate is loose primers.
And thirdly, their system of application really sucks. There is that thing with 6-1/2 vs. 7-1/2 "Bench Rest" small rifle primers. The 6-1/2 is made for .22 Hornet and other (few though they are in use now) lower pressure, centerfire cartridges that take small rifle primers. Anything with pressure higher than .22 Hornet takes the 7-1/2 "Bench Rest" primer. You don't want to be burning hot plasma holes in the face of an expensive rifle bolt. With that restriction, from a business standpoint, it doesn't even make sense to produce a primer that is only good for .22 Hornet and a few others. Why not just adopt the same protocol of other makers of primers, that is, "standard" and "magnum." Where such distinctions exist. Winchester, for example, doesn't even make a special "magnum" primer for small rifle.
The situation with the Rem. 1-1/2 and 5-1/2 is similar. The 1-1/2 is for lower pressure small pistol loads; the 5-1/2 is for higher pressure loads. According to Remington, the 1-1/2 is okay for 9mm Luger, but not .40 S&W or .357 Magnum. Yet some people have had issues with 1-1/2's in 9mm, like brass flow into the firing pin aperture. So, even Remington's range of recommendations is not accurate. Maybe this system made sense back when more people were shooting .38 revolvers, and semi auto pistols hadn't yet taken over the market. Also, 9mm wasn't always loaded as hot as some factory loads are now. I think when Super Vel ammo came out in the 1960's, this was the beginning of the chase for ever higher velocities (and pressures) in 9mm. That Rem. 1-1/2 primer is decades late in being obsolete.
My latest bonehead play. Prepping 430 nickel plated .223 cases. Which I planned to prime but not charge and seat bullets in. I got to the priming stage, went into the room where the cabinet is that I keep primers in. I reached in and selected a sleeve of Remington No. 7-1/2 small rifle ("Bench Rest," yeah, whatever). I primed 100 cases, then went and did something else. Later, I came back to resume the project. I went to the same cabinet and selected three more sleeves of what I thought were Rem. No. 7-1/2's. I went into the reloading area and got started on those. I had done 52 more cases (placed on top of the previous 100 done) before I discovered that the latest sleeves of primers were actually Remington 1-1/2, not 7-1/2. Which is bad news. Because Rem. 1-1/2 isn't even good for higher pressure pistol and revolver loads, much less .223. The cups are too thin. Use 1-1/2 in .223, there may be the experience of pierced primers, which damage bolt and breech faces.
I cannot completely deny responsibility for this mistake. In my defense, however, the packaging on the two is so similar it's easy to confuse at a glance. Which reinforces the doctrine of maintaining vigilance in every aspect of reloading.
Okay, remember I placed the 1-1.2 primed cases on top of the previously done 100 each 7-1/2's. I had 52 bad pieces to look for. I figured I'd decap the primers on all the cases laying on top, those were for sure bad. But how about that transition zone? After looking at samples of each, it was possible to detect a difference in the color of the priming compound. But not while the primers were seated in a case. Out of an abundance of caution, I decapped all 152 of them. Most of the 7-1/2 primers I was able to re-use. All 48 the 1-1/2's had been too tightly compressed to reseat properly in small pistol primer pockets.
I will never again buy a single Remington primer. Before the current famine, I didn't use Rem. primers. Simply because they always seemed to cost a dollar or two more per brick than competing brands. For no good reason that I could see. With the current famine, a few times I've had the choice of Remington primers or nothing. So, that's how I wound up with a product that I didn't prefer.
Next, of the domestically made primers, Remington are made the smallest in diameter. So they don't always seat with enough friction in the pocket to satisfy me. One thing I really hate is loose primers.
And thirdly, their system of application really sucks. There is that thing with 6-1/2 vs. 7-1/2 "Bench Rest" small rifle primers. The 6-1/2 is made for .22 Hornet and other (few though they are in use now) lower pressure, centerfire cartridges that take small rifle primers. Anything with pressure higher than .22 Hornet takes the 7-1/2 "Bench Rest" primer. You don't want to be burning hot plasma holes in the face of an expensive rifle bolt. With that restriction, from a business standpoint, it doesn't even make sense to produce a primer that is only good for .22 Hornet and a few others. Why not just adopt the same protocol of other makers of primers, that is, "standard" and "magnum." Where such distinctions exist. Winchester, for example, doesn't even make a special "magnum" primer for small rifle.
The situation with the Rem. 1-1/2 and 5-1/2 is similar. The 1-1/2 is for lower pressure small pistol loads; the 5-1/2 is for higher pressure loads. According to Remington, the 1-1/2 is okay for 9mm Luger, but not .40 S&W or .357 Magnum. Yet some people have had issues with 1-1/2's in 9mm, like brass flow into the firing pin aperture. So, even Remington's range of recommendations is not accurate. Maybe this system made sense back when more people were shooting .38 revolvers, and semi auto pistols hadn't yet taken over the market. Also, 9mm wasn't always loaded as hot as some factory loads are now. I think when Super Vel ammo came out in the 1960's, this was the beginning of the chase for ever higher velocities (and pressures) in 9mm. That Rem. 1-1/2 primer is decades late in being obsolete.
That's a bummer.
Yes, I know about this. I only load .45 Colt for my little .45 Colt / ,.410 shotgun. So I bought the cheapest set of dies, Lee. During the height of our recent (current?) famine, the only .45 Colt bullet I could buy from Midway was the FTX factory second. I don't even need the FTX bullet tip design for a single shot, but when it's the only thing available, you take it. Of course the .45 version is a broad bullet, so my issue wasn't so much with crushing the tip as it was caving in the metal nose of the bullet. I drilled out the plug in the seating die to broaden the area of contact and that helped. I'm not through all 100 of these yet. In the meantime, at a gun show I found 100 RP 250 gr. JHP for the future.
- Messages
- 19,861
- Reactions
- 55,418
While I don't necessarily consider this a mistake only because I caught it.
After I had a sizing problem with my first attempt at case prepping 556 years ago when I first started loading, I have been anal about the process by using a case gauge, barrels to plunk test and stopping when I notice when something just doesn't feel right.
As some of you must know that I have been going to town loading with my new to me ammo plant and enjoying speeding up the process, however I'm slowly getting used to it.
Last evening I was loading up some Sig 9mm nickel cases that I found on one of brasswhoring excursion. Giddily I was plugging away and then it happens, I attempted to insert a bullet into a sized, flared and charged case. This was proving futile so I removed it and upon further inspection I noticed that the case was split almost down to the case head.
It wasn't soon after that happened, another bullet would not fit in the flare, it too was cracked but only about a quarter of an inch. Even as slow as I work with this new press I rechecked the flare die to make sure it was set just right and it was so I decided to slow down and finish the rest. No more splits thank goodness.
After completing the loading my next task was to double check the OAL and case gauge check all rounds. The overall length on 98% were acceptable and others I believe in the beginning and the end of the session without a full set on the shell plate were the culprits but they were easy enough to correct.
The case gauge operation was another story, out of the 200 there were 18 cases that did not seat fully and slide out, they stuck. I tested them in the barrel of my XDM and sure enough, they all failed the plunk test.
After pulling the rounds down, I inspected further and there was a deformity, a crease, 1/8 inch up from the head. I made a case head checker from some bailing wire and I can feel something like corrosion while scratching inside where the deformities appear on the outside. I do not feel long creases or splits inside the cases.
This is very puzzling
When I get back out in the shop tomorrow I am double checking those loaded cases for signs of a crease or other defects.
After I had a sizing problem with my first attempt at case prepping 556 years ago when I first started loading, I have been anal about the process by using a case gauge, barrels to plunk test and stopping when I notice when something just doesn't feel right.
As some of you must know that I have been going to town loading with my new to me ammo plant and enjoying speeding up the process, however I'm slowly getting used to it.
Last evening I was loading up some Sig 9mm nickel cases that I found on one of brasswhoring excursion. Giddily I was plugging away and then it happens, I attempted to insert a bullet into a sized, flared and charged case. This was proving futile so I removed it and upon further inspection I noticed that the case was split almost down to the case head.
It wasn't soon after that happened, another bullet would not fit in the flare, it too was cracked but only about a quarter of an inch. Even as slow as I work with this new press I rechecked the flare die to make sure it was set just right and it was so I decided to slow down and finish the rest. No more splits thank goodness.
After completing the loading my next task was to double check the OAL and case gauge check all rounds. The overall length on 98% were acceptable and others I believe in the beginning and the end of the session without a full set on the shell plate were the culprits but they were easy enough to correct.
The case gauge operation was another story, out of the 200 there were 18 cases that did not seat fully and slide out, they stuck. I tested them in the barrel of my XDM and sure enough, they all failed the plunk test.
After pulling the rounds down, I inspected further and there was a deformity, a crease, 1/8 inch up from the head. I made a case head checker from some bailing wire and I can feel something like corrosion while scratching inside where the deformities appear on the outside. I do not feel long creases or splits inside the cases.
This is very puzzling
When I get back out in the shop tomorrow I am double checking those loaded cases for signs of a crease or other defects.
- Messages
- 3,032
- Reactions
- 6,259
Dude! That's a LOT of experience. Almost Biblical!
Does this new set-up use case feeder? My slow tedious method seems to weed out split cases. (though I've had VERY FEW to weed out over the years) Using the Rock Chucker there's a different feel when you hit a split case. In your second picture, it looks to me that the line I'm seeing is just where the die stops and the webbing begins? No? Up to this point I have never encountered a case head ready to rupture. Whenever I see a line, and test with the paper clip/dental pick, I've never found one.While I don't necessarily consider this a mistake only because I caught it.
After I had a sizing problem with my first attempt at case prepping 556 years ago when I first started loading, I have been anal about the process by using a case gauge, barrels to plunk test and stopping when I notice when something just doesn't feel right.
As some of you must know that I have been going to town loading with my new to me ammo plant and enjoying speeding up the process, however I'm slowly getting used to it.
Last evening I was loading up some Sig 9mm nickel cases that I found on one of brasswhoring excursion. Giddily I was plugging away and then it happens, I attempted to insert a bullet into a sized, flared and charged case. This was proving futile so I removed it and upon further inspection I noticed that the case was split almost down to the case head.
It wasn't soon after that happened, another bullet would not fit in the flare, it too was cracked but only about a quarter of an inch. Even as slow as I work with this new press I rechecked the flare die to make sure it was set just right and it was so I decided to slow down and finish the rest. No more splits thank goodness.
After completing the loading my next task was to double check the OAL and case gauge check all rounds. The overall length on 98% were acceptable and others I believe in the beginning and the end of the session without a full set on the shell plate were the culprits but they were easy enough to correct.
The case gauge operation was another story, out of the 200 there were 18 cases that did not seat fully and slide out, they stuck. I tested them in the barrel of my XDM and sure enough, they all failed the plunk test.
After pulling the rounds down, I inspected further and there was a deformity, a crease, 1/8 inch up from the head. I made a case head checker from some bailing wire and I can feel something like corrosion while scratching inside where the deformities appear on the outside. I do not feel long creases or splits inside the cases.
This is very puzzling
When I get back out in the shop tomorrow I am double checking those loaded cases for signs of a crease or other defects.
View attachment 1774811 View attachment 1774812 View attachment 1774813
I've run very few nickel cases over the years, but have heard of them possibly being brittle? But I've got some nickel .40 cal that has been loaded 3-4 times with no issue.
I've found that buying shiny, clean, once fired brass that the seller has just decapped, and not sized. So maybe "good to go" means good to size and prime?
- Messages
- 19,861
- Reactions
- 55,418
No case feeder yet. The case went through resizer but didn't flare so it might have been cracked before I put it on the press, don't know.
Once I get back from town I'll check the rest.
- Messages
- 19,861
- Reactions
- 55,418
Did the guy specifically say they were fully processed?
Yes, lesson learned.
Proper case preparation is the most time-consuming aspect of reloading. When someone says "fully prepped," we assume resized and trimmed, not just cleaned. Even resized and trimmed, rifle cases usually still require chamfering / deburring. And look out for dings in the mouths, those can happen after being fully prepped.
And, as we are already in the reloading mistakes thread. Every once in a while I find a case that I've worked on that made it through the process without being sized. Rarely, now, but once in a while.
Agreed, wasn't anyone from the site. It was advertised as sized, trimed and ready to load. I measured a bunch before I loaded all lengths were good and even case gauged a bunch. All checked out.
I am interested in knowing the cause of this defect.
During the course of cleaning some 9mm fired brass the other day, I noted one case that had split during firing. Which made me ponder; it isn't often that we see a 9mm case that fatigue splits.
I use cartridge headspace gauges on all the rifle cases. I like the L.E. Wilson design. I've had Lymans, they are okay. Lately, I bought a 243 gauge made by Hornady, I don't like it as much as the Wilson.
I don't use cartridge gauges for handgun ammo. I've never found it necessary. For one thing, straight wall cases don't tend to grow much. Revolver brass could grow a lot before they wouldn't work. In my experience it has been a very rare thing for a 9mm, 10mm or .45 ACP case to be so long as to not chamber. The only time I had an issue with a couple of 9mm's was with a Smith & Wesson Model 547 revolver, which was made to very close tolerances. Never in a semi auto pistol.
So, you're saying they were cleaned and trimmed but not sized? That sounds like maybe somebody may have known what they were doing but skipped a phase through inattention. .223's will usually still case gauge okay while they are unsized.
Now that you have to resize them, they may be good for one firing before they need trimming again. .223's are fairly thin, they are pretty good "growers" with every firing.
- Messages
- 19,861
- Reactions
- 55,418
That's sad for seller to take advantage of a reloader.
- Messages
- 5,351
- Reactions
- 13,896
I keep telling people that there is a lot more to making ammo than just pulling the handle. I have found exactly one person that can process cases to my standard, all others I redo myself.
- Messages
- 71
- Reactions
- 125
- Messages
- 1,265
- Reactions
- 1,491
I would say that is incipient head separation. I would recommend sawing one case in half lengthwise and see if there is a groove around the inside. If not, you've wasted one case and gathered more information. If there is, you've saved yourself numerous headaches.
elsie
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Primary Arms SLX 1-6 Nova w/Aero SPR Ultralight, auto live, and wrap
- Started by David Jenkins
- Replies: 0
-