Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Oregon Rifleworks
HighLine Firearms
Low Price Guns
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Simply Triggers
Defensive Arts
J&B Firearm Sales
Southwest Firearms
Sporting Systems
Gun Deals
OK - if you remove the 'drum' from the powder measure/thrower and use some 280 ish wetordry sandpaper and slightly bevel the edge of the top opening of the drum it will help to give the powder a slight 'relief' as it passes under the hopper and picks up the charge.
You do realize that the edge is sharp as it is supposed to cut those grains of powder rather than crush them, right? And, just saying, but there is no way gun powder can cause any nicks or damage to the rotor as the rotor is steel while gun powder clumped up or not is softer than steel.
 

Certaindeaf

Messages
18,699
Reactions
41,570
You do realize that the edge is sharp as it is supposed to cut those grains of powder rather than crush them, right? And, just saying, but there is no way gun powder can cause any nicks or damage to the rotor as the rotor is steel while gun powder clumped up or not is softer than steel.
Yea, a dull shear doesn't seem like a good idea.
 
Messages
10,890
Reactions
19,086
You do realize that the edge is sharp as it is supposed to cut those grains of powder rather than crush them,
Yes, I do 'realize' this however it often does not 'cut' the grains and sometimes gets hung up and needs to be forced to move through its cycle.
And, just saying, but there is no way gun powder can cause any nicks or damage to the rotor
I realize this as well and never suggested it was powder causing the nicks or dents, but just that there may be some on the drum edges, possibly due to rough handling, tool marks etc. and the owner may have never noticed them.
 
Yes, I do 'realize' this however it often does not 'cut' the grains and sometimes gets hung up and needs to be forced to move through its cycle.

I realize this as well and never suggested it was powder causing the nicks or dents, but just that there may be some on the drum edges, possibly due to rough handling, tool marks etc. and the owner may have never noticed them.
I've had my RCBS powder measure for about 43 years and it is just as sharp and accurate as the day I bought it. "Tool marks"? I sort of doubt that as that rotor was ground to size. But if there were a ding or dent in the cavity that interfered with powder flowing I'd suggest stoning the burr down with a fine round stone rather than chamfering the entire edge. However that would need to be a pretty big ding in my opinion. As for clumping powder I must be a lucky man as I've been partial to Unique the entire years I've been re-loading and not once did it ever clump in the measure. I'll check the load twice on the scale, then toss ten and check that weight, then load 50, then spot check several at random. Unique has always been very consistent for me and the canister powders I use (such as 3031) are always sheared cleanly as the edge is still sharp in the rotor.

Edit: However I'll also mention that powders such as 3031 require a brisk and firm hand on the dispensing handle to shear those grains cleanly. Trying to be gentle on the handle is self defeating in my estimation.
 
Last Edited:

thorborg

Messages
2,421
Reactions
5,550
As long as attention to reloads are on the table. Some food for thought: I purchased some powder from another. Along with it came an opened can of the same stuff as gratis if you will because he was no longer going to use that product. When I finally started to load with it I notice the volume required to fill the shell looked just a little different from round to round. Poor eyes hadn't noticed at least two different miniscule size foreign material mixed in when weighing each round. the Opened can had other powders mixed in that were a tenth the size of the original powder. Egregious though it was, I believe unintentional by the previous owner of the powder.
Now I have been called a fuddyduddy many times in my life, but I am here to tell you when it comes to things like reloading it pays to be anal in your practice. I wear the title with honor!. It wouldn't hurt for you to be an honorary member too.
Showing due diligent in your loading practice will save your fingers and maybe even an eyeball or two.
baddd1.jpg No guarantees in life, but you sure can take a proactive effort to minimize failure.
 

gmerkt

Messages
2,474
Reactions
5,118
Granted, since I don't use Titegroup, I'd have to look up load data, it would be helpful to know all the specific information about your particular load. Additionally, in the interest of this squib incident, which barrel you are using in the Glock. I guarantee nobody knows where I'm going with that question.
Further, that you are using that load in the 59 without incident leads to more discussion!
Yes, you're right, I should've mentioned that the bullet is 115 gr. Primer WW small pistol (non magnum). WW case.

Yes, barrel length can matter. With a light charge, longer barrel length offers greater opportunity of getting stuck. People shooting under-powered 158 gr. jacketed bullets in older, long-barreled .38 Special revolvers have found this out to their dismay. The Glock 19 has a bbl. length of a hair over 4 inches. The Model 59 is 4 inches. The Colt is a hair over 5 inches. So there is a difference in length between the Colt and the other two guns I mentioned. But in the matter at hand, I don't think length is a factor. The first 42 shots through the Colt fired off normally. If the charge desired load had been inadequate to fire the Colt normally, my thought is that it would've been observed way before going through 42 successful shots. That is my previous experience, anyway.

Titegroup is a powder that I've found useful for 9mm. Which is a case with limited volume when loaded. Titegroup is fairly low volume. The charge I used is within the range recommended by Hodgdon for 115 gr. lead bullets. Within range on the low end, I should say. I don't like to push lead bullets too hard as it introduces other problems.

 

Certaindeaf

Messages
18,699
Reactions
41,570
Didn't really catch the type of machine but I'd imagine that if the powder charge was to the tippy top, the bench was flimsy and the operator jerked the loading lever like grandma with her last quarter on a one arm bandit, I wouldn't be surprised if that spinning shellplate divested itself of a grain or two of powder.
 
Messages
113
Reactions
158
Yes, you're right, I should've mentioned that the bullet is 115 gr. Primer WW small pistol (non magnum). WW case.

Yes, barrel length can matter. With a light charge, longer barrel length offers greater opportunity of getting stuck. People shooting under-powered 158 gr. jacketed bullets in older, long-barreled .38 Special revolvers have found this out to their dismay. The Glock 19 has a bbl. length of a hair over 4 inches. The Model 59 is 4 inches. The Colt is a hair over 5 inches. So there is a difference in length between the Colt and the other two guns I mentioned. But in the matter at hand, I don't think length is a factor. The first 42 shots through the Colt fired off normally. If the charge desired load had been inadequate to fire the Colt normally, my thought is that it would've been observed way before going through 42 successful shots. That is my previous experience, anyway.

Titegroup is a powder that I've found useful for 9mm. Which is a case with limited volume when loaded. Titegroup is fairly low volume. The charge I used is within the range recommended by Hodgdon for 115 gr. lead bullets. Within range on the low end, I should say. I don't like to push lead bullets too hard as it introduces other problems.
Better! Off top of my head, with regard to info in this post, something comes to mind....
Have you slugged the Colt barrel? Have you checked for leading in the Colt barrel?
If...the boolit doesnt fit the bore size(in the right way), and, if the charge is low enough not to obturate the boolit base(case is rather sooty, mebbe not sealing the chamber the best), and, if you subscribe to the gas cutting/undersize lead slug theory of leading(which I do), and, if the first 42 rounds leaded the bore.....the last round MAY have found enough resistance to moving(coupled with loss of pressure due blow-by of both the boolit and the case) to get itself stuck in the bore.
Now....the 59...is it one of the new 2019 production, low round count ones? I'm kidding.
Prolly a bit older lightly sprung, or worn springs, smooth running.....yes, a light load probably runs great in THIS 59.
As for the Glock....if the factory, polygonal rifling barrel....polygonal rifling I believe, takes less force to overcome than standard rifling.
Sound like a possible answer to why you got a stuck boolit?

Joe
 

gmerkt

Messages
2,474
Reactions
5,118
Better! Off top of my head, with regard to info in this post, something comes to mind....
Have you slugged the Colt barrel? Have you checked for leading in the Colt barrel?
If...the boolit doesnt fit the bore size(in the right way), and, if the charge is low enough not to obturate the boolit base(case is rather sooty, mebbe not sealing the chamber the best), and, if you subscribe to the gas cutting/undersize lead slug theory of leading(which I do), and, if the first 42 rounds leaded the bore.....the last round MAY have found enough resistance to moving(coupled with loss of pressure due blow-by of both the boolit and the case) to get itself stuck in the bore.
Now....the 59...is it one of the new 2019 production, low round count ones? I'm kidding.
Prolly a bit older lightly sprung, or worn springs, smooth running.....yes, a light load probably runs great in THIS 59.
As for the Glock....if the factory, polygonal rifling barrel....polygonal rifling I believe, takes less force to overcome than standard rifling.
Sound like a possible answer to why you got a stuck boolit?
All good, clear thinking. As I was shooting the Colt, I considered the possibility of leading and I checked after each of the first three magazines through, which means batteries of 8 shots per. It wasn't having an issue with leading. And when I discovered the stuck bullet, I expected that I might find such in the bore. After removing the bullet I looked in the barrel and couldn't see any lead but it wasn't yet clean. Then I did a quickie clean of the bore, meaning a few passes with a bronze brush and Hoppe's. Two patches through to soak up the Hoppe's and there was zero lead in the barrel. So I've ruled out excessive friction from lead residue.

It's true a hard bullet isn't going to obturate at lower speed than a softer bullet. Somehow, I don't think this is an issue here. I looked for gas cutting on the sidewalls of the bullet in question, didn't see any evidence of it. The gas blew back onto the casing during extraction. Mind you, the bullet was not far into the barrel, there wasn't much time for pressure to build behind the bullet before the action opened up.

I've never slugged the bore in any 9mm. Based on prior experience, I've just never thought it necessary in an auto pistol barrel from a decent manufacturer. I did mike the bullets, they were .356.

These bullets were the typical hard-cast product, Missouri Bullet Co., with hard, wax-like lube. I got them in a lot with some other stuff, in the past I've rarely fired cast bullets in 9mm because of the relatively low price of jacketed. In former times, at least. I never went to the trouble of casting my own small pistol bullets, like .32, .38, and 9mm. Which could be purchased cheaply in quantity. I saved my casting efforts for harder to get and more expensive stuff, like .38-40, .45 Colt, .45-70, etc.

The Model 59, remember when those were really hot stuff, around 1971-72, lots of people wanted them? Very old news now, so old now nobody remembers them. But the 14 round mag was sh*t-hot then. I've got a kinda large hand, the fat grip fits well. You've gotta get used to that creepy trigger, like they say about some whiskey, it's an acquired taste. I've owned several of these over the years, my experience with them has been that they will shoot just about anything. Anything will go up the ramp, stuff that won't work in the Colt or my German P.38. You don't have to do spring swaps with the 59.

The one I have at present was made in July, 1978. It's in pretty good shape, hasn't seen a huge amount of use. Came to me in the blue box with the stapled corners, along with two spare magazines. I think it might've belonged to a reserve police officer. At one time, these were almost as common on police duty belts at Glocks are now.

For a while, I had a Model 659, that was a beautiful piece of machinery. Heavier than the 59, which of course has an aluminum frame. But the 659 had sharp edges, wasn't as comfy in the hand as the 59's.

The Glock 19 will eat anything, like the 59. I haven't fired all that many lead bullets in it, mostly just to see how they worked because of the cautionary word from the factory not to do it. I had no trouble at all with the same kind of bullets used in the Colt. No leading whatsoever.

The MoBuCo hard cast lead bullets are all gone. I only had six left, I pulled those and they went into the scrap lead.
 
Last Edited:

TTSX

Messages
2,761
Reactions
6,095
I use a progressive and single stage. My rule I don't break is, I don't seat a bullet unless I see the powder, I don't add powder unless I'm seating a bullet. Another way to say, even on the progressive, I'm still essentially making one at a time. Glad that didn't go horribly wrong and I'm always wary my time may yet be coming
 

po18guy

Messages
2,305
Reactions
5,165
The classic Lyman #55 powder measure has a small knocker beneath the drum. Large stick powders like the IMRs can bridge or clump up and use of the knocker knocks it loose. I use an ancient Ohaus Duo-Measure and the clank-clank of the drum hitting the stops pretty much ensures that any "stuck" kernels will be knocked loose. The last safety step is bypassed in the progressive process. No practical way to look into each and every case to ensure that powder charges are equal.
 
Messages
437
Reactions
433
This seems like a case where the type of press is being blamed when it is poor quality control. A very important step is checking the powder charge of every case. It needs to be done visually or with a powder check. This can be done even on a progressive, rather easily.
 

gmerkt

Messages
2,474
Reactions
5,118
This seems like a case where the type of press is being blamed when it is poor quality control. A very important step is checking the powder charge of every case. It needs to be done visually or with a powder check. This can be done even on a progressive, rather easily.
I'm not faulting the type or brand of press, just thinking it may have contributed to the error or defect. Because the spirit of progressive is speed and quantity. The Dillon 550 didn't have enough stations for a mechanical powder check die. I believe that type of press tends to emphasize speed over watching every function of the press simultaneously while yanking the handle one cycle. So for some time, I've been back to single stage where I'm more comfortable with my own capabilities. My reloading is done as a hobbyist, done to some extent for enjoyment. When I turned it into an industrial process with a progressive set-up, some of the fun went away.

Since I suspect that the cartridge did have a charge, just not a sufficient one, I might have missed that error via visual inspection. Depending upon the amount of deficiency. Using whatever process.
 
The classic Lyman #55 powder measure has a small knocker beneath the drum. Large stick powders like the IMRs can bridge or clump up and use of the knocker knocks it loose. I use an ancient Ohaus Duo-Measure and the clank-clank of the drum hitting the stops pretty much ensures that any "stuck" kernels will be knocked loose. The last safety step is bypassed in the progressive process. No practical way to look into each and every case to ensure that powder charges are equal.
My 55 came to me missing the knocker. After I dump the load into the case I lift the lever a shade and bring it down with a little force, like I was shaking out the last kernel. When I raise it to the top I do it quickly to the stop. Those two motions somewhat duplicate the action of the missing knocker. (The old timer I bought it from suggested that action)
I mostly load rifle rounds and have the same affliction as @thorborg and @TTSX .

"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from poor judgement."

Listening to and learning from others mistakes can save a lot of headache.
 

ageingstudent

Messages
1,641
Reactions
3,832
Didn't really catch the type of machine but I'd imagine that if the powder charge was to the tippy top, the bench was flimsy and the operator jerked the loading lever like grandma with her last quarter on a one arm bandit, I wouldn't be surprised if that spinning shellplate divested itself of a grain or two of powder.
Thanks for the visual😆.

@gmerkt. Primers are surprisingly powerful. I've had a very few missed charges with my own ammo over the years and they always make it past the edge of the chamber (not something I'm proud of but I learned to eyeball all my charges before seating). I have had this happen with factory as well. No way to check a factory charge it's a box of chocolates. Usually it's just like you described. In an auto it's usually not dangerous as the action won't cycle completely, and or the next round won't chamber. In a revolver that advances mechanically...make darn sure you see a bullet strike. I've always caught it thankfully. Good thread it's something we all need to be aware of.
 
Sporting Systems
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Southwest Firearms
Pacwest Defense
Copeland Custom Gunworks
Cerberus Training Group

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top