[mainer86]

Can you post a picture of one of the unfired rounds?
I suspect too heavy crimp.

At fist when I began reloading I found I was likely over crimping. When I had a round not pass inspection I would use my bullet puller and noticed a small ring/dent on the bullet wall caused by the crimp. These rounds were not part of the ones possibly over crimped. According to the bullet manufacturer the crimp should not leave a mark, so I backed off until no indentation happens now. I also can't press the bullet in any further by pushing the tip of the bullet up against the bench. So with that said I'm thinking I'm not over crimping but I could be wrong.

 

[mainer86]

First, a pierced primer is a warning sign of high pressure, absent a defective primer... so use caution with that load...

Looking at the Federal cases in your pics I would say there is a problem with your load

I think the first thing you need to do is start reducing the number of variables until you can isolate the problem. So, I suggest the following.

1. Determine if the primer is defective or if something else is going on. Try loading some ammo using the same data as before but with a different brand of primer. If the result is a pierced primer you can rule out the S&B primer being defective (defective primers do happen... it is uncommon, but it happens.) If you get pressure signs with the other brand of primer you have a problem with your loading process oir components.

2. Try loading a few rounds using a lower powder charge in the moderate to low range. If this high pressure signs go away you should verify your scale's accuracy and verify the accuracy of your powder measure. These are not often wrong, gut it happens. Also try some of your original loads in a different gun to see if you get the pressure signs. If the pressure signs go away your loading process or equipment is suspect. Loading bullets too deep in a 9x19 case can cause dramatic pressure increases.

3. Also try using a micrometer to measure the diameter of your bullets... an out of spec bullet can cause pressure spikes.

Basically you want to eliminate each variable one at a time... this will lead you to your problem... Only change one variable at a time... The main thing is change only one variable at a time...

Please keep us posted...

Chuck

I'll start working through the variables and report back my results. Thanks

 

[El Hombre]

Certainly doesn't look over crimped. If the data you have posted is correct, those loads should be fine, but they are definitely showing signs of over pressure.
Have you verified your scale is zeroed? Not trying to be condescending, just trying to help solve the mystery.

 

[1saxman]

'I thought maybe the primers were a little harder than what I had been shooting with factory ammo, so I removed the reduced power hammer spring that the MKIII had and put back in a new factory full power hammer spring thinking this would solve it.'

This statement implies a misunderstanding on the purpose of the extra-power firing pin spring. It is there mainly to eliminate the possibility of a slam-fire and also to be able to return the firing pin under dirty conditions. If you had light primer strikes, the normal thinking would be to reduce the power of the firing pin spring and/or increase the power of the hammer spring. Using a higher-strength firing pin spring in the face of light primer strikes would be decidedly questionable.

 

[Jäger1]

I finally got a chance to shoot some more rounds to try and figure out what is going on with these reloads. First a shot 5 tula steel cased and then five American eagle brass all factory loads. They all appear to me as good looking strikes to the primer. Then I shot three reloads that I loaded with just 3.6 grains of titegroup which is at the bottom of the range...

...I haven't tried any reloads that have CCI primers. Not sure that would even make a difference.

So discussion about misfires with this load seems to have disappeared? Or is that a function of only shooting a minimum number of loads while testing - not enough to make the misfire problem reoccur?

First, I used to accept as fact that some primers were harder than others. Then a year or so ago, some guys got curious and actually did some controlled testing of hardness. I don't remember exactly, other that the tests kind of threw accepted beliefs out the window. For whatever that is worth. The high pressure boys haven't stopped favoring CCI primers, however.

So, as before, continue testing variables. In no particular order:

• You've fired factory ammo in this pistol with no issue. Fire this reload combination in your other 9mms and see if you get the same result.
  
• Change the primer out in the reload with a couple of other makes of primer, all else the same. Load enough to fire in your other 9mms at the same time.
  
• Change the powder out for another of similar burning rate. The charge weight will not be the same, of course, but it takes the current powder out as a variable. Load enough to fire in your other 9mms at the same time. 231, Bullseye, etc. Anything out of the reloading manuals will do.
  
• Change out the bullet for another cast/plated of similar weight - I'd leave that for the last because a set of verniers and your scale confirms size/weight of the bullets.

 

[mainer86]

'I thought maybe the primers were a little harder than what I had been shooting with factory ammo, so I removed the reduced power hammer spring that the MKIII had and put back in a new factory full power hammer spring thinking this would solve it.'

This statement implies a misunderstanding on the purpose of the extra-power firing pin spring. It is there mainly to eliminate the possibility of a slam-fire and also to be able to return the firing pin under dirty conditions. If you had light primer strikes, the normal thinking would be to reduce the power of the firing pin spring and/or increase the power of the hammer spring. Using a higher-strength firing pin spring in the face of light primer strikes would be decidedly questionable.

I believe you are not reading my statement correctly. I have not fooled with the firing pin spring and did not ever state that....I only mentioned the hammer spring.

 

[mainer86]

Certainly doesn't look over crimped. If the data you have posted is correct, those loads should be fine, but they are definitely showing signs of over pressure.
Have you verified your scale is zeroed? Not trying to be condescending, just trying to help solve the mystery.

They have functioned fine in two other pistols.

Yes. I have used the calibration weight that came with the scale to calibrate each time I power it up. I am using the Frankford arsenal DS750 digital scale.

 

[mainer86]

So discussion about misfires with this load seems to have disappeared? Or is that a function of only shooting a minimum number of loads while testing - not enough to make the misfire problem reoccur?

First I verified good looking primer strikes on factory loads then went to seeing if I was going to have the same results with the reduced load reloads 3.6 vs 3.8 grains of titegroup. I only fired three rounds and stopped after seeing all three with breached primers.

First, I used to accept as fact that some primers were harder than others. Then a year or so ago, some guys got curious and actually did some controlled testing of hardness. I don't remember exactly, other that the tests kind of threw accepted beliefs out the window. For whatever that is worth. The high pressure boys haven't stopped favoring CCI primers, however.

So, as before, continue testing variables. In no particular order:

• You've fired factory ammo in this pistol with no issue. Fire this reload combination in your other 9mms and see
  
• Change the primer out in the reload with a couple of other makes of primer, all else the same. Load enough to fire in your other 9mms at the same time.
  
• Change the powder out for another of similar burning rate. The charge weight will not be the same, of course, but it takes the current powder out as a variable. Load enough to fire in your other 9mms at the same time. 231, Bullseye, etc. Anything out of the reloading manuals will do.
  
• Change out the bullet for another cast/plated of similar weight - I'd leave that for the last because a set of verniers and your scale confirms size/weight of the bullets.

Thanks

 

[cxm]

Electronic scale??? Have you verified it against a balance scale? electronic scales can not only vary, but they can be influenced by outside factors such as electronic appliances with magnets in them, air motion and the like.

I bought a somewhat pricey RCBS electronic scale and didn't find it satisfactory... went back to my old Lyman/Ohas balance scale and have been pleased ever since.

I suggest verifying the scale... it may be ok, but it is worth verifying anyway.

V/r

Chuck

They have functioned fine in two other pistols.

Yes. I have used the calibration weight that came with the scale to calibrate each time I power it up. I am using the Frankford arsenal DS750 digital scale.

 

[El Hombre]

Electronic scale??? Have you verified it against a balance scale? electronic scales can not only vary, but they can be influenced by outside factors such as electronic appliances with magnets in them, air motion and the like.

I bought a somewhat pricey RCBS electronic scale and didn't find it satisfactory... went back to my old Lyman/Ohas balance scale and have been pleased ever since.

I suggest verifying the scale... it may be ok, but it is worth verifying anyway.

V/r

Chuck

Chuck,
Your experience with the RCBS electronic scale mirrors mine. Never could get it to work consistently. I could measure the exact same charge 4 times, and get 4 different weight readings, but the calibration weights always read correctly. Like you, I went back to my balance scale.
Florescent lights will also throw off the readings I am told.
Aaron

 

[mainer86]

I agree....checking with a balance scale is a must to rule that out.

 

[Jäger1]

I agree....checking with a balance scale is a must to rule that out.

Didn't you do that already?

As discussed here a couple of times already, electronic scales are nice, but can be problematic for a number of reasons, some controllable some not.

One of the big issues can be with what you are probably doing - trickle charging small weight charges when doing load development. A lot of electronic scales are quite precise when you dump the charge you want to weigh into the pan, or put a bullet you want to weigh on the pan, etc. But when you sit there trickling, trickling, trickling... some of the electronic scales act almost like they're stuck, not responding to the powder going into the scale pan. By the time they respond, they're actually well over.

Some manufacturers include a warning that their electronic scale is not for use trickling charges to weight.

Then there's the effect that static electricity can have, lights nearby the area you are weighing, etc.

If all you have is electronic, you can manage these potential weaknesses: zero, trickle to weight, dump powder in case, re-zero, dump charge back in pan to confirm weight, then back into case for bullet seating. Pain in the ass, but not too bad for the relatively few loads to establish what powder charge works best. After that, it's dial the powder measure in for that weight and start cranking the handle, throwing a charge in the pan every once in a while to ensure everything is still good.

I have reverted back to beam balances for trickle charging i.e. charges in centerfire rifles. They are just as fast once you have the desired weight set on the balance beam - it's when you're determining an unknown weight when they're slow.

The electronic scale is used when I want to dump a charge into the pan to verify the weight, or weigh bullets, broadheads, etc for weight variations.

You just have to manage your setting, and double check when you're not crystal clear on anything - including your equipment. The Dillons are awesome time saving machines, but they're almost so easy to use that people get sloppy from using them.

Probably lots of discussions you can review online regarding electronic scales if you start with a google search.

 

[mainer86]

Didn't you do that already?

As discussed here a couple of times already, electronic scales are nice, but can be problematic for a number of reasons, some controllable some not.

One of the big issues can be with what you are probably doing - trickle charging small weight charges when doing load development. A lot of electronic scales are quite precise when you dump the charge you want to weigh into the pan, or put a bullet you want to weigh on the pan, etc. But when you sit there trickling, trickling, trickling... some of the electronic scales act almost like they're stuck, not responding to the powder going into the scale pan. By the time they respond, they're actually well over.

Some manufacturers include a warning that their electronic scale is not for use trickling charges to weight.

Then there's the effect that static electricity can have, lights nearby the area you are weighing, etc.

If all you have is electronic, you can manage these potential weaknesses: zero, trickle to weight, dump powder in case, re-zero, dump charge back in pan to confirm weight, then back into case for bullet seating. Pain in the ass, but not too bad for the relatively few loads to establish what powder charge works best. After that, it's dial the powder measure in for that weight and start cranking the handle, throwing a charge in the pan every once in a while to ensure everything is still good.

I have reverted back to beam balances for trickle charging i.e. charges in centerfire rifles. They are just as fast once you have the desired weight set on the balance beam - it's when you're determining an unknown weight when they're slow.

The electronic scale is used when I want to dump a charge into the pan to verify the weight, or weigh bullets, broadheads, etc for weight variations.

You just have to manage your setting, and double check when you're not crystal clear on anything - including your equipment. The Dillons are awesome time saving machines, but they're almost so easy to use that people get sloppy from using them.

Probably lots of discussions you can review online regarding electronic scales if you start with a google search.

I'm using a Dillon 550b so no trickle charging. I set up initial weight by dumping into pan until I got the desired load. From then on just to verify again each time I began another reload session.

 

[CmdrCody]

How many consecutive checks do you make very consistent metering of your powder? I make sure I get ten good throws of my weight before I start loading. I'm probably a nut, but I randomly check my powder to ensure it stays consistent.

 

[DarkLord]

I have encountered this one time before as well. It was on a gun I built for a cusomer. He bought a bunch of ammo (turned out to be reloaded) and exactly that problem was happening. He returned the gun to me with several rounds of ammo, and sure enough, it did it for me.

I didn't have the time to diagnose his reloading issues. I fired 13 different factory loads, and returned the brass to him, and told him the issue is ammo related.

The most common issue I run into with handloaded semi-auto ammo is related to COL and the taper crimp. My guess is his taper crimp was way off to non-existent and it prevented the ammunition from seating all the way into the chamber. The primer strike pushed the cartridge deeper into the chamber, then a second strike would ignite the round.

And that's what the guy later found out.

 

[Rock185]

mainer, I won't attempt to diagnose the issue from afar, but will mention a site that may be of interest to you as regards primer issues. Fellow named Brad Miller at 38Super.net. Primers are discussed, with photos, in the factory ammo section. BTW, within my humble experience the CCI #500 primers do resist evidence of high pressure better than any other standard small pistol primer I have used. Just the opposite is the standard Remington #1 1/2 primer. I would not personally use the #1 1/2 in anything giving higher pressures than 38 Special......ymmv

PS, he also did some testing with various primers and has a chart describing the pressure signs, or lack of, with progressively higher powder charges in 9mm.

 

[TDA]

Interesting thread!

I just took my Mk III, that I very seldom shoot, to the range today and had a light strike on the fifth round. Hit it again, and it went off. A few rounds later had to do the same exercise.

Looked at the cases and they look exactly like the ones in the OP.

Guess what...S&B primers.

The ammo I was using is my standard 124gr Acme RN re-load that I shoot lots of in my P226, SP2022, CZ, and Beretta's. 1.100 COAL and they plunk test just fine in the Hi Power, which I find pretty much mirrors the CZ chamber.

I'm pretty sure that it's due to the S&B primers having either thinner cup, or just being softer, as I had a similar issue when I switched to S&B primers with .40. I tried a CCI primer and the issue went away. I switched powder and went back to the S&B's without issue.

I am going to try the same load in the Hi Power tomorrow morning using a CCI primer rather than the S&B and see what it looks like.

 

[mainer86]

Luckily I figured out I made a serious mistake with my reloads before I injured myself or damaged any of my pistols. I was using a digital scale to dial in the powder dispenser in my Dillon and had it set on g (grams) instead of gn (grains). Very stupid mistake on my part.

 

[Che]

Close call indeed. I was thinking about upgrading to a digital scale but I am thinking I should apply the K.I.S.S. principle and stick with what works for me.

 

[El Hombre]

Mainer86,
Glad you solved your mystery, and no damage to yourself or your guns.
I never understood why a dedicated reloading scale also had the option for grams, seems like an accident waiting to happen. Thanks for sharing the answer, and maybe it can provide a warning for others to double check their scale settings.