32/327 with AA#9 issues

[ward01]

With the intention of using these loads in my Ruger Single Sevens ( I have a 4 5/8" and a 7 1/2") I was working up some load data using a 115 grain SWC cast by me from a NOE mould with wheel weights. They were lubed with LBT blue and sized .313. I was using the 32 H R brass so they could be crimped in the crimp groove. They would have been too long in 327 brass. Having been following much of the 32/327 reloading discussion here I was working with AA #9. I was using brand new Starline 32 mag brass and Federal 100 primers. Started low and was going up to try to find limits. Starting load was 9.1 grains, then 9.7, 10.2, 10.8 and top was 11.3. According to what I have been reading here, others have been exceeding my top end in 32 H R brass (not 327) with acceptable results.

I was using my short barreled 327 firing first two shots and then a full cylinder of each load and was going along just fine thru the 10.8 load. But with the top load of 11.3 grains, empties from the first two shots could not be ejected with the guns ejector. They moved about 1/8" of an inch but refused to move any more. I had to pull the cylinder and then knock them out with a punch. I then tried two shots of the 11.3 grain load in the long barreled Single Seven and they ejected just fine. I then shot more of the 11.3 grain load in the long barrel with no issues. I did not go any higher.

I realize there are differences between guns and that is why you work up loads slowly but was surprised at my results. As I had been reading of others exceeding my loads, I expected no issues. Why did this load function fine in one 327 and not in the other. How are others able to use 12 grains with 120 grain cast bullets in 32 H R brass without issue? Do Ruger dimensions vary that much? Why was I able to move the empty brass a small amount but not to eject them?

Thanks for your opinions
ward

[hoover]

Ward, the short answer would be each and every gun is its own entity and has its own idiosyncrancies. This could include chamber dimensions, chamber roughness, etc.

I remember reading an article many years ago where the writer tested 2 identical S&W guns, with consecutive serial numbers and had a velocity variation around 150 fps.

The long answer could be almost endless taking in the amount of variations possible. Not giving you the run around but just something to think on. The more we learn the more we realize how much we don't know.

[Encore64]

Sept 14, 2016 15:39:11 GMT -5 hoover said:

Ward, the short answer would be each and every gun is its own entity and has its own idiosyncrancies. This could include chamber dimensions, chamber roughness, etc.

I remember reading an article many years ago where the writer tested 2 identical S&W guns, with consecutive serial numbers and had a velocity variation around 150 fps.

The long answer could be almost endless taking in the amount of variations possible. Not giving you the run around but just something to think on. The more we learn the more we realize how much we don't know.

AND although it can be frustrating, the more problems we have the more we learn.

[bulasteve]

Sounds like you are a more knowledgeable loader than I, so..did ya mark which two cylinders ? Maybe could benefit from some polishing ? A thought.

[hoover]

Ward, as to bullet weight, design means everything. LBT bullets such as the 120 gr LFN design keep more weight out front of the crimp than a SWC. Since the SWC has to be seated deeper in the case, pressure would be higher even though it weighs less since it infringes on the powder space of the case.

Also, lot numbers of a powder can vary by burn rate changing favored loads.

As I mentioned, there are so many variables to consinsider with guns, reloads, and components. Hope this helps explain some of the possibilities.

[2 Dogs]

Ward, that one S7 might have a tight barrel. Have you tested over a chrono?

[ward01]

Thanks for the help.

When I loaded the two test rounds into the gun they were put into opposite sides of the cylinder without marking them. There is no visible difference in any of the chambers on the two revolvers. If anything, the shorter barreled gun seems to have smoother chambers.

A .302- plug gauge fits into both bores and slowly slides completely thru from end to end in a clean barrel. A .303- gauge will not enter the short barrel but it will start about a 1/4" into the long barrel but go no further.

I have been playing with the set of plug gauges trying to find some differences in dimensions between the two cylinders but have not located anything remarkable in the chambers nor the throats.

My bullet measures .330 from the crimp groove to the base with the nose being about .325 long and weighs approximately 115.5 grains. Drive bands widths are: base .109, middle .085, and front .080 with the front band being outside the case of course. This is NOE mould 315 115 plain base solid.

I have not done any chrono work with these guns.

The long barrel had been leading so the forcing cone was recut. Other than trigger work, I know of no other differences between the two revolvers.

I'll probably let it sit for a few days and then give it another try.

ward

[rjm52]

Just a thought...will the cylinders interchange. If you put the one from the long barrel in the short will it time and lock up properly.

If it will see if the test rounds hang up in the short barreled gun with the other cylinder in it.

Bob

[ward01]

Bob, that is one of the ideas I was considering. But if that narrows it down to the cylinder then what would be the next step?

I'm not sure Ruger would want to help with these experiments....
ward

[rjm52]

Well first you have to make sure it is the cylinder...and if they will interchange then you can run the test.. If it turns out that the cases stick in the same cylinder again I would then buy a box of the hottest factory ammo there is and then run some through the guns. If you get stick in the same chambers my guess would be that the cylinder was mis-bored...and then contact Ruger and describe the problem...

Bob

[rjm52]

..any update to your problem?

[ward01]

I did try to interchange the cylinders in the two Single Sevens and they did seem to fit fine so I did some more shooting. The issue did seem to follow the cylinder and not the gun. I started with 10.5 grains and both guns seemed to digest it fine. At 11 grains the sticky cylinder (now in the other gun) was again getting sticky. At 11.5 grains the empties would not budge using the ejector rod alone. I had to remove the cylinder and knock them out with a punch and brass hammer. As I had some loads with 12 grains, I tried one shot in the non-sticky cylinder (now in the short barreled gun) and it did not come out of the gun smoothly but I was able to force it out with the ejector rod after several attempts.

I do seem to be getting a definent 1/4 inch wide ring around the case just in front of the case head. It shows scruff marks from the ejection from the cylinder suggesting expansion in this area.

I did try some of these bullets with 10.5 grains of 296 in the 32 H&R case and everything seemed to be just fine.

[magnumwheelman]

could AA#9 be too slow a powder for what you are trying to do??? I use a lot of AA powders, & have 2,5,7,& 9... among others... I get a lot of unburned granules from lighter bullets, weaker crimps, & lower pressure loads, in my experiments with #9... but get good results with 10mm Magnum through 50 A.E. loads...

I'd suggest trying a faster powder... like #5 or #7 for the smaller bores... perhaps the slower burn profile is accentuating rougher chambers, by holding the brass tighter, longer... than a faster powder would???

BTW... this is my 2500th post

was hoping for a post with substance for my 2500th post... hopefully this helps