Lyman & Lee Manuals

CaptainXL · 05-31-2012, 13:35

Just noticed this --- Both the Lyman's 49th Edition and the Lee 2nd Edition Loading Manuals have notations in the .40 S&W sections of thier books that say not to use the data shown in for .40 S&W in chambers that are not fully supported.

Specifically, in the .40 S&W section of the Lee 2nd Edition manaul it says: "Do not use reloads in Glock or similar guns with chambers that do not fully support the cartrige due to intruision of the feed ramp."

The Lyman 49th Edition .40 S&W section it says: "Warning: Only use this data in handguns that fully support the cartridge in the chamber. If used in unsupported chambers, cases can ruture and cause harm to the shooter or bystanders."

There are not any of the "warnings" printed in sections of the reloading manuals for any other calibers. The "warnings" are printed only in the .40 S&W sections both of the reloading manuals.

Up until now I have reloaded only for 9mm. I have not loaded .40 S&W up until this point but recently bought a set of .40 S&W dies with plans to load for a G27.

WTF??? Are they serious? I assume that everyone just ignores the warnings. Or, am I wrong? Should I take the warnings seriously and load .40 S&W only in lighter loads?

TN.Frank · 05-31-2012, 13:51

Basically it's CYA for those Glock "Kabooms" that happen once in a blue moon. They don't want to be held responsible IF something happens like that.

Colorado4Wheel · 05-31-2012, 13:54

Ignore it and just look for warning signs. Most Glock barrels now are very well supported.

SJ 40 · 05-31-2012, 14:18

Lawyer Ease,CYA ! SJ 40

CaptainXL · 05-31-2012, 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colorado4Wheel

Ignore it and just look for warning signs. Most Glock barrels now are very well supported.

That's what I figured. I've read too many posts on this forum to think that anyone really paid any attention to the warnings.

I guess everyone has to keep their back sides covered but I'm still curious as to why the warnings are only printed in the .40 S&W sections of the two manuals and not all of the other caliber sections of the books.

Oh well, onwards and upwards.

Hopefully will begin reloading some Precision Delta 180 gr FMJ .40's next week for the first time. Plan on using some Unique and some PP to work up some test loads.

Have only loaded 9mm's up until this point in time.

F106 Fan · 05-31-2012, 15:02

I wouldn't ignore the warnings! Suppose I had a Glock Gen 1 .40. That chamber isn't very well supported. Or course, I am guessing that there is actually a Gen 1 .40 - I wouldn't know. Sometime back, actually, a long time back, there was a problem with Glock .40s.

But it IS a fact that there are still Glocks in circulation where the feedramp seriously undercuts the chamber.

I would check my chamber by dropping a round in place and see what I thought about the support of the case near the feedramp.

Somebody on this forum posts photos of the various barrels and I know I have seen similar photos in General Glocking. A forum search will probably turn up something.

There's a reason the warnings are there. For newer models it may not be an issue but it certainly used to be a problem. As the warnings are only related to .40, it is also apparent that the folks writing the manual knew exactly which guns had the defect.

Richard

Colorado4Wheel · 05-31-2012, 15:33

You worry about everything. I said ignore the warning AND LOOK FOR WARNING SIGNS. Factory ammo in .40 is sometimes kinda stout PLUS brass in .40 back in the early days was a little thin. Download modern brass just a bit and it will work fine even in the old barrels.

F106 Fan · 05-31-2012, 16:11

I agree!

Look for signs by checking the round in the chamber and by looking at expended brass. Look for the photos of the unsupported chambers and look for photos of the Glock pimple. Good information to have.

But the tipoff that looking is even required is right there in the manual. There was, at one time, a problem sufficient to justify adding the warning to the manual. Just something to show that some amount of investigation is warranted.

Were it not for the published warnings, this thread wouldn't even exist.

I have heard that Federal brass was a little wimpy in the early days but I have seen the photos of the unsupported cases and the Glock dimple.

Richard

WiskyT · 05-31-2012, 16:45

They have a term for that. It's called the "Ski Pass" syndrome or something like that. Back in the 70's, the ski resorts were getting sued. So they put a simple warning on the back of the lift pass. After a few years, the warnings had gotten so long, convoluted, and the print was so small, that no one bothered to read it anymore. That's what is going on here. They provide data and then spend a chapter in the beginning, and then several more throughout the manual, warning you to not use any of the info in the book.

ColoCG · 05-31-2012, 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by F106 Fan

I agree!

Look for signs by checking the round in the chamber and by looking at expended brass. Look for the photos of the unsupported chambers and look for photos of the Glock pimple. Good information to have.

But the tipoff that looking is even required is right there in the manual. There was, at one time, a problem sufficient to justify adding the warning to the manual. Just something to show that some amount of investigation is warranted.

Were it not for the published warnings, this thread wouldn't even exist.

I have heard that Federal brass was a little wimpy in the early days but I have seen the photos of the unsupported cases and the Glock dimple.

Richard

Ok, your confusing me now! Which isn't hard, is it pimple or dimple and is that anything like bulge?

michael e · 05-31-2012, 16:58

I noticed this in a couple of my new ones, in my older ones it doesnt have this warning. Got another one that has a full page of disclaimers, boils down to someone tried to blame them for something and lawyers got involved. Old guy at work has some books from the 70s that make the loads in my books look like powder puff loads.

Highspeedlane · 05-31-2012, 17:46

I have a Gen 2 made in 1995 and the chamber was huge. Looking at cases from it, I can see where the brass would likely fatigue pretty quick from resizing and reloading.

Glock barrel on left, Wilson match barrel on right. What a difference.

SARDG · 05-31-2012, 18:11

Glock Gen 2 introduced in March 1989. Gen 3 introduced in January 1998. .40 S&W designed in January 1990 and introduced several months later.

There are though, I believe, three Glock chamber/barrel iterations for .40 S&W.

F106 Fan · 05-31-2012, 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColoCG

Ok, your confusing me now! Which isn't hard, is it pimple or dimple and is that anything like bulge?

I always thought of the bulge as a large ring entirely around the case. The entire chamber is too large.

OTOH, the pimple (or dimple or whatever) is a section of brass that is bulged out right where it meets the feedramp. There are plenty of example photos of brass failure in this region. The entire head doesn't separate, just a blown out area where the feedramp is overcut.

I realize this is kind of an old problem and it's been known for years and years. But it's strictly a .40 S&W Glock problem that, AFAIK, has since been corrected. Still, there are probably barrels around from the earlier versions.

I don't load .40 but if I ever do, it will be for a Sig 229.

Richard

Colorado4Wheel · 05-31-2012, 18:51

Booooooo.

I hope I didn't scare anyone.

F106 Fan · 05-31-2012, 18:57

Well, I do load for a Glock G21SF so that ought to count for something.

The P229 would be a match for my wife's duty weapon. There's no way we're going to shoot reloads in the department's weapon but we might just buy a duplicate to use in practice.

Around here, both the PD and the SO use Sigs - just the way the choices came out. The patrol guys use a P226 and the plainclothes folks use a P229.

Richard

dkf · 05-31-2012, 19:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highspeedlane

Glock barrel on left, Wilson match barrel on right. What a difference.

For carry I'll take the barrel on the left any day.

Here is a new vs old pic with a LW thrown in. As you can see the newer Glock barrel is better and good enough for me.

Zombie Steve · 05-31-2012, 20:27

Start loading .45 auto. Problem solved.

ColoCG · 05-31-2012, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by F106 Fan

I always thought of the bulge as a large ring entirely around the case. The entire chamber is too large.

OTOH, the pimple (or dimple or whatever) is a section of brass that is bulged out right where it meets the feedramp. There are plenty of example photos of brass failure in this region. The entire head doesn't separate, just a blown out area where the feedramp is overcut.

I realize this is kind of an old problem and it's been known for years and years. But it's strictly a .40 S&W Glock problem that, AFAIK, has since been corrected. Still, there are probably barrels around from the earlier versions.

I don't load .40 but if I ever do, it will be for a Sig 229.

Richard

Well I'm glad you cleared that up.

I also have an old Gen 2 G23 in .40 That never had a bulge of any size on it. For years I even did a couple of things with it that I didn't know you wern't supposed to do until I started reading on the internet.

And that was load lead in the factory barrel and they were 155gr lead swc to boot. They fed, fired, and ejected fine without any noteworthy leading or bulges or pimples or dimples.

wdphillips · 06-02-2012, 08:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkf

Here is a new vs old pic with a LW thrown in. As you can see the newer Glock barrel is better and good enough for me.

Yep, that is why I use my LW barrel for reloads and the Glock Factory barrel for factory ammo.

Razor007 · 10-31-2012, 18:09

There is actually a Redding G-Rx Push Thru Base Sizing Die for Glock bulges in 40 S&W. I have it and a G22 and I just ran 1000 rounds of brass through it last night and all my bulges are gone, well..the one's in the brass anyway..LOL Don't waste money on the Redding Bottle, a simple 2 liter Coke bottle will due just fine. I just cut the bottom and reattached it with a "duct tape" hinge and it works awesome.

MrVvrroomm · 10-31-2012, 18:16

I don't even think the Lee manual could start a decent fire.

Uncle Don · 10-31-2012, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVvrroomm

I don't even think the Lee manual could start a decent fire.

Then I guess you would feel the same way about the powder manuals because that is where the data came from.

Zombie Steve · 10-31-2012, 23:08

Happy Halloween!!!!!

GIockGuy24 · 10-31-2012, 23:30

there are several parts to the issue. The 40 S&W was designed by S&W and Winchester. That's who submitted the specs for the cartridge to SAAMI. The original cartridge cases were thinner than current cases. All American ammunition makers made cases that were all about the same thickness. Federal cases were 'weakest" or softest. A lot of pistol companies had a hard time getting the cartridge to feed. This lead to large chambers and low angled feed ramps (that left more unsupported). federal had the most case failures and recalled their 40 S&W ammunition. They replaced it with ammunition that had thicker cases. Due to safety concerns, all of the other big American ammunition companies followed with thicker cases. Bullet setback was also more common with the early thinner cases.

Fired cases from the early 40 S&W Glocks can look, "ugly" due to large chambers and low feed ramps. Sometimes they don't look reloadable at all, depending on the case and the chamber. The newer 40 S&W Glocks have more vertical feed ramps that give more case support above the ramp. My newer Glock barrel makes the rounds,"jump" into the chamber and doesn't feed very smoothly. My early Glock barrel would have the rounds glide smoothly into the chamber. Chamber diameter also affects case expansion and life.

Current 40 S&W cases are about as thick as 357 Sig cases. Even though the companies other than Federal didn't recall their 40 S&W ammunition due to weak cases and case failures, they all switched to thicker cases after Federal first made the change.