Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters New Hodgdon Burn Chart Nov 23

herschel,

That's interesting about the "more" temp stable. As noted earlier in this thread I have tested the same handloads with Magnum at both 70 and zero degrees F., and not just by chilling the ammo but in actual ambient conditions.

The two examples I can find easily were with the .257 Weatherby Magnum and 100-grain Barnes TTSXs, and the 6.5x55 with 140-grain Partitions, in both instances using Ramshot's listed maximum charges for those bullet weights. The .257 Weatherby load lost 32 fps, and the 6.5x55's 24 fps.

That's right in there with all of the other brands powders claimed to be temp-stable by various manufacturers--which have varied around 30 fps from 70 to zero. (Have yet to test any powder that didn't gain velocity--and hence pressure--at over 80 degrees from 70-degree averages--but the "temp-stable" ones tend to gain far less velocity.)

Depends on the Boomer. I switched to the Endurons where possible and when they were discontinued I moved on to Vihtavouri. Was happy with the change in both instances.

Well, there are "book" loads...

And, then there are Fire loads....

Gotta be a lot more fun living on the "edge"....

DF

To borrow from a short verse about air force pilots,

There are old reloaders.
There are bold reloaders.
But there are no old, bold reloaders.

That’s a good one and it does tell a story.

DF

When I first heard that one , it was ironworkers.

Talked with Hodgdon today told me we should see Grand on the shelves late next month. It is manufactured in the USA.

Just idle speculation here...With today's technology...I wonder if there is some type of industrial metrology equipment that could give a much more accurate picture of powder burn characteristics than the burn rate chart? If I understand it correctly, burn rates are determined from 'closed bomb' tests. I assume that to mean X amount of propellant is ignited in a closed pressure vessel, and a time/pressure curve is recorded. The internal volume never changes. I wonder if we could get a more accurate picture derived from some kind of standardized pressure test barrel, where the volume increases as the projectile begins it's travel...increasing the volume, thereby decreasing the pressure.
Even the dullest of us trogdolytes have observed first hand what a long freebore and or zero neck tension can do. I once owned an old '06 that had the most freebore of any rifle I have ever seen, it was impossible to get enough powder to reach book velocities in the H414 category, forget 4350. It took full caseloads of 4064 or faster to get anywhere near 'standard' velocities with the '06.
As experimenters and reloaders it seems to me our life would be simpler with some kind of pressure /time graph that factored in a method of a volume expander to simulate an actual firing sequence. Something on the order of a vertically mounted smoothbore barrel with a smooth fitting heavily weighted piston or rod maybe.
Every reloader of some experience has experienced contradictory examples of burn rate chart performance.

flint: "I wonder if there is some type of industrial metrology equipment..." Baby steps first. I would be happy if powder companies would just publish pressure information (CUP or psi) with the load information they provide. A lot of them don't.

You just brought me a dose of reality, lol.

I wonder how much value there would be if reloaders knew company test pressure information. There are allowable tolerances that take varying case volumes and chamber sizes into consideration. The chambers have to meet SAAMI specs. Nowadays, test equipment has to be checked before each use. Your results, if measured, would be different, but not outrageously so.

Propellant manufacturers have variations (albeit small) that result from the different powder lots.

That is why min/max loads are published and recommendations to work up are always repeated. There is no way to definitely know what pressures will be generated in your rifle. They don't know your equipment, your components or your abilities.

Read where the head guru at Western/Accurate stated that the normal production variation is +3 to -5 percent from the standard. Then touted LT32 as being tighter @ +2 to -3 %.

Wouldnt that be your lot to lot factor?

If that's what the powder manufacturer states, then yes, that would be the lot to lot difference. This would be why they always say to work up your load. That said, I doubt that shooters would be able to notice or detect a 1500 to 2000 PSI difference without test equipment.

Steve, If we as consumers had pressure info of quoted loads in manuals, we could then make an informed guess as to what would be safe in our rifles, right. Example, let's say a guy named Steve has a Ruger No 1 in .303, he knows his rifle easily digests 62,000 psi loads, with very little guesswork he could pick a safe load. But let's say a guy named Flint (primitive unlettered bastard) has a .303 but it is a No4 Mk1, he too could pick a safe load, knowing his rifle should be limited to 52,000....right? In my mind, no such thing as too much info when reloading.

Steve, it was a thread on BR central when LT32 was introduced. And no i cant tell the difference except on the chronograph.

Flintlocke,

If you want to play and take the time, GRT is free. Works on Windows or Linux. You can play with your loads or load’s considered or just use defaults but it will give you a predicted pressure. As with all predictive software its to be taken with a grain of salt, just like load manuals.

Flintlocke, SAAMI members agree to a standard which is discussed by the membership, some of whom are powder and cartridge manufacturers. In your example, the agreed upon maximum pressure is 49KPSI for the 303 British.

The companies that produce the various components don't know what platform you are loading. They do not know your skill level or the condition of your rifle. If you decide to load above the maximum recommended level because you own a No 1 rifle, that is your decision. We live in a litigious society. They do not wish to end up in court because someone misinterpreted or misused what they recommend.

Sticking with the 303, when a company publishes their information, it is based on discussion by members, as said earlier. At some juncture, the point was raised that there are rifles in existence that are weaker than what is manufactured at present. For that reason, they will keep the pressure maximum low. While you may know the difference between a No 1 and a No 4 Lee Enfield, others don't. Commercial businesses do not wish to be sued.

Edited to add: We used to say, and you have heard this too no doubt, "Just when you thought you made something idiot proof, they invent a better idiot."

One might consider that after a guy has burned 700 rounds through a barrel to develop a load. And when he expects to need a new barrel at 2500 rounds, a guy might just be loathe to needlessly experiment with new powders.

This is why I have never purchased any of the rifle powders introduced in the last fifteen years.

Thankyou, I had never heard of Gordon's.

Steve, The more information...in this case we are talking about pressure of a given powder charge with bullet X...they give us, the more we can make informed decisions about what loads will be safe in OUR rifle. That is in the interests of all concerned, tort lawyers and gun owners, IMO. What these decision makers, SAAMI and CIP, are doing now is assuming that since there MAY be someone out there that has a 1901 Remington Rolling Block in 7x57...that ALL 7x57 loads should be tailored to not blow up the 1901. And therein lies the problem...human nature will dictate that we all want our rifles to perform to their design parameters. If they are limited to 1901 tech, why buy modern rifles if the ammo is still 1901?
I say publish the pressure of every handload, it will make our sport safer and better. If you hold back pressure info, people will experiment.

This question is best posed to the cartridge or powder companies. 🙂

I understand what you are saying, but we both know who makes these decisions.