SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    Never shoot another person's hand loads! Ruger M77 300 WM ***Handloads dissected on page 4***
Page 1 2 3 4 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Never shoot another person's hand loads! Ruger M77 300 WM ***Handloads dissected on page 4*** Login/Join 
Member
Picture of sourdough44
posted Hide Post
Thanks for tracking down the load data. Just off the top of my head, 3031 is on the fast side for 'normal' 300 win mag loading, especially with heavier bullets.

When one looks through a few manuals for a cartridge, common powders come up over & over. One would be better off with a less common powder of similar burn rate than venturing to markedly different speed.

No reason to try to use up powder if it's not a good fit. I did not look at any data on 3031 for the Win Mag, usually it calls for 4350 or slower on the burn rate.

Of course the rest of reloading safety protocols factor in too.
 
Posts: 3089 | Location: WI | Registered: February 29, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sourdough44:
Thanks for tracking down the load data. Just off the top of my head, 3031 is on the fast side for 'normal' 300 win mag loading, especially with heavier bullets.

When one looks through a few manuals for a cartridge, common powders come up over & over. One would be better off with a less common powder of similar burn rate than venturing to markedly different speed.

No reason to try to use up powder if it's not a good fit. I did not look at any data on 3031 for the Win Mag, usually it calls for 4350 or slower on the burn rate.

Of course the rest of reloading safety protocols factor in too.


Yes, but if a guy knows what he is doing, there is no problem AT ALL in using an unorthodox powder.

The problem comes in when a guy doesn't know what he is doing.

As I said before, when the final answer comes in, if it does, everybody is going to say "Why yes, of course. That's obvious..."


Quod Apostolici Muneris (December 28, 1878) | LEO XIII. The Pope warned us about the Socialists before most folks knew what a Socialist was...
 
Posts: 4810 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by benny6:
I was supposed to meet with the owner to get the reloads but he just called me to tell me he's sick. I asked him to take a picture of the load data and send it to me.

Here's what's printed on the box he shot that exploded:
Powder: IMR-3031
Charge weight: 51.0 grains
Bullet: Hornady BTSP
Bullet weight: 190 grains

Here's another box that he never got to firing:
Powder: IMR-3031
Charge weight: 57.0 grains
Bullet: Hornady SST
Bullet weight: 165 grains

I can't find any load data anywhere that lists 3031 as an acceptable powder for a 300 Win Mag.

Okay hand-load experts, have fun! Hopefully I'll get my hands on the actual rounds someday.

Tony.


That's because 3031 is not for the 300WinMag; it's WAY too fast. Hodgdon's website simply refuses to list that powder for that caliber irrespective of bullet weight.

I'm still amazed at how the cartridge failed. Must have had a weak spot there.
 
Posts: 2683 | Location: Texas | Registered: June 20, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by NikonUser:
quote:
Originally posted by benny6:
I was supposed to meet with the owner to get the reloads but he just called me to tell me he's sick. I asked him to take a picture of the load data and send it to me.

Here's what's printed on the box he shot that exploded:
Powder: IMR-3031
Charge weight: 51.0 grains
Bullet: Hornady BTSP
Bullet weight: 190 grains

Here's another box that he never got to firing:
Powder: IMR-3031
Charge weight: 57.0 grains
Bullet: Hornady SST
Bullet weight: 165 grains

I can't find any load data anywhere that lists 3031 as an acceptable powder for a 300 Win Mag.

Okay hand-load experts, have fun! Hopefully I'll get my hands on the actual rounds someday.

Tony.


That's because 3031 is not for the 300WinMag; it's WAY too fast. Hodgdon's website simply refuses to list that powder for that caliber irrespective of bullet weight.

I'm still amazed at how the cartridge failed. Must have had a weak spot there.


"That's because 3031 is not for the 300WinMag; it's WAY too fast."

This is a sweeping, generalist's statement.

Many powders can be used for applications that are not "common".

For example, would Red Dot or Unique be "too fast" for the .30-06?

Well, that's news to me and many others who use those powders in the .30-06...properly.

But they can be misused, too.

In this case, a true load of 51 grains looks to be no problem.

SEE isn't an issue with 3031, and 51 gr doesn't look to be in and of itself an overload. So other factors likely apply.

Like the guy had a few in him and bumped the slide on the check scale and got 71 instead of 51 grains in the case, or the bullet was JAMMED in the rifling, or 3031 powder wasn't used but Red Dot WAS.

LOL.

We need to wait and see.

3031 as well as other similar powders like the 4895's can be used for a variety of uses that are not in some of the load books. And they are still totally safe.

This load wasn't, so we need to find out what the load and all other factors actually were.


Quod Apostolici Muneris (December 28, 1878) | LEO XIII. The Pope warned us about the Socialists before most folks knew what a Socialist was...
 
Posts: 4810 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Here's some more sweeping generalizations.

In my years of loading, I have come to believe that if a powder is recommended by the manufacturer as suitable for that caliber and bullet weight, there is no way you can load enough of that powder in a case and still seat the bullet that would cause a kaboom.

I also tend to believe the bullet weight doesn't even matter. For instance, you cannot put enough Varget in a 308 or 223 and still be able to seat any bullet and cause a kaboom. You will have very hot loads. You will have cratered primers, even primers pushed out; but no kaboom.

That all goes out the window when you use a powder that is NOT recommended by the manufacturer. Yes, you can use non-recommended powders and get away with it, if you are very, very careful. I've done that. However, your margin of safety is gone.

3031 is a very fast rifle powder, like H322 or H335. Put in in a .300WinMag case with a very heavy bullet all bets are off if you make a mistake. You alluded to it.
We have no clue if it's 51gr. We do know it's a fast rifle powder and if there's any weakness in the case...

In answer to your question about Unique being too fast for .30-06, yes it is. You can inadvertently fill up the .30-06 case with Unique and then see what happens when you fire it. You have no safety margin; you can suffer from a detonation or an overload.

The damage done to the rifle represents a lot of force. Also, we were told that the bullet reached the target and hit the bullseye; that means it had plenty of velocity to get there in the proper spot from the charge AND the still mangle the rifle; that's an M77, built like a tank.
 
Posts: 2683 | Location: Texas | Registered: June 20, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by NikonUser:
Here's some more sweeping generalizations.

In my years of loading, I have come to believe that if a powder is recommended by the manufacturer as suitable for that caliber and bullet weight, there is no way you can load enough of that powder in a case and still seat the bullet that would cause a kaboom.

I also tend to believe the bullet weight doesn't even matter. For instance, you cannot put enough Varget in a 308 or 223 and still be able to seat any bullet and cause a kaboom. You will have very hot loads. You will have cratered primers, even primers pushed out; but no kaboom.

That all goes out the window when you use a powder that is NOT recommended by the manufacturer. Yes, you can use non-recommended powders and get away with it, if you are very, very careful. I've done that. However, your margin of safety is gone.

3031 is a very fast rifle powder, like H322 or H335. Put in in a .300WinMag case with a very heavy bullet all bets are off if you make a mistake. You alluded to it.
We have no clue if it's 51gr. We do know it's a fast rifle powder and if there's any weakness in the case...

In answer to your question about Unique being too fast for .30-06, yes it is. You can inadvertently fill up the .30-06 case with Unique and then see what happens when you fire it. You have no safety margin; you can suffer from a detonation or an overload.

The damage done to the rifle represents a lot of force. Also, we were told that the bullet reached the target and hit the bullseye; that means it had plenty of velocity to get there in the proper spot from the charge AND the still mangle the rifle; that's an M77, built like a tank.


There is a lot of wrong in this post. Both from a safety standpoint and a practical use standpoint.

I'd strongly recommend that newcomers and others who have no experience handloading but might be interested in handloading simply erase it from your minds.


Quod Apostolici Muneris (December 28, 1878) | LEO XIII. The Pope warned us about the Socialists before most folks knew what a Socialist was...
 
Posts: 4810 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Hop head
Picture of lyman
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
quote:
Originally posted by NikonUser:
quote:
Originally posted by benny6:
I was supposed to meet with the owner to get the reloads but he just called me to tell me he's sick. I asked him to take a picture of the load data and send it to me.

Here's what's printed on the box he shot that exploded:
Powder: IMR-3031
Charge weight: 51.0 grains
Bullet: Hornady BTSP
Bullet weight: 190 grains

Here's another box that he never got to firing:
Powder: IMR-3031
Charge weight: 57.0 grains
Bullet: Hornady SST
Bullet weight: 165 grains

I can't find any load data anywhere that lists 3031 as an acceptable powder for a 300 Win Mag.

Okay hand-load experts, have fun! Hopefully I'll get my hands on the actual rounds someday.

Tony.


That's because 3031 is not for the 300WinMag; it's WAY too fast. Hodgdon's website simply refuses to list that powder for that caliber irrespective of bullet weight.

I'm still amazed at how the cartridge failed. Must have had a weak spot there.


"That's because 3031 is not for the 300WinMag; it's WAY too fast."

This is a sweeping, generalist's statement.

Many powders can be used for applications that are not "common".

For example, would Red Dot or Unique be "too fast" for the .30-06?

Well, that's news to me and many others who use those powders in the .30-06...properly.

But they can be misused, too.

In this case, a true load of 51 grains looks to be no problem.

SEE isn't an issue with 3031, and 51 gr doesn't look to be in and of itself an overload. So other factors likely apply.

Like the guy had a few in him and bumped the slide on the check scale and got 71 instead of 51 grains in the case, or the bullet was JAMMED in the rifling, or 3031 powder wasn't used but Red Dot WAS.

LOL.

We need to wait and see.

3031 as well as other similar powders like the 4895's can be used for a variety of uses that are not in some of the load books. And they are still totally safe.

This load wasn't, so we need to find out what the load and all other factors actually were.


lots of pistol powder data for 3006 in some older lyman\ideal catalogs,

I use a 2400 load that is very accurate at 100 with a 168,,



www.chesterfieldarmament.com
 
Posts: 6062 | Location: Beach VA,not VA Beach | Registered: July 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dkjbama:
It's very possible that whoever loaded those rounds had their full-length sizing die set too low and bumped the shoulder back too far creating excessive headspace. I would get a case gauge and check the unfired rounds.


300 WM's are a belted case and headspace on the belt, this wont do it, it will just fireform the casing


*****************************
"I don't own the night, I only operate a small franchise" - Author unknown
 
Posts: 2181 | Location: Texas | Registered: September 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by car541:
quote:
Originally posted by dkjbama:
It's very possible that whoever loaded those rounds had their full-length sizing die set too low and bumped the shoulder back too far creating excessive headspace. I would get a case gauge and check the unfired rounds.


300 WM's are a belted case and headspace on the belt, this wont do it, it will just fireform the casing



That's true as far as stopping the case HEAD from shifting forward under the blow of the firing pin {and that assumes the case actually headspaces on the shoulder which may not actually be and which is another issue}, but a set-back shoulder can cause separation of the case head from the body of the case due to stretching forward of the case body under the pressure during firing, the separation occurring at the web. This I alluded to earlier as it happens not infrequently with maladjusted and/or mis-sized dies or chambers {I've had incipient cracks due to this cause in my .375 H&H Magnum, for example}.

A case head separation can cause lots of mayhem, especially in a large magnum case that carries a lot of fuel in it.


Quod Apostolici Muneris (December 28, 1878) | LEO XIII. The Pope warned us about the Socialists before most folks knew what a Socialist was...
 
Posts: 4810 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Yeah, that M14 video guy...
Picture of benny6
posted Hide Post
I don't like the fact that there was so much empty air space in the case. 51 grains in a case that holds in excess of 70 is not good, in my opinion.

Looking at powder burn rate charts, 3031 is WAAAYYYY faster than the powders that are more typical powders for 300 WM. Hodgdon does list some loads with powders as fast as 4895 but that's it. Perhaps there were more failures with 3031 in early days which is why it was dropped.

I know one thing for sure, if I ever have a 300WM, I won't be using 3031. I'll stick with 4350, 4831 or something along those lines.

Tony.


Owner, TonyBen, LLC, Type-01 FFL
www.tonybenm14.com (Site under construction).
e-mail: tonyben@tonybenm14.com
 
Posts: 2640 | Location: USA | Registered: February 13, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
quote:
Originally posted by NikonUser:
Here's some more sweeping generalizations.

In my years of loading, I have come to believe that if a powder is recommended by the manufacturer as suitable for that caliber and bullet weight, there is no way you can load enough of that powder in a case and still seat the bullet that would cause a kaboom.

I also tend to believe the bullet weight doesn't even matter. For instance, you cannot put enough Varget in a 308 or 223 and still be able to seat any bullet and cause a kaboom. You will have very hot loads. You will have cratered primers, even primers pushed out; but no kaboom.

That all goes out the window when you use a powder that is NOT recommended by the manufacturer. Yes, you can use non-recommended powders and get away with it, if you are very, very careful. I've done that. However, your margin of safety is gone.

3031 is a very fast rifle powder, like H322 or H335. Put in in a .300WinMag case with a very heavy bullet all bets are off if you make a mistake. You alluded to it.
We have no clue if it's 51gr. We do know it's a fast rifle powder and if there's any weakness in the case...

In answer to your question about Unique being too fast for .30-06, yes it is. You can inadvertently fill up the .30-06 case with Unique and then see what happens when you fire it. You have no safety margin; you can suffer from a detonation or an overload.

The damage done to the rifle represents a lot of force. Also, we were told that the bullet reached the target and hit the bullseye; that means it had plenty of velocity to get there in the proper spot from the charge AND the still mangle the rifle; that's an M77, built like a tank.


There is a lot of wrong in this post. Both from a safety standpoint and a practical use standpoint.

I'd strongly recommend that newcomers and others who have no experience handloading but might be interested in handloading simply erase it from your minds.


I think you may be missing NikonUser’s point. He is saying that published data generally uses powders with enough loaf to mostly fill the case. This makes it more difficult to destroy a rifle because the case overfills before you get enough overcharge to destroy the rifle. With higher loaf powders, you cannot seat a heavier bullet without reducing the amount of powder. When you go outside of published data, using something like 3031 in a 300WM, it is now possible to overcharge or even double charge a case to the point it will explode. The point is less true with handgun loadings, there being more opportunity to use fast powder in large cases, like Unique in 44 Mag.

There are exceptions, like when the loading manual is wrong. For example, Hodgon’s current data for the new 4955 powder in the 270 Win is way off. The starting load extracted the primer for me (but it didn’t blow the gun up Wink). This is why you should always start at the beginning load, even with published data.

In summary, the gist of NikonUser’s point is that you should stay with published data because it has a higher safety margin. This is good, not bad, advice for anybody, especially novices.



[i]
 
Posts: 5067 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

I think you may be missing NikonUser’s point. He is saying that published data generally uses powders with enough loaf to mostly fill the case. This makes it more difficult to destroy a rifle because the case overfills before you get enough overcharge to destroy the rifle. With higher loaf powders, you cannot seat a heavier bullet without reducing the amount of powder. When you go outside of published data, using something like 3031 in a 300WM, it is now possible to overcharge or even double charge a case to the point it will explode. The point is less true with handgun loadings, there being more opportunity to use fast powder in large cases, like Unique in 44 Mag.

There are exceptions, like when the loading manual is wrong. For example, Hodgon’s current data for the new 4955 powder in the 270 Win is way off. The starting load extracted the primer for me (but it didn’t blow the gun up Wink). This is why you should always start at the beginning load, even with published data.

In summary, the gist of NikonUser’s point is that you should stay with published data because it has a higher safety margin. This is good, not bad, advice for anybody, especially novices.


Thank you sigcrazy7, you saved me from having to write just what you did. And I did explicitly point out that this was only for rifle loads. Handgun loads are totally different.

The rifle kabooms that I have seen, read or just heard about have almost always been one of these:

Used wrong powder (most often pistol powder) instead of rifle powder. (I've even heard of one case where the handloader mixed two powders together in the same case.)

Fired the wrong caliber round in the rifle (there is even an example of that at a local gun range, mounted on the wall for all to see and wonder.)

Obstruction in bore (bullet from a prior squib load, cleaning rod, laser pointer, etc.)

I have seen primers pierce or pop out. I have seen case heads separate. I have even seen a case break in two pieces just below the shoulder in an M77. The rifle was not affected, no kabooms, and subsequent rounds would work just fine.

Stay with powders recommended by the powder manufacturer for your caliber.
 
Posts: 2683 | Location: Texas | Registered: June 20, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Used wrong powder (most often pistol powder) instead of rifle powder.


NikonUser and sigcrazy7: I appreciate what you are trying to say but you are both simply wrong. I'm not trying to pick on you, but you fellows obviously, simply lack knowledge and experience in the broader range of handloading, and you are passing on incorrect information.

First, regarding "fast" burning powders in large capacity cases.

For over a century, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of rounds of Military Guard Cartridges, reduced-power target loads and cast bullet loads were and have been and/or are safely assembled using "pistol powders" in large volume rifle cases. Many of us use fast "pistol" powders all the time and they are utterly safe when used correctly. They are not "wrong" powders. To suggest that all of us handloaders and the military forces that used to use now-obsolete similarly-constructed Guard Cartridges are quote, "using the wrong powder" demonstrates a total lack of understanding.

In addition, of course, BILLIONS of rounds of pistol cartridges are loaded that exhibit the exact same propensity to wreck a gun with an overcharge including double charges of fast powders. There is no difference at all between the potential that exists to wreck a gun with either pistol cases or rifle cases that are improperly loaded. To suggest that rifle cases are too big for the powder used, but pistol cases are OK is simply wrong. Dangerously wrong. Many, in fact, almost all pistol cases possess enough volume to wreck a gun with an excessive load of normal pistol powder. To suggest that such powders are unacceptable for use in rifle loads but to give them a pass in pistol loads is illogical and simply wrong. In fact, they are quite proper to use in BOTH, as long as the loads are assembled correctly. You are saying that fast powders are "OK" because they are safe in pistols but dangerous in rifles. Wrong. They are just as "unsafe" in both, or, as the case may be if used properly, totally safe in both.

The following statement is wrong as well passing on dangerous and unsafe information: "I also tend to believe the bullet weight doesn't even matter. For instance, you cannot put enough Varget in a 308 or 223 and still be able to seat any bullet and cause a kaboom. You will have very hot loads. You will have cratered primers, even primers pushed out; but no kaboom."

Bullet weight CAN be a very significant problem. To select two powders in 2 calibers that "prove" the point only makes the statement more negligent, in that there are many, MANY loads where substituting bullet weights in regular loads can cause significant overpressure problems, especially when using the quicker-for cartridge powders. Whether a bolt gun would be wrecked is immaterial. Rifle actions vary in strength and potential for catastrophic failure. Take a 100 grain bullet in say, the .30-06 and load it to the safe-in-that-rifle maximum. Now, if you swap out the 100 grain bullet for a 220, leaving the max charge of {likely} relatively fast powder behind the bullet, you may very well get significant and catastrophic or at least dangerous failure of the case and/or action.

Also, regarding the use of published loads, the statement was made: "In summary, the gist of NikonUser’s point is that you should stay with published data because it has a higher safety margin". True enough, except you both suggest fast powders are not listed in published data. That is simply not true. Again, you are passing on incorrect information. There are MANY published loads available that use what are commonly called "pistol powders" in large capacity cases. Vast numbers are published in many handbooks for cast bullet loads with some loadbooks being almost entirely dedicated to the use of "pistol" powders in rifle cases. In addition, some books publish low-power "reduced" range loads. That you are unaware of this or that you are not interested in this type of shooting may be true, but does not negate the reality; use of fast powders in rifle cases is very safe and there are many loads published for same. And there have been for over a hundred years. That they are not popular with young, "tactical" or other uninformed shooters notwithstanding, such loads are useful and entirely safe and used by many of us and have been for generations.

As I said, it's best to know what you are talking about before you start making sweeping statements, especially statements involving potentially hazardous activities like handloading.

Best to all.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 3/4Flap,


Quod Apostolici Muneris (December 28, 1878) | LEO XIII. The Pope warned us about the Socialists before most folks knew what a Socialist was...
 
Posts: 4810 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
As I said, it's best to know what you are talking about before you start making sweeping statements, especially statements involving potentially hazardous activities like handloading.


^^ Roll Eyes

NikonUser and I both are advocating for powder choices that miminize the risk of danger. You, OTOH, are bringing into play specialized loads such as reduced lead loads using pistol powders. Nobody said it can’t be done, but most MAINSTREAM data recommends the use of powders that minimize the chances of over charges. Also, those who care about hitting targets at 1000 yards will choose high loaf powders, not a 20% of capacity pistol powder. Some manuals (Nosler) even publish their loaf percentage with their data.

For the beginning loader, a powder and bullet weight that is well tailored to the cartridge being loaded is a safer way to load. To put it another way, no 270 Win has ever been destroyed using 4831 with any bullet weight, but I bet we can find one that’s come loose from somebody trying to use Bullseye/Unique/Red Dot/etc.



[i]
 
Posts: 5067 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
quote:
Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
As I said, it's best to know what you are talking about before you start making sweeping statements, especially statements involving potentially hazardous activities like handloading.


^^ Roll Eyes

NikonUser and I both are advocating for powder choices that miminize the risk of danger. You, OTOH, are bringing into play specialized loads such as reduced lead loads using pistol powders. Nobody said it can’t be done, but most MAINSTREAM data recommends the use of powders that minimize the chances of over charges. Also, those who care about hitting targets at 1000 yards will choose high loaf powders, not a 20% of capacity pistol powder. Some manuals (Nosler) even publish their loaf percentage with their data.

For the beginning loader, a powder and bullet weight that is well tailored to the cartridge being loaded is a safer way to load. To put it another way, no 270 Win has ever been destroyed using 4831 with any bullet weight, but I bet we can find one that’s come loose from somebody trying to use Bullseye/Unique/Red Dot/etc.


So all handloading in order to meet your personal safety rule should be limited to bulky powders that leave no room for potential damage to that gun?

Great.

You just wiped out many rifle cartridges and almost all pistol cartridges. Further; nobody here ever said the subject was 1000 yard shooting. The subject is handloading and its potential hazards and what constitutes safe loads.

Sorry, but just because you have no interest or are ignorant of some aspect of handloading as you have made abundantly clear here, doesn't mean others are, and certainly has no bearing on whether it is "mainstream". Any handload listed in a published book is "mainstream", and MANY examples exist where pistol powders are used in rifle cases. That you don't consider such loads "mainstream" is irrelevant and meaningless.

In fact, if you are really set on sticking with what is "mainstream" in shooting, leave handloading behind. By such a definition, NO handloading at all is mainstream because only those with esoteric interest engage in it. Most shooters by FAR consider real live "mainstream" shooting that which involves factory ammo only. As soon as you enter the handloading game, you have left the "mainstream" far behind.

As for "mainstream" handloading, shooting pistol handloads of any type is about as "mainstream" as it gets and virtually ALL pistol cases possess the EXACT same ballistic characteristics that large rifle cases do vis a vis fast powders in that ALL are capable of generating gun-wrecking pressures with overloads. Yet somehow they are "safe" to be used with fast powders but rifle cases are not? That is ridiculous. By your standards all pistol cartridges should be loaded with bulky powders that cannot be overcharged to the point of causing damage to a handgun because powders capable of being doublecharged are inherently dangerous and certainly no new handloader should be trusted to use them. That, too is ridiculous.

You have been making sweeping and ignorant statements about handloading that expose your lack of knowledge of the subject and your lack of experience and interest in some aspects of it. It's that simple, and every time you post more you simply reinforce that fact.

The fact is, and maybe we can all agree with this, is that every handloader must apply safe practices and procedures that produce safe handloads. Period. If he doesn't know what they are, he should stay out of the game. Whether fast, medium or slow burning powders are used is thus irrelevant. Because if used appropriately, ALL can produce very useful and safe ammunition.


Quod Apostolici Muneris (December 28, 1878) | LEO XIII. The Pope warned us about the Socialists before most folks knew what a Socialist was...
 
Posts: 4810 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
3/4 Flap,

You don't know anything about my experience, so to call me ignorant is simply you being an ass. Therefore, you can stow your arrogance. Perhaps you have a bit of cartridge loading experience, but you've got a ways to go in being civil.

Here's a nice little sample...

quote:

There is a lot of wrong in this post. Both from a safety standpoint and a practical use standpoint.

I'd strongly recommend that newcomers and others who have no experience handloading but might be interested in handloading simply erase it from your minds.


Wow. That's a real classy response.

quote:

As I said, it's best to know what you are talking about before you start making sweeping statements, especially statements involving potentially hazardous activities like hand loading.


quote:

You continue to demonstrate your ignorance.


quote:

Sorry, but just because you have no interest or are ignorant of some aspect of handloading as you have made abundantly clear here,


quote:

You have been making sweeping and ignorant statements about handloading that expose your lack of knowledge of the subject and your lack of experience and interest in some aspects of it. It's that simple, and every time you post more you simple reinforce that fact.


I was clarifying a point you cannot seem to understand, if followed would have prevented the subject of this thread. This thread is not an open discussion of general hand loading, but a discussion of a rifle failure. Hence the observation by NikonUser that using powders better suited to the cartridge provides an inherent level of safety.

In one post you want to lecture NikonUser and me about the problem of giving out dangerous information, and then in another post you croon on about how any powder is good anywhere, so long as the loader has sufficient experience.

Ok. I get it. You're the god of loading.

I'm done here. Feel free to respond and talk down to me a little more if it makes you feel better. Perhaps throw in another "ignorant" if you haven't run out. Roll Eyes



[i]
 
Posts: 5067 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
3/4 Flap,


...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................



Quit whining.

I know only what I've read here and what you've posted here indicates exactly what I said. You have demonstrated an obvious lack of knowledge on the subject and yet that hasn't prevented you from making sweeping and at times totally inaccurate statements. Your arrogance prevents you from simply learning what you obviously don't know. That's all. It's not the end of the world. Fortunately we have some here that can clarify what you have obscured.

If you had just admitted you were wrong earlier you'd have saved yourself some obvious grief, as it appears your feelings are hurt. Sorry, that's not intentional, but the stuff you posted couldn't be left alone as it was just plain wrong. What else am I supposed to do? Leave what you posted uncorrected?

I mean, it's obvious, so there's not much left to say.


Quod Apostolici Muneris (December 28, 1878) | LEO XIII. The Pope warned us about the Socialists before most folks knew what a Socialist was...
 
Posts: 4810 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
Here's some clarification about why one should choose a powder with proper load density.

https://www.shootingsoftware.com/loadens.htm

quote:

Load Density

Most reloaders understand that the wrong amount or type of powder will not produce accurate results no matter how much care has been taken to make each round. Powders certainly are not the same. Some purists make sure no rock is left unturned while searching for the optimum load and will test every powder that can be safely fired in a particular caliber. This can be costly and time consuming.so here is an old technique that will help identify powders worthy of testing.

LOAD DENSITY THEORY

Powders with similar burn rates (quickness) as listed in a reloading manual often will not deliver similar results. There is a simple reason for this. Burn rate is only one powder characteristic and may not be the primary factor which contributes to accuracy in a particular caliber. Composition and granule shape also affects the powder's performance and can vary between powders of similar burn rates. The burn rate of a powder is controlled by its base composition, granule size, granule shape and often a coating on the granules. These design features also change the density of powder so that for a given weight there is more or less gas energy produced for a given volume that the powder occupies.

Ballisticians have long recognized that the volume of powder in a cartridge effects the accuracy of a load. A powder charge that completely fills the space under the bullet is often more accurate. It is theorized that this helps promote more consistent ignition and rise in pressure behind the bullet, more consistent velocities and therefore greater accuracy. Indeed this can be seen with instrumentation that captures the pressure curve.

The percent of the available powder space under the bullet filled by the powder is called the "load density". As the load density is reduced (powder doesn't fill case), the point of peak pressure moves toward the muzzle and velocity falls off. Low load density can cause another problem. With a partially filled case the powder charge can shift to change ignition and the shape of the pressure curve. Increasing the load density moves the point of peak pressure backward toward the chamber and increases velocity. Since the powder cannot shift within the cartridge, ignition and pressure is more uniform, resulting in more consistent velocities and better accuracy.

Also, for most good loads the powder is burned a few inches beyond the point of peak pressure, but if the firearm has a short barrel and low load density, the peak pressure may move further toward the muzzle resulting in excessive "muzzle flash". Excessive muzzle flash happens when unburned powder ignites at the muzzle, causing turbulence behind the bullet with a detrimental effect on accuracy.

There is often a direct relationship between the burn rate (quickness of the powder) and the space a safe powder charge will fill. Powders can be made to burn quicker by reducing the granule size, which increases its density so a given charge weight takes up less space. Switching to a quicker powder may not resolve a muzzle flash problem if the powder has a high density and doesn't fill the case. Instead, filling the case completely with a lower density, but slower powder (as listed in a load table), may hold the point of peak pressure nearer the chamber for a complete burn, less muzzle flash and better accuracy. This is why some reloaders prefer slight compression loads.

Reloaders interested in accuracy have loaded cartridges originally designed for black powder with smokeless powder and everything from cereal to cardboard wads in an effort to fill the excess space. The safety of this practice is questionable and should NEVER be attempted without first consulting a reliable load reference, but those who use fillers swear by the results. This practice is further testament to the validity of load density theory.

If you do not own software that will calculate load densities there is a manual method that will work. First it is necessary to determine the powder capacity of the cartridge. To do this, file a small notch inside the mouth of a fired but not decapped case so it extends from the rim of the case to a point just beneath the bullet's base when it is seated. Weigh the case and bullet. Fill the case with water and carefully seat the bullet while displacing water out the notch filed in the mouth. Weigh the water filled case and bullet again. The difference in weights is the powder capacity of the cartridge in grains of water.

Next, you must know the bulk density of the powder you are using. Some powder companies publish bulk densities, others force you to find the bulk density yourself. The bulk density of powder is most commonly expressed as grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc). Since the weight of one cc of water is nearly always 1 gram, a bulk density of 0.970 g/cc means the powder is 97% as dense as water. Bulk density is therefore also the powder's weight in any volume divided by the weight of water filling the same volume. To find the bulk density for a powder first weigh a container (large as practical for your reloading scale) to determine its weight. Then weigh it filled to the top with powder. Fill the empty container with water and weigh it again. Divide the weight of powder the container will hold by the weight of water it will hold. The result (1.000 or less) is the bulk density of the powder.

To finish the calculation use these formulae: Cartridge Cap. in gr. of H20 * Powder's Bulk Density = Cartridge's Powder Capacity Powder Charge in gr. / Cartridge's Powder Capacity = Load Density

The Sierra load manu is ideally suited for load density analysis because powder charges are arranged under an estimated velocity column. Select a velocity column that is close to what you hope to achieve and calculate the load densities using the indicated powder charges.

Most powder companies will admit that the bulk density of production lots differ by as much as ±10%. You should consider this limitation when comparing load densities. Powders that produce load densities within 10% of each other may provide similar results and should not be eliminated from consideration. All rules are made to be broken. The theory of load density related to accuracy is not entirely foolproof, particularly when applied to certain cartridges and/or free bored chambers. Any safe charge producing a load density of 80% or more may be worth testing if powders with higher densities do not produce the desired result.

The following output from our software demonstrates a typical load density analysis. Powders commonly used for this heavy bullet in a 30-06 are those which also produce that best load density and the powders at the bottom of the ranking are not even listed in most load manuals for this bullet.



[i]
 
Posts: 5067 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Here's some clarification about why one should choose a powder with proper load density.

[/QUOTE]

Just curious; What do you glean from this interesting copy/paste?


Quod Apostolici Muneris (December 28, 1878) | LEO XIII. The Pope warned us about the Socialists before most folks knew what a Socialist was...
 
Posts: 4810 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I have not yet begun
to procrastinate
Picture of KMitch200
posted Hide Post
Looking at an ancient Sierra load book, there are 3031 listings for 300WM.
3031 - 190gr bullet - 51.0 start, 53.8 max
3031 - 165(8)gr bullet - 53.9 start, 56.6 mid, 59.3 max

Raw numbers of what was *supposed* to be in there seem to be in the right range.
Maybe the powder was as old as this reloading data... Who knows?


--------
After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box.
 
Posts: 2293 | Location: AZ - West side of the valley | Registered: October 26, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    Never shoot another person's hand loads! Ruger M77 300 WM ***Handloads dissected on page 4***

© SIGforum 2017