Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboy4evr
I prefer to use a faster burn powder if I want milder loads instead of down loading a slower burn powder and expecting it to perform well . I have never used PP , but have shot a fair amount of it's " near cousin " BE-86 in my 357 sig and for some mid range 44 magnum loads . I kept it right near the top of the load range and it worked well .
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckford
Its the slower powders that usually offer the worst performance at reduction, H110 and 296 being the most obvious in handguns, but it wouldn't be too surprising to hear of problems in other powders like Power Pistol and Longshot. I remember reading in a flier from BPS on Longshot stating it was a good powder for max loads, but poor at anything less; indeed, my own 10 bore loads proved this true, with patterns going from beautiful at shoulder breaking super loads but deteriorating rapidly as I tried to tone them down. People who have tried Longshot extensively in handguns can offer their notes.
....
tl;dr It would make sense that PP would probably do better at maximum, because that's what it is engineered for, interesting to see what other results people may offer.
|
I think you guys agree more than you disagree.
Downloading faster
burn rate powders has always worked better for me in function and accuracy for mild target loads than trying it with slower burn rate powders.
I do like Power Pistol and have used several pounds of it and BE86, but accuracy/consistency was not as good when I tried it for milder low recoil (mid-range) practice loads in 45, 44spcl, 40 & 9. Heavier charge weights always yielded better more accurate/consistent results for me with those powders. More recoil and a fireball with PP, but fps were impressive.
When I could not buy a pound of 2400 to save my life, BE86 did make pretty darn nice 44mag loads.
