quote:

FOURTH DISCIPLE

Jessie,

I'm afraid that even though our leading Disciple, Eric, started this topic of discussion we have found someone worthy of being called "The First Disciple" simply because he has charts and everything!

We still love you Eric but WOW are we getting some serious information now! Makes my videos and comments seem silly in comparison to the stuff we are getting!

Thanks Paul!


Aw if ya caint have fun wit it why does it!

I kind of wish Id lisen two Bro. Erich, Bro. Crazy aNd Bro. Nutty. bout them powders an al ensted of useing EUP powders. At least Id wud hav the normal amount of arms,legs and tales. Keap the info comming foaks. Id be lerning a wole bunch frum u guys. Well, Id be off to try sum TNT stuf that My Bro. buddy gave me. Watch fo the big mushrum cloud down in centrol Texas. Latter.

quote:

and tales

Joel,
I think this is a Freudian slip!

You are a mess, Brother!

God bless all of you, arms, legs and TALES!

Paul,
I am reading this article from Handloader's Digest! WOW! They actually used the data from the Speer #8! WOW!

Here is a quote from the article.

quote:

These loads are not necessarily recommended for use in short-barreled handguns, although data was taken from the Speer Manual #8, a valuable source of information for the handloader.

Here is the last statement in the article. Notice he probably isn't an engineer either as he has a sense of humor!

quote:

After all, who else can be confident that even if he misses his assailant at close range he will at least burn, blind and deafen him?

I have not went above the starting load of 4756 from Speer #8 with two different cast bullets that I cast. It is doing everything that I want or need in a 38/44 type load and doing it at much lower pressure than the traditional Elmer or Skeeter load with 2400. Also the accuracy is very, very slightly better and the ES and SD is lower. I will not be upping the ante any at all by going to a heavier charge of powder. Also I have no intention of trying it with jacketed bullets since I can't make my own. This load suits my needs perfectly so I will stick with what I have.

However in looking over some of the results of Paul's tests I am not the least surprised at the results. To tell you the truth they are right in line with what I would expect to see. Because this is ground that HAS been covered before more than once since Speer #8 was published in 1970. For example there was an article in Handloader "back in the day", where the writer had went up to 10.0 grs of 4756 in a Chief's Special and also a Bodyguard, both steel framed guns. He decided to reduce the charge to 9.5 because of excessive recoil.

This is not a recommendation just sharing some info. Take it for what you think it is worth to you.

Here's the data I got today. You have to read down the columns, not across the columns.



As you can see, there's data comparing Unique and SR 4756, both with widely different lot dates. I have no idea how old the Unique is, but the SR 4756 appears to have a 10156 production date and it was made by DuPont in the USA. The newer IMR SR 4756 was made in 2004 in Canada.

If you have trouble reading the report, it's posted here, so you can download it into your viewer and blow it up some.
http://www.bbhfarm.com/gallery/album06/abd

quote:

Originally posted by Paul5388:
blow it up some.

Tongue in cheek but could you rephrase that last statement when we are talking about a ballistic report?


Great report! Several questions come to mind. I am sure you won't mind answering them so here goes: #1 ANY and I mean ANY signs of over pressure? #2 Should we take away from the report that basically the SR4756 is still the same powder as in the olden days? If so that would mean, to me at least, that the loads of yesteryear can be loaded with confidence in the data. #3 Why didn't you shoot THE LOAD in the M&P? I can't read what year it is from the picture. You could email the actual document file if you want. #4 I know this wasn't the focus of this test but how was accuracy?

Paul, great report and thank you for sharing it with us. Looking forward to more. I quess I do have one more question though. What is the next step in testing?

Be sure to let us know!

I blew it up. Paul's report not my gun, guys

Well there is a difference there ; as would be expected but it is no more than what I have seen between two lots of powder of recent manufacture. There are tolerances in everything including burning rates of powder. But this report shows that there is not a great deal of difference in powder made many years apart. The difference seems to be no more than what you will find in normal lot to lot variation. The powder companies are making every effort to maintain consistency in burning rates. This information is not exactly earth shaking news to me as I have already done enough tests on both old and new powder to convince me there is consistency in burning rates because the powder copanies know there are many reloader's who will not buy the latest manual and it would be downright dangerous to radically change the burning rate of a powder.

So to my way of thinking the old and the new are enough alike that there will be no problems whatsoever. Thanks for the report Paul.

Skip,

The M&P is either a 1948 or 1949 model. To be perfectly honest, I really don't see a need to shoot THE LOAD in a .38 Special when I have .357s it surely won't hurt. Speer #8 used a K-38 to shoot their loads out of, but my M14-2 will probably never see any of these loads either. I really tend to use these as light magnums and shoot them in magnum guns.



Even though the M&P and the M66 are basically the same gun, the M66 with Grippers is much nicer to shoot than the M&P with wood grips/stocks.

SR 4756 is actually producing a little less velocity in its newer form than the older forms. However, it appears to have no more variation than what would be expected in lot to lot variation.

I shot so much today in so many guns, I didn't really notice any loads that were too hard to eject. One in something was a little harder to eject, but I didn't note which one. There could have also been some Unique fouling, I shot it first in all guns, in the chambers to affect extraction some.

I was only shooting at dirt, trying to get readings, which I failed at sometimes.

The velocities I got were within 40 fps of what was reported in Speer #8 for 6" barrels. My M66 is as fast as the 6" M28 and maybe even faster. The M28 was only 21 fps faster than what Speer got. The 2" barrel is surprising, being only about 40 fps slower than what Speer got with a 6" and about 80 fps faster than their 2" barrel.

I'll probably try some magnum loads next, maybe 11.0 gr of 1967 SR 4756 with this same bullet?

BTW, here's the leading report.

quote:

OK, leading report:
M462 Rossi moderate leading the full length of the barrel. 8 strokes with the brass bore brush had it nice and shiny again.
M66 light leading toward the muzzle. Must have run out of lube before it got to the exit.
M28-2 negligible the whole length.
M&P very slight toward the muzzle 4 strokes with a brass brush had it clean.

This seems like a lot of it may have come from too little lube to last all the way to the muzzle. The bore on the Rossi may be a little larger too, I haven't actually slugged it to see.

The more I think about it, I wonder why the 6" barrel didn't lead any if it was a lack of lube? I wonder if it is more a function of Unique loads, since I didn't shoot any Unique through the M28?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Paul5388,

I've been lazy lately and haven't loaded anything in a day or two. As I sit and ponder some of what I was proposing, I think it might be better to try some accuracy loads before moving on to magnum loads. That would give a more complete set of data to compare with further down the road.

It has to be realized that my eyes are getting old and I don't shoot as good as I once did and even then I wasn't the world's greatest shot. I have a small cataract on my shooting eye and age related macular degeneration in my left eye.

Long story short, it'll at least give something to compare with.

I have the same problem with accuracy loading. I'm so inaccurate, it's hard to tell what the ammo is doing. Thank heaven for broad-sided barns, or I'd be a complete flop.

I switched most of my front sights to the fiber optic type for this very reason.

They are Tru-Glow. Some are Trijicon too but not all.

Seeing the front sight is a pre-requisite for accurate shooting! I know some firearms don't lend themselves to these as they are collectors or fixed but....

You've got to try the Merit sight to believe how well it works. Not only can you focus on the front sight (miracle of miracles!), but you can see the target.

pinky,
What's that line in your glasses?



I have two of them now! Trifocals for crying out loud!

Gettin' old ain't for the faint of heart!

Having lines on your glasses is no different than having plastic teeth!

Thanks for the picture of the Merit Pinky. I think I may see about trying some and see if they help me as much as you say they help you.