Quote:
Originally Posted by STORMINORMAN
"This is why I say there's sssoooooooo much information out there. At the end of the day your:
Going to make ammo with a +/- .005" difference in oal. so your ammo is going to be as much a .010" shorter than your documented oal.
You powder is .02gr under max, most throws with powders it likes are +/- .01gr and will throw .02gr every now and then.
Brass is extremely different between mfg's and the different font's for the same brass signifies changes in design. Brass made 10yrs ago doesn't have the same beefed up web that most brass uses today. Thicker webs ='s less case volume.
Well lets get down to it:"
My suggested WIN 231 powder load is actually 0.2 gr under max, and that is a factor of 10X LESS than the figures that are quoted in the above statement.
I believe that this is a material consideration. 
I do appreciate the input and do understand the potential for danger if the suggested load is ONLY " .02 gr under max".
Cheers! |
Please don't feel that my post was directed at you, it wasn't. I actually like your powder choice and the amount you choose.
My post was in error, it should of been 1/10th grains or .2gr not .01gr or .02gr.
That's why I like your choice in powders/amount of powder. The most you'll ever end up is a max safe load. And 231 isn't a "snappy" powder that develops pressure in a hurry. It tends to push a bullet rather than slam it out of a case/bbl which tends to make it a softer shooting powder in allot of calibers.
No one seemed to of directly answered your question about pressure. So I posted what ramshot pressure tests showed about the relationship between oal/raise in pressure.
Decades ago bullseye used to be the bad boy on the block (today it seems to be titegroup). Allot of reloaders were getting kabooms from wc/38spl-357 combos. So alliant (hercules back then) came out with this little gem.
And yes even the big boys make mistakes, note the 19899 instead of 1989 in the bottom corner of the picture posted above.
The wc bullet turned a case that had more than ample room into a small capacity case like the 9mm.
Anyway, just trying to put out their things a reloader might find useful or never thought about.
The 9mm used to be a sweet caliber to reload for. Then with the advent of un-supported chambers and now bbl's with no throats. It's turned that caliber into a real mess. It's pretty bad when a brass mfg warns users against using their brass in specific firearms due the the way they mfg their bbl's.
And I hate to say it but the 9mm's aren't the only calibers that are being made without throats anymore. It's becoming extremely common in the 40s&w's and the 45acp's.
I'll have to take a couple pics of the throats in the different 9mm bbl's I use/shoot. The nm bbl in my 1911 has a lllooooonnnnnggggg throat in it compared to a beater taurus pocket pistol I keep in the night stand.
Again I apologize if you think I was directing my post at you in any way. Most reloaders don't realize that their oals vary along with their powder throw weights vary. Or that doing a plunk test with a bullet is checking the oal/throat, not the chamber.