Why I don't use Titegroup in the 500
- Thread starter John Ross
- Start date
bobsdad
US Veteran
Look at the empties in the op photo
I do not own a .500. But looking at the photo I thought I noticed something unusual in the empty brass that is laying alongside the revolver. Not the exploded pieces, but the intact empties. Doesn't a .500 case groove have a taper on the side toward the case mouth? Those in the photo look like they are very sharp. Like I said, I'm not personally familiar with this round, but looking at the case specs and drawings on line, they look different at the case head groove than those in the photo. This all may be optics and I will readily admit to ignorance on this. Just throwing it out as I'm curious about this incident because I do load with Titegroup in other calibers.
I do not own a .500. But looking at the photo I thought I noticed something unusual in the empty brass that is laying alongside the revolver. Not the exploded pieces, but the intact empties. Doesn't a .500 case groove have a taper on the side toward the case mouth? Those in the photo look like they are very sharp. Like I said, I'm not personally familiar with this round, but looking at the case specs and drawings on line, they look different at the case head groove than those in the photo. This all may be optics and I will readily admit to ignorance on this. Just throwing it out as I'm curious about this incident because I do load with Titegroup in other calibers.
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Listen, I'm no expert but I defer to them. They happen to work for powder companies or some other munitions organization in my opinion.
All this is just a sign of the times: "Blame it on someone else." Common for today.
But, on the subject of Titegroup, I have used only one pound of it and will not go back to it again, ever, for any caliber, period. If 2.7gr of Bullseye gave you an upset stomach when you loaded those 148gr 38spl wadcutters, you would probably lose your lunch if you saw how little Titegroup 2.7gr was in that case.
Didn't folks claim that that fast powder caused blowups then too? Yeah. Truth be told though, there was a "pop" that was missed and followed by a BANG. Just surmising and, I feel mine summations have as much validity as other's.
No, this was a result of loading practices rather than the phantom combustion theory.
p.s. I did use Titegroup in the 500 for a short time. It was in a Handi-Rifle though, not a handgun. Really, I wouldn't even use that powder now in 380! I guess I already said that though!
My advice to the shooter, man up.
All this is just a sign of the times: "Blame it on someone else." Common for today.
But, on the subject of Titegroup, I have used only one pound of it and will not go back to it again, ever, for any caliber, period. If 2.7gr of Bullseye gave you an upset stomach when you loaded those 148gr 38spl wadcutters, you would probably lose your lunch if you saw how little Titegroup 2.7gr was in that case.
Didn't folks claim that that fast powder caused blowups then too? Yeah. Truth be told though, there was a "pop" that was missed and followed by a BANG. Just surmising and, I feel mine summations have as much validity as other's.
No, this was a result of loading practices rather than the phantom combustion theory.
p.s. I did use Titegroup in the 500 for a short time. It was in a Handi-Rifle though, not a handgun. Really, I wouldn't even use that powder now in 380! I guess I already said that though!
My advice to the shooter, man up.
nicky4968
Member
Regardless of the likelihood or not of this powder (or any other) detonating in the .500 case, why not make a .500 Special or Short by trimming the case to the point there is no room for a double charge and champhering it?
OP
John Ross
Absent Comrade
Might be a good idea for someone who doesn't have enough to do...
And I think you might end up with a VERY short case, to the point where reaming would be required.
anomad
Member
The .500 GAP...I think they are already working on it. haha
Titegroup takes up less space than Bullseye?! Geezus.
Harrison
US Veteran
I may be wrong, but I believe that detonation has been duplicated in the lab. It was duplicated 40 or 50 years ago by Army ordinance technicians doing expermental research on light loads in fixed cannon ammo.
I am sure that the ammo and powder companies have not been able to duplicate or show that light loads may rarely cause detonation. If they were to show that it happens, they would be liable for negligence, or worse, for publishing data using light loads all these years. Its easier to just blame it on reloader error and double/triple charges.
I am sure that the ammo and powder companies have not been able to duplicate or show that light loads may rarely cause detonation. If they were to show that it happens, they would be liable for negligence, or worse, for publishing data using light loads all these years. Its easier to just blame it on reloader error and double/triple charges.
Harrison
US Veteran
BTW, it is easy enough to google detonation and find that there is quite a bit of evidence that supports it (including U.S. Army research). Very light loads of fast powder, and reduced loads of some slow powders. Even the loading manuals caution about not reducing loads with some of the slower powders, they just don't tell you why in any great detail.
WoW!
Since gun companies are usually unwilling to talk to somebody who experienced a "Kaboom" in one of their creations while using hand loads, I don't know who this guy thinks he might be able to collect some $$$ from...?
Secondly, I found this on the net and I think it is possibly useful for the analysis here:
Reloading Speeds vs. Powder Location in Case Page
Granted, the above comparisons were done with much slower powder in .45Colt caliber, but I think this guy is on to something...
Since gun companies are usually unwilling to talk to somebody who experienced a "Kaboom" in one of their creations while using hand loads, I don't know who this guy thinks he might be able to collect some $$$ from...?
Secondly, I found this on the net and I think it is possibly useful for the analysis here:
Reloading Speeds vs. Powder Location in Case Page
Granted, the above comparisons were done with much slower powder in .45Colt caliber, but I think this guy is on to something...
nofishbob
Member
Harrison wrote:
Experiments done on detonation in cannon are not applicable to small arms. The research talks about shock wave propagation and harmonic effects that are thought to be negligible or non-existent in small arms. .
The subject of detonation is controversial in that it is like Bigfoot-many people say they have seen it, but nobody can prove it. And certainly, nobody can make it happen on demand with ANY load of powder in ANY small arms cartridge.
Think about it. In the case posted by the OP, the round that blew up the gun was not the first one like it fired (see the empties in the picture). What changed? What made the one that blew different from the others? I do not believe in voo doo or random physics effects. If all the rounds were the same, why did the others not "detonate" ,too?
The idea that the powder companies want to not understand this so as to dodge liability is something that I have not heard before. I guess that would make the first independent lab that can demonstrate detonation in small arms very wealthy from the leverage they would have over the entire industry.
Bob
Experiments done on detonation in cannon are not applicable to small arms. The research talks about shock wave propagation and harmonic effects that are thought to be negligible or non-existent in small arms. .
The subject of detonation is controversial in that it is like Bigfoot-many people say they have seen it, but nobody can prove it. And certainly, nobody can make it happen on demand with ANY load of powder in ANY small arms cartridge.
Think about it. In the case posted by the OP, the round that blew up the gun was not the first one like it fired (see the empties in the picture). What changed? What made the one that blew different from the others? I do not believe in voo doo or random physics effects. If all the rounds were the same, why did the others not "detonate" ,too?
The idea that the powder companies want to not understand this so as to dodge liability is something that I have not heard before. I guess that would make the first independent lab that can demonstrate detonation in small arms very wealthy from the leverage they would have over the entire industry.
Bob
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Total BS. This is why these old-wives tales keep circulating around and around on forums. Absolute total BS. I wish there was a BS icon.
anomad
Member
I've never used TG, obvious, by my question...
I tested once, I think I got 4 full (2.7gr) charges of bullseye in a 38.spl case and the fifth one spilled over. It makes me nervous, but its so cheap and wonderfully accurate I'll keep loading it. Don't think TiteGroup will find its way into my loading room though.
EddieCoyle
Member
I agree that some of these must be reloading errors, but there are too many kBs in this caliber - with this particular powder only - by experienced reloaders - to all be reloading errors. Both of the ones I've seen happened with cartridges reloaded on auto-indexing machines, where the chances of an accidental double charge are slim.
Those of you that are suggesting that this is a detonation caused by a small charge of fast burning powder....
Please, before you embarrass yourselves, dump 17 grains of Titegroup into a .500 case and take a look at how much space it takes up, then decide if it really is a 'tiny' or even 'small' charge. OK?
Way back, I used a 1# can of Titegroup, shot most of it in my .45 auto. I was not impressed. It burned really hot (in temperature). My gun would actually get hot shooting just target loads. Leading was bad in my .38 shooting HBWC from it melting the bullets.
I am highly skeptical of the detonation theory. I'm no expert, but this is the way I think about it: pressure is caused by gas. Gas is produced by burning powder. The amount of gas produced is directly proportional to the amount of powder burned. A small charge of powder isn't going to produce enough gas to kaboom the gun.
A double charge is far more likely.
I am highly skeptical of the detonation theory. I'm no expert, but this is the way I think about it: pressure is caused by gas. Gas is produced by burning powder. The amount of gas produced is directly proportional to the amount of powder burned. A small charge of powder isn't going to produce enough gas to kaboom the gun.
A double charge is far more likely.
Really? Name 5.
In reality there are a small number of reloading caused KABOOMS that get circulated around and around in various forums.
I'm new to reloading but started using Titegroup for my .45's on the advice of the shop that sold me the Dillon 650. It meters consistently and provides me with good results. I now use it for .38's and 9 mm as well. It's easy to work with and shoots good.
The Hodgdon web site clearly shows the amount of powder to use for various calibers including the .500. Are people saying that Hodgdon continues to publish data for a known defective load?!
As experienced as some of the Forumites may be, (and Gentlemen I bow to your years as well as learn daily from you) that experience simply cannot equal the combined expertise of Hodgdon, IMR and Winchester.
I buy Titegroup by the 4 pound jug and will continue to do so. Just my dos centavos ...
Can’t add anything significant to this discussion but back in the day when I used a Starr progressive loader, I would occasionally throw a double powder charge when my primer tube ran dry and I had my head up my arse – a double charge of bullseye in a 45ACP case got your attention in a 1911 set up for bullseye shooting. I’ve been around a lot of double powder charges that were fired at the range over the years that were made on a progressive reloader (99% were made by others) – just lucky all were 38’s & 45’s.
Using AA1680 in the 500 could cause someone a problem if they use less than the recommended start amount of powder, as AA1680 in the 500 should be compressed per advice from Johan Loubser, who is/was AA’s Ballistician. I almost learned the hard way, as I backed off the starting load in an effort to reduce the felt recoil on 500 grain bullets. I got several squibs. Had one that never made a sound, as only the primer went off and burned an extremely small amount of powder causing just enough pressure for the bullet to clear the cylinder - stopping in the forcing cone area. I heard nothing due to my hearing protection. I thought I had a bad primer and after a few seconds opened the cylinder and saw the mess. Had I not checked, maybe I could have had one of those “modified” 500’s.
Using AA1680 in the 500 could cause someone a problem if they use less than the recommended start amount of powder, as AA1680 in the 500 should be compressed per advice from Johan Loubser, who is/was AA’s Ballistician. I almost learned the hard way, as I backed off the starting load in an effort to reduce the felt recoil on 500 grain bullets. I got several squibs. Had one that never made a sound, as only the primer went off and burned an extremely small amount of powder causing just enough pressure for the bullet to clear the cylinder - stopping in the forcing cone area. I heard nothing due to my hearing protection. I thought I had a bad primer and after a few seconds opened the cylinder and saw the mess. Had I not checked, maybe I could have had one of those “modified” 500’s.
I've never used Titegroup, never even seen any of it in person, so how does 17 grains of it in a .500 S&W case compare to 5 gr. of Bullseye in a .303 British case?
I do a lot of light loads and have never had a problem of any kind. One of the older books (as in not "factory" related) I have mentions the reason that many reloading manuals don't list reduced load data is because of the lack of interest from shooters. They want everything magnumized! By the way, Lyman lists reduced loads for the .500 using Unique, which has been used for reduced loads for many years in rifle cases, even at lower charges. So where did this idea of using Titegroup come from?
Yes, detonation is a theory, but it is a credible one. It is based on the same principle that breaking up large powder granules changes the burning characteristics by creating more surface area. It is also an old theory because nobody has proven, or disproven, it without doubt.
I do have my own theory about the rise in kabooms, and I'm not saying that detonation isn't possible, just that it could be more than one thing. The rising cost of ammunition and the increasing popularity of shooting sports among people that would have never fired a shot otherwise has driven people to reload that really don't have their heart, or brain, in it. Even long time, epert reloaders can divert their attention long enough to cause a problem.
So how many .500s have been blown up by the reduced load of Titegroup?
bluetopper
Member
That about sums it up in my way of thinking about this situation.
I tried Titegroup in 45acp and yes, it burns a lot hotter than normal even in that low pressure caliber. I'll never shoot any of it again.
I shoot and reload the 500 a lot, but only in a single shot Handi Rifle. Never shot the caliber in a revolver. The 500 is a very easy and safe caliber to reload with the appropriate powders. What very few reduced loads I've ever loaded up, I've used Power Pistol powder. It's very versatile and forgiving.
Similar threads
- Locked
