Blew up my 629 today..embarrassed

[jt1]

Dutch, I'm glad you're OK. Sorry about your gun, but you can replace it much easier than a finger or an eye.

Skip, can you explain how an overcharge of Titegroup is so much more dangerous than a similar overcharge of Bullseye, Clays, Red Dot, 700X, or any of the other fast burning powders?

 

[Skip Sackett]

Clarification is needed: DETECTABLE overcharge.

Get some and let me know.

Case fill, case fill, case fill.

Of all of the powders you mention, the naked eye can tell the difference easily. Titegroup.......not so much. But, don't
Take
My word for it. By a pound and prove it to yourself.

 

[jt1]

Posted by Skip:

Clarification is needed: DETECTABLE overcharge.

Get some and let me know.

Case fill, case fill, case fill.

Of all of the powders you mention, the naked eye can tell the difference easily. Titegroup.......not so much. But, don't
Take
My word for it. By a pound and prove it to yourself.

I don't need to buy any, there's an eight pound jug under my loading bench.

But anyway, wanting some real data, I went on a google for powder density specs. Not much out there, but Lee has some on their site:

http://www.leeprecision.com/cgi-data/instruct/AP1704.pdf

They show:

Titegroup 0.0848 cc/grn
Bullseye 0.1064 cc/grn

So, using Dutch's 4.8 grn charge for example, Titegroup would occupy 20% less volume than Bullseye. Now, let's assume the case ID of a 44 mag case is 0.429". I know the case tapers inside, but let's assume it's cylindrical. The height of the powder column for Bullseye is 0.215", for Titegroup 0.172".

So, if we were looking at 4.8 grns of Bullseye and Titegroup in the case, the difference is 0.043". Forty three one thousanths of an inch! I can't look into a case and detect that, and I don't think many people can.

It's interesting to note that 231 is shown at 0.0931 cc/grn, roughly halfway between Bullseye and Titegroup. AA #2 is even denser than Titegroup, at 0.0838 cc/grn.

How do you feel about 231 and AA #2? Do you think people who use either deserve to blow up their gun?


John

 

[Maximumbob54]

I have to back up Skip a little on this one. Other powders are just easier to see with your eyes in the case. Titegroup just hides better. The best way I can explain it is that it seems to have a different sheen on it than 231 or similar looking flattened ball powders and is just harder to see the light reflecting back from it. And to me, Bullseye looks like tiny bits of black gravel in the case.

 

[Rule3]

Wow, this is getting worse than math classes and I took a hell of a lot of them.Reloading is supposed to be fun not a conflict.

I might have to buy some Titegroup just to see for myself.

The bottom line IMHO is just watch what you are doing, pay attention, check and verify and don't use super fast powder in Magnum loads, that's why they make different powders isn't it?

Sure most powders are listed for just about any load application, but some based on long term experience are better or worse.

 

[iouri]

JT1, I think point Skip was trying to make is that there should be powder that fills the case and operator can see it filled. According to your data 44 mag case has 2.96 cubic centimeters volume, charge is 0.407 cubic centimeters in volume hence it fills 13.75% of the case volume, while different powder might fill 3/4 of the volume and would be impossible to double charge...

 

[venomballistics]

I don't need to buy any, there's an eight pound jug under my loading bench.

But anyway, wanting some real data, I went on a google for powder density specs. Not much out there, but Lee has some on their site:

http://www.leeprecision.com/cgi-data/instruct/AP1704.pdf

They show:

Titegroup 0.0848 cc/grn
Bullseye 0.1064 cc/grn

So, using Dutch's 4.8 grn charge for example, Titegroup would occupy 20% less volume than Bullseye. Now, let's assume the case ID of a 44 mag case is 0.429". I know the case tapers inside, but let's assume it's cylindrical. The height of the powder column for Bullseye is 0.215", for Titegroup 0.172".

So, if we were looking at 4.8 grns of Bullseye and Titegroup in the case, the difference is 0.043". Forty three one thousanths of an inch! I can't look into a case and detect that, and I don't think many people can.

It's interesting to note that 231 is shown at 0.0931 cc/grn, roughly halfway between Bullseye and Titegroup. AA #2 is even denser than Titegroup, at 0.0838 cc/grn.

How do you feel about 231 and AA #2? Do you think people who use either deserve to blow up their gun?


John

we are not so much looking for a difference of .043 but rather a difference of .22 or .17 to detect a double charge. honestly both are examples of powder, unsuitable. try a full charge of TG column height versus the full charge column height of Unique or 2400 this better illustrates Skips case fill argument

 

[Skip Sackett]

I don't need to buy any, there's an eight pound jug under my loading bench.

But anyway, wanting some real data, I went on a google for powder density specs. Not much out there, but Lee has some on their site:

http://www.leeprecision.com/cgi-data/instruct/AP1704.pdf

They show:

Titegroup 0.0848 cc/grn
Bullseye 0.1064 cc/grn

So, using Dutch's 4.8 grn charge for example, Titegroup would occupy 20% less volume than Bullseye. Now, let's assume the case ID of a 44 mag case is 0.429". I know the case tapers inside, but let's assume it's cylindrical. The height of the powder column for Bullseye is 0.215", for Titegroup 0.172".

So, if we were looking at 4.8 grns of Bullseye and Titegroup in the case, the difference is 0.043". Forty three one thousanths of an inch! I can't look into a case and detect that, and I don't think many people can.

It's interesting to note that 231 is shown at 0.0931 cc/grn, roughly halfway between Bullseye and Titegroup. AA #2 is even denser than Titegroup, at 0.0838 cc/grn.

How do you feel about 231 and AA #2? Do you think people who use either deserve to blow up their gun?


John

Check minimum loads for all of those powders and report back. Do you know what you will find? Minimum loads well above the 4.7gr, in 44Mag with a 240gr lead bullet.

Case in point: (pun intended) W231/HP-38- minimum load.......... 5.5gr! NOW DO YOUR MATH!

What is the minimum volume of that minimum load? Well above the minimum load for Titegroup! WELL ABOVE!


Anything else?

 

[Skip Sackett]

Bullseye is 6.0gr MINIMUM.......

 

[bmcgilvray]

This discussion of Titegroup is very interesting. I've never tried it, being familiar with Bulls-Eye and Bulls-Eye doesn't find its way into large volume .44 and .45 cases around here.

 

[Rule3]

All right problem solved.

Trail Boss for everything!

 

[Skip Sackett]

AA#2 has no data for this loading....

 

[Skip Sackett]

This discussion of Titegroup is very interesting. I've never tried it, being familiar with Bulls-Eye and Bulls-Eye doesn't find its way into large volume .44 and .45 cases around here.

Tell the whole story bmcgilvray!

You put Unique on and in everything anyways!

Hahahaha

 

[Skip Sackett]

And just as a for instance, 45ACP, which has much less case area than a 44Mag by the way, has a minimum charge weight of 5.0gr for a 230gr bullet. What kind of case fill would that be, percentage wise?

My POINT in all of this, is this: you cannot go against good reloading practices, and, determining proper case fill is part of good reloading practices, and not run into a dangerous situation.

The OLD TIMERS knew this and loaded accordingly. Then came the marketing folks and said you didn't have to worry about all of that because of this new wiz bang powder, blah, blah, blah...

Did I sound rough? Yeah, and if you got offended over the tone of my comments, please forgive me. Sometimes we have to be shocked back to reality, and, that, was my intent by being so brash.

Case fill is an important aspect to reloading.....Don't forget it as you make a powder selection.

 

[swampersand]

Lots of sage advice and relevant references to powder volume vs case volume, but the bottom line is that there are NO SMART ACCIDENTS. Think of the number of times you may have done something that in retrospect you would have done differently or not at all. Turning left is a very dangerous driving maneuver, so is fixing your own roof or just wiring the stove or air conditioner. Bottom line is you have to program your mind to learn from near misses, those who don't lose sooner or later.

Anyone can give advice, but to question another's ability, intelligence or apptitude via long distance is, I think, a bit out of order.

 

[Skip Sackett]

I suppose that learning by near misses is one way to learn....I don't recommend it for long term learning though!

And, I suppose if I couldn't read or reason things out, I would have to learn that way.
We have a brain and don't have to be trained like a laboratory rat. I suppose shock does work as a training agent.....but......not for me!

 

[varmint243]

I suppose that learning by near misses is one way to learn....I don't recommend it for long term learning though!

And, I suppose if I couldn't read or reason things out, I would have to learn that way.
We have a brain and don't have to be trained like a laboratory rat. I suppose shock does work as a training agent.....but......not for me!

Are you married ?
ever been married ?
ever been divorced ?
ever married a second time ?
Yes, for any or all,
Would seem to disqualify your statement.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Well, I'm taking back what I said about detonation. I spoke at length with a very knowledgeable hodgdon tech about all possible scenarios, and detonation would not have been possible.

It was user error of some sort. Skip may be right in there was an obstruction. It happened so quickly and suddenly that I am left with a huge question mark of my mistake. I'll get back to basics, and look at all my processes more closely. I hope I can save someone else a loss of an expensive gun or more.

THIS is one of the most mature things I have ever read or heard! Not that you agree with me, I could care less about that. What I wanted you to be able to do is make the assessment that it MIGHT be something you did and then, make adjustments to not have that happen again.

Very good sir......very good!

 

[swampersand]

I suppose that learning by near misses is one way to learn....I don't recommend it for long term learning though!

And, I suppose if I couldn't read or reason things out, I would have to learn that way.
We have a brain and don't have to be trained like a laboratory rat. I suppose shock does work as a training agent.....but......not for me!

I feel singularly privileged to meet the man who has never made a mistake or had an accident of any type.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Are you married ?
ever been married ?
ever been divorced ?
ever married a second time ?
Yes, for any or all,
Would seem to disqualify your statement.

Really? SMH!