And Madame Curie was a pioneer in radiation. Look what happened to her.
Using rifle powder in a pistol
- Thread starter montana500
- Start date
And Madame Curie was a pioneer in radiation. Look what happened to her.
fredj338
Member
The 45-70 & 500s&w have sim powder volumes, the 45-70 actuallY a bit less. Look at the 45-70 powder selections, even in a handgun, faster rifle powders. So I see no reason it cant be done with sim reults in the 500.
fredj338
Member
The original question was can you use rifle powders, no data, in the 500. Then the op picked one of many he owns. The no published data issue is what freaks out the less exp reloader. Again, we all get away from book data to some degree. Some of us are comfy with larger degrees. If all i had was rifle powder, even that powder, i could make it go bang in the 500. Results would be spotty, but it would go bang safely. After all guys, the 500 does run at rifle pressures.
I understand those that worship book data, good thing for newbs, but the more you reload, the more you learn there is a lot of between the lines stuff in manuals. If you are uncomfortable going off book, dont. Its just the sky is falling, Never go off book stuff, just never really happens does it. We all sub bullets, primers, cases, its all off book. Swapping powders isnt a whole lot diff, IF you understand the dynamics & risks. There are at least 40 suitable powders that can be used in the 500. Most manuals show maybe 12, maybe.
Last edited:
buck460XVR
Member
It is not an assumption, this is where you are incorrect. It is what has been told to me from powder/bullet manufacturers when I contacted them about specific powder/bullet/caliber combinations. There is no advantage to not publishing loads that are superior to others published. Powder and bullet manufacturers are trying to sell their products and thus will give recipes that display the best performance and not publish those that give poor performance, the amount of space they have will delegate how far down the list they go...... no advantage to doing it differently. Kinda why powder companies don't publish loads using another powder manufacturers powder, even tho it may outperform theirs. Defeats the whole purpose of publishing their own manual.
As for powder being suitable for one bullet weight in a certain caliber and not another, take Alliant's Blue Dot for example. They strongly advise against using it for any 125 gr bullet in .357, but then clearly state it is safe for heavier bullets in .357, while at the same time state to not use it for any .41 mag loads. Still it's good for all .44 mag loads. Is this because they are new to the business and still afraid of some extrapolation?
If one searches multiple legitimate references and cannot find a particular powder/bullet combo, there's a good reason. It may not be it can't be used, but because it gives poor performance. While there may be an infinite number of powder/bullets combos that will work, those with the best performance are the ones put in the manuals.
I realize there are many handloaders out there that think they know more than those folks running tests with today's modern equipment. 'Ell, I know folks that still claim a 125 JHP over a good charge of Blue Dot is their "go to" load for SD and Alliant doesn't know what they are talking about.
I see many folks posting here and giving advice, that have never loaded .500 Mag. Again, try to get enough slow rifle powder in a .500 case with a heavy bullet to equal the performance of those powders widely recognized to give legitimate .500 mag performance. There's a reason folks that shoot .500 stick with those most published. As I said before, folks shoot .500 mag for the performance of the caliber. Projectiles for this caliber are expensive and to throw them downrange knowing they will perform sub-par is foolish. To do so in an attempt to save monies by not buying a pound of appropriate powder is even more foolish.
Once again a thread that has gone on and on for what reason??
"CAN" you use rifle powder? Well yes you "can" you can use baking powder or baby powder also. Will it be the best choice?? No it will not.
Now you are asking about "duplex" type loads" only with black powder added?????? Stop while you are ahead!
As Buck 460 mentioned and I have in the beginning. The powder companies or manuals have done the testing for you, so why reinvent the wheel??
Use a suitable recommended powder. There was one mentioned by Accurate but even it is probably not the best and do you even have any??
You are searching for a burn rate chart?? I provided a current up to date one?? Even so it does not tell you if the powder is good for your particular load.
Sure Wildcatters have experimented for years, if that is what you want and feel comfortable, then go for it. I doubt you will come to any new developments. Just making a "cartridge" go "bang" it not reloading.
It is best to go with a "best Practice approach"
You are the hand or reloader, it's all up to you. Just let me know when you are at the range so I don't stand near you
cowboy4evr
Member
I just read John Ross's article on reloading the 500 S&W . He said to try any rifle powder normally suited for the 223 remington . He liked WC680 also . He talked about if you have a problem with leading your barrel , try a case full of slower rifle powders like 4198 , 3031 , 4895 , H322, H335 or BLC-2 . He went on to say that with a long nosed 450 gr bullet you could get 1400 fps with some of these rifle powders . He stated that although it was 500 fps less than max for that bullet it would be all anyone would want . He said several times that he was against using any powder faster than W296 / H110 . I am not suggesting or recommending the use of rifle powders . I have no experience in this matter .
I'm just sharing what John Ross has written , who supposedly has years and years experience shooting the big gun and has dealt with the factory on improvements to the 500 S&W . I hope this helps someone .
I'm just sharing what John Ross has written , who supposedly has years and years experience shooting the big gun and has dealt with the factory on improvements to the 500 S&W . I hope this helps someone .
Last edited:
ruggyh
Member
All anyone has to do to get a copy of John Ross article is to private message (PM) me your email address and will be happy to send it to you.
good luck and be safe
Ruggy
good luck and be safe
Ruggy
OP
montana500
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2016
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 8
fredj338
Member
Sorry buck, you are just swallowing the powder guys bs. Lets take the 9mm per speer #14. They list 15 powders for the 124gr bullet. So you are believing they tested the 50 suitable powders & came up with this list of 15, really? So why is WSF suitable for the 115gr & 147gr but not the 124gr?
Is it unsafe, is it not suitable or is it just they didnt publish the result? Unique & WSF are mearly identical. Unique is represented in all 3 bullets wts but not WSF. So you would believe one is good to go & the other not? My point, the powder/bullet guys are NOT testing every possible combo & even the ones they do test are not making it into their data base for whatever reason, but it is NOT because the combos are unsafe.
Again, i understand the caution of those that feel they aren't capable of extrapolation, but to declare it unsafe, sorry that is just chicken little sky is falling stuff. Man has to know his limitations. Many guys have been reloading for 30-40yrs, but 1 or 2 calibers, so a very narrow exp level. Some of us have the same 30-40urs, but 25-30 diff calibers, 1000s of bullet & powder combos. To pretend we dont know anything is laughable. We are still here, still in one piece, still reloading.
Is it unsafe, is it not suitable or is it just they didnt publish the result? Unique & WSF are mearly identical. Unique is represented in all 3 bullets wts but not WSF. So you would believe one is good to go & the other not? My point, the powder/bullet guys are NOT testing every possible combo & even the ones they do test are not making it into their data base for whatever reason, but it is NOT because the combos are unsafe.
Again, i understand the caution of those that feel they aren't capable of extrapolation, but to declare it unsafe, sorry that is just chicken little sky is falling stuff. Man has to know his limitations. Many guys have been reloading for 30-40yrs, but 1 or 2 calibers, so a very narrow exp level. Some of us have the same 30-40urs, but 25-30 diff calibers, 1000s of bullet & powder combos. To pretend we dont know anything is laughable. We are still here, still in one piece, still reloading.
Last edited:
They test more than they publish.....
They can test a lot of powders, but they only have to publish a dozen or so. Most manuals will list the most common powders that performs well. There may be a few others perfectly fine, but just didn't make the cut.
I for one, would like a really comprehensive loading manual that's not geared to any one manufacturer or set of manufacturers.
What tans my hide is looking (for example) a load of Bullseye for a 140 grain bullet. They give a Bullseye load for a 125 grain bullet, no data (or maybe Red Dot) for a 140 bullet and a Bullseye load for a 150 gr bullet. This I feel like I can extrapolate safely but I want LOTS OF PUBLISHED DATA.
They can test a lot of powders, but they only have to publish a dozen or so. Most manuals will list the most common powders that performs well. There may be a few others perfectly fine, but just didn't make the cut.
I for one, would like a really comprehensive loading manual that's not geared to any one manufacturer or set of manufacturers.
What tans my hide is looking (for example) a load of Bullseye for a 140 grain bullet. They give a Bullseye load for a 125 grain bullet, no data (or maybe Red Dot) for a 140 bullet and a Bullseye load for a 150 gr bullet. This I feel like I can extrapolate safely but I want LOTS OF PUBLISHED DATA.
Last edited:
OP
montana500
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2016
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 8
Wow! Seriously, is there an ignore feature for this site? How pissy and petty is this site, or is it just this guy?
He was a danger to himself.
Nah, he used a long string to pull the trigger.
rwsmith said:
Lee's Second is the one I take with me when I visit Ye Olde Powder Shoppe. Bullet-specific data is nonexistent (everything is "200-gr Lead Bullet" or "185 gr Jacketed Bullet"), and it doesn't have the newest powders or cartridges, but it makes up for that with the sheer volume of loads. Most are actually culled from manufacturer testing.
It spoils you, because then you go and get disappointed by something like the Lyman manual, which lists half a dozen bullets and 8 or so powders for each.
fredj338 said:
I believe I addressed all that. And I extrapolate all kinds of things all the time. Even cautious, timid, inexperienced little me has extrapolated a powder charge or two.
Slow your roll a bit.
Wow! Seriously, is there an ignore feature for this site? How pissy and petty is this site, or is it just this guy?
Guess it is just me.
Yes, you can ignore, as can I.
You asked a very broad question that has been asked and answered. My early post was intended to help you.
You seem to want a answer that you want to hear or fits your needs. so good luck.
If you are going to quote perhaps use the whole original post.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Once again a thread that has gone on and on for what reason??
"CAN" you use rifle powder? Well yes you "can" you can use baking powder or baby powder also. Will it be the best choice?? No it will not.
Now you are asking about "duplex" type loads" only with black powder added?????? Stop while you are ahead!
As Buck 460 mentioned and I have in the beginning. The powder companies or manuals have done the testing for you, so why reinvent the wheel??
Use a suitable recommended powder. There was one mentioned by Accurate but even it is probably not the best and do you even have any??
You are searching for a burn rate chart?? I provided a current up to date one?? Even so it does not tell you if the powder is good for your particular load.
Sure Wildcatters have experimented for years, if that is what you want and feel comfortable, then go for it. I doubt you will come to any new developments. Just making a "cartridge" go "bang" it not reloading.
It is best to go with a "best Practice approach"
You are the hand or reloader, it's all up to you. Just let me know when you are at the range so I don't stand near you
"
Last edited:
buck460XVR
Member
No where have I said anything about rifle powder in a .500 mag being unsafe. You are the one that keeps bringing that up. My comments is that for the most part, slow rifle powders give poor performance and as such, why use them. This is the reason they aren't published......because they are poor performers. No where have I said the OP could not safely use rifle powders in his .500, I only asked him why when the are better options out there readily available. We see this so very often on reloading forums. "Hey I gotta .44 mag and a .308 I want to reload for, and am looking for one powder that will work for both! I don't want to buy two different powders!". Pretty much what the OP states. I often wonder how folks that can afford a X-Frame then want to go cheap with sub par reloading components. I see it all the time with the .460 also. Then I see folks that have never reloaded either giving advice. Have you ever loaded for .500 Mag?
As for extrapolating powder/bullet recipes, many of us do it everyday, safely. Generally it's because we don't have the exact cases/primers/projectiles called for in the published load. Sometimes it's because the recipe calls for one powder and we have another that has been verified by the manufacturer to be exactly the same(H110/W296, W231/HP-38). Programs like Quickload now give reloaders a safer alternative to just pulling numbers out of their butt. Still for the most part, there really isn't a good reason to deviate from published loads when one is loading for a caliber/bullet combo that is common. Again because the most published loads are those that have proven to be the best performers. When you see loads duplicated in more than one published reference(other than Lee) it's a good sign that it's a performer.
I know some folks like to experiment and there are those rare cases where the proper components are not available. These are legitimate reasons one may deviate from published loads. But one does so always, at their own risk.
As for me just swallowing the Powder Boys BS, it goes down a lot easier and tastes better than the BS we see given on internet gun forums from random folks who proclaim to know more. Same goes from info given to me by bullet manufacturers. Somehow I tend to trust those who do it for a living, and use the latest high tech equipment to make sure it's safe, as opposed to the claim...." Hey......but I still got me fingers!"
There's a huge difference between using a powder that suitable for various bullets weights in a caliber and using a powder that has no published data for that caliber or anything similar.
I have a 135 grain 9mm lead bullet that has no published data, that I can find, yet I can make an educated guess at what a starting load should be based upon 124 and 147 grain data. But taking a powder with no published data and making a guess at a load is a whole another ballgame.
I guess the better question would be - If I take a charge of fast rifle powder, filled up to the base of a bullet what's the worst that can happen? Assuming the powder isn't compressed is there any way an high pressure spike can happen? I'm guessing the result would be erratic pressures on the low side and wild swings in velocity and accuracy, but that is just a guess.
I have a 135 grain 9mm lead bullet that has no published data, that I can find, yet I can make an educated guess at what a starting load should be based upon 124 and 147 grain data. But taking a powder with no published data and making a guess at a load is a whole another ballgame.
I guess the better question would be - If I take a charge of fast rifle powder, filled up to the base of a bullet what's the worst that can happen? Assuming the powder isn't compressed is there any way an high pressure spike can happen? I'm guessing the result would be erratic pressures on the low side and wild swings in velocity and accuracy, but that is just a guess.
Eddie Southgate
Member
I am 62 years old and have been loading for at least 50 of them . I use pistol powder and SOME select shotgun powders for reloading pistol cartridges . I would not play with trying to use rifle powders in pistol calibers. I have over the years tried numerous things that I found no listings in the various load manuals for and to date I have never tried one that worked. Not saying that if it's not listed then it wont work , just saying none ever worked for me and some were probably dangerous as well. At this stage in life I am not willing to risk my health not to mention an expensive gun to try to keep from buying more powder.
If you need a bench time reference to go with that advice I will list the calibers that I currently load.
.32 SW Long, .38 spl, .357 Mag , .44 Spl , .45 ACP , .45 AR , .45 LC
.22 Hornet , .218 Bee , .223 , .22-250 , .243 Win , .243 Win SSM ,
6.5 x 55 Swede , 6.5 Carcano , 7.35 Carcano , 7.65 Argentine
7.62 x 54R , .30 M1 Carbine , 7.5 Mas , 7.5 Swiss , 7-08 , 45-70, and
Winchester .325 Short Mag. These are what I am still loading as of today but in no way are they all the cartridges that i have ever loaded for.
Buy Pistol powder !
Eddie
P.S. You can add 7x57 Mauser and 8x57 to the above list. Guess I had a senior moment and forgot to list two of the first cartridges I ever loaded.
If you need a bench time reference to go with that advice I will list the calibers that I currently load.
.32 SW Long, .38 spl, .357 Mag , .44 Spl , .45 ACP , .45 AR , .45 LC
.22 Hornet , .218 Bee , .223 , .22-250 , .243 Win , .243 Win SSM ,
6.5 x 55 Swede , 6.5 Carcano , 7.35 Carcano , 7.65 Argentine
7.62 x 54R , .30 M1 Carbine , 7.5 Mas , 7.5 Swiss , 7-08 , 45-70, and
Winchester .325 Short Mag. These are what I am still loading as of today but in no way are they all the cartridges that i have ever loaded for.
Buy Pistol powder !
Eddie
P.S. You can add 7x57 Mauser and 8x57 to the above list. Guess I had a senior moment and forgot to list two of the first cartridges I ever loaded.
Last edited:
fredj338
Member
Wise-A, you are the one dooming & glooming. I am just pointing it out.
"If there is no data for the thing you are contemplating, then don't do it. There's a reason why the numbers don't exist".
FWIW, the Lee manual is the least useful for me because I have no idea what bullet they are often using, plus they omit a ton of powders, it is a pretty old compilation. So a bit harder to extrapolate if I don't know what bullet profile they used.
I'm going to grab a Lee manual...
I'm going to grab a Lee manual because it may fill in cracks in the data that I already have access too. Which editions are most useful today?
I'm going to grab a Lee manual because it may fill in cracks in the data that I already have access too. Which editions are most useful today?
Last edited:
fredj338
Member
I said that because you were pretty emphatic that the only powder bullet combos suitable were what the powder guys/manuals tell you & that is just not true. 1000s of us load bullets like 160gr in 9mm, hmm, no data, & we do it safely. So suitable, poor performers, says who? Again, they don't test & /or publish everything out there. So the blanket statements thrown around by many are humorous to many of us because we do know better, after all we have been there & done that & have all our fingers. The only unsuitable combo is one that is unsafe, any caliber. Why I keep on that point.
BTW, just because it is written in a manual doesn't make it gospel. RCBS/Speer got the 357sig totally wrong as to how it is loaded. Gee, they are the experts after all, but got that wrong. There are many other instances where they aren't 100% correct & many of us have found that out through testing. It isn't all that black & white. I agree, the best approach, especially for many, is follow the book & extrapolate only what you are comfortable with. Just don't tell others it can not or should not be done unless you have been there & know, IMHO.
Last edited:
