Comparing 3 loads

[alwslate]

That may have been true in the past but this is the current load info from Alliant.

This is just reprinted Speer load data, not data from the original powder manufacturer. In no way does this invalidate the data that was developed by the company that actually manufactured the powder. Speer does not make 2400 powder but did gain marketing rights a few years ago as I recall.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

Printed (published?) load data is just that: there are often inconsistencies when there are multiple sources... There are the occasional errors and misprints.

It is neither of biblical proportion nor of papal infallibility.

It definitely just does not exist for every possible combination of bullet, powder or caliber.

Leaving the reloader to try and jus' figger it out?

Cheers!

P.S. There's a difference between that which is factually TRUE and that which may (or may not?) have been ACCURATE in the past (or presently)...

 

[alwslate]

But why copy loads directly from the Speer manual that are listed as from a 6” revolver and falsely list some of them here as from a 10” barrel? And Speer clearly states they just decided to use Std primers in their new manuals and Alliant had nothing to do with it? There has been a general dumbing down of data in some manuals over fear of liability I guess. If any handloader really wants reliable cast bullet data with pressures listed with all loads Lyman seems to be the best source. Oh and BTW about data that “ may or may not have been accurate in the past.” Powder companies always list pressure developed with their loads as does Lyman. Could marketing possibly be involved? Notice the above table has all Speer components.

 

[Nevada Ed]

I don't mind if a company changes primer types in a new manual.

I get tired of the old cheap "White bread" too and need a change, now and then.
Where's the Pumpernickle ??

As for True data..........
You have never seen a misprint......... ?
Never been lied to....... ?

I keep a salt shaker next to me when I read data out of all my manuals.

 

[Nevada Ed]

but to get back on subject..........

Question: Given same gun, same bullet, does more recoil mean I was actually getting more velocity - no matter what the source data says?

Answer: Yes.

However a fast and a slow burning powder with the same fps in a load.....
can feel different to a shooter.

So which load was the most accurate, in your weapon............
if you put them on paper ?

 

[mikerjf]

Was just interested in recoil for this batch... trying to find something 357 that works in the J for me. I’ll go for accuracy after I find a load that‘s in the ballpark recoil-wise.

But to answer, they’re all on the paper, and they’re all more accurate than I am.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

Speer-Alliant reloading data

Clue me in. When did Speer start manufacturing 2400?

In no way does this invalidate the data that was developed by the company that actually manufactured the powder.
Speer does not make 2400 powder but did gain marketing rights a few years ago as I recall.

And Speer clearly states they just decided to use Std primers in their new manuals and Alliant had nothing to do with it?

.

Obviously you've been living under a rock for the last few decades.

You also apparently have trouble reading what's in reloading manuals & like to make stuff up.

In 1996 Alliant TechSystems, which is now ATK, purchased Hercules Aerospace which owned Hercules Powder & renamed it to Alliant Powder

ATK not only owns Alliant but also CCI, Speer, Federal, & RCBS, to name just a few of it's reloading/ammunition related companies, plus many other sporting goods related companies.

Speer's Reloading manuals are ATK's thorough compilation of it's reloading datas.

Speer has published comprehensive printed reloading manuals since 1954, unlike Hercules/Alliant, so it makes sense they'd be ATK's source for such reference material.

Alliants on-line website is just a brief of what Speer publishes & Alliant's data is exactly the same as what's in Speer's Reloading Manuals.

In Speer #13, page 526, next to last paragraph, it clearly says:

"We developed (the) new data with Alliant TechSystems (formerly Hercules) 2400 propellant. Changing from Magnum primers to standard primers significantly improved it's performance compared to the data in Speer Manual #12. Do not use Magnum primers with 2400 or Viht. N110 loads shown here or high pressures will result."

.

My own chronograph results are what I go by and the tall for diameter .357 case shows greatly improved velocity and consistency with 2400 in the .357 with mag primers.

If you used their load data but used Magnum primers you'd have higher pressures (than they recommend) which would give you higher velocities.

.

So I say again, if the manufacturer doesn't know what's best used with it's product who does?

.

 

[alwslate]

Have it your way Bluedot. If you want to waste your 2400 by using std primers to blow unburned powder out of your barrels with low velocity inconsistent loads go right ahead. I have been handloading since the mid 60s, have owned a chronograph since the late 70s and have chronographed a lot of .357 loads with various charges of 2400 with different primers. I will never use std primers with ANY .357 loads with any powder again. Lyman has used CCI mag primers with all .357 loads with charges of 2400 of 15.5 grs and lists pressures with all loads as being within industry stds. But some people will find a way to remain fearful about handloading no matter what. And if you think you are going to experience dangerous pressure in the .357 with all the 2400 you can get in the case and still seat a 158 gr cast bullet with the dreaded MAGNUM primers, well then there’s not much anybody can tell you.

 

[DWalt]

Generally, recoil is the momentum of the gun (mass x velocity). The gun momentum is the sum of the propellant momentum plus the bullet momentum. The interesting thing is that the momentum of the propellant is the mass of the propellant times the velocity of the propellant gasses. However, the velocity of the escaping propellant gasses is considered to be about 50% more than the muzzle velocity of the bullet. For example, if the muzzle velocity of the bullet is 800 ft/sec, then the muzzle velocity of the propellant gasses will be around 1200 ft/sec because of their rapid expansion at the muzzle. At least that +50% is the assumption that ballisticians use. It will vary somewhat depending on such factors as the propellant used and the barrel length. The estimate of around 30% of total recoil momentum being due to the propellant is typical for a medium-velocity rifle cartridge. In a higher-velocity rifle it is in the region of 35-40%. In handguns it is much lower, in the region of 10-15%, although in the big Magnums it can exceed 20%.

 

[Nevada Ed]

Was just interested in recoil for this batch... trying to find something 357 that works in the J for me. I’ll go for accuracy after I find a load that‘s in the ballpark recoil-wise.

But to answer, they’re all on the paper, and they’re all more accurate than I am.

Note;
That 357 load test will have to drop by about 445fps.........
if you want to put it into an all steel J frame,
as well as the amount of powder.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

Have it your way Bluedot...
But some people will find a way to remain fearful about handloading no matter what.
And if you think you are going to experience dangerous pressure in the .357 with all the 2400 you can get in the case and still seat a 158 gr cast bullet with the dreaded MAGNUM primers, well then there’s not much anybody can tell you.

Well there you go again, not surprisingly, showing us your lack of comprehensive reading skills & just making things up.

I never said anything like that & don't think anybody else did either.

.

.
If you used their load data but used Magnum primers you'd have higher pressures (than they recommend) which would give you higher velocities.

.

 

[alwslate]

Well there you go again, not surprisingly, showing us your lack of comprehensive reading skills & just making things up.

I never said anything like that & don't think anybody else did either.

First of all stupid I make nothing up. Your accusations and insults are uncalled for and only serve to illustrate your own ignorance. I have owned a chronograph since 1977 and have done way more chronographing than the average owner because for the last thirty years I have lived in a rural area and can shoot in my own back yard. Any numbers I post here come right from my chronograph and I have done many comparisons over the years. Do you even own a chronograph? Let’s see your numbers showing better performance with std primers in comparison testing of .357 loads. And as for reading comprehension I can assure you that mine is better than yours without knowing anything about you. So let’s see something from you other than ignorant assumptions.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

Let’s see your numbers showing better performance with std primers in comparison testing of .357 loads.

I have no idea why you think I should provide justification, or why you should even demand from me, any personal data when I made no claims to any experiences related to this subject (nor challenged your unseen data), that seems to so infuriate you.

If you would only take a minute to read what was actually said rather than jump off the deep end.

My post shared what ATK has published & pointed you to their statement, which you have issue with & refuse to acknowledge.

Feel free to take it up with them & compare your chronograph data to their corporate evaluative data. I'm sure they'll be impressed.

.

First of all stupid I make nothing up.
And as for reading comprehension I can assure you that mine is better than yours without knowing anything about you.

So let’s see something from you other than ignorant assumptions.

I made no assumptions, just astute observations.

.

I have owned a chronograph since 1977 and have done way more chronographing than the average owner because for the last thirty years I have lived in a rural area and can shoot in my own back yard.

You're are not the only person that started reloading in the 60's, lives in the country & owns a chrongraph.

.

Lyman has always used magnum primers in all their .357 data for “decades”.

I find it odd that anyone would use Lyman Reloading data in reference to a 357 Magnum, 158gr JHP, & 2400 powder combination for exactly that reason; decades.

My Lyman #45 Handbook (1978) lists the maximum for this combination as 14.9gr/2400= 1279fps @ 41.8k CUP.

Guess what my latest Lyman (#50) Handbook (2016) says the maximum load data is for this combination?

Exactly the same figures! They've updated NOTHING for it in over 40 years because they've done no testing on it so they couldn't possibly know what ATK found.

.
.

You can have the last word as I won't be wasting anymore time on this with you.

Happy reloading.

.

 

[alwslate]

Thank goodness for that!

 

[BB57]

Interesting range trip yesterday. I tried 3 different 357 loads for recoil... each string I loaded one round of each load, so it was literally a shot-to-shot direct comparison.

All 158g coated LSWC. Velocities are not measured, just what the source data said to expect from similar barrel lengths.

Bullseye, 6.5g, 1320 fps
Unique, 6.8g, 1295 fps
2400, 13.5g, 1200 fps

The Bullseye and Unique felt quite similar, but the 2400 had way more recoil. Using the formula calculation, the 2400 load does show it should be more recoil, I guess because of the increased powder weight?

Question: Given same gun, same bullet, does more recoil mean I was actually getting more velocity - no matter what the source data says?

The thing most folks fail to realize is that powder has mass, even after it has burned and been converted to a gas. The mass is still exactly the same. What’s different about the mass of powder and the mass of a bullet is that the burned powder exits the muzzle at about z3 times the velocity of the bullet.

So when you take 6.5 grains *more* mass and fling it out the barrel at 3 times the muzzle velocity of the bullet you get a lot more recoil.

——

Edit:

kudos to the few who get this concept. I just read the thread and it’s sadly confirmed my statement above that many if not most handloaders and shooters don’t understand the contribution of heavy charges of slow burning powders to recoil.

I won’t repeat the numbers someone posted above but read them again if you’re a non believer. Physics doesn’t lie.

Also my condolences to the OP for the down the rabbit hole discussions / arguments on standard versus magnum primers and who made what powder.


——


I will however add that a chronograph is always a good idea for hand loading to see and or confirm that what you are getting from a load is what you expect based on the data.

It also lets you see for yourself whether a standard or magnum primer makes a difference in a particular cartridge with a particular powder in terms of not just average velocity but also standard deviation in velocity. Consistency it’s important too, often more important than velocity.

It’s also useful when using older load data or load data from powder companies that doesn’t take into account the specific “stickiness” of a specific bullet in your bore.

I’ll also remind everyone that even canister grade powder varies
By lot, and you’ll see variation in load data because of that, sometimes significant variation. For examples look at load manuals with data for both Win 296 and H110. It’s the same powder, but you will virtually always see different max loads as the Win 296 and H110 used for the manual development came from different production lots.

In short, you *always* need to be careful and work up loads from the middle of the range and look for signs of excess pressure in *your* firearm, especially is you have substituted any components that different from the published load.

 

[alwslate]

If you will simply read the section on pressures in your Speer manuals you will understand that “carefully working up loads from the middle of data while watching for signs of excess pressure” is a waste of time. Excess pressures are not going to occurring with published data. And even over pressure loads with magnum handgun ctgs do not reach pressure levels which can be read by ANY signs. Read your manuals folks. Don’t skip the “boring education stuff” and just read the load tables.

 

[BB57]

If you will simply read the section on pressures in your Speer manuals you will understand that “carefully working up loads from the middle of data while watching for signs of excess pressure” is a waste of time. Excess pressures are not going to occurring with published data. And even over pressure loads with magnum handgun ctgs do not reach pressure levels which can be read by ANY signs. Read your manuals folks. Don’t skip the “boring education stuff” and just read the load tables.

What we are talking about here isn’t published data in a bullet manual like Speer, but rather people substituting components and thus deviating from published data.

In addition, many maximum loads, even when followed to the letter, may not produce “excessive” pressure from a SAAMI maximum average pressure perspective, but they can and often do produce sticky ejection in revolver - sometimes very sticky. Call me old fashioned or conservative but that’s a clear sign of excess pressure in a particular revolver.

Finally, and most importantly, there is the lot to lot variation in powder I mentioned in a prior post. Canister grade powders are held to much tighter tolerances than the bulk powders used by ammunition manufacturers, but there is still lot to lot variation.

For example, Hodgdon has stated for at least 10 years now that H110 and Win 296 are the same powder, and it has been pretty well acknowledged unofficially going back at least 40 years. However manuals like Hornady’s 11th edition still lists loads for both powders individually. In that edition you’ll note under the .357 Magnum 125 gr data a max load of 19.9 grains of H110, and a max load of 20.3 grains for Win 296. That’s a .4 gr difference for what are just different lots of the same powder.

If you are not working your load up and instead just go straight to the max load, you are potentially going to exceed the maximum average pressure for the cartridge. All it takes is a powder lot that is faster burning than the lot used to develop the data.

Hornady, max just one example, recommends starting at least 10% under the maximum published load, and backing of again with a new lot of powder or other change in components. They also discuss the pressure signs you dismiss on page 82-83.

But hey, you do you. I’ve been hand loading for 44 years and Hornady has been publishing data a lot longer than that, but you obviously know a whole lot more about the subject, so carry on…

 

[alwslate]

I’ve been handloading for 54 years now, since 1967. I chronograph every single load that I put together. Many times when I want a heavy load, say a .44 mag hunting load I do start right at the top of published data. Just about all top published loads are a bit below top industry pressure maximums. Starting in the middle of load data and slowly working up to long published top trouble free loads is a waste of components. But.. that’s how I do things. If you read the Speer data section on pressure you will understand that you will not be able to read pressure signs at handgun pressure levels. But do what makes you comfortable. All the dire warnings over the years have created a generation or two of handloaders so fearful of loading above squib level I wonder how they can bring themselves to handload at all.

 

[ReloadforFun]

Several reloading manuals I'm aware take their loads to as near SAAMI MAP as they can without exceeding that value. Thus, the assumption that the published data is not at maximum is not a good one.

 

[alwslate]

Several reloading manuals I'm aware take their loads to as near SAAMI MAP as they can without exceeding that value. Thus, the assumption that the published data is not at maximum is not a good one.

Several? Name them. Since some manuals do not publish the pressures developed by their loads how do you know this? BP has made it clear in his magazine articles that most published top loads in manuals are at least 10% below industry maximums. And all of his loads that he lists in his magazine articles are pressure tested and declared below industry maximums. So let’s see some real numbers to back your opinions.