CIP vs SAMMI

I use a reloading program called Quickload. The CIP allows for higher pressures than the SAMMI does. U.S. more cautious? Litigation fears?
 
AJ said:
Which do you use, CIP or SAMMI?
Click to expand...

First, it is SAAMI.

What do you mean by "use"? Unless you have the capability of measuring pressure of your hand-loads both are truly useless to you, or about 99.999% of the re-loading community! Both really are only references to satisfy our curiosity! If you have access to printed pressure data by both standards you will see that in most cases the maximum pressure indicated for a specific cartridge is very close in both systems!

Which is more accurate? They are both accurate in expressing results of their testing methods and specifications. Both express voluntary standards agreed on by the major ammunition manufacturing companies. I can't say for sure about CIP, but the SAAMI standards are, again, voluntary! There is no legal requirement for any company to manufacture ammunition to a specific pressure standard!

If you "Google" SAAMI you can find the requirements for pressure testing, and they are extensive!

All that "Quickload" is giving you is an estimate of the pressure a load will develop. I can guarantee your loads in your gun do not produce the specific pressure estimated by Quickload! There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of reasons that affect your actual pressure!
 
Last edited:
AJ said:
I use a reloading program called Quickload. The CIP allows for higher pressures than the SAMMI does. U.S. more cautious? Litigation fears?
Click to expand...
AJ,
I do not think the US is more cautious, I think some of Europe is more reckless

There is of course a third set of standards. These are NATO and they sit between the other two

I have been using Quickload for several decades. I am very aware of how it works and it's idiosyncrasies.

Quickload is a great program for load development when no published data exists, or when you are developing loads for Wildcats.

I found it invaluable when we were developing load data for the 500 S&W Magnum back in 2002.

It was very useful for creating the loaddata for the 22TCM back in 2014

When I was proposing a subsonic 240 grain 10MM Auto load for the Governments next generation of 10MM Auto SMGs back in 2019, Quickload is where I started.

Is there some reason that you wish to exceed SAAMI pressure levels?

Or are you working with a Wildcat?

Perhaps one of your fellow Forum members can help you with some loads so you have a starting point
 
I find using current load data and a chronograph and having a solid background in handloading works best. Don't worry about the way the pressure is measured. Read lots of manuals from credible sources and go easy on the YouTube education unless you're expert enough to know when they're right or wrong.
 
The two test methods are different in the positioning of the pressure sensors, and that is pretty much it. Then you have the NATO test method which is different from both, but resembles the CIP method a little more. The numbers are different but the purpose is the same. If you want to know exactly how the methods are used, there is considerable information to be found on the internet, no need to ask here.

No matter which of the three pressure test systems are used, the pressures realized in your gun are going to be different.
 
What brought this up is a load I was making for up. I am using 7.8 grains of Unique with a 230 cast RN bullet in .45 Colt. My Lyman CAST Bullet loading manual gives the low side as 7.4 grains and the high side as 9.3 grains. When I ran this through Quickload it gave me the 7.8 grain loading as a magenta colored loading which means it is on the higher end (using the SAMMI standards). When I used the CIP standards it give me a white colored loading which means on the lower end. So was curious.
 
AJ said:
What brought this up is a load I was making for up. I am using 7.8 grains of Unique with a 230 cast RN bullet in .45 Colt. My Lyman CAST Bullet loading manual gives the low side as 7.4 grains and the high side as 9.3 grains. When I ran this through Quickload it gave me the 7.8 grain loading as a magenta colored loading which means it is on the higher end (using the SAMMI standards). When I used the CIP standards it give me a white colored loading which means on the lower end. So was curious.
Click to expand...

Interesting, now I understand the question. Unfortunately, I don't load .45 colt. You could load a couple rounds, chrono it and compare it to the manual and app, plus check it for pressure signs. I'd also cross check it with another manual. I tried the Speer manual and it's lowest bullet weight was 250 grains.
 
There was a thread on here some time back where we went deep in the weeds on CIP v SAAMI v NATO. NATO (and CIP?) take their pressure readings and work backward to calculate chamber pressure. BTW, CIP covers more than just Europe, don't recall exactly where else.

If you're loading cartridges that originated overseas, CIP is a better guide. If for no other reason than SAAMI had a tendency to download many of those calibers. This was supposedly to protect us from those not--made-in-the-US junk guns. (OK, there were some moldy oldies where that was a legitimate concern.) Over the last 20 years or so, that has changed, at least in some calibers.
 
One consideration is what constitutes an "unsafe" chamber pressure as most guns have a considerable safety factor designed into them. During the development of the M16, there was some experimentation done using extreme overpressure loads, and it was found that they could handle chamber pressures well over 100,000 psi without catastrophic failure. At one time I had the official transcripts of such testing. I personally once did some tests on the M9 pistol using both extreme 9mm overloads (in my tests loads of compressed Bullseye) and bore obstructions. The M9 did not fail under the worst conditions, only some barrel bulges. We had plenty of high-mileage M9s which had been pulled from service.
 
Last edited:
Dwalt,

I believe the issue with the high-pressure loads for the M-9 was more a matter of damage from slide and frame battering rather than catastrophic failure of any component from pressure! Unless the barrel bulging you mention occurred in the chamber area I doubt that was a pressure issue either!
 
If I recall correctly SAAMI is voluntary for American ammunition producers. CIP is mandatory for European ammo producers. If you want a permit to make ammo commercially you have to go along with their program (last I heard. Not necessarily current info.).
 
DWalt said:
One consideration is what constitutes an "unsafe" chamber pressure as most guns have a considerable safety factor designed into them. During the development of the M16, there was some experimentation done using extreme overpressure loads, and it was found that they could handle chamber pressures well over 100,000 psi without catastrophic failure. At one time I had the official transcripts of such testing. I personally once did some tests on the M9 pistol using both extreme 9mm overloads (in my tests loads of compressed Bullseye) and bore obstructions. The M9 did not fail under the worst conditions, only some barrel bulges. We had plenty of high-mileage M9s which had been pulled from service.
Click to expand...

Alk8944 said:
Dwalt,

I believe the issue with the high-pressure loads for the M-9 was more a matter of damage from slide and frame battering rather than catastrophic failure of any component from pressure! Unless the barrel bulging you mention occurred in the chamber area I doubt that was a pressure issue either!
Click to expand...

In Phillip Sharpe's book on reloading, he talks about testing military rifle actions. All rifles failed before the Japanese Arisaka. The Arisaka's action held but the barrel was stripped from the receiver.

Will try the loads that I am referring to this morning. If I am back we will know they worked.........
 
neither CIP nor SAMMI are more accurate, though they have a little different history.
In the beginning, we measured pressure with CUP ... a copper slug of known hardness was crushed by chamber pressure and the resulting deformation was measured to determine pressure.
Now we can measure pressure more directly with the modern piezo systems. todays system can track the pressure from ignition to release of bullet exit. CUP was a one shot deal that didn't capture some of the nuanced peaks that PSI can.
And that's when the fight started.....
the piezo system was showing many classic loads to have peaks in excess of established limits that CUP couldn't capture.
SAMMI derated things to avoid these peaks, CIP tried to preserve the classic and well proven loads.
 
The CUP method captures no pressure peaks as it has a very long time constant as compared to a piezo gauge. In other words, it is insensitive to rapid pressure fluctuations. The piezo gauge has a very short time constant and responds to rapid pressure fluctuations instantly, or nearly so. But the CUP method does provide a very rough approximation of a peak pressure which can be useful for comparison purposes. And before modern electronics appeared, as crude as it was, CUP was the sole firearm pressure test method available. The best you can say about it is that it was better than nothing. I have often compared using CUP to telling time precisely with a simple sundial. You might get within 15 minutes of true solar time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elpac3
Range report, unique vs. BE 86
Replies
5
Views
770
Nevada Ed
Nevada Ed
S
Sierra no. 6 vs all
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
Nevada Ed
Nevada Ed
J
H110 vs. 296
Replies
10
Views
1K
jarbo
J
T
Update: Velocity & Bullet vs. Cylinder Throat Size for .44 Magnum
Replies
17
Views
755
stansdds
S
F
pc'd bullets vs traditional/lubed bullet velocities
Replies
6
Views
702
Forrest r
F

Latest posts

Back
Top