Get the latest data
- Thread starter jejb
- Start date
Electric Head
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 55
I agree about the powders not changing over time, it is one thing that really does not make sense to make more potent as time goes on. And it does seem that is what happens as loading manuals seem to list less and less as the max load. I feel that is more a liability thing on their part versus newer powder batches actually getting more potent.
Secondly, I have never seen so many typos but in published loading manuals. The one place you would HOPE that they CHECK more than any other (well almost all) published information. It is always good to verify data from several sources. I'd say the 4.4 was a typo (supposed to be 3.4).
Electric Head
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 55
Yeh I don't see what being made here (Australia) or in Canada really has to do with it. The same product is being made, and being the same product it is reasonable to ASSUME it would have the same properties.
It doesn't matter if it is made here or there, nor even if the production method or even the recipe is different, as long as the end product has all the same properties (size, shape, colour, burn rate, energy density, etc.).
DWalt
Member
Having worked for Hercules back in the days before it became Alliant, I can tell you that the powder manufacturers can rather easily produce about any level of ballistic performance desired, within limits. You may not know that Bullseye and Unique are of EXACTLY the same formulation. The only difference is that the flakes are of different thickness (Bullseye has thinner flakes).
I use hot loads......
I use hot loads from older manuals. BUT I start from where I left off with the newer data and work up by .2 grains. I got up to .4 grains higher than the latest data (6 gr) and had .6 grains to get to the 7 gr. top load. After trying 6.4 gr, I decided to use that load only for serious work, and backed off to 6.2 as MY max load
Key words are strong, modern gun. In this case it was a model 10.
I use hot loads from older manuals. BUT I start from where I left off with the newer data and work up by .2 grains. I got up to .4 grains higher than the latest data (6 gr) and had .6 grains to get to the 7 gr. top load. After trying 6.4 gr, I decided to use that load only for serious work, and backed off to 6.2 as MY max load
Key words are strong, modern gun. In this case it was a model 10.
Last edited:
They change, but not....
ballistically. I think 'new' Unique is supposed to be cleaner burning but exactly the same for reloading.
ballistically. I think 'new' Unique is supposed to be cleaner burning but exactly the same for reloading.
Proofreading????
Proofreading.....what's THAT? Dependence on computers have almost eliminated the proofreader. I hope powder manufacturers do some checking, but I know only a few other publications that do a good job.
Canister powder, they type we use, is closely controlled and tested so that containers are consistent and Kabooms won't happen. If it's slightly out of spec it goes in the bulk bin. Bulk powders sold to ammo manufactures are more variable, but they can be tested and the load adjusted for each batch of powder. It would be nice to have your own ballistics lab. I'd think that a small, precise quantity of powder set off in an enclosed Parr bomb would be a simple, fast way to give comparable pressures.
Proofreading.....what's THAT? Dependence on computers have almost eliminated the proofreader. I hope powder manufacturers do some checking, but I know only a few other publications that do a good job.
Canister powder, they type we use, is closely controlled and tested so that containers are consistent and Kabooms won't happen. If it's slightly out of spec it goes in the bulk bin. Bulk powders sold to ammo manufactures are more variable, but they can be tested and the load adjusted for each batch of powder. It would be nice to have your own ballistics lab. I'd think that a small, precise quantity of powder set off in an enclosed Parr bomb would be a simple, fast way to give comparable pressures.
Last edited:
Kind of odd that in that 1993 manual, that one Clays loading that the OP used is the only Clays loading listed on the entire page for anything.
Right above it is a Universal loading. That has only one other load listed on the entire page (upper right group).
Clays hit the market in early 1992. This load data if it is not a typo or other data entry mistake of somekind, is probably their very first for the (shotgun) powder in a handgun caliber.
The load listed is a Max load IIRC how the manual works.
Starting loads were supposed to be reduced by 10% or something like that.
Even then it would be over the top by the most recent data by my failed math.
I shoot some Clays in handgun, but keep it and most all my loads at the starting point or near it.
The primary use is 12ga shotgun and had been for nearly 25yrs till just recently when I switched to Alliant ClayDot for 12ga. The 'new' Canadian mfg Clays which I was finally able get a jug of is too light and fluffy for lack of a better word. It bridges in the drop tube of the MEC and was immedietly giving me troubles with powder drop. One light,,the next near double,,ect in the Mec. Sometimes bridging in the tube and not dropping til the progressive would rotate and jar the powder loose in the tube, spilling it all over as the hulls moved on to their next station.
A fine mess you've gotten us into Ollie..
I'll use it in handgun loads w/a scoop measure I guess. I don't trust it now in a powder measure.
ClayDot uses the same load data recipe as H/Clays in 12ga. It's a bit denser so the charge weights are a little heavier for the same bushing but that is accounted for in the data.
I've no intention of trying ClayDot in a handgun load. Plenty of other load data powders in stock for that w/o trying to guess what would be anappropriate load.
As long as those lab tested powders don't have typos in their published data we're all OK!
Right above it is a Universal loading. That has only one other load listed on the entire page (upper right group).
Clays hit the market in early 1992. This load data if it is not a typo or other data entry mistake of somekind, is probably their very first for the (shotgun) powder in a handgun caliber.
The load listed is a Max load IIRC how the manual works.
Starting loads were supposed to be reduced by 10% or something like that.
Even then it would be over the top by the most recent data by my failed math.
I shoot some Clays in handgun, but keep it and most all my loads at the starting point or near it.
The primary use is 12ga shotgun and had been for nearly 25yrs till just recently when I switched to Alliant ClayDot for 12ga. The 'new' Canadian mfg Clays which I was finally able get a jug of is too light and fluffy for lack of a better word. It bridges in the drop tube of the MEC and was immedietly giving me troubles with powder drop. One light,,the next near double,,ect in the Mec. Sometimes bridging in the tube and not dropping til the progressive would rotate and jar the powder loose in the tube, spilling it all over as the hulls moved on to their next station.
A fine mess you've gotten us into Ollie..
I'll use it in handgun loads w/a scoop measure I guess. I don't trust it now in a powder measure.
ClayDot uses the same load data recipe as H/Clays in 12ga. It's a bit denser so the charge weights are a little heavier for the same bushing but that is accounted for in the data.
I've no intention of trying ClayDot in a handgun load. Plenty of other load data powders in stock for that w/o trying to guess what would be anappropriate load.
As long as those lab tested powders don't have typos in their published data we're all OK!
wxl
Member
Probably the 1993 manual of 4.4gr was not a misprint but erroneous recommended load. My 1995 manual shows 3.5gr Clays. I lived in Australia from 1991 to 1999 and used mostly ADI powders for shotgun, rifle and handgun. My early 1990s (no date on manual) ADI manual shows "4.6gr AS/AP30N for 180 Jacketed" for 40 S&W. The AS/AP30, AS/AP50 and AS/AP70 were equivalent Clays, International and Universal. Either bad recommendation or error from ADI transferred over to Hodgdon.
BruceM
Member
I have two questions.
1st-Why would anybody who is familiar with what is contained in a reloading manual consider anything printed in it a "recommendation"?
2nd- Why would anybody who is in the least knowledgeable and experienced in the ways of reloading take a new powder and load 150 rounds with a new powder at the MAXIMUM listed powder charge. What ever happened to Rule #1-Start low and work up?
IMO, anybody who thinks manufacturers arbitrarily change the burning characteristics of propellants is delusional. The product liability exposure would be absolutely enormous. Also, the differences you see in the data is not due to manufacturing changes but rather lot to lot variances and differences in test protocols, lab standards, equipment, etc.. I can remember when everybody thought 2400 changed when Alliant bought the rights from Hercules. Not hardly!! All that changed were the testing parameters.
If this blip on the radar screen is indeed a typo (as it appears), it would not be the first error in Hodgdon's data. There was a fairly well known incident where data for two similarly named rounds was transposed in one of their reloading "annuals". NOT GOOD! And twice?
In the past I've voiced a negative opinion on the use of the term "recipe" in relation to loading data because of the connotation the term has. In view of the topic of this thread all I can say is-really??
Bruce
Last edited:
Moe Mentum
Member
I go to the people who made the powder, and start at the min. then slowly work up, never exceeding the max they call for. Most of the time, I end up about .5 to .8 below the called for max load. Since I'm only shooting paper, I really don't see a need for full house loads. If I was loading for a hunting round, I would be more inclined to load near max.
What would you call it?
You have a point there. Many manuals print the min-max range, where this one only lists the one load, so I guess that's why I started there. It does say on a different page to start at a 6% reduced load and work up to max, but that would have still been a pretty hot load at 4.1 - 4.2 grains.
But yeah, I deserve some lumps for not doing more due diligence. Hopefully, others will learn from my mistake, which is why I started this thread.
TRUST, but VERIFY!
