Position Sensitive Powder Testing in the 44 Special (& Magnum) -updated 9/24/23

[BLUEDOT37]

I did some additional testing on this subject & thought I'd consolidate the new data into a previous post of mine from another thread here.

New powders tested are Green Dot (G-D), Unique (UNIQ), CFE-Pistol (CFE-P), AutoComp (A-C), & AA#7, in addition to the previous Power Pistol (P-P), LongShot (L-S), & Blue Dot (B-D) powder tests.

Additionally I tested with some W-W large pistol primers (WLP) to compare to the FED-150 & CCI-300 readings.

No surprise, the slower powders responded to the WLPs better than the medium speed powders, even at these modest charge levels.

The newest test results are marked with (*).

.
.

Recently I decided to get some use from my 396NG (2.5" bbl) that's been hiding in the safe for too long.

Started with Power Pistol, LongShot & Blue Dot using Hornady 200gr XTP bullets. Also some Rim Rock 185gr LSWC-HP bullets that I have a few dozen of & added gas checks to (190grs) & sized to .4304" in Starline 44 Special cases.

P-P & L-S usually run real close in smaller capacity cartridges but when I noticed L-S wasn't performing (chrono results) as well as I expected it dawned on me I needed to check for position sensitivity in this cartridge & do some additional follow-up tests with my LabRadar.

The short story, on testing from an initial muzzle down position before aiming/firing & then muzzle up aiming/firing, is that P-P was virtually unaffected*, L-S was next worst, followed by B-D, Unique & AA#7 as the most position sensitive with these load fills in the 44 Special.

All powders charges were dispensed from a RCBS Charge Master 1500 & then doubled checked on a Lyman Ohaus M5 beam scale before seating the bullet.

Testing also consisted of using several different primers in these loads: FED-150, CCI-300 & WLP to see if there was any difference. (The WLPs are labeled as a STD/MAG primer on my older stash that I used for the testing but I just noticed on the new WLP box I recently bought that neither is mentioned.)

.

Starline 44 Special cases
Bullet: HDY 200gr XTP
COAL: 1.485"


UNIQ @ 8.1grs (*)
----------------------------
Muzzle down= 832fps (FED-150)
Muzzle up= 931fps (FED-150)

Muzzle down= 892fps (CCI-300)
Muzzle up= 950fps (CCI-300)

Muzzle down= 894fps (WLP)
Muzzle up= 974fps (WLP)


L-S @ 9.7grs
----------------------------
Muzzle down= 984fps (FED-150)
Muzzle up= 1016fps (FED-150)

Muzzle down= N/A (CCI-300)
Muzzle up= 1023fps (CCI-300)

Muzzle down= 958fps (WLP) (*)
Muzzle up= 1003fps (WLP) (*) -worse than FED-150 & CCI-300??


P-P @ 9.7grs
-----------------------------
Muzzle down= 1023fps (FED-150)
Muzzle up= 1029fps (FED-150) 470 ft/lbs


B-D @ 11.1grs
----------------------------
Muzzle down= 795fps (FED-150)
Muzzle up= 872fps (FED-150)

Muzzle down= 807fps (WLP) (*)
Muzzle up= 989fps (WLP) (*)


AA#7 @ 13.7grs (*)
--------------------------
Muzzle down= N/A (FED-150)
Muzzle up= 945fps (FED-150)

Muzzle down= 997fps (WLP)
Muzzle up= 1100fps (WLP) 537 ft/lbs

.

Also did a small test comparing B-D with the HDY 200gr XTP & the 190gr LSWC-HP-GC bullet.

Bullet: HDY 200gr XTP
Primer: FED-150
-------------------------
B-D @ 10.3grs= 840fps
B-D @ 10.7grs= 864fps
B-D @ 11.1grs= 872fps
B-D @ 11.5grs= 921fps

&

Bullet: R-R 190gr LSWC-HP-GC
Primer: FED-150
-------------------------
B-D @ 10.3grs= 840fps
B-D @ 10.7grs= 862fps

Oddly the lead gas check bullet was exactly the same as the jacketed bullet??

Again these velocities are from a 2-1/2" bbl so keep that in mind.

Note, some or all of these 44 Special loads are +P so use them accordingly in a modern revolver in good repair.

.
.

The other latest new tests I made today were done using Starline 44 Magnum cases, & shot in my M629-6 Classic with a 5" bbl., since I think I'm done with the 44 Special for now & want to move on to some 44MAG testing but still can do position sensitivity with a couple different powders (CFE-P & A-C) in it.

Starline 44 Magnum cases
Bullet: ZERO 240gr JSP resized to .4302" (factory sizing is .4312")
Primer: CCI-300 (unless otherwise noted)
COAL: 1.585"
(all tested with muzzle up first unless otherwise noted)

P-P @ 9.0gr= 968fps
P-P @ 9.4gr= 987fps
.
P-P @ 9.8gr= 978fps (muzzle down)
P-P @ 9.8gr= 1018fps (muzzle up) -why up/down position differences from 44 Spcl test? Maybe needs a re-test.*
P-P @ 9.8gr= 959fps (muzzle up) from a M69, 2-3/4" bbl, 59fps slower than 5"bbl., 490 ft/lbs
.
P-P @ 10.2gr= 1055fps
P-P @ 10.6gr= 1079fps, 621ft/lbs

.

CFE-P @ 9.8gr= 980fps (muzzle down) -very consistent fps readings even with muzzle down
CFE-P @ 9.8gr= 1033fps (muzzle up)

.

A-C @ 9.8gr= 984fps (muzzle down) -not as consistent as CFE-P but average near identical
A-C @ 9.8gr= 1036fps (muzzle up)

.

- added 09/24/23 - (*)
G-D @ 8.1gr= 901fps (muzzle down) (FED-150)
G-D @ 8.1gr= 972fps (muzzle up) (FED-150)

G-D @ 8.1gr= 916fps (muzzle down) (CCI-300)
G-D @ 8.1gr= 974fps (muzzle up) (CCI-300) -505 ft/lbs-


These 44MAG charges are not max loads (CFE-P & A-C are starting & G-D max is 8.7gr), nonetheless, use these accordingly in a modern revolver in good repair.

.



.
.



.
.

Resizing Zero 240gr JSP in Lee Push-Thru sizer
.


.
.



.
.



.
.

M629-6 Classic with a 5" bbl.
.


.
.



.

 

[ruggyh]

I see you did not plot case fill.

If you plot that I think you will find a more interesting correlation to performance.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

Used case volume in position sensitive powders

I see you did not plot case fill.
If you plot that I think you will find a more interesting correlation to performance.

The title addresses the subject as position sensitive powders in a large case, not charge volumes in a large case.

I am well aware of, but did not mention, case fill percentages because I see no correlation with it, at these levels & in this cartridge case with these powders.

In fact, there's a relatively small percentage of difference in powder case volume used, only about 6.9%, between them.

It's the powder used, again at this level, is what makes the difference.

.

For those who are interested, the HDY 200gr XTP uses 29.8% of the 44 Special's case volume (35.9gr H²O Wt./gr. or 2.33 Volume cc/ml) with its seating depth of .293" at a COAL of 1.485".

Of the (5) powders used in the 44 Special case test UNIQ has the highest Volume Measure Density (VMD) at .1092 (the bulkiest).
The next, in decending order:
P-P @ .0889
B-D @ .0865
L-S @ .0824
AA#7 @ .0653

Here's how much space each powder charge used of the empty case's volume, from highest to lowest:

B-D@ 11.1gr = 41.2%
AA#7 @ 13.7gr = 38.4%
UNIQ@ 8.1gr = 38.0%
P-P @ 9.7gr = 37.0%
L-S @ 9.7gr = 34.3%

I did not test every possible powder/primer combination. It wasn't meant to be totally scientific plus it gets expensive & time consuming.

The worst powders using WLPs, with the greatest difference between muzzle up & muzzle down averages, were B-D (182fps) & AA#7 (103fps) which had the two highest case fill volumes and are obviously the two slowest powders.

L-S, which used up the smallest case volume, has a much lower velocity deviance at 45fps.

So no, I don't see where case fill is relative to performance in this test setting in the commonly thought way.

In fact it's opposite.

I know it does matter in other settings but I don't see it here.

.

 

[DeplorabusUnum]

Thanks for the thorough data and analysis. I just finished loading some fairly hot 357 mag rounds with AA#7 and IMR4227, and will be testing those plus 2400 and H110 in some new 44mag cases that just arrived. After reading this, I think I'll do some position testing of my own.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

B-D @ 11.1 gr with WLPs...

Muzzel up 989
Muzzel down. 807
___
182 fps difference!

Amazing (or, possibly just a typo?)

Cheers!

P.S. Also the highest fill volume (41%)...

 

[Forrest r]

Thank you for the hard work and interesting results.

 

[TXBryan]

Nicely done

Most shooters are a bit surprised about how much powder location in the brass makes a difference. I've noted dramatic differences with the .32 S&W Long and reported them on this forum. Even the venerable .44 Mag is, according to your very good data, quite susceptible to this phenomenon.

It further illustrates, too, that a hand-loader without chronograph data is simply guessing.

Nice job!

Bryan

 

[BigMuddy]

Thanks for your work and the great information provided. Obviously very time consuming and it’s appreciated.

I’ve always known, well since I’ve had a Chronograph, that Unique was position sensitive in my 45 Colt loads. I remember Brian Pearce doing an article where he tested for this issue. He was loading 45 Colt with a 270SAA bullet for an upcoming bear hunt with his Son. The hunt was with dogs and he knee the shot would likely be “muzzle up”. He concluded with his tests that for his gun/bullet/powder combination that Longshot powder gave him the lowest extreme spread’s compared to those he tried.

Again thanks for the report. Something I think a lot of reloaders don’t consider.

Dan

 

[Nevada Ed]

Your test go along with my data over the yeras.

I found that the Federal primers do actually produce lower fps than my cci primers.

I also found that the Winchester standard primer works better with "Ball" type powders, for a bump in fps and a little better burn.

In my 38 & 357 loads, I also noticed that Unique and Blue Dot work better when the case volume is over 50%.

Thankyou for all you loads and data, that adds date to out log books
on the up or down barrel, question.

 

[steelslaver]

Thank you. I am kind of amazed by the amounts it changed.

It makes me wonder about the effects of recoil on powder position.

Would recoil and muzzle rise give velocities closer to muzzle up? I would think so.

 

[rockquarry]

I may be missing something here...

If you hold a handgun straight out in front of you as we usually do when shooting, the powder would be fairly level in the cartridge case, resting on the bottom side of the case; neither against the base end or the neck end of the case. An exception would be with a full case using a slow powder like #2400 or 296 that fills the case completely when a bullet is seated and prevents all powder movement.

Aside from the exception, we can get good accuracy with such loads and the numbers are relatively consistent when chronographing (since we are holding the handgun straight out) would the results of your testing provide us with any practical information? Not a criticism, rather a question.

 

[alwslate]

I have been chronographing for over thirty years, factory loads and handloads, and I've been well aware of position sensitivity with powders for many years. It is very obvious with loads in the .38 spl where there is usually a lot of air space with std pressure loads. Velocities may vary as much as 100 fps or more with some powders. Factory loads with some ctgs like the lightly loaded .44 spl are as bad or worse. I haven't posted much about it because handloaders simply believe what they want to believe and ignore any idea that their precious Unique is actually a poor powder for .38 spl and reduced loads in the .357 or .44 mag. The idea that holding your gun straight out when shooting automatically aligns powder uniformly along the case is wishful thinking. The best way to deal with issue is to use powders that are less position sensitive and simply elevate the muzzle a bit before each shot. easy for me as I only shoot my revolvers single action. Double action blasters probably don't care anyway. Ball powders in general are less position sensitive and small flake powders less so than larger flake powders. The best of the bunch are very fine ball powders like my favorite for .38 spl the long gone 452AA.

 

[rockquarry]

I have been chronographing for over thirty years, factory loads and handloads, and I've been well aware of position sensitivity with powders for many years. It is very obvious with loads in the .38 spl where there is usually a lot of air space with std pressure loads. Velocities may vary as much as 100 fps or more with some powders. Factory loads with some ctgs like the lightly loaded .44 spl are as bad or worse. I haven't posted much about it because handloaders simply believe what they want to believe and ignore any idea that their precious Unique is actually a poor powder for .38 spl and reduced loads in the .357 or .44 mag. The idea that holding your gun straight out when shooting automatically aligns powder uniformly along the case is wishful thinking. The best way to deal with issue is to use powders that are less position sensitive and simply elevate the muzzle a bit before each shot. easy for me as I only shoot my revolvers single action. Double action blasters probably don't care anyway. Ball powders in general are less position sensitive and small flake powders less so than larger flake powders. The best of the bunch are very fine ball powders like my favorite for .38 spl the long gone 452AA.

The "wishful thinking" comment you refer to might or might not be right. How would you know this one way or the other without some extensive testing? I think the subject of this thread was regarding .44 Special, but the premise should apply to other cartridges as well.

I never used much Unique in .38 Special as there was always something else that worked better. I don't load Unique in anything anymore but didn't know it was position sensitive, if that's true.

I've never relied on the now fad SD and ES numbers but rather on group size. I also shoot Bullseye-style single-action at 25 yards, maybe 50 on occasion, but very seldom under 25. I've never fired most of my double-action revolvers double-action.

I realize accuracy and skillful shooting are not very important to many nowadays, but they are to some of us. I'd still appreciate an answer to the question in my earlier post.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Many thanks for the new (to me) information that powder position can cause SIGNIFICANT differences in velocity with some loading densities. I'm going to have to think about this for a while.

Thanks!

 

[alwslate]

rockquarry if you actually read my post you would have seen that I have done EXTENSIVE chronograph testing for over thirty years. And reread the part where I said that I rarely mentioned it because handloaders have a strong tendency to believe what they want to believe, especially in regard to Unique. And if you don't like what you're told the solution is to discredit the message. I don't have to prove anything. You want proof do your own testing and report your results.

 

[rockquarry]

rockquarry if you actually read my post you would have seen that I have done EXTENSIVE chronograph testing for over thirty years. And reread the part where I said that I rarely mentioned it because handloaders have a strong tendency to believe what they want to believe, especially in regard to Unique. And if you don't like what you're told the solution is to discredit the message. I don't have to prove anything. You want proof do your own testing and report your results.

I didn't intend to upset or discredit you or your work in any way. I read your post, but apparently didn't interpret it as you intended. Nothing here is worthy of an argument. I was hoping you would explain (my) "wishful thinking" bit, based on your own work, of course. That was because of my own curiosity and was not a criticism.

 

[Model19man]

I've never relied on the now fad SD and ES numbers but rather on group size.

True enough I have always relied on group size too. Because hitting your target is all that matters. Everything else is just noise.

 

[rockquarry]

True enough I have always relied on group size too. Because hitting your target is all that matters. Everything else is just noise.

Yes, but the YouTubers and fad followers don't know that. There's a lot more to accuracy than small numbers from a chronograph.

 

[alwslate]

I'm not exactly a YouTuber or fad follower. I bought my first chronograph in 1977 when I still lived in town. I took it to the local outdoor range and set it up on the shooting benches. In 1991 I moved to a new home out in the county on 14 acres and my shooting range for thirty years was my back yard. I moved to my new smaller house three years ago on 5 acres so I still shoot in my own back yard. I have done way more chronographing than the average handloader-shooter, and why not when it's so convenient. Who else has chronographed every lot of every factory load bought. Like 6-8 different lots of .25 acp ammo of each brand. At least 10 lots of the same brand of 115 gr FMJ 9mm. Every single handload of every caliber. Primer effect tests, powder position sensitivity , every question that I could think of I tested. So my experience is not typical and I have learned a lot for my own use as I am not writing a book. Many handloaders obsess over accuracy when they shoot standing up double action . But we don't all have the same criteria. My goal is consistency and all acceptable handloads to me must have a low ES or will not be used. So to each his own. Every handloader should have a chronograph.

 

[rockquarry]

ES and SD numbers are indicators of consistency only, not accuracy. The most accurate loads may have low numbers but not necessarily so. Lots of factors contribute to accuracy. I seldom look at these figures but rely solely on group size, rifle or handgun. However, if the ES and SD numbers are really wildly disparate, groups sizes will almost assuredly be poor, but that's extreme.

If someone needs low numbers to feel good about a load, they can use a compressed charge of slow-burning powder in a bottleneck rifle case. Numbers will be incredibly low, but the load may or may not shoot well.

All of our handloading experiences, projects, and and situations are different, but we prefer to follow what has worked best for each of us and there's nothing wrong with that if it's based on good solid indicators.

Relax.