Using similar powders…. No load data.

[NobullSKS]

Is this normal…?
I hear folks at range talking about using (maybe "unorthodox") powders and creat new data.
They mention "similar burn rates" ….. but it seems they kinda take it upon themselves to load without established data. Starting small of course.
Is this how some end up with squibs?
The principal I understand; I have a book and the internet. So there's no reason for me to really try something stupid in my case(I'm novice).
Just asking…. I'm sure folks here understand better than me and are safe/successful.

Read More

 

[arakboss]

If you start dealing with surplus or pull down powders, the load books might not help you as much. If your risk tolerance is low stay on the trail. If your risk tolerance is higher then you can start making your own trails.

Edit. Just because a load isn't published doesn't necessarily mean it's unsafe. They only have so much room and time to publish loads, so they are going to stick with the more optimal performing loads. I tend to save my load exploration for lower pressure loads. I will stick closer to the book for top end loads.

 

[P7M13]

Is this hypothetical, or do you have a specific instance in mind? i.e. powder 1 / powder 2 and cartridge you need to load? Pistol / Rifle / Bottle necked / Straight wall?
Taking a guess, I would suspect that most reloaders stay within published data -- what one might call "normal".
If you historically look at reloading books, there are many instances that I have read over the years of maximum loads in modern load tables that are mid-range in older ones.
Some things to keep in mind:

• Know your powder formulation (brand and type) and thus, burn rate. If you don't know this, don't even try.
• Powder chemistry and performance may change over production years, and in some cases, from lot to lot.
• Powder burn rate and efficiency is affected by the pressure developed in the case upon firing. Most powders perform best when they are loaded between 80-100% of case capacity.
  For example, taking a powder and load, and reducing the powder amount by half in generally considered unsafe. It can, in the case of a few powder types, result in what we call "reduced", or "bunny fart" loads, and in some it can result in "spontaneous ignition", better known as a KABOOM.
• important -- loads developed for one rifle may not work in yours, and may produce unpleasant results.

I like to build and play with wildcat cartridges, and in many cases, there is NO load data for these. I'll identify other cartridges that have similarities : case capacity, bullet weight, and rated maximum pressure. I'll then look at the range of powder loads for these cases, identify powders I have, start at an average minimum, and then work up. Doing this, I have found some great loads for older model rifles with powders that have zero published load data for that cartridge.

On an aside, I bought ~200 rounds of someone's "grandpa's loads" for the components at a super-cheap price (all less than the price of 'once fired brass'). I noted that the boxes had copious notes on them, as most reloaders will do, but damned if I was going to shoot those in my gun. So I set to pulling them apart. Some of the cartridges had "bullet weld" where the bullet galvanically welds (a corrosion process) to the case mouth, and where there should have been only a few bullet weights and powders, turned into about a dozen types of each. So now I have about two pounds of a powder melange that is marked for pyrotechnics.

 

[NobullSKS]

Is this hypothetical,

Yes. Thank you for your experience. I have no reason to try anything new. Just some old timers at the range often talk about changing powders to something with similar burn rate ….. mostly when discussing rifle cartridges in pistol's…. Like the Thomson contender guns or something similar, varying load performance at long ranges and different bullet weights at altitude.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Powder industry has had a lot of changes. They have stopped making a lot of powders and added a lot of new brands from other countries. The supply chains being what they are, I believe it's good to know what other powders will give the results you want. Companies got rid of some of my favorite powders, my best loads so I had to use something else.

 

[bbbass]

My squibs were all pistol rounds made on a progressive reloader. The powder drop would sometimes get hung up and not drop the powder. That's why so many people talk about looking in the case to make sure the powder dropped. Adding a light focused on that area helps.

 

[osprey]

Most of the time there will be published data for other suitable powders if they are indeed close to the same burn rate. Experience gained coloring inside the lines will eventually allow you to be more comfortable deviating from published data, but it is not without risk. Programs like quickloads can help in these exploits but I have never had the program myself so this is a bit of conjecture on my part.

 

[osprey]

I also think a chrono is a required piece of equipment when developing loads with no load data.

 

[Koda]

Yes its normal. I know of a whole forum dedicated to no load data.
That said, something must be known as in well documented on a powder. Are we talking about mystery powder? I dont think anyone would use that. But if you stick to a caliber/cartridge the powder was designed for you can find starting points from similar published data.

 

[41mag]

it is not without risk.

repeat that to your loved ones BEFORE any regrettable choices are made

 

[Kid@Heart]

Is this normal…?
I hear folks at range talking about using (maybe "unorthodox") powders and creat new data.
They mention "similar burn rates" ….. but it seems they kinda take it upon themselves to load without established data. Starting small of course.
Is this how some end up with squibs?
The principal I understand; I have a book and the internet. So there's no reason for me to really try something stupid in my case(I'm novice).
Just asking…. I'm sure folks here understand better than me and are safe/successful.

If you are a "novice", don't try to load without published data.

 

[Member 34319]

I recently had a rental in 6mm ARC. It's data is minimal at the least. I did end up using two powders that there where 0 load data for and got great results.

I think that experience is crucial.

 

[oa98pistol512]

For instance no load data for w846 is non existent but they say start 10% below load data for blc-2 when loading 223/308. This I found to be true . pull down 846 is CHEAP but you willing to do it? I am and at $200 for 16lbs makes loading a lot cheaper..
But it comes down to burn rates and understanding them along with the cartridge you are loading for suggested burn rate for powder to be used with what ever weight bullet. So read up and start low if you are going to go mad scientist loading.

 

[po18guy]

65,000 PSI a few inches from your face is not generally something to take lightly. A little searching of gun explosions on YouTube reveals that, while rare, it certainly does happen, and is never pretty. I have found that GunBlue490 on YouTube offers some of the best reasoned, most experienced and safe advice on the web. He has been at this for decades. His advice on powder selection is very good.

The flip side is that experimenters like Dick Casull tried triplex (three combined powders) loads in .45 Colt beginning in the late 1950s as he developed what would become the .454 Casull. It was not without incident. Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, Bill Jordan et al had horror stories to tell about those who thought ballistics labs were a DIY project.

https://www.youtube.com/@GunBlue490/videos

 

[NobullSKS]

65,000 PSI a few inches from your face is not generally something to take lightly. A little searching of gun explosions on YouTube reveals that, while rare, it certainly does happen, and is never pretty. I have found that GunBlue490 on YouTube offers some of the best reasoned, most experienced and safe advice on the web. He has been at this for decades. His advice on powder selection is very good.

The flip side is that experimenters like Dick Casull tried triplex (three combined powders) loads in .45 Colt beginning in the late 1950s as he developed what would become the .454 Casull. It was not without incident. Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, Bill Jordan et al had horror stories to tell about those who thought ballistics labs were a DIY project.

https://www.youtube.com/@GunBlue490/videos

I've seen this guy before… it's been awhile since I thought of his channel.
I followed your link and his most recent playlist first. "Making accurate loads" No nonsense…. Keep it simple…. I liked the play list. I'll be watching his stuff for sure.
Thank you.

 

[gmerkt]

QuickLOAD ballistic predictor software can get you in the ball park but it isn't free.

 

[Koda]

This video is how I develop a load without load data. So far Ive developed one hunting load and am in the final stages of another. This is specific to a brand of bullets but I think it would work the same for any bullet? Selecting powder is really the big issue, choose a similar bullet from published data start low and work up a "pressure ladder" first using the powder listed.

 

[saxon]

According to https://sites.google.com/site/sdturn...urn-rate-table Winchester 680 falls in the middle of the burn rate chart at their position #70. Looks like this:
68 IMR 4247
69 Hodgdon H4227
70 Win 680
71 Accurate 5744
72 Accurate 1680

so 680 is safe for loads you would use for 1680
yet
crono says 680 is 10 to 15 fps faster then 1680 for the same loads....

 

[osprey]

This video is how I develop a load without load data. So far Ive developed one hunting load and am in the final stages of another. This is specific to a brand of bullets but I think it would work the same for any bullet? Selecting powder is really the big issue, choose a similar bullet from published data start low and work up a "pressure ladder" first using the powder listed.

Reading primers is an inexact method to be sure. Some cartridge/ gun combos are well beyond safe pressure by the time there are indications on the primer. The guy in the video went so far as saying due to his experience he would ignore the flattened primer and he felt he could go hotter.
If you see indications on primer stop and back off powder charge! Where possible, compare the closest published data safe max charge velocity to the velocity you are getting. If you are getting more you are most likely overpressure.
For hunting rounds you definitely do not want to have ammo that is on the hairy edge as it can bite you in the arse with temp swing. Kind of like the stuck in the rut brown bear debacle.

 

[Koda]

If you are getting more you are most likely overpressure.

This is the grey area with Hammer bullets. They well advertise their bullets do not line up with conventional data and due to their drive band technology reducing friction their bullets run faster velocities than traditional bullets or even other monos. This guys running their Absolute Hammers which (according to Hammer) typically get at least 200fps faster than similar bullets.
That said, Im not disagreeing with you and I approach my learning curve with these bullets with the same caution your citing. Im loading an Absolute bullet in my elk rifle and have stopped well below what they suggest due to a sticky extraction (primers look great) but im not getting the "claimed" additional velocity. I cant complain, I am safely getting near max velocity in published data with comparable bullet weights. However the "pressure ladder" is the same process I use and Im finding it way faster to get to a charge node than traditional OCW ladder and with way less [expensive] hunting bullets. The cool thing Ive found is the Hammer bullets themselves all group tight regardless of charge or seating depth, so I didnt have to play with seating depth (as advertized) at least on the one handload for my deer rifle. Just find pressure backed off a full grain and zeroed the rifle. My next range session I will be shooting for groups with my elk rifle and so far those are already grouping nice so Im hoping to zero and call that one done.