Alternate Powders

BobCat45

New member
Unclenick, that is a very interesting online calculator and I thank you for the link.

It has a check box for 'moly coated' copper-jacketed lead bullets, and with all inputs held constant except for that check box, it shows a significant drop in peak pressure, along with a modest drop in muzzle velocity, for moly coated bullets.

Acknowledging that it is a model, not an empirical test, it still seems illuminating about why I'm seeing no "pressure signs" at powder charges very close to book max (or maybe a little over, depending on the book) for some of the loads I've been trying, even in hot weather.

I will not let it lull me into overconfidence or any extravagant overloads, but it is nice to have some apparent explanation for my good luck so far.
 

cdoc42

New member
BobCat45, to your experience with moly coated bullets; when I was moly coating it was my understanding that I should expect a velocity reduction compared to non-moly coated loads because the bullet actually traversed the barrel faster due to the moly lubrication having less time for the gas pressure to push the bullet. It was not unusual to have to increase the charge to recapture the same velocity.
 

reynolds357

New member
BobCat45, to your experience with moly coated bullets; when I was moly coating it was my understanding that I should expect a velocity reduction compared to non-moly coated loads because the bullet actually traversed the barrel faster due to the moly lubrication having less time for the gas pressure to push the bullet. It was not unusual to have to increase the charge to recapture the same velocity.
I had the same experience. Moly and Lubralox are at their best in long for cartridge barrels.
 

BobCat45

New member
Yes, but the way it was explained to me was that the lubricant between copper jacket and steel lands made the bullet easier to accelerate, so the pressure behind it did not build as rapidly, making the powder burn less rapidly, so the charge needed to be increased in order to raise the pressure to where the powder would burn properly.

I have noted that even when loading near the 'accepted' max charges of things like R-15, I never pierced primers or blew primers out into the action, and my brass life has always been good - like, 10 loadings at least. I get leery and careful, and retire brass to 'practice' instead of 'match' use after 7 firings. Eventually I get neck splits instead of loose primer pockets or case head separations.

Talking to a friend at the range who knows more than I do (not too difficult) he casually mentioned that I ought to have at least half a grain of leeway over max, given the moly coating. But he did not have pressure tests to back that up, only the same kind of 'everybody knows it' that I have.

Also, he is mostly talking 20-inch Service Rifle barrels. My globe-sight "Spacegun" - for 300 yard Midrange Prone - has a 26-inch barrel; and Optics upper for 600 has a 24-inch barrel.

I am in this pickle because I found Accurate Arms 4064 - no 223 load data on their site, carefully sort of pretending IMR 4064 is sort of close and working up from low, to just over IMR book max. Then found Accurate Arms 2460, which has confusing data (broken into 223 Rem and 5.56 NATO segments, NATO data being much higher).

I'm trying to save my 80 grain Sierra SMKs for 600, and shot some 69 grain SMKs with AA 2460 at 300 yesterday and they performed very well.

But to compare apples to oranges, the AA 2460 velocities at 300 (as measured by ShotMarker, not a chronograph), were 2-300 ft/sec faster from the 26-inch Spacegun than the AA 4064 velocities from 20-inch SR barrel at 300 from XC match the week before.

But the AA 4064 SDs were around 16-20 (weighed every charge) and the AA 2460 SDs were like 50 - but each 2460 charge I weighed was identical (it meters so well you are 'supposed' to be able to just throw charges without weighing each one).

So I'm at a loss. I do not altogether trust the ShotMarker, and do not know the difference between a "good" and "bad" standard deviation in this context, and would be happy to add more powder but do not want to blow anything up.

In 100-yard testing groups (of both powders) were tightening up as charge weights increased, until I chickened out, dropped 0.2 grains from the highest I tried, and settled on that.

The calculator Unclenick linked is really pretty neat and it is the only source I've seen that attempts to quantify the effect of moly coating on pressure and velocity, with all other variables fixed.
 

reynolds357

New member
Yes, but the way it was explained to me was that the lubricant between copper jacket and steel lands made the bullet easier to accelerate, so the pressure behind it did not build as rapidly, making the powder burn less rapidly, so the charge needed to be increased in order to raise the pressure to where the powder would burn properly.

I have noted that even when loading near the 'accepted' max charges of things like R-15, I never pierced primers or blew primers out into the action, and my brass life has always been good - like, 10 loadings at least. I get leery and careful, and retire brass to 'practice' instead of 'match' use after 7 firings. Eventually I get neck splits instead of loose primer pockets or case head separations.

Talking to a friend at the range who knows more than I do (not too difficult) he casually mentioned that I ought to have at least half a grain of leeway over max, given the moly coating. But he did not have pressure tests to back that up, only the same kind of 'everybody knows it' that I have.

Also, he is mostly talking 20-inch Service Rifle barrels. My globe-sight "Spacegun" - for 300 yard Midrange Prone - has a 26-inch barrel; and Optics upper for 600 has a 24-inch barrel.

I am in this pickle because I found Accurate Arms 4064 - no 223 load data on their site, carefully sort of pretending IMR 4064 is sort of close and working up from low, to just over IMR book max. Then found Accurate Arms 2460, which has confusing data (broken into 223 Rem and 5.56 NATO segments, NATO data being much higher).

I'm trying to save my 80 grain Sierra SMKs for 600, and shot some 69 grain SMKs with AA 2460 at 300 yesterday and they performed very well.

But to compare apples to oranges, the AA 2460 velocities at 300 (as measured by ShotMarker, not a chronograph), were 2-300 ft/sec faster from the 26-inch Spacegun than the AA 4064 velocities from 20-inch SR barrel at 300 from XC match the week before.

But the AA 4064 SDs were around 16-20 (weighed every charge) and the AA 2460 SDs were like 50 - but each 2460 charge I weighed was identical (it meters so well you are 'supposed' to be able to just throw charges without weighing each one).

So I'm at a loss. I do not altogether trust the ShotMarker, and do not know the difference between a "good" and "bad" standard deviation in this context, and would be happy to add more powder but do not want to blow anything up.

In 100-yard testing groups (of both powders) were tightening up as charge weights increased, until I chickened out, dropped 0.2 grains from the highest I tried, and settled on that.

The calculator Unclenick linked is really pretty neat and it is the only source I've seen that attempts to quantify the effect of moly coating on pressure and velocity, with all other variables fixed.
You start piercing or blowing primers, you not close to max load. You are way past it!
 

cdoc42

New member
I think what you should be looking for is accuracy at a given velocity rather than just velocity. Fast is not necessarily more accurate. Neither is a good idea to assume 4064 from two different manufacturers is "close." If moly is sending your bullet out before all the powder exerts its effect, I would look for a relatively faster-burning powder than 4064 so it peaks more quickly before the bullet exits, but as usual, start low and increase toward your goal.
 

BobCat45

New member
Thanks, I am looking for accuracy rather than velocity.

As I mentioned, with both powders the group size at 100 yards was shrinking as I increased the powder charge, until I "got scared", stopped increasing, and dropped back.

Also, I'm aware that AA 4064 is not the same powder as IMR 4064, just as H 4895 is not the same as IMR 4895, but looking at burn rate charts they are close. AA 4064 is below (slower than) IMR 4064 in all the charts I've found.

Code:
83.	IMR 3031
84.	VIHTAVUORI N133
85.     HODGDON BENCHMARK 
86.     HODGDON H335
87.	RAMSHOT X-TERMINATOR
88.	ACCURATE 2230
89.	ACCURATE 2460
90.	IMR 8208 XBR
91.	ALLIANT AR COMP
92.	RAMSHOT TAC
93.	ALLIANT POWER PRO VARMINT
94      HODGDON H4895
95.	VIHTAVUORI N530
96.	IMR 4895
97.	VIHTAVUORI N135
98.	ALLIANT RELODER 12
99.	ACCURATE 2495
100.    IMR 4166
101.	IMR 4064
102.	NORMA 202
103.	ACCURATE 4064
104.	ACCURATE 2520
105.	ALLIANT RELODER 15
106.	NORMA 203B
107.	VIHTAVUORI N140
108.    HODGDON VARGET
109.    WINCHESTER 748
110.    HODGDON BL-C(2)

{Edited for compliance with board policy on posting copyrighted materials.}

And I did start low and work up carefully because I'm too old to suffer the indignity of hurting or killing myself because of a stupid mistake.

The point is that the calculator Unclenick linked is great, and it is the only place I've seen a correction for moly coating, and that seems to help explain why my primer pockets do not seem to grow, my cases all eject to 4:00 O'clock, and there is no outward sign (like flattened primers) of excessive pressure even near book max.

And - agreed, pierced or blown primers are signs of gross overpressure. I know people (high-scoring shooters) who do not back off until they start to get pierced primers. One of them told me (years ago) to quit using Winchester small rifle primers because they pierce too easily. That is why I have those primers around for load testing - and I've never had one pierce.
 
QuickLOAD also has bullet lubrication compensation built-in. It works by lowering the bullet start pressure. The idea is that a lubricated bullet will take less pressure to force into the throat and extrude into the rifling. Since it gets into the throat with less force, it will be accelerating sooner and will therefore be a little further down the bore and with more expansion, so the volume the powder is burning in will be a little bigger when the pressure peaks. This is what reduces peak pressure, and that, in turn, reduces the peak acceleration, hence the velocity loss.

If you look through load data with pressures given, like Hodgdon's or Lyman's, you will have noticed the peak pressures of the maximum loads don't normally meet the SAAMI MAP pressure, but rather have different maximum load pressures for each powder. Except for hollow base wadcutters, for which that is done to prevent muzzle blast from being great enough to expand the hollow base into a skirt, it is generally because the firing tests found too much variation in peak pressure from shot to shot to let the average peak value get any higher. The practice affords one way you can get an idea which powders will produce the lowest pressure and velocity SDs. They are the ones whose maximum loads have the highest pressure number. It is highest because the ballistics technician firing the test gun saw the smallest pressure SD with them.

What's odd about the above is that it is not how SAAMI expects ammunition manufacturers to use the maximum pressure number. That number is called the Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) and it is meant to be a not-to-exceed for the average of ten peak pressure measurements. The hand loading data developers do not use it as an average, but rather as an absolute upper limit. This is for several reasons: One is that handloader use load data recipes, while ammunition manufacturers use pressure guns to determine how much powder they can put in. The data for the handloader therefore has to have some wiggle room for powder lot-to-lot burn rate variation. The manufacturer doesn't care about that because he measures the pressure each lot produces before making a run and can adjust the load to correct for it. Another reason is the handloader often want's to use powders he has on hand, even if they aren't ideally suited to his cartridge and bullet combination. Recognizing this, the powder distributors test a range of powders for each round, including some that aren't the best choice and that may have more variation than a better choice does. Another and important reason is that using the MAP as an average requires that the lot not exceed the SAAMI pressure standard deviation limit and that the extreme spread not exceed the SAAMI Maximum Extreme Variation (MEV) number. The average handloader is not even aware of these two specifications, much less able to measure them reliably. So the handload data that is published tries to keep the handloader out of trouble in that way as well.

What all that pressure data business means is that many individual loads could be raised without exceed SAAMI numbers if the powder lot burn rate and other factors are right. It might not be so with your particular lot of powder and choices of case and primer and exact bullet shape. But it could also be the other way around. This explains why many people seem to be able to use loads above the data without any sort of trouble indication, while others cannot.

Finally, as to coated bullet performance, if you have load data for the uncoated version of your particular bullet and you know how much to allow for your difference in barrel length, you can make a sort of simple calculation. Using the table below, take the barrel length that was used to test the load in your data and see what multiplier on the table it has. Then take your barrel length and see what multiplier it has. Divide your barrel multiplier by the test barrel multiplier and multiply the result times the velocity given in the data. If the maximum load in the data produces less than that resulting velocity, you are below their peak pressure. Indeed, if you bring the charge up to match that resulting velocity, you will still be a little below the original peak pressure because more of your velocity is coming from acceleration that happens after the peak than was the case with the original powder. However, the reverse is also true. If you are getting more than that resulting velocity, you are above the load developer's peak pressure and even when you reduce the load to match their velocity you will be a little above their peak pressure because your lighter charge is producing less gas for the post-peak bullet acceleration. These situations are where the interior ballistics programs give you some real help working out about how much pressure difference there really is. You can also use them to grow or shrink the case capacity to see how much pressure difference is occurring at your velocity extremes and to decided if you are actually staying within SAAMI guidelines.

There certainly is no shortage of "i"s to dot or "t"s to cross if you want to get down into it.
 

paknheat

New member
I have some testing loads using the Staball powder made up for the .270 Winchester.

I also did a batch in 25-06 to try out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

stagpanther

New member
I just rustled my 6mmCreedmoor AR out of the cobwebbed back of the safe, gonna try some staball loads. Hodgdon is selling it direct BTW.
 

stagpanther

New member
6 shots of 108 eldx driven by 41.5 grs of staball. Not especially great deviation figures, but I was getting an average of 2,940 fps out of a 22" AR barrel using a charge closer to the low end than top-end.

The separation of shot impact groups was strictly me--I had my "wobble table" set-up and changed the position and hold mid-stream in the shots to steady things up. I'm pretty certain a better shooter using a solid bench could easily get a tight 1-holer. Could be my imagination, Staball seems noticeably lighter in felt recoil than the other powders I use for this cartridge while meeting or exceeding their velocities.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7164.JPG
    IMG_7164.JPG
    52.7 KB · Views: 53
Top