Loading for .41 mag

[Sturm]

Jbar4Ranch, you got me on a technicality, I should have typed that as 10,000 PSI of Gas Pressure, since H.P. White conducted the test as it relates to combustion, where by the time the bullet seperates from the case, 10,000 PSI or less of gas pressure has developed from combustion. Given the the topic of the debate, I thought that would be a given, But I admire your werewithal to conduct your own test in pneumatic pressure, even if it doesn't have any relevance.

The point of all this is to show that peak pressure can not take place at the cylinder of a revolver and understanding peak pressure and pressure curves will help to make a more informed choice on powder selection in regard to barrel length. WeShoot2 was with the school of thought that felt that peak pressure occured at the cylinder, but when the fire got hot he bugged out. I am glad he posted a link to the thread though, as it bears evidence to the facts.

Concerning the sprinkler system at the Twin Towers: The original building specification did call for the possibility of an off course 707 from JFK loaded with jet fuel striking a Tower. The architect's and engineers that designed the WTC and all the engineers that reviewed the plans felt that the Fire protection system was adequate to meet that specification, even though it was not even adequate to extinguish a conventional fire on the higher floors of either Tower. They didn't like pressure data either it would seem, or maybe it was just beyond their scope. I think God had in fact took a wizz on the whole thing previously anyway with that tower of Babel thing, he took a wizz on man confusing intelligence with arrogance.

 

[Jbar4Ranch]

Holiday Inn Express, LOL!

There's probably a lot of us that don't understand psi as it relates to combustion. If I understand this somewhat correctly, the psi rating that the labs use is somehow related to gas expansion at a specific point or time very early in the combustion process, or, more specifically, a psi measurement relating to the maximum velocity of a pressure wave derived at a known time or point in the rate of expansion or combustion...?

 

[Sturm]

In the rate of combustion! You are well on your way, Sir. This relationship can be affected by the burn rate geometery of a given powder. What started all of this was based on a 2.5" barrelled Ruger SRH Alaskan revolver and previous to that the best powder for .357 magnum loads in a 3" Ruger SP-101. Continued recommendations for H-110, W-296 and 2400, stuck in my craw, so when I gave a tried and true oppinion I had some contention from WESHOOT2 and a couple of engineers at Ruger Forum. What I was trying to point out was that the velocity loss of shorter barrelled revolvers could be minimized by selecting slightly faster powders with pressure peaks that would still achieve magnum velocity without the necessary loss of velocity that you will get with slower burning magnum powders. WESHOOT2 stated that pressure peak occured at the cylinder and two self announced engineers took a rather condescening position to my statements and tried to prove the theory. I got booted before I could offer the documented evidence from H.P. White laboratories. Of course, I was waiting for the full extension of the rope.

A LIMITED COMPARISON OF THE CRUSHER AND PIEZO SYSTEMS, in the Lyman manual will explain this thoroughly and while my reading comprehension and even intellectual skills were being called into question, it was apparent that I was the only person in the debate that was even aware of it. I issued a challenge of proof by suggesting to a new reloader to try AA#7 in the 3" SP-101, but was kicked off the forum before the results came in with the thread: AA#7 .357 Magnum Load Update, that now, I can't even respond to, but the shooters satisfaction is rewarding enough for me.

I have only been doing the internet gun forum thing for about a year. I have been studying ballistics involved with reloading for about 25 and some of the bigger forums have one thing in common. Guys that become self deluded by the number of posts they put up equating useful knowledge and there are at least 2 examples of them on this thread and I'll leave it at that. I was Kilroy at Ruger Forum, but I never heated a battle and then tucked tail and ran and as Sturm here, I won't either. I will be very weary of those who resort to name calling, because maybe they thought I wouldn't come out of the closet, so there it is, and be assured my weary eyes are keen.

Going back to the original question raised by Redhawk41, because my first .41 magnum handloads were developed in a 5.5" Redhawk, Try #9, but for a little less velocity and maybe better accuracy try #7, or use the old load that I used with the Hornady 210 gr. JHP and Blue Dot. The JHP is gone but the XTP will work as well I'm sure, as would the SPEER 210 gr. Gold Dot, but since the old load generated 37,000 CUP which would be on the threshold of the current SAAMI 40,000 PSI specification, I will abide by the moderators suggestions and not list it because of the possible pressure differences using the different bullets. but I will say it was an accurate load in my Redhawk. I will also say that W-231 and magnum cases are not for me!

 

[Jbar4Ranch]

Sometimes I scare myself. Another refugee from the Village of the Damned, eh? I left there too, shortly after Parabellum took over. Too bad, really, it used to be a nice board, and could be again if it were upgraded from the Stone Age and moderated more sensibly.

 

[Sturm]

And as typical with his forums, the long standing instigators, keep right on doing their thing. I like this forum very much and will try as hard as possible to stick around, but guys with much more keyboard time than shooting and reloading time that have nothing better to do than condescend will soon find that I am their HUCKLEBERRY!

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I am their HUCKLEBERRY!"

What, you've got tuberculosis?

Consumption be done about it?

 

[Sturm]

No Tee-Bee, but I'd rather have it than to know that the closest I will ever come to understanding a pressure curve will be from trying to have an original thought in my head!

 

[redhawk41]

Does anyone out there give a hoot?

looks like for about 8 posts, then i am not sure what happened.

thanks guys

 

[Sturm]

Redhawk41, I do give a hoot, so in all the banter I did try to give some help in posts 14, 21 and 23. Just discard the other parts of the posts where they are irrelevant to your question. I did start loading for the .41 Magnum with a 5.5" Redhawk using a Hornady 210 gr. JHP, Blue Dot and a CCI-300 primer in Winchester and Remington cases. I'm sure I probably bare the brunt of the burden for the hi-jack, but I did try to contribute something to your original question. Understanding pressure will go a lot farther in helping you to decide on a specific powder, than a one size fits all approach, unless that was what you were after. There are as I mentioned, much better choices for .41 target loads than W-231, not a slur, just an observation.

 

[redhawk41]

Sturm,

where by the time the bullet seperates from the case, 10,000 PSI or less of gas pressure has developed from combustion.

when i first read the post about 175 psi unseating the bullet, i though about it and was going it reply, then i noticed that you said exactly what i was going to say.

i have very little experience reloading, but as a BSEE i have had tons of physics and calculus. it makes me feel like i have a fairly good handle on what i am learning about reloading when someone with what appears to be your experience affirms my personal theoretical observations.

i have no problems with the debates, but this thread will get closed if it falls to the level of senseless name calling and such

a one size fits all approach, unless that was what you were after

that is definitely not what i am after. i am fascinated by the theory behind firearms and cartridges. i want to know what makes 296 and h110 heavy duty mangum powders, AA#9 more accurate, and 231 a less than ideal magnum load, not just that they are. heck, if anyone wants to post some math equations "I am their HUCKLEBERRY!"

 

[Sturm]

Then we're both in luck. I am not a degree'd engineer, but have had the title applied to my position, which I feel I earned. I don't make it my lifes work to castigate engineers or anyone else. I do know that there are plenty of average Joe's walking the streets that can amaze at times with their knowledge of math. If you have the benefit of coming in with a handle on Trig, Calculus, or analytical geometery, you will eat this stuff up! This is physics in a practical form that provides pleasure and intellectual stimulation like few outside the professional realm. I say that with a design certification from BOSE and the NFPA, since your an EE, you can appreciate what that means.

The study of pressure as covered in: A LIMITED COMPARISON of the CRUSHER and PIEZO SYSTEMS, in the Lyman manual will be of great value to you. Most of what I learned was from the books and being self taught, there was no internet to access, so I enjoy getting to help new reloaders learn, especially when they are fluent in math. Velocity with different barrel lengths in handguns can be controlled through appropriate powder selection. if you can understand the data presented and I'm betting you can. I will be around and will be glad to help in any way possible. The more challenging the question, the better I like it. Name calling is something I don't begin with but once started, I don't back down, so maybe it's over. I will leave you with this thought. If a chronograph didn't provide standard deviation for it's user, how many would know the correct SD of their loads with velocity alone? Well. you now know at least one. Welcome to reloading!

 

[WESHOOT2]

I DID NOT "bug out"

My Forum 'position' crashed, and I was unable to get back in for weeks.

That said, I quit posting due to the swill lapping around my (by then) waist; know what I mean?

I am a very careful thinker when it comes to the combustion of gunpowder in a closed area.

 

[WESHOOT2]

why something works

"In my gun" some loads work, some don't.
In my gun certain loads work in a safe pressure range, but in another failure occurs.

We cannot attribute absolutes simply because the test environment in not controlled, unless we are in a ballistics lab.

Absolutes are dangerous in our hobby, ay?



(But why is AA9 so accurate in so many 41's?)

 

[Mike Irwin]

"i want to know what makes 296 and h110 heavy duty mangum powders, AA#9 more accurate, and 231 a less than ideal magnum load"

Wizards and magical incantations.

Actually, that's just for why AA #9 is more accurate. Who knows why some guns love one powder, and hate another.

As for 296/110 and 231's suitability, it all has to do with burning rate. Smokeless powders are all chemically VERY similar, at least the base material--a nitrocellulose base material, to which nitroglycerine can be added (making a double based powder).

It's when you get into granule shape, the deterrent coatings applied/mixed in, etc., that you get the wide range of powders.

 

[WESHOOT2]

mystic musings from the uneducated

I have (seriously) been considering why AA9 is accurate in so many 41's regardless of bullet used.

(This pertains to certain other specific powders in other cartridges as well): Can there be something about the shape of the charge during its initial ignition / combustion cycle?


(And I still consider the possibility of the pressure peak occuring in a revolver cylinder, yet the measuring devices lagging.....?) (Based on specific powder and its burn rate?)(Length of barrel acting as scavenger?)

 

[Jbar4Ranch]

Not .41 related, but AA#9 related...

When I was trying to work up an accurate cast bullet load for my 2x Leupold topped .480 SRH, I tried all the usual suspects; H110, W296, H4227, Li'l Gun, etc., with nothing giving acceptable accuracy, until I tried AA#9. It's been fantastic in the .480, turning in consistent 6 shot, full cylinder groups of around 1 3/4" center to center with a 350 grain cast gc bullet at 50 yards.

 

[redhawk41]

well, i finally developed and tested some loads, here are the results:

all loads use CCI 300 primers and winchester brass

210 gr Speer GDHP - 18.0 gr AA#9

265 gr Cast Performance WLNGC - 18.5 gr W296

215 gr SWC - 7.4 gr W231 -- i was dissapointed in this load, it was very mild, but accuracy was only so-so. i think i will be trying HS-6 for this bullet.

ok, now the funny part. i started out shooting the 215 gr SWC, next the 210 gr GD, and finally the 265 gr heavys. recoil increased substantially from mild to abusive as i worked up. the 265 gr left impressions of my pachymyers in my hand. great load!

then i went back to the 215 gr after shooting the 265 gr, and it felt like there was no recoil at all! the folks in the lane next to me, when i shot the 215's the first time said, "wow, thats a cannon". wonder what they though when i shot the 265gr? and the muzzle blast from the W296/265gr combo was impressive!

in summary: i am quite satisfied with the developed loads for the 210 gr GD and the 265 gr GC. i will be looking at HS-6 for the 215 gr medium loads.

 

[Leftoverdj]

Jbar4Ranch, you got me on a technicality, I should have typed that as 10,000 PSI of Gas Pressure, since H.P. White conducted the test as it relates to combustion, where by the time the bullet seperates from the case, 10,000 PSI or less of gas pressure has developed from combustion. Given the the topic of the debate, I thought that would be a given, But I admire your werewithal to conduct your own test in pneumatic pressure, even if it doesn't have any relevance.

The point of all this is to show that peak pressure can not take place at the cylinder of a revolver and understanding peak pressure and pressure curves will help to make a more informed choice on powder selection in regard to barrel length.

Showed pretty clearly that you don't understand what H.P. White said, though.

 

[redhawk41]

i am really dissapointed right now. the topic of this thread is Loading for .41 mag and it somehow dissolved into a few folks arguing amongst themselves about pressure curves and what-not.

if you don't want to help me with Loading for .41 mag please don't post in this thread.

if you want to argue about pressure curves and what-not, please start your own thread.

thank you

 

[Mike Irwin]

"i am really dissapointed right now. the topic of this thread is Loading for .41 mag and it somehow dissolved into a few folks arguing amongst themselves about pressure curves and what-not."

Welcome to the wonderful world of thread drift!


Did you have a chronograph with you?

I'm very interested in what kind of velocities you were getting with your 265-gr. load.