454 alaskan faster powder short barrel AA #7


PDA






mewachee
February 1, 2008, 03:57 PM
I have been trying to work up a load on my new alaskan 454. Many of you will disagree with my of weapon, but I have my reason's (plus, I love it). Factory ammo works fine. Of course the is a loss in pressure/velocity/energy, because of the short barrel.

I want to work up a load using No. 7 and a 335 grain bullet. Because No. 7 is not considered standard for the 454, data is know where to be found. I can work this up, but need some Idea of a safe range.

I have worked up a load using blue dot and 335 gas checked lead bullet. 19 grains gives me 1200 fps. 20 drops off to 1150. I have no sign of over-pressure with these loads, but I want more than the 1200 fps.

Anyone have input on #7? for this bullet?

If you enjoyed reading about "454 alaskan faster powder short barrel AA #7" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Walkalong
February 1, 2008, 04:41 PM
If you can't get with with Blue Dot, I don't think AA #7 will get you there either. Try something a bit slower than Blue Dot such as AA #9, Enforcer, 2400, or Lil Gun, or perhaps even SR 4759 or 5744 XMR.

mewachee
February 1, 2008, 05:02 PM
This is my point, that in a 7.5 in barrel, those powders have time to burn and build consistent pressure. By using those powders in a 2.5 in barrel you accept the loss in velocity. I can accept that if I have to, but would like to play with the fast powders to test my theory. It's a good theory, I think.

I have read that No. 7 performs well in short magnums with heavy bullets, I just don't want to go into this guessing. I have seen where others have used No. 5, but that is going to far for me.

mewachee
February 1, 2008, 08:28 PM
Is there a way to have my revolver and chosen load tested for pressure?

joneb
February 1, 2008, 10:15 PM
Well this may be of little help but I have excellent results using AA#9 for my Ruger Security Six with a 2.75" barrel with 158 and 180gr jacketed bullets, I have tried AA#7 with the 158s but AA#9 works better :confused: the bullet used and the crimp applied may be contributing factors, I use jacketed bullets and a heavy crimp for these AA#9 loads.

Floppy_D
February 1, 2008, 10:27 PM
I only have data for Lil' Gun, H-4227 and H-110 at that weight... if you find something that works well please let me know. :)

CZ57
February 1, 2008, 10:28 PM
keep digging! #7 will prove to be a great choice for .454 in an Alaskan. If all else fails, go to Ramshot True Blue because you will find data. Anything a magnum powder will do will be lost in a snub barrel. Going slightly faster in burn rate, like AA#7, or True Blue, will get you the best performance that you can expect from a 2.75" barrel.;)

mewachee
February 2, 2008, 01:08 AM
Thanks guys. The heavy crimp is hard on 454 brass, it seems to be a balancing act. I decided to go forth with the No. 7, picked some up tonight.

If anyone has a reliable place to start, and max, with this powder and for this load, please let me know.

joneb
February 2, 2008, 01:31 AM
The heavy crimp is hard on 454 brass, it seems to be a balancing act.
Do you trim your brass ?

CZ57
February 2, 2008, 12:05 PM
mewachee, I checked the Accurate website and they don't show anything for #7 in .454 Casull. You can contact their ballistician by e-mail and he should be able to give you data for #7. Or, call him at 800 497-1007. His name is Johan Loubser and he's the ballistician for both Accurate and Ramshot.;)

You might want to think about adding some True Blue in the future, there is data for the Cast Performance 335 with a 1.735 OACL in Win brass and a Win FP primer. 15.2 grains gets 1292 FPS with a SD of 6 (38,530 PSI). 16.2 grains achieved 1361 FPS (45,124 PSI) with a SD of 5! Velocities were recorded from a 7.5" barrel.;)

If you need higher performance, AA#9 might be worth a look. It's a little faster burning than most magnum powders, just a bit slower than Blue Dot. I haven't loaded .454 with #9, but in my experience with other cartridges, you'll have less muzzle blast with #9 and velocity loss shouldn't be as pronounced as what you'll see from powders like 2400, 296, H110 or L'il Gun.;)

mewachee
February 2, 2008, 12:28 PM
Hey thanks for the contact info, I never considered contacting the manufacture. Go to the source, I like it.

I check their site, and yes, they don't show data for the 454. However, they do show it in the .480 and .45 colt.

Another question, what is it called when the efficiency of a powder drops off. Meaning, while you increase the amount of powder, normally the velocity increase, but then all of a sudden velocity decreases.

Example:
19 grains of Blue Dot = 1200 fps
20 grains of Blue Dot = 1150 fps

Is there a term for this?
And, why does this happen?

either load show no pressure problems

Walkalong
February 2, 2008, 02:14 PM
2.75" barrelDang, I read 4" somehow earlier. My eyes must be going, along with..................... Well, I misread it. CZ57 is right about the powder speed. I was thinking you had a 4" barrel to play with. :banghead:

mewachee
February 2, 2008, 11:42 PM
As popular as this revolver is get, especially here in the west, I am surprised that there are not more interest in this thread. I am not a status quo person, and I know that this question isn't status quo, but how is it that more have not tried this.

Do most people think the ruger alaskan isn't worth improving upon. Maybe I should explain my reason for having such a revolver.

I do not use this revolver to hunt with, I mostly use a bow. I hunt bear, mule deer and elk in grizzly country. 99% of the time, I am on the ground.

This year I shot a moose with my bow (by the way, one of my funnest hunts to date). I sat there for many hours deboning this animal, an as it got dark I had this feeling I was being watched. That is when I decide to get a large revolver.

The problem during these kinds of activities is that most magnums are too heavy, to long and there is usually something in your hands. The Ruger Alaskan solves so many of these problems. Yet I want to be able to send hard cast lead though a grizzlies head, and out his rear (yes I know this isn't total reality, but would like to get it as close to reality as I can).

I can get good energy, I just want more.

CZ57
February 3, 2008, 10:25 AM
"Another question, what is it called when the efficiency of a powder drops off. Meaning, while you increase the amount of powder, normally the velocity increase, but then all of a sudden velocity decreases."

When pressure continues to increase without any gain in velocity, or even begins losing velocity, that is called the point of deminishing returns.

We don't have bear in The Heart of Texas, so your situation is something I don't have to contemplate. But, an Elk hunt in the Rockies would have me contemplating the extra insurance. I don't believe there is a lack of interest in the topic, but choosing a sidearm to carry in Griz country threads can and do go off the reservation once in a while. One good example is Glock owners that began over-throttling the 10mm with 800-X for the same purpose. I have experimented with Magnum revolvers with short barrels and found that there is less loss of velocity when you choose slightly faster powders. I've used Blue Dot, #7, V-V 3N37, Vectan SP-2 and Ramshot True Blue for this. If you were using a 4" barreled revolver, I would have completely agreed with AA#9.

Dan Wesson once had a nice option called the DW 460 in .460 Rowland, but it would also fire the .45 ACP, .45 Super, .460 Rowland and the .45 Win Mag. all from the same cylinder in their M44 frame. The .45 Win Mag would make it a logical choice for the DW's 4" barrel. Even Blue Dot can be a bit slow for the 2.75" barrel as I think you've found out. Powders slightly faster, up to HS-6, will help provided they have the performance you need to begin with.;)

mewachee
February 3, 2008, 01:21 PM
I have decide to compare No. 7 With No. 9. I continue to get directed to No. 9, so I will have to try it. I will report my results end of the week in a new thread.

I plan on contacting accurate early this week for their opinions.

On the "point of diminishing returns," does this occur because of pressure.

Or, crazy idea, could it be from the rate of expansion, in the chamber, that unburned powder is separated from burning powder, which could explain loss of velocity as well.

Ok, I know that I beat the proverbial dead horse, but this stuff is interesting. Anyone have a suggestion on a book that gets down to base concepts of powder, burn, pressure, etc?

I did this will my .270 and had great results. I love to take a weapon and match the bullet, power, brass, primer and barrel. I think I spent more on setting it up the rifle and load than I spent on the rifle itself, but now I have a load that shoots great under all conditions. Locally, when I talked to dealers about this rifle, they thought I should have been happy with moa. Not a tack driver, but close. 130 grain bullet, 3350 fps with no pressure problems. I did this with a 6.5 lb rifle.

zxcvbob
February 3, 2008, 03:34 PM
I might go with AA#5, Bullseye, or Power Pistol -- not that #7 is a bad choice. What kind of bullets are you using? Can they handle 60000+ psi? (the gun and the brass should handle it with no problems.) I can run some numbers in Quickload if you want.

Mephis
February 3, 2008, 04:53 PM
Was browsing google and found this thread, so I thought I'd register and give my 2cents.

I started loading for the .454 with an alaskan as well and eventually got tired of the low performance the 2.5" barrel was ending up with.

I traded it in for a used 7.5" at a loss and was very happy with the result. It's no harder to handle or any more awkward than the alaskan, in a practical sense. The only thing I miss was being able to CCW the alaskan, but again that's more of a stunt than real world practicality. I really think you should do the same.

In the end with a 400gr bullet on top of some H110, I don't really think you'd have any troubles taking down anything you encounter, velocity loss or not.

zxcvbob
February 3, 2008, 05:54 PM
23.1 grains of AA#7 is probably about the max with that bullet, according to Quickload, but I had to guess at the seating depth (.475") so it could be way off. Predicted muzzle velocity with a 3.4" barrel (gives a bullet travel of 2.5") is 1276 fps. I have no idea if this is safe or not, but it should give you something to work with. Peak pressure is 64633 psi, and 95% of the powder has burned by the time the bullet travels 1.64".

A compressed charge of H110 only gives 1100 fps (still not too shabby) and a bunch of unburnt powder. I'll bet the fireball is really impressive!

mewachee
February 3, 2008, 06:54 PM
zxcvbob, Thanks a lot. Good info. I was not expecting max to 23 grains.

If I can get that extra 76 fps, I get and extra 150 ft/lbs of energy. I think if I can get up to 1350 fps, I could bust through the thickest of craniums.

Before anyone says anything about shooting for the head. You shoot center mass. The head goes up and down, so you hope you get a chest shot, brain shot or a spine shot.


as far as trading up, if I were to do that, I would have went with the .460 S&W. Around here, hiking up and down mountains with an extra lb on your belt makes a big difference. The defensive weapon ends up in your pack.

zxcvbob
February 3, 2008, 09:46 PM
I don't think you can get to 1350 fps with a heavy bullet and a short barrel without exceeding SAAMI pressure specs -- not something I would want to do with a Casull. You might can get it to 1300, barely.

Or how about a 405 grain rifle bullet (like Lyman #457193) sized down to .452, with 9 grains of Bullseye behind it? That gives 940 fps in a short barrel.

(these all sound like wrist-breakers to me)

campbell
February 4, 2008, 01:38 AM
If I can get that extra 76 fps, I get and extra 150 ft/lbs of energy. I think if I can get up to 1350 fps, I could bust through the thickest of craniums.


335 grain LBT at 1200 fps will do that just fine. Experimenting is fun and all, but you're not actually going to get a big performance boost out of another 100 fps.

mewachee
February 4, 2008, 02:09 AM
An extra 150 fps would give me almost a 20 % increase in energy.

campbell
February 4, 2008, 02:43 AM
Big bore handgunners would be well served by totally ignoring muzzle energy, and looking at a different calculation like Taylor Knock Out.

The most important factors when looking for penetration in a big bore handgun are things like bullet diameter, bullet weight, bullet construction, etc.

You've already picked a fantastic bullet for the caliber, and 1200 fps is already a pretty sweet spot for that load. You will see little to no practical difference by adding 100 fps.

mewachee
February 4, 2008, 08:56 PM
"Big bore handgunners would be well served by totally ignoring muzzle energy"



This is true when comparing weapons or bullets, but not when the only changing factor is the powder. In this case more velocity = more energy = more Taylor Knock Out. However, such a load may or may not prove to be accurate.


The primary purpose of this thread is to work up one of three, none standard, loads; with faster burning powder. This is to find out if I can get noticeably better loads for my 2.5 in barrel. There are 454's out there with loads that produce 2,000 ft/lbs. Of course I know this weapon can't do that. Or let me translate: There are weapons out there that can produce 34 tko, how cool would it be if I could get this one to do 29 instead of 26.

CZ57
February 4, 2008, 09:07 PM
bob, I'd be interested in seeing what QuikLoad predicts for the True Blue load I posted #10. 1361 from a 7.5" barrel and just over 45,000 PSI. True Blue is slightly faster than #7, so its potential to maintain a high percentage of that velocity in the 2.75" barrel could be enlightening. A Standard deviation of 5 suggests that this load might have very good potential for the application.;)

zxcvbob
February 4, 2008, 09:20 PM
Not as good as you'd think, although there's still some room for increasing the powder (up to about 17 grains) Let's see if this attachment works...

Mr.Revolverguy
February 4, 2008, 09:38 PM
attachment is corrupt.

zxcvbob
February 4, 2008, 10:06 PM
I've tried a couple of times. The file is fine on my computer, but it doesn't upload right.

mewachee
February 5, 2008, 01:20 AM
I received an email from accurate today. They said,

"Unfortunately we do not suggest no7 for the 454Casull, The 454Casull is prone to ignition problems and the best powders are those that fill the case to highest possible loading density"

Could this be a problem with the small rifle primer?

I would like to get a look at the pdf file.

What are the characteristics of true blue that make it a good candidate for this application?

I still plan to go ahead with the No. 7 if I can verify it is not a huge safety problem. Any Idea on how to work around the ignition problem. Could the blast hole in the primer pocket be slightly altered to insure ignition.

maybe I should let it go, and move on to the true blue. If I do move on, does anyone know of a slightly faster powder that will not have problems igniting?

mewachee
February 5, 2008, 01:23 AM
zxcvbob, could you try to save the information as a txt file, or could you copy the text into your reply. Probably a copy right problem with that.

zxcvbob
February 5, 2008, 09:28 AM
Is the email address you have on file correct?

Mr.Revolverguy
February 5, 2008, 09:51 AM
zxcvbob,

It is not the file per say. This usually happens because of the browser mime type settings when uploading files.

mewachee
February 5, 2008, 11:55 AM
yeah, email it to me, that would be awesome.

Can you trust quickload's max load suggestions.

I downloaded the trial, but it doesn't let you do anything.

zxcvbob
February 5, 2008, 12:29 PM
I haven't used QL enough yet to trust it completely. (but I've been impressed with how closely it's calculations match my chronograph readings) I would trust its data the same way I'd trust a powder manufacturer's data that used a very-similar-but-different bullet, or a different primer: Don't start at the maximum value, work up towards it.

It'll be late tonite before I can email anything to you. I'm going straight from work to the MN caucus, and it's not over until 9:00.

CZ57
February 5, 2008, 06:38 PM
Well, the QuikLoad data won't come up if I save it to disk or try to open the file. I'd be interested to know what the velocity projection is, but as it turns out, Ramshot has increased the load for the CP WLNGC 335 (4.2.2 guide)to 16.2 - 18.0 grains (53,400 PSI) for 1395 FPS from the 7.5" barrel with an OACL of 1.735", CCI-400 Primer. Whereas Bob is saying QuikLoad only goes to a 17.0 gr. Max. I'd be very surprised if velocity dropped below 1200 FPS from the Alaskan.

True Blue is very pressure stable. The Standard Deviation of 5 indicates that this is a very uniform load. It's slightly faster than #7 so the statement from Accurate is a bit puzzling since the same ballistician works up the data for both powders and True Blue would give slightly less case fill than #7.;)

ArchAngelCD
February 6, 2008, 02:06 AM
I looked all over for data on the 454 Casull and AA#7 and there just isn't any. It's really not the powder for that caliber but I know that's already been said many times.

I know it's been already said here over and over but better choices for that round would be W296/H110, Lil'Gun or 4227. Using AA#7 just won't get it done. Also like said above, if Blue Dot wasn't satisfactory there's no way AA#7 will be since their burn rate is so close. It's just too fast a powder for the application.

I know you are still saying you are going to go ahead and try AA#7 but remember, with a powder that fast you are likely to get a large pressure spike instead of the smoother pressure curve you would get with a slower powder.

WHY are you so stuck on using AA#7 when AA#9 is clearly a better choice if you want to stick with a powder from Accurate Arms?

mewachee
February 6, 2008, 02:15 AM
Here is what I am doing.

I loaded #9 today for my base line.

I also loaded #7

I think I will try and tweak the blue dot another .5 grain.

I will shoot tomorrow, then place the results here.

cz57, you convinced me to try the true blue. I will have to look for it tomorrow.

mewachee
February 6, 2008, 02:38 AM
Arch, the reason I am trying this is to see if there is something to it.

No. 9 has the fastest burn rate of all the standard powders used in this caliber, but they became standard base on the 7.5 in barrel or longer. However, working up a sweet load for a 20 in barrel, using the same bullet, another load would be better suited. You may use No. 9, but with the longer barrel, I would assume a slower burning powder would be better. Because the barrel is shorter, I want to know if that pressure spike will improve my velocity, while trying to keep everything in safe limits. I think it is strange that more reloaders of the alaskan aren't interested in this.

To be honest, I wish someone would have pointed me to info. where another has done the work already. Empirical data would have been nice.

When all is said and done, if I find that the No. 9 is superior, I will go with it.

CZ57
February 6, 2008, 02:30 PM
zxcvbob gave excellent info in post #18 of what to expect when you use a magnum powder in a SNUB barrel as predicted by QuikLoad: "A compressed charge of H110 only gives 1100 fps (still not too shabby) and a bunch of unburnt powder. I'll bet the fireball is really impressive!" I don't think a lot of folks understand the dynamic. To maintain velocity in short barrels, the powder burn rate must be increased to achieve a faster pressure peak to maximize velocity in a short barrel. QuikLoad will predict the distance necessary to achieve pressure peak. Particularly important in this case. The magnum powders that ArchAngel mentioned using in the Alaskan would be a waste of time and money, imo. I think we all agree that #9 is fast enough compared to them that it will provide a faster pressure peak, but is that fast enough? My personal opinion is that any barrel under 4" will make it hard for #9 to burn thoroughly enough to achieve an appreciable velocity gain, but it will work better for your needs compared to Blue Dot, which I don't think you'll find a lot of data for, either. Pressure stability at very high pressure is not its strong suite, coupled with the fact that there have been inconsistencies in manufacturing Blue Dot in the past. That is my concern with #9 as well. Bulk density uniformity has been questioned and it's one of my favorite powders. I haven't ran into any problems in the .357, .41 or .44 Magnum, but they're not 65,000 PSI rounds. What I've done is switch to another powder almost identical in burn rate: Ramshot Enforcer that would be every bit as good performance wise in the .454, but just a tad bit slower burning. Still faster than 110, 296, L'il Gun etc. Another good thing about QuikLoad is the prediction for the amount of powder that will be burned. As that percentage goes down, it's indicating that barrel length is not long enough for complete ignition of the powder. I have the sample program, I just can't input new parameters into it.

I also agree that you're not going to get to 1350 FPS, but I believe you can do better than what you've done with Blue Dot where you did find the "Point of Diminishing Returns" when velocity started falling off while pressure (and chargeweight) increased.

It is not a question of a powder being too fast, it's a matter of finding the right powder for a specific window of performance. I have data with Unique and even Bullseye because they are easy to ignite and that's probably the only reason they're listed. It ain't for performance. Both are faster burning than True Blue, and again, True Blue is slightly faster than #7. The question is, how pressure stable a powder will be if you work up near the 65,000 PSI MAP for the .454 Casull? The QuikLoad projected max that bob listed for #7 at 23.1 grains goes too near the Maximum Average Pressure to assume a 10% reduction for a start charge. I should mention also that Vihta Vouri has had load data for .454 using N340 and N350. Both of which are faster than #7, or True Blue in this case.

As far as data, it's why I mentioned True Blue, and even with the newer data that goes to 18.0 grains with the 335 CP, you have nearly a 12,000 PSI cushion. Their previous max load I posted in #10 had a Standard Deviation of 5. That is better than good, it's phenomenal! And, it's just over 45,000 PSI and now it's the start charge at 16.2 grains. The only way you're going to get anything more empirical than that will be from someone who has used the powders in question and can provide all of the statistical analysis. If I were in your shoes the choice would be easy. It would be based on the fact that there is a powder that should give better performance in a shorter tube because of its slightly faster pressure peak and the Standard Deviation of 5 indicates very uniform pressure characteristics at the 45,000 PSI developed.

Now for the Accurate statement:
"Unfortunately we do not suggest no7 for the 454Casull, The 454Casull is prone to ignition problems and the best powders are those that fill the case to highest possible loading density" That is true as far as difficulty with ignition. The first loads used by Dick Casull were duplex loads that are not recommended by anyone. A very fast powder was loaded under a slower burner to help it ignite more thoroughly. But I wonder if Accurate understood what you're up against with the Alaskan. Ignition may be a problem, but they are not saying that pressure will be erratic. Then consider that they (Western Powder Co.) do recommend a slightly faster powder (True Blue) for the same loads? Years ago, Accurate made a similar statement about using #9 with 125 gr. JHPs being too slow for the .357 Magnum. Now you'll find they recommend it. I ran into a similar situation several years ago when I asked the Ramshot/Accurate ballistician about using their then new powder, Hunter, in 7mm-08. He told me it was not suitable then, but evidently, it is now. They list very good load data for its use in 7mm-08.

#7 is the densest handgun powder I'm aware of at 985 grams per liter. It very well could be that the CCI-400 will have trouble igniting it. Couple that with the absence of data for even a start charge; if you proceed you are on your own. I would contact Accurate again and ask them to assist specifically with your performance needs for the Alaskan. They recommend #7 for high pressure .45 Colt and the .480 Ruger with loads going up to 46,000 PSI and according to their data, the .480 load is ignited with a WLP primer. It's hard to imagine that you couldn't load the .454 at least to a similar pressure range as the .480 level. Another option that might also be very worthy of consideration would be to run the higher level .45 Colt loads through the Alaskan.;)

zxcvbob
February 6, 2008, 07:29 PM
Mewachee, what is the length of that 335 grain bullet you're using? I need that to guestimate the seating depth. (or if you know the seating depth, that works even better)

mewachee
February 6, 2008, 09:20 PM
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

zxcvbob, the seating depth is .44

CZ57, thanks for the explanation. That is the general answer to my general question. Very good read, I hope it gets pick up by google.

Okay, here is what I have come to. All the velocities are averaged in my head. Under all situations I find no signs of over pressure. I wish I could test the pressure.

Of course, you have seen the blue dot, but here it is again.
Blue Dot 18 g. - 1100 fps
19 g. - 1200 fps
20 g. - 1150 fps


No. 9 24 g. - 1250 fps
25 g. - 1275 fps
25.5 g. - 1290 fps
26 g. - 1315 fps

Two things happened here that really surprised me. The first, 21 g. grouped unbelievably well. All other hand and factory loads were, although expected, crappy (not a 100 yard gun). The second surprise was that the 22 g. of No. 7 kicked so much less than the No. 9 of the same velocity. This I don't understand.

No. 7 21 g. - 1200 fps
22 g. - 1250 fps

Velocity Energy TKO
1100 900 24
1200 1071 26
1250 1163 27
1300 1257 28
1325 1306 29
1350 1356 29
1370 1397 30


If I've learned anything here, it was that there are few of us that step out of the box. This is the first forum that I have participated in. I did it out of necessity, but it helped me get were I was going. I have a lot more powder to burn, but I think I will until it is a little greener on the hill. I am ready for spring bear for now. When it gets nice out, I will fine tune this, and maybe go both directions (faster and slower) to put together a data sheet of what worked for me.

One last thing, I had the hardest time finding information on this topic. Google anything pertaining to this topic and we are at the top.

zxcvbob
February 6, 2008, 09:38 PM
The difference between 23.9 grains of #7 and 26 grains of #9 in a short barrel are insignificant.* The #9 ejects more unburnt powder, but not as much as I expected. They both calculate to just over 1300 fps. I'll send you the file.

*even with a 7.5" barrel, there's not much difference between #7 and #9; 1600 and 1625 fps.

joneb
February 6, 2008, 09:42 PM
I would like to know how 2400 would do.

zxcvbob
February 6, 2008, 09:53 PM
2400 is interesting. 26 grains is a compressed charge (I assume it is compressable) and otherwise is just like #9 but at a couple of thousand less psi.

mewachee
February 6, 2008, 10:04 PM
Bob, could you show the results for both the 21 and 22 g. of #7.

What is acceptable expansion of the brass? Sized it is .469, after the heavier loads it is .479. This doesn't bind at all during removal.

zxcvbob
February 6, 2008, 10:23 PM
OK. Did you get those other 2 files I sent you?

Here's 21 g:
Case capacity and propellant properties may vary considerably from lot to lot!

**** Input data: Date: 6-Feb-2008 Time: 21:15:41
Cartridge................. = .454 Casull Magnum (SAAMI)
Projectile type........... = .451, 335 flatbase

Max.avg.pressure(Piezo SAA)= 65000 psi Shot start / init pressure = 1160 psi
Projectile weight (gr)= 335 Groove caliber (in)= 0.451
Length of cartridge (in)= 1.672 Length of case (in)= 1.380
Case capacity(Grains Water)= 46.81 Length of projectile (in)= 0.732
Length of barrel (in)= 3.600
**** Values calculated:
Seating depth (in)= 0.440 Volume displaced (gn H2O)= 17.79
Comb.chamber volume(gn H2O)= 29.01 Projectile travel (in)= 2.660
**** Input data:
Propellant type........... = Accurate No.7
Charge weight..........(gr)= 21.0 Load density......(g/cu.cm)= 0.722
Heat of Explosion (cal/lb)= 450696 Ratio of spec. heats cp/cv = 1.230
Solid density (gr/cu.in)= 397.0 Weighting factor...........= 0.8
Burning rate factor Ba(1/s)= 1.418 Pro-/degressivity factor a = 1.862
Burning limit ......... z1 = 0.3 Combust.Chamber Vb(ft³)= 6.652087E-5
Factor.................. b = 1.466 X-S.Area of Bore A(ft²)= 1.090744E-3
Bulk density (gr/cu.in)= 250.9 Projectile mass mp (lb)= 4.785634E-2
Loading ratio (%)= 72.8 Projectile travel x(ft)= 2.216732E-1

**** Results calculated:
Maximum pressure ........ = 45041 psi Way of projectile at Pmax = 0.42 in
Muzzle velocity ......Ve = 1149 fps Muzzle pressure .......Pe = 16412 psi
Project. energy at muzzle = 982 ft.lbs Fraction of powder burnt = 96.1 %
Projectile travel time from 10% Pmax to muzzle = 0.41 ms


And here's 22:
**** Input data: Date: 6-Feb-2008 Time: 21:16:53
Cartridge................. = .454 Casull Magnum (SAAMI)
Projectile type........... = .451, 335 flatbase

Max.avg.pressure(Piezo SAA)= 65000 psi Shot start / init pressure = 1160 psi
Projectile weight (gr)= 335 Groove caliber (in)= 0.451
Length of cartridge (in)= 1.672 Length of case (in)= 1.380
Case capacity(Grains Water)= 46.81 Length of projectile (in)= 0.732
Length of barrel (in)= 3.600
**** Values calculated:
Seating depth (in)= 0.440 Volume displaced (gn H2O)= 17.79
Comb.chamber volume(gn H2O)= 29.01 Projectile travel (in)= 2.660
**** Input data:
Propellant type........... = Accurate No.7
Charge weight..........(gr)= 22.0 Load density......(g/cu.cm)= 0.757
Heat of Explosion (cal/lb)= 450696 Ratio of spec. heats cp/cv = 1.230
Solid density (gr/cu.in)= 397.0 Weighting factor...........= 0.8
Burning rate factor Ba(1/s)= 1.418 Pro-/degressivity factor a = 1.862
Burning limit ......... z1 = 0.3 Combust.Chamber Vb(ft³)= 6.652087E-5
Factor.................. b = 1.466 X-S.Area of Bore A(ft²)= 1.090744E-3
Bulk density (gr/cu.in)= 250.9 Projectile mass mp (lb)= 4.785634E-2
Loading ratio (%)= 76.3 Projectile travel x(ft)= 2.216732E-1

**** Results calculated:
Maximum pressure ........ = 51047 psi Way of projectile at Pmax = 0.39 in
Muzzle velocity ......Ve = 1204 fps Muzzle pressure .......Pe = 17299 psi
Project. energy at muzzle = 1078 ft.lbs Fraction of powder burnt = 97.6 %
Projectile travel time from 10% Pmax to muzzle = 0.38 ms

joneb
February 6, 2008, 10:36 PM
It seems to me that a premise has been set forth here, that loading for a short barreled handgun and you must use a faster powder to get maximum performance, I disagree with that. Slower powders preform best in a high pressure environment, and what better environment than the 454 Casull. The trick is to get that powder lit off as fast as possible, a heavy crimp and heavy bullet will help, lead bullets can be a challenge but proper sizing of the bullet will help.
The primer used could be a key factor.

mewachee
February 6, 2008, 10:48 PM
Hey bob, I did get those files. That is awesome, the No. 9 is right on. The No. 7 is a little faster than mine. With that said, I need to get quickload.

Sorry to keep asking, but could you give me 22.5 of No. 7. Looking for a pattern here

mewachee
February 6, 2008, 11:19 PM
jibjab,

I am finding that the No. 9 is getting the job done, but not over the No. 7.

I think I have max out on the #9 1315 fps. Like I said earlier, the kick felt significantly greater (comparing both at 1250 fps). The brass is filthy, it is like I dipped it in liquid charcoal. The gun is a mess.

On the #7, not sure how close I am to max hitting 1250, but there seems to be room, especially considering Bob's data. Again, the kick was reasonable. And the brass looks and smell considerably cleaner, which is interesting because I shot it last. Equally as important as the velocity, No. 7 at 1200 fps gave me a group 2" at 20 yards, while all other groups where 6" and up.

I am looking for what will work best for me, but this simple test proves to worth while. How can you dispute whether it was worth doing.


Lastly, I haven't used magnum primers to attempt to keep the pressure building. I read this article that made a lot of sense to me, link below. It ask some interesting questions.

http://www.levergun.com/articles/454_case.htm

joneb
February 6, 2008, 11:54 PM
Whether it has been done before or not, you are a pioneer in your own right and I will be very interested where you end up :) thanks and best wishes jj

zxcvbob
February 7, 2008, 12:20 AM
Propellant type........... = Accurate No.7
Charge weight..........(gr)= 22.5 Load density......(g/cu.cm)= 0.774
Loading ratio (%)= 78.0 Projectile travel x(ft)= 2.216732E-1
**** Results calculated:
Maximum pressure ........ = 54300 psi Way of projectile at Pmax = 0.38 in
Muzzle velocity ......Ve = 1231 fps Muzzle pressure .......Pe = 17714 psi
Project. energy at muzzle = 1127 ft.lbs Fraction of powder burnt = 98.2 %
Projectile travel time from 10% Pmax to muzzle = 0.37 ms

CZ57
February 7, 2008, 01:53 AM
Outside the box, or inside the box, you gotta know your ****!;):D

And I'm very pleased that you got #7 to ignite. That was the only question. Now, let's look at True Blue. Cowboy up?;)

mewachee
February 7, 2008, 02:50 AM
cz57, I just saw your post from April 07. That's funny.

I need to find True Blue. Ramshot's website lists retailers here in town, and I check one out and they didn't have it in. I need to try Sportsmans tomorrow, but I don't think I have seen Ramshot there.

CZ57
February 7, 2008, 03:06 AM
No sweat, mewachee, the #7 is working pretty good when all others give 6" groups and #7 gives you 2" groups and the velocity you need. That's why I said, "Keep digging" and you did! Like we say in Tejas, 'this ain't my first rodeo.';)

mewachee
February 15, 2008, 01:52 AM
I have concluded my testing for now. Seems like it snows every day here lately, and it is always windy here. The last time I was out, the snow kept messing with my chronograph. However, I think I got enough reliable data.

again using a 335 WLNGC

26 grains of No. 9 shoots all over the place at 1310 fps. No obvious signs of pressure, but just dirty. I pushed this to 26.5 and velocity fell off.

19 grains of Blue Dot shot okay at 1200 fps. 20 grains petered out. I tried Federal magnum primers with the 19 and 19 1/2, 19 gave me 1250 and 19 1/2 gave me 1290, but with both loads brass got a little sticky, not bad.


Other than a second group loaded with 21 grains of No. 7, all other loads using No. 7 were loaded with federal primers. I tried federal magnum primers with the second load.

21 grains of No. 7 shot very well at 1200 fps. This is my most accurate load; energy is very acceptable, while the kick is nothing. My wife doesn't shoot, but I would let her shoot this load (I mean she wouldn't hit me after).

22 grains of No. 7, still accurate (no pun intended) at 1260.

22.5 grains of No. 7 at 1315. Starting to smoke a little, but nothing like the No. 9. Starting to feel the kick.

23 grains of No. 7 best guess, 1355 fps. I had to clean snow off the chrono every shot, had a couple of shots come up with a reading of 800 something fps. The brass extracted fine, but was tight, primers look like everything else.


21 grains of No. 7 using federal magnum primers gave me 1270 fps. The brass extracted a little sticky.

My conclusions: I respect opinions of those who said stay with the standards. However, I so far have concluded that the choice of a faster burning powder has given good results. Because of the warning given by Accurate for the possibility of an ignition problem, I will have to shoot more to make sure that this isn't an issue. The velocities recorded with the No. 7 were most consistent and it grouped best. I think I could push another 1/2 grain or so, but will not try.


This spring, I will try another 4 or 5 powders ranging from slowest to a little faster than I have. I can't find True Blue in town, this spring I will have Sportsmans order some for me. I will use No. 7 for spring bear and turkey.

I want to be clear, I am not suggesting that these loads will perform as well in longer barrels, I just thought there would be better loads, made with faster powders, for the shorter barrel of the Alaskan. I would like to see the results of a similar test in the short .460 S&W.

Walkalong
February 15, 2008, 07:50 AM
Good field work there. Come springtime you'll need to let us know how further testing goes. I would be interested to see how True Blue does vs AA #7, just for curiousity sake. :)

mewachee
March 11, 2008, 01:40 AM
So, I didn't realize that 1300 fps seams to be to much velocity for this gun. At 25 yards, I didn't realize that bullet is turning sideways, at 50 it is very obvious. Not completely sideways yet, but half way there.

Just not enough barrel to stabilize this bullet, at those velocities.

ppro
August 20, 2012, 01:00 AM
I found in my testing, that AA #7 was indeed a good powder for the Alaskan but I also found, that my 454 Alaskan would not stabilize any WNFP bullet over 300 gr.

When I shifted to 300 gr., I easily got 1200 fps with 21 grs. of Accurate Arms #7 pressure is fine, accuracy is good. Used Remington 7 1/2M rifle primer and Starline brass.

Paul

If you enjoyed reading about "454 alaskan faster powder short barrel AA #7" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!