Ran some .45 acp on the new chrono


PDA






mnhntr
March 28, 2012, 04:53 PM
I was testing for my Competition loads. I just bought a new CE Digital Pro Chrono and a bog pod to mount it on. Worked very good for my purposes. I do not have another chrono to test against until I shoot with a buddy of mine in a few weeks. All were accurate, one big ragged hole. Shooting was close (10yds). It is very windy here today and overcast, temps in the high 30's.

Pistol is a Ruger SR1911

String 1) A#5 7.8gr
200gr Rainier plated SWC
814 822 avg
816 20 ES
819 7 SD
833
834
824
823
820

String 2) A#5 8.1gr
200gr Rainier plated SWC
874 845 avg
826 48 ES
834 15 SD
854
844
840
831
err

String 3) Tightgroup 4.8gr
200gr Rainier plated SWC
866 846 avg
836 62 ES
845 21 SD
831
831
851
888
err

If you enjoyed reading about "Ran some .45 acp on the new chrono" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mnhntr
March 28, 2012, 04:55 PM
I did not get near Accurate's published numbers but it maybe temp related.

Galil5.56
March 28, 2012, 05:30 PM
Your #5 results are very close to what Midway Loadmap got from their 5" test barrel, particular lot, and chosen OAL testing using several 200 grain lead bullets. Also your numbers are in line with my own testing using 200 grain cast lead bullets in a 1911. Should you wish, you have a lot of room above the loads you have posted with regard to charge increase, and still be within max std SAAMI allowable pressures.

Nice choice of chronograph; really like mine after owning two Shooting Chronys, one of which read 6-8% faster than the other two when it would measure a shot.

Rule3
March 28, 2012, 05:36 PM
I did not get near Accurate's published numbers but it maybe temp related.

You never will. Different loads, bullet, temp, day , moon phase:)

Plated vs FMJ. When I used Berrys plated I used mid range FMJ data. Does Rainer still say use lead data? I never compared them but have read that Rainers plating is thinner, but not sure. As long as I was not exceeding Magnum velocity (which in 45 you are not gonna) I treated them as FMJ.

Your first string looks good to me . I do not know about power factor and all that.

Rule3
March 28, 2012, 05:41 PM
Nice choice of chronograph; really like mine after owning two Shooting Chronys, one of which read 6-8% faster than the other two when it would measure a shot.

I also went through two Chronys and they would not read correctly in the Fl Sun. They were a PITA, I bought the same CE Digital and it has not missed a beat!:)

mnhntr
March 28, 2012, 05:45 PM
Thanks, this is my first time using this chrono on bullets. I have used an older CE chronoi on arrows.
I know I am low on the scale of charge weight but that is ok as these are still making power factor.

Walkalong
March 28, 2012, 11:11 PM
Besides, AA #5 is all over the map. It depends on the year and lot # what you get. Good stuff, but not real consistent.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=117932&stc=1&d=1268951266

Even lots close together have given me different velocities with the same charge. Different enough to change the charge weight used.

mnhntr
March 28, 2012, 11:28 PM
That's interesting stuff. I have not had the inconsistency problem but I have only been reloading for a couple years now.

1SOW
March 29, 2012, 02:08 AM
The last I bought (rt side pic above) was 2011. SUPERFINE grained powder.
According to LEE, it's listed 2nd of the 3 finest particles on the market. (FAQs about disc system leakage fixes)

ArchAngelCD
March 29, 2012, 02:36 AM
I like AA#5 in the 45 Auto but not for the 45 Colt.

joneb
March 29, 2012, 03:04 AM
Here is AA#5 from the Czech Rep. and AA#5 from the US
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=123029&d=1277235968
In the last 6yrs or so I've only come across the US made.

mnhntr
March 29, 2012, 11:11 AM
I do not know where you guys are getting the pics but that is not the A#5 I have been using.

joneb
March 29, 2012, 12:18 PM
do not know where you guys are getting the pics but that is not the A#5 I have been using.
Exactly our point :D

Galil5.56
March 29, 2012, 12:45 PM
I do not know where you guys are getting the pics but that is not the A#5 I have been using.

Look any closer?

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=161881&stc=1&d=1333038201

It's some from a tiny bit of #5 I keep as a reference, I purchased in 1994. The plastic square bottle only has a lot code without any mention of country of origin. AA propellants are an interesting lot, being sourced from about anywhere AA could to meet a $ and particular performance spec. During a visit I made in March of 1992 for a job interview, and while touring the operation, I was shooting the breeze with the workers, and asking about propellant origins.

Seems an explosion of part of the IMI facility in Israel, had really put a hurt on their sourcing of some propellants (#5 for sure), and was told Synthesia in CZ was making up for things, and I seem to recall that even Olin may have been contacted. At the time they even had some propellant made in China (AA 2015BR), but I believe this product always was. With the takeover of AA by Ramshot, I believe a concerted effort was made to tighten things up with AA propellants, but even then it seems the predilection to constant change is still happening; I just received some AA2460 that is marked "Made in Belgium", where just prior it was I believe made in the USA at St Marks. Maybe PB Clermont in Belgium will add more and more RS branded propellants in favor of US made ones?

FWIW, I was told in person by the AA ballistics lab manager that despite all the sourcing, the propellants were always kept to a +/- 3% of the reference propellant for any particular canister grade designation.

mnhntr
March 29, 2012, 04:57 PM
Ya that looks like it. Like I said, I have had no problems as of yet but I have only used 3 containers so far.

mnhntr
March 29, 2012, 05:01 PM
I just went and looked at mine and it says made in Montana and looks more uniform in size. Every grain looks the same size and shape.

GLOOB
March 29, 2012, 05:19 PM
AA#5 has been cited as blowing up a lot of 40SW Glocks. Perhaps this is the reason. Even if the powder is tested to perform within 3% by charge weight, I bet a lot of people are using powder throwers or dippers and they're not recalibrating with new lots.

Walkalong
March 29, 2012, 05:40 PM
do not know where you guys are getting the pics but that is not the A#5 I have been using. My pics were magnified. The smaller stuff is real fine. Not as fine as AA #9 though. Very similar to HS-6, or at least my one pound of it.

Galil5.56
March 29, 2012, 05:56 PM
AA#5 has been cited as blowing up a lot of 40SW Glocks. Perhaps this is the reason. Even if the powder is tested to perform within 3% by charge weight, I bet a lot of people are using powder throwers or dippers and they're not recalibrating with new lots.

That going by what is said at "the gun zone"? Place also mentions KB's in other cals with AA#5 (.45 ACP), using supposed charge weights for bullet weight and type FAR below max... IMO, the extreme density of AA#5 used in rather large volume cases relative to the charge, is a liability for folks who do not look for or inspect cases for propellant level prior to seating for a double charge, and either think they missed a case, and add another charge, or several more and get a classic KB. I can see recalibration being an issue w/o weight checking, but weighing should be the standard used to make sure what you think you dip, is what weight you want and get.

FWIW, even assuming proper charge weights are used, Hodgdon used to add a waring to their .40 S&W data in the 90's about not using it in pistols with less than fully supported chambers... Wonder who they were all but saying? AFAIK, there has never been an actual "bad batch" of AA#5 sold (and then recalled), but of course could always happen. Again, like so many other instances of gun in full battery KB's, it falls back many times to operator error.

GLOOB
March 29, 2012, 06:50 PM
^That's just it. I'm suggesting that maybe proper charge weights WEREN'T used. A lot of people buy a powder dispenser for each toolhead/load, and they never change it. Or they use an Auto Disk and write down the settings. If AA is titrating lots of different powders to the same specs by weight, but with wildly varying grain size/shape, then anyone relying on volumetric measuring without proper safety checks is bound to have a bad day, sooner or later. Not knocking the powder. Lots of people swear by it. Just putting out a reminder that it is important to calibrate new lots of powder, esp if it's AA#5. See pic #7.

1SOW
March 29, 2012, 10:12 PM
Galil5.56:
I do not know where you guys are getting the pics but that is not the A#5 I have been using.

Look any closer?
The last I bought was most like this pic. R E A L L Y small and dense powder. A light 9mm charge could be dropped almost three times in one case.

joneb
March 29, 2012, 10:40 PM
If AA is titrating lots of different powders to the same specs by weight, but with wildly varying grain size/shape, then anyone relying on volumetric measuring without proper safety checks is bound to have a bad day,
I was told in person by the AA ballistics lab manager that despite all the sourcing, the propellants were always kept to a +/- 3% of the reference propellant for any particular canister grade designation.
So if the burn rate and the grains per cubic centimeter are kept + or - 3% and my current load is 6.0gr of AA#5, and then I get a new can of #5 I should reduce the load to 5.6gr ?

Galil5.56
March 30, 2012, 07:54 AM
The +/- I mention, only relates to "speed"/ballistic performance of the propellant, and no mention was made (not customary anyways) to apply that std with regard of grains per cc. Obviously the maker/seller will want to try to keep a certain density/type/appearance for a certain named canister grade propellant, but again they work up and publish data with charge weights, not use x cc's to achieve y. Work up is what is used to help compensate for lot varience, and even if you have a 'slow' lot, the stated max is never to be exceeded.

Lee relies on, and is well known for stating use x dipper with y propellant without the need for weighing, and a significant change of propellant properties for a given name/number would not be good. At least in my experience using Lee fixed volumetric scoops/disks/bushings, they typically throw light from their stated spec with different lots of the same named propellant. Also, even if the dipper drops dead on, a lot of the data they supply is extremely light for the given round.

As always, weight specified is the guidepost regardless of any potential or actual change in propellant density, physical appearance, etc. Sure, a different dipper may need to be used, or a volumetric measure may need to be "recalibrated" (changed) to achieve a certain weight from one lot to the next, and again why use of a scale is absolutely mandatory IMO and experience.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ran some .45 acp on the new chrono" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!