Powder & Short Barrels..

[ArchAngelCD]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Rather than me misinterpreting it, could you explain in a little more detail?

This is what I get for trying to be nice and use the word misinterpret instead of saying you are wrong. The explanation is the rest of my post which you left out.

You are wrong about what you are saying and I'm done here because nothing anyone can say will change your mind. I should have known better than to try and have a conversation with someone who knows everything.

 

[JRH6856]

You are wrong about what you are saying and I'm done here because nothing anyone can say will change your mind.

Some clear data to support the claims could do a lot to change my mind. But much of what I have seen is restated and repeated opinion. And when I ask again for data, all I am told is that everybody knows it is so. That isn't data.

I should have known better than to try and have a conversation with someone who knows everything.

I know exactly how you feel.

 

[murf]

yah, that last statement in post 46 is a blur (sounds good, though). let me rephrase:

slow-burning powders can be loaded to make a bullet go faster than fast-burning powders can be loaded, regardless of barrel length.

regarding your post 48: sparks would be burning wood (coals) propelled by water turning into steam (or maybe pine sap exploding). don't really know, but definitely not unburned wood.

this subject may be "beat to death", but is still important to those who want to reload for short-barrel handguns.

murf

 

[Jim Watson]

Like I said above, once the oxidizer is used up

There's another Internet Misnomer/Misconception.
Often stated as "Gunpowder contains its own oxygen."

(Smokeless) gunpowder does indeed contain oxygen but it is part of the nitrate functional group in the chemical compounds nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine.
Powder does not "burn" in the campfire sense of a fuel being oxidized.
Those are unstable compounds that exothermically decompose into gases when initiated.

Black powder does "burn," being a mechanical mixture of fuel (carbon and sulfur) and oxidizer (potassium or sodium nitrate.)

Or would you rather stick to "magazine" versus "clip?"

 

[Potatohead]

Im confused...

Sorry, thinkin out loud again.

Maybe someone could sum up the argument? and the points therein? I've lost track but it sure sounds interesting.

 

[Uniquedot]

A fast powder is used in a short barrel because it releases its' energy quickly. A slower burning powder is used in longer barrels because it burns more progressively and releases energy over a longer length of time as in barrel length and that's how the extra velocity is achieved without excessive pressure. I don't know how much effect is changed as bore diameter becomes smaller except that pressure and burn rate is affected...more pressure and presumably more velocity even with a snub, but there is still much wasted energy and excessive flash so why would one want to do it? I really wish I had kept the documents I used to have on these subjects.

 

[murf]

"exothermically decompose into gases when initiated" and "burn" mean the same thing.

uniquedot,

powders are chosen to optimize burn rate for a given cartridge size (internal volume) and bullet weight/shape/diameter. barrel length has nothing to do with this optimal burn rate. if it did, we would be using pistol powder to shoot a 22-250 out of a contender with a ten inch barrel (please do not do this as it will blow up the gun).

again, use the data in your reloading manual to work up handloads, and don't try to over-think this.

murf

 

[Potatohead]

don't try to over-think this

Amen to that brother!

 

[JRH6856]

regarding your post 48: sparks would be burning wood (coals) propelled by water turning into steam (or maybe pine sap exploding). don't really know, but definitely not unburned wood.

Well, it the coal is still burning, that would suggest that at least part of the coal is unburned (or not yet fully consumed, whichever you prefer). For my purposes, "burned" means fully consumed by oxidation and "unburned" means not fully fully consumed. I do not mean or intend to suggest that unburned means unignited.

Muzzle flash has 5 distinct components

Muzzle glow is a reddish glow that is visible before the bullet leaves the barrel. Muzzle glow is created by superheated gases that have leaked past the projectile and have exited the barrel.

The primary flash is caused by propellant gases exiting the firearm behind the bullet. Although amongst the brightest of the flashes, the heat of the primary flash dissipates quickly and thus is no longer visible.

The intermediate flash is caused by shock waves created by the high speeds of the escaping gases and projectile, and appears as a reddish disc shape in front of the muzzle.

The secondary flash appears farthest from the muzzle as a large white or yellow flame. Secondary flash is caused by the mixture of fuel-rich gases and oxygen in the atmosphere surrounding the muzzle.

Following the dissipation of the muzzle flash, partially unburnt powder or other heated materials can be ejected from the muzzle and appear as sparks.

slow-burning powders can be loaded to make a bullet go faster than fast-burning powders can be loaded, regardless of barrel length.

Concur. And some faster burning powders can be loaded to make bullet go faster in short barrel than some slower burning powders that make the bullet go faster in a longer barrel. Not all, but some.

 

[gamestalker]

Very late to this discussion, but I still thought I would post my thoughts.

I get criticized on a regular basis for my H110/296 loads from 2-1/2" barrels, that I could achieve the same velocities with HP38/231, and that all I'm doing is wasting good powder. Whether or not I could attain velocities consistent with the H110/296 loads, maybe, but I wouldn't personally want to push the 231 loads that hard, I suspect pressures would be quite high.

IMO, faster burning powders are intended for mild target loads up to lower end medium loads, and slow burning powders are for higher velocity loads. Neither is better than the other according to barrel length, barrel length has nothing to do with burn rate.

GS

 

[ljnowell]

A fast powder is used in a short barrel because it releases its' energy quickly. A slower burning powder is used in longer barrels because it burns more progressively and releases energy over a longer length of time as in barrel length and that's how the extra velocity is achieved without excessive pressure. I don't know how much effect is changed as bore diameter becomes smaller except that pressure and burn rate is affected...more pressure and presumably more velocity even with a snub, but there is still much wasted energy and excessive flash so why would one want to do it? I really wish I had kept the documents I used to have on these subjects.

When one wants the most velocity the faster powder isn't going to deliver it. It's a real best theory the whole faster powder for shorter barrel but it's not true.

The powder yielding the highest velocity in the longer barrel will still do so in the shorter barrel. This talk if wasted energy is ridiculous. It's not wasted if it provided more velocity.

 

[Uniquedot]

Everyone seems to be misunderstanding some of what is being said. As evidenced in post# 57 just as one example. Would it be any better if we just called it wasted powder or wasted money? Why use a powder that requires a considerable amount more to achieve slightly more velocity and still doesn't burn completely in the bore? And then has considerable blinding effects. I also understand there is misleading garbage in some loading manuals and sometimes the junk in some of them are simply opinions of the author and sometimes junk gets by the editors. I have only been loading for about thirty years and I certainly respect the opinions of those that have been doing it for twice as long.

 

[solvability]

We are still missing out on this point from the OP:

Ok - I want to know how you shoot it like a 1911 - I shoot Glocks and 1911s differently.

 

[JRH6856]

It is certainly true that a faster powder is not going to deliver more velocity than the powder one has determined delivers the maximum velocity. Especially in the same barrel. That is obvious on its face.

But the powder that gives the best velocity in a 6" barrel does not always give the best velocity in a shorter barrel in all cases.

For example, it has been stated several times that if 2400 produces the best velocity in a .357 it will do so in all barrel lengths. Maybe there is some narrow range of pressures where this is true, but in general, it is not. There are several powders that produce lower velocities than 2400 in a 6" barrel that will produce higher velocities than 2400 in a 2" barrel. Accurate #7 and Power Pistol are 2 such. As well as higher velocities, both will consume (fully burn) 10% to 20% more of the charge than 2400. Yes, the burn% is a QuickLoad calculation, but the velocities calculated by QL have been verified by chrono through a 6" Security Six and a 2" LCR (actually, the LCR is 1.875"). These were not max loads as we didn't want to beat the LCR to death. It was 8.3g Power Pistol, 10.9g of Accurate #7 and 12.2g of 2400.

 

[ljnowell]

It is certainly true that a faster powder is not going to deliver more velocity than the powder one has determined delivers the maximum velocity. Especially in the same barrel. That is obvious on its face.

But the powder that gives the best velocity in a 6" barrel does not always give the best velocity in a shorter barrel in all cases.

For example, it has been stated several times that if 2400 produces the best velocity in a .357 it will do so in all barrel lengths. Maybe there is some narrow range of pressures where this is true, but in general, it is not. There are several powders that produce lower velocities than 2400 in a 6" barrel that will produce higher velocities than 2400 in a 2" barrel. Accurate #7 and Power Pistol are 2 such. As well as higher velocities, both will consume (fully burn) 10% to 20% more of the charge than 2400. Yes, the burn% is a QuickLoad calculation, but the velocities calculated by QL have been verified by chrono through a 6" Security Six and a 2" LCR (actually, the LCR is 1.875"). These were not max loads as we didn't want to beat the LCR to death. It was 8.3g Power Pistol, 10.9g of Accurate #7 and 12.2g of 2400.

I would like to see your max book loads of both powders loaded in a six inch and two inch chronographed showing power pistol getting higher velocity. Not quickload data, real data. Do the same with h110 and power pistol too.

You said it yourself, you are not loading 2400 to max value. Your entire premise is false because you are handicapping the slower powder.

 

[JRH6856]

I would like to see your max book loads of both powders loaded in a six inch and two inch chronographed showing power pistol getting higher velocity. Not quickload data, real data. Do the same with h110 and power pistol too.

You said it yourself, you are not loading 2400 to max value. Your entire premise is false because you are handicapping the slower powder.

OK. The next time I can get with my friend I'll run some loads over the chrono. And hopefully he still has some 2400. If you have a load you would like me to run, I'll give it a shot.

I do not accept that the premise is false because you are now adding conditions not specified in the original claim. For the load tested which meets the initially specified conditions, the premise is true. And I said that for some pressure ranges, results could be different.

But no matter. I'm willing to test it as soon as I get the opportunity.

(And I have no doubt that H110/W296 at max pressure will out perform both in either barrel length. Already tested Actually Lil Gun beats them all at both lengths. )

 

[ljnowell]

OK. The next time I can get with my friend I'll run some loads over the chrono. And hopefully he still has some 2400. If you have a load you would like me to run, I'll give it a shot.

I do not accept that the premise is false because you are now adding conditions not specified in the original claim. For the load tested which meets the initially specified conditions, the premise is true. And I said that for some pressure ranges, results could be different.

But no matter. I'm willing to test it as soon as I get the opportunity.

(And I have no doubt that H110/W296 at max pressure will out perform both in either barrel length. Already tested Actually Lil Gun beats them all at both lengths. )

No, you are adding variables that obviously skew the results. You are attempting to say that if you download the 2400 load the power pistol load will make more velocity, well DUH!

There is obviously no point in chronographing anything because you are already trying to cheat the results. Seriously, you are going to try and pull that?

A mod should just lock this thread and be done with it as you are going to skew any variable you can to prove your software is right and 100 years of handloading are wrong.

 

[Walkalong]

I don't believe everyone is so far off from each other in what they are saying.

For the most part, the slower powder is going to give more velocity in a shorter barrel as well as the longer barrel, but nothing is constant. To many variables.

So, relax, and make your points.

 

[JRH6856]

No, you are adding variables that obviously skew the results. You are attempting to say that if you download the 2400 load the power pistol load will make more velocity, well DUH!

Maybe it wasn't clear. The same load was fired in both guns with each powder. The only variable was the barrel length. I'm not trying to skew the results or "pull" anything.

Science and math are not black magic, and the science and math describing a closed bomb is well known and has been for years. A loaded cartridge in a gun is a closed bomb. The calculations do require higher math (calculus) because what is being calculated is change over time. But the calculations can be done and the results verified. There seems to be some resistance to accepting QuickLoad calculations. Perhaps it is because it is not well understood and seems to allow its users to avoid the tried and true methods of trial and error that eventually produce acceptable results and this somehow seems like cheating. Whatever. All I know is that it works and when used properly, provides results that are consistent with published data and real world measurements.

Here is the dirty little secret of published data. It is just as much an estimate as anything out of QuickLoad. Any manual is only accurate for the lot of powder used in the loads tested--and this lot is not identified, so the data has to be treated as an estimate because powder has many variables that vary from lot to lot. This is why loads have to be worked up in a particular gun and why manuals warn reloaders two repeat the workup when a new lot of powder is acquired.

So between QuickLoad and published data, we have dueling estimates that generally are close to each other for the limited data they have in common (velocity and pressure produced by a given load). But unlike a printed manual, QuickLoad can be recalibrated to each lot of powder by anyone with a chronograph.

This doesn't mean you don't work up loads. QuickLoad can't predict accuracy in a given gun, so you have to work up loads for accuracy the same way as with published data. In fact, neither source can predict accuracy in a given gun. Even though a manual may indicate a load that proved most accurate in testing, there is no guarantee that load will be the most accurate in a different gun. So the only way to load for accuracy with either source is to prepare a series of loads and head to the range. And with either source, you always verify the predicted results by observations.

The value of QuickLoad is that it provides so much more information than does a manual. When predicted velocity matches chronographed velocity, and visible signs of pressure are consistant with the levels calculated, one has no reason to expect the other calculated results which QL provides to be incorrect. This allows you to become even more efficient in your loading.

Just like when your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail, when no data is available other than velocity, velocity becomes the measure of everything. Two different powders may produce the same velocity at the same peak pressure. Is one a better choice than the other? Or do you just assume that equal velocity means they are equal?

 

[ljnowell]

Maybe it wasn't clear. The same load was fired in both guns with each powder. The only variable was the barrel length. I'm not trying to skew the results or "pull" anything.

Science and math are not black magic, and the science and math describing a closed bomb is well known and has been for years. A loaded cartridge in a gun is a closed bomb. The calculations do require higher math (calculus) because what is being calculated is change over time. But the calculations can be done and the results verified. There seems to be some resistance to accepting QuickLoad calculations. Perhaps it is because it is not well understood and seems to allow its users to avoid the tried and true methods of trial and error that eventually produce acceptable results and this somehow seems like cheating. Whatever. All I know is that it works and when used properly, provides results that are consistent with published data and real world measurements.

Here is the dirty little secret of published data. It is just as much an estimate as anything out of QuickLoad. Any manual is only accurate for the lot of powder used in the loads tested--and this lot is not identified, so the data has to be treated as an estimate because powder has many variables that vary from lot to lot. This is why loads have to be worked up in a particular gun and why manuals warn reloaders two repeat the workup when a new lot of powder is acquired.

So between QuickLoad and published data, we have dueling estimates that generally are close to each other for the limited data they have in common (velocity and pressure produced by a given load). But unlike a printed manual, QuickLoad can be recalibrated to each lot of powder by anyone with a chronograph.

This doesn't mean you don't work up loads. QuickLoad can't predict accuracy in a given gun, so you have to work up loads for accuracy the same way as with published data. In fact, neither source can predict accuracy in a given gun. Even though a manual may indicate a load that proved most accurate in testing, there is no guarantee that load will be the most accurate in a different gun. So the only way to load for accuracy with either source is to prepare a series of loads and head to the range. And with either source, you always verify the predicted results by observations.

The value of QuickLoad is that it provides so much more information than does a manual. When predicted velocity matches chronographed velocity, and visible signs of pressure are consistant with the levels calculated, one has no reason to expect the other calculated results which QL provides to be incorrect. This allows you to become even more efficient in your loading.

Just like when your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail, when no data is available other than velocity, velocity becomes the measure of everything. Two different powders may produce the same velocity at the same peak pressure. Is one a better choice than the other? Or do you just assume that equal velocity means they are equal?

That's a big post but it doesn't address the point I made. You plainly said that the load of 2400 tested was not a max loading. It was downloaded to be easier in the gun and shooter. That completely invalidated any data that you attempted to put into the discussion. All of it.

Any one can take 2400 and load a mid range load then take a powder like power pistol and beat it's velocity. That's not the point of the discussion nor does it even apply to this discussion at all.

Using a max loading of the slow powder is the only way you could possibly even attempt to add factual test data to this conversation.

Simply put you are trying to insist something that isn't true. You are caught up on percentage of burned powder affecting velocity. It's not true and never will be. You can post all the quickload numbers you want and chronograph downloaded magnum powders all day long, it won't make it true.

I'm officially done and will not post another reply, as it's simply not worth wasting anymore of my time.

 

[JRH6856]

That's a big post but it doesn't address the point I made. You plainly said that the load of 2400 tested was not a max loading. It was downloaded to be easier in the gun and shooter. That completely invalidated any data that you attempted to put into the discussion. All of it.

Any one can take 2400 and load a mid range load then take a powder like power pistol and beat it's velocity. That's not the point of the discussion nor does it even apply to this discussion at all.

Using a max loading of the slow powder is the only way you could possibly even attempt to add factual test data to this conversation.

Simply put you are trying to insist something that isn't true. You are caught up on percentage of burned powder affecting velocity. It's not true and never will be. You can post all the quickload numbers you want and chronograph downloaded magnum powders all day long, it won't make it true.

I'm officially done and will not post another reply, as it's simply not worth wasting anymore of my time.

Oh this is rich. You make a blanket statement with no conditions. I post data refuting the statement. You then impose conditions, and claim I cheated by not meeting them. Apparently, numbers are not the only thing you pull from nowhere.

 

[rcmodel]

Guys!

This is going downhill really fast.

Why can't we all agree to disagree.
And all just get along!

We all have opinions on this, and obviously they don't all agree, and never will.

O.K.?
Now, shake hands, and step to neutral corners of the ring!

Let's argue about the obvious superiority of the 9mm over the .45 ACP tomorrow after we put this powder burn rate thing to rest tonight!

MmmmmKyyyyyy?

rc

 

[Potatohead]

RC,
I think we've long reached the bottom of the hill here! But I'll tell you like this little gal I deal with at work often tells me, "You so crazy.."

 

[jerkface11]

I know one of you has a snub nosed .44. Now go get a chronograph some 296 and some bullseye. Load up some 240 grain bullets with each powder and get back to us on which load is faster.

 

[Uniquedot]

"I know one of you has a snub nosed .44. Now go get a chronograph some 296 and some bullseye. Load up some 240 grain bullets with each powder and get back to us on which load is faster."


This is a joke right????? The point is not to use a very fast powder to try and obtain more velocity especially where you know it simply wouldn't work. It's to match a powder to the caliber and bullet weight most suitable to get the most velocity with the least amount of wasted powder and less muzzle flash.