Similar recipe for Gold Dot 135 Short Barrel

[CZ57]

Jim, the conversion multiplier for Grams to Grains is 15.43, so you can confirm my statement. When I first looked at chart #1, something didn't look right on the bulk density side, and mainly due to the "gr" abbreviation, so I did check it.

For instance, Ramshot rates True Blue at .935 grams/cc (935 grams/liter). Multiply GRAMS by 15.43 and you get 14.427 GRAINS/cc. Referring to the chart, bulk density is listed at 14.430. .003 variation, easily explainable by the two decimal place multiplier.

 

[jfh]

CZ57, thank you for your explanations--it makes sense, and you saved me some effort right now at tracking the conversions down.

It seems to me that expressing the BD as GRAINS / cc, or possibly GRAINS / ltr makes the most sense to English-measurement-system reloaders.

Update: I just check definitions of "g" and "gr" online. The Free Dictionary does show that "g" is the accepted / dictionary definition of the metric 'gram' measurement.

However, to chase down the usage of "gr"--hoping that accepted usage was for our / reloader's definition, I had to go to the full word "grain"--there, it shows that "gr" has no standardized usage (typically, they associate it with 'grade') and that among the associations it is based in the avordupois measurement system--which has drams, which is how it gets over into reloading.

So, for conventions here, I propose we use "g" for grams, and "gr." for grains.

Jim H.



Jim H.

 

[CZ57]

YW

Works for me! It's one reason I used bold type when I typed the terms on several occasions. It can be confusing. You'd think the powder people would know that. But I can't complain; that is one useful chart!

 

[joneb]

I have a Ruger Security Six with a 2.75" Barrel and I can't find a AA#7 load that works well in it.

JJ, it's disappointing to hear you couldn't find a good load with #7.

I have loaded 158gr Rem.JHPs w/10.4gr of AA#7 and WSP with very good results in a 4" Colt Trooper, I will try these in the Ruger. The loads I tried in the Ruger were 10.6-11.2 of #7 the bullets were 158gr JHPs of unknown origin I have had good results in the Ruger using AA#9 and these bullets so it seemed easy to right off #7, but AA#7 seems like a better choice in a 2.75" barrel with 158gr jacketed bullets.

 

[zeke]

Personal favorite handloaded reproduction of factory Rem 357 mag 125 GS uses AA-7, from Sierra's listed accuracy load for 125 jhp.

Rem 357 GS over 12.1 grains AA-7, Fed small pistol MAG primer, very hard LFC, 1.585 COL for 1330 fps from S&W M28 4 incher. (nickeled Win 357 mag brass). This load has been very accurate in all 357's tried so far.

Have tried V V N-350 under Speer's 135 gdhp for smaller snub 357 mags.
7.5 grains N-350 with Fed 100 primer gave 1040 fps from S&W M66 2 1/2 incher, with excellent accuracy. (Win 357 mag brass)

Very generally speaking have had very good success with AA-7 in 357 mag , with the Fed mag primer. It does not appear capable of the velocitys gotten with the slowest burners, but significantly less flash and boom.

Really like the VV powders tried, however the accuracy seems to drop off substancially when getting close to max loads. The ones tried , do seem to have much less flash than some other powders.

 

[Hikingman]

Powder and Primers, too...

Thanks for those comments!

Will begin with std. primers and mag. primers when loading faster burning powder. Also, I'm leaning toward loading more of the .357 mag. cases (and hopefully the .38 +P soon after).

 

[jfh]

Well, now that the Holidays are over, I am back at working on the 38+P / 357-lite reloading project.

This topic's various discussions have been the most valuable we've done so far, IMO. The various contributors here have added to my knowledge on this little niche of reloading.

I suggest we all bookmark this thread (I assume most of us do get routinely notified), and we make a point to contribute any new findings. Speaking for myself--I suspect more chrono information simply will be another three to four months off--e.g., 'after winter.' Meanwhile, I will gather subjective recoil data and accuracy testing during the indoor range practice time.

Meanwhile, following CZ57's comments, I've picked up Ramshot Silhouette and Vihtavuori N340 to explore. I've also "fiddled a bit" with Burn Rate Charts to index powders by density as well as by burn rate in charts from both Ramshot and Hodgdon. I have no conclusions on this fiddling yet.

Anyone else have anything to contribute for 'sub-topic' testing? Maybe CZ57 (or others) can contribute a summary comment about this work.

Jim H.

 

[jfh]

more / new 135-gr load data from Speer 14

I picked up Speer 14 yesterday.

The data they provided in the earlier *.PDF data sheets for loading the GDSB135JHP bullet (Speer PN 4014) has been expanded and includes actual 2" barrel tests in both 38 and 357. They also include SB test data for the GDSB110JHP (Speer PN 4009) in standard 38 Special loadings.

The recipes are ranked by velocity, not by Burn Rate, charge size, or whatever.

The revolvers used were a S&W M15 / 2" for the 38 Special and 38+P loads, and a M19 / 2.5" for the 357 Magnum loads.

The 38 Special / 110-gr standard pressures include ten different powders--with that bullet, 6.8 gr. of AA#5 gave 860 (that's the highest starting charge velocity) and ends at 7.2 / 900. The fastest recipe was 5.8 gr. of Unique (max), averaging 936 from the M15 / 2".

The 38+P / 110-gr. loads show 6.3 gr. of Unique (max) at 976 as the fastest. AA#5, at 6.9 gr. max was right behind at 969.

In addition to the 38+P / 135-gr. PDF recipes--which, you may recall, were from a 6" barrel, they now list M15 / 2" velocities with those same charges. According to this testing, MAX charge velocities were topped by AA#7 at 882; AA#5 was right behind at 878, and PP max was 845.

They still use 20,000 as the 38+P max pressure.

All the 38 Special charges use standard primers.

For 357 magnum, they did NOT follow their GDSB-135 gr. recipe--e.g., to max out at appr. 1000 fps: they report AA#9 at a MAX of 15.5 gr doing 1258 with the GDSB135JHP. The 6" barrel PDF data is there, but the notes about what powders (e.g., V.3N37, etc.) will get the 135-gr to 1000 fps in a 2" barrel are not included. Only H-110 and 296 recipes require magnum primers.

All in all, this is an expansion of the SB recipes, just not nearly enough (IMO).

It also shows two results I was not expecting--that AA#7 in the 38+P / 135-gr. load was the fastest--see CZ57's and my discussion of this on page 1. As you may recall, I found no chrono results over 800 fps with AA#7, and that was from both a M&P340 and 640 (two different 2" barrel guns). And, I am quite surprised at the 38+P / 135-gr PP results in the 2" barrel: that is contrary to what both ArchAngelCD and I experience.

It is nice to see the 110-gr GDSB recipes added for 38 Special. I'd be real curious to see gelatin tests of the max 38 standard-pressure (17,000) 110-gr round. IOW, how does the 38 Spl AA#5 / 110-gr. load at 900 fps perform, compared to the 38+P AA#5 / 135-gr (my chrono, 860 fps) performance?

I'm still checking this post for typos--do not use these loads yet, unless you independently verify them.

Jim H.

 

[jfh]

I tried some True Blue '357-lite' loads today.

Per CZ57's recommendations, I worked up some loads using RamShot's True Blue. I've also e-mailed them requesting more data if they have it available.

Here's some observations about the experience so far:

1. True Blue meters extremely well in my Lee Pro Auto Disk mounted on my Lee turret. I was quite surprised at this, given how fine True Blue and given the problems I have with AA#7 leaking. It flows smoothly, and is easy to tweak to .1-.2 gr. increments.

2. It was extremely accurate, with a POA that shifted only slightly, over a 1.0+ gr load range. Quite frankly, I've never seen such a broad-based sweet spot. Historically, a broad base for a sweet spot has indicated low SDs / EDs to me--but chrono testing is at least three months away.

3. Other characteristics--a full recoil, with no harshness / quickness in it. When measured against my reference 'replica load' of AA#5 under the 140LTC, it felt a bit more full, and may be harder recoiling--kind of like N350.

The recipe for that '357 light' load appears to be similar to AA#5s in weight; more testing is needed. Given its lower cost, it is more economical to shoot.

Jim H.

 

[CZ57]

Jim, here's some info from another thread that might be useful on Silhouette. Glad to hear that TB worked so well for you. It is a phenomenal powder.

 

[jfh]

"...Jim, here's some info from another thread...."

Well? Well?

Jim H.

 

[jfh]

duplicate. I wish that David could find this unresponsive posting problem and fix it--

Jim H.

 

[Walkalong]

I do not understand why the powder companys do not make more powders like AA #2 and True Blue. ROUND, not flattened ball. (heck, it starts out that way anyway, round that is)

They flow through meters like water and do not leak, from some measures, like some razor thin flattened ball powders. I like the fact that AA#2 is grey and easily seen in the case as well. I have no dought that they both tend to give great ES & SD's is because they meter so consistentently. I have shot a lot of AA 2 and it always gives good numbers. I have limited experience with True Blue, but it has given good numbers for me as well.

jfh: I have had very good luck with AA #5 in .357 "lite" loads, so I am not suprised True Blue is looking good for it as well. Another one that does great for .357 "not quite as lite" loads is Universal Clays.

 

[jfh]

Walkalong, I just sent you an e-mail--do you have the Speer PDF files?

Jim H.

 

[CZ57]

Oops, my bad: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=333977;

 

[Walkalong]

email returned

I wish that David could find this unresponsive posting problem and fix it

Yep, it's gotten me a time or two as well.