• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Stick powders.....do they settle much?

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Howa 9700

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
1,237
Was working on some test loads in 270 Win the other day. Load data showed MAX to be 60.0C grains, the C being the scary sounding "compressed" load. Not something I'm ready for yet.

So decided to back that off a bit, and measured out 59.0 grains, and that filled the case nearly to the top too. At first glance, that would have to be a compressed load too. So backed it up another full grain to no more than 58.0 grains, which topped out around base of neck.....which still looked to me like the base of the bullet I was working with would have to rearrange things to fit.

But then got to wondering how much these big stick powders settle as the loading tray they sit in gets tapped and bumped? I assume a little, but that much?
 
Howa 9700 said:
Was working on some test loads in 270 Win the other day. Load data showed MAX to be 60.0C grains, the C being the scary sounding "compressed" load. Not something I'm ready for yet.

So decided to back that off a bit, and measured out 59.0 grains, and that filled the case nearly to the top too. At first glance, that would have to be a compressed load too. So backed it up another full grain to no more than 58.0 grains, which topped out around base of neck.....which still looked to me like the base of the bullet I was working with would have to rearrange things to fit.

But then got to wondering how much these big stick powders settle as the loading tray they sit in gets tapped and bumped? I assume a little, but that much?
Click to expand...
There are two processes that are common in trying to settle them the first is to use a long drop tube and swirl the powder slowly into the case. The second process is to vibrate the case was something like an old electronic toothbrush to get the powder to settle. Compressed loads are really not that big a deal if you're not trying to smash everything down to the point that your deforming bullets.
 
People have irrational fear of compressed loads.

Here is what Hodgdon says:

https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/compressed-loads

COMPRESSED LOADS

Normally a pistol or rifle shellcase is considered full, or 100% loading density, when the powder charge sits at the base of the bullet when the bullet is fully seated. It is possible with some powders and cartridges to increase the powder charge slightly above this point, such that when the bullet is seated it actually compresses the powder charge slightly. This condition is known as a compressed load.

Hodgdon notes in its reloading data if the subject charge is a compressed load. A full case, or lightly compressed charge is an ideal condition for creating loads with the most uniform velocities and pressures, and oftentimes, producing top accuracy.
 
The part about full cases.....bordering on compressed loads.......and how that relates to good accuracy keeps turning up. Also tend to notice it when looking at graphs of guy's ladder tests. Likely as not, when velocities are graphed, a flat spot accuracy node turns up within a half grain or less of a Max load. Some of the technical reasons given for this make sense.......but the proof is in the pudding. If it works, it works.

But putting that into practice can get a bit confusing....and scary. My Lyman 50th has load data for a 130 gr bullet under H4831 in 270......starting load 52 gr.....Max Load 58 gr, which it lists as "compressed". Hodgdon also has a load for 130 gr bullet and H4831......starting load of 56 gr, max load 60.0 grains......also compressed. That must be REALLY compressed? Not ready to test those waters!
 
As long as you follow published load data, you're okay. If they had found a safety problem with it, they wouldn't have published it.

If you're afraid of reloading, don't reload.

This whole fear of compressed loads is irrational. Some people on this forum have spread the myth that compressed loads are bad, but they are clueless and have only helped to spread the false myth that compression is bad.

Let me repeat this: As long as you follow published load data, you're okay. If they had found a safety problem with it, they wouldn't have published it.

And I'll repeat this, too: If you're afraid of reloading, don't reload.
 
The older IMR stick powders compress fairly well as there is a lot of airspace between kernels. I seem to recall 10 percent compression in some older book loads but that’s just from memory. I can say I use IMR4198 in a straight wall case at 110 percent density and I can see the kernels on top have flattened a bit but dumping the charge onto the scale there are only a few kernels that are deformed, the rest look normal. 4198 is a bit pliable, it’s not a brittle hard substance so it bends a little. I will say I use an expander plug to compress it with as it’ll deform the bullet or ruin (split) the seating stem on a straight wall case. This is less of an issue with a bottleneck case. As others have suggested, use the data, work up, be aware of what the equipment is telling you seating force-wise, watch that your rounds don’t grow after seating (overnight-can raise pressure if billets reach the lands).
 
fxvr5 said:
As long as you follow published load data, you're okay. If they had found a safety problem with it, they wouldn't have published it.

If you're afraid of reloading, don't reload.

This whole fear of compressed loads is irrational. Some people on this forum have spread the myth that compressed loads are bad, but they are clueless and have only helped to spread the false myth that compression is bad.

Let me repeat this: As long as you follow published load data, you're okay. If they had found a safety problem with it, they wouldn't have published it.

And I'll repeat this, too: If you're afraid of reloading, don't reload.
Click to expand...

The OP is somewhat new to reloading rifle, I would guess. As a novice he has valid concerns based on his knowledge at this point in time. Hence the thread.
 
I reload range pick up brass and I try to avoid compressed load, unless I step up the load and use the same brass/projectile when stepping up. There is variation on brass internal capacities among different brands, can be significant. The reloading data lists the brass and pojectile used, unless you have the same brass and same projectile, load to the compressed load in the book could be actually above the "safe" data. Powder can have lot to lot variation as well. Nothing wrong to be safe. When load to near max many times does produce better accuracy, but not always. 308 and 30-06 are forgiving with stick powder in several of my rifles that is why I like stick powders better!
 
Howa 9700 said:
But then got to wondering how much these big stick powders settle as the loading tray they sit in gets tapped and bumped? I assume a little, but that much?
Click to expand...

Just think of a box of cereal, or bag of chips.
They really are full when packed.

So ya, it does settle & sometimes they're "forced" to settle.
Just stay within "published" data & you'll be fine.
By published, I mean a reputable source like Hornady or Hodgdon etc.
NOT Joe Blow or Hondo internet guy.

Stay safe my friends.
 
So strategy wasn't to start at max load, but have the loads potentially end up there, which sounds backwards, but in my mind isn't. Again, this follows a commonly referenced theme that I've encountered, which is that best accuracy (which is what I'm after) often comes about with a full, or near full case of powder. And clearly that is also a function of the bulk and density of individual powders.

But to get there, I am doing 10 shot load ladders.........with 0.2 grain steps.......so my start load is 2 full grains below the max. These all in modern bolt guns, so not too concerned about blowing myself up as long as I follow published load data.

But this was my first experience with loads in which there was enough powder in the case to require compression of the powder to seat the bullet. Seems scary, but reassuring to hear it should be OK as long as load data is followed. Then there is the issue of how to physically make it fit. But apparently some powders behave more like sawdust than sand.....spongy vs. firm and hard?

But as for the published load data, makes a newb a bit nervous when you see load data differ by what seems like a lot. Start loads being 4 grains off and max being a full 2 grains more in one set of data than in another. So have adopted a practice of trying to find at least 2 and sometimes 3 different sources of load data for same powders and bullets......to get to some sense of agreement before trying any of them.
 
Howa 9700 said:
But as for the published load data, makes a newb a bit nervous when you see load data differ by what seems like a lot. Start loads being 4 grains off and max being a full 2 grains more in one set of data than in another. So have adopted a practice of trying to find at least 2 and sometimes 3 different sources of load data for same powders and bullets......to get to some sense of agreement before trying any of them.
Click to expand...

A lot of times this is due to a different OAL being used, and/or bullet. It's all about the details, have to look closely at their test chamber/gun.
 
Howa 9700 said:
Was working on some test loads in 270 Win the other day. Load data showed MAX to be 60.0C grains, the C being the scary sounding "compressed" load. Not something I'm ready for yet.

So decided to back that off a bit, and measured out 59.0 grains, and that filled the case nearly to the top too. At first glance, that would have to be a compressed load too. So backed it up another full grain to no more than 58.0 grains, which topped out around base of neck.....which still looked to me like the base of the bullet I was working with would have to rearrange things to fit.

But then got to wondering how much these big stick powders settle as the loading tray they sit in gets tapped and bumped? I assume a little, but that much?
Click to expand...
Data that shows compressed tends to be more consistent than powder that isn't.
Don't worry about it.
To answer your question. Yes it does.
 
Howa 9700 said:
So strategy wasn't to start at max load, but have the loads potentially end up there, which sounds backwards, but in my mind isn't. Again, this follows a commonly referenced theme that I've encountered, which is that best accuracy (which is what I'm after) often comes about with a full, or near full case of powder.
Click to expand...
It sounds backwards because it is backwards. The best accuracy in a bolt-action rifle typically comes when the case is squared against the bolt face and seated firmly in the extractor groove, the neck and shoulder are slightly compressed into the chamber, but the base is only finger-tight, the bullet's ogive is just off the lands, seated firmly at a proper depth to give the proper neck tension without intruding on the combustion chamber incorrectly, with a powder charge that sends the bullet down the rifling lands and grooves at an optimal velocity, without any melt of the jacket or blow-pass of the hot gases, causing the bullet to exit the barrel in a stable flight with a proper rotation. Now, if that sounds like a lot of general setting and assembly instructions, that's because it is. Every rifle is different. Every projectile is different. So is every case, powder and primer combination - all different. The best accuracy comes from starting in a very generic, stable, known good condition and then building each factor out until you get that "magic"* combination that just always works well for you in your rifle. That's why hard-core acuracy shooters often use neck-only sizing dies custom ground and reamed for their rifle's chamber dimensions.

Put in the time and hard work to get it right. I don't shoot for long-range accuracy anymore - and when I did decades ago it was not competitively - but when I did, some of my most accurate .303 Mk.VII loads were below the recommended starting load in at least one reference source; typically not the bullet maker's though. Start with the bullet maker's data, at the recommended start or just a tenth below, and work up to where you are getting consistent groups. Account for your brass, powder lots, primer and sizing die/method. DO NOT start at the powder maker's max. or near-max. data. Generic "XY grain bullets" aren't the most accurate, regardless of whose powder you're using.

There are some competitive long-range rifle shooters on this board. I would suggest asking specific questions and taking their advice. As annoyingly smug as some of them are, they're that way because they've specialized in one aspect of the shooting field and typically right in their opinions about that field. ;)

* HINT: It's not really magic. Mostly hard work and trial-and-error, but some luck, too. I highly recommend this thread.
 
Last edited:
I don't remember which loading it was I was doing but it got my attention the first time a stick or two of powder crunched seating a bullet. It was slightly below what the data said compressed so it worried me for probably the same reason it worried you. Ultimately, listening carefully revealed there was still revealed there really was a little more room for it to settle. Different brass is going to be a little different but I would worry about it provided you worked up and didn't have any trouble signs.
 
May have to backtrack a bit on my praise of all things LEE, plus got a wake up call of sorts.

So went back to the drawing board on my assessment of just what is a full case of powder. Best I have come up with so far, 100% load density is when all the air space is removed from the fully sized and prepped case, when bullet of choice is seated to depth of choice. Not compressed, but any more powder added and it would be. Nearly impossible to calculate so how do you find out?

Best method I could find was to create a dummy round. Size and prep a case....ready to seat a bullet......then drill out primer pocket....clean out any debris.....then seat the bullet of choice to depth of choice as you would for load development. Invert case, fill it full of powder thru now enlarged primer pocket hole..... to the inside edge of the primer cup, dump that out and weigh it. Results of that will get your attention.

I had cases of powder that were full a good 2 to 3 grains below Max load listed (which was a compressed load), but even if you fill an empty case full of powder to the rim, it won't weigh what the Max charge says. My guess is powder company changed something, but it was not anywhere close to being the same in the real world as it was on paper.

Lesson learned was to take that Start level and workup from there advice to heart. This stuff isn't nearly as exact as we are lead to believe.

Other lesson learned is that a case charge of 100% is bullet dependent. A 150 bullet in 308 held a full grain more than a 165.....seating depths to COAL listed on load data for each bullet. So dummy round has to be developed for each bullet. Requires sacrificing one case and one bullet, but those help find the real numbers and to me are worth it.

On the LEE stuff, I still have a set of dippers my dad bought 50 years ago, plus new individual dippers that come with the LEE die sets. On a whim, I measured same powder with both and got different results. One as much as a full grain off. Others within a 10th or 2. So same. But neither of them came up with same grains by volume of two different powders from the dipper chart in the LEE Reloading manual. Some of those off by as much as 3 grains. Again, it would seem powder density has changed from whenever the manual was developed. Point being is it is a ballpark reference, but not reliable by itself.

And worse, on some loads, I found at least 3 different sets of load data for same load. Same bullet, same powder.......start charges as far off as much as 2 or 3 grains, max loads the same. Seating depths off as well. So faith in loading data as gospel greatly diminished. And again, lesson learned, start low and work it up. Long standing advice and I'm finding there is good reason for it.
 
Forgot to mention......in the LEE Reloading Manual.....the book........ for each cartridge, there is a SAMMI spec graphic, and below that it lists Case Capacity in cubic centimeters. Nosler does something similar, in listing load density for each load they list. Have not been able to find out how either of them were determined. (cant duplicate the math)

And LEE manual has a conversion factor for weight to volume listed for each powder. Using that, and case capacity, one ought to be able to calculate a 100 load density. You can't. That calculation and actual case capacity from case with bullet in it were off by as much as 4 grains on some powders. So interesting stuff, but not knowing how capacity was determined, not usable for anything.....and again, once you realize the capacity varies by bullet, not usable for anything.
 
The best way to check case capacity is to seat your bullet to OAL. Then do a water capacity test through the primer hole. Then depending on internal surface you may not get some a good reading due to wetting and bubbles trapped.

A spoiler alert.

Brass mfg have learned to meet specs which requires the least amount of raw material, aka brass. Doing so makes the brass thin, lighter with more capacity. Most of the brass I check wall thickness on is on the thin side. I have some old brass from the 70's and it's much heavier wall. It's full length where most current brass is at trim length and not recommended spec length. So if you like to square up the mouth, you will be under size in length. I have some old 308W brass that is 5 gr heavier than the new stuff, Federal.
 
I am aware of the water capacity trick.......and it seems that is one of the parameters required in some of the software programs, like Quickload and Gordon's reloading tool. But for that to be usable for my purposes, the powder in my jug has to weigh the same as it does in the charts, and I'm not convinced it does. The beauty of water is it is a known constant. Weight equals volume (1 cc = 1 gram). But to make the conversion, you have to have a reliable density factor for the powder. The LEE dippers, being cubic centimeter measures, ought to be able to help with that, but there is measuring error and if they are not accurate to begin with, a problem. I'm thinking the largest of the dippers would give the least amount of error.

I skipped past that and simply measured weight of powder direct, deleting any requirement to measure volume.

Where I intend to use this is with my load ladders. In addition to listing grains of powder, I can now calculate load density.....and then associate each to velocity. With numerous references to best accuracy from "full cases" of powder, I'm hoping to put some objective numbers to what are now subjective estimates.

And my plan for measuring potential case volume differences is to do something similar. Will take prepped Lake City brass ready to load and fill it to the top with powder, then weigh it. Will do the same for all other brass being used. If there is potential for different case capacity due to thickness of walls, that ought to show it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Normal powder position of IMR 4064 in .308 case
Replies
4
Views
378
Redneck with a 40
R
P
  • Locked
Powder compression and H870 or WC872
Replies
3
Views
2K
Poodleshooter
P
murf
  • Locked
correct powder level
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Hondo 60
Hondo 60
kcofohio
  • Locked
Lee's Auto-drum and Stick Powder
Replies
12
Views
2K
kcofohio
kcofohio
Acera
  • Locked
Help with powder sticking in powder measure.
Replies
20
Views
5K
Clarence
C
Back
Top