buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
Now.... that's a test I'd like to see.
Following that logic, and assuming the continued deterioration...or perhaps 'change' would be a better term... with powder that is 10, 20, 50 years old would be completely off the reservation as far as burn rate.
Could very well be. The point I was trying to make tho, was not that the deterioration was dramatic or excessive, but that it would most likely be ever so slight, similar to the differences in burn rate lots. That same ever so slightly difference in burn rates is not going to take a "safe" load and turn it into a "kaboom". Manuals tell us to start at the given "start" powder charge and work our way up till we discover excessive pressure. How many folks follow that? How many of those same folk can tell what is "excessive" pressure till they blow their gun up?
Again, we buy powders from reputable sources knowing they do everything they can to make their powders as consistent as possible. They diligently do this for ethical reasons and liability. While there are minute variations in exact burn rate, they are moot(IMHO) as compared to other variations that happen during the reloading process. Published manuals also give a "margin" of error in recipes to account for these. In the past, I did the "back down and rework" loads every time I changed lot numbers. What I found is that the slight difference the change in lots made, was no more than the difference in two different batches of the same components made at different times. Others may have different experiences and should do what makes them fell safe. I feel safe using similar powder charges when starting with a new can of powder. Basically because I do not load to beyond max published levels and my experience shows me it's not necessary with what I reload for and with. Pretty much the same with primers. The differnce they make does not make a load unsafe, nor does it drastically change accuracy. A change of projectiles is different.