Old Grumpy
Member
ArchAngleCD "IMO you shouldn't have loaded charges that were lower than the starting charge weights. You are a little lucky you didn't cause a squib load and with the velocities you listed it was possible."
Yes I used lower than "starting charge weight" loads but I had studied and examined the possibilities for quite some time before I got my feet wet. Starting charges are set using several factors: consistent burning, consistent pressures, consistent velocities, etc. To think that 0.2gr less than published starting charge weight will prevent the bullet from exiting the barrel is not reasonable. The case volume to charge weight ratio was acceptable (not like using 2.0gr in a .357 mag case), the powder was not as temperamental as some (296) to low charge weights, and the shooter was careful to make sure every round exited the barrel. Each shot was run across my chrono and of the 45 total rounds (in three test batches) I had four that produced error messages not a velocity. Each time I could open the action and look down the barrel (top-breaks make that easy).
So I did not go into this half asleep and I did not go to extremes (like a starting charge of 1.0gr).
Your comment about erratic or incomplete powder burn is probably correct (one reason those weights are below published starting levels) and is supported by the data from my chrony.
I do not profess to be an expert reloader but I do have quite a bit of experience reloading. I understand how published data is developed and I also understand why the limits are set. If I had followed the published advice ("For use in solid frame revolvers only") I would not be able to make any reloads to shoot in my top-break. Even though it was made in the early 1960s, by it's design, it is grouped in with revolvers made over a century ago.
IMO, Using charge weights below published minimums should not be taken lightly (we agree on that) but I do feel that, within reason and with the proper cautions, starting charge weights can be reduced.
Yes I used lower than "starting charge weight" loads but I had studied and examined the possibilities for quite some time before I got my feet wet. Starting charges are set using several factors: consistent burning, consistent pressures, consistent velocities, etc. To think that 0.2gr less than published starting charge weight will prevent the bullet from exiting the barrel is not reasonable. The case volume to charge weight ratio was acceptable (not like using 2.0gr in a .357 mag case), the powder was not as temperamental as some (296) to low charge weights, and the shooter was careful to make sure every round exited the barrel. Each shot was run across my chrono and of the 45 total rounds (in three test batches) I had four that produced error messages not a velocity. Each time I could open the action and look down the barrel (top-breaks make that easy).
So I did not go into this half asleep and I did not go to extremes (like a starting charge of 1.0gr).
Your comment about erratic or incomplete powder burn is probably correct (one reason those weights are below published starting levels) and is supported by the data from my chrony.
I do not profess to be an expert reloader but I do have quite a bit of experience reloading. I understand how published data is developed and I also understand why the limits are set. If I had followed the published advice ("For use in solid frame revolvers only") I would not be able to make any reloads to shoot in my top-break. Even though it was made in the early 1960s, by it's design, it is grouped in with revolvers made over a century ago.
IMO, Using charge weights below published minimums should not be taken lightly (we agree on that) but I do feel that, within reason and with the proper cautions, starting charge weights can be reduced.