zxcvbob
Member
Not as good as you'd think, although there's still some room for increasing the powder (up to about 17 grains) Let's see if this attachment works...
Last edited:
454 alaskan faster powder short barrel AA #7
- Thread starter mewachee
- Start date
- Status
Mr.Revolverguy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,882
attachment is corrupt.
zxcvbob
Member
I've tried a couple of times. The file is fine on my computer, but it doesn't upload right.
mewachee
Member
I received an email from accurate today. They said,
"Unfortunately we do not suggest no7 for the 454Casull, The 454Casull is prone to ignition problems and the best powders are those that fill the case to highest possible loading density"
Could this be a problem with the small rifle primer?
I would like to get a look at the pdf file.
What are the characteristics of true blue that make it a good candidate for this application?
I still plan to go ahead with the No. 7 if I can verify it is not a huge safety problem. Any Idea on how to work around the ignition problem. Could the blast hole in the primer pocket be slightly altered to insure ignition.
maybe I should let it go, and move on to the true blue. If I do move on, does anyone know of a slightly faster powder that will not have problems igniting?
"Unfortunately we do not suggest no7 for the 454Casull, The 454Casull is prone to ignition problems and the best powders are those that fill the case to highest possible loading density"
Could this be a problem with the small rifle primer?
I would like to get a look at the pdf file.
What are the characteristics of true blue that make it a good candidate for this application?
I still plan to go ahead with the No. 7 if I can verify it is not a huge safety problem. Any Idea on how to work around the ignition problem. Could the blast hole in the primer pocket be slightly altered to insure ignition.
maybe I should let it go, and move on to the true blue. If I do move on, does anyone know of a slightly faster powder that will not have problems igniting?
mewachee
Member
zxcvbob, could you try to save the information as a txt file, or could you copy the text into your reply. Probably a copy right problem with that.
zxcvbob
Member
Is the email address you have on file correct?
Mr.Revolverguy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,882
zxcvbob,
It is not the file per say. This usually happens because of the browser mime type settings when uploading files.
It is not the file per say. This usually happens because of the browser mime type settings when uploading files.
mewachee
Member
yeah, email it to me, that would be awesome.
Can you trust quickload's max load suggestions.
I downloaded the trial, but it doesn't let you do anything.
Can you trust quickload's max load suggestions.
I downloaded the trial, but it doesn't let you do anything.
zxcvbob
Member
I haven't used QL enough yet to trust it completely. (but I've been impressed with how closely it's calculations match my chronograph readings) I would trust its data the same way I'd trust a powder manufacturer's data that used a very-similar-but-different bullet, or a different primer: Don't start at the maximum value, work up towards it.
It'll be late tonite before I can email anything to you. I'm going straight from work to the MN caucus, and it's not over until 9:00.
It'll be late tonite before I can email anything to you. I'm going straight from work to the MN caucus, and it's not over until 9:00.
CZ57
member
Well, the QuikLoad data won't come up if I save it to disk or try to open the file. I'd be interested to know what the velocity projection is, but as it turns out, Ramshot has increased the load for the CP WLNGC 335 (4.2.2 guide)to 16.2 - 18.0 grains (53,400 PSI) for 1395 FPS from the 7.5" barrel with an OACL of 1.735", CCI-400 Primer. Whereas Bob is saying QuikLoad only goes to a 17.0 gr. Max. I'd be very surprised if velocity dropped below 1200 FPS from the Alaskan.
True Blue is very pressure stable. The Standard Deviation of 5 indicates that this is a very uniform load. It's slightly faster than #7 so the statement from Accurate is a bit puzzling since the same ballistician works up the data for both powders and True Blue would give slightly less case fill than #7.
True Blue is very pressure stable. The Standard Deviation of 5 indicates that this is a very uniform load. It's slightly faster than #7 so the statement from Accurate is a bit puzzling since the same ballistician works up the data for both powders and True Blue would give slightly less case fill than #7.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
I looked all over for data on the 454 Casull and AA#7 and there just isn't any. It's really not the powder for that caliber but I know that's already been said many times.
I know it's been already said here over and over but better choices for that round would be W296/H110, Lil'Gun or 4227. Using AA#7 just won't get it done. Also like said above, if Blue Dot wasn't satisfactory there's no way AA#7 will be since their burn rate is so close. It's just too fast a powder for the application.
I know you are still saying you are going to go ahead and try AA#7 but remember, with a powder that fast you are likely to get a large pressure spike instead of the smoother pressure curve you would get with a slower powder.
WHY are you so stuck on using AA#7 when AA#9 is clearly a better choice if you want to stick with a powder from Accurate Arms?
I know it's been already said here over and over but better choices for that round would be W296/H110, Lil'Gun or 4227. Using AA#7 just won't get it done. Also like said above, if Blue Dot wasn't satisfactory there's no way AA#7 will be since their burn rate is so close. It's just too fast a powder for the application.
I know you are still saying you are going to go ahead and try AA#7 but remember, with a powder that fast you are likely to get a large pressure spike instead of the smoother pressure curve you would get with a slower powder.
WHY are you so stuck on using AA#7 when AA#9 is clearly a better choice if you want to stick with a powder from Accurate Arms?
mewachee
Member
Here is what I am doing.
I loaded #9 today for my base line.
I also loaded #7
I think I will try and tweak the blue dot another .5 grain.
I will shoot tomorrow, then place the results here.
cz57, you convinced me to try the true blue. I will have to look for it tomorrow.
I loaded #9 today for my base line.
I also loaded #7
I think I will try and tweak the blue dot another .5 grain.
I will shoot tomorrow, then place the results here.
cz57, you convinced me to try the true blue. I will have to look for it tomorrow.
mewachee
Member
Arch, the reason I am trying this is to see if there is something to it.
No. 9 has the fastest burn rate of all the standard powders used in this caliber, but they became standard base on the 7.5 in barrel or longer. However, working up a sweet load for a 20 in barrel, using the same bullet, another load would be better suited. You may use No. 9, but with the longer barrel, I would assume a slower burning powder would be better. Because the barrel is shorter, I want to know if that pressure spike will improve my velocity, while trying to keep everything in safe limits. I think it is strange that more reloaders of the alaskan aren't interested in this.
To be honest, I wish someone would have pointed me to info. where another has done the work already. Empirical data would have been nice.
When all is said and done, if I find that the No. 9 is superior, I will go with it.
No. 9 has the fastest burn rate of all the standard powders used in this caliber, but they became standard base on the 7.5 in barrel or longer. However, working up a sweet load for a 20 in barrel, using the same bullet, another load would be better suited. You may use No. 9, but with the longer barrel, I would assume a slower burning powder would be better. Because the barrel is shorter, I want to know if that pressure spike will improve my velocity, while trying to keep everything in safe limits. I think it is strange that more reloaders of the alaskan aren't interested in this.
To be honest, I wish someone would have pointed me to info. where another has done the work already. Empirical data would have been nice.
When all is said and done, if I find that the No. 9 is superior, I will go with it.
CZ57
member
zxcvbob gave excellent info in post #18 of what to expect when you use a magnum powder in a SNUB barrel as predicted by QuikLoad: "A compressed charge of H110 only gives 1100 fps (still not too shabby) and a bunch of unburnt powder. I'll bet the fireball is really impressive!" I don't think a lot of folks understand the dynamic. To maintain velocity in short barrels, the powder burn rate must be increased to achieve a faster pressure peak to maximize velocity in a short barrel. QuikLoad will predict the distance necessary to achieve pressure peak. Particularly important in this case. The magnum powders that ArchAngel mentioned using in the Alaskan would be a waste of time and money, imo. I think we all agree that #9 is fast enough compared to them that it will provide a faster pressure peak, but is that fast enough? My personal opinion is that any barrel under 4" will make it hard for #9 to burn thoroughly enough to achieve an appreciable velocity gain, but it will work better for your needs compared to Blue Dot, which I don't think you'll find a lot of data for, either. Pressure stability at very high pressure is not its strong suite, coupled with the fact that there have been inconsistencies in manufacturing Blue Dot in the past. That is my concern with #9 as well. Bulk density uniformity has been questioned and it's one of my favorite powders. I haven't ran into any problems in the .357, .41 or .44 Magnum, but they're not 65,000 PSI rounds. What I've done is switch to another powder almost identical in burn rate: Ramshot Enforcer that would be every bit as good performance wise in the .454, but just a tad bit slower burning. Still faster than 110, 296, L'il Gun etc. Another good thing about QuikLoad is the prediction for the amount of powder that will be burned. As that percentage goes down, it's indicating that barrel length is not long enough for complete ignition of the powder. I have the sample program, I just can't input new parameters into it.
I also agree that you're not going to get to 1350 FPS, but I believe you can do better than what you've done with Blue Dot where you did find the "Point of Diminishing Returns" when velocity started falling off while pressure (and chargeweight) increased.
It is not a question of a powder being too fast, it's a matter of finding the right powder for a specific window of performance. I have data with Unique and even Bullseye because they are easy to ignite and that's probably the only reason they're listed. It ain't for performance. Both are faster burning than True Blue, and again, True Blue is slightly faster than #7. The question is, how pressure stable a powder will be if you work up near the 65,000 PSI MAP for the .454 Casull? The QuikLoad projected max that bob listed for #7 at 23.1 grains goes too near the Maximum Average Pressure to assume a 10% reduction for a start charge. I should mention also that Vihta Vouri has had load data for .454 using N340 and N350. Both of which are faster than #7, or True Blue in this case.
As far as data, it's why I mentioned True Blue, and even with the newer data that goes to 18.0 grains with the 335 CP, you have nearly a 12,000 PSI cushion. Their previous max load I posted in #10 had a Standard Deviation of 5. That is better than good, it's phenomenal! And, it's just over 45,000 PSI and now it's the start charge at 16.2 grains. The only way you're going to get anything more empirical than that will be from someone who has used the powders in question and can provide all of the statistical analysis. If I were in your shoes the choice would be easy. It would be based on the fact that there is a powder that should give better performance in a shorter tube because of its slightly faster pressure peak and the Standard Deviation of 5 indicates very uniform pressure characteristics at the 45,000 PSI developed.
Now for the Accurate statement:
"Unfortunately we do not suggest no7 for the 454Casull, The 454Casull is prone to ignition problems and the best powders are those that fill the case to highest possible loading density" That is true as far as difficulty with ignition. The first loads used by Dick Casull were duplex loads that are not recommended by anyone. A very fast powder was loaded under a slower burner to help it ignite more thoroughly. But I wonder if Accurate understood what you're up against with the Alaskan. Ignition may be a problem, but they are not saying that pressure will be erratic. Then consider that they (Western Powder Co.) do recommend a slightly faster powder (True Blue) for the same loads? Years ago, Accurate made a similar statement about using #9 with 125 gr. JHPs being too slow for the .357 Magnum. Now you'll find they recommend it. I ran into a similar situation several years ago when I asked the Ramshot/Accurate ballistician about using their then new powder, Hunter, in 7mm-08. He told me it was not suitable then, but evidently, it is now. They list very good load data for its use in 7mm-08.
#7 is the densest handgun powder I'm aware of at 985 grams per liter. It very well could be that the CCI-400 will have trouble igniting it. Couple that with the absence of data for even a start charge; if you proceed you are on your own. I would contact Accurate again and ask them to assist specifically with your performance needs for the Alaskan. They recommend #7 for high pressure .45 Colt and the .480 Ruger with loads going up to 46,000 PSI and according to their data, the .480 load is ignited with a WLP primer. It's hard to imagine that you couldn't load the .454 at least to a similar pressure range as the .480 level. Another option that might also be very worthy of consideration would be to run the higher level .45 Colt loads through the Alaskan.
I also agree that you're not going to get to 1350 FPS, but I believe you can do better than what you've done with Blue Dot where you did find the "Point of Diminishing Returns" when velocity started falling off while pressure (and chargeweight) increased.
It is not a question of a powder being too fast, it's a matter of finding the right powder for a specific window of performance. I have data with Unique and even Bullseye because they are easy to ignite and that's probably the only reason they're listed. It ain't for performance. Both are faster burning than True Blue, and again, True Blue is slightly faster than #7. The question is, how pressure stable a powder will be if you work up near the 65,000 PSI MAP for the .454 Casull? The QuikLoad projected max that bob listed for #7 at 23.1 grains goes too near the Maximum Average Pressure to assume a 10% reduction for a start charge. I should mention also that Vihta Vouri has had load data for .454 using N340 and N350. Both of which are faster than #7, or True Blue in this case.
As far as data, it's why I mentioned True Blue, and even with the newer data that goes to 18.0 grains with the 335 CP, you have nearly a 12,000 PSI cushion. Their previous max load I posted in #10 had a Standard Deviation of 5. That is better than good, it's phenomenal! And, it's just over 45,000 PSI and now it's the start charge at 16.2 grains. The only way you're going to get anything more empirical than that will be from someone who has used the powders in question and can provide all of the statistical analysis. If I were in your shoes the choice would be easy. It would be based on the fact that there is a powder that should give better performance in a shorter tube because of its slightly faster pressure peak and the Standard Deviation of 5 indicates very uniform pressure characteristics at the 45,000 PSI developed.
Now for the Accurate statement:
"Unfortunately we do not suggest no7 for the 454Casull, The 454Casull is prone to ignition problems and the best powders are those that fill the case to highest possible loading density" That is true as far as difficulty with ignition. The first loads used by Dick Casull were duplex loads that are not recommended by anyone. A very fast powder was loaded under a slower burner to help it ignite more thoroughly. But I wonder if Accurate understood what you're up against with the Alaskan. Ignition may be a problem, but they are not saying that pressure will be erratic. Then consider that they (Western Powder Co.) do recommend a slightly faster powder (True Blue) for the same loads? Years ago, Accurate made a similar statement about using #9 with 125 gr. JHPs being too slow for the .357 Magnum. Now you'll find they recommend it. I ran into a similar situation several years ago when I asked the Ramshot/Accurate ballistician about using their then new powder, Hunter, in 7mm-08. He told me it was not suitable then, but evidently, it is now. They list very good load data for its use in 7mm-08.
#7 is the densest handgun powder I'm aware of at 985 grams per liter. It very well could be that the CCI-400 will have trouble igniting it. Couple that with the absence of data for even a start charge; if you proceed you are on your own. I would contact Accurate again and ask them to assist specifically with your performance needs for the Alaskan. They recommend #7 for high pressure .45 Colt and the .480 Ruger with loads going up to 46,000 PSI and according to their data, the .480 load is ignited with a WLP primer. It's hard to imagine that you couldn't load the .454 at least to a similar pressure range as the .480 level. Another option that might also be very worthy of consideration would be to run the higher level .45 Colt loads through the Alaskan.
zxcvbob
Member
Mewachee, what is the length of that 335 grain bullet you're using? I need that to guestimate the seating depth. (or if you know the seating depth, that works even better)
mewachee
Member
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.
zxcvbob, the seating depth is .44
CZ57, thanks for the explanation. That is the general answer to my general question. Very good read, I hope it gets pick up by google.
Okay, here is what I have come to. All the velocities are averaged in my head. Under all situations I find no signs of over pressure. I wish I could test the pressure.
Of course, you have seen the blue dot, but here it is again.
Blue Dot 18 g. - 1100 fps
19 g. - 1200 fps
20 g. - 1150 fps
No. 9 24 g. - 1250 fps
25 g. - 1275 fps
25.5 g. - 1290 fps
26 g. - 1315 fps
Two things happened here that really surprised me. The first, 21 g. grouped unbelievably well. All other hand and factory loads were, although expected, crappy (not a 100 yard gun). The second surprise was that the 22 g. of No. 7 kicked so much less than the No. 9 of the same velocity. This I don't understand.
No. 7 21 g. - 1200 fps
22 g. - 1250 fps
Velocity Energy TKO
1100 900 24
1200 1071 26
1250 1163 27
1300 1257 28
1325 1306 29
1350 1356 29
1370 1397 30
If I've learned anything here, it was that there are few of us that step out of the box. This is the first forum that I have participated in. I did it out of necessity, but it helped me get were I was going. I have a lot more powder to burn, but I think I will until it is a little greener on the hill. I am ready for spring bear for now. When it gets nice out, I will fine tune this, and maybe go both directions (faster and slower) to put together a data sheet of what worked for me.
One last thing, I had the hardest time finding information on this topic. Google anything pertaining to this topic and we are at the top.
zxcvbob, the seating depth is .44
CZ57, thanks for the explanation. That is the general answer to my general question. Very good read, I hope it gets pick up by google.
Okay, here is what I have come to. All the velocities are averaged in my head. Under all situations I find no signs of over pressure. I wish I could test the pressure.
Of course, you have seen the blue dot, but here it is again.
Blue Dot 18 g. - 1100 fps
19 g. - 1200 fps
20 g. - 1150 fps
No. 9 24 g. - 1250 fps
25 g. - 1275 fps
25.5 g. - 1290 fps
26 g. - 1315 fps
Two things happened here that really surprised me. The first, 21 g. grouped unbelievably well. All other hand and factory loads were, although expected, crappy (not a 100 yard gun). The second surprise was that the 22 g. of No. 7 kicked so much less than the No. 9 of the same velocity. This I don't understand.
No. 7 21 g. - 1200 fps
22 g. - 1250 fps
Velocity Energy TKO
1100 900 24
1200 1071 26
1250 1163 27
1300 1257 28
1325 1306 29
1350 1356 29
1370 1397 30
If I've learned anything here, it was that there are few of us that step out of the box. This is the first forum that I have participated in. I did it out of necessity, but it helped me get were I was going. I have a lot more powder to burn, but I think I will until it is a little greener on the hill. I am ready for spring bear for now. When it gets nice out, I will fine tune this, and maybe go both directions (faster and slower) to put together a data sheet of what worked for me.
One last thing, I had the hardest time finding information on this topic. Google anything pertaining to this topic and we are at the top.
Last edited:
zxcvbob
Member
The difference between 23.9 grains of #7 and 26 grains of #9 in a short barrel are insignificant.* The #9 ejects more unburnt powder, but not as much as I expected. They both calculate to just over 1300 fps. I'll send you the file.
*even with a 7.5" barrel, there's not much difference between #7 and #9; 1600 and 1625 fps.
*even with a 7.5" barrel, there's not much difference between #7 and #9; 1600 and 1625 fps.
zxcvbob
Member
2400 is interesting. 26 grains is a compressed charge (I assume it is compressable) and otherwise is just like #9 but at a couple of thousand less psi.
mewachee
Member
Bob, could you show the results for both the 21 and 22 g. of #7.
What is acceptable expansion of the brass? Sized it is .469, after the heavier loads it is .479. This doesn't bind at all during removal.
What is acceptable expansion of the brass? Sized it is .469, after the heavier loads it is .479. This doesn't bind at all during removal.
zxcvbob
Member
OK. Did you get those other 2 files I sent you?
Here's 21 g:
Case capacity and propellant properties may vary considerably from lot to lot!
**** Input data: Date: 6-Feb-2008 Time: 21:15:41
Cartridge................. = .454 Casull Magnum (SAAMI)
Projectile type........... = .451, 335 flatbase
Max.avg.pressure(Piezo SAA)= 65000 psi Shot start / init pressure = 1160 psi
Projectile weight (gr)= 335 Groove caliber (in)= 0.451
Length of cartridge (in)= 1.672 Length of case (in)= 1.380
Case capacity(Grains Water)= 46.81 Length of projectile (in)= 0.732
Length of barrel (in)= 3.600
**** Values calculated:
Seating depth (in)= 0.440 Volume displaced (gn H2O)= 17.79
Comb.chamber volume(gn H2O)= 29.01 Projectile travel (in)= 2.660
**** Input data:
Propellant type........... = Accurate No.7
Charge weight..........(gr)= 21.0 Load density......(g/cu.cm)= 0.722
Heat of Explosion (cal/lb)= 450696 Ratio of spec. heats cp/cv = 1.230
Solid density (gr/cu.in)= 397.0 Weighting factor...........= 0.8
Burning rate factor Ba(1/s)= 1.418 Pro-/degressivity factor a = 1.862
Burning limit ......... z1 = 0.3 Combust.Chamber Vb(ft³)= 6.652087E-5
Factor.................. b = 1.466 X-S.Area of Bore A(ft²)= 1.090744E-3
Bulk density (gr/cu.in)= 250.9 Projectile mass mp (lb)= 4.785634E-2
Loading ratio (%)= 72.8 Projectile travel x(ft)= 2.216732E-1
**** Results calculated:
Maximum pressure ........ = 45041 psi Way of projectile at Pmax = 0.42 in
Muzzle velocity ......Ve = 1149 fps Muzzle pressure .......Pe = 16412 psi
Project. energy at muzzle = 982 ft.lbs Fraction of powder burnt = 96.1 %
Projectile travel time from 10% Pmax to muzzle = 0.41 ms
And here's 22:
**** Input data: Date: 6-Feb-2008 Time: 21:16:53
Cartridge................. = .454 Casull Magnum (SAAMI)
Projectile type........... = .451, 335 flatbase
Max.avg.pressure(Piezo SAA)= 65000 psi Shot start / init pressure = 1160 psi
Projectile weight (gr)= 335 Groove caliber (in)= 0.451
Length of cartridge (in)= 1.672 Length of case (in)= 1.380
Case capacity(Grains Water)= 46.81 Length of projectile (in)= 0.732
Length of barrel (in)= 3.600
**** Values calculated:
Seating depth (in)= 0.440 Volume displaced (gn H2O)= 17.79
Comb.chamber volume(gn H2O)= 29.01 Projectile travel (in)= 2.660
**** Input data:
Propellant type........... = Accurate No.7
Charge weight..........(gr)= 22.0 Load density......(g/cu.cm)= 0.757
Heat of Explosion (cal/lb)= 450696 Ratio of spec. heats cp/cv = 1.230
Solid density (gr/cu.in)= 397.0 Weighting factor...........= 0.8
Burning rate factor Ba(1/s)= 1.418 Pro-/degressivity factor a = 1.862
Burning limit ......... z1 = 0.3 Combust.Chamber Vb(ft³)= 6.652087E-5
Factor.................. b = 1.466 X-S.Area of Bore A(ft²)= 1.090744E-3
Bulk density (gr/cu.in)= 250.9 Projectile mass mp (lb)= 4.785634E-2
Loading ratio (%)= 76.3 Projectile travel x(ft)= 2.216732E-1
**** Results calculated:
Maximum pressure ........ = 51047 psi Way of projectile at Pmax = 0.39 in
Muzzle velocity ......Ve = 1204 fps Muzzle pressure .......Pe = 17299 psi
Project. energy at muzzle = 1078 ft.lbs Fraction of powder burnt = 97.6 %
Projectile travel time from 10% Pmax to muzzle = 0.38 ms
Here's 21 g:
Case capacity and propellant properties may vary considerably from lot to lot!
**** Input data: Date: 6-Feb-2008 Time: 21:15:41
Cartridge................. = .454 Casull Magnum (SAAMI)
Projectile type........... = .451, 335 flatbase
Max.avg.pressure(Piezo SAA)= 65000 psi Shot start / init pressure = 1160 psi
Projectile weight (gr)= 335 Groove caliber (in)= 0.451
Length of cartridge (in)= 1.672 Length of case (in)= 1.380
Case capacity(Grains Water)= 46.81 Length of projectile (in)= 0.732
Length of barrel (in)= 3.600
**** Values calculated:
Seating depth (in)= 0.440 Volume displaced (gn H2O)= 17.79
Comb.chamber volume(gn H2O)= 29.01 Projectile travel (in)= 2.660
**** Input data:
Propellant type........... = Accurate No.7
Charge weight..........(gr)= 21.0 Load density......(g/cu.cm)= 0.722
Heat of Explosion (cal/lb)= 450696 Ratio of spec. heats cp/cv = 1.230
Solid density (gr/cu.in)= 397.0 Weighting factor...........= 0.8
Burning rate factor Ba(1/s)= 1.418 Pro-/degressivity factor a = 1.862
Burning limit ......... z1 = 0.3 Combust.Chamber Vb(ft³)= 6.652087E-5
Factor.................. b = 1.466 X-S.Area of Bore A(ft²)= 1.090744E-3
Bulk density (gr/cu.in)= 250.9 Projectile mass mp (lb)= 4.785634E-2
Loading ratio (%)= 72.8 Projectile travel x(ft)= 2.216732E-1
**** Results calculated:
Maximum pressure ........ = 45041 psi Way of projectile at Pmax = 0.42 in
Muzzle velocity ......Ve = 1149 fps Muzzle pressure .......Pe = 16412 psi
Project. energy at muzzle = 982 ft.lbs Fraction of powder burnt = 96.1 %
Projectile travel time from 10% Pmax to muzzle = 0.41 ms
And here's 22:
**** Input data: Date: 6-Feb-2008 Time: 21:16:53
Cartridge................. = .454 Casull Magnum (SAAMI)
Projectile type........... = .451, 335 flatbase
Max.avg.pressure(Piezo SAA)= 65000 psi Shot start / init pressure = 1160 psi
Projectile weight (gr)= 335 Groove caliber (in)= 0.451
Length of cartridge (in)= 1.672 Length of case (in)= 1.380
Case capacity(Grains Water)= 46.81 Length of projectile (in)= 0.732
Length of barrel (in)= 3.600
**** Values calculated:
Seating depth (in)= 0.440 Volume displaced (gn H2O)= 17.79
Comb.chamber volume(gn H2O)= 29.01 Projectile travel (in)= 2.660
**** Input data:
Propellant type........... = Accurate No.7
Charge weight..........(gr)= 22.0 Load density......(g/cu.cm)= 0.757
Heat of Explosion (cal/lb)= 450696 Ratio of spec. heats cp/cv = 1.230
Solid density (gr/cu.in)= 397.0 Weighting factor...........= 0.8
Burning rate factor Ba(1/s)= 1.418 Pro-/degressivity factor a = 1.862
Burning limit ......... z1 = 0.3 Combust.Chamber Vb(ft³)= 6.652087E-5
Factor.................. b = 1.466 X-S.Area of Bore A(ft²)= 1.090744E-3
Bulk density (gr/cu.in)= 250.9 Projectile mass mp (lb)= 4.785634E-2
Loading ratio (%)= 76.3 Projectile travel x(ft)= 2.216732E-1
**** Results calculated:
Maximum pressure ........ = 51047 psi Way of projectile at Pmax = 0.39 in
Muzzle velocity ......Ve = 1204 fps Muzzle pressure .......Pe = 17299 psi
Project. energy at muzzle = 1078 ft.lbs Fraction of powder burnt = 97.6 %
Projectile travel time from 10% Pmax to muzzle = 0.38 ms
It seems to me that a premise has been set forth here, that loading for a short barreled handgun and you must use a faster powder to get maximum performance, I disagree with that. Slower powders preform best in a high pressure environment, and what better environment than the 454 Casull. The trick is to get that powder lit off as fast as possible, a heavy crimp and heavy bullet will help, lead bullets can be a challenge but proper sizing of the bullet will help.
The primer used could be a key factor.
The primer used could be a key factor.
mewachee
Member
Hey bob, I did get those files. That is awesome, the No. 9 is right on. The No. 7 is a little faster than mine. With that said, I need to get quickload.
Sorry to keep asking, but could you give me 22.5 of No. 7. Looking for a pattern here
Sorry to keep asking, but could you give me 22.5 of No. 7. Looking for a pattern here
mewachee
Member
jibjab,
I am finding that the No. 9 is getting the job done, but not over the No. 7.
I think I have max out on the #9 1315 fps. Like I said earlier, the kick felt significantly greater (comparing both at 1250 fps). The brass is filthy, it is like I dipped it in liquid charcoal. The gun is a mess.
On the #7, not sure how close I am to max hitting 1250, but there seems to be room, especially considering Bob's data. Again, the kick was reasonable. And the brass looks and smell considerably cleaner, which is interesting because I shot it last. Equally as important as the velocity, No. 7 at 1200 fps gave me a group 2" at 20 yards, while all other groups where 6" and up.
I am looking for what will work best for me, but this simple test proves to worth while. How can you dispute whether it was worth doing.
Lastly, I haven't used magnum primers to attempt to keep the pressure building. I read this article that made a lot of sense to me, link below. It ask some interesting questions.
http://www.levergun.com/articles/454_case.htm
I am finding that the No. 9 is getting the job done, but not over the No. 7.
I think I have max out on the #9 1315 fps. Like I said earlier, the kick felt significantly greater (comparing both at 1250 fps). The brass is filthy, it is like I dipped it in liquid charcoal. The gun is a mess.
On the #7, not sure how close I am to max hitting 1250, but there seems to be room, especially considering Bob's data. Again, the kick was reasonable. And the brass looks and smell considerably cleaner, which is interesting because I shot it last. Equally as important as the velocity, No. 7 at 1200 fps gave me a group 2" at 20 yards, while all other groups where 6" and up.
I am looking for what will work best for me, but this simple test proves to worth while. How can you dispute whether it was worth doing.
Lastly, I haven't used magnum primers to attempt to keep the pressure building. I read this article that made a lot of sense to me, link below. It ask some interesting questions.
http://www.levergun.com/articles/454_case.htm
- Status
