Bullseye vs Unique vs Titegroup
- Thread starter arthury
- Start date
- Status
ljnowell
Member
Thats false. In 44 mag it does because you can load everything from specials up to magnums, it absolutely does not in the OPs rounds. For example, in 45acp 230fmj, it has a .4gr spread from min to max, according to hodgdon, thats not very broad in my opinion or that of most others. in 9mm 125gr fmj, it has a load spread of .3gr by hodgdon data. Thats as tight as it gets.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Perhaps you should look at Bullseye data in the .45ACP. Yet I see no one holding that against it. It has nothing to do with the name on the can and everything to do with the burn rate, density and the pressure range of the cartridge. Both Titegroup and Bullseye are low density, fast burning powders. So one should expect them to have very small ranges in a given pressure level. Especially in an auto cartridge where you need a certain amount of pressure to operate the action.
Metering well provides people the illusion that precision provides control. I have shot kegs of thrown charges of W231, pounds of AA#5 in 45 ACP, both ball powders which meter well, and there is little to no difference between standard deviations and extreme spreads with thrown charges of Bullseye.
Your choice of powder should be made on a different characteristic, especially as you are shooting IDPA. You action shooters blow out a lot of powder in the shortest time possible and I have read comments from action shooters how powder clouds obscure their vision. I shoot between powder clouds as I do not have a clock to beat.
I don’t shoot titegroup, so maybe titegroup shooters could comment on the powder residue in the air.
Modern Bullseye and Unique were reformulated to burn cleaner, I have heard from some they are not objectionable. Most of my stuff is older and some days, I see smoke.
Your choice of powder should be made on a different characteristic, especially as you are shooting IDPA. You action shooters blow out a lot of powder in the shortest time possible and I have read comments from action shooters how powder clouds obscure their vision. I shoot between powder clouds as I do not have a clock to beat.
I don’t shoot titegroup, so maybe titegroup shooters could comment on the powder residue in the air.
Modern Bullseye and Unique were reformulated to burn cleaner, I have heard from some they are not objectionable. Most of my stuff is older and some days, I see smoke.
ljnowell
Member
.3gr for his 9mm loading is a tight load range, whether you want to admit it or not. You posted data for a 6gr swing, that data does not apply to these cartridges.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
It's .4gr in Speer #14. It's .4 for Bullseye and .6 for Unique. Universal is .5, 700X is .4, American Select is .5 and 231 is .5. Again, deal. For 147's Power Pistol is .5, 3N37 is .5, SR4756 is .4, HS6 is .5, Unique is .5, WSF is .5 and AA #5 is .6. So why that particular factor is held against Titegroup and no other, I have no idea.
Certaindeaf
member
Probably go with the Red Dot.
Perhaps Titegroup's reputation for being "spikey" at the top is what people have issue with, vs the range of the start and max loadings.
I tired it. It didn't do anything special for me, and certainly didn't show me it needed to replace anything I had.
I tired it. It didn't do anything special for me, and certainly didn't show me it needed to replace anything I had.
Jim Watson
Member
I am sure the OP can tell by now, you can find somebody who likes about every powder on the market. Well, duh, if they didn't sell, they wouldn't still be in production.
CZ57
member
For the performance you need to make power factor with 9mm and .45 ACP, I'm kinda in the W231 burn rate camp. I say kinda because I no longer use W231. Instead, I use Ramshot ZIP.
On a number of occasions, Walkalong has posted a pic of the two powders side by side and they are virtually identical in appearance. The main difference being that ZIP burns cleaner than W231 and for me, ZIP provides a bit better performance in .45 ACP. Chargeweights are very similar. I load both cast and jacketed powders with ZIP and get excellent results.
Looking at SIERRA's data for 9mm, their bullets are 125 grains rather than 124 and 1000 FPS which would be the required minimum velocity to make the 125 power factor (1008 FPS for a 124 gr. bullet) is right in the middle of ZIP's performance range. It would be a very good choice for making the 9mm power factor of 125.
I am also in the ball powder camp. I no longer use flake powders for handgun loads because when you find a good load that provides excellent standard deviation numbers, it is easier to repeat the desired chargeweight with less variation which also contributes to lower standard deviation in your loads using a ball powder. This could be of importance for you if you are hugging the minimum power factor required.
On a number of occasions, Walkalong has posted a pic of the two powders side by side and they are virtually identical in appearance. The main difference being that ZIP burns cleaner than W231 and for me, ZIP provides a bit better performance in .45 ACP. Chargeweights are very similar. I load both cast and jacketed powders with ZIP and get excellent results.
Looking at SIERRA's data for 9mm, their bullets are 125 grains rather than 124 and 1000 FPS which would be the required minimum velocity to make the 125 power factor (1008 FPS for a 124 gr. bullet) is right in the middle of ZIP's performance range. It would be a very good choice for making the 9mm power factor of 125.
I am also in the ball powder camp. I no longer use flake powders for handgun loads because when you find a good load that provides excellent standard deviation numbers, it is easier to repeat the desired chargeweight with less variation which also contributes to lower standard deviation in your loads using a ball powder. This could be of importance for you if you are hugging the minimum power factor required.
+1
For 147g FMJ, Speer says for Titegroup, the recommended load is 3.3g .. period! With warnings not to download. The other bullet weights they allow a 0.4 grains of range with this powder. There is just a small margin of error allowed with this powder ... combined with poor metering in some measures, plus the ability to TRIPLE charge some cases, means its a downright potentially dangerous propellant. All below are results with Titegroup.
Last edited:
ArchAngelCD
Member.
All I know is, I use several powder in the 9mm but mostly W231. I use almost nothing other than W231 in the .45 Auto. It's my go-to powder for building handgun ammo...
In the 9mm I load 124/125gr Lead bullet with 4.0gr W231 and 124/125gr jacketed bullets with 4.4gr W231. Neither are near the top end of the load range but both are good range rounds.
In the 45 Auto it's a little simpler, I load 5.5gr W231 under any 230gr bullet lead or jacketed. I even charge the same 5.5gr W231 on the rare times I load a 200gr lead bullet for the 45 Auto.
In the 9mm I load 124/125gr Lead bullet with 4.0gr W231 and 124/125gr jacketed bullets with 4.4gr W231. Neither are near the top end of the load range but both are good range rounds.
In the 45 Auto it's a little simpler, I load 5.5gr W231 under any 230gr bullet lead or jacketed. I even charge the same 5.5gr W231 on the rare times I load a 200gr lead bullet for the 45 Auto.
steelerdude99
Member
For me it's not that Unique does not always meter well. It just does not meter well under 5 grains. I load lots of 38 special and use unique using the .66 CC Lee auto disk giving me 5.0-5.1 pretty consistently. By the way .66 CC is a way bigger disk than what the chart says (.53 or .57 is supposed to be what I'm using). But I weigh every tenth of them w/ a bean scale and they are consistently 5.0-5.1 gain and shoot well. If I use a smaller disk, inter-charge variation is significantly larger. I even tried shaking the auto disk for each load. It just does not seem to work.
chuck
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
There is no Titegroup data for 147's in Speer #14.
And yet Hodgdon lists a .4gr spread. Actually more than other powders listed. It's .4gr for AutoComp, .3 for Universal, .5 for 7625, .3 for 700-X and .3 for WSF. And there is not a dramatic swing in pressure for these loads. So again, I ask, why is this held against Titegroup but no other powder I've listed in three different posts???
As I've said three times, now, it's comparable to other powders and yet the only complaints are about Titegroup. Why???
Have YOU had metering problems with Titegroup? Because I've used a lot of it and never had an issue. It meters better than Unique.
Yep, because you certainly can't do that with Bullseye.
You clearly believe that but it's pure nonsense.
No, all below are results of MISTAKES made by handloaders.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
And yet two weeks ago you recommended Titegroup. What gives???
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=675483
And back in July...
Now it's...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=675483
And back in July...
Now it's...
ljnowell
Member
CraigC, whasts with your axe to grind? You like it, others dont. Get over it.
FROGO207
Member
I got out of the one propellant for multiple calibers thing a long time ago when I realized that the results would be only an OK choice for all of them. Now I go to the specific caliber/bullet weight I want and choose a slow to medium burning propellant that will fill the case close to capacity. I am looking for accurate, consistent, and reliable as well as mild/medium recoil for my go to load. If it takes three choices of propellant for three different bullet weights then that is what it ends up being. I have enough different propellants on hand these days so trying what I want to is no big deal. YMMV
- Status
