powder without published load?

[labnoti]

How would you go about developing a load using a powder for which there are no published loads? Or would you never do that?

For example, I've been working on loads for a handgun cartridge. I found the faster pistol powders were fine for light loads but left a lot to be desired. A medium burn shotgun powder delivers substantially more velocity with low SD. Laddering up, I found the best results were actually slightly over the published max, and with a shorter OAL. I know my best load is over the pressure spec, but I don't want to settle for the results I got within the published parameters. There's load data published for that shotgun powder, but there are other powders above and below it on the burn rate charts. It's tempting to ladder to slightly slower and faster powders, but without PSI data from a transducer chamber, I could only estimate what load in grains of powder would be the maximum. The only empirical data I'd have is chrono measurements. I know with rifle cartridges we can look for pressure signs, but this is handgun where the limit is less than 20,000psi. Those pressures are never going deform the primer or even make extraction hard or really show any signs at all.

It seems like load development without measuring the pressure is lame unless one just wants light loads or to follow someone else's work out of a book.

 

[stringnut]

Your guns do what ever you want. It is not a safe practice to exceed max loads. Some people do it all the time and never have an issue. Elmer Keith blew up lots of guns developing high pressure loads for the 44 special. Pressure and failure points are funny things. Spikes in pressure can occur very suddenly at times. Metal work hardens and pushing it just past its limits all the time makes it prone to sudden catastrophic failure without warning. If you simply split a case it can spray hot gas and pieces everywhere. If the gun comes apart ,well, people do get seriously injured. High speed metal fragments are dangerous. The point of failure is right by your face. I personally do not exceed max. Shortly someone will be along saying the reloading manuals are for wimps.

 

[Zendude]

Sometimes load data is not published for some powders because the powder does not perform well in that cartridge. Many powders need to have a high pressure to burn properly, so they wouldn’t have load data for a low pressure cartridge.

 

[Englishmn]

Sometimes load data is not published for some powders because the powder does not perform well in that cartridge. Many powders need to have a high pressure to burn properly, so they wouldn’t have load data for a low pressure cartridge.

Also have seen some powders that had loads in old manuals that are not in current manuals. The data is still good but it seems like the manufacturer would rather you use a newer powder.
Green Dot is one of those powders that old books have all kinds of pistol loads new books don't even show loads for that powder.

 

[243winxb]

More info is needed. Gun, load, powder. Do post the over pressure warning with your information.

 

[thomas15]

And then there is a need to do such a thing. There is so much load data available that is reliable and works. If you are loading pistol loads the actual cost of gun powder is a couple cents per round in most cases. Instead of twisting yourself into knots trying to forge a new road into an uncharted wilderness, go to the store, pull a few bux out of your pocket and buy a powder that will do the job while keeping your mind, body, soul and hardware intact.

 

[Grumulkin]

How would you go about developing a load using a powder for which there are no published loads? Or would you never do that?

I have done it but if you have to ask how, you probably shouldn't do it. I also would not do it in a gun that was truly only good for 20,000 psi.

 

[Hokie_PhD]

I’m with the others who said why?
There are so many powders out there why add more to the mix?
Have you really tried every pistol powder and have to try others now?

I can understand someone going a few grains beyond published loads if they know what they’re doing and they’re willing to take the associated risk. I don’t get why you’d multiply the risk unless you really understood it and could meditate it to a sane level.

Now, I’ll also add that I often wonder why people are obsessed with speed as I’m more interested in accuracy, consistency and the quality of the round. I’m willing to give up a little speed to have a round that I can hit the target over and over again enjoying my shooting, rather than being beat to death by rounds that are fast but are snappy and have lousy recoil.

But to each his/her own.

 

[edwardware]

I do it, because I'm curious.

You're starting in the right place with burn rate charts. Start low and work up small.

If you grenade your gun, it's your fault; if you succeed, you'll have that satisfaction. You decide.

 

[GT1]

Myself, I would not do that. But I don't consider myself more than an amateur in hand loading, I am far from any ballistics scientist and I figure the real ones have done that work. I just assume if something is not published online or in my several books, it usually is for a better reason than I can counter to try it.

 

[Blue68f100]

At times your forced to do this on wildcat rounds. Now days they use quickload to give them a guide line as to what may work. Old school way was to find a caliber that had similar capacity and payload and work from there. It's risky, you always run the chance of something catastrophic happening that is not good.

 

[buck460XVR]

I really have no need to develop loads not already tested and published. There's more than enough already that will do everything I need. I have no reason to make any of my guns, regardless of caliber, more than what they are. If a caliber is not fast enough or does not pack enough punch, I just grab a handgun who's caliber gives me more velocity and energy. Simple. No need to try and make a Porsche outta a V.W. Beetle. Two things here that have been said already ring very true and need to be repeated. If you need to ask other, random guys on the internet how to load without published recipes, you should probably not be doing it. Secondly, it's your hands/eyes/guns. Odds are you are going to do it regardless of what others tell you, since it seems you already are. Good Luck.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

How would you go about developing a load using a powder for which there are no published loads?

In general, you're taking on some risk when developing a load with no lab tested published loads. You have to make a personal decision on the risks versus the rewards.

Most all of us don't have access to lab pressure testing equipment. You can, however, run numbers in software such as QuickLoad, measure case heads for expansion, and examine primers.

I've only done this once, and it was in the last month. I was loading for 9.3x62 Mauser. The cartridge was developed over a 100 years ago, in weaker rifles, with powders that no longer exist. Reloading data exists, but is scarce, especially for newer powders.

I found data for some existing powders, but I also read accounts of people finding success using Ramshot Big Game. Researching further, QuickLoad seemed to like it. Western/Ramshot had no lab testing data, but provided a sheet on 9.3x62mm Mauser and indicated that Big Game would likely be their ideal powder for 9.3x62mm Mauser full power loads. Indeed the load density, and burn rate for Big Game looked to be in the range that works well for this cartridge.

Further research found Ken Waters and John Barsness articles on loading for the 9.3x62 mm Mauser for Handloader Magazine. John Barsness specifically tested Big Game, and touted a load for it.

I recently tested charges with Big Game in 9.3x62mm Mauser, based on this info. I started lower, and went higher than Barsness' loads. Primers didn't flatten, case heads didn't expand, and I found a decent load window to experiment further in.

If you do it carefully, you may be rewarded. In this case, I believe I found a nice load window, with better than 'classic' 9.3x62 velocity.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

It seems like load development without measuring the pressure is lame unless one just wants light loads or to follow someone else's work out of a book.

Essentially handloaders MOST OFTEN develop loads, without pressure testing equipment, following someone else's work.

Most of us stand on the shoulders of giants.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

It is impossible to know what pressures will be generated by a powder where there are no guidelines. Even when there is data the pressure curve is rarely linear. Even looking at the burn rate chart doesn't show the whole picture. The chart will tell you which powder is faster or slower but not HOW Much faster or slower.

If you are saying "best results" as in higher velocity, I suggest a different cartridge instead of hotrodding your current cartridge. If the .38 Special doesn't do it for you switch to the .357 Magnum. The danger involved is just not justified these days with all the cartridge choices and powder choices we have. (IMO of course)

I also ask why?

 

[mdi]

I'm thinking, if you gotta ask that on a forum, you shouldn't do it. I'm all for thinking "outside the box" for reloading, of course with safety foremost, but some things are out of the reach for "hobby reloaders". Perhaps if I did some exhaustive, unbiased research on powders (burn speed, pressure curves, etc.) I might attempt it, but without pressure testing equipment, I doubt it. I have been reloading for a very long time and I still use my manuals for starting loads and maximum loads and have yet to run out of loads to try and newer manuals often have "newer" powders which open up a whole new round of experimenting...

 

[someguy2800]

Also have seen some powders that had loads in old manuals that are not in current manuals. The data is still good but it seems like the manufacturer would rather you use a newer powder.
Green Dot is one of those powders that old books have all kinds of pistol loads new books don't even show loads for that powder.

I think alot of times they are just saving space in the manual by taking out powders that are no longer popular, or ones that there are newer powders that work better or are cleaner. Its not in there interest to publish load combinations that the consumer will be unhappy with.

 

[someguy2800]

I've not messed around much with developing unpublished loads in pistols since all mine are common calibers and load data is plentiful, but I have done quite a bit of it in rifles. There are alot of calibers where either all the load data is 40 years old, or often there is just very little data to be found. You can draw meaningful conclusions by finding other cartridges of a similar capacity, pressure limit, and expansion ratio to make some assumptions on a safe load range. For example if cartridge A has listed as max 48gr 4350, 45 gr 4064, and 44gr Reloader 15, and cartridge B has listed 46gr 4350, 43 gr 4064, and no data for Reloader 15, it would be reasonable to assume by association that 42 grains of RL15 MAY be a safe maximum. Of course as with all things reloading, the warning signs the gun and brass and primers are telling you is more important than a book and have to be heeded.

 

[Bfh_auto]

I did this trying to load for a 7.62 nagant. Case capacity is similar to 32-20 and 32 mag. Mag is higher pressure so it was not as reliable data. I took the percentage difference of case capacity and applied that to the charge weight. I then reduced 10% and started. It worked, but I did a lot of research and rechecked before starting.
Research is your friend. Look for inconsistent powder charge to velocity data. If you find it, run for the hills.
I don't recommend this if there are other options.

 

[Walkalong]

I have done it but if you have to ask how, you probably shouldn't do it. I also would not do it in a gun that was truly only good for 20,000 psi.

Agreed, and kind of out of the scope of what we do here.

That is best done in person, not over the internet.