Reloading Myths - Busted or Confirmed?
- Thread starter LiveLife
- Start date
- Status
I agree. How could someone conceive this. With an explosion pressure is released in all directions until it meets resistance then the pressure is pushed to the point of lest resistance which should be the bullet but if the pressure builds faster then it can be displaced by the bullet moving & exceeds what the chamber can contain it will be released by the chamber coming apart.
This has nothing to do with where the powder is in the case. I believe this has to come from someone dropping a double charge & wanting an excuse for messing up.
The theory is (or at least one) that the powder gets thrown forward, the bullet gets started in the lands a hair, then the powder ignites sending pressures through the roof.
Testing pistol powders in big cases with the powder forward I have found that most give less velocity, many much less, while one in particular gave more velocity. Go figure.
Testing pistol powders in big cases with the powder forward I have found that most give less velocity, many much less, while one in particular gave more velocity. Go figure.
I though the myth was "Using a vacuum cleaner to clean up spilled powder is dangerous".
That would depend on how much powder instead of "Static electricity from a vacuum cleaner can set off powder" wouldn't it.
For an explosion you have to have the pressure contained & a vacuum doesn't do that but if your just saying it might catch on fire you might call it plausible only because MSDS says it can be ignited from ether electric, static, & mechanical shock.
I would have no fear of purring it on a steel surface striking it with a hammer then vacuuming it up in small amounts. 10 pounds would be another story.
1858 that doesn't say the same as the myth says "blow the powder up against the bottom of the bullet causing the pressure to be forced back into the case forcing the bolt back"
I don't have knowledge ether way on how fast the powder burns but it sound likely. Think of a newspaper laying flat & burning then think of it crumpled up a bit& burning. It will burn faster crumpled because there is more surface area. So if the powder is being atomized(I know this isn't the right ward) by the pressure off the primer making more surface area exposed I would say maybe that is possible. I don't know if I believe it but I wouldn't argue with it.
I use reduced loads & sloowww powders & in both if the charge is to light it leaves unburnt powder in the barrel & case. Slow burn powders go up in the barrel still burning so if the above myth was true rifle powders would be more dangers.
The closest to an explanation for this myth starting was from I think jcwit when he said the bullet gets stuck into the lands.
I still don't know if I would believe that ether but it would bust the myth.
My thoughts would be that if a fast powder was used it would be hitting the lands faster then using a slow powder. Giving it a better running start.
I don't have knowledge ether way on how fast the powder burns but it sound likely. Think of a newspaper laying flat & burning then think of it crumpled up a bit& burning. It will burn faster crumpled because there is more surface area. So if the powder is being atomized(I know this isn't the right ward) by the pressure off the primer making more surface area exposed I would say maybe that is possible. I don't know if I believe it but I wouldn't argue with it.
I use reduced loads & sloowww powders & in both if the charge is to light it leaves unburnt powder in the barrel & case. Slow burn powders go up in the barrel still burning so if the above myth was true rifle powders would be more dangers.
The closest to an explanation for this myth starting was from I think jcwit when he said the bullet gets stuck into the lands.
I still don't know if I would believe that ether but it would bust the myth.
My thoughts would be that if a fast powder was used it would be hitting the lands faster then using a slow powder. Giving it a better running start.
blarby
Member
#15
Grandparents have used this'n for years, have passed it on to my parents and their circle of friends....works.
Not sure why, probably causes some form of cancer, but is effective.
Grandparents have used this'n for years, have passed it on to my parents and their circle of friends....works.
Not sure why, probably causes some form of cancer, but is effective.
1858, Thank you for sharing that story with me, I understand but as for helping you I am not qualified. I suggested you measure one case with your new tool, you could have choose to measure cases fired in 10 different rifles but to measure 400 cases to me sounds like you were bored, I did notice you posted another picture of your new Redding tool. And Larry Willis showed you his....(NEW)? head space tool (That is the 'I understand point') and you ask him about 'variations' as in measuring 400 cases I suppose and he responded with the #ONE put down response, that is the one that goes something like "You are over thinking this...etc..' We could put that through the MYTH, fact or fiction because others could disagree and say the #ONE put down response goes something like "Why make it more complicated than it has to be"
About your story, I try to keep my monitor level/plumb/horizontal with the desk top, not easy with all the rediscoveries made and there is a rush to the right and or left, and that is what tilts my monitor. The I finally saw the light was one of those moments. I have a Vanguard non Weatherby chamberd in a non Weatherby 300 Win Mag. It shoots one hole groups, it did not come out of the box that way but with 4 boxes of Federal ammo the 74th round was absolute dead center, the next 5 rounds went through the same hole.
I took some heat from friends for purchasing a Weatherby but, that had nothing to do with me proving them wrong, instead I felt lucky purchased a rifle that was that accurate.
I did not have an epiphany, I did not over think it, I did not make it more complicated by saying AH HAW, full length sizing (minimum length), that is it, because? A man with a Vanguard 300 Win Mag won the contest with new (minimum length) ammo, that logic does not have logic. BUT, I have a new Model 70 Winchester chambered in 300 Win MAG, shooting the same ammo when compared to the non Weatherby shot patterns, cases fired in the non Weatherby would fall into the chamber of the Winchester with a clink, the case did not touch the chamber until the belt got there. Going the other way cases fired in the Winchester would have 2/3 of the case protruding from the chamber of the Weatherby. I do not expect one single person reading this to understand the difference between the two chambers was time related (my opinion).
As to the champion shooter and Federal ammo, some say that means nothing because the shooter did not try other ammo or attempt to reload for the rifle, therefore no conclusions could be drawn am a big fan of the leaver policy, when something shoots that good, leaver the way you founder, BIT I sent my son off to school with the Weatherby, and another box of Federal ammo, after three tears if school and shooting he needed more ammo, then he calls and shares with me the success of another good hunting season, and I say to him something meaningless like ' now do you see how the effort and time pays off when everything comes together as with the rifle, range time and ammo. AMMO?! he says, what do you mean ammo? Needless to say that rifle has not seen another round of Federal ammo since he left for school and that has been close to 14 years ago. The Winchester was sent back to Winchester with the ugliest chamber I have ever seen, too large in diameter and too long from the bolt face to the chamber, and chatter marks, lots of chatter marks that would be better described as gouges, we had words, I have no clue as to what they did to correct the problem but every description given to me for repairs, if done, made the chamber larger, one day I will go to the range with the Winchester and try again, or not.
Then there was the ring around the ring around the ring, someone could not find the three rings, my first thought was to say "Your hand, look in you hand, it is in your hand, the bolt, look at the bolt in your hand, the third ring is on the bolt" Instead I said, "Lets count them, one ring protrudes from the barrel and surrounds the case head, that is one, another is the receiver ring itself, that is two, and the third in on the bolt, it surrounds the case head when a case is chambered so that is three rings, then there was the discussion about getting a Sako type extractor, then there was the about part being impossible to close the bolt and expect a case to center in the chamber.
F. Guffey
About your story, I try to keep my monitor level/plumb/horizontal with the desk top, not easy with all the rediscoveries made and there is a rush to the right and or left, and that is what tilts my monitor. The I finally saw the light was one of those moments. I have a Vanguard non Weatherby chamberd in a non Weatherby 300 Win Mag. It shoots one hole groups, it did not come out of the box that way but with 4 boxes of Federal ammo the 74th round was absolute dead center, the next 5 rounds went through the same hole.
I took some heat from friends for purchasing a Weatherby but, that had nothing to do with me proving them wrong, instead I felt lucky purchased a rifle that was that accurate.
I did not have an epiphany, I did not over think it, I did not make it more complicated by saying AH HAW, full length sizing (minimum length), that is it, because? A man with a Vanguard 300 Win Mag won the contest with new (minimum length) ammo, that logic does not have logic. BUT, I have a new Model 70 Winchester chambered in 300 Win MAG, shooting the same ammo when compared to the non Weatherby shot patterns, cases fired in the non Weatherby would fall into the chamber of the Winchester with a clink, the case did not touch the chamber until the belt got there. Going the other way cases fired in the Winchester would have 2/3 of the case protruding from the chamber of the Weatherby. I do not expect one single person reading this to understand the difference between the two chambers was time related (my opinion).
As to the champion shooter and Federal ammo, some say that means nothing because the shooter did not try other ammo or attempt to reload for the rifle, therefore no conclusions could be drawn am a big fan of the leaver policy, when something shoots that good, leaver the way you founder, BIT I sent my son off to school with the Weatherby, and another box of Federal ammo, after three tears if school and shooting he needed more ammo, then he calls and shares with me the success of another good hunting season, and I say to him something meaningless like ' now do you see how the effort and time pays off when everything comes together as with the rifle, range time and ammo. AMMO?! he says, what do you mean ammo? Needless to say that rifle has not seen another round of Federal ammo since he left for school and that has been close to 14 years ago. The Winchester was sent back to Winchester with the ugliest chamber I have ever seen, too large in diameter and too long from the bolt face to the chamber, and chatter marks, lots of chatter marks that would be better described as gouges, we had words, I have no clue as to what they did to correct the problem but every description given to me for repairs, if done, made the chamber larger, one day I will go to the range with the Winchester and try again, or not.
Then there was the ring around the ring around the ring, someone could not find the three rings, my first thought was to say "Your hand, look in you hand, it is in your hand, the bolt, look at the bolt in your hand, the third ring is on the bolt" Instead I said, "Lets count them, one ring protrudes from the barrel and surrounds the case head, that is one, another is the receiver ring itself, that is two, and the third in on the bolt, it surrounds the case head when a case is chambered so that is three rings, then there was the discussion about getting a Sako type extractor, then there was the about part being impossible to close the bolt and expect a case to center in the chamber.
F. Guffey
1858, Thank you for sharing that story with me, I understand but as for helping you I am not qualified. I suggested you measure one case with your new tool, you could have choose to measure cases fired in 10 different rifles but to measure 400 cases to me sounds like you were bored, I did notice you posted another picture of your new Redding tool. And Larry Willis showed you his....(NEW)? head space tool (That is the 'I understand point') and you ask him about 'variations' as in measuring 400 cases I suppose and he responded with the #ONE put down response, that is the one that goes something like "You are over thinking this...etc..' We could put that through the MYTH, fact or fiction because others could disagree and say the #ONE put down response goes something like "Why make it more complicated than it has to be"
About your story, I try to keep my monitor level/plumb/horizontal with the desk top, not easy with all the rediscoveries made and there is a rush to the right and or left, and that is what tilts my monitor. The I finally saw the light was one of those moments. I have a Vanguard non Weatherby chamberd in a non Weatherby 300 Win Mag. It shoots one hole groups, it did not come out of the box that way but with 4 boxes of Federal ammo the 74th round was absolute dead center, the next 5 rounds went through the same hole.
I took some heat from friends for purchasing a Weatherby but, that had nothing to do with me proving them wrong, instead I felt lucky purchased a rifle that was that accurate.
I did not have an epiphany, I did not over think it, I did not make it more complicated by saying AH HAW, full length sizing (minimum length), that is it, because? A man with a Vanguard 300 Win Mag won the contest with new (minimum length) ammo, that logic does not have logic. BUT, I have a new Model 70 Winchester chambered in 300 Win MAG, shooting the same ammo when compared to the non Weatherby shot patterns, cases fired in the non Weatherby would fall into the chamber of the Winchester with a clink, the case did not touch the chamber until the belt got there. Going the other way cases fired in the Winchester would have 2/3 of the case protruding from the chamber of the Weatherby. I do not expect one single person reading this to understand the difference between the two chambers was time related (my opinion).
As to the champion shooter and Federal ammo, some say that means nothing because the shooter did not try other ammo or attempt to reload for the rifle, therefore no conclusions could be drawn am a big fan of the leaver policy, when something shoots that good, leaver the way you founder, BIT I sent my son off to school with the Weatherby, and another box of Federal ammo, after three tears if school and shooting he needed more ammo, then he calls and shares with me the success of another good hunting season, and I say to him something meaningless like ' now do you see how the effort and time pays off when everything comes together as with the rifle, range time and ammo. AMMO?! he says, what do you mean ammo? Needless to say that rifle has not seen another round of Federal ammo since he left for school and that has been close to 14 years ago. The Winchester was sent back to Winchester with the ugliest chamber I have ever seen, too large in diameter and too long from the bolt face to the chamber, and chatter marks, lots of chatter marks that would be better described as gouges, we had words, I have no clue as to what they did to correct the problem but every description given to me for repairs, if done, made the chamber larger, one day I will go to the range with the Winchester and try again, or not.
Then there was the ring around the ring around the ring, someone could not find the three rings, my first thought was to say "Your hand, look in you hand, it is in your hand, the bolt, look at the bolt in your hand, the third ring is on the bolt" Instead I said, "Lets count them, one ring protrudes from the barrel and surrounds the case head, that is one, another is the receiver ring itself, that is two, and the third in on the bolt, it surrounds the case head when a case is chambered so that is three rings, then there was the discussion about getting a Sako type extractor, then there was the about part being impossible to close the bolt and expect a case to center in the chamber.
F. Guffey
About your story, I try to keep my monitor level/plumb/horizontal with the desk top, not easy with all the rediscoveries made and there is a rush to the right and or left, and that is what tilts my monitor. The I finally saw the light was one of those moments. I have a Vanguard non Weatherby chamberd in a non Weatherby 300 Win Mag. It shoots one hole groups, it did not come out of the box that way but with 4 boxes of Federal ammo the 74th round was absolute dead center, the next 5 rounds went through the same hole.
I took some heat from friends for purchasing a Weatherby but, that had nothing to do with me proving them wrong, instead I felt lucky purchased a rifle that was that accurate.
I did not have an epiphany, I did not over think it, I did not make it more complicated by saying AH HAW, full length sizing (minimum length), that is it, because? A man with a Vanguard 300 Win Mag won the contest with new (minimum length) ammo, that logic does not have logic. BUT, I have a new Model 70 Winchester chambered in 300 Win MAG, shooting the same ammo when compared to the non Weatherby shot patterns, cases fired in the non Weatherby would fall into the chamber of the Winchester with a clink, the case did not touch the chamber until the belt got there. Going the other way cases fired in the Winchester would have 2/3 of the case protruding from the chamber of the Weatherby. I do not expect one single person reading this to understand the difference between the two chambers was time related (my opinion).
As to the champion shooter and Federal ammo, some say that means nothing because the shooter did not try other ammo or attempt to reload for the rifle, therefore no conclusions could be drawn am a big fan of the leaver policy, when something shoots that good, leaver the way you founder, BIT I sent my son off to school with the Weatherby, and another box of Federal ammo, after three tears if school and shooting he needed more ammo, then he calls and shares with me the success of another good hunting season, and I say to him something meaningless like ' now do you see how the effort and time pays off when everything comes together as with the rifle, range time and ammo. AMMO?! he says, what do you mean ammo? Needless to say that rifle has not seen another round of Federal ammo since he left for school and that has been close to 14 years ago. The Winchester was sent back to Winchester with the ugliest chamber I have ever seen, too large in diameter and too long from the bolt face to the chamber, and chatter marks, lots of chatter marks that would be better described as gouges, we had words, I have no clue as to what they did to correct the problem but every description given to me for repairs, if done, made the chamber larger, one day I will go to the range with the Winchester and try again, or not.
Then there was the ring around the ring around the ring, someone could not find the three rings, my first thought was to say "Your hand, look in you hand, it is in your hand, the bolt, look at the bolt in your hand, the third ring is on the bolt" Instead I said, "Lets count them, one ring protrudes from the barrel and surrounds the case head, that is one, another is the receiver ring itself, that is two, and the third in on the bolt, it surrounds the case head when a case is chambered so that is three rings, then there was the discussion about getting a Sako type extractor, then there was the about part being impossible to close the bolt and expect a case to center in the chamber.
F. Guffey
Before the Internet, that is not the same as once upon a time, a study was done I believe because the test was done by a research group in
Europe the findings were discredited by gun types and writers in this country but the short story is/was: Powder is position sensitive, reduced loads can reduce your firearm scrap, because of this I am not a fan of reduced loads, they concluded it is not easy to get the same results every time but for me they claimed avoiding reduced loads reduces the chance your firearm will swarm on you.
And they explained it as being a problem with powder laying in the case from the case head to the base of the bullet when the primer ignites. the space over the powder allows the flash/ignition of the primer to create a flame over the powder laying in the case they claim the problem is caused with the surface area of the powder ignites from the top down as in a short column causing a short burn time (about that time everyone starts to argue) then the research lap that no one takes serious says the short burn time may not be as much of a problem as the primer causes, meaning they said the primer firing over the top of the powder pushes the bullet into the rifling, still not a problem until they explain getting the bullet to move with free bore is easy but after the bullet hits the rifling, IT STOPS! and they say there lies the problem, the bullet can not get out of the way fast enough and with the spike in pressure is too great and the bullet can not get moving fast enough, I think of it as 'sudden shock' The research lab did not talk it to death, and did not spend 20 plus years going back and forth, they released the report and then went back to doing what they do best.
As Alex Hawkins said "That is my story and I am sticking to it"
F. Guffey
Europe the findings were discredited by gun types and writers in this country but the short story is/was: Powder is position sensitive, reduced loads can reduce your firearm scrap, because of this I am not a fan of reduced loads, they concluded it is not easy to get the same results every time but for me they claimed avoiding reduced loads reduces the chance your firearm will swarm on you.
And they explained it as being a problem with powder laying in the case from the case head to the base of the bullet when the primer ignites. the space over the powder allows the flash/ignition of the primer to create a flame over the powder laying in the case they claim the problem is caused with the surface area of the powder ignites from the top down as in a short column causing a short burn time (about that time everyone starts to argue) then the research lap that no one takes serious says the short burn time may not be as much of a problem as the primer causes, meaning they said the primer firing over the top of the powder pushes the bullet into the rifling, still not a problem until they explain getting the bullet to move with free bore is easy but after the bullet hits the rifling, IT STOPS! and they say there lies the problem, the bullet can not get out of the way fast enough and with the spike in pressure is too great and the bullet can not get moving fast enough, I think of it as 'sudden shock' The research lab did not talk it to death, and did not spend 20 plus years going back and forth, they released the report and then went back to doing what they do best.
As Alex Hawkins said "That is my story and I am sticking to it"
F. Guffey
Last edited:
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
OK, another update.
MYTH #1A - Shooting residue in barrel will wear steel barrels - CONFIRMED: Shooting residue (carbon, ash, grit, etc.) may get harder than regular steel barrel surface and scratch/wear if left in the barrel.
MYTH #1B - Shooting residue in barrel may wear surface hardened barrels (Glock Tennifer/M&P Melonite).
MYTH #2 - When scrubbing leading out of barrels, you should only use copper scrubbing pad material, not copper plated steel/stainless steel.
MYTH #3 - WD40 will remove bluing on metal - BUSTED: Per WD-40 company.
MYTH #4 - Glock/M&P barrels are coated with Tennifer/Melonite - BUSTED: They are surface hardening treatments not finish coating.
MYTH #5 - 5.56 Military brass has less case capacity than Commercial 223 brass.
MYTH #6 - Reduced OAL on bottle neck rifle rounds will increase pressure.
MYTH #7 - The people who reply to your post really care about your problem, issue, opinion - PLAUSIBLE? I have seen both sides of posts.
MYTH #8 - To achieve top velocity you use a faster burning propellant for short barrels and slower for long
MYTH #9 - Using Lee Powder Dippers results in inaccurate and dangerous ammo.
MYTH #10 - WD 40 is a great cleaner
MYTH #11 - Crimped ammunition is more consistent (started by a certain die manufacturer) - PLAUSIBLE or CONFIRMED? Voting open.
MYTH #12 - If you store smokeless powder (15lb. or less) in approved containers in your garage or in a closet, it is likely to explode if the garage or house catches on fire - BUSTED: Powder "burns" and cannot generate enough pressure in approved containers (designed to relieve pressure) to create high velocity explosion.
MYTH #13 - A hand loader should never use a powder charge greater than the maximum shown in the reloading manual or in the reloading data produced by the powder manufacturer - CONFIRMED for THR mods
MYTH #14 - A careful handloader can usually produce ammo that shoots with more precision (smaller groups) than factory ammo - CONFIRMED - Based on countless handloaders/reloaders' experience
MYTH #15 - Some ranchers, traditional healers, and alternative medicine healers use WD40 to relieve joint pain and stiffness by spraying it directly on their knees, elbows, shoulders, wrists, or other joints - PLAUSIBLE?
MYTH #16 - For reloads shot in the same bolt rifle, neck sizing only, produces superior ammunition (velocity SD, accuracy and precision) compared to full-length sizing.
MYTH #17 - All is forgiven if new cases are used because there is enough stretch in a new case to prevent incipient case head separation.
MYTH #18A - Static electricity from a vacuum cleaner can set off powder - PLAUSIBLE? Or should we better qualify by adding "with some powders"?
MYTH #18B - Using a vacuum cleaner to clean up spilled powder is dangerous - BUSTED? I unintentionally did a test this weekend and vacuumed up a good amount of powder (even with a machine that has a brush roller, not a shop vac)
MYTH #19 - If you use powder that fills less then half the case the blast of the primer can blow the powder up against the bottom of the bullet causing the pressure to be forced back into the case forcing the bolt back causing a KABOOM - PLAUSIBLE or CONFIRMED?
MYTH #20 - People on Gun forums on the internet know more about reloading, and what loads are safe than, Lyman, Speer, Hornady, Or Ruger - PLAUSIBLE for some loads/firearms/manuals?
MYTH #1A - Shooting residue in barrel will wear steel barrels - CONFIRMED: Shooting residue (carbon, ash, grit, etc.) may get harder than regular steel barrel surface and scratch/wear if left in the barrel.
MYTH #1B - Shooting residue in barrel may wear surface hardened barrels (Glock Tennifer/M&P Melonite).
MYTH #2 - When scrubbing leading out of barrels, you should only use copper scrubbing pad material, not copper plated steel/stainless steel.
MYTH #3 - WD40 will remove bluing on metal - BUSTED: Per WD-40 company.
MYTH #4 - Glock/M&P barrels are coated with Tennifer/Melonite - BUSTED: They are surface hardening treatments not finish coating.
MYTH #5 - 5.56 Military brass has less case capacity than Commercial 223 brass.
MYTH #6 - Reduced OAL on bottle neck rifle rounds will increase pressure.
MYTH #7 - The people who reply to your post really care about your problem, issue, opinion - PLAUSIBLE? I have seen both sides of posts.
MYTH #8 - To achieve top velocity you use a faster burning propellant for short barrels and slower for long
MYTH #9 - Using Lee Powder Dippers results in inaccurate and dangerous ammo.
MYTH #10 - WD 40 is a great cleaner
MYTH #11 - Crimped ammunition is more consistent (started by a certain die manufacturer) - PLAUSIBLE or CONFIRMED? Voting open.
MYTH #12 - If you store smokeless powder (15lb. or less) in approved containers in your garage or in a closet, it is likely to explode if the garage or house catches on fire - BUSTED: Powder "burns" and cannot generate enough pressure in approved containers (designed to relieve pressure) to create high velocity explosion.
MYTH #13 - A hand loader should never use a powder charge greater than the maximum shown in the reloading manual or in the reloading data produced by the powder manufacturer - CONFIRMED for THR mods
MYTH #14 - A careful handloader can usually produce ammo that shoots with more precision (smaller groups) than factory ammo - CONFIRMED - Based on countless handloaders/reloaders' experience
MYTH #15 - Some ranchers, traditional healers, and alternative medicine healers use WD40 to relieve joint pain and stiffness by spraying it directly on their knees, elbows, shoulders, wrists, or other joints - PLAUSIBLE?
MYTH #16 - For reloads shot in the same bolt rifle, neck sizing only, produces superior ammunition (velocity SD, accuracy and precision) compared to full-length sizing.
MYTH #17 - All is forgiven if new cases are used because there is enough stretch in a new case to prevent incipient case head separation.
MYTH #18A - Static electricity from a vacuum cleaner can set off powder - PLAUSIBLE? Or should we better qualify by adding "with some powders"?
MYTH #18B - Using a vacuum cleaner to clean up spilled powder is dangerous - BUSTED? I unintentionally did a test this weekend and vacuumed up a good amount of powder (even with a machine that has a brush roller, not a shop vac)
MYTH #19 - If you use powder that fills less then half the case the blast of the primer can blow the powder up against the bottom of the bullet causing the pressure to be forced back into the case forcing the bolt back causing a KABOOM - PLAUSIBLE or CONFIRMED?
MYTH #20 - People on Gun forums on the internet know more about reloading, and what loads are safe than, Lyman, Speer, Hornady, Or Ruger - PLAUSIBLE for some loads/firearms/manuals?
R.W.Dale
Member
As far as I'm concerned the load data I posted busted the pee out of MYTH #8
Tapatalk post via IPhone.
Tapatalk post via IPhone.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
MYTH #8 - To achieve top velocity you use a faster burning propellant for short barrels and slower for long - BUSTED
That was easy.
Any comments?
That was easy.
Any comments?
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
This myth is targeted mostly towards the news guys:
That's a myth I've heard many times over the years, and even quite a few of my coworkers in law enforcement believe I'm crazy for loading my own ammo.
Honestly, I believed that myth for many years myself, and probably gave up far too many years of making cheap high-quality ammunition! In my case I was soured to the idea of hand loading after I bought some poor quality (dangerous) reloads from a guy at a local gun shop. I don't know what was wrong with his loading process, but in retrospect I feel fortunate that I didn't have my gun blow up in my hand. The ammo I bought from this guy was cheap, and I was younger and dumber at the time. When fired, this ammo showed a lot of signs that I now recognize as serious pressure issues. Fortunately my gun never got damaged. But, the ammo didn't feed properly, and I had a number of stuck casings before I gave up on shooting hand loads altogether (that was probably in 1996-98 or so).
REALITY CHECK:
I started rolling my own ammo about three years ago, and excluding the ammo I shoot for work I almost exclusively fire my own hand loads these days. In this time I've loaded thousands of rounds of ammo in 7 different calibers, and I've yet to have a single malfunction or problem.
Of equal importance, I've been able to tailor my ammunition to my needs, and my results have been better than any factory ammunition I've ever used.
MYTH said:
That's a myth I've heard many times over the years, and even quite a few of my coworkers in law enforcement believe I'm crazy for loading my own ammo.
Honestly, I believed that myth for many years myself, and probably gave up far too many years of making cheap high-quality ammunition! In my case I was soured to the idea of hand loading after I bought some poor quality (dangerous) reloads from a guy at a local gun shop. I don't know what was wrong with his loading process, but in retrospect I feel fortunate that I didn't have my gun blow up in my hand. The ammo I bought from this guy was cheap, and I was younger and dumber at the time. When fired, this ammo showed a lot of signs that I now recognize as serious pressure issues. Fortunately my gun never got damaged. But, the ammo didn't feed properly, and I had a number of stuck casings before I gave up on shooting hand loads altogether (that was probably in 1996-98 or so).
REALITY CHECK:
I started rolling my own ammo about three years ago, and excluding the ammo I shoot for work I almost exclusively fire my own hand loads these days. In this time I've loaded thousands of rounds of ammo in 7 different calibers, and I've yet to have a single malfunction or problem.
Of equal importance, I've been able to tailor my ammunition to my needs, and my results have been better than any factory ammunition I've ever used.
denton
Member
Myth 5: I exclusively shoot Lake City brass in my 223, and I did check the case capacity vs. Federal Cartridge brass. The Lake City has more case capacity. This is the reverse of the situation with 308 brass.
Myth 13: I guess I may brand myself as a looney with this, but there are times that it is perfectly OK to exceed "book loads". If you have pressure measuring equipment, and I do, there is absolutely nothing wrong with running the 7x57 or the 6.5x55 at 30-06 pressures in a modern firearm.
Myth 19: Right effect, wrong mechanism. With slow burning powders operating below 30,000 PSI, pressures become much more erratic. Half a case of 4831 in your 270 or 30-06 will, once in a great while, blow up your rifle. It has been done several times.
Now for some new fodder:
Myth 21: You can successfully estimate chamber pressure from case dimensions (PRE or CHE). Truth is, you can do this only by averaging a prohibitively large number of cases. Measuring 2-3 cases produces a very unreliable result. If this system really worked, the publishers of reloading manuals would have switched to it rather than away from it.
Myth 22: CUP and PSI are not correlated. They definitely are. SAAMI's original position was that they are one and the same, and data from copper crusher systems were routinely reported as PSI. Then SAAMI switched positions and said that they are not correlated. Perfect score: Both positions are incorrect.
Myth 23: You get higher MV in hot weather because the initial temperature of the powder is higher. Nope. You get higher MV in hot weather because hot steel, brass, and lead "rob" less energy out of the propulsion gas than cold metals do.
Myth 13: I guess I may brand myself as a looney with this, but there are times that it is perfectly OK to exceed "book loads". If you have pressure measuring equipment, and I do, there is absolutely nothing wrong with running the 7x57 or the 6.5x55 at 30-06 pressures in a modern firearm.
Myth 19: Right effect, wrong mechanism. With slow burning powders operating below 30,000 PSI, pressures become much more erratic. Half a case of 4831 in your 270 or 30-06 will, once in a great while, blow up your rifle. It has been done several times.
Now for some new fodder:
Myth 21: You can successfully estimate chamber pressure from case dimensions (PRE or CHE). Truth is, you can do this only by averaging a prohibitively large number of cases. Measuring 2-3 cases produces a very unreliable result. If this system really worked, the publishers of reloading manuals would have switched to it rather than away from it.
Myth 22: CUP and PSI are not correlated. They definitely are. SAAMI's original position was that they are one and the same, and data from copper crusher systems were routinely reported as PSI. Then SAAMI switched positions and said that they are not correlated. Perfect score: Both positions are incorrect.
Myth 23: You get higher MV in hot weather because the initial temperature of the powder is higher. Nope. You get higher MV in hot weather because hot steel, brass, and lead "rob" less energy out of the propulsion gas than cold metals do.
USSR
Member
Not a chance. If they are correlated, then please give the formula that links the two methods of pressure measurement and explain: the .30-06 is rated at 50k CUP and 60K psi, and the .357 Magnum is rated at 45k CUP and 35k psi?
Don
denton
Member
Here's the link you need, second article down:
http://www.shootingsoftware.com/tech.htm
The formula USSR requested is given in the article.
Long after I published my article I was very pleased to find that Dr. Brownell and preceded me by a few decades and had already published the conversion.
As to the question of the 357 Mag, you have to remember that specifications are made by men. The PSI and CUP numbers cited are man-made specifications. The laws of physics rule how copper pellets and piezoelectric transducers respond to cartridges.
It is a mathematical impossibility to have two systems that successfully measure the same thing that do not produce correlated results. Also remember that "correlation" does not imply an always-perfect conversion. Systems that approximately convert are correlated, but not perfect.
Hope you enjoy the article.
http://www.shootingsoftware.com/tech.htm
The formula USSR requested is given in the article.
Long after I published my article I was very pleased to find that Dr. Brownell and preceded me by a few decades and had already published the conversion.
As to the question of the 357 Mag, you have to remember that specifications are made by men. The PSI and CUP numbers cited are man-made specifications. The laws of physics rule how copper pellets and piezoelectric transducers respond to cartridges.
It is a mathematical impossibility to have two systems that successfully measure the same thing that do not produce correlated results. Also remember that "correlation" does not imply an always-perfect conversion. Systems that approximately convert are correlated, but not perfect.
Hope you enjoy the article.
USSR
Member
denton,
Okay, let's take that formula and apply it to the .357 Magnum: 45,000 (CUP spec) x 1.51586 = 68,213.7, then subtract 17,902 and the psi = 50,311.7, whoops, it says the psi is 5,000 higher than the CUP, when it is actually 10,000 lower than the CUP spec. Do you see now why there is no direct correlation? With many handgun and low powered cartridges, the CUP is higher than the psi, so with some cartridges with a higher psi than CUP, and some cartridges with a higher CUP than psi, there can be no correlation. The article you referred to is wrong.
Don
Okay, let's take that formula and apply it to the .357 Magnum: 45,000 (CUP spec) x 1.51586 = 68,213.7, then subtract 17,902 and the psi = 50,311.7, whoops, it says the psi is 5,000 higher than the CUP, when it is actually 10,000 lower than the CUP spec. Do you see now why there is no direct correlation? With many handgun and low powered cartridges, the CUP is higher than the psi, so with some cartridges with a higher psi than CUP, and some cartridges with a higher CUP than psi, there can be no correlation. The article you referred to is wrong.
Don
denton
Member
Don, as I said, specifications are man-made. When comparing specifications, you have to be able to make the assumption that the men who made them applied the rules consistently. There are some cases in the SAAMI specifications where that is not so. Generally it is, but not always. The 223 seems to be one case where the rules were inconsistently applied, for example.
Also, if you read the article carefully, you'll see that my little straight-line conversion applies only to rifle cartridges. So all talk of the 357 is outside the scope of the article.
Finally, you make the argument that since low pressure CUPs are often higher than PSI, while at higher pressure the reverse is true the two scales cannot be correlated. This has actually absolutely nothing to do with whether the two scales are correlated. Many, if not most, conversion scales have a crossover point. For example, -40 C is also -40 F. That is the point where the two scales cross. Above that point, the temperature C is always less than then temperature F. Below that point, the reverse is true. Yet the two scales are perfectly correlated and can be converted with complete accuracy.
As you add more powder does PSI tend to go up? As you add more powder, does CUP also tend to go up? Yes to both. And that does establish correlation without further evidence.
Once again, do not expect the formula to give you a perfect answer. CUP predicts PSI about as well as PSI predicts PSI. Suppose you create a very large batch of very uniform ammunition. Then you randomly draw out 10 cartridges and give them to a technician for pressure testing. Once you have your result, draw another 10 cartridges and give them to the same tech, using the same equipment, on the same day. As nearly as I can estimate, he'll do well to repeat his measurement within 1,000 PSI. Even if you know what a sample tested last time, you cannot predict exactly what it will test next time. So even using the same equipment and the same tech, you cannot perfectly predict PSI within the same lot of ammo. That is what ultimately limits the accuracy of the conversion.
BTW, I wrote that article for Varmint Hunter.
Also, if you read the article carefully, you'll see that my little straight-line conversion applies only to rifle cartridges. So all talk of the 357 is outside the scope of the article.
Finally, you make the argument that since low pressure CUPs are often higher than PSI, while at higher pressure the reverse is true the two scales cannot be correlated. This has actually absolutely nothing to do with whether the two scales are correlated. Many, if not most, conversion scales have a crossover point. For example, -40 C is also -40 F. That is the point where the two scales cross. Above that point, the temperature C is always less than then temperature F. Below that point, the reverse is true. Yet the two scales are perfectly correlated and can be converted with complete accuracy.
As you add more powder does PSI tend to go up? As you add more powder, does CUP also tend to go up? Yes to both. And that does establish correlation without further evidence.
Once again, do not expect the formula to give you a perfect answer. CUP predicts PSI about as well as PSI predicts PSI. Suppose you create a very large batch of very uniform ammunition. Then you randomly draw out 10 cartridges and give them to a technician for pressure testing. Once you have your result, draw another 10 cartridges and give them to the same tech, using the same equipment, on the same day. As nearly as I can estimate, he'll do well to repeat his measurement within 1,000 PSI. Even if you know what a sample tested last time, you cannot predict exactly what it will test next time. So even using the same equipment and the same tech, you cannot perfectly predict PSI within the same lot of ammo. That is what ultimately limits the accuracy of the conversion.
BTW, I wrote that article for Varmint Hunter.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
Myth 22: CUP and PSI are not correlated. They definitely are. SAAMI's original position was that they are one and the same, and data from copper crusher systems were routinely reported as PSI. Then SAAMI switched positions and said that they are not correlated. Perfect score: Both positions are incorrect.
It is my understanding that the old standard was that crusher gauges were calibrated by dead load or hydraulics which give values in pounds (force) per square inch. It was only after piezoelectric transducers with their fast rise time started giving different numbers than crushers that the distinction was made. Then the term Copper Unit of Pressure was coined to show crusher readings and the assumption was made that electronic transducers were the Gospel of psi. (The US Army is not a member of SAAMI and clung to crushers calibrated in pounds per square inch for some time, which has given rise to the Internet Wisdom that the .308 Winchester is a substantially "hotter" load than 7.62 ball.)
As said, you can correlate any two numbers. But even if you get a pretty good correlation, it can be risky to use one to predict the other in advance of measurement.
It is my understanding that the old standard was that crusher gauges were calibrated by dead load or hydraulics which give values in pounds (force) per square inch. It was only after piezoelectric transducers with their fast rise time started giving different numbers than crushers that the distinction was made. Then the term Copper Unit of Pressure was coined to show crusher readings and the assumption was made that electronic transducers were the Gospel of psi. (The US Army is not a member of SAAMI and clung to crushers calibrated in pounds per square inch for some time, which has given rise to the Internet Wisdom that the .308 Winchester is a substantially "hotter" load than 7.62 ball.)
As said, you can correlate any two numbers. But even if you get a pretty good correlation, it can be risky to use one to predict the other in advance of measurement.
denton
Member
Jim, I believe that your account of the history of the two measurement systems is exactly correct, except that I can't vouch for the 308/7.62 statement which sounds right to me.
Of course using an empirical conversion does carry the possibility of inaccuracy. That's why Confidence Intervals and Prediction Intervals are used to indicate how good the conversion is.
As it turns out, it's a pretty good conversion. Both the CUP and piezoelectric systems have more error in them than most people expect. Near the middle of the conversion range, the formula is about as precise as what you can expect from a piezo pressure testing lab. Near the ends, it has about twice that much random error. That's still more than adequate for many purposes.
The reason I developed the formula is that I wanted to find the PSI equivalent to the CUP spec I had for a milsurp Swedish Mauser. For that, it returned a very useful number.
Of course using an empirical conversion does carry the possibility of inaccuracy. That's why Confidence Intervals and Prediction Intervals are used to indicate how good the conversion is.
As it turns out, it's a pretty good conversion. Both the CUP and piezoelectric systems have more error in them than most people expect. Near the middle of the conversion range, the formula is about as precise as what you can expect from a piezo pressure testing lab. Near the ends, it has about twice that much random error. That's still more than adequate for many purposes.
The reason I developed the formula is that I wanted to find the PSI equivalent to the CUP spec I had for a milsurp Swedish Mauser. For that, it returned a very useful number.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
