Similar recipe for Gold Dot 135 Short Barrel

Status
Not open for further replies.
True Blue is like AA #2 in one regard. It gives real low ES & SD numbers, that's for sure. I just started trying it and it has real potential.

Both are "non flattened" small diameter ball powders, True Blue being very tiny. They flow like water through a meter and that may be part of the reason they give good numbers. I don't know. ;)
 
Can you hear me now?;)

WA, the real differences, you're already familiar with, so I'll go into it for everyone else. Where #2 and True Blue differ is obviously burn rate, so I'll mention the second to reinforce your sneaky suspicion: bulk density!

#2 is 650 Grams per liter, True Blue is 935 grams per liter. Combine that level of density with the extremely small sphere's and VOILA! I hope I've mentioned this before because I'm pretty sure I have: dense powders that meter this well do aid in the quest for lower extreme spread and standard deviation. Naturally, the chemical composition is the greater reason, but those Belgians made it that small for a reason. Since I started the quest to inform the reloading world of how good a powder True Blue really is, I've learned to pretty much disregard the detractors. I've heard all the complaints that have little validity, except for maybe the lazy.

1. It's dirty. Not at higher pressure and, what powder are you judging it by when you call it dirty? Can't be Unique or 231! Hopefully, they learned how to adequately clean a handgun before they started feeding it handloads! Very few powders see greater use for IPSC 9mm Major than True Blue. The only ones I can think of are Silhouette, 3N37 and good old HS-6.

2. Pressure spikes. Anyone that has had a pressure spike with this powder was overlooking a significant mistake they made in reloading with it. This is one of the most uniform powders that you'll ever see that comes under the heading of double-base. I like to cite the fact that FNH uses it to load their factory 5.7mm. Many don't see the significance when you're talking about the most common powders. True Blue is useful for all handgun cartridges. Serious loaders of 5.7 and 7.62 X 25mm know that there are very few powders that will get it done with excellent results. Okay, so there are others that are as broad, or nearly as broad in application as True Blue. How do they perform in a tougher test like the 5.7 or the 7.62 X 25? Now assume the IPSC top level competitors that push the envelope don't know what a pressure spike is, or what powder they need to use to avoid them.

Many of us consider ourselves to be pretty serious reloaders, so how does one overlook a powder that can provide single digit Standard Deviations in every cartridge there's load data for? In many cases, multiple bullet weight loads in a single caliber. I've seen the pressure curve analysis. From start to peak pressure, this is one of the most gradual risers I've ever seen, but then again, I do know how to digest pressure curve analysis.

Maybe I need to have someone explain to me what uniformity actually is!;)

Ten years from now, True Blue will be one of the most popular handgun propellants available to reloaders, unless something better comes along. I won't be holding my breath. In my experience, no matter how good a new powder is, it will take a minimum of 5 years to catch on. Sadly, this is why WAP was discontinued, as well as Vectan SP-2. Fortunately for all of us, we got WAP back, renamed and repackaged as Ramshot Silhouette. Go out on a limb and pick some up for your 9mm and .40 S&W loads. 10mm or .38 Super? Hell yeah! I know how much you like WSF, and it is an exceptional powder and not that different from Sil. This is the closest powder I've ever seen to V-V 3N37. And since I mentioned it, KODB, 3N37 will work very well for your needs and I believe that has been mentioned already. I would also recommend Silhouette, but there is no data. I have my estimates for other powders you can use data from to get a start charge, and maybe at some point we'll explore that, but I am leary of putting it up because of the newer reloaders we have coming on board. So when people go around assuming that the guys that develop load data are akin to God in some way: THINK AGAIN! Last I checked, there is no degree program in the US for ballisticians. The bulk of them come from mechanical and chemical engineering background. Obviously, they understand math and physics, but where they earn the bulk of their $ is in protecting their employers from civil liability.

There is no valid reason why we shouldn't have Silhouette data exactly for this application. Both .38 Special +P and short barrel .357 Magnum defense oriented, or defense practice loads. I've already contacted Ramshot about it and gave them a start load I've worked up for them. It consists of the following: 140 Gr. Rem. SJHP, Starline .357 Magnum case, 8.0 grains of Silhouette with a CCI-500 primer. If you want a good .357 Magnum snub load, it's a very good place to start. As I've mentioned before, for barrels of 3" or shorter, I like 140 gr. JHPs for the slightly better penetration they'll achieve with the lower snub velocity. I did not invent the concept, nor did anyone else here. A well known fellow Texan has been saying it for years. The former sheriff of Crockett Co., Jim Wilson. He's had to prove his hypothesis with actual performance.;)
 
I would also recommend Silhouette, but there is no data.
Ramshot does not provide data for Competition in the .45 ACP either, but they should. It is capable of giving excellent velocities and is cleaner than average. It is like AA #2, WST and W-231 in that it is very light colored and is easily seen in the case, which is a plus for me.

WST and Competition both work quite well for light loads in the .45, but Competition can provide velocity as well, if needed. It's not my favorite .45 powder, but it is a very good one. It's one of my 5 or 6 favorites for .45.
 
WA, I think you'll see Competition .45 ACP data very soon from Ramshot. Have you checked the newer manuals from Sierra and SPEER #14? Also, any question you have about a powder/load combination will be addressed with an e-mail to Ramshot. They're very good in the Customer Service dept.

Then there's ZIP which is also from Belgium like True Blue and would be a suitable powder to consider for the Topic of this thread as well as .45 ACP, though it's nearly, but not quite as fast as 231. Definitely cleaner. Comp and Silhouette are Primex products. ZIP, True Blue and Enforcer come from Belgium as do all of their rifle powders.;)
 
CZ57 and jfh-
Great info; thanks for the time and post. I will get ahold of some AA#5 to try with this project as well as some True Blue. I have prev used the 3N37 powders in handguns but primarily back when I was loading mostly 9 and 45acp. As you may have surmised, I am much more interested in acceptable ballistics so far as the GDHP-SB bullet is concerned and functional use than actual load duplication. In my rural area handloads do not seem to be a problem and I would be shocked if ever an issue in a legally proper SD situation. I do however wish to have acceptable stocks of properly performing loads for the cited guns. The tip regarding flash is particularly cogent. Most of the loads I've shot at night with titegroup have been ok from this regard which is one of the reasons I've used so much of it.

CZ-you have definitely piqued my curiosity regarding the Ramshot powders; I've never used any to date.

Regards,
Bob
 
I would try Bullseye. Even though it is a very fast powder, it gives higher velocities and lower pressures than most other fast or medium-fast powders. (Look at Alliant's reloading handbook, where you can see all the load data at once on a chart) That seems like a perfect combination for a short barrel revolver.
 
Bob, you're welcome! I've used True Blue with both .38 Special and .357 magnum loads with the Rem. 140 gr. JHP. I think you'll really like True Blue and the bonus is that you can use it in many other cartridges as well, 9mm and .45 ACP up to +P level. I've had very good results with TB and both the 185 and 230 gr. Golden Sabers, If you use the Ramshot data for the same weights, you'll be fine. As WA pointed out in another thread, powder charges for the .451 Golden Sabers will have to be bumped a bit as you work up. These bullets yield the lowest pressure of any jacketed bullet you'll use. Their proprietary "Driving Band" is actually a term for the very short bullet shank, and it's the same length, or thereabouts, for both the 185 and 230.

I'm about to burn the last of my 4 lb. cannister of TB. A good many of the loads I'll make to burn it up will be 9mm to test it in a recent acquisition. I can't get it local, but I feel it's worth paying the haz-mat to order in quantity from Graf's.;)
 
Well, CZ57, you did it: just as I was bemoaning the cold weather again, you posted that push again about flash--not to mention the True Blue and Silhouette powders. In short, my implicit parameters for practice replica loads should take in flash levels. I'll probably put off any chrono testing for another four months at least--but the indoor range time can check for flash.

After reading your last posts, I ordered out N340, True Blue, and Silhouette, another 5K primers--and another dozen MTM boxes for load development sets I'll build this winter. I'll bet I buy more boxes before the winter is out, too.

Now, if I can just figure out where to slot in True Blue and Silhouette on the Hodgdon burn rate chart, I'd be happy. I downloaded the Ramshot chart, and it doesn't look ANYTHING like the Hodgdon chart--which does, incidentally, look similar to the Lyman P&R 3rd Ed. chart.

Bob: check with your local reloading supplier and see if he will give you a deal on volume purchases of the GDSB135 JHP bullets. They had a recent price jump, but if you can get them for under 20 cents a round, it's a good deal. Online prices will be about that PLUS shipping, I think. Generally, online I buy components almost exclusively from Graf & Sons--see the thread elsewhere about buyers' satisfaction with them.

I use (new) Starline 38+P brass, WSPs, and AA#5 at 7.0 gr. with the GDSB135--that's what gives me 850-860 fps from my 2" j-frames. A charge of 6.8-7.0 gr. under the Mastercastbullets 140LTC-357 does about the same. If you have used 38 brass, look out for lightweight stuff from 148-gr DEWC bullseye loads. And do keep in mind that these loads are over the current SAMMI spec at 18,500. Speer used 20,000 for their basis.

FWIW, I've worn out no brass yet, and I am up to at least seven reloads on some of the 38 Starline brass. And, to be more precise, all Starline 38 Special brass is +P rated, but they also provide some specifically headstamped that way.

These are the loads (firmly crimped at upper cannelure, or about 1.445 and 1.440 respectively) that really are awfully close to the factory ammo.

Good luck, and keep us posted as you get going.

Jim H.
 
Last edited:
Jim, somehow I've forgot how to access the Hodgdon burn rate chart. I know you told me that it differs from Ramshot's. I use Ramshot's, but just about all of them differ, anyway. Mostly due to the way an individual company conducts their "Closed Bomb" test where nothing is actually exploded and powder combustion duration is timed. Ramshot rates True Blue close to V-V N350 and that's probably slower than I remember Hodgdon's rating being. In my experience in a number of different cartridges, I'd rate it right with V-V N340, or maybe one or two places lower. I think it will remind you of a slightly slower version of AA#5, and that, you should like. Metering will be very similar.

Silhouette in your experiments should prove to be very interesting. I've been thinking more about what powders to suggest for .38 +P start charges. 340 is V-V's answer to the "all-around powder" question.

Thanks for posting your #5 loads for KODB to consider. Any of these 4 powders will keep flash about as low as it will go for these loads.;)
 
CZ57--the reference points you provide here to V-V N340/N350 are good enough to get me started with True Blue, I suspect. I'm not in a hurry--at least until the powder and boxes arrive--so I'll do some more research for both of them.

Meanwhile, here's the link to the Hodgdon chart. It has "felt" about right to me so far. Without going into a lot of typing here, look at the positions on the two charts of A#5, for example, but then look at Power Pistol and Unique. In my experience, the Hodgdon positions make more sense--but I'm an amateur here.

Jim H.
 
CZ57,
You got me all wrong! The feel and PIO are the only things I'm worried about when making a replica load. I'm not going to carry the rounds I make, I'm going to use them for practice. I refuse to fire off 50 to 100 rounds of the Speer ammo at $1 a piece for practice but I will practice with the ones I make for pennies on the dollar as long as I can get them close to the originals. For me, the feel is everything.

WARNING, the numbers below may be over the SAAMI specs, use them at your own risk!
I'm using AA#5 (6.8gr to 7.0gr) to replicate the .38 Special +P Short Barrel rounds and Powder Pistol (8.8gr) to replicate the .357 Magnum SB rounds and both feel right.
 
I have about 6 or 7 "Burn Rate Charts" printed off and stuck in my reloading book. (3 ring binder) Some are just copies of others with a different layout and name at the top. The ones from powder companies and places like Varmint Al's etc differ a good bit where some powders are on the chart. Some, like AA #2, will jump around a LOT. Some always seem to be right about the same place in the various charts. Most charts have AA #2 "faster" than it acts in the real world.

Remember, burn rate charts are a guide only, and a loose one at that.

340 is V-V's answer to the "all-around powder" question.
It is versatile, but gives more velocity for the recoil than other powders where I have tried it. Other than that, it is a good powder, but since my old bones don't want any more recoil than needed any more, I have gotten away from trying it. I am sure there are applications where it shines, I just don't know what they are.

AA #5 is a great all around powder, and WSF is proving to be very similar in that respect. Both should work well to replicate recoil/velocity in 135 Gr .38 +P type loads. I am not suprised to hear ArchAngelCD having good success with AA#5 for that. I bet Competition would work as well, but don't know. It would be interesting to see. I believe it would match the velocity at least.

It might be fun to work up some loads like this in .38 brass and tested in my 2.5" .686. :D I have plenty of different powders on hand to try from .45 testing.

Here is a link to Ramshots burn rate chart, which is one of the few places you'll see their powders listed.

Note where they have WSF compared to AA #5 vs Hodgdon's chart via the link above provided by jfh.

Interesting. That's one reason why they are merely a loose guide and not load info.
 
Last edited:
AA, I understand your reasons and I believe they are valid. Where we split may be based on the differing philosophies of handgunning in PA vs. TX.

To everyone: One thing you'll find common to the best factory defense loads like SPEER's Gold Dot and Rem. Golden Sabers and many others if they're worth using, is that the propellants are treated to reduce flash. It should also be reflected in the various load manuals. This is a subject that I have seen visited on many, many occasions. When I see guys pushing the idea that magnum powders are still the way to go in short barrel magnums, I pretty much dismiss their lack of experience. AA, I know you're NOT doing that, and I'm NOT advocating the use of handloads for defense. When you have a favorite powder that can be used to replicate feel, like Power Pistol, or its parent powder, Bullseye, and there's no way you would use a handload for defense, I say, go for it! My question is: are you really replicating a defense load if you haven't considered flash? BTW, I was using PP about as soon as it hit the market.

Some people believe that the laws down here are a bit lax. I believe we have the most common sense gun laws in the US. If someone threatens your life as defined by the Texas Penal Code, and you shoot them, worrying about the type of load you used is a non factor. AND, it has happened. So while I won't advocate, I will tell you this, if someone threatens the safety of my child, wife or myself in my state, I don't give even a little damn about the load in my pistol, so long as it does what it's supposed to do. I hope to never need to. I learned fairly early on as a handloader, that I could produce, at least, the best that any factory load can provide.

To me, the first step in a defensive mindset is knowing how to avoid trouble to begin with. I know the odds of success are very good, but they are not absolute. Neither are they absolute that you won't have a handload in your gun when it's needed most. Hunting is a different situation. You most likely will use a magnum powder for a handgun hunting load unless it's small game. I don't know of a state that allows handgun hunting at night, so flash is not a concern. There have been cases where hunters have run into the wrong party in the field and had to defend themselves. Powder choice wasn't a factor due to the conditions.

What I'm reading from the original thought of this thread is that someone may have considered that their handload may be what they have when a gun is needed, as well as the replication aspect. I know guys that use 4" revolvers in the field. I start with 6" barrels, myself, but I don't know anyone going afield to take deer or anything larger with a 3" barrel magnum. They may be carrying one as a companion to their rifle because they don't assume that because they're out of town, they're also absolutely free of danger. They may also take a similar approach to mine as far as having an easy packing handgun for Coupe de Gracie duty that they hope not to need. (I like my version better then the French)

I most often associate 3" or shorter barreled revolvers with defense. There are powders that will cover all the bases, a select few, and I use them for defense cartridge loading. I like the sports of bullseye shooting and IPSC/IDPA, but I'd have to drive a very long way to compete in either, so I don't. What I do, is try to develop handloads for defense pistols that are match grade. I don't build target loads for 9mm. I build defense loads that are match accurate. I won't use anything faster than Unique (although I don't use it for this) for loading the .40 S&W if pressure's are going to be above the 30,000 PSI level. Glocks are not the only issue in the Ka-boom phenomenon. Many don't understand the pressure curve aspect when loading it and don't understand the concept that the .40 is a naturally fast pressure peaking cartridge. Most are now familiar with the concept of chamber support. Besides that, True Blue and Silhouette have given me the best accuracy, along with a CZ 75B, that I've ever had with the cartridge. I have carried the .45 ACP for defense purposes. I don't today, but there are few rounds I enjoy shooting more than the slow thumper.

In a pure defensive sense, I don't believe there will ever be a better defensive handgun than a 3" .357 Magnum if you have the ability to shoot it accurately in DA mode. Many feel pretty good about it with a good +P .38 Special load. I really like a combination of both, but that's another thread and definitely not for the inexperienced. Taking things a step further in finding a great powder to go either way, the choices fall into a much smaller window. I won't use a flake powder in either case. I want minimum flash. I also want the highest velocity possible for terminal performance provided accuracy compliments it. Factory level is minimum. In short, I want a low flash ball type powder. Many years of experience have led me to this conclusion as well as a considerable amount of night shooting. Okay, maybe our range rules are a bit lax.

I know I'm boring some to tears with my long winded diatribe, but if their still reading . . . who's to blame?

I want to make some final points. Walkalong has hypothesized about the relevance of fine grained, dense spherical propellants to ballistic uniformity through metering. I believe it has great merit. You will not find low flash powders commercially available that are not sherical and dense unless it is a very low pressure load. He also mentioned that burn rate charts are a guide, and not gospel. I agree completely. There are plenty of powders that will provide paradox to burn rate charts. One of my favorite examples is AA#5. It will be as fast as rated in some cartridges, but slower than it's rating in just as many. #5 is a top choice to meet the aspects of the thread. I like True Blue a bit better than #5 for it, but that's a personal preference. I like several others as well.

JFH is doing more work here than any of us are, currently. I find his conclusions much to my liking.

Thanks for the links to the burn rate charts, guys! I took the time to download them so I don't continually have to go to a website to see them. Independent burn rate charts are purely interpretation in most cases. I don't know many guys equipped to do closed bomb testing. They base their charts on their personal experience. Some of it is valid, some dismissable. I suggest that if you are into burn rate charts, you follow WA's advice, then look hardest at those who have actually done closed bomb testing. Beware, the results will be different there as well.;)
 
Last edited:
I have never understood why there were not more powders like AA #2. Tiny round balls instead of "flake" and "flattened" ball powders. More even metering, period. They have the technology to manage the burn rate by ways other than just surface area and deterents.

Yea, I know, Flake powders are generally bulkier and fill space better.

For someone like me who likes to shoot long distance, good numbers help.
 
But you're on it, WA, with #2 and True Blue. The smaller round balls are going to pack more uniformly than other sphericals that are flattened. Either will meter more uniformly than flake unless the flakes are very fine and dense. Not usually mutual in the case of flake. I should point out that several of the V-V powders are not as dense because of composition, but they do an excellent job with flash retardants. Anything near or above 900 grams/liter is truly dense. AA#5 is 950 grams/liter, True Blue is 935. Very close. The densest handgun powder available is AA#7 at 985 grams/liter.

Silhouette is dense enough at 800, and I promise I'll compare 3N37 because I believe it will be very close to 800 as well. Accurate weighs by grams per cc. Same thing but divide grams/liter by 1000.;)
 
Alright, while you guys were chattering away, I tried to do some research, a la Google...

1. Here's a PDF link to a Smokeless Powder Density chart. I have no idea of its quality--I've just located it.

2. Here's another PDF link to the LEE VMD chart.

3. And here's a link to a discussion here, mostly comparing BP and SP, in which some of these terms are discussed--I think.

Finally, Here's a link to an article on internal ballistics I am printing to read. I have no idea of the quality; maybe someone else will comment.

Will someone please review the difference between the (LEE) VMD list and the typical "Density" CZ57 has identified and which some manufacturers provide?

I don't care which one--but it would be interesting to put a Density / VMD rating into a handy chart, wouldn't it? I think I will try to do that, since I am building an Excel workbook with various reloading information for my "38 / 357 short barrel reloading project.

If anyone else has / can find a link to other VMD and / or density lists / tables, please e-mail them to me, or post them here.

Jim H.
 
Last edited:
Thanks again guys! I usually buy the majority of my components from Grafs as well; just got in 32# of various rifle and pistol powders this week. I guess another order is in the wind.
Regarding PA gun laws; we have decent carry laws and outside of the larger metro areas I do not believe there is any great fear of getting screwed because of the load you used IF the shooting was justified. I cannot comment further on the Philly or "downstate" areas because I live up in the northwest mountains.

Regards,
Bob
 
KODB, beautiful country! I've been there. The best advice is always wait until your attorney is present to make any statement whatsoever after a defense shooting has occurred. This is a case where "don't ask, don't tell" is the best policy.

Jim, that is just outstanding. I've copied it. I encourage everyone to do the same and learn to use it.

Okay, definitions. First the chart from the link JFH provided is in GRAINS. I usually list grams per liter, or grams per cc. The chart will simplify things for those opposed to the metric system.

In any case, what I'm referring to is BULK density when I say 935 grams per liter, or whatever.

Volumetric density is the amount/percentage of a cubic centimeter that one Grain of powder occupies. Here's an example with the powders mentioned by Walkalong.

AA#2 VMD: .0838 cc/grain BD: 11.933 grains/cc

TB VMD: .0693 cc/grain BD 14.430 grains/cc

AA#2 will give greater case fill per grain of powder, it's 83% as dense as True Blue. This is what WA was describing with Flake powders. They give higher case fill per grain because their bulk density is much lower and VMD is higher. They are more prone to flashing because of their lack of density.

Accurate rates #2 Improved at .100 cc/grain. I believe the chart is using the former AA#2.

Turns out that 3N37 is 89% as dense as Silhouette. I thought that 3N37 would be closer to Sil. 3N37 has a bulk density of 10.953 grains per cc, Silhouette is 12.436 grains per cc.

This is also why flake powders are much more compressable and not as great a deterrent to bullet set-back as a dense ball powder that is slow enough to provide 100% load density. This is where I like to be with high pressure autoloading cartridges and it isn't easy to do. The 9mm and AA#7 is one of the best examples I can think of. VMD is lower at .0653, but bulk density is the highest at 15.314 and the least compressable powder you could choose. It's slower burn rate will allow higher charges to get 100% load density, sometimes slightly greater. In other words, a bullet can't set back because it has no place to go. I believe it is one of the safest bets for those who do seek to build +P level loads in 9mm.

I know we're talking about revolvers here, and some don't believe the rifle reloading principle carries over. I believe it does in how it relates to getting extremely low standard deviation and hopefully, better accuracy. We're not going to get there with the kinds of loads we're talking about for defense, but if you're building a super stopper hunting load, you might want to consider it when selecting a powder slow enough to provide magnum velocity. That's another thread yet, but if you're a big fan of H110, take a look at how it compares to L'il Gun.

Hopefully, this will all help folks understand why denser ball type, or spherical powders meter better.

Now, Jim, the burn rate portion looks suspiciously like it came from Ramshot!;)

Just in case anybody is wondering, shouldn't powders that are identical have the same VMD and Bulk density? If this list is from Ramshot, it is a few years old, but the burn rate chart is the one I use. I will concede that since Hodgdon bought Winchester Powders that they may indeed have Primex putting the same powder in two different cannisters, but I don't believe it's always been that way.
 
OK, I'm back--just took time to watch the shooting channel (Bianchi Cup) and got to see somebody from the AMU doing 1-second tactical reloads with a semi-auto....

At any rate: CZ57, the English Teacher in me is coming out: You say initially that "...the chart Jim provided..." and I say, indefinite antecedent! Which chart? the first one, from tacticool.com, or the Lee VMD chart? Spell it out so we are all thinking the same way / looking at the same kind of values as we continue to discuss.

Obviously, grams and grains are quite different in 'weight'--and I want to be precise here--IOW, is "gr." the abbreviation for gram? If you would put that down here, we'll have it straight once and for all--and we'll have a reference to it.

I can work in either metric or "English," but I sure think about loading charge weights in grains. As far as 'intuitively' sensing weight per a given volume, I'm indifferent--others may be less so. (If there are any European / metric users here, feel free to chime in with any helpful comments.)

Do any of the reloading stickys at the top have reference to these definitions? If not, we probably should get them in somewhere.

Now I'm back to adding these charts' values to the Excek workbook page.

Jim H.
 
Well this has been a interesting read :confused: I have not shot the Speer G dot SB and I feel uncomfortable that a English Major is on board :eek: but I must chime in :) I have a Ruger Security Six with a 2.75" Barrel and I can't find a AA#7 load that works well in it. As for stiff loads with 158 and 180grn jacketed bullets AA#9 and Blue Dot has given me excellent results, and for reduced and target loads Bullseye and AA#5 have provided excellent results as well.
But thats just me.

There's a right way to do stuff, and then there's the way I do it. :)
 
stay with us, jibjab--we need all the layman's input we can get if we're going to get educated on short barrel stuff.

Have you chrono'd any of your 2.75" barrel cartridges? And, try driving #5 harder; it seems to work just fine for my '357-lite' (WSP, 140LTC, 8.0 gr #5= 900 fps) 2" barrel stuff. The AA 2004 pdf data has some high-test loads, right out to about 43,000, IIRC.

Jim H.
 
re WSF in the tacticool VMD / Density PDF table--

I have to believe that a '0' was dropped.

IOW, the VMD should be .0844 with a density of 11.904

FWIW, I just charted Hodgdon's powders 21-39 (typically ones from the Speer 38 / 357 - GDSB 135-gr load data sheets) and listed BDs (bulk density), or grains / litre with them. (In the WSF example above, the BD would be 1190.)

Since I am not familiar with many different powders, does someone have / can create a list of powder types, especially for those (Hodgdon) powders 21-39?

Jim H.
 
Chrono :confused: I use a range finder, if I can hit a bird in the eye flyin at 50 yrds I caller good. Sorry I'm in just one of those moods :confused: the dog is 14 yrs old and she is having problems, things are up and down right now, sorry if I seem more off lately :(
 
It doesn't help that I said, "First the chart", instead of, "The first chart." So, I am glad we have an English Teacher around here. I don't know if you got the chart at Ramshot's website, but the burn rate portion of it definitely looks like their own. Most of the bulk density ratings I've seen, either use grams/liter, or grams/cc. The first chart shows bulk density in Grains/cc and volumetric density as cc/Grain. A comparison of the LEE VMD chart isn't necessary because everything you need is in the "First" chart. Unfortunately, the abbreviation "gr" is used for both grains and grams. All of the weights shown in the "First Chart" are in GRAINS.

JJ, it's disappointing to hear you couldn't find a good load with #7. 11.2 grains with the Rem. 140 gr. JHP, CCI-500 and Starline .357 cases works very well for me, but that was in a 4" M19. It is a bit slow for .38 +P loads and I believe Accurate omits it for that reason. I think it can be used for the dual purpose application we're discussing here, but the .38 +P loads will have to be "warm" before any appreciable result is achieved, and there are other powders that will do both that have plenty of data listed for them, as well. 3N37 is probably the slowest powder I'd use of those that have been discussed. As far as full magnum loads, Blue Dot was always one of my favorites, but I really like #9. As far as the topic goes, where we're looking at replication loads with both calibers, and keeping flash to a minimum, that rules out Blue Dot for me, as well as any other flake powder. Not that I don't use them, I just don't use them for this application. It's like I said before, if you feel sure that you'll never use a handload for defense, or shoot at night, you can replicate the feel of a defense load with any number of powders. If you want to keep flash to a minimum, like your factory should, the powder choices are slimmer pickens.;)
 
I have also moved the RAMSHOT Burn Rate Chart and that tacticoolproducts.com Density chart (the relevant part, at least) into my Excel "Burn Rates worksheet.

I've then massaged it slightly by creating new tables:

1. sorted by Hodgon Burn rate
2. sorted by Ramshot Burn rate
3. Hodgdon Burn rate sorted by BD, and
4. Ramshot Burn rate sorted by BD.

The result is that the RAMSHOT / tacticool order as modified in 4 starts to 'make sense.'--gotta digest it more, but I think it correlates
better with my field experiences and chrono testing.

I think the last qualifier should be "granule type"--how should we characterize granules? "Very fine ball", "fine ball", flake, coarse flake, that sort of thing?

How about "flash level?" another qualifier?

Of the Hodgdon Burn Rate powders 21-39, what kind of powders are they? How about Silhouette and True Blue, which aren't on the Hodgon chart?

If someone will tell me which powders are "very fine ball," "fine ball" etc., of those powders 21-39, I think we might have some real value in identified short barrel loads.

This project fits nicely into the photo editing I am doing for Christmas presents--I can only stand one activity for so long, then I switch to the other--

Jim H.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top