1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Alliant powder Guide

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by mad frank, Apr 16, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mad frank

    mad frank TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2007
    Messages:
    57
    You are right on Fred! I just wish they offered Clay Dot in a smaller quantity. I'd like to try some in my gun, but don't really want to buy 8 lbs and then find out it's not working out.
     
  2. Post  2

    Post 2 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    468
    Wondering what the publishing date of your Alliant Powder guide is? They have been publishing that information on Promo, E3, and Clay Dot for several
    years. Do I need a newer version? Post-2
     
  3. Trap2

    Trap2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,685
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Post 2.... The latest Alliant guide is downloadable at the above site..... Dan Thome (Trap2)
     
  4. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    The newest guide I have seen, appears to have added data for several powders, but it seems that they just copied over Red Dot data for Promo and Clays data for Clay Dot. I'm not sure that they actually verified all of the loading data. I would hope so, but it looks a little suspicious. I'll have to dive into it a little further when I have the time. On the cover, it looked good, but a closer inspection caused me to be a little wary. This is the 2008 edition that is downloadable from their website.
     
  5. Capt. Morgan

    Capt. Morgan TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,061
    I didn't even see any data for Clay Dot in the on-line version of the guide. Where is it located?

    Morgan
     
  6. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    U. S. Marine Retired,

    I've used countless jugs of Promo since it came out and use it for 90% of my 12 gauge target loads today. It may vary a little bit from lot to lot, but I buy several cases at a time, so I have some consistency, good or bad. The residue isn't a problem for me either. It doesn't seem to be much better or much worse than any other powder. I shoot a gaspipe (1100) and have not cleaned the gun for over 1000 rounds at some stretches. I also get great performance in cold weather, if I use the right primers and wads in a moderate load. Light loads seem troublesome at times, but not as bad as some powder/primer combinations. The data they gave seems to be copied over from the Red Dot data, line for line. I just found that a little suspicious that there was not even a little variation. I've used many other powders over the years as well, so I have a little reference point for comparison. Like I said, I need to look over the book when I get the chance. At first glance, it looked like they did a line for line copy of some existing data for other powders. I'm just a little skeptical at best. I'd rather spend a few bucks and have some samples tested for velocity and pressure to be sure, than to rely on some questionable data. A few shots with an over pressure load probably won't hurt much, but shoot many thousands and see what happens down the road. It's worth the investment to KNOW what your load is doing.
     
  7. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    U. S. Marine Retired

    I had some dismal results with the Fiocchi primers in cold weather. Promo, Red Dot, Green Dot, and a few others did not do very well. No real bloopers, but the velocities were all over the place and many loads sounded a bit off. Winchester, Federal, Cheddite, Nobel Sport, Rio, etc., all did much better. If you swap primers, be careful to check the data and adjust the powder charge accordingly. There can be a wide variation in pressure from just changing the primers. It appears that the CCI 209M, The Federal 209A, and the RIO G600 are some very hot primers, for most loads. No problem with the Fiocchi primers in warmer weather, so they are my summer budget primers.

    Anytime I see IDENTICAL data for two powders with NO variation, I'm a bit suspicious of it. I don't care how close the powders are. Test them on different days at different times and you are bound to get a little variation. Nothing is that exact or consistent. The Red Dot/Promo data is too exact to be valid. I'd give odds that they just copied the old Red Dot data over for Promo, maybe after testing a few, getting "close" results. A couple of years ago, there was some erroneous data for Red Dot as well, using the Fiocchi primers. It sounded like a lot of powder to me. They removed the suspect data from the site. If you have the older book, you can still find it. I think it was either the STS or the Winchester AA hulls.
     
  8. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    Quack Shot- Production of exactly the same powder from different lots is difficult. It has become much easier since ground up trees are used for a cellulose source rather than cotton. But not all trees are exactly alike. The most consistent, and expensive, cellulose available if from trees grown in Mississippi. But, even with this excellent source, batches of powders sometimes come out different.

    If Alliant makes a batch of Red Dot, and it comes out to the exact specifications required of Red Dot, it is sold to reloaders. If the batch varies a bit from Red Dot specifications, it is sold Remington, Federal etc. as an OEM powder. Promo is a powder that came out a little different, but close enough that it can be blended to meet Red Dot specifications. Seventeen grains of Promo will = 17 grains of Red Dot, but the volume of 17 grains of Promo will not = the volume of 17 grains of Red Dot. The weight, per unit volume, of each batch of Promo may vary slightly.

    Back to your original question. The loading data for Red Dot and Promo are the same because Promo is blended to do exactly this. You could do the same thing if you had a pressure gun, an induction chronograph and a couple of powders.

    Pat Ireland
     
  9. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    Pat,

    The only issue I have is that it looks suspicious when the EXACT same results are listed for the two powders. Not saying it's impossible, but I would venture a guess that they did not actually compile all of the data twice. There is also little deviation, if any, in the component selections as well. The same loads are listed twice, except the name of the powder has changed. As for the difference between the two powders, I'm quite familiar with the details. The differences in the raw materials is sometimes evident, since there have been some variations in powder density over the last few years. I had some lots of Red Dot and Green Dot from a certain time period that varied as much as a couple of bushing sizes from the usual drops (MEC). It was readily apparent when I compared those lots to some older powder and the older powder was right on.

    If I had a pressure gun, an induction chronograph and a couple of powders or more to play with, I'd have no question about anyone else's data. I'd have my own and little need to rely on the hand outs from various sources. I do know that testing the same loads can give different results from batch to batch or day to day. I can see the economics of just listing the same data when the powders test out to be extremely close. My point is that I would suspect that was the case. Do you really believe that they duplicated the efforts and got the exact same results for all of the data and testing for the two powders? If so, I have this bridge in Brooklyn, NY that is for sale. I'll give you my account number and Barrista's name in Nigeria, where you can send the funds.......But Wait! Call now and I'll double your order!.....Just pay shipping and handling charges.....

    Some years ago, I ran my own retail businesses. I would always suspect something was up if I had one employee that was always dead on the money when they closed their shift. Those were the ones to watch. The honest ones usually had some normal deviations and differences in cash vs sales.

    U. S. Marine Retired

    I would be happy to share. I have a lot of data that just needs to be compiled from my handwritten notebooks into an electronic file format that I can keep tabs on, with very little time to do it. When I check some loads, I will put some of them in the freezer for a day or two and get them cold enough for velocity testing. I'll compare warm and cold temperature velocities. You'd be surpised at some of the results. That's one test that I can duplicate for the Fiocchi primer issues I've encountered. It's possible that it may affect one or two lots of primers, but I have tested at least two different lots obtained about a year apart. I'm not the only one to have the problem either. Several local shooters have noticed the same thing.
     
  10. Post  2

    Post 2 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    468
    Dan and Fred, thanks for the info. Post-2 Gordon
     
  11. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    Quack Shot- I do believe, simply on faith, that Alliant tested Promo adequately. Now, if you want to get suspicious about data in loading manuals, have you ever wondered why pressure values always seem to be in large even numbers divisible by 100? How can all of the published velocities always be in even numbers? When I do an appraisal, I look at several numbers, and "reconcile" the numbers to an even $1,000. My reconciliation process is-- well, it looks about like this---.

    Pat Ireland
     
  12. Capt. Morgan

    Capt. Morgan TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,061
    Pat,

    Based on all the P & V tests I've had done in the past 6 months, I'd say that it makes more sense to publish pressure data as one high number that represents the maximum value seen during a test series...it makes more sense to me than publishing a more specific number like (eg) "10500" and allowing reloaders (especially trusting or novice ones) to think that each and every shell they load with those components will produce exactly that published pressure and exactly the published velocity every time.

    Morgan
     
  13. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    Pat,

    I wouldn't say that Alliant didn't test Promo at all. What I am saying is that it looks like they did a little testing, found it to be close enough to Red Dot, and then just plugged in the Red Dot data without verifying every load listed. I was more comfortable when they just said to use the Red Dot data for Promo, rather than to publish some partially unverified data. There are many reloaders that will take that data as the gospel word. At least you would know that you are making a substitution right up front and take some precautions. Some wad manufacturers are probably just as guilty when providing data. I don't have a problem with them rounding the pressure figures by rounding to the nearest 100 PSI either. Some of the other recently added data looks like it was actually compiled and tested, since it's not an EXACT match for any other published data that I've compared it to.

    Again, it just looks odd that two similar powders would give EXACTLY the same results, even when rounded to the nearest 100 PSI. Add to that the fact that the exact same component combinations were presented as well. I just feel that if you are providing data you should provide something that has been verified and compiled by doing the actual testing. I'm sure that using the Red Dot data could very well be an acceptable solution, but don't present it as verified data if it is not. If it's a substitution, then they should present it that way. There are so many variables that will affect the pressures, that we don't need some "unknowns" added at beginning by the manufacturers. I would also hope that they are rounding UP rather than down and that if they repeated any tests, they would use the higher pressure numbers they obtained.

    I am painfully aware that you can repeat a series of tests and not get the same exact results that you did previously, even a day before. That's the main reason I hold it as suspect. The data is too consistent to be believable for these two powders.
     
  14. Little Dog

    Little Dog TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    Quack, the data isn't suspicous to me since Promo is blended to have the same burn rate as Red Dot. Given that, it's no surprise that the data is the same. I can't imagine a powder manufacturer just speculating about reloading data- imagine the liability potential! to assume they are just guessing seems nonsensical to me.
     
  15. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,003
    Little Dog,

    So you actually believe that the data was compiled and the exact same results were obtained for both powders? Can I interest you in a bridge in Brooklyn? It's a bit used, but it's in servicable shape. I'll give you the contact info for my bank and Barrista in Nigeria. You can deposit the funds there and then I will send you the title to the bridge once it's received. :)

    Again, it's not a problem believing the powders can give very similar results. Believing you could get the IDENTICAL results twice for two different powders is the issue. If you do, don't drink the Kool-Aid or send your money to anyone in Nigeria. I doubt you could get the exact same results for the SAME powder twice.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.