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.

Solo 1000 Reloading Data - old vs. new

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Sigraph, Sep 16, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sigraph

    Sigraph TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    232
    I'm going to try and keep this as short as possible.
    I have 2 kegs of Scot solo 1000.
    A butt load of old claybuster CB1118-12 wads (WAA12 replacement)
    About 500 once fired old style AA hulls.
    366 (Late Pacific) reloader.
    The old Scot reloading manual (Fourth Edition) shows a load with the above components listed as follows:
    1-1/8 oz. Shot, Win 209 primer, Claybuster wad, 21 Grains at 9600 L.U. pressure and a velocity of approx. 1255 fps.

    The new Accurate powder data for this combination shows the following:
    Same shot weight, Rem. Win. or Cheddite primer, CB1118-12 wad, HS (AA) hull and a maximum load of 18.8 grains listed at 1200fps. with a pressure of 10930 psi.

    The old data shows a bushing selection of from .459-.468 to drop 18.5 grains.
    The new data shows a bushing selection of .435 to drop 18.5 grains.

    I'm only dropping about 17 grains of powder with a .435 bushing(per Accurate's data) and am dropping 18.5 grains if I use Scot's data for bushing selection.

    Is the powder denser now than it used to be??

    I'm reloading for hunting and have used up all my 7625 powder and (would like) a load at a minimum of 1255 listed velocity. I'm a very experienced reloader both shotgun and centerfire. I like to use the latest data possible, but I'm tempted to go with the Scot recipe since all my components were purchased in the early 90's.

    So...... I have a delimna......Hhmmmmmmm

    Please stay on this topic - I know there are better powders for hunting loads.
  2. Andy44

    Andy44 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,263
    I would try the "new" data over a chronograph to see what it does. If it's significantly below what it should be, then increase by 1/2 gr and try again. The powder has probably changed, so the "old" data is probably correct; but I would "sneak up" on it and check for high pressure signs. I'm thinking the new Solo1000 is a bit faster than the older version.

    AndyH ;-)
  3. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,321
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
    My 2002 manual shows your load at 20 gr Solo 1000 generates 1255 fps, pressure is 11,500 psi. A bit spicy for my taste. I try not to exceed 10,000 psi on any 12 ga load, and prefer the 9000 psi region. I use brass fired in other guns, and have no history of the chamber size or number of firings. If brass looks good, it gets loaded. I load once and discard, except for AA, STS and GM hulls.

    I have loaded Solo 1000 since day one. Densities have changed, but it seems the burn speed has been fairly consistent. USE YOUR SCALE!!!!

    Best powder I have ever used for 7/8 and one ounce loads. I only load 1 1/8 oz at hcp speeds, and use a bucket load of Solo 1250 for that chore.

    I have no doubt Solo 1000 is superior with standard speed 1 1/8 oz loads. Using your components, that works out to 18 gr for 1145 (9700 psi), 19 gr for 1200 fps (10,800 psi).
  4. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,995
    I would tend to use the more conservative data, which also appears to be the newest. The difference I see is that the old data is in LUPs and the new is in PSI. I tend to prefer PSI, just because of the way it's collected and that it is more recent. I would recommend using a different powder for the velocity you are looking for. Solo 1250 might be a bit more appropriate, since I don't like to use data for loads over 10,000 PSI. However, since you seem to have a large amount of Solo 1000, I would suggest that you contact Accurate Powder at the above link. They could give you a better idea if there are any differences to worry about. The difference in bushings would not be unusual.
  5. Sigraph

    Sigraph TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    232
    Shooting Coach - It should be clear per my post that I use a scale, but thanks for the input. I always liked the solo 1000 for trapshooting because it's so easy to clean the gun after a shoot. It's not tailored for hunting loads, but the load I used to use for trap now seems unsafe 19.5 Grains, claybuster wad, 1200 fps advertised velocity 8900 LUP. I'm thinking they have changed the powder to make it more friendly to their manufacturing process, or the newer HS hulls build more chamber pressure. And I see the new claybuster wads have changed a little too.
    ERaymer.
  6. tracyhunter

    tracyhunter Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    628
    What I like about solo 1000 is you can use any primer win/rem/ched and it does not change the psi, check out there load data.Amazing ain't it.
  7. Sigraph

    Sigraph TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    232
    It used to make a difference, ref. the 4th edition of the Scot reloading manual.
    But very little difference. I think I'll reload per the old manual since my components were purchased back when that manual came out. At that time Scot powder offered a custom balistics service to the public. You could send them your 'loads' and they would perform pressure and velocity testing for you.
    I think their published data at that time was accurate.
  8. goatskin

    goatskin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,781
    What did Accurate say when you called and asked them?


    Bob
  9. rick resko

    rick resko TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    40
    not trying to hijack a thread here but. its funny you should mention this now. due to the lack of 700x in my area i decided to try solo 1000, bought an 8 lb jug. i had looked on line for 1oz loads but didnt see anything listed for TGT wads and i have a full case. the manual i was given at the time of purchase didnt list TGT wads either, so i called Western Powder and spoke with their ballastician. his remommendation was 17.5 grains with the TGT's in either an STS or old style AA hull. i dont own a chrony sooooooooo. what are your pet loads for 1 oz guys? and yes i use a scale.
  10. Sigraph

    Sigraph TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    232
    I got a recording - the guy was away from his desk (don't remember his name). I'll add to this post when he calls back. I'll make it a point to ask for someone that was with the company when Accurate took over. I'll probably end up chronographing some loads to see how they compare to each recipe. I'll post them also.
  11. Sigraph

    Sigraph TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    232
    There are some TGT loads listed in the old manual (TGT-12). The manual says they're from Remington. I'm not sure they're the same wads your talking about.
    I'll scan and send you the data if you want. They're low pressure, both 1200 and 1290 fps. 6700 lup and 8600 lup respectively.
  12. goatskin

    goatskin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,781
    Not to be confused with *worked* with S1000, I've *played* with it some, draining the dregs of a 1lb, and I used ± the long-standard Bullseye 1oz recipe of 17gn in a tapered hull and 18gn in a straight hull.

    I got that from Lyman's 2, I believe. I didn't have the wads the S1000 wanted, but the powders were almost a 1:1 overlap.

    It was not remarkable enough to write down as it was only a few ounces, total, but IIRC, I was using FGM and OEM 12C0 wads and a Fed209A primer. I'm sure of the primer (b/c that's all i use) but not of the other.

    They were kinda mine-run 1200fps 1oz loads, as I recall: felt the same and broke birds the same ... etc. and there was no danger either were going to pressurise, but the S1000 was cleaner, of course.

    It will be interesting to see what kind of answer you get.


    Bob
  13. goatskin

    goatskin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,781
    I just re-read the whole thread. Is it OLD powder you have or NEW powder?


    Bob
  14. goatskin

    goatskin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,781
    and running out of 7625 qualifies as a near-catastrophe ...

    Sympathies, my good man.


    Bob
  15. ou.3200

    ou.3200 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,343
    There have been several manufacturers of Solo 1000 since its introduction when it was made by the Scot Powder Company of Scotland. As I recall it was subsequently manufactured in France, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Spain. It was a great powder when first introduced and was being manufactured in Scotland. It was a bulky single based powder that reminded me a great deal of PB. When manufacturing was changed from country to country the density and loading data changed, higher pressures for lower charge weights. I became weary of constantly changing bushings and loads each time it was moved to a different manufacturing facility in a different country. I would strongly advise that you use the loading data for the version that you are loading, especially don't use the Scot Powder Company data for later versions of the powder.

    If the powder you have is actually the first version made in Scotland use the data put out by the Scot Powder company starting with lower pressure loads.
  16. Sigraph

    Sigraph TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    232
    OU.3200 - Thank you.
    That was the kind of information I was looking for. My powder was manufactured in Scotland, and I'm droping approx. what their manual says I will per bushing.
    I will go with the Scot Manual for my reloading with these 2 kegs. I've got 8 lbs. of it and don't shoot registered trap any more, so It should last me a long time.

    I found a burn rate chart on this link that has Solo 1000 made by Accurate being listed as faster burning than Solo 1000 made by Scot.

    Thanks Again - ERaymer
  17. Sigraph

    Sigraph TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    232
    Sorry - I left out the link.
    Here it is below.
    http://home.hiwaay.net/~stargate/powder/powder.htm
  18. Quack Shot

    Quack Shot Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,995
    Sigraph

    I would still STRONGLY suggest that you contact Accurate Powder and ask them. If the phone is busy or the guy isn't in, leave a message and call back again. Be a pest! I would not assume that a burn rate chart has any meaning if you intend to interpret loading data from it. The two powders are NEXT TO EACH OTHER on your burn rate chart. That means they could very well be the SAME burning rate. If there are two powders that are identical, the protocol is usually to list them alphabetically, like they did. I would always recommend using the more conservative data. Older data is sometimes not as accurate as they once thought. If it were my gun and my safety on the line, I would use the newer data if it is more conservative. The powder may not have changed and could very well be manufactured by the same company that made it before. Not all powder companies manufacture the powders they distribute under their brand/label. If my memory serves me, Solo 1000 has been made by at least three manufacturing plants in several countries.

    I would at least start with the newer data, start light, and run some over a chrongraph and see what you get. That could give you an idea if the powder is much different or not.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.