Trapshooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Sent a couple of loads to Precision Reloading just for kicks. Two goals, see how close the published data is to “real results” and a test of my reloader and my reloading technique. I made no special effort to make sure the loads were perfect in powder and shot charges. I just loaded a couple of boxes of each load tested using my normal technique for press operation and weight checks, then grabbed 6 shells at random before I boxed them. Components are listed on the results. The press is a very old, well used MEC 9000G with a metal powder baffle, and the much maligned adjustable charge bar. I checked powder drops on a RCBS 505 beam scale approx 4 times in the 50 or so shells I loaded of each load. All were +/- .1 gr. Shot ran between 490-497 gr. I’m pleased with the consistency of the loads. Less than 12 and 22 FPS deviation from high to low on speed. However, they are higher than the “book” speed. According to the Hodgdon website reloading center 18.1 gr should yield 1145 FPS and 19.5 should be 1200 FPS. They don’t show a 1090 load, so I may call and see if their techs think I can take WSH down to say 17 gr to get closer to the 1145 I’m looking for without getting pressure too low. May have to send more loads to Precision. Anyhow, here’s what I got back. I’d be interested in comments from the resident statisticians on the SD numbers and your take from the results.
 

Attachments

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,844 Posts
Not a resident statistician but Ive gotten similar results (fps) from my field chrono obviously no pressure result data. All seems as consistent as one would hope for except the pressures. I'll take a stab at it. Could it be in the makeup or degradation between the once fired hulls perhaps crimp,wad pressure or aftermarket wads, would using Win OEM or Downrange wads close the gaps or just render 3 different results? As close as these numbers are Id wager you'd see similar results with factory shells.
Thanks for posting.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
794 Posts
Your consistent velocity means you have great powder burn. Your consistent pressures mean you have your press set up very nicely with good crimps. Don't sweat the FPS, that could easily be just powder lot variation... you're at like 7% off? What I'd like to know is the difference between your measured pressure and the book. You could easily back off to say 18.0 and 19.3 and get it where you want and keep good operating pressures. You don't need to send for retest, just borrow a chronograph. If you're unsure how to test a shot shell over a chronograph just shoot me a PM. It is a little different.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
Thank you for posting your results! I see similar differences in velocity on my chronograph while loading 700x, Promo, or Red Dot. I have cut the powder down at least .5 grs on my loads while seeking desired velocities. I also use CB wads and a 9000G. I use Cheddite primers.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Your consistent velocity means you have great powder burn. Your consistent pressures mean you have your press set up very nicely with good crimps. Don't sweat the FPS, that could easily be just powder lot variation... you're at like 7% off? What I'd like to know is the difference between your measured pressure and the book. You could easily back off to say 18.0 and 19.3 and get it where you want and keep good operating pressures. You don't need to send for retest, just borrow a chronograph. If you're unsure how to test a shot shell over a chronograph just shoot me a PM. It is a little different.
Book pressure is 8200 psi for 18.1 gr and 9700 psi for 19.5 gr. I'm at 8620 and 10017 averages respectively. The lowest being at 8260, within 60 of book and 260 of my self-imposed lower limit of 8000 psi. I don't think dropping only .1 grain would impact much. If you extrapolate the numbers, dropping .7 of a grain gets me to 1145 fps and <8300 psi. But speed and pressure usually don't react in a direct linear fashion like that. I'm working on my small stash of paper hulls right now with Clays powder. When I switch back to WSH, I may run a box or two at 17.5 gr and shoot them at practice. If they look promising, I'll ship them off to Precision for tests.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
794 Posts
You're right it's not linear.... .1 grain might surprise you. Doesn't take much for the delta you seek assuming you have good powder burn. Speed and pressure are actually not related, or very minimally. Speed is powder burn, pressure is everything else. I've tested loads that were dead on speed and 8K over pressure (yep, 8K!). Buffer and crimp depth were the culprits. Once I fixed that everything came into spec.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
It seems as though there is a trend of hodgdon and alliant powders running about 50 fps faster that the published data.

Thanks for posting your data. It really helps all of us gain a better understanding of what we are actually getting out of our reloads.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
8,267 Posts
Sent a couple of loads to Precision Reloading just for kicks. Two goals, see how close the published data is to “real results” and a test of my reloader and my reloading technique. I made no special effort to make sure the loads were perfect in powder and shot charges. I just loaded a couple of boxes of each load tested using my normal technique for press operation and weight checks, then grabbed 6 shells at random before I boxed them. Components are listed on the results. The press is a very old, well used MEC 9000G with a metal powder baffle, and the much maligned adjustable charge bar. I checked powder drops on a RCBS 505 beam scale approx 4 times in the 50 or so shells I loaded of each load. All were +/- .1 gr. Shot ran between 490-497 gr. I’m pleased with the consistency of the loads. Less than 12 and 22 FPS deviation from high to low on speed. However, they are higher than the “book” speed. According to the Hodgdon website reloading center 18.1 gr should yield 1145 FPS and 19.5 should be 1200 FPS. They don’t show a 1090 load, so I may call and see if their techs think I can take WSH down to say 17 gr to get closer to the 1145 I’m looking for without getting pressure too low. May have to send more loads to Precision. Anyhow, here’s what I got back. I’d be interested in comments from the resident statisticians on the SD numbers and your take from the results.
They appear to be good solid loads. Especially considering that you didn't set them up for testing but just randomly pulled them from your normal loading operation.

Also what I've come to expect between printed powder company data and actual proofed data. But I won't go into my rant on printed data!
 

· Banned
Joined
·
9,591 Posts
Sent a couple of loads to Precision Reloading just for kicks. Two goals, see how close the published data is to “real results” and a test of my reloader and my reloading technique. I made no special effort to make sure the loads were perfect in powder and shot charges. I just loaded a couple of boxes of each load tested using my normal technique for press operation and weight checks, then grabbed 6 shells at random before I boxed them. Components are listed on the results. The press is a very old, well used MEC 9000G with a metal powder baffle, and the much maligned adjustable charge bar. I checked powder drops on a RCBS 505 beam scale approx 4 times in the 50 or so shells I loaded of each load. All were +/- .1 gr. Shot ran between 490-497 gr. I’m pleased with the consistency of the loads. Less than 12 and 22 FPS deviation from high to low on speed. However, they are higher than the “book” speed. According to the Hodgdon website reloading center 18.1 gr should yield 1145 FPS and 19.5 should be 1200 FPS. They don’t show a 1090 load, so I may call and see if their techs think I can take WSH down to say 17 gr to get closer to the 1145 I’m looking for without getting pressure too low. May have to send more loads to Precision. Anyhow, here’s what I got back. I’d be interested in comments from the resident statisticians on the SD numbers and your take from the results.
I think you did a fantastic job, with even more data to verify the inaccuracies of some of the printed data. Although I do not ever send in loads that are not hand made, yours worked just fine.
I like to remove any variables, such as the machine and only test the load data.
Thank you for sharing,
MG
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I think you did a fantastic job, with even more data to verify the inaccuracies of some of the printed data. Although I do not ever send in loads that are not hand made, yours worked just fine.
I like to remove any variables, such as the machine and only test the load data.
Thank you for sharing,
MG
Thanks MG. As I said, the goal wasn't primarily to test the loads vs the data, although I did want to see where I was. I mostly wanted to see how much variation there was in my reloading technique. It appears that my slow, steady, hand operated press does OK.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Thanks MG. As I said, the goal wasn't primarily to test the loads vs the data, although I did want to see where I was. I mostly wanted to see how much variation there was in my reloading technique. It appears that my slow, steady, hand operated press does OK.
You must listen to country music when loading , it does make a difference ! In my case , the Cigar and Cocktail are just for show...hehee
Thanks for Sharing
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
Thanks for sharing Abolt!
I like that you randomly pulled your shells outta the pile. The results show you what you're really shooting at the line day to day. I really like it.

My thoughts on your wanting to slow your speed on your singles load...
1 - Drop down to 17 & 17.5 and use some Federal 209a or CCI 209M primers to keep pressure up.
2 - Use Red Dot. (y)
 

· Banned
Joined
·
794 Posts
Thanks for sharing Abolt!
I like that you randomly pulled your shells outta the pile. The results show you what you're really shooting at the line day to day. I really like it.

My thoughts on your wanting to slow your speed on your singles load...
1 - Drop down to 17 & 17.5 and use some Federal 209a or CCI 209M primers to keep pressure up.
2 - Use Red Dot. (y)
I'd say the drop in powder and a hotter primer would work well as described.... but Red Dot? Can you please elaborate? I think what you said about powder and primer is sound.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,840 Posts
Those vel. SD's are remarkable, especially for a shotshell. I noticed the test barrel is .724" bore. Does anyone know if that is consistent over length, or is the test barrel choked? Could make a difference between lab and range velocity/pressure.

K
 

· Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
I have some more reloads currently pending from precision reloading. It's fantastic that they offer the ability to measure pressure, as that's what I'm worried about with my 20ga kolar tubes. With primers being tough to come by, I had to change my recipes, and I'm glad I sent some off for initial testing, they were very close to the pressure threshold that kolar recommends.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Those vel. SD's are remarkable, especially for a shotshell. I noticed the test barrel is .724" bore. Does anyone know if that is consistent over length, or is the test barrel choked? Could make a difference between lab and range velocity/pressure.

K
I thought the same thing. To the extent a sample size of 6 is meaningful, here is the MOE for 19.5 load:
Text Line Colorfulness Font Azure

The conciliation is that as sample size increases, SD normally decreases. Both constriction and temperature can make a difference in velocity, so the question is how significant is it?? My understanding is WSH is a ball propellant so it may be more susceptible to temperature changes.

“All propellants change performance as a function of temperature and thus the pressure and muzzle velocity change as well. Some propellants change much less than others. Typically single base, no Nitroglycerin (NG), propellants change the least followed by double base propellants, which incorporate NG and the biggest variation is usually found with BALL propellants”.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top