TiteGroup, very light loads.

[dahermit]

Not liking how Clays meters though my Dillon 550b powder measure (despite using a rubber band to increase the return of the powder slide AND polishing the internal taper of the measure), I have decided to re-try Titegroup (a seemingly better kernel shape) in some very light loads in my K38 (double-action falling plates) using Lee 125 RNFP bullets.

I have noticed that the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, 4th Edition, has a starting load of 2.9 grains of Titegroup using a Lee #358-125-FN, for 797 fps, 14,100 psi as listed. This is compared to the Hodgdon data of 3.2 of Titegroup for 856 fps velocity at 8,400 CUP of pressure. Without getting into an argument or discussion about the difference between P.S.I. and C.U.P., I just want to know if ANYONE has used 2.9 of Titegroup with a 125 RNFP Lee bullet in a .38 Special. Or, how data from different sources can be very different.

If you did, how did the 2.9 of Titegroup and the Lee 125 RNFP bullet work out for you in regard to metering through a Dillon meter, squib loads, and accuracy. Please, please stick to the question.

[1006]

TiteGroup has always metered consistently in Dillon’s for me +/- .1grain.

It will work fine in the 38.

The data you listed looks consistent to me: 2.9=797, and 3.2=856. The data publishers may choose different barrel lengths, primers, brass, or even crimps. Each will vary slightly.

[tazman]

I don't own a Dillon so can't speak to that measure. I load with a turret press and use a Lee Pro auto disk. I haven't had any issues with Titegroup running through the measure.
I recently loaded a box of the Lee 125 grain rnfp with 2.8 of Bullseye as a test. They all worked perfectly. They even shot to the same point of aim as the full power 158 grain boolits did albeit with significantly less recoil.
2.8 of Bullseye should work about the same as 2.9 of Titegroup.
I currently have a box of these loaded with 3.0 of Titegroup and expect them to perform about the same. I will find out the next trip to the range.

[dahermit]

TiteGroup has always metered consistently in Dillon’s for me +/- .1grain.

It will work fine in the 38.

The data you listed looks consistent to me: 2.9=797, and 3.2=856. The data publishers may choose different barrel lengths, primers, brass, or even crimps. Each will vary slightly.

I was more concerned with the unexpected difference in the published presssures. 2.9 = 14, 100 (psi) compared to 3.2 = 8,400 (C.U.P.). Barrel lengths would not logically effect pressure, and it seems like a big difference to attribute to primers, brass, and crimps. Nevertheless, I am more interested in how 2.9 performs...as experienced by those who have actually tried it. I have used 3.2 and have the resultant targets in my three-ring binder (I typically take my targets, with the load data written on them and put them in a binder marked with the i.d. of the particular gun).

[dahermit]

2.8 of Bullseye should work about the same as 2.9 of Titegroup.
I currently have a box of these loaded with 3.0 of Titegroup and expect them to perform about the same. I will find out the next trip to the range.

If you shoot some Titegroup loads with 2.9 and the Lee 125 RNFP bullet, let me know how they work...any posistion sensitivity, squibs, bench-tested accuracy, etc.

[dahermit]

In case anyone is interested, I fired 96 rounds of 2.9 Titegroup under my cast Lee RNFP 125 grain bullets (Blue powder coated) today. I use a very light crimp...only enough to assure that the flare has been removed. 16 yards, sandbag, seated for six rounds, the rest at my "falling plate", steel bowling pin set-up. Accuracy at sixteen yards was acceptable (about two inches), recoil was about as light as I have ever experienced with any .38 Spl. load that I have fired.

At this point, it seems to be an acceptable load for my falling plate endeavors, but will shoot a whole lot more of it before I decide to replace my usual load of 2.9 of Clays with the same bullet.

Just to reiterate, I am experimenting with the Lyman's Cast Bullet #4th Edition "starting load" data of a 2.9 grains of Titegroup and the Lee RNFP, CCI primer (albeit I use only Federal S.P. primers inasmuch as my K38's are tuned for double action with very light trigger pull).

[tazman]

If you shoot some Titegroup loads with 2.9 and the Lee 125 RNFP bullet, let me know how they work...any posistion sensitivity, squibs, bench-tested accuracy, etc.

I loaded and shot a couple of boxes of 2.9 grains of Titegroup with the Lee 125 RNFP today. Performance was exactly the same as the 2.8 of Bullseye as far as I could tell.
I was indoors so could not use a chrono to check differing performance.
Accuracy was excellent in 6 different revolvers.
I did shoot one 12 shot group from a rest at 10 yards. It measured right at 1.25 inch.
No squibs or light loads so the powder worked well with my measure.
Felt recoil was very light.
S&W 19, 13, 14, 15, K38 Masterpiece, and a Ruger Security Six were the revolvers used and group size was consistent for all.
Boolit was lubed with NRA 50-50 and sized to .357.
It shot to point of aim in all six revolvers.
Excellent load for plinking and practice.
From what I can find out, the velocity and performance would be the equivalent of a 38 long colt.

[dahermit]

Thanks for your input. The only difference I noticed between Bullseye and Titegroup is that Titegroup seems to have a acrid smell to it. I shoot from an enclosed, heated space, out through a window, so when the wind is pushing back at me, I get smoke in the face.

[tazman]

I had ventilators running at the range so I didn't get any smell.
Not certain I would have been able to smell it anyway. My nose is a little plugged up today.

[frankmako]

i use pounds of titegroup each year in a dillon 550 without any problems. for 38sp loads i did play around with some but my marlin 1894cb did not like them. the titegroup work well just could not get a small group at the 100 meter ram with the several loads i tested. i bet i could have found a load, but my 357 mag match load is hard to beat.

[marshall623]

i use pounds of titegroup each year in a dillon 550 without any problems. for 38sp loads i did play around with some but my marlin 1894cb did not like them. the titegroup work well just could not get a small group at the 100 meter ram with the several loads i tested. i bet i could have found a load, but my 357 mag match load is hard to beat.

Same here Titegroup works well with a 158 WFN in my T/C for Hunters Pistol out to pigs , turkeys are OK what I was getting on the rams a couple of shots will group but always getting flyers . I just started running Blue Dot on turkeys and rams ( 75 & 100 meters ).

[GARD72977]

C.U. P and psi are completely different measurements. Psi is measured with an electronic gauge measuring case deformation. CUP is measured with a hole in the barrel with a gas check inserted and a plug pushes aganist a copper cylinder. You measure the crushed height if the copper plug to determine the CUP.

The two measurements would never be the same.

[P Flados]

FYI, titegroup has worked well for my "extra low recoil 38s".

A while back I got a 38 LCRx for the wife to shoot at the range. I started with my Lee 120 TC that I use for a lot of 357 practice ammo.

She did not like the recoil from this light gun with any published load.

I broke out my Lee 356-102-1R (they drop at 108) and worked down to a tolerable load using 2.8 gr of promo for close to 600 fps. However, this small charge was not metering good.

I tried Tightgroup and found 2.5 gr shot about the same, but metered much better.

Now for both of these loads, the large amount of space does result in about 100 fps spread for powder forward in the case vs. reward in the case. Regardless, there is really no noticeable vertical stringing.

[Walks]

I have a copy of the Hodgdon Cowboy Action Data Pamphlet from 1/2003. I got this from the Hodgdon Rep at EOT that same year.
he told Me 2 things I'd already learned; Titegroup is Position INSENSITIVE and Highly Corrosive to Plastic Hoppers.
They show heavier charges of Titegroup, but lighter charges of Clays.

.38Spl w/ Lee #358-125-FP;

CLAYS;
2.5grs - 810fps - 8,400cup
to
3.5grs - 978fps - 16,900cup

TITEGROUP;
3.2grs - 856fps - 8,400cup
to
3.8fps - 985fps - 12,000cup

The differences in source material is always confusing.

Speer manual #9 had a section on it; " Why Ballisticians get Gray ".

After looking through Dozens of Reloading Manuals for dozens of years, I just go with what works for what I need.

[owejia]

Shot some double rb loads using 3.7gr& 4 gr titegroup using my j frame snubbie yesterday, at 30 ft they were all over the place. My double rb load of 4 gr of Hp38 out of the snubbie at 30 ft can cover with my hand. Also tried Titewad awhile back and it was similar to the Titegroup in my experience. This is my night stand house gun and carry load. These are .360 dia,70 gr rbs powder coated and run thru a .356 sizer (snubbie slugged at .356) with oal of 1.325, with a .003/.005 taper crimp, using R P brass all trimmed to same length with Magtec primers. Not impressed with titegroup.

[P Flados]

I got this from the Hodgdon Rep at EOT that same year. He told Me 2 things I'd already learned; Titegroup is Position INSENSITIVE and Highly Corrosive to Plastic Hoppers.

The plastic attack is very true.

Their position insensitive claim really bothers me. They provide no test data to back up their claim. I was working with light boolits and did not like the velocity shifts I was getting from Promo. I got a jug of Tightgroup and found it to be just as bad as Promo.

With light bullets, the 2.5 gr charge of TG in the 38 Sp gave a shift of 130 fps (just worse than the 120 fps I got with Promo). With a 55 gr bullet in 327 Fed loads, I tested 4 loads from mild (800 fps average) to wild (1460 fps average) and got shifts from 200 fps to just over 400 fps.

I was happy that it does not seem to cause bad groups for my normal shooting. I only keep buying Tightgroup as it meters so much better than promo in small charges and no one has done systematic testing of the fast burning spherical powders to find which is least sensitive to position.

[Bmi48219]

This is somewhat off the thread track but I load 2.9 gr TiteGroup under a 148 HBWC with no appreciable recoil and good accuracy. 3.0 gr about the same and at 3.1 accuracy wasn’t as good.
With TG my 550 measure typically drops +/- .1 gr. My Lyman 55 drops +/- .05 gr with 90% of loads right at 2.9. But I’m just getting used to 550 so.....
I use TG for almost all my pistol loads. It does cling to the plastic measure reservoir tenaciously (especially in the Lyman 55). I use wife’s discarded make up brush to clean measures after each use.

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

3.5 gr of Tite Group under that very bullet is what I used for CAS. I started with 3.2, but it did not always knock some of the steel targets down. 3.5 did better. And I might add that I like the way Tite Group meters in my Dillon 550.

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

The plastic attack is very true.

Their position insensitive claim really bothers me. They provide no test data to back up their claim. I was working with light boolits and did not like the velocity shifts I was getting from Promo. I got a jug of Tightgroup and found it to be just as bad as Promo.

With light bullets, the 2.5 gr charge of TG in the 38 Sp gave a shift of 130 fps (just worse than the 120 fps I got with Promo). With a 55 gr bullet in 327 Fed loads, I tested 4 loads from mild (800 fps average) to wild (1460 fps average) and got shifts from 200 fps to just over 400 fps.

I was happy that it does not seem to cause bad groups for my normal shooting. I only keep buying Tightgroup as it meters so much better than promo in small charges and no one has done systematic testing of the fast burning spherical powders to find which is least sensitive to position.

Maybe they changed the composition of the plastic hopper. I've had TG in my Dillon 550 measure for over a year. No corrosion. Years I did have Unique eat one of my RCBS powder measure hoppers, so I know what to look for.

[tazman]

The plastic attack is very true.

Their position insensitive claim really bothers me. They provide no test data to back up their claim. I was working with light boolits and did not like the velocity shifts I was getting from Promo. I got a jug of Tightgroup and found it to be just as bad as Promo.

With light bullets, the 2.5 gr charge of TG in the 38 Sp gave a shift of 130 fps (just worse than the 120 fps I got with Promo). With a 55 gr bullet in 327 Fed loads, I tested 4 loads from mild (800 fps average) to wild (1460 fps average) and got shifts from 200 fps to just over 400 fps.

I was happy that it does not seem to cause bad groups for my normal shooting. I only keep buying Tightgroup as it meters so much better than promo in small charges and no one has done systematic testing of the fast burning spherical powders to find which is least sensitive to position.

A couple of years ago, a member on this site did a powder forward/ powder back comparison with Titegroup to see if the claims were true.
He found that Titegroup is still position sensitive but not as much as other powders were.
It is an improvement, not a cure. I would expect the lighter loads to be more sensitive due to the greater open space in the case than higher charges were.
Since I am not relying on light loads for anything but practice and fun, I am not concerned with larger extreme spreads. The light charges don't seem to be affecting my group size any.

As far as the plastic attack, my Lee Pro auto disk is unaffected by Titegroup. I currently have it in the hopper and it has been there for several days with no problems.
I don't think I will run it in my RCBS measure though. Reports indicate it has problems with it.