Probably a dumb question....

[diehard]

....but I'll ask it any way. On Jeff Bartlett's website he equates his current lot of 10B101 as being " more similar to Blue Dot, which seems to be the correct burning rate". http://www.gibrass.com/gunpowder.html


Does this mean that this powder would be suitable for heavy shotgun loads? Or is this a subject that might be better off left unmentioned?

[XWrench3]

i have no experience with this powder, but i would be VERY CAUTIOUS about loading it heavy until you can prove it beyond a shawdow of a doubt. start low, and work up in 1/10th grain at a time. all of that being said, it is one heck of a good price! the one question you NEED to ask yourself befoe ordering it though, is, how much regular powder can you buy for the price of your gun?!

[fecmech]

The problem with shotguns is there is no way so see if you are overpressure or not till things let go and fail catastrophically. Shotguns are a low pressure environment that requires IMO a ballistic lab for load data. While I do use surplus powders in handguns and rifles I would not try them in a shotgun.

[wiljen]

....but I'll ask it any way. On Jeff Bartlett's website he equates his current lot of 10B101 as being " more similar to Blue Dot, which seems to be the correct burning rate". http://www.gibrass.com/gunpowder.html


Does this mean that this powder would be suitable for heavy shotgun loads? Or is this a subject that might be better off left unmentioned?


Classic case of "Similar" vs "IS". The fact that it is similar, doesn't make it the same as. Assumptions like this one are what get people hurt, until you can prove it behaves similarly in that application, assume it does not. A burn rate that seems close to blue dot based on data collected in a fairly small sampling of handgun rounds doesn't begin to predict how that powder will behave in a much larger shell like the 12ga. Nor does the handgun data at 25-35,000 PSI predict how it will behave in a 14,000 PSI environment. This is apples and oranges and best left for fruit baskets instead of handloading.

Rant -off

Wiljen

[diehard]

Thanks for your replies. I'm a bit mystified though at the tone of at least one of the responses though. I know nothing about surplus powders other than what I read here...with the exception of the long list of of "equivalents" posted on the CBA website. On that list, many surplus powders seem to have direct commercial equivalents. Since I use a fair amount of shotgun powder I was merely asking if this might be one of those cases. As you could tell by the very nature of my question I knew I might be treading in dangerous water. That's why I defer to the good folks here and the experience you all so graciously share. I'm sorry if anyone felt like they had to "rant" at me for asking a question.

Guess its just better to hide in the background.

Laurel

[waksupi]

I see no rants here, just people offering what they could.

[Dean D.]

Laurel, don't take the replies you received wrong. It never hurts to ask the question but you may not receive the answer you were hoping for. I am not familiar with the powder you are referring to but I do trust the people who have replied so far. I would heed their advice.

You will find that most experienced handloaders are extremely cautious, justifiably so! It only takes one disaster to end your handloading career.

[wiljen]

Nothing personal at all. The idea that many surplus powders have direct commercial equivalents is a popular misconception and is where you get in trouble. Surplus powders come to us from a number of sources and that determines how close to a line of commercial powders they really are.

1.) Pull down ammo - in which case, they are fairly consistent as they came from lots that passed spec and were loaded into ammo. This still gives a fair amount of divergence in burn rates as load density's are changed per lot so one may be at the fast end of spec and the other at the slow end. I've seen lots of the same powder that were equal to two distinctly different commercial powders as a result of this.

2.) Failed lots of powder that were sold as surplus. These were meant for a military or commercial application but failed spec so were sold off. Seeing as failure could be too fast, too slow, too much residue, and a myriad of other things, no telling what they compare to and no two lots compare exactly the same way.

3.) Experiments by factories. Data powders or test lots are often sold off that have no correlation to anything commercial.


Assuming any surplus powder has direct exact match correlation to any canister powder is a mistake. All surplus should be treated as a new unknown powder and worked up as such to be safe.



Thanks for your replies. I'm a bit mystified though at the tone of at least one of the responses though. I know nothing about surplus powders other than what I read here...with the exception of the long list of of "equivalents" posted on the CBA website. On that list, many surplus powders seem to have direct commercial equivalents. Since I use a fair amount of shotgun powder I was merely asking if this might be one of those cases. As you could tell by the very nature of my question I knew I might be treading in dangerous water. That's why I defer to the good folks here and the experience you all so graciously share. I'm sorry if anyone felt like they had to "rant" at me for asking a question.

Guess its just better to hide in the background.

Laurel

[wiljen]

Diehard, My apologies.

I wasn't trying to belittle or suggest your question wasn't a good one. The subject hits a nerve with me as I have heard it suggested more than once that you can just use such and such data with so and so. I'd have ruined several firearms by now if I followed that advice.

Case in point. Wcc844 sells as "The same as H335". I bought 16 lbs of it as H335 is fairly useful in a broad range of stuff so I figured I'd work up loads for several of my guns. The lot I got was much closer to H322 than H335 making use of H335 data dangerously high pressure.

Same thing with Wcc820. When it first came out, common knowledge was that it was H110 or w296. The lot I got was much more like AA9 and again if I had used H110 data, I would have had a disaster. It is now widely known that later lots of this powder are closer to AA9 than H110 but at the time, that was not common knowledge.

My concern in this case is that taking someone else's word for what it is/burns like ends up getting you hurt if they are wrong.

Burn rates do not remain constant as in many cases a powder burns faster or slower depending on the type of confinement and the size of the case it is in. Look at how difficult it is to decide whether Red dot or Bullseye is faster based on burn rate charts. Several have them in reverse order and even more have them a differing # of spots apart. Problem is, both charts are correct. Based on the test methods, and the circumstances of the tests, Red Dot can burn faster or slower than Bullseye.

My concern with use in shotguns is that most or all of the data worked up for the powder to determine its burn rate to be like "Blue dot" was in handgun rounds and thus may not give you a safe estimate of how it burns in shotshells.

Could you try it? Sure. Would I try it, Probably. Would I use blue dot data to start, No. To be safe, load a couple of test rounds assuming it is bullseye fast and chronograph them. If you get well below bullseye speed, you can then safely assume it is slower and take the next slowest powder and work toward that (Unique maybe). If it proves slower than unique (ie unique gets more velocity with the same charge), then use herco data and do the same. This way you know what it burns like in your application. This is the safe way to handle it.

Sorry if I came across as being ugly, just don't want to see someone hurt by a commonly spread fallacy.

Wiljen

[lylejb]

Read this thread: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=107414

The way a powder burns in a rifle or pistol case ,( ie the powder is loose inside the case, not compressed) is not nessassarily the same as when a powder is compressed ( as in a shotgun).

SOME powders do not behave consistantly when compressed, and as this is surplus powder, we don't fully know how/ what this one will do.

In the thread above, the OP warns of a great increase in velocity, with a small increase of powder, as his load reached the point of being a compressed charge. One would have to think a great increase in pressure happened as well.

IF that's how this powder behaves, I won't be using it in any compressed loads, ESPECIALLY SHOTGUN.

Rifles and pistols operate at much higher pressures than shotguns can withstand, and if the unexpected spike described by the OP had happened in a shotgun......well, I don't think you would have a shotgun anymore, and the best you could hope for was no one got hurt.

With that in mind, it isn't worth it to me.

Maybe I'm just chicken, but if I'm going to err, it will be on the side of caution

[diehard]

My sincere thanks to all of you for your insight into this matter. I really do appreciate the information provided, the explanations offered and the advice tendered. Thank you all.

Wiljen,

Thank you for your apology, but I should actually be apologizing to you. I must have been a little oversensitive when I read your post....I've been worked up about a lot of things lately... and perhaps I need to teach my fingers what it took me years to teach my lips...you know the part about thinking before using them.

I do want you to know that I read here exhaustively every day, and I do so because it is here that I find the experience and fundamental techniques needed to be a knowledgeable, proficient and safe reloader. Ideas, advice and recommendations tendered here are invaluable (The last five or so books I've read have come from references used here). I am committed to becoming a learned reloader and caster and I value this site for the education it has offered me.

With that said, I want you to know that I respect and value the advice and information you print in this forum. Thanks again for your efforts in clarifying your points for me.

Respectfully,
Laurel