Milsurp 762x54r powder is..?

[slowhand47]

leave no trace

[Rocky Raab]

No burn rate chart will help you. Whatever government plant loaded that ammo didn't use a canister powder at all, so it won't be on such a chart.

There are ways that a VERY experienced reloader might develop a safe and usable load with that powder, but the methods are not for a beginner.

I'm afraid that my advice has to be to give it away, throw it away or burn it (in small amounts!)

[spqrzilla]

No burn rate chart will help you. Whatever government plant loaded that ammo didn't use a canister powder at all, so it won't be on such a chart.

There are ways that a VERY experienced reloader might develop a safe and usable load with that powder, but the methods are not for a beginner.

I'm afraid that my advice has to be to give it away, throw it away or burn it (in small amounts!)

Exactly. In fact, you don't even know that the same powder was used in all of the milsurp ammo you have.

As Rocky states, there are ways to deal with some of these issues but they are really for very advanced reloaders who are dealing with thousands of salvaged rounds and many pounds of powder. These days, I think powder even though its gone up in price, is still cheaper than the time to salvage milsurp ammo is worth.

[uscra112]

Right. Even if you were to undertake a test protocol that might yield useful data, by the time you got there your powder would be all used up. Don't waste your time on it. If your jacketed load works, burn it all up doing that. Then go buy some canister powder that is right for your cast loads, according to published data. There's plenty of it available, both on paper and on line.

[Reloader06]

Slowhand, as much as it pains this old tightwad to say........ Use it for fertilizer or burn it or... Your time would be better spent reading up on the Art of Boolit Casting. Sorry to rain on your parade.

Matt

[Larry Gibson]

I'm going to go against the popular vote here. If that is the square cut flat flaked typical european type powder from 7.62x54R then I'd use it. You are not me so the choice is yours.

Others are correct that a burn rate chart won't tell you what it is exactly but it is quite similar to 4895 in burning rate. However, charge for charge interpolation should not be done. I use either a C312-185-2R, a 314299 or a GB 316291 in my 7.62x54Rs. Those cast bullets weigh bettween 185 and 205 grs cast of WW + 2% tin. I GC them, size at .314 and lube with Javelina. I worked up the load using 5 shot strings of 1 gr increments starting at 25 gr with a 3/4 gr dacron filler over the powder and stopping when accuracy went south or velocity went above 1900 fps. That's what I did and have shot lots of that kind of 7.62x54R pulldown powder. I've also done the same with lots of pulldown similar powder from 8mm ammo.

That's what I'd do. Again, what you do is your choice. It's just like developing a load with any other powder. If you've any reloading ability (only you can answer that) it's not difficult at all. It's what's done all the time by many members here with many powders or other componants where no real data is available.

Larry Gibson

[Phat Man Mike]

Slowhand this is my thought.. use the powder for some nice flowers some where and save your self some trouble.. IMHO

[Rocky Raab]

Yours is a very mature and refreshing attitude, slowhand. Not knowing what you don't know is possibly THE identifying characteristic of a beginner.

When I was a jet instructor, it was amusing to watch students pilots who could already fly propeller-driven Cessnas get their first taste of a jet. They'd be halfway into a maneuver and apply a control input that would be fine in the putt-putt - and the jet would uncork and go out of control. If I could have seen their faces behind their visor and mask, the eyeballs would have been like cueballs.

Reloading is a little bit like that: you can do something that seems okay based on your limited experience, only to have it suddenly bite you.

But I suspect you'll be fine.

[Larry Gibson]

Slowhand this is my thought.. use the powder for some nice flowers some where and save your self some trouble.. IMHO

Slowhand47

If that's your choice just be carefull where those flowers are........

Some years back a good friend of mine had several pounds of old 4831 that had gone bad. He and his wife were having a get together so besides helping to clean the house, patio and yard he cleaned up his loading bench. Being the thoughtful husband he was he sprinked the 4831 in the flower pots with very nice flowers in them that were around the patio. After a very delightful dinner and cood conversation several of us drifted out to the patio for a good glass of whiskey, some good gun conversation and a good cigar.

All was going well until the ladies brought out the dessert. Now this was his wife's chance to show off the family china so we all politely set down our whiskies and cigars so as not to drop the china. One fellow, not knowing about the 4831 in the flower pots, set his cigar....guess where? The "flaming bush" was spectacular to say the least. The look on my friends wife's face was not "priceless" to say the least. Fortuneately no whiskey was spilled not china broke in the ensuing scramble to get away for the bonfire. Also fortunate was that it was outside so other than the plant nothing was injured......except my friends pride at the few choice words of wisdom his wife gave him. As usual after something like that the humor was seen in it and we dutifully watered the other plants before resuming with the whiskey and cigars.........:drinks:

Larry Gibson

[higgins]

If you use the original primer in the case with new powder and bullet, you'll still have corrosive ammo, so clean accordingly. It's the primer, not the powder, that's corrosive. Based on what I read on milsurp websites, a lot of people think it's the powder that's corrosive.

[turbo1889]

I have two questions:

1 ~ When you pulled down the 7.62x54R rounds were they full or nearly full of powder? I'm asking what percentage you would say of the cases was filled up with powder.
2 ~ Do you own another gun with considerably smaller case capacity and similar bore size that you can readily get reloadable brass for?

I have used salvaged powder from 8x57 ammo to load 7.62x39 cast boolit loads. The 8x57 rounds in question were like 95% case fill and I pulled them down and hand loaded them for very similar reasons namely to make accurate soft nose hunting loads using the original primed brass cases from the mil. surp. Turkish SC-AP rounds I had cases and cases of.

I just filled the significantly smaller 7.62x39 cases up to the base of the neck and weighed that charged. I seated the boolits to my already know best COAL which put the boolit base slightly deeper then the base of the neck resulting in a slightly compressed load. I loaded and fired off five test rounds which confirmed the loads worked just fine for plinker loads and then loaded up a whole slew of them.

The reason I felt comfortable doing this is because I pulled all the loading data I cold find for the 8x57 cartridge that I had pulled the powder from with the same or similar bullet weights that filled up most of that cases volume and compared those powders general burn rates to load data for the 7.62x39 cartridge and it was very clear that much slower burning powders were used in the 8x57 then full case full power loads for the 7.62x39 so I reasonably felt that since I was dropping down so much in case size I couldn't get enough of the 8x57 powder into the smaller case to make anything close to a hot load.

I'm not saying you can always get away with doing that sort of thing but that is what I did in a similar situation and it worked for me. Specifically choosing to use the powder in a similar bore size, smaller capacity case that uses lighter weight boolits and is rated for just as much pressure as what the powder originally came from. When the original loads from the larger cartridge were nearly full case fill I decided that a full case of that powder in such a smaller capacity case as outlined qualified as "safe and sane".

If you choose to do something similar you are on your own, all I can say is it worked for me so if you are determined to use that powder that might be a direction to head with it.

[spqrzilla]

At no time do I wish to discourage beginning reloaders. It is my opinion that beginning and intermediate reloaders should carefully get the basics down. The important part of reloading is the basics - consistent, repeatable reloading techniques. Consistent control of OAL, neck tension, trimmed cases, good repeatable powder measure techniques.

Stay within published recipes from reputable sources. Be aware that "burning rate" charts are mostly BS.

As you gain experience, you'll be able to safely experiment more from knowing what good reliable ammo looks and behaves like.

Sometimes "spam can" ammo is not actually from the same lot, if its been repacked. Just a heads up.

[Larry Gibson]

First off burn rate charts are not written in stone and those that publish them say that. The position of any powder on those charts is relative, to a degree, with consideration of the cartridge and bullet weight it is used in. However, I would not not charctorize burn rate charts as "BS" as they are useful references.

7.62x54R cartridges will have between 44 and 50 gr of flake or extruded powder under 146 - 185 gr bullets. Looking at the velocities achieved the weights of the powder used and comparing them with loads in manuals show us that the milsurp powders used fall with in a "medium" burn space comparable (but not interchangeable with) 4895. That's not to hard to figure out. Now since the OP knows where his powder came from (he pulled it from such 7.62x54R milsurp cartridges) then it is a"medium" burning powder. It should be perfectly safe to use if the OP, even with his admitted inexperience, follows the same load work up proceedure that he should use with any canister powder in any cartridge. If he can't follow the basic procedure then he shouldn't be reloading. However, I'm assuming he can follow basic reloadin practices to work up a load. Thus using that milsurp pullown powder which he knows where it came from he can use the correct procedure with it as with any other "medium" burning powder such as 4895. AND, following correct procedure he can do it quite safely.

Conversely, if the OP did not know where the powder came from then I would advise feeding it to the flowers. That, however, is not the case here and I see absolutely no reason not ot use it as anyone would use any other medium burning similar powder bought off the shelf. The safety concerns and procedures for loading both are exactly the same. If not then please expain why many, many of us use all sorts of milsurp pull down powders?

Larry Gibson

[Freightman]

I never used the Russian type powder but the Turk powder was great, wish I had more! Owell it was fun while it lasted.

[bart55]

A big amen to that ,I loved the turk powder, I also had a lot of jap 7.7 machine gun pulldown that worked outstanding .Should have bought more .

[turbo1889]

I think Larry Gibson and I are thinking along the same track. He touched on some points that I didn't and brought some further clarifications into the mix.

I think we do depart paths at a certain cross roads, however. I believe he is recommending that the powder be used in reference to its burn rate in any case size the user chooses to use it in that the deduced burn rate is good for and then start very low and carefully work up the load. I on the other hand am recommending that the powder be used only in a significantly smaller capacity case with similar bore size that is rated for similar pressure levels.

Basically, I am much more comfortable with a situation where I can be almost completely certain that it isn't physically possible for me to stuff enough powder into the smaller capacity case to make a hot load. If it were me trying to use this powder I would prefer to create the same situation as using 50-BMG pull down powder in 50-Alaskan; its a "filler up" situation with full case slightly compressed powder loads due to the powder burn rate and case capacity differences between the two cartridges that make is such that you can't physically get enough 50-BMG powder inside a 50-Alaskan case to make a hot load. I like that kind of situation with recycled powder since it’s almost idiot proof. A more cautious position then what Larry Gibson is recommending I do believe but the thought process is along the same lines. The powder although of unknown type is from a known source and that does give you a point of reference to work from.

[turbo1889]

. . . 762x54r (Mosins) are the only rifle cartridge I plan to reload or break down.

If that is true then your original question becomes almost elementary simple. Your question thus becomes:

"Can I use powder salvaged from 7.62x54R to reload 7.62x54R cast boolit loads. I know the original amount of powder that was in the original loads and the weight of the original jacketed bullet used in the original loads."

The answer to your question is "Heck Yah !!!". Now I am assuming that you know the weight of the original bullets or could pull and weigh one of them to figure that out. At that point you simply need to obtain a mold that drops boolits that are the same or slightly less weight then the original military boolits that were pulled from the cases. Your max never exceed charge is the weight of powder that was originally in the cases (let's call that 49gr. in your situation) now reduce that amount by about 20% which in your case is about 39gr. that is your start load with a good hard alloy cast lead boolit. A gas checked design would be advisable. Then work the load up a little from there and mess around with it a little to get it to shoot like you like it. Just don't load more then the original amount of powder and/or a heavier then original boolit weight and don’t reduce the charge by more then about 25% (SPSD danger) and you will be just fine.

[turbo1889]

Fillers change the way powder burns in a load. I would suggest only using fillers below 20% charge reduction and would only go below 25% charge reduction with fillers.

Fillers can raise pressure levels, thus why I wouldn't use them unless I was reducing the loads by at least 20%. Loads of slow burning powder that fill less then 75% of the case can result in Secondary Pressure Spike Detonation if you don't use a filler.

Long story short fillers change things so use them with caution towards the top end of a load spectrum and don't go without them in the bottom end of the spectrum where you start getting into the SPSD danger zone.

[Reloader06]

"hope every Boolit Bub/boob like me can recieve a similiar baptism/ innoculation of common sense."

People have to be willing to listen. Not just talk over or beyon the advice. One of your strengths is you listen. That doesnt mean it's Gospel, as you saw there are differing opinions. Both sides have valid positions. IMHO walk before you run, crawl before you walk, and be able to turn over before you crawl. You're getting there. Good decision to play it EXTRA safe.

Stepping off the soapbox...... NEXT!

Matt

[35 Whelen]

I've pulled down several hundred surplus 7.62x54r AND re-used the powder. I chunk the primed cases because I don't want to deal with corrosive priming.
My first precaution is to never mix ammo types. For example, I had sealed a tin of Hungarian Light Ball and when I pulled it down, that powder went into its own container. To determine a canister powder to which the pull-down powder was similar, I just chronographed the load (or use the published velocity), take the average weight of several charges, take the weight of the bullet, then hit the loading manuals. There I would find a like or similar weight bullet and find what commercial powder required a similar weight powder charge to obtain the velocity of the surplus ammo. (I think is what Larry Gibson explained) I'd then wrap the powder container in duct tape and write this information on the can. All the powder I pulled down from Czech and Hungarian was extruded and as I recall all had a burning rate very similar to 4895. I've reloaded it using 4895 data to complete satisfaction.
Good luck,
35W

[Multigunner]

I've used bullets and powder from 7.62X54r to build loads for my No.4 .303.

The steel core 147gr bullets work excellently in my Enfields. I miked these at .3125.

I used the same dipper for the soviet powder as I'd used for the IMR 4320 powder I'd used with the 150 grain .312 Hornady bullet. I also used the 4320 for most of my steel core loads.
Both loads grouped extactly dead center without and sight changes, and my best groups with the Hornady bullets was 1'8 center to center, all grouped sub MOA out to three hundred yards.

Older Soviet 7.62 ammo can vary wildly in bullet diameter according to the Finns, from as low as .306 to as high as .316. Bore sizes also varied greatly.
The Finn barrels are very consistent in bore diameter according to the time frame of prodction, but they used at least three different standard bores sizes over the years. They made the barrels progressively tighter from one model run to the next.

[turbo1889]

Yes, the ability to learn is the all important thing. That along with a good sense of caution. For example I learned that I need to address the potential use of fillers from the get go since I ended up having to post again when the OP added the use of fillers to my suggestion when I hadn't expected that and was ASSuming a load without the use of fillers just using the same powder to load cast boolits at a reduced charge level and going with a hard alloy and/or gas check.

In addition, different people have different levels of tolerance for risk in different areas. For example I bought some military surplus powder a while ago that is of Soviet manufacture and was intended for use in military loads of the 7.62x39 cartridge. Now I have been using it at a reduced charge levels in the 7.62x39 and also using it in a lot of small capacity pistol cartridges for which it is significantly slower burning powder then the powders that are normally used in those cartridges to make carbine loads such as the 357-mag cartridge. I’ve done a lot of carbine loads with that powder for that cartridge using my 210gr. custom heavy weight “sledge hammer” boolit mold I had custom done up for me by AM.

On the other hand I have seen others post about using this same powder in the 30-06 for heavy weight cast boolits such as the Lyman 311299 and to be absolutely honest that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on edge and my toes curl up in my boots. Fact is that if you are using 7.62x39 burn rate zone powder in the much larger 30-06 cartridge with a heavy weight boolit or even a light weight bullet for that matter it is entirely possible to get enough powder inside the case to make yourself up one heck of a hot load. When it is physically possible to get enough powder inside a case to blow yourself to kingdom come that isn’t a load I’m going to be too fond of personally. All it takes is one miscalculation or a double charge and the proverbial turd hits the proverbial fan. I much prefer to use a powder or conversely a cartridge if we hold the powder choice constant instead of the cartridge constant that you can’t physically get enough powder inside the case to build anything more then a mildly hot load. Although this is my overall preference it is especially true when it comes to using non-canister pull-down or surplus powders.

Yes, I will use pull-down or surplus powders to load the same cartridge they were originally intended for albeit at a reduced charge level or an even further reduced charge level with COW filler but that is as far as I am willing to go anything other then that will involve using that powder in cartridges where by the burn rate and energy density it shouldn’t be physically possible to get enough powder inside the case to produce a dangerous load. And when I do make up such loads using a surplus powder that is too slow burning for a completely full case to reach peak pressure levels I am going to fill up the case with either all powder or a combination of powder and COW filler to make a slightly compressed load to be absolutely sure that there isn’t any SPSD danger in the load.

Which all means, that going back to the original thing that others are doing that I don’t have the risk tolerance to try myself and the though of doing it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on edge and my toes curl up in my boots. If I’m going to load heavy weight cast boolit loads for 30-06 with surplus powder I’m not going to be using 7.62x39 surplus powder I’m going to be using 50-BMG surplus powder. And that is exactly what I do. With the first choice it is entirely possible to blow yourself to kingdom come because it is physically possible to get enough of that powder inside the case to do that. The second option is almost idiot proof since barring something really crazy it isn’t physically possible to get enough powder inside the case to even reach full chamber pressure levels much less go above them.

Well that’s my $0.02 take it with a grain of salt or two.

[chuebner]

I pulled half a case of Albanian 7.62X54R because it shot pattern at 50yds. I knew the bullets and the cases but the powder was unknown for even attempting reduced loads. Powder went in the garden. Loaded the bullets over 14-18 gr. 2400 and was able to shoot 2" groups at 50yd. and 3" at 100 using a '37' Mosin 91/30.

charlie

[spqrzilla]

Conversely, if the OP did not know where the powder came from then I would advise feeding it to the flowers. That, however, is not the case here and I see absolutely no reason not ot use it as anyone would use any other medium burning similar powder bought off the shelf. The safety concerns and procedures for loading both are exactly the same. If not then please expain why many, many of us use all sorts of milsurp pull down powders?

Larry Gibson

Larry, you know that the comparison to a milsurp pull down powder is not really valid. The supplier of a milsurp pull down powder has either ensured that the powder comes from a consistent lot, or has blended multiple lots together to obtain a more consistent aggregate.

[turbo1889]

I don't get your logic there, spqrzilla, if you pull down a bunch of sardine can ammo and dump the powder all together and mix it all up together aren’t you doing the same thing as you put it: "blended multiple lots together to obtain a more consistent aggregate"?

I could see you having a point if you didn't pull all the ammo down together and mix the power from all your pull downs and did it piece meal style but don't get the logic if you do it all at once and give the jar a few rolls on the reloading bench to ensure its thoroughly mixed.

I mean I've bought powder before that was straight up advertised as "50-BMG pull down power". I mean that pretty much tells it like it is. The OP is just dealing with "7.62x54R pull down powder" the only difference being that he is doing the pulling down himself.

I just don't get your logic, maybe I'm missing something. Mind explaining further?

[Larry Gibson]

I said to myself, enough of this supposition.....time to test. I've done enough of this using my own pull down over the years to know it's perfectly safe. So I scrounged around in my "cache" and came up with 13 different milsurp types of 7x57, 7.65 Argentine, 7.62x54R and 8x57. So I pulled down enough to load 5 test cartridges using each type of powder. The cartridge they were loaded in was the 8x57, I used 30 gr of each type and put a 3/4 gr dacron filler over the powder. Cases were REM - UMC and the primers were CCI 34s. The cast bullet was the GB 326-190-FN cast of WWs + 2% tin, lubed with Javelina, sized .325 and my own GC of .014 brass stock was used. Note all the loads were the same except for the 30 gr of milsurp powder from 13 different cartridges. A control string was loaded the same only with 30 gr of H4895.

The test rifle is a Yugo VZ 24/47 with a Leupold 6X scope on it. All velocities and psi were taken with a M43 Oehler PBL today. The results are listed by the cartridge, head stamp and type of powder followed by the fps and psi(M43).

Control; H4895/extruded/ 1814 fps/25,400 psi

7.65 Argentine/ FMMAP 1947/ flake/ 1956 fps/ 30,900 psi

7x57/ PS 50/ flake/ 1984 fps/ 36,400

7.62x54R/ CYM 53/ extruded/ 1716 fps/ 25,600 psi

7.62x54R/ VPT 27/ flake/ 1826 fps / 27,900 psi

7.62x54R/ 10-82/ extruded/ 1694 fps/ 24,000 psi

7.62x54R/ 21-85/ extruded/ 1682 fps/ 22,400 psi

7.62x54R/ VPT 31/ flake/ 1842 fps/ 29,100 psi

8x57/ PG35 5 40/ flake/ 1675 fps/ 23,500 psi

8x57/ AA 1955/ flake/ 1628 fps/ 22,400 psi

8x57/ 5-50/ extruded/ 1962 fps/ 30,100 psi

8x57/ PCH 39/ flake/ 1906 fps/ 30,400 psi

8x57/ 12-53/ flake/ 1874 fps/ 28,900 psi

8x57/ 22-78/ extruded/ 1594 fps/ 21,400 fps

That covers 4 cartridges of various manufacturer over a 84 year span. I picked the arbitrary 30 gr load simply because I've tested it so many times over the years. We should all be cautious however, and that is why I advised slowhand47 to start at 25 gr and work up. That is where caution comes in by simply using standard reloading practices. H4895 is pretty much considered to be in the middle of the "medium" burning powders. We can see from this test that some of the powders were close to the same in fps and psi, others were lower in both and some were a bit higher with both fps and psi. Just as it should be considering all of those cartridges are loaded with medium burning powders. Doesn't matter which particular type it is or exactly where it lays in on the "burn rate charts. The point is; if you work up a load exactly as you would, with a canister commercial medium burning powder, using any pull down powder from any of these cartridges it will be safe, or at least as safe as it is with the canister commercial powder. The key is work up the load just like you're supposed to. No sense throwing good powder away that can easily and safely used.

That's just my last 2 cents based on facts not supposition.

Larry Gibson

[turbo1889]

Bravo Larry !!! Bravo !!! I've used the same methodology to end the discussion on shotgun loads more then once. I hope you haven’t viewed me as on opponent in this discussion since although our preferred methodology of developing loads from surplus and pull down powder may differ we both thought it could be done and done safely considering the OP knew where his powder came from.

I don't have any 7.62x54R pull down powder myself and I haven’t attached a strain gauge to any of my rifles in the cartridge due to the fact I have been loading them so far with mil. surp. 50-BMG ball powder and I saw no need to measure the pressure of the loads in that cartridge when loading with that powder since I'm well into the safe zone with that combination.

[swheeler]

I said to myself, enough of this supposition.....time to test. I've done enough of this using my own pull down over the years to know it's perfectly safe. So I scrounged around in my "cache" and came up with 13 different milsurp types of 7x57, 7.65 Argentine, 7.62x54R and 8x57. So I pulled down enough to load 5 test cartridges using each type of powder. The cartridge they were loaded in was the 8x57, I used 30 gr of each type and put a 3/4 gr dacron filler over the powder. Cases were REM - UMC and the primers were CCI 34s. The cast bullet was the GB 326-190-FN cast of WWs + 2% tin, lubed with Javelina, sized .325 and my own GC of .014 brass stock was used. Note all the loads were the same except for the 30 gr of milsurp powder from 13 different cartridges. A control string was loaded the same only with 30 gr of H4895.

The test rifle is a Yugo VZ 24/47 with a Leupold 6X scope on it. All velocities and psi were taken with a M43 Oehler PBL today. The results are listed by the cartridge, head stamp and type of powder followed by the fps and psi(M43).

Control; H4895/extruded/ 1814 fps/25,400 psi

7.65 Argentine/ FMMAP 1947/ flake/ 1956 fps/ 30,900 psi

7x57/ PS 50/ flake/ 1984 fps/ 36,400

7.62x54R/ CYM 53/ extruded/ 1716 fps/ 25,600 psi

7.62x54R/ VPT 27/ flake/ 1826 fps / 27,900 psi

7.62x54R/ 10-82/ extruded/ 1694 fps/ 24,000 psi

7.62x54R/ 21-85/ extruded/ 1682 fps/ 22,400 psi

7.62x54R/ VPT 31/ flake/ 1842 fps/ 29,100 psi

8x57/ PG35 5 40/ flake/ 1675 fps/ 23,500 psi

8x57/ AA 1955/ flake/ 1628 fps/ 22,400 psi

8x57/ 5-50/ extruded/ 1962 fps/ 30,100 psi

8x57/ PCH 39/ flake/ 1906 fps/ 30,400 psi

8x57/ 12-53/ flake/ 1874 fps/ 28,900 psi

8x57/ 22-78/ extruded/ 1594 fps/ 21,400 fps

That covers 4 cartridges of various manufacturer over a 84 year span. I picked the arbitrary 30 gr load simply because I've tested it so many times over the years. We should all be cautious however, and that is why I advised slowhand47 to start at 25 gr and work up. That is where caution comes in by simply using standard reloading practices. H4895 is pretty much considered to be in the middle of the "medium" burning powders. We can see from this test that some of the powders were close to the same in fps and psi, others were lower in both and some were a bit higher with both fps and psi. Just as it should be considering all of those cartridges are loaded with medium burning powders. Doesn't matter which particular type it is or exactly where it lays in on the "burn rate charts. The point is; if you work up a load exactly as you would, with a canister commercial medium burning powder, using any pull down powder from any of these cartridges it will be safe, or at least as safe as it is with the canister commercial powder. The key is work up the load just like you're supposed to. No sense throwing good powder away that can easily and safely used.

That's just my last 2 cents based on facts not supposition.

Larry Gibson

Thanks Larry, nothing like the "real deal" to answer a question.

[swheeler]

"Secondary Pressure Spike Detonation" Oh my my, we making them up as we go now?

[turbo1889]

"Secondary Pressure Spike Detonation" Oh my my, we making them up as we go now?

Well, here are some examples for you to take a look at:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5065/5789329113_d4f6c75de6_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2571/5789329231_22f8898ffd_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/5789884038_deecf634c2_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5184/5789884134_54a18fde16_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5107/5789329589_74a787e2a0_b.jpg

I think “Secondary Pressure Spike Detonation" (SPSD) pretty much explains the situation rather accurately. And no I’m not biased those aren’t my charts and I ain’t the one who came up with the term.

You see this is how it is. There are more then one of us out there who have the equipment to take pressure traces. And well we talk with each other and exchange information and things learned. I don’t have any of my own pressure traces on this computer so I grabbed those examples real nice and quick from where they were easily available nested in a series of a few nice little write ups I do have saved on this computer written by others that are more experienced in this particular area then I and I look up too. I do listen to others and I am more then happy to learn from those who can back up their positions with facts and/or sound reasoning based on a solid foundation of experience.

[turbo1889]

Oh wait, I do have this one that is one of my personal traces that was already uploaded to the photo server I use:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5011/5480116722_716ca17779_z.jpg

That is a three different variation of 12ga. shotgun loads all using Clays powder. First three traces (T1, T2, &T3) are a "by the book" 1-oz lead shot load. Second set of three traces (T4, T5, & T6) are the exact same load only with a Lee 1-oz slug cast from pure lead substituted for the shot. The last three traces (T7, T8, & T9) are the exact same load with a 68-cal RB cast from type metal substituted for the shot. It doesn’t have a secondary pressure spike that “detonates” but on the 7th and 8th trace, which were two of a set of three with that particular load combination you can see the start of the phenomenon. Reducing the charge made the second pressure spike worse. Increasing the charge slightly by only a couple grains made it go away nearly completely while still keeping the peek pressure of the primary burn curve within acceptable limits (sorry don't have that set of traces available at this time).

[swheeler]

I do see a second pressure spike, but I see nothing that proves DETONATION. Dan Lynch of MM had some of these PT on his site many years ago. Is there a ballistican that is using SPSD as a valid terminology.

[swheeler]

"Detonation involves a supersonic exothermic front accelerating through a medium that eventually drives a shock front propagating directly in front of it"

Now I would think if this was detonation the second spike would look like a needle.

[Larry Gibson]

Turbo1889

How long have you had the Personal Trace System? Some time back when I was looking into such I did a bit of research. There was problem somewhere and they stopped production for a while. I decided on the Oehler M43. I began exeriencing the same "double spike phenomenum" occasionally. It was mostly with short barreled rifles and magnum cartridges in the Contender. A lengthy conversation with Dr. Oehler provided the answer; move the M43 PBL "box" off the cement bench away from the shock wave created during firing.

I had had the "box" set on the cement shooting bench pretty much alongside the front rest. The "secondary spikes" were very pronounced with the short barreled Contender in .44 Magnum. I put a longer cord between the gauge and the "box", set the "box" down and off the cement shooting bench so it was protected from any blast.......problem went away.....no more "secondary spikes".

The Oehler M43 also notes, on the pressure trace, bullet exit from the muzzle. I don't see that on the Personal Trace traces(?). Some ballisticians question the "secondary spike" phenomenum. Particularly where there is a normal level of psi attained with the 1st rise and the trace is of normal (for the powder's burn rate) length before the "spike" occurs. Unless there is a constriction to slow or stop the bullet there shouldn't be rise as such. The majority of the powder is consumed very quickly which is why the peak psi occurs closer to breach than to muzzle. If most of the powder is consumed and the volume is much larger what is left to cause such a "spike" if the bullet is not stopped? Nothing is the obvious answer. That leads the problem indication to one of a mechanical nature or in the set up. In my case the set up was incorrect for the specific firearm being used. Since I corrected my set up I've not experienced a single "secondary spike" and I have conducted a lot of tests of multiple cartridges in multiple firearms.

Larry Gibson

[turbo1889]

Yes, in my first post with traces all but the first two pressure traces are from write ups I have saved that Dan @ MM did. The first two are from the developer of the system and a write up he did. And of course the last one in the second post is my personal set-up.

The whole purpose of those two write ups that Dan did was to figure out if it was just an instrumentation problem or a real recorded event. He cut down the barrel length to change the harmonics and mounted the sensor at different points along the barrel and even at one point had four different sensors mounted along the same barrel all taking readings simultaneously. His conclusion was that some of them were indeed instrumentation problems and some of them didn't go away no matter what he did and were recorded by multiple sensors located on multiple points along the barrel so he felt that they were real events.

So far I have mainly recorded only the beginning of the phenomenon and have only recorded a couple full scale nasty 80+ K pressure level secondary spikes (all from published load data incidentally), although I have captured a few of my own load combinations that went into the 40+ K range when the primary curve was only in the 30 K range in a 357-max carbine that putting in a couple 36-cal card wads between the powder and the boolit solved the issue and eliminated the secondary spike. But it is also true that first of all I do most of my pressure trace measurements on shotgun loads and that is the main reason I purchased the unit. Secondly, I stay the heck away from any load that even looks like a case only partly filled with a slow burning powder with no filler since I have already lost one firearm in my younger years to a reloading accident that involved loading an 8x57JS early 0.318" series tight bore Mauser with a 50% reduced charge of R-15 powder which although thankfully didn't blow up the gun did do enough damage to the action and bolt lugs to render it no longer serviceable and taught me a significant lesson I have never forgotten about not loading anything close to such a combination.

I cannot rule out a potential instrumentation problem except to say that at least with the 357-max carbine loads making a change to the load solved the problem and there wasn’t any change to the instrumentation set-up since the change to the load was made right on the shooting bench with the system still set-up from the previous loads. I admit I didn’t double check by switching back to the load without the card wad filler to see if the secondary spikes re-appeared or not.

As to how long I’ve had the system it’s been over a year now. I am still learning but at the same time I think having the equipment and using it puts me ahead of the curve compared to just trying to estimate where my pressure levels are by comparing my load to published loads and trying to read pressure signs.

[Larry Gibson]

I haven't done a shotguns with my M43 but I have done 22 cartridges in 24 firearms from low pressure .32 S&WLs to top end magnum level loads (65,000 psi). The test count on the M43 is in the mid 900s so I've seen a few pressure traces with it. I can say that of the few times where there was a secondary peak it never exceeded the primary peak psi. As I stated previously simply repositioning the location of the M43 so it was protected from the blast ended the so called secondary pressure peaks. Keep in touch, it will be good to compare notes.

Larry Gibson

[swheeler]

I don't believe smokeless powder detonates, explosives detonate, gunpowder burns.

[Milsurp Junkie]

Gun powder deflagrates (burns). High explosives detonate. Smokeless powder can go either way depending on how it was initiated. Primers will cause them to deflagrate, but a detonator can cause smokeless powder to detonate. It is after all a mixture of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin.

[Milsurp Junkie]

Sorry, I should have said black powder, as opposed to gun powder in the above post.

[Larry Gibson]

Primers will cause them (smokeless powders) to deflagrate

Milsurp Junkie is correct. That is an important fact to remember. Catastrophic failure of firearms is caused by mechanical failure, bore obstructions (SEE), excessive powder charges (they still are defalgrating not detonatating) and case failure. Primers simply ignite the powder, not detonate the powder. What happens after that..............

Larry Gibson

[swheeler]

Gun powder deflagrates (burns). High explosives detonate. Smokeless powder can go either way depending on how it was initiated. Primers will cause them to deflagrate, but a detonator can cause smokeless powder to detonate. It is after all a mixture of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin.

Uh huh what I said

[swheeler]

"It is after all a mixture of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin."

No, not exactly, some are/double based and some are not/single based.

[swheeler]

"Smokeless powder can go either way depending on how it was initiated. Primers will cause them to deflagrate, but a detonator can cause smokeless powder to detonate."

I do not know for sure but believe this is incorrect. 20% nitrogycerin detonated by a detonator, all the Hercules class A I ever handled was 60% nitroglycerin.

[swheeler]

"Detonation involves a supersonic exothermic front accelerating through a medium that eventually drives a shock front propagating directly in front of it"

That is the wikipedia definition of detonation, that's all. I'll repeat, I do not believe smokeless powder detonates, IT BURNS! And that means single based, double based and triple based fertilizer bearing smokeless powder.

[felix]

Semantics..... detonation is a subset of explosion like brass is a subset of bronze. ... felix

[swheeler]

Semantics..... detonation is a subset of explosion like brass is a subset of bronze. ... felix

Yes if talking about an explosion/as in something exploded/blew up, but not semantics if talking about detonation as used to descibe high explosives. Strap a blasting cap onto the side of a plastic jug containing double base powder, the cap will explode and the powder will light and burn if it doesn't just blow about like so much sand. Strap a blasting cap onto the side of a 5 pound stick of sausage(thats oil field slang for Hercules A 60% tubes threaded male and female so you can screw them together and drop down a shot hole) and you will see an explosion, true detonation. Better yet set the jug of powder beside the stick of dynamite, shoot the powder with your favorite 270 win, see a hole in the jug, now shoot the dynamite, see a huge flash of lightning and sound of thunder, cloud of rock dirt and no more jug. Semantics

Now all one has to do is visit one of thousands of reloading forums, every other sentence contains detonation, SEE, SPSD,MMA, QPMD, DDD, SDWB and on and on, all just theory. I always though hangfire and SEE was enough.[smilie=b:

[felix]

'Hell, I was there' cannot be correct for your byline, swheeler, unless you have undergone a SEE condition which your paragraphs above exhort too many words for such a simple phenomenon says you never had the experience. ... felix

[swheeler]

No, never blown one to pieces, but yes have had an extreme, unexplained pressure excursion. That said, I will never be convinced smokeless powder detonates(burns -yes-detonates-no, until it is proven! I do believe the bore obstruction scenario though, as described by many including our own Larry M43 Gibson. I do know about your beliefs of H322 detonating while trying to ramrod a stuck cartridge from the chamber of a BR rifle, BUT I do not know the reason it went off, but the casing exited the breech tells me the powder BURNED. If it was indeed detonation I would think the gun would have been blown up or at very least chamber swelled. My byline is just fine though, no need to try and get personal about it. Scot

[turbo1889]

Although I think we have drifted significantly off topic I think two points of discussion (rather spirited at times) are in play here:

1. ~ Are secondary pressure spikes real or are they instrumentation glitches?

2. ~ If they are indeed real are they technically detonations or are they out of control very rapid burns?

Regardless, I believe my original point that at a certain point of reduction in charge level fillers are a very good idea for safety reasons. Even if you argue that KaBooms due to significantly reduced charges without filler are a myth (a difficult argument to support to put it kindly since it involves proving a negative for which evidence does exist to the positive) it certainly doesn’t hurt anything provided the charge is indeed a significantly reduced charge and the filler potentially raising pressure is a mute issue.

As to the first question under discussion I believe that both instrumentation issues and secondary pressure spikes are real and that the existence of the first only serves to confuse the issue of the second. I have a limited bit of personal experience with a particular load previously mentioned that did indeed initially have a 30-K initial pressure peak followed by a 40-K secondary pressure spike where the addition of a filler to the load eliminated the secondary pressure spike when no changes to the instrumentation where made of any consequence that I am aware of between the testing of the two different loading arrangements since they were test together on the same outing with probably less then ten minutes between the two where I didn’t move or adjust my set-up except to load the firearm in question with the alternate loads with the filler added which I loaded right there on the bench. Secondly, a certain Mr. Sisk a custom rifle builder of some recognition apparently deliberately built loads to take the secondary pressure spike to the extreme and deliberately blew off the ends of two gun barrels with loads where the primary pressure peak recorded was within safe limits but the secondary spike was apparently in the 180-K pressure range (180,000) to prove that the phenomenon was real. Both Dan @ MM and RSI the manufacturer/seller of the system I am using reference this particular incident and Dan @ MM ultimately concluded from his testing that at least some of the secondary pressure spikes he recorded were indeed real. I do put considerably more faith in what Dan @ MM has to say about the matter considering that he doesn’t have the bias that the manufacturer would have since the only other explanation involves problems with the instrumentation itself. RSI by the way adamantly insists that this is one area where their product is superior to its competitors since their system does not filter out anything it records where other competing systems do have built in filtering. Whether or not that really is an advantage depends of course on whether one considers the events in question to be real or electronic noise.

As to the second question, I believe the question depends on a specific quantative definition of what is and is not a detonation event. In other words how quickly must the pressure rise for the event to be considered a true detonation, instantaneous is not a logically legitimate question since nothing in fluid dynamics happens instantaneously. Is it that any rise higher then 50,000 PSI per 0.1 microsecond is a true detonation and anything less then that is not a true high grade detonation or what? Where is the line? Where does the actual quantitative measurable difference between the two lie? For all practical purposes a word definition of what is and is not a definition is useless. A quantative measurable difference is needed to solve that question. If one accept that secondary pressure spikes are indeed real here are the worst two examples I have know of. The first is pulled from a write up by Dan @ MM (also listed in my previous post) and the second is from a write up from RSI.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5279/5794864635_70d399c48a_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5024/5794864607_707651943e_z.jpg

The first trace shows a secondary pressure spike that rises from about 45-K to 108-K pressure levels and the second trace shows a secondary pressure spike that rises from about 10-K to about 115-K. In both cases judging by the trace spacing the rise takes place in about 0.1 milliseconds. If that is just an out of control burn and not a true detonation it is one heck of an out of control burn and I don’t want to be anywhere near someone touching off such a load if there is any significant possibility that secondary pressure spikes are real and if fillers are a preventative (my admititantly limited experience suggests that it is) then I’m going to use them in loads that are in the danger zone for such a phenomenon to occur.

[swheeler]

I would guess that's a "picture" of a hangfire, and if you want to avoid that use a filler with this load, as I've suggested many, many times. BUT I do notice barrel length 15 inches, hum got one of those traces with that load in a 24 incvh barrel, same day same set up. Think maybe DR Ken and Larry are onto something?

[felix]

Very good, Turbo. Secondary spikes can be slow and shallow, or fast and deep as you shown. I felt them with the 308 and shot three in a row like an idiot. However, each delivered a different pressure and velocity, but all three took off 3 inch trees as if they were merely candles.

I meant nothing PERSONALLY negative about your byline, Scot, even though that line really belongs to a deceased person from Idaho who smoked big cigars and wore tall white hats. ... felix

[turbo1889]

I would guess that's a "picture" of a hangfire, and if you want to avoid that use a filler with this load, as I've suggested many, many times. BUT I do notice barrel length 15 inches, hum got one of those traces with that load in a 24 incvh barrel, same day same set up. Think maybe DR Ken and Larry are onto something?

That particular trace is from a write up Dan @ MM did entitled "Does the spike go away when you shorten the barrel?" Where he started out with a 22" barrel and a load that created a fairly nasty secondary pressure spike and cut the barrel down progressively in small increments and retested until he finally quite when the barrel was 9" long. All of the traces showed secondary pressure spikes, the 15" increment length produced the most sever secondary pressure spike of all the different barrel lengths tested. It may still be on his web-site. I just have copies saved in my main document library.

I personally suspect that the radical secondary pressure spikes may be “the story” on what has been called SEE and a whole bunch of other things in the past that basically involve guns going KaBoom with significantly reduced charges of certain powders in certain cartridges. I personally think that fillers and possibly the ignition booster charges in duplex loads may be the cure to solving the problem. More testing, however, is necessary before anything more conclusive then that using fillers in significantly reduced charges is a good idea for safety reasons can be said.

Which I do believe is the gist what I originally said.

[felix]

A hang fire can cause a SEE by my definition. A fully loaded round hit by a ramrod from the muzzle in a tight chamber can cause a SEE by my definition. The difference, the first SEE condition was initiated by either by fire or by a wave front, and the second SEE condition was caused ONLY by a wave front. The primer in the latter case (literally) was as good as original. Why it did not fire is truly a mystery. Not enough heat generated by the powder is the only possible reason. I do not know if the person killed, by the case being the projectile, had any bones destroyed. That was not reported in the article. This latter instance erased all my doubt about the SEE phenomenon. ... felix

[Larry Gibson]

Turbo 1889

I recall those write ups as I read them in my research. I am convinced you are seeing the effect of muzzle blast on the instrumentation. Again, those traces do not show muzzle exit.

The first trace (15" barrel with cast bullet load) shows the normal rise and drop of psi. At about the psi where muzzle exit would occur is the 1st spike. Then that spike drops to zero psi and then begins another spike. If the milliseconds scale is correct those both occur after the bullet has exited.

The second trace (Winchester .223 ball) also shows a normal psi rise and fall and bullet exit psi at what it should be. The barrel time should be close to correct at that point also depending on barrel length. The secondary spike in that trace also appears to occur at muzzle exit. With such an increase in psi there should also have been an equal increase in velocity. The auther did not state such. An increase of psi and velocity would have indicated the secondary spike. The lack of a corresponding velocity increase indicates a mecanical problem with the set up.

Both of those traces indicate such a set up problem. Either the gauges are/were improperly attached or the equipment is susceptible to muzzle blast. As I recall the author questioned the set up also. I have conducted several thousand psi tests now. As I stated earlier, I experienced secondary spikes with short barreled guns when the M43 was on the bench. The traces showed spikes but there was no corresponding increase in velocity. When the M43 was moved off the bench and shielded from the affects of muzzle blast the secondary spikes no longer appeared, the peak psi remained the same and there was no change in velocity. I have not experienced any such secondary spikes subsequent to relocating the M43 to a protected position and several thousand test shots have been subsequently fired. Obviously the set of the M43 was incorrect.

Based on my experience I do not believe the traces shown give a correct picture of the internal ballistics. It is apparent there is a problem with the equipment. I believe you have perhaps also experienced this phenomenon as did the author. Before accepting these traces as fact of secondary spikes perhaps a test of the set up of your equipment might be in order first?

Larry Gibson

[dnepr]

[QUOTE=felix;1291269

I meant nothing PERSONALLY negative about your byline, Scot, even though that line really belongs to a deceased person from Idaho who smoked big cigars and wore tall white hats. ... felix[/QUOTE]

yup and his autobigraphy of the same name was a fantastic read :D

[Milsurp Junkie]

[QUOTE=swheeler;1291023] Better yet set the jug of powder beside the stick of dynamite, shoot the powder with your favorite 270 win, see a hole in the jug, now shoot the dynamite, see a huge flash of lightning and sound of thunder, cloud of rock dirt and no more jug. Semantics

The experiment above describes the differences in sensitivity to shock only.
The same experiment above when performed with C4 (a known high explosive), will yield nothing.

As to the comment regarding the "sausages" and 60% nitroglycerin content.

The original Cordite Mk I consisted of 58% nitroglycerine, 37% guncotton and 5% petroleum jelly.
It is not just the nitroglycerine that is capable of detonating, the guncotton can do it as well.