Using Little Dandy for Non-Canister Powders

[alamogunr]

I'm looking for confirmation that my procedure for using Little Dandy rotors for non-canister powders is OK.

I throw 10 charges of the powder in question and weigh, then calculate the per charge weight. I then weigh 10 charges individually to confirm that the average is correct.

The powder I am working with is designated #105, equivalent to AA#5, that I obtained from Bartlett several years ago. So far I have three rotors worked up. The reason I'm asking the question is that there is a large difference in the volume of AA#5 and this #105. For 7.1 gr of AA#5, the rotor required is #8. For 7.1 gr of #105, the rotor was found to be #14. Obviously, there is a large difference in volume for the same weight. As you know, #5 is a ball powder but #105 is a flake powder.

The progression as I worked through 2 more rotors with the #105 was not consistent. Rotor #15 gave me 7.5 gr. I will need to redo the procedure on rotor #16 because of a larger than expected jump in charge weight. I was expecting approx. 8.0-8.1 gr, but got 8.6 which is approaching max in Lyman #4 Cast Bullet Manual.

I quit for the day at that point because I may have set my scale wrong. I'm not used to diddling with scale settings so much. I will rerun the results for rotor #16 tomorrow.

Any insights would be appreciated. I see no reason why non-canister powders can't be used with the Little Dandy if charges are approached carefully.

[mdi]

Equivalent to what? Density or power/burn speed? I think I would just run a bunch through each rotor and average what the results are. I would rather use a load of 105 that I worked up/tested rather than try to duplicate a specific charge weight of AA#5. K.I.S.S.

[dudel]

I'm not sure how it could be equivalent to AA#5 if it didn't meter or have the same volumetric density.

I think you're on the right track through. As mdi said. Run some powder through and get average charge per rotor. Then you'll have to work up loads based on those charges; not AA#5.

[alamogunr]

I should have been more specific. It is equivalent by weight. I got this from Bartlett several years ago. He lists the equivalent canister powder for each powder he sells so that loading data can be found. He also indicates whether it is slightly faster or slower. Check his site: http://www.gibrass.com/gunpowder.html I always start at the bottom of the load data when using a surplus powder. I haven't actually loaded any so far and plan to load a few start loads and run them across the chrono to see how they perform. I don't expect exact correlation but I don't get that with canister powders.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

It may give approximately the same amount of power, aka pressure, as a given canister powder. I say approximately because it may not be exactly the same energy content or speed (although it should be similar if you got the stuff from a reliable source) and may because a change in volumetric density could affect its behavior in the space your case, bullet and seating depth will give it.

Smokeless powders are hard to make without some variation in their behavior. For the powders we buy in canisters, with the very reasonable expectation of not being blown up, the powdermakers have to get it exactly right. Some powder which doesn't quite make it can be classified as something else which will be loaded differently. If it can't, it is returned to process and comes out in new grains.

Large and reputable ammunition manufacturers and government arsenals have their own testing facilities, and are prepared to use any powder which can give the right combination of power and pressure by adjusting the load. Only powder doomed to give inadequate performance are unacceptable. That is one reason (other than bulk buying) why they get the stuff so much cheaper than we do.

Non-canister powders can be perfectly satisfactory, and a great bargain. But you need to start as you would with a new powder, by building up from a very conservative load, just in case.

[alamogunr]

I forgot one important thing. I plan to try these loads out in a Freedom Arms w/.45ACP cylinder. Not looking for accuracy yet, just velocity as an indication of pressure.

[mdi]

I guess you have a weight to volume difference. A fixed measure gives xx.x grains of Powder 1, but yy.y grains of Powder 2, but they are supposed to have the same load data? Don't know what to tell you, other than try an adjustable powder measure...

[alamogunr]

This is somewhat off the subject of this thread but I went to the range today to chrono some of the .45ACP loads w/the 105 powder. I don't have the results printed out and I finally got the truck unloaded tonight.

I thought that I should report that the min. manual 7.1 gr., H&G68 load gave a high vel. of over 1100 fps. This was much more than AA#5 was listed at. Of course it didn't feel too bad from the Freedom Arms 83. I shot 3 rounds from a 1911 off the bench, resting only my arms. That hurt my elbows so I quit at 3 rounds.

This to report that it is back to the loading bench and work up some lighter loads for the #105 powder. I want to get down to approx. 850-950 fps. If I didn't have 6 pounds of this powder, I probably wouldn't bother.

While I was there I shot about 10 rounds each of .45 Colt w/24 gr. of H110 and 19 gr of WC820. The WC820 is listed as equivalent to 2400 but seems a little hotter. Both these loads are more than I want to shoot on a regular basis. They both ran from just under 1300 to 1380 w/300 gr. boolit. Maybe 10 rounds in an afternoon and the rest down in the <1000 fps range. I've got enough Unique to do this.

To stay on topic, my work with the Little Dandy rotors will have to be done over with lighter loads for the #105 in the .45ACP.

Any comments, even "I told you so", will be appreciated. I'm going to examine the chrono data in more detail tomorrow.

[Mk42gunner]

Seems to me like you are going at this project backwards. I would work up a load first by using a scale; then when I find the load I want, look for a rotor that delivers that, if you absolutely have to use the Little Dandy.

If you aren't wedded to the idea of using the Little Dandy, I have seen several powder measures go for less than $25.00 at auctions (even bought some of them myself).

Robert

[alamogunr]

You are probably right about going about it backwards except when I work up a load, I start with manuals and go from there to the scale. I choose 2 or 3 loads from the manuals and then set the measure(I have 3 adjustable measures). With the Little Dandy, I looked for a rotor that would give me the charge I wanted. I had to go thru several rotors to find the one that would give me a starting load because of the non-canister powder.

As a side note, the mid-range load of 7.6 gr of the #105 was very accurate out of the FA. According to the chronograph, it was also the most consistent, giving a standard deviation of 12. I don't usually check SD but when I saw the consistent velocity numbers(1205-1239) for 10 shots, I knew the SD would be a low number. I don't get that kind of consistency (albeit lower velocity) from AA#5. If I was so inclined, this would make a good plinking load in the Freedom Arms 83 w/.45ACP cylinder. It sure isn't one I want to use in a 1911.

[Greg S]

I use a Dandy all the time. I made a powder baffle for mine and if you need a weight that is inbetween rotors, stick a little piece of tape inside the rotor. I have specific rotors set up for loads that I like (i.e. a #25 rotor set up to drop 24.5 of aa2230 for a hord 55 fmjbt in 223) and I label the end of the rotor. Note that you need to check when changing lots #s of powder.