Handgun Load Development Methodology

[ejcrist]

Before 2008 when powders were in ample supply I had only a few brands on my shelf that produced accurate loads in most of my revolvers. Back then I simply decided which couple of powders I thought might shoot the most accurately, selected maybe two or three I thought would fit the bill, and then began loading them from the low range to the higher range to determine which charge produced the best accuracy. It wouldn't take too terribly long to develop a reasonably good load for handgun silhouette and hunting, and usually I'd use the most accurate load for both tasks. Post 2008 things got a little more complicated due to the shortage of components.

When the shortage hit I found myself trying a lot of different powders, probably like most people. I ended up with quite a collection of various brands and now I probably have a pound or two of just about every powder used for handguns that appears on any burn rate chart. I found a lot of powders that performed quite a bit better than others I depended on for years, so the shortage wasn't all bad and at least I got something good out of it. In a way I'm glad I tried a lot of powders or I never would have discovered this. While it's nice to have a lot of powders to work with it also creates an obvious dilemma, and that's where to begin developing a load.

Since 08 I acquired a couple of more revolvers that I want to develop loads for. While in the past I used to select the powder from my small inventory, with more powders to test nowadays I first decide what velocity range I want to work with before selecting the powder. I do this because I believe a hunting load should have a velocity range to a certain degree. After determining the velocity range I select powders that I've read perform well in that range, so for example if I want a high velocity of 1,100 fps in my BH 45 Colt I'll select slower burning powders such as say 2400, H-110, and maybe 4227 to work with. If a target load I might choose a medium powder such as HS-6, AA#5, etc. The problem I found though is some of the slower burning powders perform pretty good at their low end where they overlap with medium burning powders, sometimes even better than medium burning powders, except of course the magnum powders like H-110. After finding this out during the shortage I'm now finding it a whole lot more difficult to select the powders to start with. Obviously I don't want to test every single powder I have or I'll be 6' under before I find one good load.

So I was wondering how others go about developing a handgun load. What methodology do you use?

[376Steyr]

My method:
1. Go to a manual and select some powders that I have in stock and a single charge weight that will (supposedly) give the velocity I'm looking for.
2. Check powder locker and see if I actually have the powders I think I do.
3. Load test rounds with each powder, again only with a single charge weight for each powder, and only with one type of bullet.
4. Test loads, pick out the powder that gives the best performance (whatever the criteria may be, I like accuracy myself) with that bullet. Ignore the rest.
5. Experiment with different charge weights of the powder, looking for "the sweet spot."
6. Load up a bunch of the "Pet Load" and move on to the next gun.

This may not be the best way, but at least I wind up with enough ammo to go shooting whenever I want to. Don't we all know the guy who, because he was endlessly experimenting, waits until the night before Opening Day to load his shells?

[ejcrist]

Ok, that's pretty much exactly what I do. I choose the cast boolit, case (Starline), and primer (CCI) first and those variables stay constant. Let me ask you this though, when you choose a powder, do you select a medium burn rate powder for medium velocities, slow burning for fast velocities, etc., or do you just pick powders you think might do good?

[376Steyr]

Ok, that's pretty much exactly what I do. I choose the cast boolit, case (Starline), and primer (CCI) first and those variables stay constant. Let me ask you this though, when you choose a powder, do you select a medium burn rate powder for medium velocities, slow burning for fast velocities, etc., or do you just pick powders you think might do good?
I stick with the traditional sequence you describe, which is how I pick powders that I think might work well. My powder choices for, say, 38 wadcutter loads, would be WW231, Bullseye, and Clays, with Unique as the slowest powder I'd try. I wouldn't try 2400 or H110. Tested powder data at the velocity range you want will keep you out of trouble. Stuffing Bullseye into a 45 Colt case trying to get maximum velocities will only bring you sorrow.
There is also the issue of bullet alloy versus powder burn rate versus pressure, which might impact the choice of a heavy charge of medium-burn powder or a light charge of slow-burn powder, which I'll let others talk about.

[DougGuy]

I used to do what OP did before 2008. I would read, then compare, any and all sources, then I would start trying a load and give it a range of charge weights and see what worked best.

Now I don't shoot NEARLY as much as I used to, so I have basically throated cylinders and cut forcing cones and prepped everything for using cast boolits sized .002" over groove diameter, and set up the gun and the loads for cast. So basically it comes down to I have settled on one load for the 7 1/2" SBH, one or two loads for the birdshead Vaquero, and that's all I need for them to do. All are heavy for caliber pretty stout loads that I would hunt any critter on the continent with either gun or either load.

This is what is at the END of the load development path. Once you get to what works the best, the rest tend to gather DUST.

Now... FF to 2016. I have a pet project that I have been wanting to do for a couple of years. There is no real practical purpose for it, just that it is there for the doing.

Ruger gave us a very fine medium framed single action revolver, a real sweetheart if you will, in the Vaquero and the Blackhawk Flattop. Light, stout, easy pointin' easy packing, and to be honest they have produced some of the best fit and finish with these 3 digit prefix guns that they have EVER produced even from the 1950s.

I noticed that there was a conspicuous gap in the available load data for the medium framed guns, because SAAMI never adopted a +P load for the .45 Colt, there really is not any published data in the 23,000psi pressure range. Too many older guns couldn't handle the pressure.

Well.. Since Ruger gave us such a fine platform, lets give THEM a cartridge that takes best advantage of available factors, and reintroduce the .45 Schofield a.k.a. 45 Smith & Wesson, and load it to Tier 2, .45 ACP+P 23,000 psi pressures, a TIER TWO RUGER ONLY set of load data.

The pros: Smaller case capacity than the .45 Colt, target loads could be dialed in to be more consistent because they have a higher density, more consistent ignition. Larger case capacity than the .45 ACP which would allow heavier boolit choices and more energy than the .45 Super, headspaces on the rim instead of case mouth which allows for any kind of crimp, and a wide variety of boolit styles.

The cons: Have to dedicate either a spare cylinder or a second revolver chambered in .45 ACP for the cylinder conversion, ream the chambers to .45 Schofield dimensions, and have to buy .45 Schofield brass and dies. That's IT!

Now I need load development. Thinking of investing in Quickload, just to see what can be done with this combo. Should make an excellent cowboy action revolver, low powered loads would work great, yet capable of more energy for hunting than the .45 ACP OR the .45 Colt in standard Colt, S&W, and Colt clones.

Of course the key here is accuracy, which should be improved if less case capacity can improve burn times and standard deviation, and the slightly longer cylinder throat than the .45 Colt would give the boolits an extra amount of freebore which does serve to stabilize and align the boolit better than a short throat does.

Yes I could have done all this with a stock gun and a .45 Colt cylinder shooting .45 Schofield brass, but that's not the point. The point is to match the ammo to the gun in both boolit and case fitment in the cylinder, AND the pressure/power level.

Plus who else has a .45 Schofield Vaquero? :bigsmyl2:

[Garyshome]

1. select some powder that I have in stock
2. Check load data for said powder
3. Start out with lower charge and work up to desired velocity/accuracy [ I usually use mixed brass, and whatever primers that I have enough of]
4. Load all available boolits/brass, because I may never have that powder again.

[FergusonTO35]

Step one: select whatever powder that looks promising and is usually in stock (a very short list)
Step two: load up a box of shells from minimum charge to about mid range.
Step three: test fire for accuracy and function
Step four: if step three is successful, load a box of the mid-range load using two or three different types of primers, then run them through the chronograph
Step five: analyze results and decide which charge and primer works best. A change in primer can truly make or break a load.

[44man]

Doesn't work! Just talk a .44 mag. Most have a 1 in 20 twist. Ruger, etc. But S&W is faster. What boolit first? 240 and up can shoot in a Ruger, 250 to 265 is good in a S&W, heavier can harm the gun.
Drive length and weight in a Ruger. if you think you can get Unique or a fast powder to shoot with a 300 to 330 gr boolit you have a can of pixie dust. keep the boolit light and short for fast powders.
Base powders on your boolit. Never burn rate. I will send you my boolits and will allow 50 years to get your choices to work.
.45 Colt with a 335 gr LBT is another. 10 gr of Unique, did you fall off the cart? 296 is where you start. Strong gun of course. Got a Colt, cut the boolit way down.

[ejcrist]

Thanks for the info fella's. I was reading Glen Fryxel's Cast Bullet Guide in Chapter 7 where it talks about leading and powder selection, and he stated:

Another source of leading that can be traced to the components of the load is the mismatch of the powder burn rate to pressure generated by the load. Many years ago Elmer Keith used to write about the "balance point" of a given powder; the range of pressures at which that powder delivered smooth uniform ballistics. Basically this boiled down to fast powders for light target loads (e.g. Bullseye, W231, HP-38, AA #2), medium burners for standard pressure loads (like Unique, Universal Clays, AA #5), medium slow powders for +P loads (powders like HS-7, Blue Dot, AA #7) and slow powders for full-house magnum loads (like W296, H110, 2400 and AA #9). Match the powder to the pressure curve. The use of fast powders for higher than normal pressures with plain-based bullets can cause bad leading, due to the very rapid pressure rise time early in the P-T curve leading to high pressure faster than the bullet alloy can obturate in response to the pressure, and as a result severe gas cutting can result. The other issue here is that the slow pistol powders reach their pressure peak when the bullet is an inch or two in front of the forcing cone, when the bullet is fully supported and contained by the barrel. Sealing and lubrication are fully functional in this environment. The fast pistol powders reach their peak pressure when the bullet is in the throat or traversing the cylinder gap. This is fine if the load involves modest pressures, but if a plain-based cast bullet is subjected to magnum pressures as it crosses the cylinder gap, then serious leading problems can arise. The take-home lesson here is to not use fast powders for magnum pressure levels in the first place! Just match the powder to the pressure curve.

So he's saying to select the powder based on the velocity range you're trying to achieve to minimize leading. I'm also selecting the powder to achieve a certain velocity but I never considered leading as an issue. I've been more worried about higher pressures with faster powders to reach the same velocities as you can with slower powders, and that's why I've never reached for Bullseye when working up a load to reach 1,100 fps in a 45 Colt BH.

So 44 Man, you're selecting the powder based on the boolit? I can see where this comes into play too. That could be why I never found much accuracy with medium-fast powders when using the 45-270-SAA. It's not a lot heavier than the standard 250 gr boolit but it certainly is longer (more friction). I found 4227 works best in one of my 45 Colts.

[44man]

So 44 Man, you're selecting the powder based on the boolit? I can see where this comes into play too. That could be why I never found much accuracy with medium-fast powders when using the 45-270-SAA. It's not a lot heavier than the standard 250 gr boolit but it certainly is longer (more friction). I found 4227 works best in one of my 45 Colts.
Not friction, spin. Spin is totally lost from revolver shooters. A 4" gun has the same spin as a 10", get real, you can't get velocity or spin.
Fast powders can approach slower but with a big boolit destroying punch. Why use 11 gr of Unique when 296 will will exceed it and spin better?
You would know if you ever tried to get a 2" .44, or .500 to shoot. Stupid is as stupid does. can a 2" .500 match a 10"? Do you know what the grooves are in that piece of steel? http://castboolits.gunloads.com/clear.gif (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3694043&noquote=1)

[dragon813gt]

Mine was very simple for a long time.

- Look up loads for W231 or H110.
- Load up 10 test rounds in .1 grain increments to around 90% of max.
- Shoot them over a chronograph to check speed.
- Pick the most accurate load and load up a bunch.
- If I didn't reach desired velocity, in the case of a 357 hunting load, I would increase charge until I got there.

Not much has changed except I now do it w/ more powders. I don't shoot over a chronograph. It's now behind the line of fire :)

I'm not using a ransom rest so utmost accuracy is not what I'm after. 2" groups at 10 yards are more than adequate. I could spend a whole lot of time playing w/ sizing, lubes and OAL as well. Just don't have the time and I'm not after one hole groups.

[dverna]

I never check velocties. I figure the data from the manuals will be close enough and I can estimate my velocity from my charge weight.

I use only three criteria. What velocity do I want. Then I load for accuracy. If in a a semi auto, then it must function reliably.

I do do not care if a bullet is going 950 or 1000 fps. It is not a significant issue for me.

[ejcrist]

dverna - I basically did the same thing before I got a chronograph and the powder shortage happened. Back then the velocity ranges I wanted were listed with 2400, AA#7, and a couple other commonly available powders. But then when everything became scarce I found myself trying other powders I never thought of like Power Pistol, Longshot, etc., and a lot of times my manuals didn't list charges for these powders with the boolit I was using. As a result I dug deeper to find loads on the manufacturers sites, in Handloader (Brian Pearce), etc. When buying the powders I started by looking at the burn rate charts to see what was close to the stuff I used to use and bought a pound here and there. Some of the powders were faster burners but had really good results at their top ends and others were not. I kinda relied on the chronograph for a first line indicator if pressures were ok by verifying my velocities were near the listed velocities for given charges. But anyway, one thing I learned was some of the faster powders did better than slower powders at velocities I used to use 2400 for, and other times the slower powders exceeded my expectations for medium velocity loads I used to use Unique and 231 for. So my old general rule of using a fast/medium powder for slow-medium velocity goals and vice versa didn't always hold true. While I'm happy I found better loads with unexpected powders, it left my old handload work-up methodology in a mess. That's what spurred my question originally on this thread. Now when I look at powders to try for a starters for a given boolit, case, primer, and firearm the choice is extremely daunting. That's what's been giving me a headache lately. In the past I never even knew powders like 800x and Herco even existed and would never consider them over 2400 for 45 Colt but nowadays they're the first powders on my list to try. I did manage to get some 2400 during the shortage and it's an outstanding powder but I won't bet that it'll be more accurate at around 1,000 fps than the other two. You see my situation? I have a hard time picking a few powders to start with for best accuracy now while in the past it was easy because I thought only a few were best and discounted the rest. I'll tell ya, this powder situation really messed me up for a long time. I might have to apply for a disability because of all this.

[FergusonTO35]

Published velocities are too often only applicable to guns popular decdes ago. Most .38 Special data was, and is still, created using 6-8" barrels; a legacy of how popular the K-38 once was. I don't know of any powder or bullet company that produces data using a 2" barrel .38 Special, 2.75" .380 Auto, or 9mm Luger with polygonal rifling. So you gotta get a chronograph and do the R&D yourself.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I am pretty well set in my philosophy of finding a load for a gun that shoots well,,, and doing that. I am more into shooting than reloading but I still do both. One kind of feeds the other.

I don't have a zillion powders for pistols W231, Unique, Bullseye, H110, 2400. I bought the can of Bullseye 40 years ago and it still has about 2/3 left. The Unique is unopened. I load 9mm Makarov .40 S&W, .45 ACP .44 Special and Magnum. W231 and H110 pretty much cover these rounds, and I use the 2400 for 30 cal cast rifle rounds.

Rifles powders are more of the same. I currently load for .223, .308, 30-06, .303 Brit, .45-70.

IMR 4895, 5744, Varget, W748 and BL-C2 pretty much cover my rifle rounds I have cans of 3031 and 4350 left over from 40 years ago which I may use some day just to get rid of them. I could conceivably load any of my current cartridges with any of the powders on hand.

I also load for 12 ga and .410 shotguns using Green Dot for all 12 ga loads and H110 for the .410.

12 powders in total and I really only use 7 of them frequently. They are all common and readily available.

When looking for a load for a new Cartridge or Bullet/Boolit for an existing cartridge, I consult all of my loading manuals, and deduce/interpolate which powder that I have, and at what amount, will give decent results in the Cartridge/Rifle. Most of the time I get good results on the first try. Sometimes I don't and have to punt.

My whole point here is that in my world the point of reloading ammunition is for the purpose of shooting it. Not finding the "Ne Plus Ultra" load which delivers "The Best Accuracy!"[smilie=b:

Virtually all of my shooting beyond "sighting in" is conducted from the standing position. So 2" groups at 100 yards are just as good as 1" groups or 3" groups. not to say I don't want the best accuracy I can achieve, but "Good Enough is Good Enough, for most of my purposes, so I don't belabor the point by endless searching. When I find something that works for me,,, I do that!

I have one Consistent Sub MOA rifle, and that is my Ruger Scout. I have tried exactly one load for that gun (45 gr of IMR4895 with a 147 gr FMJBT Pulled Bullet.) it is consistently under 1". I am confident that if I loaded some 168gr Match bullets the gun would do better, but I have no use for them so what the hey.

My Marlin 1895CB delivered a 1 3/4" group once and I had to hunt for that load, steadily increasing the powder charge until it worked right. One of the few load hunts I've engaged in that required several trips to the range. I got it, and that's what we're doing from now on..

All the rest of my guns are either ex military, or generic guns so expecting one hole accuracy is a fantasy I just don't partake in. Wasting time looking for a super accurate from a Mini 14 is pointless, as the gun simply isn't capable of delivering it. (and If you seen the high speed video of the barrel during firing you'd know why.)

This all comes down to how you define your hobby. Is it Reloading, or is it Shooting, and then what kind of shooting is it.

I load ammo to shoot,,, not to test. Sometimes there is testing involved but the ultimate goal is to find something that delivers what I need for that gun. Then the testing is over and the shooting starts.

I also don't really care that much for shooting at paper targets. I like things that make a noise or fall over or break when hit.

Much more satisfying. :bigsmyl2: Anyway that is what I do. I guess that's my .02?

Randy

[44man]

I use one method in my revolvers. most love and need 296 so I start at the low end and go up 1/2 gr at a time. No less needed. I only shoot 3 shots each at 50 yards, no more needed. I read and test primers after.
Only one to NOT start at starting loads is the .454. Primer is wrong!
Then I go to 100 yards and sometimes to 500 meters.
Sure do not need that much for hunting or can shooting but why not?
If you are happy with 6" at 50 and shake 6" that is larger then most deer from chest to back. Shots in the field for deer do not come with a BR or even sticks to set. It is fast. Shoot over bait with a rest is not normal. Pigs are mostly shot over corn and bears over bait. A high house with a rest. You can get away with some poor accuracy. I prefer the best I can get from a gun because i am not a machine. I add my failings into hunting. I want every boolit to go to the sights even with a shake. My guns are never the weak link.