|
Post by deadeye on Feb 12, 2011 13:04:25 GMT -5
my approx muzzle distance to chrono was 10ft, i am thinking about davew's comment about 2 different things in 2 different guns, in my observation the only difference's are #1- i shoot a dirty bore & mine is proven to like it #2- im guessing a final seating pressure @ 100lbs #3-i used a wool unlubed wad my gun w/9/61 load im very comfortable & sense or detect nothing erratic or close to dangerous,im wondering when i done the dirty vs clean test if pressures are reacting adversely somewhat on some bore's that dont group well clean,just a though/im confused but usually am ;D dougsmessageboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=smokeless&action=display&thread=4211
|
|
|
Post by DHinMN on Feb 12, 2011 13:58:48 GMT -5
I’m going to put forth a theory on those pressure traces that is similar to something I read about a long time ago. It looks similar to problems of shooting reduced loads of slow burning powder in large capacity rifle cases. Every once in a great while the gun blew up. No body could figure out why and this was an answer that made the most sense, at least to me. Powder is supposed to burn from the primer forward in a column and on toward the muzzle. All this happens in nano seconds. Now if the powder is not in a column and is spread out burns over a large area from top to bottom it burns too fast. All those little kernels of powder are burning at once causing high pressure and gun failure. Move over to the present muzzleloader trace. Now if the booster powder moves the slow burning powder down the barrel and ignites late, the main charge is spread out in the barrel and the flame catches up to it and it burns very unevenly. What happens? All these little kernels of powder are burning all at once or in bunchs instead of going from breech to muzzle. Not in a column and not burning at even rate. Kind of like a dust explosion in a grain our flour mill. I am certainly not an expert on these matters but only relating things that I have read and make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by TGinPA on Feb 12, 2011 15:10:18 GMT -5
ET: For all traces I have provided, the chronograph is set up 8 ft from the muzzle. I add 1fps for every foot in front of the muzzle the chronograph is placed. It is probably not an exact correction, given different BCs of bullets tested. But it is fairly close and a lot simpler than making the correction from ballistic tables or programs for every test. TGinPA
|
|
|
Post by ET on Feb 12, 2011 15:35:06 GMT -5
Deadeye
Thanks for the response of additional info you provided. My primary focus is on reviewing data provided/collected and see what can be derived from it. As for determining what is safe that will be left to someone more qualified or the shooter using the load in his firearm. Not to sound callous or uncaring, I’m not the one pulling the trigger but will express a concern when felt needed.
DHinDM
Now that was informative information that could explain a lot. Thanks for sharing this. Need some time to further digest this info and see if I can clearly picture what is occurring before adding any comments or further discussing any points. For now I will add this is an eye opener about the possible collapse of the powder column creating a larger surface area for the burn to affect.
TGinPA
Thanks for the response and this then does support Dave W’s assessment of noted velocity difference.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by Savage Shooter on Feb 12, 2011 16:31:27 GMT -5
I’m going to put forth a theory on those pressure traces that is similar to something I read about a long time ago. It looks similar to problems of shooting reduced loads of slow burning powder in large capacity rifle cases. Every once in a great while the gun blew up. No body could figure out why and this was an answer that made the most sense, at least to me. Powder is supposed to burn from the primer forward in a column and on toward the muzzle. All this happens in nano seconds. Now if the powder is not in a column and is spread out burns over a large area from top to bottom it burns too fast. All those little kernels of powder are burning at once causing high pressure and gun failure. Move over to the present muzzleloader trace. Now if the booster powder moves the slow burning powder down the barrel and ignites late, the main charge is spread out in the barrel and the flame catches up to it and it burns very unevenly. What happens? All these little kernels of powder are burning all at once or in bunchs instead of going from breech to muzzle. Not in a column and not burning at even rate. Kind of like a dust explosion in a grain our flour mill. I am certainly not an expert on these matters but only relating things that I have read and make sense to me. I believe this is exactly what is happening also. IMO the booster may be too fast for the .45 and is running out early.
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Feb 12, 2011 18:57:48 GMT -5
i'm going to halt this project until i can get some gathered info from people here more knowledgable than i on a direction to go. its making sense but i think's its wise to think some more. question should i delete the prior data or leave as a example. we are starting low & working up but this is in unchartered waters.// ok i'm thinking & just thinking moving down the powder chart to h4198 as a boost & move up the chart on the main somewhere near benchmark/4895 to close the gap between the boost & main burning rates. i set idle right now waiting for recommendations. i think it best for these rec's to be on the thread for all to view imo & chew on those awhile before continuing & again eventually will start low & work up using 300gn xtp's again.
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Feb 12, 2011 20:02:30 GMT -5
Deadeye It looks interesting enough and I'm sure you and your pm team will work it out. I have enough confidence that I would like to know where you find the best price. I will have to be stocking them for medical reasons right now but am following with great interest. The project I'm working on now is a 6.5 mz which I'm sure there is not much interest in. But finding a safe starting load for me being new to this is a challenge. If any one has any ideas I Am looking to learn. The barrel has a chamber of around 50 grains of 4831. Help if any one is interested I'm starting with a 85 grain bullet. Any input would be appreciated. It has a 1/9 twist that should be good for at least up to a 120grain bullet. I'm not trying to hijack this thread which is very much toned toward load under difference components. Jon Jon
|
|
|
Post by Savage Shooter on Feb 12, 2011 21:10:15 GMT -5
i'm going to halt this project until i can get some gathered info from people here more knowledgable than i on a direction to go. its making sense but i think's its wise to think some more. question should i delete the prior data or leave as a example. we are starting low & working up but this is in unchartered waters.// ok i'm thinking & just thinking moving down the powder chart to h4198 as a boost & move up the chart on the main somewhere near benchmark/4895 to close the gap between the boost & main burning rates. i set idle right now waiting for recommendations. i think it best for these rec's to be on the thread for all to view imo & chew on those awhile before continuing & again eventually will start low & work up using 300gn xtp's again. I think you are on the right course. One thing that would probably help would be to have an idea of how much powder as a single it takes to get to 2200fps or so. I think if you can test through some as a single it will help a lot i.e. 4895 or Varget. I would want the powder of choice to reach about 2200fps @ 70 - 75gr for starters then retry boosting with slower booster. I know that Benchmark and 2015 took 63 - 65 grs to do this with 300gr bullets in .45,,,,,and IMO just aint slow enough burn. So you know you need to for sure go slower burn than that. Then I would go back and try boosting with 4198 or maybe even slower yet for heavy a bullet.
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Feb 13, 2011 3:24:48 GMT -5
jon- we will continue intelligently as i wont quit even if it bankrupts me ss-glad to hear im leaning on the same wavelength ;D,thx to all
|
|
|
Post by ET on Feb 13, 2011 8:30:25 GMT -5
Deadeye
Over the years I have followed many pioneering development with smokeless muzzle loading that has broadened the capabilities of a smokeless muzzle loader. Here unique individuals devote time and money to take a concept and see how far it can be developed.
When an individual develops a load that surpasses any previous loads you can bet there are others who will follow the footsteps (shared information) left behind. Being a caring individual he would want to ensure there are no possible safety issues when all is said and done. Having said this I hope you won’t jump at deleting any of your posts because it demonstrates a good approach to load development and what happens when a possible safety issue arises. You now set an example by lets stop here for the moment and check it out. Here I need to add that you have my utmost respect for the decision made. This Board promotes safety and Deadeye is a good representative example of this.
Not trying to center you out or cause you any embarrassment but felt this was needed to be expressed. I personally don’t share an interest in a heavier load but enjoy following exploits of other shooters. Seeing what’s developed here definitely has my interest to keep following to see future developments.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Feb 13, 2011 9:36:30 GMT -5
Et. Very well put. Although I'm not able to contribute much hands on experience. I will contribute in any way I can. It makes the times I'm able to get to the range it makes things alot more enjoyable. An example would be when I got my first m/l I wanted to do it all on my own. My results were to the point I was ready to quit. When I swallowed my pride and started paying attention to others I finally got down to a fairly consistent 1.5 group at 100yds. Granted The barrel on my original 50 looked like it was drilled with a dull poorly sharpened drill but from listening to others I got enough accuracy to get interested in the 45 Pac-Nor What a difference I know this not really on the thread but I'm trying to express my appreciation for all the work the innovators put in. If there is anything I can do to help I will try as best I can. The great guys here are what made smoke less m/z's what they are today I will not mention any names since I will probably miss some and feel bad. Deadeye thank you and all the others for all the work and attention to safety. Which has probably saved others from making a serious mistake. Again thank you to all. If this needs to be moved feel free. Jon
|
|
|
Post by TGinPA on Feb 13, 2011 9:40:49 GMT -5
ET: Well said. This thread has information which is helpful for all.
|
|
|
Post by moto357 on Feb 13, 2011 10:04:37 GMT -5
i agree with the last few posts that this thread has been very informative and helpful in a number of ways. its great when you guys here and many others on this board post not just the good but also everything else.. thats what makes this so helpful. that being said, as i keep comming to this thread im curious why or if there is a need for a duplex load for this bullet? i was thinking the original duplexes were to build pressure in the 50 with light for caliber bullets? and similarly so in the 45 to get a desired speed and a somewhat desired pressure (not too low/unstable)? if your goal speed is 2400ish then i would think a single such as 3031 or something could be used? i dont feel myself qualified to give any load data, but im asking this more as a question and not suggesting you do anything. my experience with 3031 was using a 300xtp sabotless and 70gr got me in the upper 2400's for speed. anyways, didn't mean to ramble, just curious why, or if there was a need to look for a duplex load when using the heavier bullet? keep the good stuff comming guys
|
|
|
Post by TGinPA on Feb 13, 2011 10:34:46 GMT -5
NOTE: THIS TRACE HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE INCORRECT Due to problems with cable connection between the barrel pressure sensor and hardware module, the cable and connectors were replaced yesterday. The test of this load repeated. Please see the corrected trace posted on 2-17 further down the thread. Pressure Trace:110/vVarget 9/61 325grFTX substituted When I ran the first test traces for the varget duplex with the 325be, because only one of three traces showed an unexpected result, one thought I had was that I might be looking at some kind of artifact. I had only a limited supply of 325be bullets. So I retested the load, substituting resized 325gr FTX bullet using the same duplex load and fiber wad. After 2 shots, it seemed clear to me that what I had seen with the 325be was reproducible. The trace is shown below. FYI the .458 325FTX is tough to resize and seems to have a lot of spring back.
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Feb 13, 2011 11:35:11 GMT -5
thx for all the kind comments & tginpa for his work here also. this is a thinking out loud post & i agree nothing has been considered dangerous,if i remember i think remington proof loads each rifle barrel up 50% above max load pressures which should be around 90kpsi, so deleting data would be a step in the wrong direction. back to the bench in a few days to run some varget,4895 & maybe 4064 across the chrono to see what we find. we will get there!
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Feb 13, 2011 18:45:28 GMT -5
2.13.2011 testing resumed, as singles varget,imr4064//w/300gnxtp w/chrono@approx30ft///47deg,no obvious pressure sign's varget 65.0=1965fps 68.0=2094 71.0=2174 73.0=2198 imr4064 63.0=1987 66.0=2097 69.0=2166 71.0=2236 73.0=2252 tad on loose side loading 75.0=2335 for another thread's discussion(heavier bullets per our bore sizes) seems like a lot of cluster/bughole's possibly developing even those these are not groups but shot at same bull-eye, notice 4064-75.0/73.0 & 71.0with 69.0///varget same 71&73 & 68,66 & 63 with 65/hard to read i know
|
|
|
Post by TGinPA on Feb 14, 2011 17:15:19 GMT -5
PN45 Varget 75gr. 325gr. FTX resized. (clean v dirty barrel) At Deadeyes request, I did pressure trace testing using Varget 75gr as a single powder with resized 325gr FTX bullets over a lubed wool wad (Fed 209 primer). The pressure trace recording setup is described earlier in the thread. Initially, 2 shots were fired from a clean barrel. Using the same load but not cleaning the barrel, a third shot was fired, which is the green pressure trace in the upper pressure trace recording. The fourth shot (same load) again fired from the dirty barrel was recorded as a single trace on the lower pressure trace recording and showed even higher peak pressure and velocity. Clean barrel Average of 2 shots: Average Peak Pressure (1st pressure wave)= 8888 psi, Average Velocity=2005fps Dirty Barrel Average of 2 shots: Average Peak Pressure (1st pressure wave)=23466 psi Average Velocity=2215fps As Deadeye predicted, with this relatively slow powder, resistance to bullet movement by barrel fouling makes a significant difference in pressure and velocity generation. It may explain the large difference between my pressure velocity data for the n110/varget duplex and velocities seen in Deadeye’s test. One wonders whether this effect of a dirty barrel might be true of other slower burning smokeless powders in smokeless powder muzzle loading rifles? My guess is that subsequent shots with the same load, velocities would have even been higher with higher pressures as 2 fouling shots might not be enough for the fouled barrel to reach some equilibrium point of fouling. The load tested seemed safe in my barrel under the conditions of the test but may not be so in other conditions. TGinPA
|
|
|
Post by ET on Feb 14, 2011 18:52:25 GMT -5
Deadeye &TGinPA
As I watch this being done in a team effort I believe you guys make a great team.
When I look at the provided traces by TGinPA the first thing my eyes turn to observing is the secondary pressure spike indication. It exceeds the pressure of the first spike and would make me uncomfortable if I was using this load from what I’ve read about the secondary pressure spike. Also from what I’ve read the secondary spike is usually the result of using a powder with too slow a burn rate.
Going on the assumption a faster burning powder maybe more suited for this load. Here for some reason my thoughts move to H322 when I look at a burn chart.
TginPA
Good observation about resulting pressure from a clean bore to fouled bore. I made a note about that one. That may also explain why some comment about a number of fouling shots needed from a clean bore before their load settles in. Thanks for pointing that out.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by Savage Shooter on Feb 14, 2011 18:58:20 GMT -5
This was what I wanted to see. This is a classic "catch up" trace affirming that burn rate is to slow.
This is something to build from.
|
|
|
Post by Dave W on Feb 14, 2011 19:03:31 GMT -5
He tried H322 Ed, vents were only lasting 10-12 shots.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Shooter on Feb 14, 2011 19:07:20 GMT -5
RSI recommends increasing burn rate of powder or more of the same powder when you see this kind of trace.
This is why the duplex trace with Varget looked so wild. The load was trying to get up to pressure but the bullet "out ran" the pressure.
Now I see why Bad Bull is using 140gr of 4350 and say not go below 100.
As I said before tho we got to find the right single before we can build a duplex.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by moto357 on Feb 14, 2011 22:42:28 GMT -5
i agree with adding more powder. perhaps not varget? i suppose speed/recoil would be a limiting factor though?
|
|
|
Post by ET on Feb 15, 2011 6:36:12 GMT -5
He tried H322 Ed, vents were only lasting 10-12 shots. DaveW Okay my defense is momentary memory loss. For some reason that one got misplaced in the memory archive. ;D Then I’d like to toss out this thought for review. Looking at 4198 & Varget Hodgdon has them listed as extruded powders so I wonder if this family of powders may be better suited than others. Then there follows the question of H4895 being a possible candidate here as it lies between the 2-previous mentioned powders for burn rate? Ed
|
|
|
Post by GMB54-120 on Feb 15, 2011 9:53:52 GMT -5
Is Reloader7 possibly good choice as a single or duplex with a sabotless 325gr? I know it comparing apples to oranges but in a sabot Re7 as a single with the 325gr FTX has been fantastic but pressures appear to be on the mild side.
IMO it looks like a possible candidate as a main for a duplex. I would supply 30 of the 325gr FTXs if you want to try it. The FTX is fairly tough and might need a good kick in the pants to orbitrate <sp> better. I would even send a few more if you could try 5744 as the booster since its what im going to try with the 325gr FTX in a sabot.
PM me if you are interested in either trying this duplex in a sabot or sabotless. I can also get n110 locally so that would get my interest too but i first wanted to try what i have in stock.
|
|
|
Post by edge on Feb 15, 2011 11:23:43 GMT -5
Rel-7, 4198, and N120 are all very close to each other and are almost interchangeable.
edge.
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Feb 15, 2011 18:56:53 GMT -5
2/15/2011 update-perfect day for chrono w/overcast skys & 37deg.- my bullets 300xtp's w/varget were on the tight side varget resumed 73.0@2434 **** last week=2198**** 74.5@2512t t=tighter than normal 76.0@2579t,2500 decided to pull off varget to faster burn rate
imr 4895 66.0=2285 68.0=2342 70.0=2375 72.0=2426 74.0=2571 t- hammered down,,2491 76.0=2517 325be imr4895 75.0=2482,2512
|
|
|
Post by Savage Shooter on Feb 15, 2011 19:01:24 GMT -5
Very Good Results.
The 4895 is spot on speed.
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Feb 15, 2011 19:06:41 GMT -5
i was also impressed the load hammered down did not spike more fps//guessing a trace is in order for 74.0-75.0 gns???
|
|
|
Post by Savage Shooter on Feb 15, 2011 19:08:27 GMT -5
i was also impressed the load hammered down did not spike more fps//guessing a trace is in order for 74.0-75.0 gns??? yes, get Edge to check with Ql to see what to expect.
|
|
|
Post by TGinPA on Feb 17, 2011 14:25:40 GMT -5
PN45 PT CORRECTED TRACE: 110/Varget 9/61gr 325FTX Problems with the cable connection between the barrel pressure sensor and the hardware module made it necessary to replace cable and connectors and connect to a previously attached old sensor. After doing so yesterday and repeating the earlier test with this load, it became apparent that the pressure traces done previously and posted earlier in this thread were probably in error. Though a different bullet was used in repeating the test (325ftx v 325be) the weights were the same. I would anticipate not much difference in pressure traces between the two. The new traces are shown below. The load seemed safe in my barrel under conditions of the test, but may not be so different conditions. Gage and Module Manufacturer = RSI USB model Trigger Sensitivity = 3, Strain Gage Voltage =4.9 Gage Factor =2.1 PSI Correction Factor: 0 Barrel Temp = 67-68 degrees F. measured at the sensor (IR). Rifle Stand: Caldwell Lead Sled Altitude: 450 ft Chronograph: Chrony Alpha Model 8 ft from muzzle. (8 fps added to all recorded velocities to correct for distance of chrony from muzzle.) Barrel Type: PacNor .45 Cal Muzzleloader Barrel OD = 1.06 in Barrel ID = .452 Breech Plug:Savage Std. (screw-in ventliner) ventliner orifice .032 in. Sensor dist fm BP=1.1 in. Bullet Diam.= .458 in. resized to .448 in Bullet Type = Hornady 325FTX. Bullet weight = 325 gr. ,unknurled. Sabot: None. Lubed wool wad. Powder: N110/Varget 9/61gr Fed 209 primer Shot fm dirty barrel.
|
|