View Single Post
Old September 21, 2012, 05:45 PM   #7
Misssissippi Dave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2009
Posts: 1,411
I couldn't agree more with what has already been said.

Accurate Pistol Powder did do one nice thing for some of their powders. They used a numbering system to label them. #2 is the fastest and #9 being the slowest. For light loads I like using a fast powder with a light bullet. If I wanted something that will have more energy such as for hunting I probably will use a heavier bullet and a slower powder. I find the nicest load I have done for 9 mm target shooting was using a medium weight bullet (124 Grain) and a medium burn powder (AA#5). I prefer a light load for .45. I use WST a fast burning powder with a light 185 grain bullet. Neither of these loads are intended to be used for hunting. Both are quite accurate for range use.

A long time ago, I was trying to load ammo that would have the greatest speed thinking that would be the best to use. I found most of the time as the speed goes up accuracy goes down. I no longer care about trying to get as close to the top end of what is listed for any powder. I want an accurate load and preferably a clean burning one at that. If I need to load for hunting I just use a heavier bullet and a slower burning powder. I will work the load up until it is also accurate then stop there.

Rifle loading takes on a life of its own. Loading for pistols in my opinion is much easier to do right compared to trying to load bench rest rifle ammo. This is probably why I prefer to just load pistol ammo.

A simple Google search will bring up several powder burn rate charts if you care to look for them. I haven't found very many that even come close to another one. I generally list powders as fast, medium and slow. That is plenty good enough. Finding the powder/bullet combination that works well for me is what I try to do. What I want and prefer might and probably will be different compared to many other people.
Misssissippi Dave is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02874 seconds with 8 queries