The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 22, 2011, 04:14 PM   #1
ipscchef
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2008
Location: South Central Pa.
Posts: 426
AA1680/WC680 and .44mag/.45Colt

Hi everyone!

I am looking for some help with load data for H116, which from what I have been told by a fairly reliable source is the number that Hodgdons gave to surplus WC680, and the same powder was marketed by Accurate Arms as AA1680.

I have AA's current load data and they do not list any loads specific to what I want to do with it, which is use it in my .44mag Ruger Blackhawk and 1894 Marlin, in addition I was hoping to find some data for .45 Colt, again in a Ruger revolver as well as a Taylor Arms Uberti. The .44 I would like to use 255gr. Keiths, and in the .45 I would be using 270gr. Keiths. But if need be I would be willing to go to a heavier bullet in both, which may be neccesary from what info I have gotten so far.

The reason for my interest is that I obtained two unopened eight pound canisters from the wife of a handloader who had passed away. It would be a shame to just let that much powder sit.

I know it was originaly intended for the 7.62x39, and it has some use for the Hornet, although it does not give very good velocity in my buddies Hornet. The only other gun I have that it might be useful in is my AR in 5.56.

Anyway, I would appreciate hearing from anybody out there who has used this stuff in any of the calibers I mentioned. I have done some searching on different sites on the net and have not found any usable data yet. so I am hoping someone here may be able to help me out.

As a very last resort, I guess I may just have to go out and buy an SKS, or AK to make sure that my 16lbs. of powder does not go to waste!

Willy
__________________
Don' keep shooting them until you think they are dead, Keep shooting them until they think they are dead.- Clint Smith
ipscchef is offline  
Old April 22, 2011, 08:26 PM   #2
Loader9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2008
Posts: 949
http://home.hiwaay.net/~stargate/powder/powder.htm
Loader9 is offline  
Old April 22, 2011, 09:59 PM   #3
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,226
Willy,

It's just too slow for the handguns. QuickLOAD shows very low efficiency and a lot of unburned powder being tossed out in those rounds. In .223 it comes out very close in performance to IMR 4198 and H4198 by weight, except it's more dense, so it doesn't fill the case as well in these. That relegates it to light bullet duty, and with the 35 and 40 grain Hornady bullets you can get to 90% case fill with it, which should be OK. It looks to be at its best in the .22 Hornet and K-hornet.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick is offline  
Old April 22, 2011, 11:07 PM   #4
ipscchef
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2008
Location: South Central Pa.
Posts: 426
Thank you Uncle Nick

Uncle Nick,

thank you for your reply. That is what I was thinking after gathering what little info I could on this powder.

I guess it looks like if I want to use this powder efficiently I will have to use some very light bullets in my Mini 14 and AR, or just have to go out and buy myself an AK or SKS platform when funds permit.

Thanks again for your advice, I consider your thoughts to be the last word on a subject like this. And I am not just "Blowing Smoke" as it were. (Pun Intended)
I hope we can speak again in the future.

Bill "Willy" Henderson
__________________
Don' keep shooting them until you think they are dead, Keep shooting them until they think they are dead.- Clint Smith
ipscchef is offline  
Old April 23, 2011, 10:51 AM   #5
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,226
Willy,

Thanks.

You can actually load the .223 with 50 and 55 grain bullets using 1680, but you'll have to accept the case being only 80% full or so under the bullet. That won't prevent functioning or anything, but you can figure that there will be more velocity variation than you might want depending on whether the powder is nearer the front or the rear of the case when you light it up.

I ran a load of 2520 in .308 one year that was like that. Accuracy was not good until I deburred the flash holes to improve ignition. Deburring never made any difference I could detect with stick powders in that rifle (M1A), but they sure helped the 2520 a lot. About 40% reduction in group size at 100 yards. You may find the same thing in the .223 with 1680. It's something to keep in mind, anyway.

The old Accurate manual lists 45 grain to 55 grain bullets using 18.5 to 20.5 grains of 1680, with the exception of a 53 grain Hornady match bullet for which it lists 18 grains to 20 grains. QuickLOAD thinks it could go a couple grains higher, and that presents an issue to be aware of: Accurate used to multi-source powders more so lot-to-lot variation was greater than it is now. I don't know when your powder was made, so prudence suggests starting at 18 and working up while watching for pressure signs.

Good luck with it.

Nick
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick is offline  
Old April 23, 2011, 02:07 PM   #6
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,892
"It's just too slow for the handguns."



Winchester 680 was fairly close to WW 296; I'm pretty sure that 296 replaced it in the Winchester powder lineup.

680 was a good powder for the larger magnums like .44, and was also very useful for the smaller rifle cartridges like .25-20 (in which I found it very useful) and .218 Bee.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old April 23, 2011, 03:56 PM   #7
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,226
Mike,

I'm just going by how it runs in QuickLOAD and what's in the old Accurate manual. In QuickLOAD Hartmut's measured characteristics make it almost a grain for grain substitute for 4198, except that it takes up less space and the old Accurate manual uses about 5% less by weight than 4198 max loads. In either case, slower than 4227, which sometimes makes it into the magnum handgun loads.

The old manual shows no loads in .44 Mag or in .45 Colt even in its Ruger and TC-only section. It does show it in the longer and/or higher pressure rounds like the .445 Super Mag, and the .454 Casull. In QuickLOAD it looks like you can get enough into the .44 Mag and .45 Colt to make peak pressure, but QL is showing about half of it unburned when it gets to the muzzle of a 7" gun, and ballistic efficiencies are as low as an overbore rifle; 15%-21% for the .45 and .44, respectively

So, the question is whether it's really like 680 or if that larger number was chosen to show that it's somewhat like 680 but slower? I don't know?
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by Unclenick; April 23, 2011 at 04:04 PM.
Unclenick is offline  
Old April 23, 2011, 06:54 PM   #8
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,892
You're right, Nick.

I was confusing 630 and 680.

630 was a handgun powder that was pretty close to 296.

680 was a small rifle cartridge powder.

Getting old.... getting old...
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old April 23, 2011, 07:42 PM   #9
ipscchef
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2008
Location: South Central Pa.
Posts: 426
Thank you

Thanks for the input so far guys.

I would like to pose one more possibility. How about using it (AA1680) in .45 Colt, I have access to a Marlin 1894 with a 16.5" Barrel and a Taylor Arms Uberti with a 24" barrel, both in .45 Colt. Between what I have read, and what you are postulating, there may be a use for the AA1680 with a bullet like the 335gr. WLNGC from Cast Performance. what do you think? And would either of you go so far as to suggest a safe starting load with that powder and bullet combo in one or both of those platforms? That is if you think that this would be a feasable proposition.

I almost always use powders with a much broader range of uses,(Unique, Universal, 4350, 3031, Blue Dot,etc.) so trying to figure out how to use 16lbs of powder with such a "narrow bandwidth" is presenting a bit of a challenge.

But, it is the kind of challenge I relish!


Thanks again to both of you for your time, knowlege, and insight.

Bill "Willy" Henderson
__________________
Don' keep shooting them until you think they are dead, Keep shooting them until they think they are dead.- Clint Smith

Last edited by ipscchef; April 23, 2011 at 07:54 PM.
ipscchef is offline  
Old April 24, 2011, 09:20 AM   #10
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,226
At normal .45 Colt pressure with that bullet QL says you can get about 17% ballistic efficiency and throw not quite half the powder out unburned. If you double normal .45 Colt pressure you can nudge the ballistic efficiency up to about 22% BE and only throw a third of the powder out unburned. The extra powder mass expelled buys you extra recoil with no benefit.

The above assumes you can seat the bullet out beyond normal .45 Colt COL in a long cylinder. If your gun won't allow long seating, the situation gets worse because the distance the bullet has to travel to double the volume behind it is shorter (bigger expansion ratio), so the powder has a hard time making gas fast enough to keep up with the volume multiplication. At those pressures, top strap erosion from all the unburned powder being expelled from the barrel/cylinder gap will be increased over normal. So will throat erosion. The chance of the load squibbing out and leaving a bullet stuck in the bore when the barrel/cylinder gap vents pressure will be significant. It's the same problem you see with low loads of 296/H110. The squib event itself isn't dangerous, but the next round fired into the blocked barrel is.

Even in the handgun cartridges Accurate gave loads for, ballistic efficiency is poor and muzzle velocity not near the maximum achievable with other powders. It really is a small rifle powder, and not well suited to straight wall cases because of the expansion ratio. Plinking loads in the AR are still your best bet with it. At least then, you can get up to enough pressure to burn it more completely.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick is offline  
Old October 18, 2012, 04:25 PM   #11
Alferd Packer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 8, 2012
Location: Illinois,near St.Louis
Posts: 4
Load Data for AA1680-

I know this is pretty late info as your date of posting shows, but I too have an 8 lb jug of 1680 I bought when I first acquired a .454 Casull. That was some years ago and I'm 66 now so I want to use it up. There is a couple HEAVY loads for Linotype bullets in the .454 which I don't care to be a gun platform for. The 49th Lyman Reloading Edition shows some loads for .30 carbine as well as .32-20 using AA1680. I do have an H&R Mag.32 pistol and a Davidson. 32 Ruger with a .32 H&R Cyl and a .32-20 cylinder. Five inch barrel and I can cast all kinds of .32 cal bullets so I plan to use the powder that way.Also saw a .223 cast bullet load in there using 1680. I will adapt over some of the hi-pressure .32 H&R loads but only in the large frame Ruger Davidson. Anyway I have the .32-20 cyl and that should do well. I even thought about getting an SKS, but being a Viet Vet, I saw one when a slam fire blew the bolt back into him.I never trusted SKS's, but they say you can install a firing pin return spring and fix that little thing. There are few bolt actions, but they have been made, just try and find one.That's all I know.Steve.
Alferd Packer is offline  
Old October 19, 2012, 07:37 AM   #12
SL1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2007
Posts: 1,998
Looking at some old manuals where data are listed for both AA-1600 and W-680, it seems like they are not identical. The Winchester powder seems to provide better velocity in most of the cartridges where both are listed, although the Accurate version often has greater charge weights.

So, it is not certain exactly how the particular lot of powder that you have will perform. You will need to try it to find out.

While it is probably too slow to be enjoyable in a revolver, it MIGHT be useful in a cabine.

QuickLOAD says a case full of 1680 gives a 300 grain XTP about 1378 fps from a 20" barrel, with about 30,000 psi peak pressure and 75% of the powder burned. For comparison, a case full of H-110 is predicted to give 1584 fps with a peak pressure of about 38,000 psi and 95% of the powder burned. Dialing back the H-110 load to the SAAMI max pressure (36,000 psi)still gives 1562 fps with about 94% of the powder burned. So, clearly QuickLOAD thinks that the 1680 is to slow to be optimum for this application.

There is a 400 grain LFN bullet in the QuickLOAD database that I am not familiar with. Loading a case full of 1680 under that will exceed the SAAMI pressure limit by a lot, and it gets the % burn up into the 90s. Reduciing the charge to get the pressure down to SAAMI limits still leaves the burn rate at 90%.

So, going to a very heavy bullet MIGHT get you decent INTERIOR ballistics in a carbine. BUT, it is not clear that the longer bullet would stabilize in the twist rate used in .44 Mag carbine barrels, so your EXTERIOR ballisics might not be acceptable.

SL1
SL1 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08848 seconds with 9 queries