The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 16, 2015, 04:51 PM   #1
Scottish Highlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2013
Posts: 127
Minimum loads and lower safety question

I have a question regarding minimum loads or less and are they safe. ???
I'll list in examples to try and explain. Lets say in the book it says minimum load 40 grains which will produce say 2700 ft/sec velocity and you have a max load that is 44 grains and produces 3100 ft/sec.
What I was wondering is if you kept dropping the powder weight in grains below minimum load which is 40 grains what would the pressure do ? Eg: 39 grains = 2600 ft/sec with no pressure signs......38 grains = 2500 ft/sec with no pressure signs........37 grains = 2400 ft/sec with no pressure signs and so on so forth down in powder weight.

What would happen in this scenario ?? I have seen a question else where on the internet and was curios to ask in here since there is so many pro's.
Would the pressure be ok in the rifle but the velocity just fall or would it be dangerous ? My assumption is it would be dangerous....

Any ideas guys ?

Thanks for reading
Scottish Highlander is offline  
Old July 16, 2015, 05:00 PM   #2
RaySendero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2010
Location: US South
Posts: 857
SH,

I had a minimum book reload in one of my 8x57s not expand the case enough to seal the chamber. Felt some gas hit my face. Was glad I had safety glasses on. Since, I've started at 1 -1.5 grains above book minimums for all my rifle reloading.
RaySendero is offline  
Old July 16, 2015, 05:02 PM   #3
Scottish Highlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2013
Posts: 127
Yes I though 1 case could be to low pressure would mean the brass wouldn't seal on the shoulder allowing gass to come back! Thanks for a reply
Scottish Highlander is offline  
Old July 16, 2015, 05:58 PM   #4
Paul B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,795
Let's look at a more serious aspect of your question. Which powder for what cartridge. If you're using a powder like one of the 4895's, you can drop down to about 60 percent of the max load without a problem. However, if you're shooting a cartridge using a slow burning powder you're taking a might big gamble that nothing will go wrong. I'm talking the 4350s and slower. With those powders, I don't even go with the starting load but usually a grain and a half above the starting load depending on the cartridge. Using a lighter than the starting load can cause serious high pressure reaction known as Deflagration to Detonation Transition, Pressure Excursion Phenomenon or simply KABOOM. The bad news is you could get away with it for months or even years and then it rears up to bite you in the butt. Two cartridges notorious for DDT are the .243 Win. and 7MM Rem. Mag. from what I understand but probably no cartridge is exempt AFAIK.
It would help to know which powder and cartridge you're working with.
Paul B.
__________________
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
Paul B. is offline  
Old July 16, 2015, 10:39 PM   #5
math teacher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2012
Location: Southwest WA Coast
Posts: 558
Please read Paul's response at least three times. Never under load slow powders. You would think that less powder means less pressure. Not always so. Some times the pressure suddenly goes through the roof. You never know when it is going to happen, but when it does the results can be disastrous.
math teacher is offline  
Old July 17, 2015, 01:17 AM   #6
Snyper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
The people who wrote the book did the experimentation to determine what was safe, and then printed it so you wouldn't have to
__________________
One shot, one kill
Snyper is offline  
Old July 17, 2015, 03:39 AM   #7
Scottish Highlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2013
Posts: 127
Thank you for the replys, It was a hypothetical question and some guy was trying to tell me the books are rubbish and you can ignore the load data. Also he said less powder is unlikely to cause high pressure......his words were "only a dumbass would think that " .....seems he's the dumbass

thanks From Scotaland
Scottish Highlander is offline  
Old July 17, 2015, 08:35 AM   #8
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
If you are going under, always try to use the fastest powder you can, or use a powder with known reduced load properties like H4895.

Bulky powders are better, more than 60% case fill is desirable because then there is a higher chance the flash hole will have powder immediately in front of it for positive ignition. Powder position sensitivity often shows up in straight walled pistol cartridges with low load densities (also the reason some shooters get better accuracy when they tip the barrel up and then bring the barrel down before touching off the next round.)

Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.
Jimro is offline  
Old July 17, 2015, 09:54 AM   #9
Scottish Highlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2013
Posts: 127
Thanks Jimbro, the guy claims that you can go below minimum by up to 5 grains on some powders or more. I think I will always stick to load data in black and white!! I also prefer to have as muck of the case volume taken up as possible with powder to make for better ignition. Funny as its the H4895 I'm using just now in my 308 and its a really nice powder to use....
Scottish Highlander is offline  
Old July 17, 2015, 10:16 AM   #10
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
Minimum loads, below listed starting loads in rifle cases are not considered safe...you should do as the cast lead rifle bullet shooters do, and use faster powders. Small amounts of slow rifle powders do not produce satisfactory results. Do not go below the suggested starting loads or find listings for light loads using faster powders.
dahermit is offline  
Old July 17, 2015, 11:23 PM   #11
Lost Sheep
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2009
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Posts: 3,341
Thanks for asking our advice.

Put a small pile of powder on a flat rock and light it. It will flare up and burn. Confine it in a case and it will burn faster. Why? Smokeless powder is formed chemically and physically to burn with predictable, consistent characteristics within certain pressure limits. Let the pressure go above or below those limits and the results are no longer consistent. With often unpredictable results.

Here's a scenario:

A load of powder that does not generate enough pressure to reach its proper performance envelope, but does start the bullet down the barrel. (Sometimes primer alone is sufficient to do this.) And then, because the pressure is not high enough, the bullet stops before exiting the barrel. As the powder continues to burn, pressure rises. But you have an obstructed barrel. In the next few microseconds, you can get waves of pressure echoing between the breech and the bullet's base that can bulge barrels or even rupture things.

Even ballistic scientists disagree on the mechanism of S.E.E. (secondary explosive effect) and even whether or not it exists and what happens when you light up a slow powder at reduced loads, but if you read Hogdon's web site which warns against loading H110 at anything below 97% of max, you get the impression that there is some degree of risk involved.

See also discussions of "quickness" in powders.

Good luck. Be safe. Always, all ways.

Lost Sheep
Lost Sheep is offline  
Old July 18, 2015, 02:34 AM   #12
745SW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Location: California
Posts: 776
Easier example IMO would be the 38 Spl for the revolver, Speer man. no. 13. Much of the handloads for the 38 have only a single charge listed, not a range, marked DNR (DO NOT REDUCE). It's a balance of what the gun can take and getting a stuck bullet.

Last edited by 745SW; July 18, 2015 at 03:31 AM.
745SW is offline  
Old July 18, 2015, 04:51 AM   #13
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
Quote:
Thanks Jimbro, the guy claims that you can go below minimum by up to 5 grains on some powders or more. I think I will always stick to load data in black and white!! I also prefer to have as muck of the case volume taken up as possible with powder to make for better ignition. Funny as its the H4895 I'm using just now in my 308 and its a really nice powder to use....
I would ignore anyone who says you can go 5 or more grains below published data, because that isn't safe. The good news is that when you are reloading the 308 Win you can load a 175 gr bullet anywhere from 1000 fps to 2650 fps and everything in between.

H4895 has produced some very good reduced recoil loads for big game rifles.

Generally H4895 is used for reduced recoil loads with light for caliber bullets: https://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/H4895%20...le%20Loads.pdf

But if you want reduced velocity loads for heavy for caliber bullets then
a good option is to use "The Load, 13gr of Red Dot."

http://members.shaw.ca/cronhelm/TheLoad.html

If you are looking to make accurate subsonic ammunition for 308 Win using jacketed bullets, Trail Boss is where I would go.

http://www.imrpowder.com/PDF/Trail-Boss-data.pdf

If you cast your own bullets, it doesn't get much cheaper than "The Load" for shooting. If you want a subsonic 308 Win load with good accuracy, Trail Boss is where I would start. Some guys are getting acceptable accuracy with the 175 SMK and Trail Boss when they need to turn their 308 Win into a short range subsonic shooter.
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.
Jimro is offline  
Old July 18, 2015, 09:46 AM   #14
Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 1999
Location: WA, the ever blue state
Posts: 4,678
I have experimented with reduced loads.
My guess is that in general more guns get blown up from stuck bullets than overloads.
Unlike specific me, I have lost track of how many guns I have blown up with overloads, but none of mine blew up with stuck bullets.

In lots of guns I have worked down until the bullet stuck [I do not shoot again until the bore is clear] or I was down to just the primer was pushing the bullet out the bore. Usually only a soft lead ball with soft plastic wad do well with just a primer, unless the chamber and bullet are designed to get a seal.

In a lot of load work downs, I am trying to get the BB gun sound level out of a high powered rifle. That threshold is usually between 1/2 and 4 gr of Bullseye or Red Dot. I came up with a wildcat, the 50CB, specifically to run below this threshold of one atmosphere above ambient gas escapement pressure. That is the threshold of supersonic gas.

The only notable problems I have had with reduced loads were:
1) 45 Colt H110 250 gr XTP. The primer would go off, but not the powder. The bullet would get stuck in the forcing cone. The two driving variables were powder charge AND roll crimp.
2) 260 Remington with 308 Lapua Palma brass necked down and neck turned. The CCI 450 small magnum primers could not set off more than ~ 40 gr or H4350. This is the opposite of the 45 Colt where too little powder caused a misfire.

To get stuck jacketed bullets out, I like to put oil in the bore and pound on a piston. Don't get air between the piston [hydraulic talk for cleaning rod] and the bullet. This technique avoids the bullet getting wedged in the bore. With cast bullets this is not needed. Just keep pounding as it is like slugging the bore.
__________________
The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books."
"Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist.
Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?

Last edited by Clark; July 18, 2015 at 09:52 AM.
Clark is offline  
Old July 18, 2015, 12:04 PM   #15
Scottish Highlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2013
Posts: 127
Thanks for the response gentlemen, it just confirms what I though. Much obliged.
Scottish Highlander is offline  
Old July 20, 2015, 02:46 PM   #16
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
This is why many reloading data sources list reduced loads with certain powders for which it is safe to do so. If you want reduced loads, use the ones somebody else has developed at the expense of THEIR equipment.
TimSr is offline  
Old July 20, 2015, 04:33 PM   #17
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,292
Clark-
Quote:
I have lost track of how many guns I have blown up with overloads
I really appreciate having the voice of experience in these discussions so maybe reconsider what you're doing so we have it for a longer period of time.

Considering the experience you have (and I'm not joking) if you have pictures have you ever considered putting your experience in a book or maybe a series of articles?
DaleA is offline  
Old July 23, 2015, 11:38 AM   #18
Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 1999
Location: WA, the ever blue state
Posts: 4,678
Dale A, thanks for the attention.

In 1987 I had a paper on power conversion approved for publication, and my employer's CEO [Rocket Research / Olin Aerospace] said they owned me and that would be giving way company secrets. I said it was just math I made up. He told me that they owned anything I made up. This was the beginning of me facing the question, "Do you want a career, or do you want to make money?"
In 1994 I started posting on the usenet gun forum and learning about guns.
I think I have found my voice in TFL.
__________________
The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books."
"Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist.
Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?
Clark is offline  
Old July 23, 2015, 12:22 PM   #19
Kosh75287
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2007
Posts: 820
+1 What Dale said.

Clark, you may have saved a number of lives without ever knowing it, by imparting knowledge you obtained by pushing the ragged edge with guns, shooting and reloading.

I know that I rethought the idea of tweaking the 7.62x25 in the Cz-52 pistol, based on your well written if emphatic description of the thin parts of the chamber. Emphatic is good, though. Quiet warnings often go unnoticed.
__________________
GOD BLESS JEFF COOPER, whose instructions, consultations, and publications have probably saved more lives than can ever be reliably calculated. DVC, sir.

انجلو. المسلحة. جاهزة. Carpe SCOTCH!
Kosh75287 is offline  
Old July 23, 2015, 07:14 PM   #20
Huffmanite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2006
Location: Northeast of Houston, Tx
Posts: 393
my only comment worthy of mentioning is checking the load data on Steve's Pages. Steve will often show start load data for a particular cartridge/grain bullet/powder much lower than what you'd find elsewhere in some reloading manual or powder company's reloading data Steve's max load data max load will always be higher too.

For example, last week I was curious about his load data for 30-06. I've always used H4895 for reduced loads in this cartridge. Well, I checked his load data on some other extruded powders in the burn rate range of H4895 that Hodgdon shows data for on its website for the 30-06. Steve's start load was lower than what Hodgdon would show...generally it was around 80% of Hodgdon's max load. Hmmmm, Hodgdon shows you can start at 70% of max with H4895 for reduced loads.
Huffmanite is offline  
Old July 23, 2015, 10:24 PM   #21
Mobuck
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 6,846
IMR4895 is highly recommended for reduced loads in bottleneck cases. It's the only one I trust unless I see a reduced load specifically listed in a manual.
Mobuck is offline  
Old July 24, 2015, 11:13 PM   #22
Prof Young
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Location: Illinois - down state
Posts: 2,399
Risk of squibs . . .

Loading below the minimum and you'll risk having a squib. If you don't catch the squib when it happens, the next shot could blow up your gun and do serious harm or even death. I was an "bare minimum" loader when I first started. Made a couple errors and had some seriously dangerous squibs. Fortunately I caught them all before I pulled the trigger a second time.

Live well, be safe
Prof Young
Prof Young is offline  
Old July 25, 2015, 06:44 AM   #23
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,402
While I understand the reasoning for all of the "don't reduce starting loads" arguments, and agree with it, for the most part...

I must still point out that if you are never "allowed" to reduce charges, then very few of the cartridges that we enjoy today would exist.

Much of what we take for granted today originated as a wildcat cartridge, 20, 40, 60, or 80+ years ago. There was no load data. There were no "minimum" loads. There were simply a bunch of curious individuals trying to create new cartridges to suit a particular need. Many of those guys were using surplus powders. And the "Powley Computer" hadn't even been heard of by most wildcatters.

To figure out what load range the cartridge needed, they made an educated guess, started (very) low, and worked up until bad things happened. (If you don't know what happens at your true 'maximum' then you don't know how far you should stay away from it, either.)


Tonight, I was doing the same.
.475 Tremor + Norma 200 + Barnes 275 gr XPB = ?????
It's a wildcat based on a wildcat (.458 SOCOM), using an uncommon powder, combined with a bullet that has ZERO data for anything even close to this design.

There is no minimum load.
There is no established starting point.
The only known maximum load is the point at which powder overflows the case and it becomes impossible to seat a bullet.

Today, we do have computer programs that can offer reasonably accurate predictions of load performance for many cartridges, and give us powder charge recommendations based on that data. However, .458 SOCOM and its derivatives don't play well with internal ballistics programs, so that's not an option here. Sometimes internal ballistics programs will give a prediction that's 3% high. Other times they'll give predictions that are 15% high (or more!). Which one do you assume that it is this time? 3%? 15%? Somewhere in the middle?
(I've seen QuickLoad give predictions for .458 SOCOM that are physically impossible - there would be 5+ grains of powder overflowing the case, even with a 20" drop tube. And some people still just reduce that by 10% for their starting load, and give it a try... )

What's left is an educated guess, and trial and error.

In this situation, I derived my data from a previously tested load that used a bullet of the same weight, but shorter bearing surface and larger available case capacity (not seated as deeply).
The difference in case capacity is between 9.6% and 10.3%, depending upon how precise you want to be. I rounded it to an even 10% and reduced the established load accordingly (dropping 4 grains from a 40 gr powder charge).
From experience, I know that the full 10% reduction will not be necessary. But, what I don't know is how much the longer bearing surface (by 0.145") will come into play.

Testing involves running a series of pressure test loads, typically in 0.3 gr increments, from the decided upon 'starting load', on up until something bad happens. I have to know how the cartridge performs through the whole range of powder charges, in order to understand how well it is suited to the load. And I need to know just how bad things get when 'maximum' is hit.
Given that this is based on the .458 SOCOM with a 35k psi max chamber pressure, and is also using large pistol primers (44k psi and they're done), I'm not likely to be experiencing bodily injury.

But, still, I have a mantra for testing new wildcat loads. I repeat it to myself every time: "Please don't blow up. Please don't blow up..."


Even for .458 SOCOM which, although technically a wildcat, does have published load data and quite a bit of (hobbyist-derived) established load data, I end up in the same situation.

My .458 SOCOM has a tight bore, a tight throat, and a tight chamber. As such, my loads for that rifle are actually BELOW published starting loads. (Yes, I got there the hard way. And, in some cases, had to.... start low and work down... )
The loads that I have to run are seen as ridiculously light by most SOCOM shooters (2.5 gr to 6 gr less powder). Yet, if I run half a grain more powder, I show pressure signs.

If I wasn't 'allowed' to reduce powder charges, I wouldn't be able to shoot that rifle.

So, even though the cartridge has been around for 15 years, there is published data, I have a very high quality barrel, and I'm using popular powders and bullets, I still have to reduce powder charges from "starting" loads and chant my mantra when I test something new. "Please don't blow up. Please don't blow up..."


Bottom line:
You can't make hard-and-fast rules about not reducing powder charges.
Every rule has an exception, and this one has many.

I am not suggesting that it is okay to reduce charges of Blue Dot, H110/W296, or super-slow rifle powders. They have been proven to create dangerous (or incredibly unpredictable) situations when used below recommended charge levels. But with run-of-the-mill stuff, dropping a few percent isn't going to be a big deal. With many powders, even reducing the starting load by an additional 10% will only create a dangerous situation if you happen to have a squib and are too ignorant to notice the bore obstruction.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

Last edited by FrankenMauser; July 25, 2015 at 06:50 AM.
FrankenMauser is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 02:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.15494 seconds with 10 queries