Powder tutorial

[Civil War Life]

Is there a good tutorial on powders? There are so many to choose from. Some are fast burning, others slow. There is ball and flake. I have read my Speer manual but it is still very confusing. I would like to be able to understand what all this means and make sense of it. Thanks.

[mehavey]

What are you considering loading for? (I'm from the school that says get comfortable with the reasons/loads/performance/quirks of one or two powders in one or two specific cartridges, then begin to exand..... )

What would you like to start with (cartridge-wise)?

[wncchester]

"I would like to be able to understand what all this means and make sense of it. Thanks."

Okay. All you really need to know is in the loading tables, you paid the book makers to do all that chosing for you. Pick your cartridge, pick a bullet weigth and chose one of the two or three powders that give the highest velocity. If that doesn't work well, try one of the others. If that doesn't work well get a different bullet and start over.

[Ike666]

A reference Unclenick turned me on to is Hatcher's Notebook.

The chapter on powders is absolutely fascinating. Not much in the way of immediate application, but if you want to know how and why it's the source

[jimbob86]

I would like to be able to understand what all this means and make sense of it.

You seem to be unable to appreciate the trees because you are trying to see the forest. Pick a tree. Work from there. After you turn a few trees into useful furniture, you'll start to understand their strengths and weaknesses.... You may never understand it all, but you won't be standing there lost in the woods.

[Civil War Life]

Thanks all. I am loading 223, 30-06 and 38 spl right now. When I shop for powder I see that this one is fast burning and that one is slow burning, one is flake, another is ball. I have been using IMR 3031 for my 223 and have been satisfied with it. I am using Bullseye in the 38 spl but I just want to know more about powder so when I try another I will be able to make a more educated choice of which tree to cut down. My manual lists several powder options. I would like to understand what the characteristics are of each that I consider.
Thanks

[jimbob86]

A couple of trees you might bark up:

I use IMR 700X for for .38 special ........ It's a pretty fast burning flake powder.

I don't load for either of the other two you mentioned.

I have done quite a bit of work with .270 WIN, and some of that would tranlate to the 30-06 ....... H414 is a ball powder that works pretty well, I have found it is more consistant in cold temps if magnum primers are used, per Speer #13..... IMR4064 is an extruded poder that works OK with a wide variety of bullet weights...... IMR7828 and H4831 work for heavy bullets at max velocities......

[Unclenick]

I like Hatcher's Notebook, as Ike mentioned. Another good resource is the unabridged hardbound Vihtavuori Oy manual. That company is one of the few that truly makes powder from scratch, including making their own nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. Their very tight quality control over all those elements is why, though expensive, their powder is extremely consistent and relatively cleaner burning than most. My copy of the VV manual is dated 1995. It includes illustrations of the burning curves for different grain geometries that I haven't seen elsewhere. It goes through some of the math.

Another resource is the QuickLOAD program that lets you try out a lot of different powders in the same chambering just to see what happens relative to others. Another is to find reprints of Homer Powley's work.

If there's a specific question you have, one of us should be able to answer it, but posts are limited to 10,000 characters, so we can't really write books.

[Civil War Life]

I would love to buy a book on this subject, but one that was written recently so it covers the latest powders available. I know it is dangerous to assume but since my 38 special has a short barrel (2") I would think that I would want a fast burning powder. But what I would like to know is what is the difference between flake and ball powders. What are the advantages/disadvantages of each. Thanks.

[Slamfire]

For pistol, and most rifle cartridges, I dump my charges and seat my bullets on a Dillion progressive. I don’t weigh individual charges. Many people who like to use ball powders do so because ball powders throw exceptionally well. Which incidentally, means nothing on target.

I just looked at my 45 ACP data, all of which loaded on the Dillion, I hardly see any real advantage to AA#5 and W231, ball powders, in terms of extreme spreads (ES’s) and standard deviations (SD’s) when compared to Bullseye or Green Dot. Powders which are round discs.

Powder choices for me have really fallen into, just how many different cartridges can I load with the stuff, the cost of it, and am I happy with the performance.

In terms of performance, I don’t like high ES’s and SD’s. I tested Blue Dot in low pressure pistol cartridges and got ES’s in terms of two or three hundred feet per second. That tells me the ignition is not consistent. So Blue Dot was not a good choice for 38 Spl, 44 Spl, 45 LC. I also got leading in the 357 and 44 Mag. Blue Dot shot very well with jacketed bullets in those magnum cartridges. That is too limiting for me. The powder was not very flexible.

I have used kegs of W231. That is one ball powder that works very well in a number of different cartridges. It also shoots very well even at low velocities in the 45 ACP. I like powders that have big sweet spots.

Unique, a round disc powder, is one of my favorite pistol powders, along with Bullseye. They both work extremely well in all temperatures in a number of different cases. I am always amazed at the tight ES’s and SD’s I get with Bullseye. That tells me it is an excellent autopistol powder as it will give a very consistent, sharp kick, to the mechanism. Unique works well in big cases like 44 Sp, 45 LC and even in small cases. Unique and W231 are the closest to “universal pistol powders” that I have ever tested.

I loaded a bunch of 357 ammo with AA#9, a ball powder, and had misfires in cold weather. Same day, no issue with 2400 which is not a ball powder. The pistol also had a weak mainspring. But I also have had cold weather issues with rifle ball powders before.

I tested AA2520, a ball powder in the 35 Whelen in freezing weather. Had long hangfires. Did not have that problem with IMR 3031, IMR 4895, or IMR 4064 which are stick powders.

So, for cold weather, I believe ball powders are harder to ignite. That might mean something if your mainspring is weak, and you did not know it, till your firearm misfired.

AA2520 leaves a lot of residue in my AR15’s and in the gas cylinder of my M1a’s. It is relatively filthy compared to stick powders and I don’t need a lot of residue in the mechanisms of gas guns.

I found settling issues using AA2520 out to 300 yards and then switching to a stick powder at 600 yards. It would take as many as four shots before the rifle stopped flinging bullets in weird locations that had no correlation with wind or mirage. Never had that issue switching between different brands of stick powders.

Overall, I prefer stick powders for rifles. But when AA2520 was $64.00 a keg, hey, I can live with it.

[a7mmnut]

I use this table from the reloading bench a lot:

*** Burn Rate Comparison Chart << FASTEST
1. R-1 (Norma) 59. HS-7 (Hodgdon) 117. Varget (Hodgdon)
2. N310 (Vihtavuori) 60. Blue Dot (Alliant) 118. 5000 (Vectan)
3. Titewad (Hodgdon) 61. 571 (Winchester) 119. AR2208 (ADI)
4. AS- 30N (ADI) 62. N105 (Vihtavuori) 120. 4064 (IMR)
5. Nitro 100 (Accurate) 63. No. 9 (Accurate) 121. 4064 XMR (Accurate)
6. Bullseye (Alliant) 64. Enforcer (Ramshot) 122. 2520 (Accurate)
7. Solo 1000 (Accurate) 65. 4100 (Scot) 123. 4320 (IMR)
8. Red Diamond (Scot) 66. Steel (Alliant) 124. N203 (Norma)
9. AS (Vectan) 67. 2400 (Alliant) 125. N140 (Vihtavuori)
10. Red Dot (Alliant) 68. N110 (Vihtavuori) 126. N540 (Vihtavuori)
11. Promo (Alliant) 69. Lil Gun (Hodgdon) 127. 2700 (Accurate)
12. Titegroup (Hodgdon) 70. R123 (Norma) 128. Big Game (Ramshot)
13. No. 2 (Accurate) 71. H110 (Hodgdon) 129. Reloader 15 (Alliant)
14. American Select (Alliant) 72. 296 (Winchester) 130. H380 (Hodgdon)
15. AA Plus (Winchester) 73. AR2205 (ADI) 131. 760 (Winchester)
16. Clays (Hodgdon) 74. SR-4759 (IMR) 132. Brig 4351 (Scot)
17. N320 (Vihtavuori) 75. N120 (Vihtavuori) 133. H414 (Hodgdon)
18. Competition (Ramshot) 76. 4227 (IMR) 134. N150 (Vihtavuori)
19. Royal D (Scot) 77. H4227 (Hodgdon) 135. N550 (Vihtavuori)
20. WST (Winchester) 78. 5744 XMR (Accurate) 136. 4350 XMR (Accurate)
21. AP- 50N (ADI) 79. 410 (Alliant) 137. 4350 (IMR)
22. HP38 (Hodgdon) 80. N130 (Vihtavuori) 138. 7000 (Vectan)
23. AO (Vectan) 81. SP-3 (Vectan) 139. AR2209 (ADI)
24. 452AA (Winchester) 82. 680 (Winchester) 140. H4350 (Hodgdon)
25. 453 (Scot) 83. N200 (Norma) 141. N204 (Norma)
26. 231 (Winchester) 84. 1680 (Accurate) 142. Hunter (Ramshot)
27. Zip (Ramshot) 85. AR2207 (ADI) 143. Reloader 19 (Alliant)
28. 700X (IMR) 86. H4198 (Hodgdon) 144. N160 (Vihtavuori)
29. Green Dot (Alliant) 87. N133 (Vihtavuori) 145. N560 (Vihtavuori)
30. AS- 50N (ADI) 88. 4198 (IMR) 146. 4831 (IMR)
31. International Clays (Hodgdon) 89. BM1 (ADI) 147. Brig 4831 (Scot)
32. 473AA (Winchester) 90. Brig 4197 (Scot) 148. AR2213SC (ADI)
33. HS-5 (Hodgdon) 91. 2015 XMR (Accurate) 149. N205 (Norma)
34. WSL (Winchester) 92. Brig 3032 (Scot) 150. 3100 XMR (Accurate)
35. Unique (Alliant) 93. Reloader 7 (Alliant) 151. WMR (Winchester)
36. Universal Clays (Hodgdon) 94. 3031 (IMR) 152. H4831 (Hodgdon)
37. N330 (Vihtavuori) 95. Benchmark (Hodgdon) 153. MRP (Norma)
38. AP- 70N (ADI) 96. BM2 (ADI) 154. Reloader 22 (Alliant)
39. Power Pistol (Alliant) 97. N201 (Norma) 155. 785 (Winchester)
40. SR-7625 (IMR) 98. Brig 322 (Scot) 156. H450 (Hodgdon)
41. HS-6 (Hodgdon) 99. AR2219 (ADI) 157. Mag Pro (Accurate)
42. Silhouette (Ramshot) 100. H322 (Hodgdon) 158. N165 (Vihtavuori)
43. WAP (Winchester) 101. X-Terminator (Ramshot) 159. WXR (Winchester)
44. N340 (Vihtavuori) 102. 2230 (Accurate) 160. 7828 (IMR)
45. 540 (Winchester) 103. 748 (Winchester) 161. 8700 (Accurate)
46. Herco (Alliant) 104. Reloader 10X (Alliant) 162. H1000 (Hodgdon)
47. WSF (Winchester) 105. BLC-2 (Hodgdon) 163. AR2217 (ADI)
48. SR-4756 (IMR) 106. AR2206 (ADI) 164. Magnum (Ramshot)
49. AP- 100 (ADI) 107. 2460 (Accurate) 165. Reloader 25 (Alliant)
50. Solo 1250 (Accurate) 108. H335 (Hodgdon) 166. AR2225 (ADI)
51. 3N37 (Vihtavuori) 109. TAC (Ramshot) 167. Retumbo (Hodgdon)
52. 800X (IMR) 110. H4895 (Hodgdon) 168. H870 (Hodgdon)
53. No. 7 (Accurate) 111. 2495 XMR (Accurate) 169. N170 (Vihtavuori)
54. Longshot (Hodgdon) 112. AR2206H (ADI) 170. 24N41 (Vihtavuori)
55. Solo 1500 (Scot) 113. Reloader 12 (Alliant) 171. 50 BMG (Hodgdon)
56. True Blue (Ramshot) 114. 4895 (IMR) 172. AR2218 (ADI)
57. N350 (Vihtavuori) 115. Brig 4065 (Scot) 173. 20N29 (Vihtavuori)
58. 3N38 (Vihtavuori) 116. N135 (Vihtavuori)
SLOWEST >>


Sorry, but the columns are lost during copy and paste.
-7-

[Ideal Tool]

Hello, Civil War Life. If you can find a copy..the better gun shows, or Wolfe publishing reprinted some. Phill Sharps "The Complete Guide To Handloading" Now this stuff is dated..1930's to late 40's, but there are whole chapters on powder making, including the then new ball powders. plus chapters on primers and their construction..facinating book. There are things in there that never go out of date. The chapters on casting & lubing bullets are especially good. Good luck!

[jimbob86]

loaded a bunch of 357 ammo with AA#9, a ball powder, and had misfires in cold weather. Same day, no issue with 2400 which is not a ball powder. The pistol also had a weak mainspring. But I also have had cold weather issues with rifle ball powders before.

You try using magnum primers for ball powders in cold weather? Speer#13 recomends this, and it produced smaller ES/SD in my H414 .270 WIN loads.

Conversely, using standard small pistol primers as opposed to magnum smalls tightened things up and actually produced a higher velocity for me with 2400 in .357 mag........

[700cdl]

I've been hand loading since the mid 1980s and have learned from the well respected hand loading manuals, that the slower burning powders are the ones that produce the highest accuracy, most consistent pressures, and very often the highest obtainable velocities. They are also the least tempermental in terms of jumping up in pressure when working in the mid to upper range of the charge. In other words, if you were to use a maximum, or close to maximum charge of a very slow burning powder, pressures become less suseptable to spiking as you work the charge up in weight. But also of importance slow buring powders will produce dangerously high pressures if the charge is reduced too much. Just about every hand loading manual I've seen will have some bold print warning about pressures becoming dangerously high if reduced below minimum recomended charges. My personal rule of thumb when loading with these powders is to start in the middle some where and work up. One more important fact to consider. If you are loading with a slow buring powder you will not have worry about an accidental double charge, because a double charge would over flow out of the case, making a very noticable mess.
Now with the faster burning powders everything is quite the opposit. Most of these powders are not listed as the most acurrate. Additionaly these powders are far more tempermental and will quickly show a pressure increase, even when working up in very small increments.
I don't know if this information helps you or is addressing your question and concerns, but I hope it gives you some idea of burn rate properties. I'm also expecting a good deal of criticism from those who are very dedicated to faster buring powders.

[BDS-THR]

I am loading 223, 30-06 and 38 spl right now.

I would recommend W231/HP38 (same powder) and Bullseye for .38 Spl.

I recently bought H335, H4895, Varget and Reloader 15 for reloading .223 and .308 (H335/H4895/Varget for .223 and H4895/Varget/RL15 for .308 depending on the bullet weight).

For reloading rifle (.223/.308/30-06), The Rifleman's Journal has very good information - check it out.

[Unclenick]

Civil War Life,

If I understood your last post correctly, you may be looking for something that does not exist. Take a look at several powder burn rate charts and you'll quickly discover that many don't agree about the ordering. They'll all put, say, Bullseye toward the fast end, but one will have it third fastest, another thirteenth fastest, etc. The QuickLOAD manual includes what it calls an "approximate" burning rate chart, but it comes with this warning:

"Do not use any "burning rate chart" as a guide to reloading. Because there are a lot of factors which determine the combustion of a charge within a cartridge, there exists no comparable "burning rate" for {many} propellants. Propellants have different vivacities and different energy {content} as well as other properties which are of importance {to} combustion."

QuickLOAD Users Guide, v. 3.6, page 91

I suppose that statement needs clarification. You can look at a chart and see approximately which powders will likely be appropriate to try in a particular chambering, but you still have to locate load data to verify that you were correct. You absolutely cannot use a burn rate chart to infer powder substitutions. Two powders could be right next to each other on a burn rate chart and need significantly different charge weights to produce the same pressure.

Broemel goes on to make the argument that burning rate charts are really too crude a classification system to be truly useful and that understanding deeper burning into the grain is much more important. He gives examples, but the one I like is what Dave Milosovich offered in the Precision Shooting Reloading Guide. He runs a series of .308 loads with the 168 grain Sierra MatcKing loading for fixed velocities from 2200 to 2500 fps, and compares the amounts of IMR4895 and IMR4064 needed to achieve those velocities. At the lower end it takes less 4064 than 4895, but at the high end it takes more 4064 than 4895. Assuming similar energy content, this indicates 4064 is the faster of the two powders at lower pressure levels and is the slower powder at higher pressure levels. So, where do you position these two guys on the chart?

Another reason a concise book isn't going to exist is that powder makers are often cagey about the technical details of their powders. They tend to consider these details proprietary and don't usually share them openly. Another factor is lot variability. Many powders are not sourced from the same plant every time. QuickLOAD has none of the IMR pistol powders in its database because the author says they've been sourced from so many different makers over the years that he doesn't trust the characteristics he measures to stay close enough from lot to lot to be safe to include. I must say this surprises me as I haven't noticed a problem with variability using them, but that is what he told me.

If you read Hatcher and the unabridged Vihtavuori manual (VV is more open than most with technical details) and then read pages 91-112 in the QuickLOAD manual, you'll have a fair start at what goes on with powders in principle. You'll mainly want to understand the concepts of progressive vs. digressive burning and how burning characteristics interact with expansion ratio to determine the maximum velocity you can achieve with a powder in a given load.

If you buy the QuickLOAD software you'll get to do some virtual firing of different test loads to see a theoretical result. It is not, as the author says, absolutely accurate. There are other powder burn models out there, and this one does not, for example, predict the 4895 and 4064 difference I described earlier. They are all limited in detail in some way. But the QuickLOAD model does present a result good enough that you can use it as one of the three load data sources you should always check before selecting a starting load for a subsequent load workup. It has the advantage of letting you tweak input arguments to match your gun based on bullet data and velocity feedback from a chronograph. You can also tweak the powder model to match your lot well. Once all the tweaking is done, the program's predictions can be astonishingly good with your particular gun and that particular lot of powder.

"First contemplation of the problems of Interior Ballistics gives the impression that they should yield rather easily to relatively simple methods of analysis. Further study shows the subject to be of almost unbelievable complexity."

Homer Powley

[Slamfire]

You try using magnum primers for ball powders in cold weather? Speer#13 recomends this, and it produced smaller ES/SD in my H414 .270 WIN loads.

Nope, I buy the cheapest standard pistol primers and use them regardless of the caliber. I don't want to have to buy special primers for special powders.

This load shot well in 104 F weather but gave misfires in 30-40 F weather. Who would have known?

Smith & Wesson M27-2

158 LRN Valiant 12.0 grs AA#9 CCI500 Mixed cases 5-Aug-06
T = 104 °F
Ave Vel = 1278
Std Dev = 34.98
ES = 117.4
High = 1344
Low = 1226
N = 27

[Civil War Life]

Thanks to all who have replied. Seems there are many opinions. But, I think I have found the information I was looking for. This article on the web is short and seems pretty good. http://www.chuckhawks.com/smokeless_powder.htm
I don't know who Chuck Hawks is. Any one have an opinion on this article? I have checked the load data on several manufactures web pages and came up with quite a list of possible powders to use for this bullet in this gun. I bought a can of Accurate 5, and will try loading a few rounds at the lowest charge and see how they work next time I can get out to the range. Reloading is a very interesting endeavor and I am learning as much about it as I can.
I don't know if anyone will agree with this procedure, but so far it has worked for me. When I am loading cartridges, I put the charge in the case then seat the bullet. I weigh every charge. I never charge a tray of cases, then put the bullets in. I fear this is how a double charge can occur. Am I all wet here?
Thanks again.
Terry

[snuffy]

I would like to be able to understand what all this means and make sense of it.

I suppose you want to understand women too?! Good luck with that!

I've been loading for darn near 50 years, and I don't understand it either. I work with it by using loading manuals And careful measuring. I've never seen smokeless powder being made, I don't need to to use it.

Chuck Hawks is okay for the general knowledge he gives. That was a well written write-up on the properties of smokeless powder. More than that is NOT needed to use it. Just follow the load manuals. If somebody lists a load on a forum like this, check said load against a load manual BEFORE using. If it's excessive compared to a manual, don't load it!

[Unclenick]

Well, I guess I think the article and was typical Hawks. Some generalizations and a little loose with easily checked facts. I didn't spot anything in it that would help me better understand reloading choices much beyond choosing smokeless powder over black powder.

A few items from that article that should be corrected. There are single, double, and triple based powders in the world. Hawks said he believed there were the only two makers of double-base powders at the time of its writing (2003), ignoring many throughout the world. That would include plants in Belgium (supplies Ramshot and Accurate, in part), Israel, South Africa, etc. In particular, he was wrong about Vihtavuori Oy, in Finland. Even my '95 Vihtavuori manual has the first three of their N500 series double-base high energy powders listed. That wouldn't have been hard to look up.

Another statement is that smokeless powder does not explode in the open like black powder. Actually smokeless powder is a high explosive and in a large enough quantity can be detonated in the open by a priming explosive. The real difference is the Black Powder can deflagrate but not detonate in any except a truly vast quantity, while smokeless can do both. This link will give a better explanation.

Another statement he made could be misleading, and that was that perforations are intended to increase surface area. It's true, as far as it goes, but since we all learned in high school chemistry that increased surface area increases burn rate, one might be forgiven for concluding from his statement that perforation is a way to make the faster burn rate powders.

Instead, perforations are normally in extruded grains of slower powders. The purpose is to allow the flame to ignite inside the perforations while their surface areas are small, then grow those surface areas as they burn from the inside out. In this way the powder evolves gas at an increasing rate as it burns. That's the definition of a progressive burning powder. Progressive burning allows a powder to keep building pressure even after the bullet has started moving and increasing the combustion volume behind it. It does that by adding the volume of the bore it passes to that of the case. In interior ballistics, this is called expansion.

The other method of making a powder progressive is to infuse so much deterrent into the surface that it starts burning slower than its surface area would otherwise allow, but burns into less and less deterrent concentration as it goes. That lets the burning speed up. Progressive spherical propellants are made this way because their geometry, unlike the perforations in stick powders, is not conducive to progressive burning. So it is done with chemistry.

On the flip side, a powder that evolves gas less rapidly as it burns is called digressive. This is typical of the very fast powders that have to make all their gas before the bullet has moved very far. They are necessary to get adequate pressure for good case obturation (case seal in the chamber) and efficient burning in light target loads and in loads for short, straight wall pistol cases. In such cartridges the expansion can double the combustion volume with much less bullet movement than is required to do so in a bottleneck rifle chamber. As a result, the powder has to burn faster to keep up with the growing volume or it fails to develop adequate pressure.

In general, for a given bullet weight, the larger the case volume is compared to the diameter of the bullet, the slower the powder you can use efficiently because expansion growth as a percentage of case volume is slower as the bullet moves. The other way to say that is, the higher the case volume is compared to the bullet sectional density, the slower the powder you can use efficiently.

Because slower powders make peak pressure in a higher expanded volume, you can use enough of one to make more gas than you could with a fast powder. The fast powder would make all its gas while the volume is still smaller, and thus achieve the same peak pressure with less total gas. A larger total gas volume keeps the average pressure in the bore higher during the bullet's travel down the tube. That average pressure is proportional to final velocity. This is why slower powders increase velocity as long as the bullet SD is high enough for them to burn at and efficient pressure and you can fit enough in the case.

Lower SD means less mass per square inch of bullet base for the pressure to push on, so lower SD bullets don't give as much inertial resistance to build pressure against. In effect, they are too easy to push down the bore, so low SD bullets need a powder that evolves gas quickly enough to keep up with them as they scoot away.

Hope that helps.

[AlaskaMike]

Civil War Life, it sounds like you got the answer you were looking for, but I'll throw this out there since I haven't seen it mentioned yet.

I don't have it yet, but there's a book called "Propellant Profiles" from Wolfe Publishing that I've seen lots of positive comments on. I would think that book would be able to answer any question you may have about smokeless powder.

[Civil War Life]

Thanks Unclenick. Your explanation is very interesting and illuminating. I am starting to get a handle on it. I have been reading a lot of information and posts on the subject. It is also interesting to me that there are so many different powders available and I can't, don't want to, try them all. I have been a black powder shooter for 50 years. Really simple. Basically my choices are FFG or FFFG, and it doesn't really make that much difference in a .58 caliber rifle musket or carbine. I don't use any of the substitutes because our competition does not allow them. With smokeless, wow the choices are endless and just when I think I have a good choice made, I can't find it so I have to choose something else. There isn't enough information on the powder makers websites to help much either. What started me on this was the fact that my Speer manual didn't have a load for the bullet I wanted to load. In the future though I am going to stick with a lighter jacketed bullet, like a 110 grain or 125 grain slug instead of the 158 grain I had. That will make my choice a lot easier. I just bought some Accurate 5 powder to use with this bullet and will give it a try. Accurate did have a load recommendation for this powder and bullet for a 38 Special. I'm pretty sure it will go bang and the bullet will hit somewhere on the target but it might not be optimum, and for now that is OK. At least I won't have to worry about the bullet getting stuck in the barrel or the the thing blowing up. I really want to thank you for the considerable effort you put into helping me understand a complicated subject. I assure you that I have read every word with great interest and have taken heed of it. I am new to reloading smokeless cartridges and am eager to learn as much as I can. I will look forward to reading other posts of yours in the future.
Terry

[Civil War Life]

AlaskaMike, Thanks, I found the book on Amazon. Probably will order it. Sounds like interesting reading. Anyone else have it and can offer an opinion on it?