necessity is the mother of invention...

Magnum Wheel Man · March 25, 2009, 02:32 PM

I'm a highly stressed & frustrated reloader right now... I load for probably 40 or more cartridges, & picked up 4-5 new ones this year... one included is the 5.7 X 28... & here in lies a good deal of my frustration... Ram shot & Accurate are the only published load data that I know of, I don't currently have any AA#5, or #7, or Ramshot True blue... so am I dead in the water ???

well maybe not... I see today Midway lists almost all powders in stock... just I'd have to pay about 1.5 times what the powder costs for hazard shipping, & wait a couple weeks to have it shipped to me... or...

my 1st reloads would be for a Contender single shot anyway, so the platform is a bit more sturdy than the auto pistol... also I have all the powder burn rate, bulk density charts as well as the lists of double based or single based powders... I think I'm more inclined to make up shopping lists that might inlude 8-10 powders to try to buy, rather than sticking to the ( 3 powders as in the case of the 5.7 )... I might even already have several powders that would work, but likely more easily find something acceptable if I'm looking at powder charictoristics, rather than previously published data... I can easily look for pressure signs & chrono the loads as I work up loads...

I guess I don't feel daunted by the task of going "where no man has gone before" as long as I'm using solid powder cartridge & bullet data to make my selections, & starting conservitivly...

just curious if there are any other "crazies" out there as frustrated as I am right now...

Dave R · March 25, 2009, 02:52 PM

A coupla times I have used powders for which there was no published load. Both times had good success.

First was a wildcat I inherited. No published info anywhere. The only load data I had was a note scribbled on a box of loaded rounds. When I shot that load, I had high pressure signs. So I consulted a long-time reloader, and moved to a slower powder. Started low and worked up. The load I found has been great.

2nd was a K-31 load. Nothing I could find had a load for H335 in the K-31. But it shoots similar to a .308, and I could see no reason why the powder wouldn't work. Similar burn rate to other published loads, etc. So I worked up an H335 load for the K-31. Later found a published load, and my load was right in the middle of the range, so I felt a little vindicated.

I don't consider it crazy, if you take appropriate safeguards.

Magnum Wheel Man · March 25, 2009, 03:06 PM

just for example... Accurate #7 & Ramshot Trueblue both have published data for the 5.7 X 28, & would be my 1st choices in powder... #7 falls at 53 on my burn list, Trueblue falls at 56 on my list... you would think a safe load could be developed using a number or two faster than #7, through a number or two slower than Trueblue... Hodgeson Longshot falls squarely in the middle at 54 on my list... I think I've seen that around reciently... it might be gone by now, but using that same logic, & safe starting loads, I'd think I could safely develope loads that aren't published yet, by comparing to other published data of similar powders...

Dave R · March 25, 2009, 07:04 PM

That's a good approach. Stick as close as you can to what you know.

Magnum Wheel Man · March 26, 2009, 06:17 AM

I ended up finding a canister of Bluedot... only a couple numbers slower in burn rate, & since this is for a 10" Contender, the slightly slower powder should actually be better... as far as function in the blow back semi auto, maybe, after I find something that seems to replicate best the factory loads...

SwampYankee · March 26, 2009, 06:40 AM

I agree with MWM, try using something with a similar burn rate. Unfortunately, cost is going to kill us all. Just imagine, you got into this to make cheap, high quality ammo and now the cost to buy components (if you don't already have them) makes it a losing enterprise. It's just sad, lets hope things actually do get better by July.

I inherited a can of W230 from my dad, not W231, when I first started reloading. It is an old discontinued powder. Since I had no load data, I just spread it in the yard to get rid of it. I was terrified of blowing up my guns. I wish I had kept it. Now that I have some experience with 3-4 handgun powders (including W231), I am sure I could have found a low, safe volume and worked it up.

mkl · March 26, 2009, 11:10 AM

Since you are an experienced handloader and know how to work up using a chronograph and pressure signs coupled with the burn rate table, I see no problem in experimenting with the powders you have.

That's part of the fun of advanced handloading.

About a year ago, I had to pull a full "tuna can" of Bulgarian 7.62x25 ammo because of 50% bad primers. I ended up with about 1260 87-grain FMJ bullets and over two pounds of Bulgarian "pistol powder."

After cautious "reverse engineering" of the unknown powder and using the original cartridge charge weight, CAS pistol powder load tables for a 30-30, chronograph, and pressure signs, I now have a very neat plinking load for my single shot 30-30 winchester. An 87 grain FMJ bullet at 2200 fps with an exceptionally clean burn.

Good luck.

March 25, 2009, 02:32 PM	#1
Magnum Wheel Man Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2006 Location: Southern Minnesota Posts: 9,333	necessity is the mother of invention... I'm a highly stressed & frustrated reloader right now... I load for probably 40 or more cartridges, & picked up 4-5 new ones this year... one included is the 5.7 X 28... & here in lies a good deal of my frustration... Ram shot & Accurate are the only published load data that I know of, I don't currently have any AA#5, or #7, or Ramshot True blue... so am I dead in the water ??? well maybe not... I see today Midway lists almost all powders in stock... just I'd have to pay about 1.5 times what the powder costs for hazard shipping, & wait a couple weeks to have it shipped to me... or... my 1st reloads would be for a Contender single shot anyway, so the platform is a bit more sturdy than the auto pistol... also I have all the powder burn rate, bulk density charts as well as the lists of double based or single based powders... I think I'm more inclined to make up shopping lists that might inlude 8-10 powders to try to buy, rather than sticking to the ( 3 powders as in the case of the 5.7 )... I might even already have several powders that would work, but likely more easily find something acceptable if I'm looking at powder charictoristics, rather than previously published data... I can easily look for pressure signs & chrono the loads as I work up loads... I guess I don't feel daunted by the task of going "where no man has gone before" as long as I'm using solid powder cartridge & bullet data to make my selections, & starting conservitivly... just curious if there are any other "crazies" out there as frustrated as I am right now... __________________ In life you either make dust or eat dust... Last edited by Magnum Wheel Man; March 25, 2009 at 03:08 PM.

March 25, 2009, 02:52 PM	#2
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2000 Location: Idaho Posts: 6,073	A coupla times I have used powders for which there was no published load. Both times had good success. First was a wildcat I inherited. No published info anywhere. The only load data I had was a note scribbled on a box of loaded rounds. When I shot that load, I had high pressure signs. So I consulted a long-time reloader, and moved to a slower powder. Started low and worked up. The load I found has been great. 2nd was a K-31 load. Nothing I could find had a load for H335 in the K-31. But it shoots similar to a .308, and I could see no reason why the powder wouldn't work. Similar burn rate to other published loads, etc. So I worked up an H335 load for the K-31. Later found a published load, and my load was right in the middle of the range, so I felt a little vindicated. I don't consider it crazy, if you take appropriate safeguards. __________________ I am Pro-Rights (on gun issues).

March 25, 2009, 03:06 PM	#3
Magnum Wheel Man Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2006 Location: Southern Minnesota Posts: 9,333	just for example... Accurate #7 & Ramshot Trueblue both have published data for the 5.7 X 28, & would be my 1st choices in powder... #7 falls at 53 on my burn list, Trueblue falls at 56 on my list... you would think a safe load could be developed using a number or two faster than #7, through a number or two slower than Trueblue... Hodgeson Longshot falls squarely in the middle at 54 on my list... I think I've seen that around reciently... it might be gone by now, but using that same logic, & safe starting loads, I'd think I could safely develope loads that aren't published yet, by comparing to other published data of similar powders... __________________ In life you either make dust or eat dust... Last edited by Magnum Wheel Man; March 25, 2009 at 03:13 PM.

March 25, 2009, 07:04 PM	#4
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2000 Location: Idaho Posts: 6,073	That's a good approach. Stick as close as you can to what you know. __________________ I am Pro-Rights (on gun issues).

March 26, 2009, 06:17 AM	#5
Magnum Wheel Man Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2006 Location: Southern Minnesota Posts: 9,333	I ended up finding a canister of Bluedot... only a couple numbers slower in burn rate, & since this is for a 10" Contender, the slightly slower powder should actually be better... as far as function in the blow back semi auto, maybe, after I find something that seems to replicate best the factory loads... __________________ In life you either make dust or eat dust... Last edited by Magnum Wheel Man; March 26, 2009 at 07:21 AM.

March 26, 2009, 06:40 AM	#6
SwampYankee Registration in progress Join Date: November 1, 2008 Location: I can be found on a number of other forums. Posts: 1,333	I agree with MWM, try using something with a similar burn rate. Unfortunately, cost is going to kill us all. Just imagine, you got into this to make cheap, high quality ammo and now the cost to buy components (if you don't already have them) makes it a losing enterprise. It's just sad, lets hope things actually do get better by July. I inherited a can of W230 from my dad, not W231, when I first started reloading. It is an old discontinued powder. Since I had no load data, I just spread it in the yard to get rid of it. I was terrified of blowing up my guns. I wish I had kept it. Now that I have some experience with 3-4 handgun powders (including W231), I am sure I could have found a low, safe volume and worked it up.

March 26, 2009, 11:10 AM	#7
mkl Senior Member Join Date: April 25, 2008 Location: DFW area, Texas Posts: 494	Since you are an experienced handloader and know how to work up using a chronograph and pressure signs coupled with the burn rate table, I see no problem in experimenting with the powders you have. That's part of the fun of advanced handloading. About a year ago, I had to pull a full "tuna can" of Bulgarian 7.62x25 ammo because of 50% bad primers. I ended up with about 1260 87-grain FMJ bullets and over two pounds of Bulgarian "pistol powder." After cautious "reverse engineering" of the unknown powder and using the original cartridge charge weight, CAS pistol powder load tables for a 30-30, chronograph, and pressure signs, I now have a very neat plinking load for my single shot 30-30 winchester. An 87 grain FMJ bullet at 2200 fps with an exceptionally clean burn. Good luck.