'cause Alliant won't leave well enough alone - Page 2

WESHOOT2 · August 3, 2008, 03:45 PM

(I still have a can of Hercules Unique, but I switched to Universal Clays. Because it's better....)

Stumper · August 3, 2008, 09:56 PM

Undoubtably there have been lot to lot variations through the years..........but loads developed with Hercules powders in the 1920s and 1930s continued to be accepted, published and widely used through the 1980s. After 50-60 years of dependable performance, releasing lots that not only are different from previous lots but actually may produce overloads with charges that were less than maximum for decades previously is not only annoying but IMO irresponsible. If there were a big label on the canister saying "Red Dot 2.0-this powder is formulated to perform as equivalent to previous RedDot in shotshells but must only be used with current data (2008) in handgun loads. " I might jump ship or not but I wouldn't be nearly as annoyed.

FM12 · August 3, 2008, 10:41 PM

They shipped Bullseye in Unique cannisters? That must be where I'm getting that extra 400 FPS!!

KY Jim · August 14, 2008, 02:39 AM

All powder manufacturers are watering down their powders and All have changed their formulations. I have some old IMR 4350 and when i started reloading in the late 80's the manuals listed loads for the 30-06 and 180 gr bullets at any where from 2-5 grains higher then manuals of today. So everybody is changing things not just Allient andthey still make their powder here where as all the others are made in Canada or Europe, I'll stick with US powder Makers as long as I can.
Jim

Stumper · August 17, 2008, 11:52 AM

KYJim, Are they "watering down" their powders or just reducing the published load data? A number of people have reported running chronograph test on current Alliant lots versus Hercules of 30 years ago along with IMR vs Dupont lots and getting virtually Identical velocities. Sounds like they actually ARE maintaining consistency of performance but reducing the reccomended charge weights....In which case it begs the question-"WHY?". better test procedures are great and explain part of it but if the old crusher tests worked and kept us safe for 100years maybe the new procedures and standard should have been correlated more closely to what used to work just fine?

I went back over my notes from my Red Dot incident several years ago and must confess that It isn't as black and white as I remembered it. I may not have gotten +P pressures at all.....just noticed suddenly that Alliant's data (which didn't match anyone else's) showed that it was a +P load. I sometimes wonder if Alliant tries to assemble the worst possible combination of components from a pressure generation standpoint in coming up with their published data (i.e. find the hardest component bullet with the cannulure positioned for deepest seating, add a "hot" primer and then choose the highest charge that doesn't put a single round over the maximum product AVERAGE standard.), That would yield very conservative and "safe" data. Some very doggy loads- but SAFE. I note that while other handbooks have decreased charge weight recommendations for some Alliant powders, except for those who simply reprint powder maker data they are all higher than Alliant.
I have almost talked myself into buying some new Alliant powder to run tests against my old Hercules lots....but I am still irked by limited info about the limited load data and the continued recall or data suspension events from Alliant.

Hook686 · August 18, 2008, 12:36 AM

What are +P pressure indications ?

I've been using Alliant 2400 and Unique for 40 years, with an occasional time, or two with Bullseye. I have not noticed any material change in my .357 magnum, or .44 magnum loadings or this time period, so I really do not understand this thread.

Stumper · August 18, 2008, 01:28 AM

Hook, Alliant 's max loads according to their data are way lower than handbook loads of past decades making some of us wonder if the powders have changed(more and more folks are reporting that they have not). As for +P pressure indications...besides the whole general loading instructions to wtcth out for changes in primer appearance, hard extraction and case head expansion.....the last 2 which really shouldn't arise in a 38 Spl.... +P indicators can be detected in .38 spl and other mild pressure cartridges by miking the "expansion ring" on the case bodyafter firing to a ten thousandth of an inch-minor increases in pressure do show up.

Hook686 · August 18, 2008, 03:59 PM

What does book 'Max loads' have to do with +P pressure signs. Lawyers might have more to do with this than chemists. 'Minor increases in pressure' can show up by not adhering to the recipe as listed in the book being used. Very few re loaders I know do. Some use different manufacturers primers, some use different manufacturers bullets, some seat to the front of the bullet canneleure, some to the back .... It seems to me there are so many individual preferences that be ready to dump a manufacturer simply because of changes to published data seems to me quite an overreaction.

August 3, 2008, 03:45 PM	#26
WESHOOT2 Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 1999 Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country) Posts: 14,324	lot numbers are most definitely "version numbers" (I still have a can of Hercules Unique, but I switched to Universal Clays. Because it's better....) __________________ . "all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"

August 3, 2008, 09:56 PM	#27
Stumper Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Colorado Posts: 438	Undoubtably there have been lot to lot variations through the years..........but loads developed with Hercules powders in the 1920s and 1930s continued to be accepted, published and widely used through the 1980s. After 50-60 years of dependable performance, releasing lots that not only are different from previous lots but actually may produce overloads with charges that were less than maximum for decades previously is not only annoying but IMO irresponsible. If there were a big label on the canister saying "Red Dot 2.0-this powder is formulated to perform as equivalent to previous RedDot in shotshells but must only be used with current data (2008) in handgun loads. " I might jump ship or not but I wouldn't be nearly as annoyed. __________________ "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." Theodore Roosevelt "If only God has magic, how does Santa get down the chimney?" Natalie Peters age 4

August 17, 2008, 11:52 AM	#30
Stumper Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Colorado Posts: 438	KYJim, Are they "watering down" their powders or just reducing the published load data? A number of people have reported running chronograph test on current Alliant lots versus Hercules of 30 years ago along with IMR vs Dupont lots and getting virtually Identical velocities. Sounds like they actually ARE maintaining consistency of performance but reducing the reccomended charge weights....In which case it begs the question-"WHY?". better test procedures are great and explain part of it but if the old crusher tests worked and kept us safe for 100years maybe the new procedures and standard should have been correlated more closely to what used to work just fine? I went back over my notes from my Red Dot incident several years ago and must confess that It isn't as black and white as I remembered it. I may not have gotten +P pressures at all.....just noticed suddenly that Alliant's data (which didn't match anyone else's) showed that it was a +P load. I sometimes wonder if Alliant tries to assemble the worst possible combination of components from a pressure generation standpoint in coming up with their published data (i.e. find the hardest component bullet with the cannulure positioned for deepest seating, add a "hot" primer and then choose the highest charge that doesn't put a single round over the maximum product AVERAGE standard.), That would yield very conservative and "safe" data. Some very doggy loads- but SAFE. I note that while other handbooks have decreased charge weight recommendations for some Alliant powders, except for those who simply reprint powder maker data they are all higher than Alliant. I have almost talked myself into buying some new Alliant powder to run tests against my old Hercules lots....but I am still irked by limited info about the limited load data and the continued recall or data suspension events from Alliant. __________________ "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." Theodore Roosevelt "If only God has magic, how does Santa get down the chimney?" Natalie Peters age 4

August 18, 2008, 12:36 AM	#31
Hook686 Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2005 Location: USA The Great State of California Posts: 2,090	What are +P pressure indications ? I've been using Alliant 2400 and Unique for 40 years, with an occasional time, or two with Bullseye. I have not noticed any material change in my .357 magnum, or .44 magnum loadings or this time period, so I really do not understand this thread. __________________ Hook686 When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.

August 18, 2008, 01:28 AM	#32
Stumper Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Colorado Posts: 438	Hook, Alliant 's max loads according to their data are way lower than handbook loads of past decades making some of us wonder if the powders have changed(more and more folks are reporting that they have not). As for +P pressure indications...besides the whole general loading instructions to wtcth out for changes in primer appearance, hard extraction and case head expansion.....the last 2 which really shouldn't arise in a 38 Spl.... +P indicators can be detected in .38 spl and other mild pressure cartridges by miking the "expansion ring" on the case bodyafter firing to a ten thousandth of an inch-minor increases in pressure do show up. __________________ "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." Theodore Roosevelt "If only God has magic, how does Santa get down the chimney?" Natalie Peters age 4

August 3, 2008, 10:41 PM	#28
FM12 Senior Member Join Date: February 5, 2007 Location: Monroeville, Alabama Posts: 1,683	They shipped Bullseye in Unique cannisters? That must be where I'm getting that extra 400 FPS!!

August 14, 2008, 02:39 AM	#29
KY Jim Member Join Date: August 14, 2008 Posts: 55	All powder manufacturers are watering down their powders and All have changed their formulations. I have some old IMR 4350 and when i started reloading in the late 80's the manuals listed loads for the 30-06 and 180 gr bullets at any where from 2-5 grains higher then manuals of today. So everybody is changing things not just Allient andthey still make their powder here where as all the others are made in Canada or Europe, I'll stick with US powder Makers as long as I can. Jim

August 18, 2008, 03:59 PM	#33
Hook686 Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2005 Location: USA The Great State of California Posts: 2,090	What does book 'Max loads' have to do with +P pressure signs. Lawyers might have more to do with this than chemists. 'Minor increases in pressure' can show up by not adhering to the recipe as listed in the book being used. Very few re loaders I know do. Some use different manufacturers primers, some use different manufacturers bullets, some seat to the front of the bullet canneleure, some to the back .... It seems to me there are so many individual preferences that be ready to dump a manufacturer simply because of changes to published data seems to me quite an overreaction. __________________ Hook686 When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.