Loading for .41 mag

[Mike Irwin]

"I am their HUCKLEBERRY!"

What, you've got tuberculosis?

Consumption be done about it?

[Sturm]

No Tee-Bee, but I'd rather have it than to know that the closest I will ever come to understanding a pressure curve will be from trying to have an original thought in my head!

[redhawk41]

Does anyone out there give a hoot?

looks like for about 8 posts, then i am not sure what happened.

thanks guys

[Sturm]

Redhawk41, I do give a hoot, so in all the banter I did try to give some help in posts 14, 21 and 23. Just discard the other parts of the posts where they are irrelevant to your question. I did start loading for the .41 Magnum with a 5.5" Redhawk using a Hornady 210 gr. JHP, Blue Dot and a CCI-300 primer in Winchester and Remington cases. I'm sure I probably bare the brunt of the burden for the hi-jack, but I did try to contribute something to your original question. Understanding pressure will go a lot farther in helping you to decide on a specific powder, than a one size fits all approach, unless that was what you were after. There are as I mentioned, much better choices for .41 target loads than W-231, not a slur, just an observation.

[redhawk41]

Sturm,

where by the time the bullet seperates from the case, 10,000 PSI or less of gas pressure has developed from combustion.

when i first read the post about 175 psi unseating the bullet, i though about it and was going it reply, then i noticed that you said exactly what i was going to say.

i have very little experience reloading, but as a BSEE i have had tons of physics and calculus. it makes me feel like i have a fairly good handle on what i am learning about reloading when someone with what appears to be your experience affirms my personal theoretical observations.

i have no problems with the debates, but this thread will get closed if it falls to the level of senseless name calling and such

a one size fits all approach, unless that was what you were after

that is definitely not what i am after. i am fascinated by the theory behind firearms and cartridges. i want to know what makes 296 and h110 heavy duty mangum powders, AA#9 more accurate, and 231 a less than ideal magnum load, not just that they are. heck, if anyone wants to post some math equations "I am their HUCKLEBERRY!"

[Sturm]

Then we're both in luck. I am not a degree'd engineer, but have had the title applied to my position, which I feel I earned. I don't make it my lifes work to castigate engineers or anyone else. I do know that there are plenty of average Joe's walking the streets that can amaze at times with their knowledge of math. If you have the benefit of coming in with a handle on Trig, Calculus, or analytical geometery, you will eat this stuff up! This is physics in a practical form that provides pleasure and intellectual stimulation like few outside the professional realm. I say that with a design certification from BOSE and the NFPA, since your an EE, you can appreciate what that means.

The study of pressure as covered in: A LIMITED COMPARISON of the CRUSHER and PIEZO SYSTEMS, in the Lyman manual will be of great value to you. Most of what I learned was from the books and being self taught, there was no internet to access, so I enjoy getting to help new reloaders learn, especially when they are fluent in math. Velocity with different barrel lengths in handguns can be controlled through appropriate powder selection. if you can understand the data presented and I'm betting you can. I will be around and will be glad to help in any way possible. The more challenging the question, the better I like it. Name calling is something I don't begin with but once started, I don't back down, so maybe it's over. I will leave you with this thought. If a chronograph didn't provide standard deviation for it's user, how many would know the correct SD of their loads with velocity alone? Well. you now know at least one. Welcome to reloading!

[WESHOOT2]

My Forum 'position' crashed, and I was unable to get back in for weeks.

That said, I quit posting due to the swill lapping around my (by then) waist; know what I mean?

I am a very careful thinker when it comes to the combustion of gunpowder in a closed area.

[WESHOOT2]

"In my gun" some loads work, some don't.
In my gun certain loads work in a safe pressure range, but in another failure occurs.

We cannot attribute absolutes simply because the test environment in not controlled, unless we are in a ballistics lab.

Absolutes are dangerous in our hobby, ay?



(But why is AA9 so accurate in so many 41's?)

[Mike Irwin]

"i want to know what makes 296 and h110 heavy duty mangum powders, AA#9 more accurate, and 231 a less than ideal magnum load"

Wizards and magical incantations.

Actually, that's just for why AA #9 is more accurate. Who knows why some guns love one powder, and hate another.

As for 296/110 and 231's suitability, it all has to do with burning rate. Smokeless powders are all chemically VERY similar, at least the base material--a nitrocellulose base material, to which nitroglycerine can be added (making a double based powder).

It's when you get into granule shape, the deterrent coatings applied/mixed in, etc., that you get the wide range of powders.

[WESHOOT2]

I have (seriously) been considering why AA9 is accurate in so many 41's regardless of bullet used.

(This pertains to certain other specific powders in other cartridges as well): Can there be something about the shape of the charge during its initial ignition / combustion cycle?


(And I still consider the possibility of the pressure peak occuring in a revolver cylinder, yet the measuring devices lagging.....?) (Based on specific powder and its burn rate?)(Length of barrel acting as scavenger?)

[Jbar4Ranch]

When I was trying to work up an accurate cast bullet load for my 2x Leupold topped .480 SRH, I tried all the usual suspects; H110, W296, H4227, Li'l Gun, etc., with nothing giving acceptable accuracy, until I tried AA#9. It's been fantastic in the .480, turning in consistent 6 shot, full cylinder groups of around 1 3/4" center to center with a 350 grain cast gc bullet at 50 yards.

[redhawk41]

well, i finally developed and tested some loads, here are the results:

all loads use CCI 300 primers and winchester brass

210 gr Speer GDHP - 18.0 gr AA#9

265 gr Cast Performance WLNGC - 18.5 gr W296

215 gr SWC - 7.4 gr W231 -- i was dissapointed in this load, it was very mild, but accuracy was only so-so. i think i will be trying HS-6 for this bullet.

ok, now the funny part. i started out shooting the 215 gr SWC, next the 210 gr GD, and finally the 265 gr heavys. recoil increased substantially from mild to abusive as i worked up. the 265 gr left impressions of my pachymyers in my hand. great load!

then i went back to the 215 gr after shooting the 265 gr, and it felt like there was no recoil at all! the folks in the lane next to me, when i shot the 215's the first time said, "wow, thats a cannon". wonder what they though when i shot the 265gr? and the muzzle blast from the W296/265gr combo was impressive!

in summary: i am quite satisfied with the developed loads for the 210 gr GD and the 265 gr GC. i will be looking at HS-6 for the 215 gr medium loads.

[Leftoverdj]

Jbar4Ranch, you got me on a technicality, I should have typed that as 10,000 PSI of Gas Pressure, since H.P. White conducted the test as it relates to combustion, where by the time the bullet seperates from the case, 10,000 PSI or less of gas pressure has developed from combustion. Given the the topic of the debate, I thought that would be a given, But I admire your werewithal to conduct your own test in pneumatic pressure, even if it doesn't have any relevance.

The point of all this is to show that peak pressure can not take place at the cylinder of a revolver and understanding peak pressure and pressure curves will help to make a more informed choice on powder selection in regard to barrel length.

Showed pretty clearly that you don't understand what H.P. White said, though.

[redhawk41]

i am really dissapointed right now. the topic of this thread is Loading for .41 mag and it somehow dissolved into a few folks arguing amongst themselves about pressure curves and what-not.

if you don't want to help me with Loading for .41 mag please don't post in this thread.

if you want to argue about pressure curves and what-not, please start your own thread.

thank you

[Mike Irwin]

"i am really dissapointed right now. the topic of this thread is Loading for .41 mag and it somehow dissolved into a few folks arguing amongst themselves about pressure curves and what-not."

Welcome to the wonderful world of thread drift!


Did you have a chronograph with you?

I'm very interested in what kind of velocities you were getting with your 265-gr. load.

[redhawk41]

Did you have a chronograph with you?

hehe, that's next on the list. as a matter-of-fact, when i was reviewing my groupings with the different loads, i lamented on how i needed a chrono.

i'm guessing maybe in the 1300 fps range?

the 210 GD are listed at 1265 fps with the powder charge i was using, and the 265gr loads were definitely hotter (based on recoil).

[Mike Irwin]

Recoil is going to be stout with the 265-gr. load simply based on the bullet weight.

Don't give up on WW231 in .41 Mag. I use it for lighter loads, as well, and have been very happy with it.

[redhawk41]

Don't give up on WW231

where should i look for load data? the books i used (lee, Lyman, winchester) all gave 7.4 as starting and never exceed. doesn't leave much room for flexibility.

do you have any recommendations?

thanks for the help, by the way

[Mike Irwin]

Drop back.

My favorite light load in .41 Mag. is 210-gr. lead and roughly 7.1 grains of 231.

231 is too fast for anything other than light plinking loads, but in those parameters it can be a lot of fun and VERY easy on the hands.

[Sturm]

Redhawk besides HS-6, which is covered in another thread, try AA#7. I have used Blue Dot for years and it works, but for slightly less than max velocity and less muzzle blast #7 is outstanding in all the magnums. Another is Ramshot True Blue. These powders will hold velocity better when barrel length is reduced compared to magnum powders, so if I am to be blamed for mentioning pressure curves, believe me there is method to the madness, rather than passing on the generic drival you can read on any forum! Forget 231, there are about 20 powders better suited to this kind of loading

[WESHOOT2]

Can also test Uniq

[redhawk41]

boy, you guys just want me to spend my tax refund on powder instead of buying a new gun!

thanks for the info

[Mike Irwin]

Unique has largely the same problem that 231 has in this cartridge -- it's fast burning and really useful only for low end to moderate loads.

I was the first one here to recommend Accurate No. 7 as a good, solid choice for the .41 (it's what I load with for mid to upper end loads, with 296 for the thumpers).

231 has its uses in .41 Mag. -- I like it for bowling pin and falling plate loads where velocity doesn't have to be really high. For that use it's economical, is accurate, and has low recoil. The only thing I have to do is aim high because my Model 58 doesn't have adjustable sights.

If I want my bullets to hit closer to point of impact, I have to go over to my AA 7 or WW 296 loads, with a substantial jump in velocity AND recoil.

[Sturm]

"I was the first here to recommend No. 7 as a good solid choice for the .41."

Well bless your heart, and give up the 231 as a powder recommendation with cartridges that it is not appropriate for, which is most of them that use a magnum case!

[Leftoverdj]

http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm
http://stevespages.com/410p_2.html