Ken Waters-Pet Loads

[William T. Watts]

I have the original and the updated version of Ken Water's Pet Loads. Ken Waters and Jack O'Connor are two of my must read authors, there are others but those two are the first two that come to mind! William

[Unclenick]

Pcxxxx42,

Welcome to the forum.

What seating depth are you using? What case water overflow capacity? Hodgdon's load data lists a maximum load with the 165 grain Sierra SPBT seated to 3.300" COL as 60 grains of IMR 4350 in a Winchester case with Winchester LR primers. It is compressed (they don't say how much), but a long drop tube or swirl filling will likely take care of a lot of that. So I don't think that particular pet load should be an issue for you at all. I think you're maybe running into brass and bulk density tolerance issues.

[tkglazie]

I have only used one of Ken's pet loads (.32 Special, 34gr H4895 under a 170gr bullet) and it is perfect.

I wouldn't mind adding a pet loads book to my collection

[pcxxxx42]

Unclenick:

To be perfectly accurate, I am working on a load for the 170 grn, Speer FN 2041, seated to a COL of 2.98", which, according to QuickLOAD (QL) puts about seating depth ~0.646". My case capacity is just under 68 cc; the cases must be really sized down to chamber.

Keep in mind that QL adjusts the load density based upon how much shank is in the cartridge, and whether or not the bullet is a boat tail. It has all of the dimensional information for a vast number of bullets. The guy must have gone blind building the database for this software.

I measured the bulk density (BD) of this propellant (Hodgdon H4350, Lot 1 0409973140) at

• 0.965 grains. / cc, which equals
  
• 0.0626 grams /cc

and adjusted the BD param. in QL to 0.965 from the original QL BD of 0.900 grains/cc.

Fooling around with QL with some 165 grain Speer bullets I don't have, and leaving the COL the same, I came up with the earlier numbers. Too weary (stupid?) to find the right bullet. Duh. Bad dog!

Details _do_ make a difference....

Now that I have been called on this I found in QL the 0.308" 165 grain Sierra HPBT 2140 (which is a GameKing and the one referenced on page 321 of the 8th ed., and I happen to have a box of these.) Seated so that the bullet body (not the boat tail) is contained w/in the case neck yields a seating depth of ~0.522 inches.

Do the work, dude (that would be me!)

Changing the case capacity to the generally accepted 69 grains for 30-06 @ 100% load ratio, COL ~3.234", under the SAAMI max of 3.340:

• 53.9 grains, std. QL BD of 0.900 grains/cc, H-4350
  
• 57.8 grains, adjusted BD 0.965 grains/cc as above, H-4350
  
• 54.8 grains, std. QL BD of 0.915 grains/cc, I-4350
  
• 53.2 grains, adjusted BD of 0.889 grains/cc, Lot L6949, I-4350
  

That's pretty close with H4350 adjusted to my lot BD, but a bit shy with IMR 4350 (BD unadjustded @ 0.915 grains/cc . ) And sure, we could get more in the case if we wanted to using all manner of methods.

Pet Loads lists COL of this load at 3.30", which gets us to 55.8 grains of my lot of I-4350.

The Hodgden 26 ed (1993) manual lists a max of 57 grains for a 168 gr for both propellants. I guess that's pretty close to what Pet Loads (PL) had to say!

And this little exercise really demonstrates for me how much BDs change over time, as propellent marketing firms get various lots of power from the same source, and even from different sources over the years! No freaking wonder they tell us to start 10% below the max load and work up!

Ho hum. So much for software. I purchased QL to try to tune the loads to optimum barrel time, a theory that it is best for the bullet to leave the bore when the barrel is at max. constriction from the explosion stress wave that banters back and forth along the barrel, well documented by Chris Long: http://www.the-long-family.com/optim...rel%20time.htm

When I started investigating approximate temperature effects on burn rate, and subsequent changes in the bullet barrel residence time, this whole bidness started making me nuts. Then when I realized my propellent bulk densities varied significantly from those in QL (and even THOSE are different from the LEE data sheets, from which every BD chart I have seen seems to come from.)

Call the guys in the white jackets; I need a drink, and it's only 2:30 PM.

[Unclenick]

Sorry, on-line aspirin dispenser is off-line today.

Loading that .30-30 bullet does give you a different issue: long bearing surface. However, if the QL database has the bullet's length right, then I don't see why you have to use a seating depth of 0.646", unless that's a typo. 0.476" should get your case mouth to the crimp cannelure if the QL bullet length of 0.996" is correct (sometimes that database has bad numbers and you have to check).

Seating Depth = Case Length + Bullet Length - COL

With stick powders the burn rate is controlled by the geometry of the grains more than by deterrent coatings and whatnot. This means that when the geometry changes the burn rate also changes, with lower density tending to burn faster and vice versa. This is one reason volumetric dispensing often works as well or better than weight dispensing with stick powders, despite the weight varying a bit, though, as with most things shooting, this depends on the gun and load component combination as to how well it works. Hodgdon has the powders they distribute controlled in burn rate to ±3% by blending new bulk lots with held back lots that are either faster or slower, as needed, than the nominal burn rate. That converts the bulk grade to cannister grade for packaging for handloaders. It's necessary because bulk lot burn rates and bulk densities vary too much to allow load manual recipes to remain valid. Most handloaders don't have pressure test gear they can adjust loads with.

It appears you have your density units confused. I believe you meant to say 0.965 grams/cc for density. That would convert to 14.9 grains/cc. I expect that instead of an actual density, you meant to get the "Volume Metering Density" (VMD; a badly misapplied bit of nomenclature as the units are actually the inverse of density, being in cc/grain). In that instance your conversion is in error and the correct conversion from 0.965 grams/cc would be 0.0672 cc/grain, and not 0.0626 units. To convert, divide the grams/cc into 1, then divide the result by the number of grains in a gram (15.43236 gr/gm, just to toss in a few extra decimal places).

Your result is pretty high for a stick powder. You usually don't see them much over 0.92 grams/cc. QuickLOAD has 0.90 gm/cc even. Lee's VMD tables have 0.894 gm/cc. This suggests your powder has packed down a good bit in transport, which will slow the burn rate by removing air space and constricting flame front speed through the powder mass.

There's a good example of the above effect in the Precision Shooting Reloading Manual. The author reported on a near maximum load that he'd worked up that fired just fine and with no pressure signs when he loaded it at home, but which gave him sticky bolt lift when he assembled the exact same load at the range. He finally figured out it was the vibration of transportation from his house to the range that was settling the powder enough to reduce its burn rate.

You can mimic the above by putting your charged cases in a loading tray and holding the edge of the tray against a vibratory tumbler.

The bottom line for you is you will likely need to use a chronograph to find out something about the actual burn rate you are getting at the bulk density you have as compared to QuickLOAD's data. The QL data comes from tested lots, but these could be anywhere in that 6% tolerance span. Since you are interested in Chris Long's theory, read through his paper on tweaking QuickLOAD to get results that match what you measure. I have a caveat to this two paragraphs below.

I'll add a couple of more problems into the stink for you. The speed of sound in steel varies a lot with grain orientation and alloy. I find with the OBT theory it is best to put the raw calculation into your own Excel file so you can vary the speed of sound in steel, then use Dan Newberry's OCW round robins to identify a couple of sweet spots with an actual powder and then work backward with QuickLOAD and the chronograph to estimate the actual barrel times. That may sound like a waste of time, since you have your sweet spots already, but it isn't, as you then have barrel times you can use with QuickLOAD to get load estimates for other powders. It's a bunch of effort, and whether Chris's theory holds water at the end of the day or not, it's still the case that sweet spots and barrel times are linked. This helps with the powder selection process a good bit when you are seeking alternatives or are changing bullet weights.

A final point of error correction has to do with actual verses apparent performance. When a bullet leaves the muzzle of a gun, muzzle blast is still playing on the base of the bullet, accelerating it further. This goes on in some measure until the expanding muzzle blast is no longer expanding faster than the bullet at the bullet's location. It's usually about the first foot of bullet travel. In his book, Rifle Accuracy Facts, Harold Vaughn was able to use a magnetometer to show that a .270 bullet had gained 84 fps, post-muzzle, which was about 3% of his velocity. A retired radar engineer who used to post on this board showed me a trace from his homemade Doppler radar unit that clearly showed a .40 S&W bullet gaining about 35 fps post-muzzle, which was about 3.3% of his velocity (1050 fps). So 3% seems likely to be a pretty fair across-the board rough estimate. When you use a chronograph at the standard 15 feet, use a ballistic table to add the lost velocity over about 14 feet (I just use 10 fps most of the time), then multiply the result by 0.97 and you will be very close to actual muzzle velocity. That's the number I tweak QuickLOAD to get. Then you will have something close to actual barrel time.

Finally, as per the OCW loads, each OBT has a span. You just want to be somewhere inside it under all conditions. If you can tweak, as above, to correctly project sweet spots in your gun, then fiddling with temperatures and other factors should give you a better sense of what your operating condition limits are.

[pcxxxx42]

Unclenick:

Thanks for the loads of information. That paper on using QL to optimize bullet barrel time is one of the reasons I went out and purchased QL. It _IS_ astounding how QL can help you find compatible propellants for a specific BT.

Man, details! More on that in a minute.

The way I am using the term "bulk density" (BD) seems to correlate well with what I have read on various sites, and the Wikipedia site (for whatever that's worth...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_density

QuickLoad (QL) also uses the term Bulk Density as a propellant property, as you are likely aware; in many cases the QL BD values are in the ballpark of the VMD tables if converted to grams/cc, and also often comparable stuff that I have documented by measurement. In many cases all three disagree; the VMD tables, QL, and my measurement. QL uses ambiguous units of "g/cm^3" that are clearly grains/cm^3.

I am getting my BD numbers by filling a primed case with distilled water to the top, taking the weight difference to get the case volume in cubic centimeters. After the case is completely dry I fill it with propellant w/o shaking or tapping it. Scrape of the top with a square edged instrument and divide propellent weight by case volume; third grade math. Convert to grams/cc to compare to the VMD sheet, etc., then revise propellant BD in QL.

• Case capacity, 30-06: 67.8 cc
• Weight H4350: 65.4 grains

Reality check: 65/67 is slightly less than 1.000.

So, my 0.965 grains/cc for H4350 is equivalent to 0.0626 grams /cc when divided by 15.4 grains/gram.

Regarding that 30-30 bullet... I am just fooling around with a Rem 760 my step dad gave me and don't feel like shooting up my Noslers & Sierras, yet. I wanted something close to 180 grains, and this is what I had about. Now the good part (the DETAILS part): your advice on checking the QL bullet database entries was SPOT ON. The bullets are ~1.008 in length, a far cry from 1.140" in the QL database, thus my low estimates of case capacity! Thanks for that lesson! I am seating on the cannelure, and QL and my calipers give me a seating dept of approximately 0.490".

Thanks again for your insights.

[Unclenick]

Rereading Lee's instructions, I noted they actually refer to the VMD as the VMD Factor. That's better, and not incompatible with the units. The units are volume per weight, as I said before, where density is weight per volume, whatever unit system you are using. The way the VMD Factor works is you multiply it by the charge you want, and the result is the volume in cc's your dispenser needs to be set to to throw that weight, though even Lee says this is just an estimate. The lot-to-lot tolerance is the reason. The weight units then cancel out, leaving just the cubic centimeters, which is what you use one to find. The only constraint is that the weight units used in the VMD factory have to be the same as you are weighing the charge in.

American
VMD Factor in cc/grain

grains × __cc__  =  cc
         grains

Metric
VMD Factor in cc/gram

grams × __cc__  =  cc
         grams

The units in QuickLOAD are not ambiguous. Lower case g, all by itself, is the international standard symbol for a gram. The old use of gm is officially obsolete, though I continue to use it on occasion to avoid confusion with grains or with gravity (also a lower case g, but italicized). The Bottom line is the units of density in QuickLOAD are grams per cubic centimeter, same as specific gravity, and not grains per cubic centimeter. I think that must be how you got your earlier conversion off.

If you look in QuickLOAD under Options|Conversion, click on that and bring up the conversion window. You can use the drop down menu in the upper entry bar to select the conversion:

Gramms (g) <--> Grain (gr)

(QuickLOAD is authored in Germany where gram is spelled: "gramm".)

The point of my table is to show that bulk density has a tolerance. Manufacturing processes don't have absolute precision, and thus there is variance in bulk density and other powder properties. Take a look at any of the powders distributed by Western Powders (Accurate and Ramshot brands) and you will see bulk density in both grams/cc and grains/cc and a tolerance that ranges from ±2.2% to as high as ±5.6% for some numbers. They also give VMD Factors at the average bulk density in both cc/gram and in cc/grain for persons weighing charges either in grams (mostly in Europe) or in grains (mostly the U.S.).

You can read the Vihtavuori Oy load data on line to see bullet and charge weights given in both grams and grains. VV uses g for grams and grs for grains, adding the "s" where QuickLOAD does not. This may be because gr has been used for gram in some places in the past.

[pcxxxx42]

I should have known that "g" was the SI abbr. for grams. It wasn't when I was in engineering school, but hey! Times change, and that was DECADES ago. 'Shoulda looked it up.

I have a total grip on dimensional analysis, which is what your very helpful lesson, last, demonstrates. This should prove useful for everbody who runs across this post.

At any rate, please, imagine a very polite voice here, but, how do you explain the QuickLOAD H4350 default Bulk Density of 0.900 "g/cm^3" if it is in grams? [Other propellants are of a similar nature...]

• The number is just too large?

Divide that 0.900 g/cc by 15.4 (grains to grams) and get about 0.058 grams/cc, which is a bit different from the 0.0725 grams/cc in the VMD sheets, but it is of the same order of magnitude, at least.

What am I missing here?

mac

[Unclenick]

No, that's about right. Most stick powders are around 0.84 to 0.92 grams/cc, and most spherical propellants are somewhere around 0.92 to just over 1.00/g/cc, which is the density of water.

You can make a quick test to prove this to yourself. I tried to think what's in the house that is about 1 cc, and the closest thing I could think of would be a 1/4 teaspoon measure, which should be 1.23 cc's. Your original number was 0.965 grs/cc, times 1.23 would be 1.187 grs/1.23 cc's. Round that to numerator to 1.2 grains, weigh 1.2 grains, then pour it into 1/4 teaspoon. If the density were a match to your first number, then 1.2 grains would fill the 1/4 teaspoon just over level. In actuality it will be about 1/15th full. If, by any chance, it does come up level, then your scale is weighing in grams instead of grains.

I hear you on the changes in how we measure things. When you and I were in engineering school the National Bureau of Standards still existed and most standards were physical rather than calculated from inertia and other factors. The latter means anyone can make a reference standard, but it has changed how things are defined and calibrated. My patents are all in applied thermodynamics, and I got so numbed with the lengthy units after awhile that I got Mathcad just to let it handle all the conversions automatically. What a life and embarrassment saver it has been at times.

[Paul B.]

"Too bad Naramore did not write more books. I like his style over Sharpe."

I have "Principles and Practices of Loading Ammunition. I also have his Handloader's Manual I also have Sharpe's book, Complete Guide to handloading.
I've alway felt Principles and Practices should be required reading before anyone ever loaded a single round. Just my personal opinion.
Paul B.

[pcxxxx42]

Unclenick:

I am sorry if I have missed something here, which I feel I have been routinely doing thus far... I appreciate the dialog.

I have a Dillon electronic scale; I check its calibration regularly. I have about a half dozen other scales of which I will not elaborate.

Please, sir: try to get me back to zero here:

1) Do you use QuickLOAD (QL)?

2) If so, do you agree with me that the units are not properly labeled for Bulk Density in QL? [I expect so, based upon your last response, but I want to make this clear for anybody else who comes upon this thread?]

I am using QL "V3.6 / DLL: 1.00"

Below is a link to an image of the unaltered data/properties for H4350. The question mark appears in the propellent name because at one time or another I was fiddling with the temperature (it has been around 110 degrees F at the Corona Sportsmen's Club range lately... BUT IT IS A DRY HEAT! [seriously, it ain't what it seems to you folks from the Right Coast )]

This link [below] is on MediaFire.

If MediaFire asks you any questions [likely NOT], blow it off, as it is an "open" file.

• I would be happy to post it here if somebody would pint me to the directions.

• http://www.mediafire.com/?mybgz91w3aea1x3

As one can plainly see, the "Bulk Density" noted here is

• 0.900 "g/cm^3", otherwise described as
  .
• 0.900 "g/cc"

Is this not irregular? It truly must be in terms of grains/cc !!!

I am not complaining about QL, fer Christ's sake, this is complex stuff. I have made a living (and still do from time to time) writing custom test software, and I have just assumed that this probable anomoly, if it is as such, is just a minor problem in this otherwise awesome application.

Please advise?

mac

...

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by Mac

1) Do you use QuickLOAD (QL)?

Yes. I was one of the early adopters when it first became available through NECO. I have always kept it current and used all the features.

Originally Posted by Mac

2) If so, do you agree with me that the units are not properly labeled for Bulk Density in QL? [I expect so, based upon your last response, but I want to make this clear for anybody else who comes upon this thread?]. . . Is this not irregular? It truly must be in terms of grains/cc !!!

No. grains/cc is not a unit of density in any standard measuring system I am aware of, while g/cm³ is the standard unit of density in the cgs system. Don’t forget this program is written in Europe, where bullets and powder are weighed in grams and not grains. The Vihtavuori load data, for example, includes separate columns of grams and grains so American and English and European handloaders can all use it.

The grain is just an English system weight unit and is less universal than the gram, and there’s nothing magic about it. It really doesn’t make any difference what units you use as long as the conversions are correct. In this case 0.900 g/cm³ is a correct value for the g/cm³ unit. If I were to express that same density in grains/cc, the value would change from 0.900 to 13.9 (rounding to 3 decimal places). 0.900 is grams. There are 15.43236 grains in a gram. 0.900×15.4=13.9, so 0.9 g/cm³ = 13.9 grains/cm³.

You can see a kind of cross check built into QuickLOAD. That bulk density number is the basis for the case fill/loading ratio calculation (i.e., Filling/L.R. in the lower left of the powder charge window). If that 0.900 gram numerator were wrong, so would the case fill result be wrong. Note that when you enter 100% fill of H4350 into the Filling/L.R. space, the resulting charge weight in grams to the right of the charge weight in grains is 0.9 times the value for Usable Case Capacity in cm³. Similarly, the Usable Case Capacity in grains of water volume (another possible volume unit for the denominator of a non-standard density unit) divided into the charge weight in grains at 100% case fill is also a ratio of 0.900.

Originally Posted by Mac

. . . The question mark appears in the propellent name because at one time or another I was fiddling with the temperature (it has been around 110 degrees F at the Corona Sportsmen's Club range lately...

You don’t actually want to do that with this particular powder. Check the box next to “Tooltip help enable” in the Info menu at the top of QuickLOAD, if it isn’t checked already. Click on the button to enable powder characteristic editing. The thermometer button appears above the Filling/L.R. value. Put the cursor over that temperature button and you will see a note pop up that says not to use this feature with temperature compensated powders. H4350 is a temperature compensated powder. The whole Hodgdon Extreme line of powders from Australia are temperature compensated.

For further insight, you might want to read Denton Bramwell’s article on temperature sensitivity. He concludes barrel temperature is a lot more important than ambient powder temperature.

Hope that helps,

Nick

[Mike Irwin]

Another though on obsolete data.

In the early 1990s I had a Smith & Wesson .32 Long, made around 1917.

At that time VERY little loading data was available for the round that wasn't 30+ years old.

I finally settled on a load of Unique from a late 1950s early 1960s Speer (IIRC), and stuck with a middle of the road loading that was supposed to give about 700 feet per second with the 90ish grain lead bullet I was using.

I'm glad that I had borrowed a coworker's chronograph because the first six shots seemed to be QUITE warm and very snappy for that round.

I just about choked when I read the tape -- all six shots had crossed the screens at better than 1,000 feet per second, the highest one up around 1,060 fps, or faster than .32 H&R Magnum factory loads with a lead bullet of the same weight.

Why it didn't kill the gun I don't know, considering that at that time S&W wasn't heat treating cylinders.

[tkglazie]

unclenick, you are a hell of a resource to have on hand thanks for all of your very informative posts. you are much appreciated.