| Author |
Message |
| < 16ga. Ammunition & Reloading ~ 65mm full crimp tested - Unique and 572 (update chrono test) |
|
 Posted:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 3:08 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Oct 2017
Posts: 80
Location: Joliet, IL
|
|
| WyoChukar wrote: |
Thanks for posting this. I have been waiting to see how the 572 load came out since I am wanting to do about the same. That low pressure reading gives me mixed feelings. I would like a bit higher...without the higher velocity so it leaves me pondering things since I find guns usually pattern most efficiently, especially once I get away from light shot charges, at speeds below 1,300 fps.
However, the low pressure situation almost begs for the move to a buffered load that would no doubt raise pressure by 1,500-2,500 psi while staying within the intended working limits of the British SxS I would use it in. Now I may have to compare such a load with the Longshot load I currently use with buffer. Hmmm.
|
The 572 load was taken from this article: https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/blackpowder-shotshell-loading/361504
Hodgdon worked up loads for the article which are quite similar with the only change being moving from a 70mm hull to a 65mm hull. Although this change did not have a huge affect on pressure, it certainly raised it somewhat, which assuming it might is the reason I had it tested.
I have to admit I wonder whether they will perform well in cold conditions at such low pressure levels. Likely as we move toward hunting season I'll throw a batch in the freezer and see how they chrono. I have to agree that I fear W572 will make a great 1270 fps powder (or perhaps 1 1/8th oz powder), but may not make the cut for cold weather 1oz loads @ 1,200 ish fps. Time and testing will tell, but for now the jury is certainly still out. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:30 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 07 Jun 2020
Posts: 237
|
|
| MSM2019 wrote: |
Old colonel2,
Speaking of steel barreled shotguns only. I realize that some Euro/UK shotguns were proofed at lower pressures. After 1926 and even before 1926 many shotguns made here in the US were proofed at levels similar to current standards. The current SAAMI MAP is also close to the same pressure levels that have been used since 1926, when SAAMI Standards were first introduced. As you know SAAMI MAP refers to the maximum service pressure to get the maximum life out of your shotgun.
I guess that a person would have to know, which shotguns were not proofed or designed for those levels. IMHO, I think folks take this way too far and are using 'low pressure' loads when they aren't warranted. Again, just my opinion.
There are plenty of references on 16ga.com to folks 'needing' low pressure loads but the actual shotguns are never mentioned, which I think is a bit curious. Maybe there are a lot of folks that shoot older shotguns that need ammo that isn't up to current standards, more than I think.
There is nothing wrong with using 'low pressure' loads, in whatever shotgun a person wants, it just isn't my choice for the reasons I have stated many times over.
|
Understand your reasons for what you load for and have no problem with it.
My primary 16 is an 1898 gun, it’s back up a 1905 or so gun. Beyond that I have early 1920’s through 1930 guns. Only one 16 meant for heavy modern loads. My newest shotgun might be a family gun from 1957 (12ga BLE Browning Superposed)
While the current SAAMI may resemble that of 1926 not all guns world wide even then we’re built to it, or chambered for it for that matter. Each gun needs to be judged individually.
Further the fact SAAMI max specifications are not exceeded does not make a load a good idea. An example are some very fast (1350+) heavy and or 1 1/8 - 1 1/4 loads which produce too much recoil for some older guns.
As you have noted Modern 16’s and vintage 16’s are different worlds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:07 am
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Oct 2017
Posts: 80
Location: Joliet, IL
|
|
Quick update. I tried 18.5 grains in the Unique load. This did not end up reducing the ES/SD as hoped. It did end up increasing the FPS more than I really anticipated.
18.5 grains Unique - 15/16 No. 7 1/2 - 10 shot results as follows:
Avg FPS: 1182
ES: 56 fps
SD: 16 fps
I may go back to 18 grains and try a .060" crimp depth in a last attempt to tweak this load. If that doesn't help I'll probably have to call this as good as it's going to get. There really isn't room in a 65mm hull to fit more shot, and it already meets most of my expectations anyway although I sure would rather have about 1/3 to 1/2 reduction in that SD/ES. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:42 am
|
|
|
Joined: 01 Mar 2017
Posts: 52
|
|
Trax
were you going to try, as per MSM suggested, varying powder weight slightly in combination with a stronger? primer ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Aug 01, 2022 12:36 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Oct 2017
Posts: 80
Location: Joliet, IL
|
|
| harkom wrote: |
Trax
were you going to try, as per MSM suggested, varying powder weight slightly in combination with a stronger? primer ?
|
I only have access to Cheddite primers so that isn't in the cards until Fed209a's hit the shelves again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:13 am
|
|
|
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 2069
Location: canandaigua - western n.y. (formerly deerhunter)
|
|
| M73 .... do you have access to a larger group of shooters at your club etc . We almost have like a coffee club here at Newark . If I put the word out that I'm looking for a few Feds or CCI209mags etc , they would show up at the next club day . It would be easy here to get those experimental comps to try things out . (same way with rifle primers etc , we are lucky here ! Nowadays is THE time to be a hoarder !) |
_________________
Molly sez AArrrooooooah ! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:44 am
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 128
|
|
I've relied heavily on the Shooting Times' data and 572 for my guns (all pre- '60s).
As for "Low Pressure" loads, my logic is that 8 kpsi and 1200fps are very much in line with the commercial loads in the early 20th century... not so much an attempt to be overly cautious of proof pressures.
As previously mentioned some low pressure loads, especially with 572 leave room to experiment with buffering and such.
This and similar have been very illuminating threads, and we should not look the gift horse in the mouth, so to speak.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:45 am
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 128
|
|
I've relied heavily on the Shooting Times' data and 572 for my guns (all pre- '60s).
As for "Low Pressure" loads, my logic is that 8 kpsi and 1200fps are very much in line with the commercial loads in the early 20th century... not so much an attempt to be overly cautious of proof pressures.
As previously mentioned some low pressure loads, especially with 572 leave room to experiment with buffering and such.
This and similar have been very illuminating threads, and we should not look the gift horse in the mouth, so to speak.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
