16ga.com Forum Index
Author Message
<  16ga. Ammunition & Reloading  ~  Over pressure on some old data
megasupermagnum
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2020 7:42 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 11 Dec 2017
Posts: 77
Location: South Dakota

I've got a question for some of you. I have always had a bit of an issue with a couple Alliant loads. They are the Bluedot loads in the Federal hulls for 1 1/8 and 1 1/4 oz. In the past, I have reduced them as a result, and been happy. I am curious if this could be the data, or if I have a rather fast lot of Bluedot.

It certainly is not to dangerous levels, but when I load either load to a T, recoil is excessive. I'll copy the loads below so we are clear.

Federal 2 3/4" hull
Federal 209A primer
32 gr Bluedot
SP16 wad
1 1/8 oz lead shot
fold crimp

1295 fps
8,600 psi

Federal 2 3/4" hull
Federal 209A primer
30,5 gr Bluedot
SP16 wad
1 1/4 oz lead shot
fold crimp

1260 fps
10,200 psi

I am crimping these with a normal depth crimp of about .080" give or take. Normally velocity on Alliant data is reasonably close to real world, or slightly slower. My guess is that Alliant lists calculated muzzle velocity. In this case, they are not close. I've tried these loads in an Ithaca Fox B and a Remington 11-48, both being 28" barrels. The 1 1/8 oz load clocks a whopping 1380 fps from the Fox B, and 1372 fps from the 11-48. The 1 1/4 oz load went 1334 fps and 1333 fps. These were tested back in summer, around 70 degrees outside, chronograph about 4' from muzzle. MV would be around 1400 fps for the 1 1/8, and 1350 for the 1 1/4. The Fox B extracted all hulls fine, the 11-48 did have a couple of the 1 1/8 oz stick, but it has done it with the hot factory Federal prairie storm as well, and could likely use a quick polish with some steel wool.

In the past, I decided to reduce the 1 1/8 oz load to 28 grains Bluedot, and found that a very good load, and have taken a number of animals with it.

My question, is has anyone else noticed such excessive velocity with these two loads in particular? The reason I was thinking about this, is someone had found the same results. This prompted me to check some manuals. I found that in an older Hercules manual, these two loads were listed verbatim, with the sole exception that they specified the Federal 209 primer, not the 209A, which is worlds apart. I then found that in a 1997 Alliant manual, they list word for word, the exact same load as the Hercules manual. The very earliest manual I can find that is different is on Castpics, the Alliant 2000 manual. It lists the same load, but has changed to specifying the Federal 209A primer.

I'm not sure when the Federal 209 primer was discontinued, likely around 2000, as I was loading with them until the mid 2000's. One could say that Alliant has pressure tested this load, and found it safe with the 209A primer. This could very well be true, but I can say that the pressure data they have listed is not true. The Federal 209 is a weaker primer, very similar, if the not exactly the same as the current CCI 209 primer (not to be mistaken with the 209M). Switching from a Federal 209 to a Federal 209A would have definitely raised the pressure, In one test, Tom Armbrust found the Federal 209A produced 1,790 PSI higher pressure than the Federal 209.

So no, I don't think Alliant is posting unsafe data, but I do think it is incorrect, and possibly have slipped through their cracks. I plan to call them at some point, although I have been insanely busy as usual this fall.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RGuill96971
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2020 7:53 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Mar 2019
Posts: 519
Location: Texas

Mega- I load blue dot for 28 and I will have to look up the load, but if I remember right it seemed a little heavy at the time. I know Hodgdon recommends.055 for crimp depth. Not sure what Aliliant recommends. According to some test the depth changes pressure. If you compare crimp depth from brand to brand it’s all over the place.
Looking at the 5th edition of lymans it shows:
Federal plastic case, paper base wad 1 1/8 oz shot
28.5 grains of blue dot
Fed 209a
Sp-16
1220 fps
8400 psi


Last edited by RGuill96971 on Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:00 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
megasupermagnum
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:48 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 11 Dec 2017
Posts: 77
Location: South Dakota

I just checked the Lyman manual, and it actually lists 28.5 gr Bluedot for 1 1/8 oz lead shot. I believe you are in the bismuth section, which lists 26gr. The 28.5 gr load lists at 1220 fps. Maybe I do just have a fast lot of powder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RGuill96971
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:01 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Mar 2019
Posts: 519
Location: Texas

Mega- you are correct sir.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fn16ga
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:19 am  Reply with quote
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Posts: 2165
Location: Florida

.080 crimp depth could be part of the problem . Normal is .050 to .060
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MSM2019
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2020 8:09 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 04 Mar 2019
Posts: 1819
Location: Central ND

megasupermagnum,

For starters - the crimp is much too deep. I have always been a fan of Tom Armbrust's suggestion of the thickness of a dime or 0.0625" for crimp depth on 12 & 16 gauge loads. You get a solid crimp and enough material to get a nice radius on the crimp shoulder. Both Alliant and Hodgdon have always stated 0.055" as the crimp depth for their data. Deeper means more velocity.

Alliant does not guesstimate velocities those are true velocities that they print. They are most likely rounded up or down, probably to the nearest dram equivalent velocity.

You cannot get realistic velocity data with, and I assume you are using a skyscreen chronograph, a skyscreen chronograph unless you are using cylinder bore chokes @ 3 feet from the muzzle. All Alliant data is taken @ 3' from the muzzle as they do follow SAAMI Standards. Also skyscreen chronographs have the tendency to read on the high side, not always for sure, but they have been known to. Maybe 25 FPS something in that range. Muzzle velocity is a euro measurement that CIP has gotten away from over the years. SAAMI has never used muzzle velocity to my knowledge, certainly not in the last 3 sets of standards.

A few misconceptions about primers. The Federal 209 was NEVER as mild as the CCI209. It was not exactly like but more similar to the CCI209M. Federal primers whether the 209 or the 209A have always been at the top of the list as far as being "hot" goes.

Trying to duplicate velocities from the loading data can be difficult, because you have to understand that nothing can be 'close enough'. You have to be on the money with your reloading....as in powder drops and shot drops have to be exact, no substitutions, wad firmly seated on the powder, crimps and crimp depths are very important, no 'my way is a better way' ideas. The slower the powder the better you need to be at reloading consistently and I am not talking about measuring powder drops. You also do not know how your chronograph 'reads'. It can be perfect with single projectiles and not so perfect with shotshells. That's why the factories use reference ammo, to correct their velocities if needed. 5 shot sample test strings are minimum, 10 shot sample test strings are even better, especially since we don't have great chronographs to work with. Remember that published velocities are averages based on 10 shot samples. Always fire two warming rounds before you start taking chronograph readings.

If your velocities are within 50 FPS of the data, you are doing OK. If your velocities are within 25 FPS of the data, call it a day and go home smiling.

_________________
Mark...You are entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dave In AZ
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:19 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 13 Oct 2015
Posts: 348

Mostly everything that MSM/Mark said above. With one difference.

Hercules and Alliant, who just copy their data with little or no updates ever, absolutely guesstimate and interpolate their shotshell speeds and powder drops. One look at their data points shows this to be the case. None of their speeds are exact measurements, they are all interpolated up or down to speeds that have meaning for various shooting games. 1185, 1240, and 1295 are there published speeds for that Federal 1 and 1/8 oz load. Those aren't the data points that they actually got from a chronograph! Take a look at their powder drops, they are all exactly right on the nose and 1/2 grain increments. There is no way that all of their testing magicly produced speeds at exactly 11:45, 1185, 12:40, 12 95, and 13 40 FPS, and it was all magically perfectly on the nose in half grain powder intervals!

So the base data that you are trying to replicate is not fully accurate to start with. What they did was find something that was close, and round probably down to the nearest 1/2 grain. they are aware that crimped depth, lot differences, temperature, barrel length, Etc all change the outcome by 25fps here and there, and that their load data is a target hoop, not an exact point, and they produce rounded numbers that are close enough for that hoop.

Also as has been noted above, crimp depth is important. I believe you can easily change pressure my 1500 to 2000 PSI with your crimp depth. I sent in duplicate loads of 1 and 1/8 oz number 2 Steel, the only difference was one round had a crimp depth of .050" and the other series had crimp depth of .08 to .090". My 10 shot average pressure was over 1900 psi higher. Now this was with steel powder and steel shot, which is less forgiving, but point made.

In any case, I think it is some good thought and observant by the original poster Mega Supermangnum. And I think his solution is exactly the right procedure, if a load produces higher speed then you want, reduce the powder to get the speed you desire is always a safe procedure! Good job I say.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MSM2019
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:45 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 04 Mar 2019
Posts: 1819
Location: Central ND

Alliant won't interpolate powder amounts. Why? Because of liability. If you are going to print it, you must have the data to prove it. That is what the insurance company will tell you. Since you are in the business and to NOT follow your own guidelines is fairly stupid. Remember that SAAMI is not a separate entity. SAAMI is made up of people from each of the voting member companies and Alliant is one of those companies.

I absolutely believe that they don't reshoot loads all the time. There is no reason for it. Data from 40 years ago is still good data as long as the components you are using are still made. I use a load from Lyman 2nd Edition that still performs now the way it did when Lyman tested it wayback when.

However the rounding up and down does go on. It is only going to be a matter of 20 FPS or so and no one is going to try and hit a velocity exactly. Why? Because the next time you test the load it will average slightly higher or lower. Probably +/- 10 FPS or so. If I was looking for 1250 FPS and I got 1263 FPS, I would round down and call it a day.....and IF you were paying me, that is exactly what you would expect also.

Developing reloading data is very time consuming, which means expensive. No one would waste time over 20 FPS so they round up and down. Just makes good sense.

Pressure and velocity data is all about averages and SD. Folks get all wrapped around the axle over 30 FPS and 1000 PSI.........in the world of shotshell ballistics that wouldn't rate a look.

If you look at what the OP has presented you can account for an easy 50 FPS that is probably artificial, not that the chrono numbers are off, just that things were not done in a manner that would produce the correct velocities.

_________________
Mark...You are entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
megasupermagnum
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:25 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 11 Dec 2017
Posts: 77
Location: South Dakota

Those numbers I posted were fired over a sky screen chronograph from 3'-4', but the sky screens were removed. Does a Labradar work with shotguns? I have always crimped to around .080". There are of course some variations, but I always strived for around .080" on hunting shells. This is a standard depth, found on most factory ammo, although I have no way of knowing how deep Alliant uses, they do not list it. .055" is rather shallow, sometimes liable to opening on these tighter fitting loads. That shallow a crimp is best suited to loose fitting target loads, as it maximizes hull life.

I always found Alliant data to read fairly close using this chronograph. In this case, I'm seeing about 80 fps more, which is nothing crazy, but is certainly in the realm of what a primer change could do. That's my ultimate thought. These loads are old loads, possibly as old as Bluedot is. Am I really to believe that changing from a Federal 209 to a Federal 209A produced EXACTLY the same velocity and pressure, even after all these decades? It is an interesting thought experiment.

Unrelated, I have always hated manufacturers who stop data at certain velocities. I mean, the 1 1/8 oz load is listed at 1295 fps, but only 8,600 ps. That is not even in Bluedot's ideal pressure range yet, why stop there? Why not 1350 fps, or better yet, why not list a max load (11,500 psi), and then add on the lower velocity spots?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RGuill96971
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:40 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Mar 2019
Posts: 519
Location: Texas

Mega- I called Labrador last week with the same question and was told no. The pellets are not big enough, and the fact that there are multiple bb’s. I called several and was told pretty much the same. Magnetospeed told me it would be a problem with 7,8,9 shot. The best advise I got was to use 2 chronograph in a row, one behind the other. That came from Labrador, but not to use their product for shotshells.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MSM2019
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:24 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 04 Mar 2019
Posts: 1819
Location: Central ND

megasupermagnum,

It doesn't matter what the crimp depth is on factory ammo. Why? Because each load is tested during production to be sure it falls within SAAMI Standards.

The bottom line is if you want to try and duplicate the velocities of a certain load than you must reload to the same set of specs. If you don't, then you may or may not produce the same performance numbers. It is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what you MAY HAVE DONE in the past and gotten reasonable results. You have to approach each load the same way, which is to follow the same guidelines that the entity that produced the load in question followed. Some loads are very sensitive to crimp depths, some are not. Some loads are sensitive to primer changes, some are not. With some loads you can use any straight wall hull and get the same basic results. Sometimes choke constriction affects some loads while others aren't. There are no absolutes, so you have to approach every load from not what you think should be done, but from how it was actually done.

ALL loads are different. If you expect every load that you put together to react exactly in the same manner to the same inputs, you aren't understanding why loads are tested.

IF ALL shotshells reacted the same way to a set of inputs, there would be no reason to test any shotshell for pressure and velocity, in the manner that is in the SAAMI standards. You could sit at a computer and produce data to your heart's content. While there are certainly tendencies there are not absolutes.

So if you want to continue to crimp at 0.080" fine, but don't expect that the velocities are always going to fall in line. Same goes for chokes. Same goes for sample sizes.

You asked the question, now you don't want to hear the truth? Why ask the question in the first place?

You believe that the problem with this load is the difference between a Federal 209 and a Federal 209A. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but you aren't loading or testing the velocity of load properly to single out the primer.

You have to crimp at 0.55". You have to use a cylinder choke. You have to sample at least 5 rounds if not 10 rounds. If you don't fix those 3 items you are comparing apples and oranges.

_________________
Mark...You are entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MSM2019
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:41 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 04 Mar 2019
Posts: 1819
Location: Central ND

As far as testing goes at certain velocity levels.......

First off, when it comes to 16 gauge, we are in the minority and not too may companies will bother going to lengths for something that will net them 2% of the market.....which is about where the 16 gauge probably falls.

Secondly, and I know that dram equivalent is a four letter word, but the factories still loosely adhere to those dram equivalent velocities. If you go through the SAAMI Standards you will see them listed for the different gauges. It isn't spelled out but the velocity levels are exactly what the old dram equivalent velocities were.

That is the answer to why Alliant stopped at the 1295 FPS level when they have plenty
of room to continue chamber pressure wise. It comes down to $$ and to a lesser extent, some old velocity levels.

Reloading data follows SAAMI Standards, but the standards were never written with reloading data in mind.

_________________
Mark...You are entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
megasupermagnum
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:37 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 11 Dec 2017
Posts: 77
Location: South Dakota

Can you point to where Alliant specifies crimp depth, because I've never seen crimp depth specified in any manual.

Ballistic Products regularly generates their load data from a computer program, although they won't openly admit it easily.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
castnblast
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:49 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 84

I have had a similar experience as Megasupermagnum. Way over pressure with the published Bluedot data in Fed hulls. I think the 1.125oz 209A 30gr. load was close to 1400fps according to Precision. I have moved to 800X with a cooler primer for all my heavier hunting loads.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MSM2019
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:09 am  Reply with quote



Joined: 04 Mar 2019
Posts: 1819
Location: Central ND

The subject of crimp depth has been beat to death on SGW. The information was gotten from the Alliant techs. Hodgdon supposedly has it written somewhere. As I stated before I have always used Tom Armbrust's suggestion of thickness of a dime or 0.0625". Every 12 & 16 gauge load I developed at Precision Reloading Inc. was set at 0.060" to 0.065" as it made for a very nice radius on the crimp shoulder, while not affecting the chamber pressure and allowing more room for velocity increases. (Velocity and pressure are not linear) Especially important when dealing with Steel powder and steel shot loads. When you start increasing crimp depths it has the tendency to increase chamber pressure more than velocity. Chamber pressure increase does not equal velocity increase, gas volume increases velocity. You get a much better trade off with chamber pressure vs velocity with increasing powder amounts. Increasing crimp depths helps with consistent ballistics at times, but at the cost of raising chamber pressure which you can't always afford to do. The sweet spot has always been that 0.055" to 0.065' crimp depth for most 12 & 16 gauge loads. That is what I know.



For information on why computers can't be used to produce shotshell loads, you might contact White Labs, Ballistic Research (Tom Armbrust), Precision Reloading LLC or SAAMI. But if you were the guy footing the bill, would you pay someone to load and test each load (if you miss than that means multiple tries at the same load) in a lab that has about $10,000 worth of equipment per test station minimum? Or pay for someone to sit down at a $1500 computer? So you have to ask yourself why would anyone not use a computer if that was the correct way to test shotshells?

_________________
Mark...You are entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
All times are GMT - 7 Hours

View next topic
View previous topic
Page 1 of 4
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
16ga.com Forum Index  ~  16ga. Ammunition & Reloading

Post new topic   Reply to topic


 
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB and NoseBleed v1.09