Author |
Message |
< 16ga. Ammunition & Reloading ~ 2.5 inch pressure test |
|
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:24 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 241
Location: Bitterroots
|
|
Twice Barrel wrote: |
Wow with an increase in pressure of 2400 psi between the Cheddite and Winchester hulls perhaps we had better rethink substituting load data between the Cheddite and Winchester hulls that have been proclaimed to be a Cheddite.
Gordon would you mind calling Tom and confirming this data.
|
For what it's worth.......
I have used a lot of Solo 1250. I much prefer my first 16 pounds that was a better powder that was manufactured in Scotland. I developed several loads with that first 16#...
My second 16 pounds is down to about five pounds remaining.... It is still Solo 1250 but it is Czech powder.... That's OK.... but it is faster burning than the first 1250 I had by a decent margin! ALL MY PRIOR DEVELOPED LOADS HAD TO BE DROPPED FOR BOTH VELOCITY AND PRESSURE TO BE LESS!!! One 16 load two and one half grains! Velocity identical as before and pressure still up 700psi.
I share this experience as I see data listed on the 16ga group that must be old powder lots data I know I sure wouldn't load that much powder with my current lot of 1250! FWIW.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:11 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 397
Location: Mesquite, TX.
|
|
Slidehammer
The information I got was from the 16g. load group but it must have been for the old powder as you said. The info is form another member and he is not prone to make mistakes. Your comparrison is enlightening. I will drop the recipe I got by 2.5 grains and send them to Tom.
Thank you for this comparrison. It sure clears up some things.
Regards, Gordon |
_________________ Our dogs make our lives better |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:37 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 1975
|
|
Twice Barrel wrote: |
Gordon Disharoon wrote: |
Twice Barrel
Yes the Winchester hull was the Australian ones.
|
Wow with an increase in pressure of 2400 psi between the Cheddite and Winchester hulls perhaps we had better rethink substituting load data between the Cheddite and Winchester hulls that have been proclaimed to be a Cheddite.
Gordon would you mind calling Tom and confirming this data.
|
Twice barrel. I went through the spreadsheet I have. Comparing loads between the cheddite ulls and the winchester polyformed I saw a 2 to 3 grain difference in powder. That was on longshot, universal and unique as they seemed to be the prevelant powders. I've been using the cheddite recipes, quess I'll quit doing that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:11 pm
|
|
|
|
One of the problems that I see is positively identifying the various Winchester hulls. In a relatively short period of time Winchester changed from the compression formed hull to a soft, slick sided Reifenhauser type hull with a blue base wad that I think everyone is calling the "Poly Formed Hull" to a Reifenhauser hull with a white base wad and ribs made in Italy that is very similar to the Cheddite to the Reifenhauser hull also with white base wad and ribs made in Australia which also looks like a Cheddite.
I'm really hoping that the current Winchester Super X hull is a Cheddite because that would cut down on a lot of confusion and add to the number of tested loads that could be used with the Winchester hulls. Has anyone done a side by side comparison between the Cheddite and Australian Winchester Super X? If so how did they compare as far as internal volume capacity, internal dimensions and load performance?
A 20% increase in pressure for a hull change that are so similar seems suspect that is why I asked Gordon to contact Tom to see if perhaps there isn't an error in the data. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:43 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 425
Location: Big D
|
|
Dave Miles wrote: |
Mark,
you can always find an exception to any rule.
|
Including that one? |
_________________ Consistency is the currency of credibility
Manufrance Ideal 314:
Barrel set 1- (choke) .000 , .007 , chamber 70mm
Barrel set 2- .025 , .047 , 65mm
Barrel set 3- .005, .015
Manufrance Ideal No. 5:
Choke: .000, .010, 70mm chambers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:00 pm
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I knew when I posted the comment about recoil, someone would respond against it.
I guess guys don't believe data compiled by E.D. Lowry, Winchester/Olin and the DOD that funded a lot of the small arms ballistic testing back then. It was their job to get this correct, as the testing was not done so that a bunch of old farts like us had something to debate. It was done as research for the DOD and most of the papers will never be released to the public. Now the U.S. Government doesn't get much right, but the DOD certainly knows how to get the most out of its weapons. I understand that it is very hard if not financially impossible to repeat these tests, so guys feel like it is open season to comment.
You can lead a horse to water....
There are arcticles on various sites that back this research up, and you have to have an open mind and realize that there are a lot of folks a LOT smarter than we are and are true ballisticians, that actually did the work. Not like some of the guys here that send 3 target loads to Mr. Armbrust and now believe they understand everything about the subject, and are sharper than the real ballisticians that do/did this stuff for a living.
...and find the articles yourselves as I have already fought this recoil vs pressure debate once with the jokers on the LPG site and I won't fight it again, as some guys don't/won't understand the difference between measureable recoil and felt recoil. Hell I'm just a dumbshit tin knocker and I figured it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:22 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1460
Location: Eagle, Nebraska
|
|
Have to agree. Hate to throw Physics into the arguement, but pressure has zippo to do with recoil.
People get confused I think in increasing the velocity of a particular load, the pressure may have also increased. But the pressure has nothing to do with the recoil.
Maybe think of it this way, If I could increase pressure in a load by 2000PSI, but was only a "popper" load for training, would there be an increase in recoil?? Answer: No. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:48 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 1545
Location: Michigan
|
|
Hootch wrote: |
Have to agree. Hate to throw Physics into the arguement, but pressure has zippo to do with recoil.
People get confused I think in increasing the velocity of a particular load, the pressure may have also increased. But the pressure has nothing to do with the recoil.
Maybe think of it this way, If I could increase pressure in a load by 2000PSI, but was only a "popper" load for training, would there be an increase in recoil?? Answer: No.
|
How are you going to increase this popper load?
You are going to add more powder, which will increase both the FPS and the PSI. and yes the recoil also.
I think you guys are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.
From my earlier post:
I agree with what you said: The major componenets of recoil are, gun weight, ejecta weight and ejecta velocity.
However under most situations you can't increase the velocity, of a givin weight, without increasing the pressure. So you normally don't have an increase in one, without an increase of the other. The two normally go hand in hand. Just my opinion, and you can always find an exception to any rule.
I guess will just have to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:16 pm
|
|
|
|
Dave,
Instead of speculating and agreeing to disagree, read the articles on recoil by E.D. Lowry and the papers he researched during his career at Winchester. In this case there are no exceptions unless you have figured out a way to defy the laws of physics.
It spells it out pretty clear, the guy was a ballistician and had a masters in math. If you still don't agree well, you can lead a horse to water.....
'nough said |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:43 pm
|
|
|
|
For what its worth the following is the mathmatical formula for calculating recoil.
E= 1/2(Wr/32)(WbxMv+4700xWp/7000xWr) squared
E= energy in foot pounds
Wr= weight of gun in pounds
Wb= weight of shot and wad
Mv= muzzle velocity in fps
Wp= weight of powder in grains
This does not reflect FELT recoil with a recoil management device but does give accurate energy transfer at a solid butt plate. |
Last edited by Twice Barrel on Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:59 pm
|
|
|
|
Very nice Twice,
I hope the guys read this and understand that it has nothing to do with recoil that is felt by the shooter, but the recoil actually generated by a certain load/firearm combination.
Thanks!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed May 06, 2009 4:41 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 317
|
|
Twice Barrel wrote: |
Gordon Disharoon wrote: |
Twice Barrel
Yes the Winchester hull was the Australian ones.
|
Wow with an increase in pressure of 2400 psi between the Cheddite and Winchester hulls perhaps we had better rethink substituting load data between the Cheddite and Winchester hulls that have been proclaimed to be a Cheddite.
Gordon would you mind calling Tom and confirming this data.
|
What brand of hull are you calling a cheddite hull as used in the original test? How does it differ from the Aussie Winchester in internal dimensions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed May 06, 2009 4:46 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 317
|
|
Slidehammer wrote: |
I have used a lot of Solo 1250. I much prefer my first 16 pounds that was a better powder that was manufactured in Scotland. I developed several loads with that first 16#...
My second 16 pounds is down to about five pounds remaining.... It is still Solo 1250 but it is Czech powder.... That's OK.... but it is faster burning than the first 1250 I had by a decent margin! ALL MY PRIOR DEVELOPED LOADS HAD TO BE DROPPED FOR BOTH VELOCITY AND PRESSURE TO BE LESS!!! One 16 load two and one half grains! Velocity identical as before and pressure still up 700psi.
I share this experience as I see data listed on the 16ga group that must be old powder lots data I know I sure wouldn't load that much powder with my current lot of 1250! FWIW....
|
Interesting. I loaded many of the solo 1250 loads for the group's test. Let me see where my 4 lb container is from and I will report back. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed May 06, 2009 5:32 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 317
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Wed May 06, 2009 5:46 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 1975
|
|
I checked the capacity between the cheddita hulls and the Winchester hulls I have. The capacity is exactly the same. The basewad in both hulls is exactly the same also. I know the powder between the federal hulls and the others is ussually different. The federal takes a couple grains more. But why the difference between the winchester hull and the cheddite? I see out at Hodgdons site that they have loads for 3 different winchester hulls in 16 gauge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|