ShotGunWorld Shotguns

It is currently Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:31 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Image



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Load data conundrums
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:13 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:27 am
Posts: 8146
Location: Silicon Valley
@Republican,

My concern was the higher pressure of the DRXL-1 as compared to the similar load with the CB1100-12. I had read previously that with a hotter primer swap, keeping under 9000 was advised, and it appears that the DRXL-1 with Rem 209P was getting close to that, hence my question.

I *have* shot some of these, they do feel and look fine and run a pretty consistent 1235 fps over my chrono. I was not overly worried until somebody suggested that my switching from a Rem to Win primer was not safe.



_________________
Jack
NSCA #617422

When the mind is right, the body will find a way...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Load data conundrums
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:24 pm 
Crown Grade

Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:55 am
Posts: 5146
Location: Hemingway, S.C. 29554
I think that means that if you swap a hotter primer than the one listed in the data. You have data for the 209P primer!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Load data conundrums
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:21 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:47 am
Posts: 12777
Location: Covington, WA USA
JacksBack wrote:
@Republican,

My concern was the higher pressure of the DRXL-1 as compared to the similar load with the CB1100-12. I had read previously that with a hotter primer swap, keeping under 9000 was advised, and it appears that the DRXL-1 with Rem 209P was getting close to that, hence my question.

Ah, there's the issue.....

Folklore about keeping under 9000 for a primer swap.

For starters, that 'folklore' was "10,000", when I heard about it. Now it's down to '9000' ?

And now you can't even be 'close' to that ?

Secondly, it might be more the 'exception' rather than the norm, but if you look, you will find some loads with some propellants, and some components in some payloads where the Remington 209P yields a higher peak pressure than the Winchester W209.

In any event, you are stacked up like 3-deep on de-rating measurements, and that is way-excessive.

Also, and some really important take-aways on your last statement about "feel fine", and velocity 'feels fine' ...

DO NOT EVER USE THAT AS A YARDSTICK TO DETERMINE SAFE CHAMBER PRESSURE !!

Years ago, when I was developing 20-gauge loads with Rio/Maxium's 'CSB' propellant line, and again with the Vectan propellants that came out before they published any load data, I came up with a few loads that were real kitten cat 20-ga loads, with velocities right where I wanted them, and EV's/SD's that were some of the lowest I've ever seen.

When I sent them in for pressure testing, I about fell off of my CHAIR when I saw how high the pressure was!. And I'm not talking a little, I'm talking a LOT!

You will never be able to detect excessive peak pressure spikes by mere "feel" (for velocity alone).

The only "hint" of over pressure situations I've come to learn over the years of playing with this, is that if you see EV's and SD's that are much lower than normal (or expected), then the load is probably over pressure. I don't know for sure if there is a direct coloration there, but it's been my experience in just about every over pressure load I've paid to have tested.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Load data conundrums
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:25 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:27 am
Posts: 8146
Location: Silicon Valley
@ Republican -- I am well aware how they look or feel is irrelevant, and that was just reinforcement for my concerns.

geometric wrote:
I think that means that if you swap a hotter primer than the one listed in the data. You have data for the 209P primer!


The combination of these 2 from the Alliant site is what generated the concern AFTER the guy told me swapping up in primers was not safe:

1) Rem hull, Rem 209P, 19.5 grs RedDot, DRXL-1 wad, velocity 1250, pressure 10,100; a max load
2) Rem hull, Rem 209P, 18.7 grs RedDot, CB1100-12 wad, velocity 1250, pressure 8,800; one step below a max load

It appears the DRXL-1 wad requires an extra grain of powder and a lot more pressure than the CB1100-12 to achieve the same 1250 FPS; and then the fact I am now using the DRXL-1 wad with the hotter Win 209 primer and getting nearly 1250 FPS makes me wonder if I am over 10,100 pressure by a significant margin?

I realize my load is 1 grain under the listed max for the DRXL-1 wad with the Rem primer, so I pass that test. But then I do not clearly pass the "under 9000 pressure" warning I read elsewhere as I don't have have data for the DRXL-1 wad and 18.5 grs RedDot. (I *might* pass the under 10,000 pressure test per Republican, but again, I do not have specific load data for the DRXL-1 wad and 18.5 grs of RedDot.)

To be clear, my issue is upping to the Win 209 primer with the difference in the DRXL-1 wad as compared to the CB110-12 wad which I was told were interchangeable, and they do not appear to be. Had I assembled this load with the Win 209 primer and the CB1100-12's, I would not be concerned.

Hopefully this clarifies.

PS edit: Then there is the issue of crimp depth affecting pressure, and I haven't even opened that can of worms ;) My crimps on these will just hold a dime...

_________________
Jack
NSCA #617422

When the mind is right, the body will find a way...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Load data conundrums
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:46 pm 
Tournament Grade

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:02 pm
Posts: 151
JacksBack wrote:
I do not clearly pass the "under 9000 pressure" warning I read elsewhere
???

SAAMI* Shotshell Maximum Service Pressures


12 gauge - 11,500 psi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Load data conundrums
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:47 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:47 am
Posts: 12777
Location: Covington, WA USA
Jack, seriously ....

You should listen to what Mark told you earlier.

You must be an Engineer (like me). You are acting like an Electrical Engineer making component selection decisions for the Space Shuttle.

Just another data point to help put this in perspective. Look at this:

Image

That *alone* makes those pressure figures suspect, at minimal, this "dilutes" the accuracy far below for what you are looking for.

Ask yourself: How is it that a seemingly cheesy Downrange wad can be "grouped" together with an OEM WAA12SL when it's not even a CLONE of that wad, but yet the CB-1100, which *is* an OEM clone isn't ?

I'll tell you why. It's my belief that this is a result of 'smoosing' that was going on between Kevin Lewis from Downrange sucking up with Alliant. There's no secret that there was collaboration going on between those two entities, and in my view, it was an attempt to 'plug' Downrange (alternative) wads by suggesting that they are identical to the OEM WAA12SL wad.

I'm sure I'll get BBQ'd my the Alliant water-carrying Fanboyz over this, but the "purpose" is to illustrate just how NON-exacting this is, (and those published numbers).

Also, in the above screen shot, unless I'm missing something, you aren't even comparing the same charge weights.

J.Fred_Muggs wrote:
JacksBack wrote:
I do not clearly pass the "under 9000 pressure" warning I read elsewhere
???

SAAMI* Shotshell Maximum Service Pressures


12 gauge - 11,500 psi

Thank you, Fred, but we all know this.

The issue being discussed here is the lack of data for his 'exact' components, for his particular charge weight.

So he's talking about a primer swap, so some 'extrapolation' is being done by the OP in attempt to determine if his loads exhibits higher than SAMMI pressures.

In closing, and in all due respect, I'm officiallcy reversing my earlier position stated of: 'sending them in for pressure testing is not warranted' ...

I now actually think that you should send them in for pressure testing.

In the beginning, I spent a small fortune sending in target loads with published data for testing, just to find out for myself that everything everyone was telling me at the time was true.

But there is a LOT to be said for learning it on your one. For one, you're "stimulating" the economy, that that's a very good thing.

Secondly, it is a series of exercises which forces you to learn extreme accuracy, and attention to detail in assembling test loads.

I don't do much of any of that any more. #1: I'm not developing hunting, or specialty loads, and #2: I'm not running into new/unknown propellants (Maximum/CSB/Vectan) that doesn't already have reliable published data, and of course #4: everything that I sent in for testing which *did* have published data came back with results that were well within the published data, and or course SAMMI limits.

But again, I don't regret all of the money spent getting shells tested at all, and I highly recommend it to others.

This very thread is a perfect example of why I now recommend going thru the testing experiment.


Last edited by Republican on Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Load data conundrums
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:53 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:27 am
Posts: 8146
Location: Silicon Valley
Republican,

The fact I was originally 1 full gr below that very same "max" data with the substitution of the hotter Win209 is what prompted me to use it in the first place. But thank you for sharing that interesting perspective on the why the DRXL-1 which is clearly NOT a clone is being grouped with the factory wad as a clone. I could never understand why the CB1100-12 was listed separately, as it appears a true clone...

Here's my takeaway. I am reasonably confident I am fine, and thank you all for confirming that. And I think I'll continue to shoot them, but I'm also thinking I'm going to go ahead and spring the $40 to have them tested just so I know. I will report back whenever I get the test results.

_________________
Jack
NSCA #617422

When the mind is right, the body will find a way...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Load data conundrums
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:12 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:47 am
Posts: 12777
Location: Covington, WA USA
JacksBack wrote:
I could never understand why the CB1100-12 was listed separately, as it appears a true clone...

It is a true clone. Ron Buggs Jr. from Claybuster is a direct competitor to Kevin Lewis from Downrange, and so I think there was a lot of 'sucking up' going on there between Downrange, and Alliant when Kevin Lewis arrived.

Claybuster was one of the original clone wad makers, and so they didn't need to do any of that.

Ron at Claybuster also wasn't afraid to admit when their was a design problem with one of his wads, and would fix it at the drop of a dime at his expense (like he did with the CB-6100A). Kevin Lewis from Downrange to this day is still making excuses for his undersized, poor performing DRF0 & DRF3 so-called 12S0/12S3 clones.

Just two guys just trying to make a living, but just with different business practices and ideas (and ethics).

JacksBack wrote:
, but I'm also thinking I'm going to go ahead and spring the $40 to have them tested just so I know.

Awesome ! I think this is a great idea !! The experience(s) will be priceless for you.

And while you are embarking on 'new ventures' Jack, you might want to also gain some experience with the single-base propellants that are still available.

Granted Vectan AS dried up at Graf & Sons, but if you followed my postings a few years back, you would have surely seen how fond I was of Vectan's 206-V (which seems to be different than their traditional square-flake 'A-x' products).

While not all propellants exhibit the same 'delta' in pressure between primers, in this load, the delta is only ~400 PSI which is well within the accuracy of even the best peak pressure measuring apparatus.

Image

This is one of the best performing 1-ounce propellants I've ever used.

At $121.70/keg delivered to YOUR DOOR, it is an experience that every handloader should have.

Image

I've been assembling this load for almost 5 years now. The only thing I changed over the years with is it to go to a full ounce, and changed to a Claybuster CB-6100 instead of the Gualandi GU-1225 :

Image

Sorry about turning this into a Vectan infomercial, - I just get excited about 'new reloading ventures' which have nice rewards at the end. :oops:

Good luck with your testing, Jack.

Also, if you go with Precision Reloading, send in 10 shells to have tested, - it's the same price.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Load data conundrums
PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2020 10:54 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:25 am
Posts: 4689
Location: Annapolis, MD
As I understand the problem, the powder producer, Alliant, has a paucity of data using Win primers in Rem hulls (age old problem, try to some loads using Rem primers in Win hulls). Here is what I suggest: look at the data for the wads you have and the Win primer using the Win AA hulls (most all the data listed was developed using the AACF hulls, which is very similar to the Rem hull). I would then use the Rem hull instead of the Win hull. This way, yoiu are treating it as a hull substitution instead of a primer substitution. And, you avoid having to go out and get some of those uber expensive Rem primers.

_________________
Ceteris paribus, of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Load data conundrums
PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:08 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:27 am
Posts: 8146
Location: Silicon Valley
@ Nebs -- interesting concept. But is it safe to assume that since the Rem GN hull has more volume than the AAHS hull, that alone makes it a safe substitution? Logically this makes sense, but then sometimes load recipes do not follow logic...

_________________
Jack
NSCA #617422

When the mind is right, the body will find a way...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Load data conundrums
PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2020 7:16 pm 
Presentation Grade

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:04 pm
Posts: 828
Location: Eastern Ohio
I’m of the opinion that 18.5 grains of red dot any hull any primer any wad in a 12 gauge is nothing to worry about. Shoot them and be happy. Yes I’m a picky engineer and an old one that has never blown up a gun.



_________________
Age just makes one old. Only the wise benefit from experience.
The definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
There is nothing common about good sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: 47MolineRTU, Auldthymer, avogunner, BBshot, Bing [Bot], Bladeswitcher, Bull Nutria, chemclay, cookoff013, Curly N, D McMillen, deadbird995, Drew Hause, EricB, federal, FL-Shooter, Gamekeeper, goodemachine, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, GunnerFrank, Hal4son, hopper810, ithacanut, Jaspo01, JerseyJim, Joe Hunter, kbk80, Keperkey, Kevru, lossking, Majestic-12 [Bot], Mark Anthony, Maser, Mike McAlpine, MoparPDC, nkhrfh, painter*, Parrot Stalker, Pine Creek/Dave, richg99, Road Man, Rockett0, Rubberhead, saskbooknut, sneem2, Take-5-JB, Tidefanatic, TimNichols, Virginian, winmod21, Xftrplt


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 post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group    - DMCA Notice