Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is anyone else having " concerns " over ballistic Products load data. I have reached out twice where data showed increasing powder substantially lowered pressure and really increased velocity. This was on 3 seperate loads in 20-gauge as two were bismuth one lead. I spoke with customer service on both instances and through it looked like a misprint. They took my information and was told they would contact me, however I never heard back.

We pay for load data and hey put a big disclaimer on the manual that they are not responsible. I understand they cannot control what every reloader does but overall, very disappointing.

DD
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,281 Posts
Decoyin Drake,

There have been concerns since the 1990's regarding BPI's so called 'reloading data'. Not only are the ballistics BS, but so isn't the fit of the components and the amount of components used a problem. BPI sells good products, but their loading data is a joke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
I do not trust any BPI data. Every one i have tested/had tested were very incorrect. The last one out of advantages was supposed to be 1290fps and i loaded 2gr less powder and it chronod at 1470 or something ridiculous, barrel jumped a foot. I thought it sounded hot, which is why i lowered the charge to start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
I do not trust any BPI data. Every one i have tested/had tested were very incorrect. The last one out of advantages was supposed to be 1290fps and i loaded 2gr less powder and it chronod at 1470 or something ridiculous, barrel jumped a foot. I thought it sounded hot, which is why i lowered the charge to start.
Omg, did you tell them? They need to know that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,893 Posts
I break down a lot of data. I using donor data, data from manufacturers etc.
it's common knowledge for me that most powders "give up" all the energy with the maximum weight of lead. Because I try and analyse data from all shot weights I get a figure / number that is like an efficiency ladder.
I've actually used this exact technique to back calculate speed of certain imaginary loads, then tested them and got the speed within a few fps.
I get these efficiency numbers.

when I compare bp data and try and break it down, it is so off piste that I just stop even looking at the data. It's like they are using a linear model calculation.

My technique can NEVER predict pressure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
Omg, did you tell them? They need to know that.
Why? Its been every load I've tested from them. I cant go around correcting their crap data for them. The bismuth loads I tried with csd20 and tc20 were all way off, and the lead data I've tried with tc20 was way off. I personally don't think they test any of their data, I think its computer generated or "guessed"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
Why? Its been every load I've tested from them. I cant go around correcting their crap data for them. The bismuth loads I tried with csd20 and tc20 were all way off, and the lead data I've tried with tc20 was way off. I personally don't think they test any of their data, I think its computer generated or "guessed"
Then our club did the right thing by doing our own tests for steel target loads years ago. We used Armbrust and met him at his test range with the loads near Rockford IL. Saved us from having to deal with BPI accuracy issues, although I did ask for their slowest 1 oz steel loads once and had no problems. I like living on that end of the curve. We've been protected. I was not aware of the severity. Thanks for the warning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
I had the BPI 16 ga load manual. Tried several loads From it. The stack height were not even close, despite my using the exact components listed in their data. I tossed the manual and will never use their data.
No excuses for that! None whatsoever. Reality should be honored.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
I've written about Ballistic Products data before, but it still makes me sad. They weren't always like this. I grew up near the shop, even down the same road, highway 55. Their old data was good stuff, with the only criticisms being that they tended to over develop things. They were first and foremost a hunting orientated business. Often it takes more than a one-piece wad to make ammo beyond the basic stuff you can buy in a store. So you had loads with multi-section wads, gas seals, teflon (later mylar) wraps, buffers, roll crimps, etc. But beyond the hassle, their data was quality, and their loads performed good.

Jump ahead to about 20 years ago, and they have been changing dramatically. In the early days of steel shot, BPI was one of the first to really push high velocities. It's understandable, people were still trying to find what worked good for them. The problem is they have held onto this mentality ever since. Forget unsafe loads, I haven't seen BPI even pretend to develop loads that were even worth trying in about 15 years now. I mean, if you for some reason like 12 gauge 3/4 oz 1600 fps loads, then more power to you. For most of us the loads they post are disgusting. Here's a good example I just pulled up randomly. All their manuals are currently filled with similar abominations. From their "Load of the week." Ballistic Products - Shotgunner Supplies

Their first load they stopped at 8,650 PSI chamber pressure. I've called them on this, and got the most run around answer ever. What kind of asinine moron publishes a wild load of Lil'gun (not a usual 20 gauge powder), and then aborts the test before it even gets into a decent pressure range. What possible reason could they have for not wanting to run such a load near 12,000 psi MAP? Don't want the recoil, don't be a moron and publish the load with bluedot or something.

Also starting 15-20 years ago has been BPI's push for poor quality components, especially hulls. They used to be all about the Federal and Activ hulls, and everyone always liked Winchester and Remingtons. Today they purposefully publish data with domestic hulls that suck. I once called them about a load I used to make with a Federal fiber basewad 3". I don't remember the specifics, but it was a steel shot load with bluedot. I wanted to know if they had any data with the new plastic basewad hulls. Not only was I told no, I was told there was no way at all that I could load that safely with that powder. So was their old data unsafe? Come to find out later that they published a nearly identical load in a Cheddite hull. I guess it wasn't so impossible after all.

Ultimately whoever is running the show at BPI's lab is either doing what they think will get them money, or has their head so far up their *** they see daylight. I never could figure out where they test their stuff either. There's no way they do it on site. Ballistic Products is just a rented space, mostly a warehouse, with a tiny area up front you can pick up orders. The only place nearby I know of that test ammo is Federal premium, and BPI is actively trying ditch Federal products. Precision Reloading in Mitchell, SD isn't too far away, but they are a competing company. I doubt they would deal with BPI. BPI refuses to say where their data is tested.
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
Top