Another Trip to the Range

Greetings All,
It was range day today for a little 110 metre rifle range I frequent. I had been fiddling with my Remington VSSF in .223 and had used it recently in a 300 yard shoot. Regrettably the barrel has a 12 inch twist which limits the projectiles to 60 grains or thereabout. The standard load is with the 60 grain Hornady VMax which shoot easily better than I. Fossicking around in the shed turned up several hundred of the Hornady 55 grain soft point projectiles perhaps I could use these on calmer days at 300 yards to eke out the VMax projectiles but where would they shoot? A cunning plan was hatched. As it was range day and I had nothing better to do three shots of each of the 55 and 60 grain projectiles were fired at separate targets using the same kit as used at 300 yards. Both groups were sub MoA with the 60 grains 110mm above point of aim and the 55 grains 130mm. This was with the sights still set for 275 metres (300 yards). Back home the trajectory charts for each round with a zero at 275 metres were consulted. Both rounds worked out to 115mm above point of aim so two or three clicks down for the 55 grains should do it.
About this time many of you may be wondering what is the old fudd on about. Why doesn't he just buy a bunch of the 60 grain or better get the rifle rebarrelled for something better? All I can say is that we are all products of the generation into which we are born. In my case born in the immediate post war period and raised by parents who were children in the depression has left its mark. It's just the way we are.
Regards Grandpamac.

Dang, I'm a bit younger than that (although my Dad was bought up in the depression and went to work at 12) so what can I use as an excuse for like behaviors haha

My Remington 12-twist was extremely fond of Nosler 40-grainers. Rabbits and Roos tended to disapprove, often in quite an explosive manner.

The hard years of the 80s left thier mark on me... And besides GPM...55s are just good to use for just about everything anyway lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrikerNZ

My Remington 12-twist was extremely fond of Nosler 40-grainers. Rabbits and Roos tended to disapprove, often in quite an explosive manner.

---

The 1:12 I had was like that too...it would shoot the 35gr Vmax and the 40gr and 50gr into nearly the same hole at 100m It really liked the American eagle hollow point 50gr too...but anything over 55gr and a lot of the 55gr proketiles and it opened up the grous. 69gr were about 4moa. Not really an issue as the 35gr Vmax were devestating on rabbits out past 300m (further than that I was having trouble hitting them and that would be me and not the rifle.........)

Ohh how true GM

Must have been the day for it.

I have been scrabbling around trying to get use out of old stock and went to the range to see how things played out.

Had an old tubs of 2206h that i wanted to try against a newer one, one open for about 10 years and the other half that (i misplaced one in the shed and thought i had finished it before finding it again...).

I also wanted to see how things fared if I changed the brass from Hornady 223 to Mil 556 Ball K100's which had the projectiles pulled when they got on the naughty list.

23.0 gns of powder in each.

Attachment 261445

Layout is:

Old Powder 223 New Powder 223
Old Powder 556 New Powder 556

Chrono showed the following ave over the five shots

2895 v 2850
2760 v 2778

Happy with the results and will now need to do some more work ups but after reading extensively about using 556 brass, with comments that walls are genarally thicker and can raise pressure, the reduction on the velocities was not what i expected.

Bugger - guess i will have to do more tinkering...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baz036

Must have been the day for it.

I have been scrabbling around trying to get use out of old stock and went to the range to see how things played out.

Had an old tubs of 2206h that i wanted to try against a newer one, one open for about 10 years and the other half that (i misplaced one in the shed and thought i had finished it before finding it again...).

I also wanted to see how things fared if I changed the brass from Hornady 223 to Mil 556 Ball K100's which had the projectiles pulled when they got on the naughty list.

23.0 gns of powder in each.

Attachment 261445

Layout is:

Old Powder 223 New Powder 223
Old Powder 556 New Powder 556

Chrono showed the following ave over the five shots

2895 v 2850
2760 v 2778

Happy with the results and will now need to do some more work ups but after reading extensively about using 556 brass, with comments that walls are genarally thicker and can raise pressure, the reduction on the velocities was not what i expected.

Bugger - guess i will have to do more tinkering...

---

Greetings,
The 55 grain loads were in LC-81 brass I picked up on the range 40 years back and are some of the lightest cases I use. US military brass is no heavier than most US commercial in my experience.
GPM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baz036

Must have been the day for it.

I have been scrabbling around trying to get use out of old stock and went to the range to see how things played out.

Had an old tubs of 2206h that i wanted to try against a newer one, one open for about 10 years and the other half that (i misplaced one in the shed and thought i had finished it before finding it again...).

I also wanted to see how things fared if I changed the brass from Hornady 223 to Mil 556 Ball K100's which had the projectiles pulled when they got on the naughty list.

23.0 gns of powder in each.

Attachment 261445

Layout is:

Old Powder 223 New Powder 223
Old Powder 556 New Powder 556

Chrono showed the following ave over the five shots

2895 v 2850
2760 v 2778

Happy with the results and will now need to do some more work ups but after reading extensively about using 556 brass, with comments that walls are genarally thicker and can raise pressure, the reduction on the velocities was not what i expected.

Bugger - guess i will have to do more tinkering...

---

two clicks to left

Thanks GPM - lots of contradictory stuff out there so the advice to plot your own course still stands

BtH - yep that will be done. Not yet, but at the next range visit with a couple of the same loads as sighters

I was really only joking love a good range session

Greetings,
Due to being programmed to pick up any shiny case I spot the shelves contain a decent collection of once fired brass. A certain level of sloth prevents me from bothering to check water capacity of cases preferring to use case weight. Most of the US cases I have weighed fall into two groups of 94 grains and 97 grains average with primer. The small lots of ADI and PMC I have average 97 grains with primer. Continental cases, Lapua, Sako and S&B average around 105 grains. Brass has a relative density of around 8.8 so the continental cases will push up both velocity and pressure a little. I have always meant to run a chronograph test to see how much velocity changes but have not got round to it yet.
As far as velocity changes with old powder it is likely that the older powder will have dried out a little so the same weight of old powder will often produce a little more velocity. I test each batch of powder for velocity and have often noted a slight drop in velocity with the new batch. I started chronographing new batches after I was almost caught out by a significant change in speed of one powder and another is on the watch list at the moment.
Handloading is a pastime that just keeps giving.
Finally I calculated the difference in projectile impact for the 55 grain mentioned in the OP. The point of impact at 275 metres (300 yards) should be about 50mm above point of aim. QED.
Regards Grandpamac.

you are enjoying yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

you are enjoying yourself

---

There are family jokes about OCD. 50 years of working in detail driven building draughting and planning likely have not helped either.
GPM.

So why don't other folks chuck the dregs of older powder in with newer batch,tip back n forth between the two,three containers till well blended,fill one container right up and use up what's left in other container first??? It's how I've done it forever.

Greetings @Micky Duck,
To me you are making a container of new powder into older powder. Powder does have a long shelf life if stored correctly but I prefer to keep the new and old separate. I have found some older containers of powder that has been badly stored that have deteriorated and clumped. Before ADI went to the kilo containers I usually bought two 500 gram containers each time I needed to resupply. You don't tip the dregs of an old bottle of milk into the new one so why powder?
Regards Grandpamac.

I do it with motor oil too. Have not had powder sit long enough to be considered old. Any slight batch variation will be less by blending in old.not that I will notice anyway without chronograph and only shooting sub 350.

There are two tins of IMR4831 in the garage that were given to me. Packed in 1987 and unused there was rust on the outside and inside of the cans and the powder had clumped. It will be spread under the trees. Also in my powder cabinet there is a part tin of IMR4064 packed 10 years earlier which is fine. Recent chronographing shows velocity right on the button. The 4831 was likely stored in a tin shed sitting on a dwang (nog for SI I believe) hard against the tin cladding.
GPM.

They were dwangs in 1970’s chch where i was brought up (dad was a builder ) I always thought nog was a north island term ��

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AMac

They were dwangs in 1970’s chch where i was brought up (dad was a builder ) I always thought nog was a north island term ��

---

Only for builders who cant spell.

Greetings,
This had me interested so I fished out my copy of NZS3604:1984 and it uses the word dwang so nogging, not to be confused with noggin, seems to have dropped out of use by then. I do remember it from specifications from the 1960's and 70's.
Another bit of useless trivia from GPM.

I think the use of noggins has also deminshed since then too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Greetings,
This had me interested so I fished out my copy of NZS3604:1984 and it uses the word dwang so nogging, not to be confused with noggin, seems to have dropped out of use by then. I do remember it from specifications from the 1960's and 70's.
Another bit of useless trivia from GPM.

---

I left CHCH in 1983 for the north island and it would have after I headed north I heard them called nogs for the first time. Ran a commercial construction business 2009-14 in Wellington and am sure thats what our PM’s and SM’s called them.

Greetings,
Apparently dwang is a Scottish term used there an NZ. Nogging is used in England and Australia and blocking in the US.
Back to shooting and handloading.
Regards Grandpamac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Greetings,
Apparently dwang is a Scottish term used there an NZ. Nogging is used in England and Australia and blocking in the US.
Back to shooting and handloading.
Regards Grandpamac.

---

Yes good point sorry for going off the reason we on here��

Hey it's all a learning process to me...been here twenty years and still learning the language and I was born in Britain

Interesting. I'm also the product of parents brought up during the depression. Lol

Smokeyjason was kind enough to give me some old powders a while back. I thoroughly tested the Noble's #2 and its burning as expected with the data I have for my 30.06. So, I decided to blend the 2 tins I had. One about 3/4 full, the other just 3 or 4 Oz. Close to a pound now. :)

Also, as I have a variety of brass I've collected, a few months ago i decided to weigh a few cases. (20 of these, 50 of those. etc) It's been an ongoing process with the thought of mixing similar brands. Like GPM I can't be bother doing the volume thing.
This is the result. All averages of 5 randomly selected.

I'll be mixing a few now.

Does anyone know how critical the case volume is?

Well if your close to maximum in a large case,and poke same in small case you could be in for change of undies if not worse...however if your loads are mild- midrange to begin with at worst your largest case will be mild and smallest hot but not over pressure. From my experience with a few different rifles,it MIGHT make you miss headshot on rabbit at hundy yards but probably not a body hit.

Case weight may not directly correlate to case volume. Weight variance can be due to the extractor cut in the base rather than volume differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grandpamac

There are two tins of IMR4831 in the garage that were given to me. Packed in 1987 and unused there was rust on the outside and inside of the cans and the powder had clumped. It will be spread under the trees. Also in my powder cabinet there is a part tin of IMR4064 packed 10 years earlier which is fine. Recent chronographing shows velocity right on the button. The 4831 was likely stored in a tin shed sitting on a dwang (nog for SI I believe) hard against the tin cladding.
GPM.

---

Smokey Jason also gave me a small amount of IMR4831.
Must be at least 35 years old. Tested that in the 30.06 too. It's fine. I'll finish off the tin by loading the 70 or so 150gr bullets that came in the package.

If it looks OK, smells OK, little or no rust, it'll generally be ok.

This is how I initially tested the powders. Two burns:
Old powder and time it over 8"
Burn known fresh powder over 8"
Then check against known burning rates chart.
Then if above looks OK load test ammo starting conservatively.


https://youtu.be/NfUh4EYBXRI?si=TKiBUmz2HHdjvvXA

This is how I initially tested the powders. Two burns:
Old powder and record burn time over 8"
Burn known fresh powder over 8"
Then check against known burning rates chart.
Then if above looks OK load test ammo starting conservatively.


https://youtu.be/NfUh4EYBXRI?si=TKiBUmz2HHdjvvXA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldbloke

This is how I initially tested the powders. Two burns:
Old powder and record burn time over 8"
Burn known fresh powder over 8"
Then check against known burning rates chart.
Then if above looks OK load test ammo starting conservatively.


https://youtu.be/NfUh4EYBXRI?si=TKiBUmz2HHdjvvXA

---

Words fail me. There may not, and very likely is not, any relationship between the burning speed of powder in the open air and the pressure it develops in a firearm. This is especially so when one of the powders has an unknown source. Just don't do it people.
GPM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Words fail me. There may not, and very likely is not, any relationship between the burning speed of powder in the open air and the pressure it develops in a firearm. This is especially so when one of the powders has an unknown source. Just don't do it people.
GPM.

---

Yes, words fail me too.

This type of burn test is similar to how its done in the industry.

Secondly, it was never put that it was in any way conclusive.

And was followed up with a sensible/conservative test load.(s)

And the powder was in the original tin. So the source was known. Storage conditions are unknown but no rust in container no clumping no dodgy smells, looks perfect.

GPM pray, tell me, how does the industry test burn speeds of batches of powder GPM. Educate me.
What is the industry procedure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldbloke

Yes, words fail me too.

This type of burn test is similar to how its done in the industry.

Secondly, it was never put that it was in any way conclusive.

And was followed up with a sensible/conservative test load.(s)

And the powder was in the original tin. So the source was known. Storage conditions are unknown but no rust in container no clumping no dodgy smells, looks perfect.

GPM pray, tell me, how does the industry test burn speeds of batches of powder GPM. Educate me.
What is the industry procedure?

---

Greetings,
I believe the test may be what has been called the closed bomb test or something similar developed from it. In this a small sample of powder is burned in a closed container and time and pressure measured electronically. This would give a rough guide on burning speed. The manufacturers are not working with an unknown powder but huge lots of the same powder. The lots are then blended to even out slight speed changes for canister grades. I believe that the charge may be adjusted rather than blending for commercial ammo production. The problem with part tins of powder is that once the seal is broken we don't really know what it is.
Regards Grandpamac.

Yes, I believe there is a closed bomb test. But I'm not familiar with it.

But there is a test very similar to what I did also. IIRC just longer, perhaps 18".

I was working with powder in an original container.
Would you put x powder into y tin and not relabel it in some way?
It's an old school basic test in addition to the sniff and look test.
Many simply load and test.
Everyone to their own, I don't like waste.

I have heard of 4 rifles being blow up with handloads. In two the wrong powder was used in spite of it being in a canister correctly marked. The third was where a much harder projectile was used in a load for a softer one. And fourth was when a powder was thought to be different to what it actually was. I won't use powder that in not in a sealed container. I have seen one container of powder where the powder was a mixture of stick and ball powder. I don't like waste either but there is nothing as wasteful as blowing up a rifle and likely destroying the scope trying to use a part tin of mystery powder to save a few dollars.
Neither you nor I may put powder in a container that is not first labelled but some rely on memory as one of the blow ups demonstrates. I certainly not rely on some internet jockeys quaint ideas on powder identification.
Regards Grandpamac.

To be clear @Oldbloke,
I was not referring to you as the internet jockey.
Regards Grandpamac.

Powder is cheap, eyeballs aren't

People are buying, swapping, opened cans of powder all the time. Yes, there is some risk. That is why I conducted that test. Is it ideal? Well no it isn't its a very old method, but it is indicative.

Combine that with some basic, conservative load testing and majority of the risk is mitigated.

I posted the info for those interested, I wasn't promoting it. Although I can understood might think I was.

But if you are given, buy or swap powder, wouldn't that test be a sensible addition to just loading a few up?

Horses for courses. Life is full of risk.

Some people are so conservative I'm amazed they even drive a car. Or buy takeaway for fear of food poisoning.