Squib with both powder and primer present

[Salmoneye]

Extrapolating lead load data from XTP/jacketed loads by rule of thumb is certainly nothing new. You use your best judgment, make a few rounds and try them, and then proceed, refining accuracy results and enjoyable shooting characteristics, mostly recoil and discomfort.

But you 'extrapolated' the wrong direction...You should have dropped back no more than 10% from the jacketed data, and then worked up...

The old rule of thumb is if you can't find data for lead of a given weight, you can 'usually' safely use jacketed data for the same weight bullet (and seating depth) as a 'starting' point...Plated and coated bullets are treated as if they were plain lead...

As I pointed out, lead is 'slicker' than copper jacket, and 'usually' develops lower pressures with all other variables the same...

This says nothing about whether you will get leading with the combination, and usually that is why there is no data for cast with a certain powder, not because it is unsafe...

Ask the question of whether you can use jacketed data with cast of the same weight over at CastBoolits.com and see what answer they give...

The load I was using had been well proven.

That load has 'proven' that it is finicky and can produce squibs...

It simply is not in the pressure curve of the powder to ignite reliably in all circumstances...

 

[Real Gun]

But you 'extrapolated' the wrong direction...You should have dropped back no more than 10% from the jacketed data, and then worked up...

My load was above Hornady's published load for XTP. Lead at the same weight is going to be lower. I was 2.5 grains above a 10% discounting of the XTP minimum load. It would help that if going to respond critically, if folks would read the whole thread, including a respectful read of what I offered.

Plated and coated bullets are treated as if they were plain lead...

Not according to Berry's, but plated bullets are not pertinent here.

The old rule of thumb is if you can't find data for lead of a given weight, you can 'usually' safely use jacketed data for the same weight bullet (and seating depth) as a 'starting' point...

But if you compare published loads fro lead at the same weight as jacketed, the lead load is always significantly lower.

This says nothing about whether you will get leading with the combination, and usually that is why there is no data for cast with a certain powder, not because it is unsafe...

Yet my observation is that published loads for Magnum cartridges NEVER include lead bullets, until you get to a source like Cast Bullet Handbook. The powder companies are consistent about endorsing lead only if below approx. 1100 fps. Therefore, 300-MP as a magnum pistol powder is going to have no mention from Alliant about lead bullets.

That load has 'proven' that it is finicky and can produce squibs...

You are straining to make a point. One squib out of hundreds of rounds does not necessarily mean the load is wrong. However, the expense of removing the squib came at a bad time, and use of 300-MP in general is suspect with so little credible data available, so I have set that powder aside for at least the 44 Magnum. I expect that if I used Hornady's published minimum load for the same weight XTP of 19.5 instead of my 20.0, someone would still be patronizing what I am doing. Since I already stepped down from 20.7 as a bit "sharp", I figured I should start a new program with a different powder, currently the minimum 18.8 gr published load for A2400 with 240 grain LSWC, which I had tried and liked last year according to my notes.

 

[TimSr]

The 20.0 load is accurate and fun, and I am sticking to it. The load did not cause the squib, no way, and I am done defending it.

If you are going to immediately close your mind to any question of the load you are using, there is little point in continuing the discussion, and quite frankly, not sure why you bothered to ask.

You are basing you close minded response on data that does not match your load. Nobody has published data for MBC coated bullets. Your assumption that coated cast has the same friction level as cast is flawed. Your assumption that cast should be reduced 10% from jacketed is flawed as well. Your assumption that because Alliant does not specifically state not to load below minimum, that is must be okay to load below minimum is also flawed. There is a reason they call minimum, "minimum".

This is a typical and common problem you run across when loading slow burning magnum powders on the low end borderline threshold. USUALLY they fire okay, and without measuring inconsistant velocities on a chrony, you don't much notice, but every once in a while, you'll have the round where conditions are just right, and you combine all those factors at once and you get exactly what you got.


Don't load powders, especially slow ones below published minimum. MP-300 doesn't come with warnings about reduced loads, but they don't published reduced load test data either. Alliant is notorious for a lack of testing and published data for their newer products.

Cast bullets show lower starting loads because they leave the barrel easier, and can do so without getting stuck. This is great for fast powders, but with a slow magnum powder, if the bullets starts moving before peak pressure has been achieved, then peak pressure will not be achieved. If you have cast bullets suitable for magnum loads, do NOT reduce the charge. They will develop less pressure than jacketed bullets of the same load.

When it comes to MBC coated bullets, I don't think anybody has tested how their resistance compares to cast or jacketed bullets. Either way, they should only be reduced if they offer more restance than jacketed bullets which I doubt.

...but since you are not open to such possibilities or a marginal load, I'd just go with case lube contamination of half the powder charge, and then rethink it after the next one happens.

 

[Real Gun]

Intresting.

Generally,if I am stumped about a problem ,and I ask for help,I am at least open to the wisdom and experience of those who make a serious attempt to help me.

I'm happy to help,but not interested in arguing.

One question I have for you,if you don't know enough to solve your own problem,how can you know enough to reject the path to solution?

If you are going to bully, at least read the whole thread. Bottom line is I have heeded the cautions and changed powders.

If what someone tells me, an experienced reloader with ability to judge or be skeptical of what others offer, is building on what I believe is a false premise or insufficient reading of the thread before commenting, I am entitled to respond and be respected.

 

[Real Gun]

If you are going to immediately close your mind to any question of the load you are using, there is little point in continuing the discussion, and quite frankly, not sure why you bothered to ask.

I asked because I was confident, perhaps overly so, that the load did not cause the squib. I was looking for other ideas. If you now need to beat me up for my evolving reasoning on the matter, you are bullying without offering anything useful. Just please read the whole thread first before you launch.

There was no physical evidence that the load caused the squib. So many commenting are building on someone's hunch and a single data point of Alliant's 25.0 gr max for jacketed 240 gr. Many rounds with my load have been fired previously, exhibiting serious magnum characteristics.

That fact that I am above Hornady 9th Edition minimum for XTP seems to be an inconvenient truth for those determined to punish me for not just accepting everything I read on the internet.

Out of respect for what I am being offered and trying to ensure against another expensive squib, regardless of what I may still think about my load, I have changed powders.

 

[Metal god]

I emailed the powder manufacturer this letter . If I got things wrong please let me know so I can correct them in a follow up email .

Handgun -
Firearm Make/Model: S&W 629 classic
Cartridge: 44 mag
Bullet Brand and Style: 240gr coated lead SWC
Bullet Weight (Grains): 240gr
Primer: Fed mag primer
Powder: 20gr power pro 300-mp

Hi , A friend of mine had a squid load using the above combo . The bullet made it down the 5' barrel and stopped at the muzzle .

To be clear these questions are for me because I have many of the same
components and wanted to be sure his load was safe and therefore I could try using something similar ( working up to it of course )

He used the 240gr Hornady XTP data then reduced the start load do to it being a coated lead bullet .

There was unburned powder in the barrel that had changed color . Enough was present that when the gun was tilted back . Powder pored into the internals of the firearm (cylinder open)

Have you actually done any lead bullet reduced load development with 300-MP for the 44 mag . I know there is data using jacketed bullets but can't find any lead data using PP 300-mp . Is there a reason for this ??

Here is my issue . If the bullet made it to the muzzle ? There must have been some ignition of the powder . Why did it not completely burn . I've been told this load has been used for awhile now with out issue . It was worked up as a nice comfortable range load .

Does 300-mp do well in reduced loads using lead bullets or low pressures in general ?

Would you recommend using the above load or is there something about it you would change ?

Thanks for your help

There reply was this

First of all, reducing a load designed for a metal jacket to a cast bullet without going to tested data is NEVER a good idea.
Looking at several different sources, (Alliant, Hornady, Lyman and others) none of have a tested load for a 240 cast bullet using the Alliant Power Pro 300-MP. Without tested load data, through a Piezoelectric testing system, there is basically no load data. As stated, there is no tested data from many sources. It would appear to me that this is not a suitable powder for a cast bullet in the 44 Rem Mag.
Thanks,
Shoot Straight
DuaneVB
CCI/Speer/Alliant
2299 Snake River Ave.
Lewiston, ID

 

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by DuaneVB
CCI/Speer/Alliant:

It would appear to me that this is not a suitable powder for a cast bullet in the 44 Rem Mag.

Basically what I said 17 posts ago.....

Alliant(the distributor of the powder)shows no recipes at all for lead bullets.(referencing 300-MP) This tells me, obviously they do not feel it is appropriate for lead.

Extrapolating ammo recipes, while a common occurrence, are still a risk when using substantially different components. Getting a squib while doing so, should not be a surprise.

To the OP, I don't think anyone here is trying to bully you, only trying to convince you of something you obviously do not want to accept. Something even the distributor of the powder agrees with. Again, when one cannot find a published load recipe for certain components anywhere, there is generally a reason.

 

[mehavey]

Alliant(the distributor of the powder)shows no recipes at all for lead bullets.(referencing 300-MP) This tells me, obviously they do not feel it is appropriate for lead.

It more probably means they have not TESTED the powder/Lead-bullet combo. But like others have mentioned here,
a powder even slower than W296/H110 is unlikely to be a good candidate for less-than-max loadout -- especially
w/ cast at that point.

 

[Real Gun]

The Hornady book 9th edition validates the load I was using (above minimum load for 240 XTP).

There is no evidence that the load caused the squib.

Gunsmith reported that there was plenty of powder and no evidence that any of it ignited. He said there was "plenty" of powder and doubted that the load weight was somehow shorted. There was no more soot than one would expect from a primer alone. Can we really say that a magnum primer on its own could not have pushed a coated lead bullet that far down the barrel?

All you guys are doing is recommending caution about use of the powder. You are not explaining the squib occurring after many rounds preceding it. I set the powder aside.

 

[Metal god]

It more probably means they have not TESTED the powder/Lead-bullet combo.

Although that may be true . Is no data really the best way to conclude it was never tested . Maybe I've missed it but in the 4 manuals I use I have not seen any data that said we tested these bullet powder combo's and we recommend not using them .

It would seem more reasonable to conclude if there is NO data on a specific load . It's likely not the best choice . Hell I'm sure we all have used published data that does not work well , I know I have .
I'm having that same problem with CFE pistol right now . There is only one source I've found and that's Hodgdon's website . They have data as if it's good in just about everything . Well I'm here to tell you it sucks for 45acp and the 200gr XTP . I'm getting scorched and sooty cases all the way to the extractor groove with that combo . Yet right on the bottle it says it's good for 45acp . I'm sure it is in some applications but not in all .

Now this is not to say there will not be any in the future . The Power Pro line is kinda new and when Sierra , Hornady , Speer Lyman etc come out with there new books . Maybe that data is included .

 

[buck460XVR]

The Hornady book 9th edition validates the load I was using (above minimum load for 240 XTP).

There is no evidence that the load caused the squib.

The Hornady info only validates that load for it's 240gr XTP. Your load was 10% below minimum start load for a 240 gr jacketed bullet using Alliant's info.

Gunsmith reported that there was plenty of powder and no evidence that any of it ignited. He said there was "plenty" of powder and doubted that the load weight was somehow shorted. There was no more soot than one would expect from a primer alone. Can we really say that a magnum primer on its own could not have pushed a coated lead bullet that far down the barrel?

Sorry, but regardless of how good a gunsmith you have and how much you trust him, there is no way for him to just look at a pile of semi-burnt gunpowder and say it was sufficient to drive the bullet from the gun barrel. Any primer capable of driving a bullet that far down the barrel should/would ignited the powder....if in fact there was enough powder charge and sufficient crimp.

All you guys are doing is recommending caution about use of the powder. You are not explaining the squib occurring after many rounds preceding it. I set the powder aside.

You asked...."Are there any ideas how one might get this type of squib?". Folks here are suggesting the fact you were using an inappropriate powder at a low charge weight. You seem to dispute that fact altho it has been verified by Alliant themselves. You seem to want us to all agree it must have been a bad primer instead of the above or any other of the obvious reasons. Could it have been a bad primer? Not if it drove the bullet thru the throats and 5 inches down the barrel. If the powder did not ignite there was another cause. Why you never had a squib before, no one can tell you, because no one really knows why this time you got a squib. We are only guessing, as you are. With the given facts, that's all we can do. But the most obvious conclusion is a low powder charge of an inappropriate powder, maybe combined with a too light of crimp.

Don't want to hear the obvious, don't ask.

 

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by mehavey

It more probably means they have not TESTED the powder/Lead-bullet combo.

....ad the reason no one has tested this powder with lead bullets is because they just didn't have time? No, I'm thinking it's because they considered it a waste of time, knowing there are more appropriate powders out there for hand-loaders. Or maybe it's because they did test them and had poor results. If Alliant thought there was another legitimate market out there for 300-MP, believe me, there would be published loads. I'm betting they tested it quite thoroughly before even releasing it to the public and published what loading info they thought was appropriate. While most any powder will work within most applications to some point or the other, they don't always work well. We as handloaders, are usually seeking those combinations that work well in our firearms. Many times, powder companies and bullet manufacturers have done the majority of the work for us.

 

[Unclenick]

If you have nothing you consider credible to go on except a 25 grain maximum published by Alliant re SJSP, what would you extrapolate for lead?

I would not assume it is even possible to make such an extrapolation with a powder this slow, nor that the powder is necessarily suitable for lead bullets at all. Not all powders are. Slow powders require a certain amount of start pressure, part of which comes from friction from the bullet engraving into the rifling. Because lead and other soft bullets engrave more easily and at lower pressure than jacketed bullets do, the start pressure is lower for them and with a slow enough powder it may, therefore, actually require a greater charge than a jacketed bullet does to meet pressure minimums that will guarantee a reliable burn. If a powder is slow enough you may never safely get there.

Personally, I took off 10% for load reduction and then 10% for lead.

I suggested previously that you call Alliant and ask them if they had tested this with lead, since they had no published data for it. Since you did not feel inclined to do so, I wanted others reading this thread to have Alliant's take on what you did. So I called Alliant and spoke with a technician named Jeff.

I first asked Jeff if they had developed any load data for 300-MP with 240 grain lead in .44 Mag. He checked to make sure they had no unpublished data, as they keep more aside for their own information than they publish, but he said no. He further said that a magnum powder with the energy content as high as 300-MP, their experience is that it starts melting lead like solder before they get a suitable load from, assuming there is one to be got. For that reason, he does not consider 300-MP appropriate for lead.

I then described to Jeff the 20% reduction from Hornady maximum that you arrived at. He said many people think they can do just anything with any powder or bullet that may have worked with another combination, but that isn't so. He said they have a saying at Alliant: "You can try anything you want, just once". Beyond that once, there are no guarantees you'll ever be able to do it again. He reiterated first what Alan Jones explains in his article, Practical Effects of Bullets on Pressure. Before roughly 1980 bullet processes among manufacturers were essentially the same, and the less advanced powder formulations had more behavior similarities than they do today. That has all changed. The fact a certain load range is right with one particular bullet design does not mean it is applicable to another. So the fact your are not below Hornady's minimum does not mean you are not below a minimum for your bullet.

Bottom line: Alliant agrees with me and the others that you underloaded for this particular bullet based on an erroneous assumption. That assumption was that a percentage-wise rule of thumb that worked pretty well with powders and bullets made before about 1980 would necessarily apply with components made today. He said what you are trying to do is a bad idea, and that you are lucky not to have injured yourself. He said if you want magnum lead bullet loads, use 2400, not 300-MP.

 

[mehavey]

"...would seem more reasonable to conclude if there is NO [Manufacturer/Publ_Manual]
data on a specific load . It's likely not the best choice.

By default, that's reasonable guidance.

BUT... one of the joys of QuickLoad is the ability to actually SEARCH for a best-potential
load from [almost] every powder in the book -- keying on any number of variables.
You'd be amazed at what shows up when querying for a chosen pressure/barrel-length/-
velocity/burn-completion/burn-speed/case-fill, etc, etc. And it's not in any book [!]

Naturally you approach w/ caution and cast about for anyone having any other experience
[aka "internet lore"] before putting the first round down range through a chronograph
- thereby getting calibrated - but from that point on it's known/reasonably predictable territory.

 

[buck460XVR]

BUT... one of the joys of QuickLoad is the ability to actually SEARCH for a best-potential
load from [almost] every powder in the book -- keying on any number of variables.
You'd be amazed at what shows up when querying for a chosen pressure/barrel-length/-
velocity/burn-completion/burn-speed/case-fill, etc, etc. And it's not in any book [!]

At the end of the day, QuickLoad is a computer model, not an infallible oracle....and the best case scenario for a certain bullet/powder combination may still be a very poor choice for the caliber/platform. Out of curiosity, what does QL say about the OP's load?

 

[TimSr]

The Hornady book 9th edition validates the load I was using (above minimum load for 240 XTP).

It validates the load for an XTP bullet. When you change any component, the data is no longer valid.

No, I'm thinking it's because they considered it a waste of time, knowing there are more appropriate powders out there for hand-loaders. Or maybe it's because they did test them and had poor results. If Alliant thought there was another legitimate market out there for 300-MP, believe me, there would be published loads.

I'm more inclinded to believe its because most of the bullet MFGs that prvide data don't sell cast bullets. When you buy Hornady or Speer lead bullets, they are very soft cold swaged lead, and perform poorly in any magnum load. I shoot lots of cast Missouri 240 SWCs (not coated) over magnum powders, but in full magnum loads, and I don't load down for them. Lyman manuals are about the only good source for cast bullet data, and I believe they have not had an update since MP-300. I'd have no qualms about shooting them over 23gr or so gr of MP-300, but i agree, if you want a milder load, its not the powder to take you there.

 

[mehavey]

- delete -

 

[mehavey]

QuickLoad is a computer model, not an infallible oracle....

This is why you NEVER use it blind -- but always with a chronograph and at
least two calibrating datapoints [different powder weights] spanning predicted
mid-point. That gives you burn rate and progressivity peg points for loads
outside that range.

300-MP is not in Helmut's database yet, so I looked through the Alliant set of postings
as to it's relative burn rate/pressure/velocity specifically compared to H110/W296,
adjusted for that lower burn rate to match [as an estimate], and got the results
shown in POSTs #11 and #15 above.

As my father used to say about our Labrador as he mowed the lawn -- "...not a very efficient burner of dog food".

 

[Metal god]

OK I think we've got to bullying But really this thread has helped me out a great deal in understanding some things better .

Thanks for that guys .

 

[Real Gun]

Unclenick, I did not take off "20%" I took 10% and then 10%, yielding 20.2 down from the 25. I then raised it to 20.7 for my initial loading. That was hot, so I reduced the load to 20.0 and see that it should have been 20.2 by the logic I was using. Nevertheless, there was no physical evidence tha the load caused the squib, considering how many rounds had been fired previously with considerable drama and exceptional accuracy.

You can't be too rigid about whether the bullets were coated, or we would all be without any accepted data for coated bullets specifically and would logically be forced to stop using them by the logic some seem to propose here.

The powder companies are all the same in their refusal to suggest that lead bullets can be supersonic and not melt. They are oblivious to any hardness considerations apparently, and they have no experience with coated bullets, something relatively new and sold only by specialty vendors who cast bullets. My understanding is that the heating came much more from throat and barrel friction than from the load detonation. It is tied directly to velocity.

The bullets arrive nicely on target. Are we ready to say that W296 for example, closely related in performance, should never be behind a lead bullet? Whose load are we using if we do that?

What is the rule of thumb for extrapolation from jacketed loads without claiming that no one does it for lack of another source?

I'm not sure why we need to dwell on 300-MP's lack of acceptance, when I am no longer using it for now.

Looks like I will have to abandon my pet load in 357 also. More coated bullets and wanting robust performance from my bigger guns.

Should we all be using 2400 because it takes the powder industry a generation to catch up?

If we know results for jacketed, what can we say about lead using the same powder and extrapolation? I will bet the cast boolit fellas would have a problem being bound to use only loads that powder and jacketed bullet companies have published.