Squib with both powder and primer present
- Thread starter Real Gun
- Start date
- Status
I don't know if it has any connection with this subject or not but I enjoy watching "Judge Judy" on T.V. at times. One of her favorite statements is "If it is not in the contract then it means nothing here". Even after her stating that the complainters still want to argue.
I believe that the ops load is not in the contract.
I believe that the ops load is not in the contract.
OP,You might try "Loadbook" for your .44.They cost $7 or so,and have a collection of most all the published data for a cartridge,including cast.Admittedly,most of it is old data.But Kieth SWC hard cast bullets ,2400 or H-110 powder have been put together for outstanding loads in .44 Magnum since the cartridge was developed.I have not bought a new Hogdon book for a while,but the older ones had hard cast data.I shot a LOT of wheelweight SWC bullets with near max published loads.I back off a grain or two,just because.I don't see much online,though.
I have Chrono'd 1300 fps with a 300 gr Lasercast from my SBH that I cut the bbl to 5 in. H-110.You can order a Lasercast load manual from Oregon Trail Bullets
2400 would certainly be an excellent choice for a more flexible powder.H-110 likes near max.2400 can stand some reduction.FWIW Elmer Keith knew some about the .44 Mag,and he used 2400 and hard cast bullets.
Lyman,of course, has their load manual.They sell bullet molds.They like people shooting cast bullets.
I personally am grateful to outfits like Hogdon,Sierra,Hornady,Nosler,etc for the testing,data,and customer service they provide.
I have no reason to believe any of these outfits conspire against me.
On the contrary,they provide the products and services I use.
I suggest you consider taking a deep breath,and appreciating who you are among,and the help you have been given.
Good luck!! And don't forget a good crimp.
The rule of thumb is that there is no rule of thumb. Everyone does it to a degree whenever they buy any bullet not specifically inlcuded in load data, and that is fine. The point everyone is trying to make is that when you extrapolate you are coming up with a theory to be tested. Even published data cannot be considered "fact", and the more you vary from exact duplications of components, testing methods, and environment, the greater the possibility your results might not match the published data. Published data gives us a starting point. We do our tests, we try to read the results and interpret them, and then make adjustments to get us where we want to be and test again. That is the difference between "following a recipe" and "developing a load". Nothing wrong with "following a recipe" and its usually recommended for new loaders, but as soon as you deviate even slightly from it, you have begun "developing a load".
The people in this thread were simply trying to help you interpret your results based on their own experience, and you seemed unopen to the idea that substituting ingredients in the recipe might yield different than published results for it.
Personally, I would not give up on it after one failure. I would interpret, adjust, it, and retry. I believe you can reliably shoot cast bullet mid to full power magnums with MP300. I believe that MP300 will perform poorly in reduced loads. I believe combining an MP300 reduced load with cast bullets caused your failure. I would do further testing to verify or debunk my theory. MP300 is not 296, but seems to share a lot of its tendancies.
The purpose of extrapolation is to accommodate substition of a component, in this case the cast and coated bullet.
What I am "not open to" is the conclusion that the load caused the squib. There was no physical evidence of that, and it was only one of many rounds fired.
Since last reply, I encountered the information re coated bullets that "they take less powder to achieve the same velocity". If fact, then a reduced load factor solely for coated would be indicated.
I accepted that a) the powder is perhaps not the best for reduced loads and b) I don't want to afford another squib extraction or possible damage to the gun.
I think the load is okay, and the squib remains a mystery, but I am done with worrying about it (and have changed powders)
Thanks for the ideas.
Last edited:
Real Gun said:
10% of 10% is 1%. I think you meant you took 10% off 90% of the already low Hornady load. That's a 19% reduction and 20.2 grains is smaller than 25.0 grains by 19.2%, the 0.2% coming from the need to round charges to the nearest tenth of a grain. I mentally rounded that to 20%, making an error of 0.08%, but the difference is of no significance in the context of the issue.
Real Gun said:
I disagree. You had unburned powder and some fused clumps and got enough pressure to push the bullet part way through the bore. That is classic physical evidence of a squib caused by powder failing to maintain critical start pressure long enough and extinguishing in the bore. The fact it worked in other rounds is what makes this situation dangerous. Extinguishing require very specific conditions of pressure and temperature that don't randomly occur most of the time, so most shots seem OK. If the conditions should happen when you are shooting fast or if you fail to notice the squip for some other reason, the next round seldom also meets the critical squib conditions, so it shoots into a stuck bullet left by the squib. That can burst the gun.
Real Gun said:
That's not what Jeff at Alliant said. He said if you want to make supersonic loads with your bullet, use 2400. It is a flake powder, and the way 2400 makes that flake, it is formulated without the degree of surface deterrent coating the ST. Marks spherical propellants have (both 300-MP and H110/296 are made at the St. Marks plant in Florida), so the minimum critical pressure is lower. Indeed, Elmer Keith developed the .44 Magnum using fairly soft lead bullets (20:1 lead:tin and later 16:1; about BHN 10-11) and 2400. Obviously that worked out well.
Real Gun said:
As you pointed out yourself, Alliant is careful to state MP isn't H110/296. It is slower. Something I started to include in my last post, but left out, is that Beartooth Bullets has some load data on H110/296 for their very hard cast bullets (BHN 21), but they fill the case under the bullet 100%, fire in a super strong revolver like a Ruger or a Freedom Arms, and the bullets are also usually heavier (280 grains and up), which supplies more inertial resistance for the powder to build pressure against and accelerating more slowly, giving the powder more time to establish a sustaining pressure.
Real Gun said:
That's pretty much the point of my previous post. For some powders there is no rule of thumb that works. What is happening as they slow the powder down is that the minimum pressure requirement is going up toward the maximum pressure. That's why Winchester used to publish only single fixed charge values for 296. For a powder that is slow enough, the minimum reliable load peak pressure may already exceed what a soft bullet will work well with. That was the point of Jeff's statement that 300-MP was not suitable for lead bullets.
What you need to do is pick a powder fast enough and without enough deterrent to be likely to squib out at the pressure your bullet likes. I think you got the accuracy you did when 300-MP fired properly because you achieved a pressure the bullet likes, but it just wasn't high enough to guarantee 300-MP will sustain burning 100% of the time. 99%+, maybe, but not 100%. And its that last fraction of a percent that can get you.
In this case, pick 2400. It's been around and shooting lead bullets, including fairly soft ones, to magnum velocities for 80 years and doesn't have nearly as low a minimum pressure requirement as 300-MP.
"First contemplation of the problems of Interior Ballistics gives the impression that they should yield rather easily to relatively simple methods of analysis. Further study shows the subject to be of almost unbelievable complexity."
Homer Powley
Homer Powley
m&p45acp10+1
New member
I read that the OP used a sonic cleaner, and then tumbled the brass in corn cobb media. That is a classic formula for a clogged flash hole. My guess is the primer fire dislodged the media, and the residual heat from it may have burned a small bit of the powder, thus the clumping of unburnt powder.
Seeing as how it was a lone event, and the OP had many previous rounds that seemed to work just fine I am going to put that out there as my guess.
Seeing as how it was a lone event, and the OP had many previous rounds that seemed to work just fine I am going to put that out there as my guess.
I want to let this go, but you are so close, one simple physics principle away from understanding your squib.
You quote above is totally correct. Now based on that, which would generate more chamber pressure - a bullet that moves out more easily, or one that offers more resistance?
Slow powders burn much better under higher chamber pressures.
If you wanted to increase chamber pressure to make your powder burn better, would you:
A. Decrease powder charge?
B. Increase powder charge?
C. Increase bullet weight while keeping charge the same?
D. Change to a bullet of the same weight with a surface that has more friction while keeping the same charge?
Hint: 3 of these are correct.
M&p45acp10+1,
Have you ever tried clogging flash holes intentionally to see what effect it has? Primers shoot wax bullets just fine, so it is hard to imagine a little piece of corn cob interfering with them dramatically. On the other hand, if the load is near the bottom range of ignition adequacy anyway, I suppose it could be the straw that breaks the camels proverbial back.
You could try clogging holes intentionally, then priming them and firing them to see if the corncob ever fails to blow out. You could fire them into a bucket with some water in the bottom to catch the cob grain to see if it burns at all. Assuming the cob blows out, you could then load cases with clogged flash holes on purpose and also load some identical rounds with no clogging and see the effect on velocity with a chronograph. I've never tried it, but it would be interesting to learn if any effect is apparent.
Have you ever tried clogging flash holes intentionally to see what effect it has? Primers shoot wax bullets just fine, so it is hard to imagine a little piece of corn cob interfering with them dramatically. On the other hand, if the load is near the bottom range of ignition adequacy anyway, I suppose it could be the straw that breaks the camels proverbial back.
You could try clogging holes intentionally, then priming them and firing them to see if the corncob ever fails to blow out. You could fire them into a bucket with some water in the bottom to catch the cob grain to see if it burns at all. Assuming the cob blows out, you could then load cases with clogged flash holes on purpose and also load some identical rounds with no clogging and see the effect on velocity with a chronograph. I've never tried it, but it would be interesting to learn if any effect is apparent.
Unclenick you write with a very fine point on your pencil so to speak. You also are incredibly patient.
Before latching on to clumping as an Aha! symptom, consider that there was only one clump less than 1/8" and it was found after the powder was poured out of the gun's interior, then possibly involving lubricant.
I wouldn't expend too much more energy meant to dissuade me from using 300-MP, because I have set it aside except possibly for Hornady XTP, which I have and for which they provide load data. I am loading the 18.8 gr of A2400 that I started with. I think what is good is the stuff we learn in collectively attempting to figure this out. I would just defy anyone to be so sure they are right and that I am some sort of stubborn neophyte, except to conclude that 300-MP is probably not the best choice for the application and that it has so little data available that it could be considered questionable for anyone to use at all at this point.
Before latching on to clumping as an Aha! symptom, consider that there was only one clump less than 1/8" and it was found after the powder was poured out of the gun's interior, then possibly involving lubricant.
I wouldn't expend too much more energy meant to dissuade me from using 300-MP, because I have set it aside except possibly for Hornady XTP, which I have and for which they provide load data. I am loading the 18.8 gr of A2400 that I started with. I think what is good is the stuff we learn in collectively attempting to figure this out. I would just defy anyone to be so sure they are right and that I am some sort of stubborn neophyte, except to conclude that 300-MP is probably not the best choice for the application and that it has so little data available that it could be considered questionable for anyone to use at all at this point.
Don't tempt me Unclenick I'll start running those test . I'm not sure I've loaded enough pistol round to feel confident in screwing them up on purpose though .
I will test the clogged flash hole primer only next time I tumble some brass . I'll use my Winchester LP primers .
I how ever can see a clogged flash hole causing the issue . Especially if you are on the low end of pressure for the powder , not to low but close . I can see it obstructing the primer burn enough to the point the powder will not ignight properly in the case of a slow powder at a boarder line charge . I when I clear my flash holes of media clogs . I push it from the primer pocket into the case and out the mouth . I have had some clogs the took a good amount of effort to shove through the hole . I'm thinking those types could obstruct the primer burn just enough . I guess we'll see . I'll do the test later today after I tumble some brass . Let's hope I get some good clogs
I will test the clogged flash hole primer only next time I tumble some brass . I'll use my Winchester LP primers .
I how ever can see a clogged flash hole causing the issue . Especially if you are on the low end of pressure for the powder , not to low but close . I can see it obstructing the primer burn enough to the point the powder will not ignight properly in the case of a slow powder at a boarder line charge . I when I clear my flash holes of media clogs . I push it from the primer pocket into the case and out the mouth . I have had some clogs the took a good amount of effort to shove through the hole . I'm thinking those types could obstruct the primer burn just enough . I guess we'll see . I'll do the test later today after I tumble some brass . Let's hope I get some good clogs
Regardless of whether you have 'moved on' to a more suitable powder, it is statements like this that make people keep responding to this thread:
The physical evidence is the squib...
You simply choose to ignore it...
I'm just glad that you did not follow it up with another round...
The physical evidence is the squib...
You simply choose to ignore it...
I'm just glad that you did not follow it up with another round...
Slamfire,
The mainspring is a good point. Primers are, as Creighton Audette put it, analog to some degree, and a weak strike seem to make them fail to ignite throughout at the same time, same as having a high primer can do. The Palma shooters on the board have commented they change their rifle mainsprings once every six years or so, just to avoid the vertical stringing that starts to happen as they get weak.
MG,
For the same reasons of the analog nature of the primers and because I once that I had a load with which I could distinguish performance of deburred flash holes from those which still had their burrs (spherical propellant again) in a .308, I'm sure something will be apparent from the presence of the corncob. I'm just wondering how much and could it damp a magnum primer until it was no longer delivering a hot enough spark to get adequate ignition. All within the realm of possibility, though it sound like RealGun is pretty careful to get the holes clear.
RealGun,
I didn't register that there was only one clump, so we can take that one off the list of physical clues, it sounds like. I'm glad you switched powders, as 300-MP clearly needs more wringing out. I've been meaning to put a strain gauge on my .44 Mag Encore barrel so I can see how pressure is doing. That would be a safer platform to play with load reduction in as it's easy to look down the tube after every shot.
The mainspring is a good point. Primers are, as Creighton Audette put it, analog to some degree, and a weak strike seem to make them fail to ignite throughout at the same time, same as having a high primer can do. The Palma shooters on the board have commented they change their rifle mainsprings once every six years or so, just to avoid the vertical stringing that starts to happen as they get weak.
MG,
For the same reasons of the analog nature of the primers and because I once that I had a load with which I could distinguish performance of deburred flash holes from those which still had their burrs (spherical propellant again) in a .308, I'm sure something will be apparent from the presence of the corncob. I'm just wondering how much and could it damp a magnum primer until it was no longer delivering a hot enough spark to get adequate ignition. All within the realm of possibility, though it sound like RealGun is pretty careful to get the holes clear.
RealGun,
I didn't register that there was only one clump, so we can take that one off the list of physical clues, it sounds like. I'm glad you switched powders, as 300-MP clearly needs more wringing out. I've been meaning to put a strain gauge on my .44 Mag Encore barrel so I can see how pressure is doing. That would be a safer platform to play with load reduction in as it's easy to look down the tube after every shot.
If I can find some of the stuff here in NoVA, I'll run tests with it this weekend,
looking for shot velocity spread as charge weight goes down/powder away from
the primer (Fed LPs)*
http://www.castingstuff.com/primer_testing_reference.htm
(Feds are my Go2 primers)
looking for shot velocity spread as charge weight goes down/powder away from
the primer (Fed LPs)*
http://www.castingstuff.com/primer_testing_reference.htm
(Feds are my Go2 primers)
Respectfully the OP does not get this both ways . IMHO the two most likely causes of his failure is clogged primer pocket or poor powder choice for the application . If he looks at every single flash hole before priming or as they are removed from the sifter as I do . Then it's likely the powder . If he does not inspect each and every case for clogged flash holes . Then there is a good chance that was the issue .
There are more then those things that can cause a squib for sure . It was my understanding of this thread that all others were delegated to the less likely pile . We can go back to him not charging the case properly but that would just take us back to the OP having a sub par reloading process that would go along with media clogging the flash hole .
It just seems that the OP does not get to have it both ways . He is either a meticulous reloader with great attention to detail therefore the powder is the likely cause or he's not really paying attention when reloading and any number of things could have caused the squib . Is there some middle ground there ? Absolutely but I thought this thread had sorted those things out .
On a side note , I'm having a heck of a time trying to plug the flash holes . I mean I can clog the flash no problem but the question is not , can the flash hole be clogged so bad that the primer would not blow it out . I'm sure I could do that . I'm trying to find the happy medium as to it being clogged but not so bad that normal tumbling would never create that type of clog . Maybe I'll drop a piece of media about the same size as the flash hole into the primer then seat it . Then see if it will blow it through the flash hole . Hope it doesn't set off the primer
Last edited:
- Status