I am playing with some gas checked 255g lead hollow points from a friends mold. But we don't quite have them dialed in yet, and I am unsure how they will perform at those speeds.
strange 44spl testing results....
- Thread starter Shadow9mm
- Start date
CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.
Two important points:
One is that when you look at SAAMI specs you will see max COL for 44 Magnum is 1.610" and max COL for 44 Special is 1.615", so actually the Special is slightly longer. This is why bullets designed specifically for both chamberings have two crimp cannelures or crimp grooves; one ⅛" lower down the bullet for the 'Special case and one higher up for the ⅛" longer magnum case, though these are few and far between. However, if used with those cartridge-specific crimp grooves, the powder space will be essentially the same in both and the loads can be the same in a 44 Magnum chamber unless you want to load one of them down. The longer magnum case is only to prevent chambering the higher pressure round in a 44 Special chamber, and not because it gives more powder capacity when kept to SAAMI maximum length. Keith loaded up the 44 Special loads that were precursors to the 44 Magnum, so the 'Special cases can handle higher pressures than some suppose.
Today, however, most bullets in 0.429" or 0.430" have only the 44 Magnum crimp groove. In that instance, the 44 Special is loaded short and loses some powder space and I would expect same-pressure loads to use about 11% or 12% less Power Pistol than the 44 Magnum loads do. However, you should be able to work up to a pressure level that is somewhere between because you have a magnum chamber. I think with your rifle's barrel length, for the velocities you want, you will probably land at around 10 grains of Power Pistol.
Two important points:
One is that when you look at SAAMI specs you will see max COL for 44 Magnum is 1.610" and max COL for 44 Special is 1.615", so actually the Special is slightly longer. This is why bullets designed specifically for both chamberings have two crimp cannelures or crimp grooves; one ⅛" lower down the bullet for the 'Special case and one higher up for the ⅛" longer magnum case, though these are few and far between. However, if used with those cartridge-specific crimp grooves, the powder space will be essentially the same in both and the loads can be the same in a 44 Magnum chamber unless you want to load one of them down. The longer magnum case is only to prevent chambering the higher pressure round in a 44 Special chamber, and not because it gives more powder capacity when kept to SAAMI maximum length. Keith loaded up the 44 Special loads that were precursors to the 44 Magnum, so the 'Special cases can handle higher pressures than some suppose.
Today, however, most bullets in 0.429" or 0.430" have only the 44 Magnum crimp groove. In that instance, the 44 Special is loaded short and loses some powder space and I would expect same-pressure loads to use about 11% or 12% less Power Pistol than the 44 Magnum loads do. However, you should be able to work up to a pressure level that is somewhere between because you have a magnum chamber. I think with your rifle's barrel length, for the velocities you want, you will probably land at around 10 grains of Power Pistol.
Pathfinder45
New member
Lots of good advice has already been posted, but I will offer a couple of pennies as well:
I recommend that you avoid H-110 except in full magnum loads. Power Pistol, Unique, and Universal are probably close to ideal for the intended purpose,i.e., they work well in the trans-sonic zone. Take your pick; if you have one, you don't need to try the other two, as they are more alike than different. If you need something a little slower burning, you should get good results with HS-6 or AA-7, but then you will be going supersonic. At the next level, I like AA-9, but this point, if not sooner, you might at well be using magnum cases, which I would use for all. If you feel a need for a propellant with a burn rate closer to H-110, I would recommend IMR-4227, as it's more flexible in less-than-maximum charges.
I would be using Unique with home-cast bullets myself, but I'm just a 45 Colt guy, myself, so your mileage will vary a little bit.
I recommend that you avoid H-110 except in full magnum loads. Power Pistol, Unique, and Universal are probably close to ideal for the intended purpose,i.e., they work well in the trans-sonic zone. Take your pick; if you have one, you don't need to try the other two, as they are more alike than different. If you need something a little slower burning, you should get good results with HS-6 or AA-7, but then you will be going supersonic. At the next level, I like AA-9, but this point, if not sooner, you might at well be using magnum cases, which I would use for all. If you feel a need for a propellant with a burn rate closer to H-110, I would recommend IMR-4227, as it's more flexible in less-than-maximum charges.
I would be using Unique with home-cast bullets myself, but I'm just a 45 Colt guy, myself, so your mileage will vary a little bit.
Yep. IMR-4227 or Alliant 2400 for magnum level alternatives to H110/296 (both are canister grades of St. Marks WC296). H110/296 in full house loads is on the edge of sustaining its burn well, so reduced loads can squib out, leaving a bullet stuck in the barrel. If you fire the next round and it doesn't squib out (the usually don't) then it can bulge or burst your barrel when the new bullet runs into the stuck one.
I would think twice about that last load data. 1991 is getting pretty old. The factories making the powders and the exact processes and quality controls have changed since then. Accurate's own data from their first manual (1994) has 44 Special loads for №5, №7, and №9 listed. By the time you get to their third manual, the №9 data is gone. By the time you get to their sixth manual, №7 has disappeared. I think that is the company learning from experience. Neither Hornady nor Hodgdon (the current Accurate distributor) list anything for 44 Special using №7 or №9 now. You want to validate data that age very carefully before relying on it.
Yes the data is old etc. etc. but it is also being loaded into a rifle rated for 44 Magnum (36kpsi) vs. the 44 Special data (15.5kpsi). There is so much overhead in the pressure department for the OP's purposes that I posted the data AND the source. Previous posts have noted the 44 Special going magnum that it was fair game. Go ahead and run the numbers in QL and tell us how with the St. Marks powder that this data will be into 44 Mag. Pressures.
For what it is worth I have used #7 from Israel (original), Czech, RSA, & St. Marks. The St. Marks has burned differently but it still works within the burn curve for the type. I've not had to significantly adjust my documented loads for this powder.
For what it is worth I have used #7 from Israel (original), Czech, RSA, & St. Marks. The St. Marks has burned differently but it still works within the burn curve for the type. I've not had to significantly adjust my documented loads for this powder.
I understand your point, but we don't know №7 and №9 were dropped from the load data for high-pressure issues. It could be a squibbing problem at 44 Special pressures, just like you see with H110/296 underloads leaving a bullet stuck in the barrel, inviting the next round to damage the gun. I'd want to know the manufacturers weren't seeing that sort of issue when they dropped these loads. I'd be using a pressure gun or watching for large velocity swings if I needed to vet them with current lots of powder.
Now, citing 44 Magnum loads with those powders would be just fine. These are operating at higher pressures that make slower powders burn more consistently and that may be why loads are still published for them and not for the Special. I just don't know, so I am urging a bit of caution.
Now, citing 44 Magnum loads with those powders would be just fine. These are operating at higher pressures that make slower powders burn more consistently and that may be why loads are still published for them and not for the Special. I just don't know, so I am urging a bit of caution.
#7 seems to be an unpopular powder. I'm not sure why based on its placement in the burn rate chart, it should be a great medium burn rate powder.
I have loaded #7 in 9mm. It was too slow with 115g, and a 4in barrel but provided reasonable velocities with 124g bullets, 7.6g, at 1092fps.
I will try and contact Hornady Tuesday and see if they can provide more information as to why it was no longer included in the manuals.
CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.
So I got out to do some more testing today, despite it being 18F out.... re-tested the power pistol with new primers and tested some of the sierra H110 loads
Henry 20in rifle
44spl Starline brass
Hornady 240g XTP
CCI #300 large pistol primers with Power Pistol
Winchester large pistol, marked for standard or magnum loads, with H110
chronograph 3 paces, or approximately 9ft away
5 rounds of each fired, vs 3 last time, 3 was just not enough data
Power Pistol (Note: Max listed charge from my manuals was 7.6)
6.6, AVG 801, SD 28.38, ES 75
7.1, AVG 867, SD 38.68, ES 94
7.6, AVG 939, SD 31.55, ES 73
8.1, AVG 1034, SD 15.37, ES 36
H110
13.4, AVG 712, SD 30.08, ES 67
13.8, AVG 806, SD 16.48, ES 39
14.3, AVG 875, SD 48.93, ES 108
14.8, AVG 921, SD 33.02, ES 93
Over all notes
Power pistol
seems to be performing well in this long barrel. With the first 3 charges there were no pressure signs on the primers. looked like new except for the dimple. With the the 8.1g charge there was some minimal flattening of the primers but noting else. The 8.1g load got me in the velocity range I was looking for and the ES and SD dropped down. With this being a 44mag chambered rifle I am comfortable being touch over max.
H110
was disappointing. With as much powder and the slow burn rate I hoped it would do well in the longer barrel. Primers all looked good. mild flattening with all loads, but that it more typical of the winchester primers in my experience. Almost all the cases were dirty and sooty on the outside, which to me indicates low pressures and a bad burn.
So I got out to do some more testing today, despite it being 18F out.... re-tested the power pistol with new primers and tested some of the sierra H110 loads
Henry 20in rifle
44spl Starline brass
Hornady 240g XTP
CCI #300 large pistol primers with Power Pistol
Winchester large pistol, marked for standard or magnum loads, with H110
chronograph 3 paces, or approximately 9ft away
5 rounds of each fired, vs 3 last time, 3 was just not enough data
Power Pistol (Note: Max listed charge from my manuals was 7.6)
6.6, AVG 801, SD 28.38, ES 75
7.1, AVG 867, SD 38.68, ES 94
7.6, AVG 939, SD 31.55, ES 73
8.1, AVG 1034, SD 15.37, ES 36
H110
13.4, AVG 712, SD 30.08, ES 67
13.8, AVG 806, SD 16.48, ES 39
14.3, AVG 875, SD 48.93, ES 108
14.8, AVG 921, SD 33.02, ES 93
Over all notes
Power pistol
seems to be performing well in this long barrel. With the first 3 charges there were no pressure signs on the primers. looked like new except for the dimple. With the the 8.1g charge there was some minimal flattening of the primers but noting else. The 8.1g load got me in the velocity range I was looking for and the ES and SD dropped down. With this being a 44mag chambered rifle I am comfortable being touch over max.
H110
was disappointing. With as much powder and the slow burn rate I hoped it would do well in the longer barrel. Primers all looked good. mild flattening with all loads, but that it more typical of the winchester primers in my experience. Almost all the cases were dirty and sooty on the outside, which to me indicates low pressures and a bad burn.
First, primer appearance is a bad way to judge pressures. Period. From the Speer Manual:
{Edit to remove copyrighted materials: Please read the board policy on posting copyrighted materials}
Second, Hornady shows a max load of 6.8 grains of PP behind a 240-grain bullet. What do you thing your actual pressure is?
As others have repeatedy advised you, H110 is totally unsuited for low pressure loads. Again, primer appearance is a poor way to judge pressures.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...3/march-column-primer-flattening#Post13673133
You come here for advice, and then ignore much of it….
.
TX Nimrod
First, while primer appearance is indeed poor way to judge, it is also one of the few ways I do have to judge. You have to work with what you have. And this case I was able to see a discernable difference between the first 3 and last load.
Second for 240jhp in 44spl with power pistol
Hornady Max 6.8 Winchester large pistol hornady brass
Alliant 7.6 CCI 300 primer Large Pistol remington brass
Alliant 7.0 federal 150 primer large pistol federal brass
http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/powderlist.aspx?type=1&powderid=8&cartridge=32
Alliant uses speer JHP, which in 240g, all have a similar profile and crimp location compared to the hornady XTP. Also I am using starline brass which is not listed in any of the loads listed, and is of equal or better quality than any listed last I checked.
So in regards to my initial load workup, I was and am within published load data. I also put the disclaimer and notes in red on this last batch of testing as I exceeded published data.
Third, as already stated, these are being fired in a 44mag/44spl lever gun. So even if these are a touch over pressure they are still well within the limits of the firearm. I do not have any 44spl chambered pistols to be concerned with mixing the loads, and I do not share my reloads.
Fourth, I expected H110 to perform poorly. That does not mean I can't try it. The load data was for a 5.6in pistol, and I was curious to see how it would perform in a rifle. It was slower than the listed pistol data. While not in a cartridge with optimal pressure, I anticipated it might exceed the listed pistol data with the slower powder in the long barrel, but it was below it, thus I was disappointed.
Lastly, I came to share what I was working on and the odd results I got. I got some advice along the way as usual and as usual most of it was on point. I by no means ignored the advice given, I simply decided I wanted to try something to see what the results were in my specific setup and factored that into my expectations. See the fourth section.
P.S. Don't get yourself in trouble publishing copyrighted photos
First, while primer appearance is indeed poor way to judge, it is also one of the few ways I do have to judge. You have to work with what you have. And this case I was able to see a discernable difference between the first 3 and last load.
Second for 240jhp in 44spl with power pistol
Hornady Max 6.8 Winchester large pistol hornady brass
Alliant 7.6 CCI 300 primer Large Pistol remington brass
Alliant 7.0 federal 150 primer large pistol federal brass
http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/powderlist.aspx?type=1&powderid=8&cartridge=32
Alliant uses speer JHP, which in 240g, all have a similar profile and crimp location compared to the hornady XTP. Also I am using starline brass which is not listed in any of the loads listed, and is of equal or better quality than any listed last I checked.
So in regards to my initial load workup, I was and am within published load data. I also put the disclaimer and notes in red on this last batch of testing as I exceeded published data.
Third, as already stated, these are being fired in a 44mag/44spl lever gun. So even if these are a touch over pressure they are still well within the limits of the firearm. I do not have any 44spl chambered pistols to be concerned with mixing the loads, and I do not share my reloads.
Fourth, I expected H110 to perform poorly. That does not mean I can't try it. The load data was for a 5.6in pistol, and I was curious to see how it would perform in a rifle. It was slower than the listed pistol data. While not in a cartridge with optimal pressure, I anticipated it might exceed the listed pistol data with the slower powder in the long barrel, but it was below it, thus I was disappointed.
Lastly, I came to share what I was working on and the odd results I got. I got some advice along the way as usual and as usual most of it was on point. I by no means ignored the advice given, I simply decided I wanted to try something to see what the results were in my specific setup and factored that into my expectations. See the fourth section.
P.S. Don't get yourself in trouble publishing copyrighted photos
Last edited:
Shadow9mm,
For the safety of others reading this thread, I need to point out your H110 loads were in the range recommended for the 357 Mag case with 170-180-grain bullets. In the 44 Special cases, they are well into the range the factory warns not to reduce loads to with this type of powder for the reason I gave in post #24. A rule of thumb with this powder (and 296, its other name) is any load below about 88% loading density will be at risk. In this instance, with the XTP bullet at a COL of 1.480" (Hodgdon's test COL for it in 44 Special), a minimum safe load of H110 will be about 20 grains. Hodgdon lists 23 grains as the published minimum with 1.600" COL in the 44 Magnum case.
For the safety of others reading this thread, I need to point out your H110 loads were in the range recommended for the 357 Mag case with 170-180-grain bullets. In the 44 Special cases, they are well into the range the factory warns not to reduce loads to with this type of powder for the reason I gave in post #24. A rule of thumb with this powder (and 296, its other name) is any load below about 88% loading density will be at risk. In this instance, with the XTP bullet at a COL of 1.480" (Hodgdon's test COL for it in 44 Special), a minimum safe load of H110 will be about 20 grains. Hodgdon lists 23 grains as the published minimum with 1.600" COL in the 44 Magnum case.
How does one effectively calculate powder volume? Would it based on the case capacity, or on the capacity remaining once the bullet it loaded? I would assume the latter.
When loading I did some basic rough measurements and I had approximately 0.211 to 0.290 remaining between the powder and bullet at start and max.
What do you mean by minimum safe? Is that minimum for an effective burn. Or that there is risk of a squib or detonation?
A friend of mine is running some higher charges in h110, that I believe are below the 20g mark, and has had some case head separations. However thry have only been in his 44 henry. But not in his Blackhawk.
While I agree the loads seem light, I pulled them straight from sierras manual and used the brass. Powder, and primer specifically listed. Only thing different was the bullet, but it was the same weight with a similar profile and crimp location. If it was unsafe why would sierra list it?
Not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand.
Last edited:
The issue is the squibbing problem. The powder was first introduced by Hodgdon as H110 and then a year or two later by Winchester as 296. Both had magnum loads for it and no 44 or 38 Special loads using it. The factor for ignition is loading density, which is the percent of empty space under the seated bullet that the powder takes up in the case. None of Hodgdon's or Winchester's recommended loads has the space filled less than about 88%, and then Hodgdon says you can further reduce the loads by no more than 3%, putting it at actually about 85% loading density as a minimum. With the Hornady XTP seated to 1.480" COL in the 44 Special case, assuming a case water overflow capacity of the case is 36 grains of water, you have about 26 grains of water capacity under the seated bullet, and with the powder density at 0.92 grams/cc, it takes about 20.5 grains of powder to fill 85% of that available space. Below that, the powder distributors seem to get alarmed.
So, I am surprised Sierra has that 60-70% loading density data in their book. You could contact Hodgdon and ask what they think of it. All I know is that it's a level that would concern them in the matter of squibs. I don't think the squibs happen often, so Sierra may have just decided to try it out without considering the issue Hodgdon and Winchester had with it and then just didn't have a problem happen to occur during their testing. The biggest danger, of course, is someone doing fast DA revolver shooting who is working the trigger so quickly their reflexes can't stop them from firing the next shot when they notice one wasn't right. But I've never seen any published information on how frequently the squib issue is thought to happen, so I don't know what the odds are.
So, I am surprised Sierra has that 60-70% loading density data in their book. You could contact Hodgdon and ask what they think of it. All I know is that it's a level that would concern them in the matter of squibs. I don't think the squibs happen often, so Sierra may have just decided to try it out without considering the issue Hodgdon and Winchester had with it and then just didn't have a problem happen to occur during their testing. The biggest danger, of course, is someone doing fast DA revolver shooting who is working the trigger so quickly their reflexes can't stop them from firing the next shot when they notice one wasn't right. But I've never seen any published information on how frequently the squib issue is thought to happen, so I don't know what the odds are.
Yawn and I do mean that to "Staff". You missed the ship AND what I was alluding to.
The data that I posted was book AND component aligned; Speer #12also details AA#7 laods for 44 Special. H110 loads are pure garbage. That powder doesn't down load for squat.
Take the top end of #7 as a starting point.....look at 44 mag. Start as your end point.
If you have been into reloading for as many years as you say then you should understand what I am telling you.
The data that I posted was book AND component aligned; Speer #12also details AA#7 laods for 44 Special. H110 loads are pure garbage. That powder doesn't down load for squat.
Take the top end of #7 as a starting point.....look at 44 mag. Start as your end point.
If you have been into reloading for as many years as you say then you should understand what I am telling you.
Last edited:
I'm working on it, I'm working on it.... I have to reload at the kitchen table, so I can't always reload when I want to. I also just got finished processing the 1000pcs of once fired I bought, 500 44spl, and 500 44mag. Been busy 
. Hoping to test some #7 in the next outing or 2. Right now Power pistol is performing exceptionally well. Got 1 more session to do some fine tuning. and hopefully play with some other powders. Going to push CFE pistol some more as well. It seemed like it was trying to burn well up at max.
really need to get QL and learn how to use it. Tried GRT a few years back, I was not impressed. I'm downloading it again, maybe it will work better for me with straight wall stuff.
. Hoping to test some #7 in the next outing or 2. Right now Power pistol is performing exceptionally well. Got 1 more session to do some fine tuning. and hopefully play with some other powders. Going to push CFE pistol some more as well. It seemed like it was trying to burn well up at max.really need to get QL and learn how to use it. Tried GRT a few years back, I was not impressed. I'm downloading it again, maybe it will work better for me with straight wall stuff.
Last edited:
SHR970,
You posted about the pressure overhead room available, but on rereading I see no allusions to any other consideration. My point was that the powders in the old data may have ceased appearing in 44 Special load manual data for reasons having nothing direct to do with the peak pressures normally seen with them. This happens a bit mysteriously at times. For example, Blue Dot was loaded in magnum revolvers without unusual restrictions for decades, and then suddenly Alliant publishes a warning not to use it with 125-grain bullets in 357 Mag and not with any bullet weight in 41 Mag. What happened after decades of it being OK as far as anybody knew? I don't know. I asked their people at the Atlanta NRA annual meeting gun show and they sort of looked uncomfortable and refused to explain and just repeated the warning. Clearly, they'd been instructed not to answer questions about it. Whatever the cause, and as little sense it seems to make to those of us who used the powder successfully in those very applications in the past, I respect their warning because I don't want to rediscover the reason for it on my own. But it also means a lot of previously published book data from Alliant and Lyman and others is now invalid and considered dangerous by Alliant.
So, again, my concern is to suggest caution with old data combinations that the people testing loads for manuals have dropped, unless you learn directly from them that the combinations were dropped for innocuous reasons. If there is any issue that has been uncovered with #7 in 44 Special, the question is, at what load level below 44 Mag does it start to appear? And maybe there's nothing. We can try asking.
We can certainly agree about H110, and Shadow9mm has confirmed it for himself.
You posted about the pressure overhead room available, but on rereading I see no allusions to any other consideration. My point was that the powders in the old data may have ceased appearing in 44 Special load manual data for reasons having nothing direct to do with the peak pressures normally seen with them. This happens a bit mysteriously at times. For example, Blue Dot was loaded in magnum revolvers without unusual restrictions for decades, and then suddenly Alliant publishes a warning not to use it with 125-grain bullets in 357 Mag and not with any bullet weight in 41 Mag. What happened after decades of it being OK as far as anybody knew? I don't know. I asked their people at the Atlanta NRA annual meeting gun show and they sort of looked uncomfortable and refused to explain and just repeated the warning. Clearly, they'd been instructed not to answer questions about it. Whatever the cause, and as little sense it seems to make to those of us who used the powder successfully in those very applications in the past, I respect their warning because I don't want to rediscover the reason for it on my own. But it also means a lot of previously published book data from Alliant and Lyman and others is now invalid and considered dangerous by Alliant.
So, again, my concern is to suggest caution with old data combinations that the people testing loads for manuals have dropped, unless you learn directly from them that the combinations were dropped for innocuous reasons. If there is any issue that has been uncovered with #7 in 44 Special, the question is, at what load level below 44 Mag does it start to appear? And maybe there's nothing. We can try asking.
We can certainly agree about H110, and Shadow9mm has confirmed it for himself.
CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.
so I just finished my download of gordon's reloading tool. I know its not as good as Quickload, and neither are definite.
I ran the H110 in the simulation as well as the #7 with both powders it gave me a warning "Low burn rate! inconsistent combustion and increased error rate of simulation very likely."
H110
13.4 projected 1161fps at 7889psi, Actual 712fps
13.8 projected 1204fps, at 8450psi, Actual 806
14.3 projected 1228fps, at 9049PSI, Actual 875fps
14.8 projected 1254fps, at 9678 psi, Actual 921fps
#7
8.0 projected 2052fps at 6082 psi
8.2 projected 1064fps at 6317psi
8.7 projected 1093fps at 6932psi
9.2 projected 1124fps at 7623psi
for #7 it states that at 7.0g the charge is too small and at 12.5 is states I am close to max working pressure at a projected 13704psi
I also ran this against my power pistol testing.
Power Pistol
6.6 Projected 1068fps @ 8224psi / Actual 801fps
7.1 Projected 1107fps @ 9288psi / Actual 867fps
7.6 Projected 1148fps @ 10441psi / Actual 939fps
8.1 Projected 1191fps @ 11683psi / Actual 1034fps
to me this again highlights why I generally do no use this software.
so I just finished my download of gordon's reloading tool. I know its not as good as Quickload, and neither are definite.
I ran the H110 in the simulation as well as the #7 with both powders it gave me a warning "Low burn rate! inconsistent combustion and increased error rate of simulation very likely."
H110
13.4 projected 1161fps at 7889psi, Actual 712fps
13.8 projected 1204fps, at 8450psi, Actual 806
14.3 projected 1228fps, at 9049PSI, Actual 875fps
14.8 projected 1254fps, at 9678 psi, Actual 921fps
#7
8.0 projected 2052fps at 6082 psi
8.2 projected 1064fps at 6317psi
8.7 projected 1093fps at 6932psi
9.2 projected 1124fps at 7623psi
for #7 it states that at 7.0g the charge is too small and at 12.5 is states I am close to max working pressure at a projected 13704psi
I also ran this against my power pistol testing.
Power Pistol
6.6 Projected 1068fps @ 8224psi / Actual 801fps
7.1 Projected 1107fps @ 9288psi / Actual 867fps
7.6 Projected 1148fps @ 10441psi / Actual 939fps
8.1 Projected 1191fps @ 11683psi / Actual 1034fps
to me this again highlights why I generally do no use this software.