Tell me about Hodgdon Titegroup.

[Metal god]

It's a perfect example of how 'myths' are born.

This is not a myth just hard to prove on a internet forum . I didn't say it was only water cooler talk . My experience of running 9mm and 45acp over a chrono indicated to me regardless of cartridge when I was push Titegroup hard ( max load recommendations ) is when my ES/SD would start to get squirrely ( inconsistent ) .

When I do load development I check weight my scale and weigh out every charge and if we all don't know by now my pistol case prep is close to rifle case prep . Always load same head stamp ESPECIALLY during load development . I have complete confidence that my loads during load development are as consistent as I can get them . This lead me to conclude when you push Titegroup hard it starts to act erratically . I have since talked with many reloaders that have independently came to the same conclusion .

UncleNick does however bring up a good point about powder position . I can't say I was paying much attention to that as he described . I can say during my test I never held the firearm either straight up or down before firing . All my pistol load development is done with my wrist resting on a bag and the gun pretty much stays horizontal through all shots fired .

As far as internet myths , this ain't one of them . Titegroup being a bit erratic at the top end has been around a long time .

 

[jetinteriorguy]

+1 on that . Never understood folks spreading speculation on the internet . This gets proven here everyday, some folks only know what they have read and if they believe what they read misinformation gets spread and even worse gets embellished and soon it's even more BS . Kinda like the guy at work farting , by the time the story reaches the third person he crapped his pants .

So, have you actually used Titegroup and overloaded it beyond published data?

 

[74A95]

This is not a myth just hard to prove on a internet forum . I didn't say it was only water cooler talk . My experience of running 9mm and 45acp over a chrono indicated to me regardless of cartridge when I was push Titegroup hard ( max load recommendations ) is when my ES/SD would start to get squirrely ( inconsistent ) .

When I do load development I check weight my scale and weigh out every charge and if we all don't know by now my pistol case prep is close to rifle case prep . Always load same head stamp ESPECIALLY during load development . I have complete confidence that my loads during load development are as consistent as I can get them . This lead me to conclude when you push Titegroup hard it starts to act erratically . I have since talked with many reloaders that have independently came to the same conclusion .

As far as internet myths , this ain't one of them . Titegroup being a bit erratic at the top end has been around a long time .

UncleNick's comments suggests that what you might have seen was just based on powder position, and not a characteristic of TG being a problematic powder. Thus it sounds like further testing is required before one can make such conclusions about TG.

We can't just take anyone's word for it that powder X is problematic. Lots of people believe lots of crazy crap about guns and ammo that are not true when put to the test. These claims require data. Sorry, but that's how the real world works.

 

[Metal god]

Sorry, but that's how the real world works.

I'm not sure where this kind of talk is coming from but I've been around here quite awhile and have many thousands of posts in this sub forum . I stand by my experience and reputation here of not talking out my behind . I'm not just making this stuff up or regurgitating something I heard . I have several times ran my own test regarding many issues that come up here , I rarely think something then post it as if it were fact , I also try to explain where I'm coming from and how I got here ., I've already in this thread pointed out how large bore cartridges are a little more forgiving which indicates I'm not making a blanket statement about Titegroup . I understand how the world works and I do my best to respectfully navigate it .

 

[zeke]

Tried tg once for lead 45 acp and jacketed 9mm target rounds after it came out and did not like the accuracy obtained. It did not give reason to change from hp-38, which am using as target powder for multiple calibers. Not really a fair evaluation, but had already gotten to point of trying out way too many powders and was not interested in doing extensive evaluation. Also liked bulkier powder for checking powder fill in batch of cases.

 

[Jim Watson]

The range from minimum to maximum is narrow,

This is arithmetic, not some sort of Mystery Physics.
Titegroup is a fast burning power, maximum loads are small. The traditional 10% reduction of a small number is a very small number, hence the "narrow range" that concerns so many Internet Loaders.

By the way, the starting load is not necessarily a minimum load. NRA once did an article on ultra light "basement loads" and it does not take much Bullseye to reach a 20 foot target.

I did some of the position sensitivity that Unclenick speaks of. Titegroup was better than HP38 but not as good as the bulky 700X. None were very good.

I think it would be helpful if Hodgdon would have their supplier make a series of powders with Trail Boss technology so you could pick a powder that would give you case full maximum loads in most calibers.

 

[zeke]

Have found that tight crimps and interference fit helped accuracy using hp-38 in larger cases, and use it for 200 lrnfp in 45 LC. But have never done any position sensitivity tests with it.

 

[zxcvbob]

I dislike Titegroup because it burns very hot (the whole gun gets hot) and smoky with lead bullets (that's all I use), and it's hard to see in revolver cartridges because there's not much in there and it's soot colored.

It might be fine with jacketed bullets and/or short fat cartridges like .45ACP and .40S&W.

If it was all I could find, I would use it. But I have a pretty big stockpile of Bullseye, Red Dot (actually Promo), and Green Dot and I like them better.

 

[Unclenick]

Perhaps I should clarify what I said a little. In the SAAMI standard, MAP (Maximum Average Pressure) is a name that could mislead you. It means the average of peak pressures, not a maximum of average pressures taken over the length of the barrel. An ammunition manufacturer puts ten test loads through a SAAMI spec P&V (pressure and velocity) test barrel whose pressure measuring equipment has been calibrated by firing SAAMI system reference loads in it. The ballistic technician manipulates the cartridge so as to move the powder over the primer pocket with the bullet upright before carefully turning the cartridge horizontal as it enters the chamber (the whole manipulation is also known as the "SAAMI twist").

The underlying assumption in the SAAMI test method is the coefficient of variance (the percent of the peak value that the standard deviation value is) does not exceed 5% for pistol cartridges (4% for cf rifle and rimfire, 7.5% for shotgun shells). What that means is 95.1% of cartridges (1 out of 22) cannot exhibit peak pressures outside ±10% of the peak average, and 99.73% (1 out of 370) cannot exhibit peak pressures outside ±15%. Well, for the Hodgdon data for the 147-grain bullet in the 9mm Luger, the maximum load is 17% below the SAAMI MAP, which tells you the variance in the test was higher than the SAAMI standard allows for commercial ammunition. So it appears Tightgroup would not qualify for full pressure commercial ammunition loading in 9mm Luger with a 147-grain bullet, and the reason it would not is too much variation even with the powder positioned consistently over the flash hole.

 

[74A95]

The underlying assumption in the SAAMI test method is the coefficient of variance (the percent of the peak value that the standard deviation value is) does not exceed 5% for pistol cartridges (4% for cf rifle and rimfire, 7.5% for shotgun shells). What that means is 95.1% of cartridges (1 out of 22) cannot exhibit peak pressures outside ±10% of the peak average, and 99.73% (1 out of 370) cannot exhibit peak pressures outside ±15%. Well, for the Hodgdon data for the 147-grain bullet in the 9mm Luger, the maximum load is 17% below the SAAMI MAP, which tells you the variance in the test was higher than the SAAMI standard allows for commercial ammunition. So it appears Tightgroup would not qualify for full pressure commercial ammunition loading in 9mm Luger with a 147-grain bullet, and the reason it would not is too much variation even with the powder positioned consistently over the flash hole.

And yet they didn't seem to have that problem with 145 grain lead bullets where TG is loaded to 33,400 psi. Or with 135 grain lead, where it is loaded to 33,400 psi also.

Their 147 grain data looks anomalous. It also suggests that HS-6 is a poor choice for 147 grain bullets (27,900 CUP), though no issue with HS-6 and 145 grain bullets (33,100 psi).

Since the 147 XTP data with TG (and HS-6) is measured with CUP, I suspect there might be an issue with the CUP method, which has been rumored to be less reliable than using a piezoelectric transducer used for psi measurements.

 

[Maxwell Haus]

So, have you actually used Titegroup and overloaded it beyond published data?

Sorry, not playing that game.

 

[Unclenick]

And yet they didn't seem to have that problem with 145 grain lead bullets where TG is loaded to 33,400 psi. Or with 135 grain lead, where it is loaded to 33,400 psi also.

Their 147 grain data looks anomalous. It also suggests that HS-6 is a poor choice for 147 grain bullets (27,900 CUP), though no issue with HS-6 and 145 grain bullets (33,100 psi).

Since the 147 XTP data with TG (and HS-6) is measured with CUP, I suspect there might be an issue with the CUP method, which has been rumored to be less reliable than using a piezoelectric transducer used for psi measurements.

No question that this applies only to one load component combination. But my choice of a prime candidate for the cause is not anomaly or measurement problems. It is the primer unseating the bullet during the one to three milliseconds it takes for the powder to get burning. This phenomenon is known to cause a lot of pressure and velocity variation because the bullet isn't consistent in how far out of the neck it is when the powder burn catches up. It is responsible for the observation that, in some combinations, a magnum primer produces lower pressure and velocity than a standard primer does. It is a chronic headache for 22 Hornet shooters who often have to resort to using pistol primers to get something mild enough not to give them large velocity variation and significant group expansion (which the Hornet's modest pressure levels allow them to do).

The clue primer unseating is happening with the 147-grain XTP Tightgroup load comes in comparing its charge weights to the 145-grain ACME RN coated bullet load in the Hodgdon data. The RN has a longer COL for more powder space and it is softer and more lubricated and is slightly lighter than the XTP, all of which suggests it should require more powder to achieve a given peak pressure. But the XTP maximum charge that reaches a lower percentage of MAP is heavier than the 145-grain bullet maximum charge. This suggests the 147-grain bullet moves forward and makes additional powder space before the powder burn gets seriously underway.

Unfortunately, without setting up a test barrel, we can't test and prove our speculations and are left to make the err-on-the-safe-side assumption that the variance in the 147-grain loads repeats.