Last week, I received four 1# containers of TiteGroup. I have never tried TiteGroup (TG) before; so getting four pounds untested was a bit of a leap of faith. But I’ve heard so many good things about it here on TFL, I figured it was a safe bet.
My first range report is in. Tuesday I tested some 38 and 44 Special recipes.
First on the list was my attempt at making IDPA Power Factor compliant 148gn lead DEWC’s (710 f/s required to make PF). I found no published load data for a round this light, so I used “relationship comparison” data with from other powders that I’ve already created IDPA compliant rounds with – namely, Bullseye and W231/HP-38. My research had me make rounds at 2.7, 2.8, & 2.9 grains. What is noteworthy (to me, at least) is the density of TG. Just for fun, I wanted to see how many charges at 2.7 grains it would take to fill a 38 Special case – it took seven charges. Volumetrically speaking, I have never put such a small charge into a 38 Special case. It is very dense stuff. I thought TG was known for being low density. I must have misread those posts that lead me to believe so.
All brass is Winchester. Primers are WSP. Bullet is a Missouri Bullet Co “PPC#2” (lead) .358, BHN 12, roll crimped. Test gun is a S&W Model 67, 4” bbl. All data is 12 rounds (two sets of six).
2.7gn: Avg = 692.0 f/s; ES = 50; SD = 13.28
2.8gn: Avg = 725.5 f/s; ES = 17; SD = 5.62
2.9gn: Avg = 744.0 f/s; ES = 41; SD = 9.79
As you can see, my guess on the powder charge using relationship comparison data was right on the money. The middle charge – the 2.8gns – is perfect for IDPA. Of course, more data with a larger sample size needs to be collected. But the early returns show that TG seems to be a great propellant for this application.
Second on my list was to simply make some good range fodder in 44 Special for my 629 Classic 5” bbl. I just need an accurate plated range shooter that is low recoil and runs at about the 800 f/s neighborhood. The bullet is an X-treme 200gn PFP. This bullet too is new to me. Since I have never loaded this bullet, I referred to Speer #14 for Data. I used their 200gn GDHP bullet (pg. 938) data. I used the lowest charge weight for three different powders: Bullseye (5.1gn), 231 (HP-38)(6.0gn), & TG (5.3gn).
At this time, I took a moment to do a side-test regarding powder density. Once I set my hopper to 5.1gn of Bullseye and loaded the rounds, I emptied the hopper and reloaded it with HP-38. The same hopper volume setting yielded 5.6gn HP-38. I then adjusted the hopper to the 6.0gns needed to load the HP-38 rounds. When I was done, did the same process with TG and weighed the result. It was 6.65gns. So yes, TG is dense stuff.
All brass is Winchester; Primers CCI 300; bullet X-treme 200gn PFP, taper crimped; test gun S&W 629 Classic, 5” bbl. All data is 12 rounds (two sets of six).
5.1gn Bullseye: Avg = 794.6 f/s; ES = 50; SD = 14.13.
. . 6.0gn HP-38: Avg = 840.3 f/s; ES = 66; SD = 17.57.
. . . . .5.3gn TG: Avg = 808.4 f/s; ES = 43; SD = 12.63.
Of these rounds, the HP-38 clearly had a lower pitch report than the other two. I think the Bullseye had slightly less perceived recoil than the other two; but I couldn’t tell which one had more between the HP-38 and the TG. As far as the power level – I liked them all. Any of them will serve the purpose nicely. TiteGroup was the Standard Deviation winner.
To conclude the early returns, TiteGroup seems to be an efficient propellant, capable of excellent SD’s. I’m really surprised that it delivers such competitive consistency with other powders, yet with such low charge volumes. It seems to be pretty good stuff. Obviously, I have a lot of other tests to run; namely, to get out and shoot a bunch of them. In terms of accuracy, all these bullets went where I pointed them. All these loadings were plenty accurate. Call me old school, or whatever, but I find TG’s density to be a little troubling to me. The early returns show I have nothing to be of concern. But still. I load a lot of low power level rounds, and conventional wisdom says that a fluffy low density powder should run more consistently shot after shot. BTW, when I chronograph, I always do a “tilt-back” before taking the shot. For these low powder target applications, I still like Bullseye’s fill rate and easy ignition. I have definitely found another good powder for the application with TiteGroup; but better than Bullseye? It remains to be seen.
My first range report is in. Tuesday I tested some 38 and 44 Special recipes.
First on the list was my attempt at making IDPA Power Factor compliant 148gn lead DEWC’s (710 f/s required to make PF). I found no published load data for a round this light, so I used “relationship comparison” data with from other powders that I’ve already created IDPA compliant rounds with – namely, Bullseye and W231/HP-38. My research had me make rounds at 2.7, 2.8, & 2.9 grains. What is noteworthy (to me, at least) is the density of TG. Just for fun, I wanted to see how many charges at 2.7 grains it would take to fill a 38 Special case – it took seven charges. Volumetrically speaking, I have never put such a small charge into a 38 Special case. It is very dense stuff. I thought TG was known for being low density. I must have misread those posts that lead me to believe so.
All brass is Winchester. Primers are WSP. Bullet is a Missouri Bullet Co “PPC#2” (lead) .358, BHN 12, roll crimped. Test gun is a S&W Model 67, 4” bbl. All data is 12 rounds (two sets of six).
2.7gn: Avg = 692.0 f/s; ES = 50; SD = 13.28
2.8gn: Avg = 725.5 f/s; ES = 17; SD = 5.62
2.9gn: Avg = 744.0 f/s; ES = 41; SD = 9.79
As you can see, my guess on the powder charge using relationship comparison data was right on the money. The middle charge – the 2.8gns – is perfect for IDPA. Of course, more data with a larger sample size needs to be collected. But the early returns show that TG seems to be a great propellant for this application.
Second on my list was to simply make some good range fodder in 44 Special for my 629 Classic 5” bbl. I just need an accurate plated range shooter that is low recoil and runs at about the 800 f/s neighborhood. The bullet is an X-treme 200gn PFP. This bullet too is new to me. Since I have never loaded this bullet, I referred to Speer #14 for Data. I used their 200gn GDHP bullet (pg. 938) data. I used the lowest charge weight for three different powders: Bullseye (5.1gn), 231 (HP-38)(6.0gn), & TG (5.3gn).
At this time, I took a moment to do a side-test regarding powder density. Once I set my hopper to 5.1gn of Bullseye and loaded the rounds, I emptied the hopper and reloaded it with HP-38. The same hopper volume setting yielded 5.6gn HP-38. I then adjusted the hopper to the 6.0gns needed to load the HP-38 rounds. When I was done, did the same process with TG and weighed the result. It was 6.65gns. So yes, TG is dense stuff.
All brass is Winchester; Primers CCI 300; bullet X-treme 200gn PFP, taper crimped; test gun S&W 629 Classic, 5” bbl. All data is 12 rounds (two sets of six).
5.1gn Bullseye: Avg = 794.6 f/s; ES = 50; SD = 14.13.
. . 6.0gn HP-38: Avg = 840.3 f/s; ES = 66; SD = 17.57.
. . . . .5.3gn TG: Avg = 808.4 f/s; ES = 43; SD = 12.63.
Of these rounds, the HP-38 clearly had a lower pitch report than the other two. I think the Bullseye had slightly less perceived recoil than the other two; but I couldn’t tell which one had more between the HP-38 and the TG. As far as the power level – I liked them all. Any of them will serve the purpose nicely. TiteGroup was the Standard Deviation winner.
To conclude the early returns, TiteGroup seems to be an efficient propellant, capable of excellent SD’s. I’m really surprised that it delivers such competitive consistency with other powders, yet with such low charge volumes. It seems to be pretty good stuff. Obviously, I have a lot of other tests to run; namely, to get out and shoot a bunch of them. In terms of accuracy, all these bullets went where I pointed them. All these loadings were plenty accurate. Call me old school, or whatever, but I find TG’s density to be a little troubling to me. The early returns show I have nothing to be of concern. But still. I load a lot of low power level rounds, and conventional wisdom says that a fluffy low density powder should run more consistently shot after shot. BTW, when I chronograph, I always do a “tilt-back” before taking the shot. For these low powder target applications, I still like Bullseye’s fill rate and easy ignition. I have definitely found another good powder for the application with TiteGroup; but better than Bullseye? It remains to be seen.
