Weird occurrence with a reload

I have 65 years of 4895 powder by Hodgdon and IMR in period correct cans. I could use period correct reloading manuals, I could open each can for a comparison instead I choose to keep the lid on, I am not that curious.

I know, I could save space by combining, problem, that would require opening the cans.

F. Guffey
 
Well, I know the process has changed in the past. For example, board member Hummer70, who worked in testing at Aberdeen, said that the Radford nitrocellulose plant took over making 4895 for the military for a couple of years (early 1970's, IIRC) and made the worst 4895 they'd ever seen. Though whether that was an intentional change of process or an inadvertent one, the result was apparently very different from normal.
 
Metal god,

Thanks. I should have made that check myself awhile ago. Can't recall where I read it, but I didn't think it was an Internet post. Getting old, though and may not remember correctly. (...)
Click to expand...
I believe it may have been an article in Handloader.
That's what comes to mind for me.
 
but it did seem 'fluffy' in the barrel and it blew out like cotton.
Click to expand...

I waited , I was not ignoring your response.

I purchased 8 lb. jugs of very slow powder from Pat's in Canton, Ohio. I knew the case had to be a high volume case with a heavy bullet with magnum primers and the barrel should not be short. My reloads with that powder did not feel like the recoil of the new over the counter Norma ammo. The fluff I removed looked like off color pop-corn. To give the powder a chance I could have used 250 grain bullets. I used a different powder and bullet on the other box of 20.

Back in the old days we had a 105 recoilless that was mounted on a jeep. the fun part, the recoilless had two? barrels, one for sighting, the other was the tube. The powder I purchased from Pat's was pull down powder from the ammo used to sight the tube. The chamber was not the 50 BMG.

F. Guffey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top