» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > Handloading > Handloading Procedures/Practices
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-26-2013, 01:18 PM
Darkker's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mesa, Washington
Posts: 1,670

Registered Users do not see the above ad.


Hats off to you Nick, yes that is the chart I was referencing.
The variance doesn't really supprise me(10%). I have have a pile of OLD reloading manuals from some purchased property. Them coupled with Western Powders postings, leads me to believe(as a generalization) that 5-10% is nominal for just about anything.

4064 does indeed appear to be cooler, just falls in line with the BR of Varget.
Correction noted!

Thanks again for the knowledge
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-26-2013, 02:33 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Dayton, TN
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZ5 View Post
Bofors (that Swedish outfit that makes the Alliant powders you use) was bought by Eurenco a while ago. Although at one time it as a 'joint venture,' Eurenco is presently a part of Groupe SNPE, which is a name/entity under which the French Ministry of Defense operates.

ADI (that outfit in Australia which makes many of the Hodgdon-labeled rifle powders) is a unit of Thales, a French company which is at least partly owned by the State of France.

That's where the French gov't comes in.

See post #18 (near the bottom of the first page) in this thread here on ShootersForum for a list of who actually manufactures the smokeless powder that is commonly seen in N. America.

Kinda scary if you think about it, especially in light of the UN small arms treaty and the like.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-26-2013, 07:10 PM
MZ5's Avatar
MZ5 MZ5 is offline
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,687
Personally, I have a tendency to buy General Dynamics powders.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." --Gerald Ford
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-27-2013, 11:02 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THAYER, MO
Posts: 689
Thanks Nick.

Actually all the little speheres are not exactly the same size. There is a range variation. That is why some powders that are supposedly the same, at least chemically, do not perform exactly alike. By using different size screens they can be separated into large end-small end 'lots'.

I don't know the situation today but up through WW2 the US Army and US Navy always used single base powder in its artillery for stability, safety, and low erosion.
Extruded stick powders with multiple perforations are the only powders that can be truly progressive burning. These are some of the reasons WW2 powder charges for the 16 inch navy guns was still usable 50 years after manufacture and after being reworked (repacking and measurings, etc.) they proved more consistant and accurate that when originally loaded.

For the "I love the smell of cordite in the morning" crowd the US has never used cordite.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-01-2013, 04:56 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield, South Carolina
Posts: 603
Ball propellant is also known for being very erosive on barrels as the gov’t ordnance folks found out many years ago.
To be considered for US Gov’t acceptance for small arms propellant the testing goes like this.
fficeffice" /><O></O>
1. The candidate propellant is submitted in a large enough quantity to load around 350,000 rounds.

2. The propellant arrives at the loading facility and a sample is taken and load developed. It is loaded to a velocity window and a pressure window. If the pressure envelope is exceeded and velocity is not reached it is rejected. If velocity is reached and pressure is not exceeded then the next process goes forward. Note there are two pressure windows , chamber and port window envelope pressures.
Case in point is WC852 propellant, if one investigates this there are two WC852s listed in http://home.hiwaay.net/~stargate/powder/powder.htm (items # 193 and 214 specifically). The difference is one has low pressure level and when velocity was reached the port pressure was out the roof. This was a propellant of choice in 30.06 ball ammo. The M1 Garand ammo had a pressure window that the “slow” WC852 went out the top over thus the “slow” could not be used to load ammo for the Garands. The Browning LMG/HMG had no gas port thusly the slow lots were all designated for them and loaded in belts. Jeff Bartlett and GIbrass.com had the slow stuff by the ton back in early 90s and I got some. It is very cool burning.

3. The propellant passing initial pressure/velocity requirements is then loaded into ammo and inserted in belts and sent to Aberdeen Proving Ground to the Small Arms and Ammunition Test Branch where I worked for barrel erosion study/acceptance.

4. Previously the test utilized the M60 MG but I would assume by now the M240 is the test weapon. Three are used and prior to testing throat gage readings are taken to determine exactly where all three throats are. Next they are fired from machine rest for 10 shot groups at 100 yards on indoor range and chronograph readings taken and recorded.

5. Next they are taken to the “Cold Room” and subjected to testing at high temp. Some tests are conducted at 140F and some run at 165F. Can’t remember for sure. I think it was 160F. Two Australian Army Ordnance Officers visited the Proving Ground and they were telling me about this great propellant we now know as Varget and their testing is conducted at 170F as they were aware of vehicle internal temperatures reaching 170F in parts of Australia.

6. 10,000 rounds are run in 50 round bursts rotating guns and cooling them with forced air. Testing in the cold room makes for real fun as you are in the room with the weapon while it is firing. We also went to -65F on some tests. The room was capable of -80F but I was not to enjoy such. Note: As a nice to know fact--- I can report that Eddie Bauer made a $200.00 down parka/coat in early 80s time frame and my aunt sent me one. It was advertised to be good to -65 and I can attest it was with just a plain shirt under it.

7. At the end of 10,000 rounds each barrel is chronographed and if average velocity drops more than 200 FPS the propellant is rejected.

8. As well the ten shot group series is run again from machine rest on indoor range and if groups exceed 150% of the original groups the propellant is rejected, i.e. 10” new barrels and over 15” used barrel.
As I was out processing at the Proving Ground a candidate ball propellant was failed and approximately 300,000 rounds was sent to the burning ground for destruction.
Now would anyone like to take a wild guess as to what the manufacturer would do with several tons of propellant that failed to be placed on the QPL (Qualified Products List) the Aberdeen Testing failed? I do not know any top shooters that routinely use ball propellants. I once saw Martin Hull (Sierra Tech Rep) at Camp Perry in a High Power forum asked about ball propellant and he asked the question, “Does anyone here know a top shooter that uses ball propellant?” No hands went up.
__________________
Distinguished Rifleman High Power , Distinguished Rifleman Smallbore Prone, Presidents Hundred (Rifle), Palma Teams Member (2), Dewar Teams Member (2), Member 4 Man National Championship Smallbore AnySight Team, Certified Small Arms and Ammunition Test Director Aberdeen Proving Ground, Firefighter I,

Last edited by Humpy; 02-01-2013 at 04:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-01-2013, 07:03 PM
Darkker's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mesa, Washington
Posts: 1,670
Interesting Humpy...
90-some percent of the US military small arms ammo is currently loaded with ball powder, not extruded. If the military is indeed still doing those tests, "ball" powder can't be terrible on the whole. I would imagine that rejected powder would be wholesaled to the blenders, or recycled.
The Sierra story isn't really much more than anecdotal at best. At the annual cattlemen's convention, the president of the association commented to the assembly (few hundred people) that he didn't know any man that liked chicken; no one disagreed.
Does that mean no one in that room eats chicken? Of course not.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-02-2013, 12:49 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield, South Carolina
Posts: 603
Yes no arguement there, the vast majority of ball ammo production is ball propellant as that is what the SCAMP lines run where in the manual lines and plate loading they could use either ball or extruded but then again the manual lines are far slower. But the number ranges for ball propellant does not cover the entire canister grades available to reloaders.

Per Larry Moore who was section chief of small arms at APG to went to FA and was senior munitions engineer there and then to RIA as Chairman of the Configuration control board he stated to me that on a whole that ball was much worse on barrels than stick. I was at his home before and after his passing when I picked up his large milling machine from his wife I looked over his entire inventory which was considerable and there was no ball propellant of any number in his cache.

Larry did tell me he was constantly fighting with Lake to produce better (closer dispersion) ammo especially in the MATCH lines and I know the folks at Lake hated him and were tickled no end when he retired with 42 years service and the MATCH lot acceptance from then on was mostly waivered.

He personally oversaw and ordered the selected componant production on lots 60-1, 60-2, 60-3, 60-4 and 60-5 which were all outstanding M118 runs and I suspect there is not a round left to be had as the MTUs snatched it all up quickly. Larry retired soon thereafter and Lake went back to their same old practices. Thusly when Federal came up with the much superior FED MATCH their sales went through the roof from the MTUs.

Federal last I heard from my engineering contact there ran three grades of FED MATCH. The general run FED MATCH is ball propellant number unknown. The USMC marksmanship contracts called for 3031 and the Army contracts called for 4895.

Well lets see the Cal 50 loadings call for WC860 and IMR 5010 for most of it but 4831 for the high pressure test cal 50 loadings.

WC846 and IMR 8208M for 5.56 M193 and HPC 3 for proof ammo.

For 7.62 it is WC846 and IMR 4475 and IMR 8138M the proof ammo calls for IMR 4475. The Brown Box M118 was loaded with WC846 and despised by most everyone. The MTU gave that to the new shooters and the sniper school. I believe the M118LR is all RL15.

I have seen the 300 Win Mag ammo for the M24 retrofits but don't know what it is loaded with and will try and find that out as well. I do know the National 1000 yard record was done with 4350 though.

Last I heard Lake is still on 386 production and Chief of Ammo told me a few years back they were turning 77 Million rounds per day total for all cals. Most of it is 5.56MM.

Winchester, Federal, Remington etc combined can't out produce Lake.

I have a email off now to see if I can get a copy of the QPL for ball propellants. It has been a long time since I have seen it and I am thinking there were only a few listed.

I expanded my search and 20MM calls for WC870, WC875 or IMR7013.

I need to check to see if M855/M856 is loaded with WC846 as in our testing at APG the test ammo loaded with WC846 and SS109 62 gr bullets had the barrels right at rejection at 4800 rounds and a conference was called between RIA and PA folks and it was stated that Lake had used the M193 propellant for the test lot which gave different internal ballistic performance with the heavier 62 grain bullets.

A quick and dirty retest matrix was devised and we ran 10,000 rounds a day for 14 days but added in SS109 loaded by FN and the barrels made it to 12,000 rounds. The second round of testing using the Lake produced test lot duplicated the first test

If anyone has any genuine SS109 production loaded by FN, pull it and take a look and see what it has.

I CAN SAY THAT SS109 AMMO LOADED BY FN IS THE FINEST AMMO I EVER FIRED INSOFAR AS DISPERSION IS CONCERNED. IF YOU EVER GET A CHANCE TO GET ANY GENUINE SS109 AND NOT THE SS109 WANNBEE GET EVERY LAST ROUND YOU CAN.

There was however a extremely large number of misfires with the SS109 but I am convinced the striker indent energy was the culprit as the test weapons did not meet the spec for striker energy which begs the question if you don't hit it hard enough can you really expect it to go off every time? We had like 5 misfires in about 38,000 rounds which is absolutely unacceptable and caused quite a stir when I reported them. I shot up 244,000 rounds on that test in total all types.

The Marine Corps Test Director told me he was of the same opinion from their testing to get the M16A2 fielded.



I am sure it is a ball propellant for the M855 and I just never got around to finding out what the changes were. Then again that may be changed as there is a new M855A1 round out loaded to much higher pressures ( 60,000lb + range) with the copper girdle and exposed steel penetrator but I understand it is really eating barrels as well as feed ramps on M4s are being gouged by the meplats. It is also hard on brass.

I do know to increase production for the 386 they relaxed the dispersion requirements as the first M855 was quite good but the last stuff is running much larger dispersion acceptance.

I will try and get latest data ASAP.

It will be interesting to see what my contacts reveal.
__________________
Distinguished Rifleman High Power , Distinguished Rifleman Smallbore Prone, Presidents Hundred (Rifle), Palma Teams Member (2), Dewar Teams Member (2), Member 4 Man National Championship Smallbore AnySight Team, Certified Small Arms and Ammunition Test Director Aberdeen Proving Ground, Firefighter I,

Last edited by Humpy; 02-02-2013 at 01:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-02-2013, 07:34 AM
MZ5's Avatar
MZ5 MZ5 is offline
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,687
Thanks for the contributions, Humpy. Hope you're able to get & share more.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." --Gerald Ford
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-02-2013, 07:59 AM
Darkker's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mesa, Washington
Posts: 1,670
Very interesting stuff Humpy,

I do disagree with the "what powder is in what" listing you have.
From my last TM the list goes:
50cal
HP test, Incindiary, ball, AP, AP Incindiary, m33,- WC860
Tracer, m10 tracer, m17, APIT -m20, - IMR5051
M23 incindiary - IMR 8431


The M1 high pressure testing is with WC860 @ 65,000psi.
The only high pressure testing I can find with an other powder is in the T251, for M8C sporting rifle.
IMR 4831 running 55,000psi.


The 5.56 didn't like CaCo in the gas ports in the '67-ish tests, so they use WC844, not 846.(other end of the normal Calcium spec).
M193 shows WC844, or CMR 170. I don't find a "Proof" load, only high pressure test, but it doesn't have that powder.
Same with the 7.62 stuff...
Brownbox M118 stuff show loaded with 846, OR IMR 4895...



For a (hopefully) newest reference, read here:
http://www.gd-ots.com/Brochures/BALL...ropellants.pdf

Since GD it would appear(not just this source ) has a corner on the market, AND since they were brought-on in a J.V. to ensure that the RIA was producing powder and running smoothly....
My take on it, so call it what you will, Is that since ATK WAS apparently having difficulty with the military contract for RIA, and LC. Another company was brought-in to "help". I suspect that GD took over the bulk of the powder production.

It will be interesting to see who out-bids whom for the contract later this year.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-02-2013, 02:03 PM
unclenick's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Posts: 10,866
If you're thinking of TM 43-0001-27, I wouldn't trust it very far. I noted that its load level for .30 Cal M72 was the same as its load level for .30 Cal M2, putting both at 50 grains of IMR4895. The records I can find show the M72 charge varying from 46.0 to 48.5 grains from 1958-1968 (only years made), with 47 grains being average, and that M2 had switched to WC852 by the time the TM was published.
__________________
Nick
__________________________
Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
"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

Last edited by unclenick; 02-03-2013 at 04:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-02-2013, 03:44 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Dayton, TN
Posts: 320
This has been a very informative thread. Thanks all for the input. Sometimes I want to know things "just because," and really have no reason. But usually I can put any and all knowledge to good use at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-02-2013, 06:56 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield, South Carolina
Posts: 603
My data came from the Frankford Arsenal Handbook for engineering personnel which also gives the drawing numbers for everything from primer to projectile. When/if we wanted to check something we pulled the SAA book, got the drawing number and requisitioned the drawing for the latest poop. This is the exact same thing done in ammo engineering, if any final word was needed they pulled the drawing which tells all.

Now the drawing may well show revisions as needed in the system life thusly when we pulled the drawing from Tech Data section it referenced the latest revision. If more info is needed then the engineering file for that item was pulled which gives the entire history of the item in question and why certain callouts were changed. Every part of every weapon system has its own file that gives the complete history of the part, what caused the revisions and what each revision consisted of.

I just got a email from the guy who came from FA to head the test section at Picatinny and he says WC846 is the propellant for 5.56 in M193. He is a wealth of knowledge as he made copies of thousands of FA ammo engineering files while he was there.

He did also said they pulled down SS109 and it had ball propellant.As indicated above the genuine article SS109 was superb for accuracy as I conducted the accuracy firing on it from 100 to 800 meters. Would like to be sitting on about 100,000 rounds of it now. Almost forgot but it came in the nicest ammo cans I have ever seen. Our cal 30 and 50 cans are very good but the FN cans hold 5 two hundred round belts of 5.56, four belts of 7i.62 and two belts of cal 50.


At Aberdeen we did not refer to TMs or FMs. At Picatinny we did not have a library of them at all. I ordered a fair amount of them for my personal library and never used them at work as I had the original test and historical production data at my fingertips.

What does the TM say about firing schedules and test operation procedures? What is the TM number you are referring to?


I also have a copy of the NATO Manual of Proof and Inspection Procedures given to me by one of the US members to NATO standardization committee when he retired dtd Feb 1966 and while the "Barrel Erosion Test Procedure" it very similar to the propellant qualification procedure the firing sequence is different. He was also Chief of the Army Small Cal Lab at Picatinny and was a pure wealth of knowledge of ammunition production at Frankford. He also worked the "Rifles Office" at FA which was the facility that oversaw the M16 acceptance program and is probably the most knowledgable person alive on the M16 history. I call him when I want to know where the bodies are buried as he put a lot of them in himself and was at FA with Homer Powley, W C Davis, Jim Ackley, Joe Unterkofler, Larry Moore etc and the historical witnesses don't come any better.


Of interest is a couple paragraphs 10.4.2.2. "The test cartridges assembled in the appropriate links shall be fired in bursts of twenty-five cartridges at twelve second intervals until 5000 rounds have been fired (four minutes), Firing shall then be suspended for four minutes, during which time the barrel is permitted to cool; cooling is not assisted in any way, i.e., compressed air or water. The sequence of four minutes firing followed by four minutes cooling, shall be repeated until the test has been completed.

Should a firing period exceed the four-minute schedule because of unplanned cessations of firing, the cooling period immediately following shall be reduced accordingly e.g., if the firing period should take five minutes;, the cooling period following would be reduced to three minutes."



Par 10.4.2.3 "Owing to unavoidable stoppages in the weapon or malfunctioning of test equipment during the course of erosion firing, it will not always be possible to adhere precisely to the specified schedules. However, the test of any barrel shall be considered valid provided the elapsed time, including any unscheduled stoppages;, does not exceed eighty minutes for the 5000 round cycle."Note: this is a HOT schedule and I would estimate the barrel temp was in excess of 400F at the first 500 rounds and stayed there. This could not even be considered on a M16 design as we did one 500 round string in 500 seconds which had our tubes at about 410F and the AR was never intended to be treated to such devasting temp ranges and it things will go South quickly once that temp range is exceeded. I am aware however of some testing in last couple of years running 100 round bursts through untreated and specially treated AR barrels that would allow heat ranges of 500F+. Check out a website called superiorbarrels.com for more information. I was privilaged to do the barrel inspections before and after the test series with my Olympus Series 5 - 5MM 90 deg borescope and the wear on the untreated barrel was massive but the treated barrel took it in stride.

10.4.2.4 The test lot of ammunition shall be fired separately in each of three barrels, 5,000 rounds per barrel, unless excessive yaw (keyholing) renders any barrel unserviceable before 5,000 rounds have been fired. The moving -target record for each barrel shall be carefully examined to determine the serviceable life with respect to the yaw criterion.........Those barrels with which excessive yaw develops shall be considered to have shown serviceable life until the end of the burst preceding the one in which such excessive yaw first occurs." It is interesting to note that the distance to the witness target ("moving target") is not called out but I suspect it was about 1000" as that is where we conducted yaw studies at Aberdeen.

Another interesting test is Bullet Extraction Test Procedure and equipment calibrated at 30, 60, 100, 150, and 250 pounds..................12.6 The ammunition shall be considered to have met the NATO requirments with respect to Bullet Extraction if, the force required to remove each bullet from the cartridge case is not less than 60 pounds."


I have heard of bullets pulls running upwards of 300 pounds. On the M118LR the min bullet pull is 10 lbs. The more erratic your bullet pull the more you will tend to get vertical dispersion at longer ranges. Lake match I have chronographed gives a extream spread of 40-65 fps which is guaranteed to deliver vertical dispersion.

Just imagine what a variation of bullet pull from 60 lbs to 300 lbs will do to SD and vertical dispersion.
__________________
Distinguished Rifleman High Power , Distinguished Rifleman Smallbore Prone, Presidents Hundred (Rifle), Palma Teams Member (2), Dewar Teams Member (2), Member 4 Man National Championship Smallbore AnySight Team, Certified Small Arms and Ammunition Test Director Aberdeen Proving Ground, Firefighter I,

Last edited by Humpy; 02-03-2013 at 03:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-02-2013, 08:55 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastTNHunter View Post
Very informative thread, guys. Thanks for the info. What about a good powder for 180gr .40S&W at pd velocities that won't give a lot of muzzle flash? I know that the AA#9 that I use, being a sperical powder, won't be a good choice. But, darn it, it meters and shoots well!
I use No.7 and Universal in the .40. Both are low flash and meter great.

SR4756 has lower flash still, but I've not been able to find any to try it.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-03-2013, 10:28 AM
Darkker's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mesa, Washington
Posts: 1,670
It is TM43-1-27
I won't claim it is the end-all of anything, merely an alternate view on info for the discusison(I enjoy all the info in this disscussion).

My query on the quote of WC846 in the 5.56 really has some interesting consequences...
WC846 had a spec'd range of CaCO(up to 1% IIR ). Which caused issues with the gas ports on M16s.
So they devided the spec(of CaCO) and on one end of the spec they call it 846, and the other, it is 844.
So my virtue of the original patent, It is ALL WC846, whether or not you call part of it, 844. Guess JB was right, BL-C(2), 748, H335 really are all the same

I do find the throat tests interesting, but think I can offer another view when I get a bit more time to myself.

Thanks for the info Humpy!!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-03-2013, 01:59 PM
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 19,720
A well discussed and interesting thread. Thanks to all who participated. As said many times before - it is enlightening to know all the expertise the board members have. Well done, gentlemen.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
NRA Certified Police Firearms Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NAHC Life Member

"Firearms only have two enemies - rust and politicans" author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-04-2013, 06:07 AM
unclenick's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Posts: 10,866
Yes, most interesting.

The way they make spherical propellants burn progressively is to have so much deterrent penetration of the surfaces of the spheres that even though the surface area of the sphere diminishes as it burns in, the deterrent concentration gradient dominates the burn rate so that the rate of gas production keeps increasing until the deterrent is burned away. At that point you are left with the base powder composition which burns digressively because the surface area keeps shrinking as it burns.

Since penetration of the deterrents should be similar for small grains as it is for large grains, you would expect that some of the smallest grains never see much increase in their core burn rate because the deterrent gradient has penetrated all the way to the core. So if you segregate this stuff by grain size, you should see the finer grains start with a lot of surface area, but not change combustion rate as much during the burn as the large grains do, since they don't have any undeterred core left. This should lead to the progressivity being lower, but the amount of gas made in the digressive phase of the burn past the peak shorter and contribute less gas. That is how quicker stick powder vivacity vs. %burned profiles from pressure vessel testing look. Also, the average burn rate will be more governed by initial surface area, which is higher.

I did a quick look at H335, 748, BL-C(2), and H380 (canister grade WC844, WC748, WC846, and WC852, respectively) at the powder characteristic curves in QuickLOAD. For the three WC8xx powders, this is born out. As the burn rate goes up, the difference between the starting burn rate and the final burn rate gets smaller and the percentage of the propellant burned digressively past the peak gets smaller. So they could very well be different screenings of what is basically the same powder (calcium carbonate variations notwithstanding).

However, WC748 does not quite fit. Its progressivity change is less than WC844's from start to peak, and it's digressive tail is shorter, indicating that if it were just a different grain size of the same formulation, it should have the fasted burn rate of the three. But it does not. Its burn rate is between WC844 and WC846 in the database, and certainly its application range tends to bear that out. I infer from this that the WC7xx series has some difference in deterrent from the WC8xx series. That might not mean a chemical difference. It could be a process difference, such as penetration time or temperature. Those sorts of details are commonly kept proprietary as you would have to get inside your competition's plant to police it. Only if they are deemed critical (no other possible way to do it exists) will they appear in the preferred embodiment description in a patent, and then only as a range that includes the critical values. I have 11 issued patents related to applied thermodynamics, so I am very familiar with how the maximum patent coverage game is played, and such ranges are part of it.

If you are interested in some details of how powder testing is conducted, this Roberto Serino article will give you more. It appears to me that QuickLOAD is already covering what his software proposed to cover, and he may not have been aware of it in 2005. Be aware, as you look at his impulse equation, that the sectional density he uses is the real sectional density (mass/cross-sectional area) and not the ballistic sectional density (mass/Dē) which is 4/pi times larger than the real sectional density in order to equalize its value to 1.0 in the BRL standard projectiles, thus to simplify ballistic calculations.
__________________
Nick
__________________________
Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
"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
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-04-2013, 06:40 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 258
Powder manufactuers ATK(Alliant) and General Dynamics (ST. Marks) Form American Powder Company, Munitions Propellant Joint Venture. > Press Release Detail
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-04-2013, 06:56 PM
Darkker's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mesa, Washington
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by 243winxb View Post
Powder manufactuers ATK(Alliant) and General Dynamics (ST. Marks) Form American Powder Company, Munitions Propellant Joint Venture. > Press Release Detail
Yes, as I referenced in post #29. They also much more recently jv'd with ADI for technology sharing.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-05-2013, 07:56 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield, South Carolina
Posts: 603
I finally got a copy of TM43-1-27 and I can tell you flat out if you copy the loads for some of those rounds you are likely to have serious problems.

For instance it calls for 50 gr. 4895 in M72 match and the ammo I have pulled and weighed has 47 gr. 4895 in two different lots I weighed made 3 years apart.

Also if you plan on duplicating the proof load for 30.06 you will in all probability blow your rifle up. I used this load in proofing a 1917 Enfield that had been in a fire. Primer pocket would have taken a CAL 50 BMG primer after the shot which was made using a 50 ft lanyard and we were down behind a 3/4" piece of plywood. The bolt froze solid and when we beat it open the case was stuck fast. A cleaning rod would not remove it. It took a 5 ton arbor press with rod down bore to loosen the case. I placed cloverleaf of the action on a piece of 3/4 plywood,inserted a very close fitting piece of drill rod down bore cut to leave 3/4" exposed at muzzle. Put it in 5 ton arbor press with five foot handle on it and lined everything up nice and vertical and applied down pressure and nothing happened. I backed up and grabbed the end of the five foot handle and my feet just cleared the floor when the case came out and I weighed 220 at the time



I took the fired/extracted case to my Chief and told him I estimated 90,000 lbs and he agreed and told me to take it to ammo which I did and showed them the FA manual and the No 2 guy in ammo engineering also estimated 90,000lbs and immediately went and pulled the drawing and the drawing calls for 4895 propellant and not 4198 as listed.

Bottom line they were not worried about it as no more 30.06 ammo was going to be loaded and the main thing was the drawing was correct even though the manual was not and the same propellant is presented in the 1994 version so basically what they did was copy the old FA Engineering manual and not reference the individual drawing numbers for case, primer, bullet, propellant etc. As indicated above I used the old FA manual to identify the drawing number and could order it up.

They also left out tons of neat data like M80 ball has a dispersion call outs for:

" Carton/clip pack 5" mean radius max average at 600 yards---Link Pack 7.5"mean radius,max average at 600 yards." You can figure extreme spread roughly by multiplying mean radius by 3.1416.

"Propellants: WC846 46grs, IMR 8138M 41.5 gr, and IMR 4475 41 grs."

This is not surprising in that 99.999% of the troops wouldn't know what they were looking at even if they found of copy of it .



Note it has a callout of WC844 for the M855. If this is true the barrel life is cut in half with it. I can't believe they went with that after our testing but then again I can see that no one really cares which is not surprising in that all the old heads from FA were about gone by 1994 when this TM was published. By then they had guys working ammo that had never even handloaded in their life or seen it done.

Case in point. The Chief of ammo (who was no 2 when I was there) told me in 1990 time frame the rumors were the engineering efforts for ammo and small arms was going to Huntsville, Ala and he knew as soon as that was announced all the guys from FA were going to submit retirement papers and not move which was going to leave him with very little expertise. He was going to lose the entire test section and he asked me if I would come back to work for him as Chief of the Test Section. I told him I would only if it was Huntsville as I wasn't coming back to F-----g Jersey ! ! ! ! ! Well long story short Sandbox 1 cranked up and the Army couldn't take the chance of losing that many knowledgable personnel going into a war posture and they stayed there. They closed Springfield Armory and Frankford Arsenal at end of Nam and moved to RIA. Then in 76 things were quiet so they moved from RIA to PA. I figure in two or three more years they will move somewhere else if there is any money to move anything then.


For those that read of all the base closings I had a personnel specialist explain it to me. Basically the gov't knows when a mission transfer is announced that 95% of the employees will not take the move. As soon as you fail to move if you don't have the time to retire you are out of a job and THE GOV'T DOES NOT HAVE TO FIND YOU A JOB OR PAY YOU RETIREMENT IF YOU HAVE LESS THAN 20 YEARS ! ! ! ! The average move is once every 10 years and the guy that trained me told me quick to be prepared to take moves and I was.

Also noted the TM callout for M2 ball ammo does not call for WC852 when we know tens of millions of rounds were loaded with the FAST and the SLOW versions.

Bottom line folks DON'T USE TM43-1-27 AS A RELOADING MANUAL ! ! ! ! !as the propellants and loads are from bulk production and are not blended and the differences in bulk lot characterics can be huge. For instance the WC872 load calls for 50 grs in M2 ball. The ammo spec sheet from the Army for the lot of SLOW WC872 called for 44 grs to meet the pressure/velocity requirement I mentioned above.

Ammo records are or were very good when I was there. For instance I could with a phone call find out the exact load of a given lot of ammo, the propellant lot number used, the primer lot number used, the acceptance dispersion it produced, date it was loaded and exactly how many rounds were in the lot. With another call I could determine exactly how much of a given lot was available anywhere in the world down to the individual round numbers.

That is part of catastrophic failure investigation which was to find out how much of the lot was left in the world wide ammo system. Now guys get hold of yourself as this is going to make you puke. If the failure notification came up through one channel they determined inventory and if less than about 500,000 rounds they would just order it all DESTROYED. The other side (never met any of them) apparently did not care or have the expertise/facilities to conduct such. If it came to us we took the time to investigate the actual cause of the failure and examined the files for any other such incidents and then made the decision whether to order destruction or not.

The way load work up is done is when the propellant arrives techs go in and get a sample one a container which may be 100 lb cardboard container or a wood crate with a copper container holding 150lbs. Mine was a 150lb. (Wish now I had purchased five of them) They load up test rounds and determine the charge to meet the requirements and that is recorded then the propellant goes to production or depot storage. They try to get lots big enough for around three million rounds.

So now you have some idea of how wasteful = stupid of how things are done in the gov't when they don't recruit/retain the people that care and believe me folks I estimate 75% of the ones I worked with didn't care. I expect that is why you don't see more of us on these forums as when they left they were no longer getting paid, didn't care or are afflicted with DILLIGAF or DILLIGAS or short form IDGAS.

Sorry to be so pessimistic guys but it makes me mad/sad when the gov't hires incompetance, promotes it and seems to encourage it. I had to work with such and while they were nice there was a clic and we all pretty well stayed together. By this the term CLIC consisted of the ones that loved the work and cared and all of us were competition shooters who had gone out on our own and earned the NRA classifications. There was one guy that was very dilligent and was very good and I am not even sure if he owned a gun or not and to talk with him you would think he was a MD or a minister as he was not like the "rest of us animals" haha
__________________
Distinguished Rifleman High Power , Distinguished Rifleman Smallbore Prone, Presidents Hundred (Rifle), Palma Teams Member (2), Dewar Teams Member (2), Member 4 Man National Championship Smallbore AnySight Team, Certified Small Arms and Ammunition Test Director Aberdeen Proving Ground, Firefighter I,

Last edited by Humpy; 02-06-2013 at 05:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
shelf life of Black Powder? carpooler Blackpowder Cartridge Shooting and Loading 36 11-15-2013 04:14 AM
Tiny little powder charges in great big cartridges! TheDownRanger Leverguns and Their Cartridges (General) 2 09-27-2010 03:12 AM
Black Powder, observations and field work cayugad Muzzleloaders 11 08-15-2010 06:30 AM
Good spherical powder for 32 swlong & hr mag ? BenT Handguns 8 01-13-2009 07:10 AM
Loading the 223 Remington - powder choices flashhole Handloading Procedures/Practices 31 07-20-2008 05:57 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:20 AM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
View Privacy Policy | Contact Webmaster | Legal Information
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2