12 of 15

GroovyJack wrote:

. . . . If it makes any sense ( no comments from pnut gallery ) , I can understand the concept very easily , but have never actually "seen" any actual proof .. Similar to the concept , and this one can be shown with a strain gauge , of a pressure pulse at the muzzle .. I forget the whole idea , all my Handloader rags went up in the fire , but Barsness wrote about it a couple years ago .. Doesnt happen all the time , seems until you find the sweet spot , it happens and once you have the supposedly perfect powder/bullet match , it goes away .. HL , you remember this one ??

Howdy GroovyJack

The primary powder of concern for SPE (Secondary Pressure Excursion was one lable for the phenom) was surplus H4831. Different lots had more variation in burn rate than is normal. Both "Handloader" and "Rifle" magazines (1970s) carried article and speculation about the matter, however, to my recollection, it was never demonstrated in controlled situations and could never be duplicated from claimed loads. Still, something caused all that furor it would seem.

Reduced loads cause powder distribution in the case to vary. It may have been one of the cited reasons for SPE. Yet, the passage of time has opened new avenues of information about how primers actually effect powder charges. Remember the question in the quiz about the front primer tube ignition? It was a product of trying to get standard primers to more thoroughly burn slower powders. Today we know why it didn't really work that way.

Powder doesn't burn from the cartridge base uniformly forward to the base of the bullet. Given proper primer brissilance, powder burns simultaneously from base to front, from front to back, from side to center, from center to side. And all directions in between.

I'll have to do some searching for period articles or any new information on SPE. May take awhile. In the interim, perhaps, the matter is solely academic as most of today's handloaders wouldn't use reduced charges of slow burning powder anyway when far better options are available. My testing was intended to try to produce SPE. Since only 200 rounds total were fired, there is not enough data to support either the pro or con.

Oh well, issues like these only detract from time at the loading bench and I am far behind in my case stuffing efforts. So, I'll put the matter on the back burner to simmer while I address more pertinent things. But, I am still interested in any experiences forum members may have had. PM or post, please, if you have anything to add to the subject.

The magazine American Handgunner had an article many MANY years ago titled "The 2.8 Grain Bullseye Surprise". It suggested that such a small quantity of a FAST burning powder could act like a cutting charge and consequently destroy case, gun and shooters hand alike. I don't believe that it was ever proven though.

The article was directed towards those pistol target shooters who were trying to reduce their loads to the minimum possible so as to reduce recoil whilst retaining accuracy and allowing quick sight recovery for following shots. I was loading 2.8 gr of Bullseye in a .357 MAG case pushing a 125gr 9mm Conical cast from a RCBS Mould. Never gave me any problems.

Cheers, Vince

HL this was in Handloader in the last couple years , he showed it on paper ..
Actually it makes for some good writing , but in reality the phenomena dont amount to nuthin' ..

I got them all. I've been reloading for thirty-six years or so.

Yeah, the 'light load of slow powder' theory has never been proven, but there's something to it. There's some bit of information we don't have - or don't recognize - yet.

The other question that's a little 'iffy' is about the .35 Whelen. Late information indicates the Colonel had more to do with it than previously thought. But the heavy lifting went to the accepted inventors.

And I've never had, but still want, a 250-3000 Savage 99.

14 of 15. Missed the one about slow burning powder for cannons, was thinking much bigger cannon!

15 out of 15 correct.
Too easy and simple.
Third grade stuff for a PRO like me.

Come on---give me something that taxes my BRAIN!!!

Been reloading for sixty years now, and I'm only fifty six.
THAT'S how much more I KNOW than YOU GUYS!!!!


Eric

"Come on---give me something that taxes my BRAIN"...Like finding it?

Eric

14 out of 15 ----I didn't know that a .700 was commercially available. Drat! Leave it to the Brits!
S E E has been the cause of lots of discussion, but from what I recall, while there are some reasonable-sounding theories, NOBODY can say for sure what causes it.

In my youth, I used ~2.5 gr. Unique/158gr. cast SWC in my 357 Maggie, with the result that a little kid at the range that day asked his mom; "Why is that man pounding on his gun?" (Driving the stuck bullet out!)

13 out of 15 i missed the british question and i forget what the other was

Your score is: 15 out of 15

14/15, missed #7 or #8. Oh well doesn't really matter.

It was easy, but I had only 13 / 15 because I cant read so god in English. Question aboat .35 Wheelen, I did´nt knew.

9 out of 15, I better stick to factory ammo. I have no business trying to hand load at this time..