Anyone use slow powders like 296, h110,4227, W-680 in 45 acp. I was playing around with some slow powders using W680 and my chrony with 230 grain cast roundnose bullets and was getting good velocity and good powder burn using 16.5 grs of W680. Velocity was around 900 fps with no signs of overpressure.

Tried 296 in the 45acp before it was banned here.
Not impressed..
Although not much pressure sign, the load is not accurate (at least it wasn't in my gun back then)

Well i havent tested it for accuracy i was planning on loading up a few hundred and trying it out. Anyways why was 296 in 45 banned here. Whats up with that. Just because data isnt listed in load manuals doesnt mean you cant use it or it doesnt work. i use several what you call unconventional loads in several of my guns. Some duplex and even triplex smokeless loads. I have worked up a load for 45-70 using 500 gr hard cast that shoots 1880 fps using a triplex load and dont exceed 40000psi that i shoot in my buffalo classic although you dont want to shoot too many of em it gets very hard on the shoulder.

David

Wear sun glasses and put on lots of suntan lotion. You'll need it for protection from the muzzle flash burns...

The .45 ACP is a low pressure round and W-296 is for high pressure rounds and needs a very firm crimp to preform and burn completely. Besides where would/did you get loading data for that powder for .45 ACP?

damianss, all caliber over .40 is banned in this Great Land Of Oz for general shooting because the politicians thought they are more deadly .. beats me - wherever they got those notions.
Only IPSC and other action shots allow the use of them, I do not like to do IPSC, and I absolutely refuse to shoot at human shaped targets that have heads on them.

Here in Oz, the ability to own and fire a gun is a privilege not a right.

Bushy, I was told by some "range expert" to try them.. back then, I was very involved (read desperate) to try to increase my scores, so any snake oil ointment was tried.

damianss wrote:

i use several what you call unconventional loads in several of my guns. Some duplex and even triplex smokeless loads.

Ok, I'll bite at this !!!

What do you mean by unconventional duplex and triplex loads ???

He mixes different powder together...

I will make a point to be somewhere else when he is on the firing line...

I hope he lets everyone else at the range he's shooting a "triplex" load...

I would wanna know....

OK--I have another idea for Dallan--I last suggested a "World is going to end so I'm suicidal" Forum

NOW I will suggest a "Let's reload to blow ourselves up" forum.

Over the past couple of weeks, the IQ of HuntingNut has somehow dropped by a bunch of points.

anss--welcome to this fine forum.

Please go to the post on this same forum that says beginners luck and look up my last post, but put YOUR name instead of Stovepipes name on it.

Then give Fr. Eric a PM and we will say a couple of Hail Marys before you go shooting the next time.

God Bless,

Fr. Eric

Duplex and triplex loads were experimental areas that handloaders of the post WWI and pre WWII tried. After WWII and with the advent of magnum primers and newer powders, much of this experimentation stopped.

The thinking was that a very fast powder loaded over the primer would allow a more thorough burn of the slower powder on top of it. In general, the way in which powder burns was not fully understood and that was the case until more recent years. Back then, it was believed powder burned from the back of the cartridge forward. Today, we know differently.

Other experiments included placing a small tube slightly larger in diameter than a flash hole at the base of the interior of the cartridge. Here the idea was to send the priming charge to the middle part of the cartridge and, hopefully, achieve a less critical rise in chamber pressure, while beginning the burn at mid cartridge.

Along with some of these experiments, we had the whole issue of case design, shoulder angles and powder column sizes (and you thought the WSMs were new? NOT). Steeper angles, venturi shoulders, reverse venturi shoulders, rounded shoulders -- all were championed as having some magical advantage. Rocky Gibbs comes to mind as does PO Ackley, Roy Weatherby and others of that era. Some of this stuff has been debunked and some of it has proven useful and accurate.

We reap the benefits of those early pioneers in reloading and experimenters. Sometimes, old methods come back in a new iteration only to have the theory substained. We live in a nation whose central passion has been somewhat subdued and in its place is the chorus of those chanting "safety first" safety first. We tend to believe what we read in the reloading manuals and often quote them as if they were scripture, not to be violated. Yet, time and again, we become aware of exceptions and intentional deceptions in published data. Well, we take solice, or, refuge in still being able to count ten digits on our hands and, usually, with two good eyes.

Modern handloaders have far more lab quality equipment at their disposal today. Things such as load programs, piezo strain gauges, chronographs, et al. are within the financial reach of most or free. Experimenting and getting empirical data is easier than yesteryear or even yesterdecade. We are rediscoverning the old stuff and, sometimes, we are inventing the new. But, we move forward on the backbone of other's successes and failures. We move cautiously. But, if we are not moving forward, if we are stagnant, we are finished.

The US let control of the SuperCollider escape our borders and it will come back to prove a disasterous decision. At least on the personal level we can think up new things for reloading, of new cartridges and continue a long tradition of innovation and improvement. Or, we can stand by.

Don't take this wrong Handloader, but I think that I'll stand by, keep all of my fingers etc., and let someone much smarter than me "go where no man has gone before"

Eric

There are really great loads and combinations of powders and cartridges that the loading manuals don't show. After all the manuals are published to provide middle of the road info and to sell powder and bullets. If you are going to go wildcatting it is sometimes necessary to go where no man has gone before.

I still need to do the load work on my 204 Ruger with 50 gr Bergers and WW780. Not to mention the 60 gr GunHaus bullets & WW780.

Life is just an adventure and score can be kept by appendages lost.

With that said, I just think that I will go into my reloading room and put a little bit if this powder and a little bit of that powder, and maybe top it off with some H110 and a little Blue Dot, in my trusty .45 Colt [Uberti] and in the morning, go on my mary way and make history.

Eric

damianss wrote:

... I have worked up a load for 45-70 using 500 gr hard cast that shoots 1880 fps using a triplex load and dont exceed 40000psi ...

How are you measuring the pressure?

I kinda like the way my hands, eyes, etc. work and look now so I believe I'll stick with published loads, developed by folks who have the proper testing equipment. Besides, I haven't seen any "home grown" loads that will do anything more than the published ones do.

Bushmaster wrote:

He mixes different powder together...

That's what I was thinking but wanted him to say it !!!