Faster powders for shorter barrels - say 1680 for a 16 inch 308

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why don't you read this whole thread.

See https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1924212-Guns-designed-without-out-of-battery-discharge-protection

I've been shooting for about 45 years and, as far as I can tell, I've had what I believe to be 3 different experiences with out of battery detonation "OOB"s. Considering the many 10s of thousands of rounds I've fired and the large number of guns I've owned, that's probably not out of the ordinary.

I did start a thread a while back to review the issue our of battery detonations. When you look at that thread, as I think you should, you'll see that quite a few other posters shared their experiences; so much so that this is was actually quite an informative thread.

The thread starts-off with me mentioning that I had had an experience where I had been firing reloaded ammo out of a Thureon Defense 10 millimeter carbine. Too bad for Hitzy, but nothing actually blew up. Instead, I found that among my fired brass was the case which had the head area totally swollen for about 6mms the up from the rim then the case diameter went down to normal. I knew enough, at that point, to immediately understand that this had been an out of battery detonation (OOB), where the swollen part of the case had obviously been protruding out of the chamber when the case had been fired.

I mentioned in the thread that I immediately, put this experience together with information that I had read, on CGN, about another guy who had had the same thing happen with his TD 10mm carbine. I was curious enough about this pattern that I tested my TD 10mm and my TD 9mm carbines and found that each could fire out of battery.

The test method is in the post. As an aside, I tested my Colt 9mm carbine and found that it could not fire OOB, These insight prompted me to start the thread.

As people added their experiences, in the thread these reminded me of two other experiences I had had - a lot further back - which became clear to me were also OOB situations. One was with a 22LR pistol - which suffered some damage firing factory 22 Aquilla ammo that Canadian Tire had been told not to sell.

The other was a case where I was firing a converted auto M14 in 243 using sub max reloads of H414 and 100 Gr soft points.

I don’t experiment with reloading as you guys do, but am a boring guy who just loads ammo for my two main shooting sports, hunting and IPSC. I usually load long batches on a Dillon 550B - hundreds of identical rounds at time. Once a run of identical rounds are produced, they go in a bag or box and are labelled.

I have my dies set adjusted and left for years in D550B individual tool heads (one per caliber). That tool head includes a flow through powder die with a powder measure mounted on that. The powder measure never comes of the tool head and don’t uses the same powder measure for pistol powder and rifle powder or whatever. Everything stays in one configuration.

On the day in question, I fired at least 20 rounds without issue, shooting offhand. After that round count (and I don’t know the actual no.) a round from that same well-marked batch grenaded - seriously damaging the gun.

That was many years ago and I didn’t know what OOBs were so I only thought maybe I’d made a reloading error – but I couldn't imagine what.

With that reloading set-up I have described you get a round every pull of the handle - and if you were try to do a double throw everything would be obviously wrong. You’d be trying to put a bullet on a completed round (in station four), you’d be trying to insert a new case in station one – where a case already was, etc. and the powder would over-flow.

One of the posters mentioned that he had lost an eye to his Springfield Armory M1A1 gun due to an OOB - and when he said that, things clicked. I now am convinced that my M14 experience was an OOB.

I’m leaving stuff out so read the whole thread.

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...d-without-out-of-battery-discharge-protection

My experiences are posts 1, 5, and 14.

As recently as 6:20 this evening Hitzy was posting

“Makes much more sense now how he blew up 3 guns...”

Hitzy did that post this evening even though kodiakjack had already read the thread and 10 hours early and wrote

Not with his hand loads.” ... after someone else made the same false claim.

I don’t think Hitzy would like you to read post #18 of thread because it kind of dumps a load on his persistent efforts to claim that this event must have been as a result of my handloading error.

This is what I’m referring to.

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...protection?p=16432460&viewfull=1#post16432460

The M14 was repaired and is still in my collection. No damage was suffered by the TD carbine and Canadian Tire acknowledged blame and paid for the repairs to my Erma EP 22 pistol.

The number of guns I have blown up as a result of handloading - or otherwise - is ZERO

That's pretty easy to answer - and has already been answered. That was written before the poster told me about his OOB experience with the M1A1 and before I did some research into other similar cases - which changed my conclusion to one that made more sense.

See above
<quote>

That was many years ago and I didn’t know what OOBs were so I only thought maybe I’d made a reloading error – but I couldn't imagine what.

With that reloading set-up I have described you get a round every pull of the handle - and if you were try to do a double throw everything would be obviously wrong. You’d be trying to put a bullet on a completed round (in station four), you’d be trying to insert a new case in station one – where a case already was, etc. and the powder would over-flow.

One of the posters mentioned that he had lost an eye to his Springfield Armory M1A1 gun due to an OOB - and when he said that, things clicked. I now am convinced that my M14 experience was an OOB.

<unquote>
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure you meant to quote yourself there...

Unless you’ve given up and decided to just carry on the conversation with yourself ;-)
 
I’m not sure you meant to quote yourself there...

Unless you’ve given up and decided to just carry on the conversation with yourself ;-)

Yeah, that was a boob. I meant to reply to you. I had to rush off to a breakfast meeting. Like I said, I'm not one of those retired guys.

BTW I'd rather get back to the real topic here - I only got into that other matter reluctantly - since some obviously-unpleasant people seemed to making an odd and annoying effort at goading me.
 
Last edited:
FYI there are some pretty negative people out there - including folks who complain about - or criticize - QuickLo*d; usually on the basis that the results don't always agree with what's published in manuals.

Actually, manuals don't always agree with manuals either. Consider the loads for 123-125 gr. boolits in 303 Brit with AA2460.

125 gr 24602.jpg


manuals.jpg


What is the max? 45.1 or 40.5?

On the other hand, maybe Hitzy will disagree that they disagree ... just to be disagreeable
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that was a boob. I meant to reply to you. I had to rush off to a breakfast meeting. Like I said, I'm not one of those retired guys.

BTW I'd rather get back to the real topic here - I only got into that other matter reluctantly - since some obviously-unpleasant people seemed to making an odd and annoying effort at goading me.



Yes please.


Can we start here:

With your explanation it is now clear that this is really just a very basic static pressure graph, created by just putting some powder in a closed pressure vessel, making it go bang and measuring the pressure as it goes up and down. This is just a representation of how powder X burns in a closed vessel and so the references to a “load” and a caliber (“308”) were really just an irrelevant red herrings – which did, indeed, confuse me.

Thank you for this clarification. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, a static pressure graph like this doesn’t really provide useful insights into how much muzzle blast would be associated with a given load. IIRC QL is more useful for assessing the likely level of muzzle blast - since I believe it determines the dynamic (not static) pressures of the load at different burn times and at different muzzle lengths. I’ll look out for that feature when I get my new copy – hopeful soon.



Can you walk me through once again what you think the graph is depicting? And please don’t say “pipe bomb” this time.
 
I have some experience in the process of load development for loading manuals.

Some calibers are shot in SAAMI spec pressure barrels. These barrels are made to specifications made for pressure barrels by high quality barrel makers. The barrels I used were made by Lija.

The Americans don't typically have pressure barrels for what they consider "obscure" calibers. They use real rifles and develop loads much the same way you and I would. Keep adding powder until there is pressure - then back off.

There is a huge difference in rifles. High quality rifles can show 150 fps difference between "identical" rifles (308W). I have a load manual that for the 6.5x55 the loads were developed in a 18" M96 Carbine.

The two books shown above both used strain gauges on Lee Enfields instead of piezoelectric pressure barrels . One could have been a .311 and the other could be a .315 with a worn throat.

And the 125 gr bullets may have been different brands (shapes) with different jumps to the lands.

"Max" means it was max in their rifle. Max in your rifle is up to you to find. Their Start load could be max in your rifle. (I have seen that.)

Don't assume that a load under max in the book is safe in your rifle. It may not be.

The book probably suggests starting with the Start load, and working from there.
 
Last edited:
Actually, manuals don't always agree with manuals either. Consider the loads for 123-125 gr. boolits in 303 Brit with AA2460.

125 gr 24602.jpg


manuals.jpg


What is the max? 45.1 or 40.5?

On the other hand, maybe Hitzy will disagree that they disagree ... just to be disagreeable

As already mentioned, book max is pretty meaningless, your rifle and components will dictate what the max load is.
What I do see between the 2, is the powder charges and velocity are fairly similar for matching charge weights despite the 12.5% or so difference in max loads listed, so there is some consistency there, which would help someone develop a load. The AA manual used a No4 rifle, and that may be the "mystery" that has you stumped between the max loads.
I certainly wouldn't load the same for my No1 MK3 as I would for my No3 MK1, despite what the max loads in any manual might indicate.
Maybe that's why you keep blowing stuff up?
 
Pretty obvious that someone is going out of their way to be ignorant. I will be contacting the mods.

Actually he gave you a very good answer as did Ganderite. You should consider turning your sensitivity down as this is the internet. Now as for this thread you are arguing with a computer simulation. Quickload is very good software but it is still just a computer generated guess. As for what you wish to accomplish, reducing muzzle blast and flash in short barrels, consider the case volume for both the 7.62x39 and 308 from the video you posted. Here's a good example of why with my point being that powder burn rate isn't everything. A friend of mine has a Mossberg MVP Patrol in 308 with a 16.5" barrel. He handloads and last I heard his target load used a 168 Nosler hpbt and varget. IIRC his accuracy load was around 2500-2550 fps. With a Griffin Armament comp it definitely had some muzzle blast. Now for my point, my 22" .30-06 driving a 180 AB with 57 grs H4350, a powder not much slower than Varget, was considerably louder. But .30-06 has always been more blasty than 308 in my experience even when using mid burners like 4895. Consider case volume differences and the associated gas volume produced by both with the same powder. .30-06 with its 10+ grs more powder and similar case fill creates a good amount more gas volume. If you look at 7.62x39 compared to .308 you see a similar difference especially since the X39 is different enough to use faster powders than 308 typically uses. To round all this out, I believe this will factor into your testing and show you some things that Quickload doesn't. Granted sticking with light for caliber bullets gives you the best chance of success but unless you're after max velocity then there may be slower powders than AA1680 that work better for your intended goals. As Ganderite said, with very fast powders you will hit max pressure before you get similar velocity to a more appropriate powder. So the question is if 1680 can get the velocity you desire (assuming you'd like to keep it close to more traditional powders) without creating excessive pressure or fireworks. And I don't mean what quickload says it should do but rather how it plays out in real world testing.
 
So, are we now all in agreement that faster powders will not give higher velocity in shorter barrels?

Actually at barrel lengths shorter than the measurement of where peak pressure is met, the bullet velocity will theoretically be higher for the faster powder. That would be somehere in the 1" to 2" barrel length range in this instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom