I found some old powder measure scoops from Lee that I had laying around in a bag. This is a very good thing. Now I can actually measure the puff-lon and get more accurate results.
NOTE: you can't really weigh puff-lon. You have to measure by volume.
Tomorrow if possible I will re-try my 7.9 and 7.8 grain loads and see what happens. I might also seat a little longer too.
Here are my calculations:
7.9 grains of H110= .518 cubic cm. If I add a flat scoop using the .5 scoop that would be 1.18 cubic cm in the case.
I don't know the actual average case capacity of 300 BLK brass but I know I was putting in A LOT more towards the end just to see what would happen. I am also glad I can be much more specific in my application of the product too.
I also think a slightly longer round will have a slightly slower velocity. If I can slow em down 50 fps on average I will be in the zone and then I can start tinkering with accuracy.
Powder Shootout. CFE Black vs A1680
Moderators: gds, bakerjw, renegade, bamachem
Re: Powder Shootout. CFE Black vs A1680
Generally case capacity is based on grains of water it will hold by weight. Depending on how the case is formed, trimmed and the thickness of brass, they will hold around 25 grains. I’m sure there is an online calculator for conversion.alamo5000 wrote:I found some old powder measure scoops from Lee that I had laying around in a bag. This is a very good thing. Now I can actually measure the puff-lon and get more accurate results.
NOTE: you can't really weigh puff-lon. You have to measure by volume.
Tomorrow if possible I will re-try my 7.9 and 7.8 grain loads and see what happens. I might also seat a little longer too.
Here are my calculations:
7.9 grains of H110= .518 cubic cm. If I add a flat scoop using the .5 scoop that would be 1.18 cubic cm in the case.
I don't know the actual average case capacity of 300 BLK brass but I know I was putting in A LOT more towards the end just to see what would happen. I am also glad I can be much more specific in my application of the product too.
I also think a slightly longer round will have a slightly slower velocity. If I can slow em down 50 fps on average I will be in the zone and then I can start tinkering with accuracy.
For what it’s worth, H110 will be very close to 1/1 for water weight.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
Re: Powder Shootout. CFE Black vs A1680
Very familiar with the grains of water thing. What I am trying to figure out is two fold:dellet wrote: Generally case capacity is based on grains of water it will hold by weight. Depending on how the case is formed, trimmed and the thickness of brass, they will hold around 25 grains. I’m sure there is an online calculator for conversion.
For what it’s worth, H110 will be very close to 1/1 for water weight.
1. All those calculations in cubic cm. This part is easy. 25 grains of water= 1.5 cubic cm
2. How much case capacity is left AFTER the bullet is seated. I figure roughly with a bullet like a 220 SMK that will leave me with about 1 cubic cm of space to play with.
According to Lee's powder/volume chart 1 grain of H110 is equal to .0656 cubic cm. Hence 7.9 grains X .0656= .518 cubic cm, or in other words, slightly over half the case capacity (with that particular bullet) is filled.
I am not 100% sure on my calculations but I think I am close enough. Feel free to correct me anyone.
---
Also, dellet, question for you... I am not sure if you said it or someone else, but when playing with cast bullets (or really any bullet) a slightly longer seating depth will give slightly less velocity and a slightly shorter (deeper) seating depth will give slightly faster velocity correct?
Is that a correct statement? (Just trying to verify here).
---
On a side note I loaded 5 rounds this evening using 7.9 grains of H110 and .5 cc of Puff-Lon. Together that should give me 1.18 cc of case fill. I also changed my seating depth out a little bit to see if I can reduce my muzzle velocity about 50 fps.
If it's not raining tomorrow I will do a 5 round test and hopefully I get consistent velocity where I want them at.
Re: Powder Shootout. CFE Black vs A1680
Actual case capacity is way too much math, that’s why things like “Quickload”were invented. You have a tapered case, formed from tapered brass. Then you stick a bullet in it that generally has a tapered base. So trying to figure available case volume left for powder at a certain depth is more than my 10th grade math can do.
Once you figure the volume needed for your filler, you need to find a way know how much the bullet will actually be able to displace up around the base and fill the gap beteeen the bullet and the case. After that you need to hope the two materials are packed tight enough so they don’t mix. This brings up other possible issues.
Some powders, and H110 is one, that seem to have an issue when compressed. They throw some pretty good velocity swings that indicate pressure spikes. In my experience, in this cartridge, working up a ladder, you often see a drop in velocity about .2 grains before you blow a primer. That’s when you know you’ve compressed it about .020” too much.
For what it’s worth this powder doesn’t seem to like low density loads either, again high ES numbers.
I have never worked with Puff-Lon so I don’t know how it effects pressure. This ties into your question of seating depth and velocity. These numbers will be from Quickload.
A 220 SMK with 10 grains of H110. 9” barrel @
2.260”, 77% fill, 34,000 psi 1130 fps
2.100” 100% fill 56,000 psi 1240 fps.
There is a direct relationship between how fast the gasses expand into a given chamber, and the pressure they create. It’s possible pressures will rise by adding the puff-Lon just like they would if you seated the bullet deeper. You have taken away the available space formgasses to expand. This would be the first question I want answered before I used it. Just because it’s inert, doesn’t mean it can’t effect pressure, it might actually lower it.
So seating deeper, creates more pressure giving more velocity. The other thing it does is change the burn rate of the powder. You have a higher peak pressure, and a lower muzzle pressure. This helps eliminate noise, but it leaves less gas to cycle the action.
A quick look at your data may confirm some of this. Your loads at 8.2 had tight ES numbers, 7.9 was all over the map. What was the average velocity of the 7.9 load?
It will be interesting to see how it’s works. I would probably compare 8 grain load with and without the filler for average velocity and ES/SD numbers.
When I use 296 I have a simple process. I use a fired case and drop my powder charge in, seat what ever bullet I want to use on the powder and that’s my starting COL. If its too short I use a different powder.
Not sure any of that helped but there it is.
Once you figure the volume needed for your filler, you need to find a way know how much the bullet will actually be able to displace up around the base and fill the gap beteeen the bullet and the case. After that you need to hope the two materials are packed tight enough so they don’t mix. This brings up other possible issues.
Some powders, and H110 is one, that seem to have an issue when compressed. They throw some pretty good velocity swings that indicate pressure spikes. In my experience, in this cartridge, working up a ladder, you often see a drop in velocity about .2 grains before you blow a primer. That’s when you know you’ve compressed it about .020” too much.
For what it’s worth this powder doesn’t seem to like low density loads either, again high ES numbers.
I have never worked with Puff-Lon so I don’t know how it effects pressure. This ties into your question of seating depth and velocity. These numbers will be from Quickload.
A 220 SMK with 10 grains of H110. 9” barrel @
2.260”, 77% fill, 34,000 psi 1130 fps
2.100” 100% fill 56,000 psi 1240 fps.
There is a direct relationship between how fast the gasses expand into a given chamber, and the pressure they create. It’s possible pressures will rise by adding the puff-Lon just like they would if you seated the bullet deeper. You have taken away the available space formgasses to expand. This would be the first question I want answered before I used it. Just because it’s inert, doesn’t mean it can’t effect pressure, it might actually lower it.
So seating deeper, creates more pressure giving more velocity. The other thing it does is change the burn rate of the powder. You have a higher peak pressure, and a lower muzzle pressure. This helps eliminate noise, but it leaves less gas to cycle the action.
A quick look at your data may confirm some of this. Your loads at 8.2 had tight ES numbers, 7.9 was all over the map. What was the average velocity of the 7.9 load?
It will be interesting to see how it’s works. I would probably compare 8 grain load with and without the filler for average velocity and ES/SD numbers.
When I use 296 I have a simple process. I use a fired case and drop my powder charge in, seat what ever bullet I want to use on the powder and that’s my starting COL. If its too short I use a different powder.
Not sure any of that helped but there it is.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
Re: Powder Shootout. CFE Black vs A1680
More interesting results regarding Puff-Lon.
I tweaked a couple of factors but I really wanted to bring velocity down and experiment some.
Because I was getting faster velocity I decided to seat my bullet longer. I didn't measure it exactly but it's pretty much magazine length. I still have a little room to play long or short.
In this test I used standard (longer) seating depth across all rounds.
I am using a 217 grain cast bullet with Hi Tek coating.
I used the exact same crimp.
I loaded every round to exactly 7.9 grains of H110 using a balance scale.
In my first 5 shots I put exactly .5 cc of puff lon into the case on top of the charge. To the best of my knowledge this gave me right at case fill without having too much of a compressed load. If it was compressed at all it was very minor.
In my second string I did everything exactly the same but I only added .3cc of puff lon.
I chrono'ed every round.
---
On the first string if you throw out the top and bottom my average velocity was 1074 fps with a max spread of 30fps. If you include the top and bottom my average velocity was 1079 with a max spread of 40 fps.
Those velocities are only approximations because I didn't take time to ensure everything was level. I also did not match brass. I am using mixed head stamp brass so any velocity differences can be contributed to brass or some other factor.
I should also note that my 9" AR SBR had full function and full lock back after the last round.
---
On the second string using .3cc of Puff lon my highest shot was 1141 and my lowest was 1087. The ONLY variable was the .2cc of Puff lon that was left out.
There were obvious spikes in there because several rounds went well over the 1100 fps mark. I also had good cycling but no bolt hold open on the last shot.
---
So far my tips for using Puff-Lon are to convert your charge and everything to cubic centimeters. As demonstrated above the amount of puff-lon used matters. Depending on the powder it might be less sensitive, but I chose H110 because it's more of a 'race horse' kind of powder more intended for supers.
That said I demonstrated today that I can get reliable subsonic loads out of it, with much faster cast bullets none the less. IMO the Puff Lon opens the door to a much more wide array of powders that can be used.
What it also does is open the door for MANY lighter grain bullets to be loaded to subsonic velocities (albeit probably with different powders) and still have 100% function of an AR platform. I am highly confident that I could get subsonics to work reliably at subsonic velocities with bullets in the 168 and up range. I don't mean the bullets would just shoot, but the rounds would also cycle the action and have hold open as well.
In my first impressions Puff-Lon opens a lot of doors, for example load up on cheap 180 grain jacketed bullets and you could make subs all day for plinking and possibly other needs.
---
Loading with Puff Lon is a medium to advanced practice for reloaders. If you're a noob it's safe to try but for best results get your routine down first. For the experienced, you will need to try and convert measurements to 'cc' to verify volumes not just weights.
---
Lastly, even with the H110 I noticed a greatly reduced sound signature of my loads and the first string had 100% reliability and all were reliably subsonic. I experienced no runaways. I used H110 precisely because it's harder to work with for a sub load, particularly with a cast bullet.
I also experienced zero pressure signs. Also my ejection pattern was good and strong.
I will try other powders which I greatly look forward to doing. Hopefully I can find that magic 'so quiet I can't believe it' load. On my limited factory ammo shooting it was noticeably quieter. Remington 220's are barely tolerable. Hornady 208 is very quiet, the quietest I've tested so far in my setup. I will do a side by side comparison once I get to a 'good' load, but needless to say today's sound signatures were noticeably more quiet than at least 3 or 4 factory offerings of subsonic ammo (that I have tried). They probably rivaled the Hornady, and still have room to go even quieter.
I would be interested in (once I am done) actually sending some rounds off to someone with a meter and having them actually meter the differences. I would venture a guess that you could obtain a -4Db to a -6Db sound reduction across the board (muzzle and ear) using the same gun, same can, same day, but comparing the LOUDEST subsonic ammo I've ever heard (Remington 220's) to some of the loads that are possible to make up on your own with the right components.
I tweaked a couple of factors but I really wanted to bring velocity down and experiment some.
Because I was getting faster velocity I decided to seat my bullet longer. I didn't measure it exactly but it's pretty much magazine length. I still have a little room to play long or short.
In this test I used standard (longer) seating depth across all rounds.
I am using a 217 grain cast bullet with Hi Tek coating.
I used the exact same crimp.
I loaded every round to exactly 7.9 grains of H110 using a balance scale.
In my first 5 shots I put exactly .5 cc of puff lon into the case on top of the charge. To the best of my knowledge this gave me right at case fill without having too much of a compressed load. If it was compressed at all it was very minor.
In my second string I did everything exactly the same but I only added .3cc of puff lon.
I chrono'ed every round.
---
On the first string if you throw out the top and bottom my average velocity was 1074 fps with a max spread of 30fps. If you include the top and bottom my average velocity was 1079 with a max spread of 40 fps.
Those velocities are only approximations because I didn't take time to ensure everything was level. I also did not match brass. I am using mixed head stamp brass so any velocity differences can be contributed to brass or some other factor.
I should also note that my 9" AR SBR had full function and full lock back after the last round.
---
On the second string using .3cc of Puff lon my highest shot was 1141 and my lowest was 1087. The ONLY variable was the .2cc of Puff lon that was left out.
There were obvious spikes in there because several rounds went well over the 1100 fps mark. I also had good cycling but no bolt hold open on the last shot.
---
So far my tips for using Puff-Lon are to convert your charge and everything to cubic centimeters. As demonstrated above the amount of puff-lon used matters. Depending on the powder it might be less sensitive, but I chose H110 because it's more of a 'race horse' kind of powder more intended for supers.
That said I demonstrated today that I can get reliable subsonic loads out of it, with much faster cast bullets none the less. IMO the Puff Lon opens the door to a much more wide array of powders that can be used.
What it also does is open the door for MANY lighter grain bullets to be loaded to subsonic velocities (albeit probably with different powders) and still have 100% function of an AR platform. I am highly confident that I could get subsonics to work reliably at subsonic velocities with bullets in the 168 and up range. I don't mean the bullets would just shoot, but the rounds would also cycle the action and have hold open as well.
In my first impressions Puff-Lon opens a lot of doors, for example load up on cheap 180 grain jacketed bullets and you could make subs all day for plinking and possibly other needs.
---
Loading with Puff Lon is a medium to advanced practice for reloaders. If you're a noob it's safe to try but for best results get your routine down first. For the experienced, you will need to try and convert measurements to 'cc' to verify volumes not just weights.
---
Lastly, even with the H110 I noticed a greatly reduced sound signature of my loads and the first string had 100% reliability and all were reliably subsonic. I experienced no runaways. I used H110 precisely because it's harder to work with for a sub load, particularly with a cast bullet.
I also experienced zero pressure signs. Also my ejection pattern was good and strong.
I will try other powders which I greatly look forward to doing. Hopefully I can find that magic 'so quiet I can't believe it' load. On my limited factory ammo shooting it was noticeably quieter. Remington 220's are barely tolerable. Hornady 208 is very quiet, the quietest I've tested so far in my setup. I will do a side by side comparison once I get to a 'good' load, but needless to say today's sound signatures were noticeably more quiet than at least 3 or 4 factory offerings of subsonic ammo (that I have tried). They probably rivaled the Hornady, and still have room to go even quieter.
I would be interested in (once I am done) actually sending some rounds off to someone with a meter and having them actually meter the differences. I would venture a guess that you could obtain a -4Db to a -6Db sound reduction across the board (muzzle and ear) using the same gun, same can, same day, but comparing the LOUDEST subsonic ammo I've ever heard (Remington 220's) to some of the loads that are possible to make up on your own with the right components.
Re: Powder Shootout. CFE Black vs A1680
So looks like no real change in velocity with the 7.9 grains and adding the Puff-Lon, but tightened the spread from yesterday's loads?
Factory loads need to reliably cycle the worst rifle on the market. Reliable=loud. 1680 or something close is widely used. CFE is also very loud. Most of what you are hearing is coming out the ejection port, but they are still loud in a bolt action.
You're probably about another dozen shots from becoming a powder snob
Good stuff you have going tho, interesting to have someone detail the progress.
A bit of inspiration, when you start playing with the pressure curves, some interesting things can happen.
Load:
125sst
LC converted brass 1.355"
COL 2.10
11gr 4227
1010 fps avg.
Full function, 7" AR
Factory loads need to reliably cycle the worst rifle on the market. Reliable=loud. 1680 or something close is widely used. CFE is also very loud. Most of what you are hearing is coming out the ejection port, but they are still loud in a bolt action.
You're probably about another dozen shots from becoming a powder snob
Good stuff you have going tho, interesting to have someone detail the progress.
A bit of inspiration, when you start playing with the pressure curves, some interesting things can happen.
Load:
125sst
LC converted brass 1.355"
COL 2.10
11gr 4227
1010 fps avg.
Full function, 7" AR
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
Re: Powder Shootout. CFE Black vs A1680
Today I had lower velocity by about 15-20 fps on average. Yesterday the load was extremely consistent. I will do a side by side comparison with 7.9 vs 8.0 and see which one yields better accuracy. I was seating much deeper on the first test yesterday so no telling what will happen. I may play with my seating depth more later on or maybe topping up slightly more Puff Lon.dellet wrote:So looks like no real change in velocity with the 7.9 grains and adding the Puff-Lon, but tightened the spread from yesterday's loads?
---
You're probably about another dozen shots from becoming a powder snob
---
Good stuff you have going tho, interesting to have someone detail the progress.
With today's longer depth I had greater deviations than yesterday. 30 fps vs 9 fps although the sample sizes were different.
The go to load is out there somewhere. That's for sure. I am almost right on it. After I prove consistent velocity I will work on sufficient accuracy. Much more testing to be done.
---
As far as me being a powder snob... I already AM a powder snob! LOL! I can't wait to try out the Accurate #9 to see if the sound signature is reduced even more. You guys totally have me convinced to buy the VV powders too. How can I NOT try it now?
---
Yes I am writing up about my progress but it's important to note that my bullet is not their bullet. Results can vary. Things could change so tinkering is in order per specific need. I am a super nerd about this stuff. I love geeking out on it.
Sometimes my writing stuff down either prompts questions or comments that either get me thinking or someone says 'have you tried....' and viola things come together better. I am not writing from the perspective of knowing it all. I am more writing from the perspective of not knowing anything. LOL!
At the end of the day though I write long posts. I am notorious for that. But I always wonder if anyone even reads my stuff at all, like ever! LOL!
Re: Powder Shootout. CFE Black vs A1680
dellet (or anyone else)--- I got more data from a few strings I ran today, but before I get into that I ran into a problem. I need to know the cause and effect, and more importantly if there is a solution.
I have not shot a lot of coated bullets before. This 300 BLK is the first time ever. I have fired maybe 100 to 200 rounds during my various testing. It doesn't sound like a lot but when you shoot 5 shots to collect data at a time it's can be a pretty good data set. (Being able to shoot in my back yard and have a reloading set up in the house has benefits).
The Problem
Today I went to shoot and my very first round I pulled the charging handle and let it rip. The round did not go into full battery. I tried pulling the charging handle and I was going 'stuck case!'... only it wasn't a stuck case. I finally pulled it out and the bullet had been completely unseated from the case. I had a bullet stuck in my chamber! It took quite a lot of force but it came completely apart.
I brought my gun back inside where I have some smooth rods that are perfect for a 9" barrel. I gently tapped on it from the muzzle end and about 3 gentle taps and it came out. The bullet wasn't deformed or anything like that. In fact I could reload it and use it no problem.
What ALSO came out though was the culprit. I saw it laying on the ground where I had been working...apparently my chamber has gotten slightly leaded up and it made a lead 'hoop' where the bullet normally would chamber, and this is what caused my stuck bullet.
More Info
As I have been testing quite a lot I have used various OAL of the rounds. Admittedly a lot of my bullets (originally) were loaded very short, shorter than magazine length. I've played with that a little bit but most have been shorter rounds. Rather recently I've shot probably 20 rounds that were more like actual magazine length. I still have room to play there if I need to make the OAL even longer.
I have shot at velocities (max) 1300+ fps, a lot around the mid 1100's, and a bunch 1050-1100.
Answers?
What causes this to happen? The leading I mean. After I unstuck that one round and got the bullet out of my chamber I shot 10 more rounds seated to that exact length as the stuck one and they ran like a champ. Not even a single hiccup. I originally thought it was the case, but on further inspection, no. It was the actual bullet that was stuck.
What can I do to avoid this issue? Shorter rounds? Longer rounds? Or is it just part of the turf? The powders have been primarily H110 but I have also used other powders as well such as IMR 4895 just to see (and it worked).
How though do I avoid leading my chamber up when using cast bullets?
I have not shot a lot of coated bullets before. This 300 BLK is the first time ever. I have fired maybe 100 to 200 rounds during my various testing. It doesn't sound like a lot but when you shoot 5 shots to collect data at a time it's can be a pretty good data set. (Being able to shoot in my back yard and have a reloading set up in the house has benefits).
The Problem
Today I went to shoot and my very first round I pulled the charging handle and let it rip. The round did not go into full battery. I tried pulling the charging handle and I was going 'stuck case!'... only it wasn't a stuck case. I finally pulled it out and the bullet had been completely unseated from the case. I had a bullet stuck in my chamber! It took quite a lot of force but it came completely apart.
I brought my gun back inside where I have some smooth rods that are perfect for a 9" barrel. I gently tapped on it from the muzzle end and about 3 gentle taps and it came out. The bullet wasn't deformed or anything like that. In fact I could reload it and use it no problem.
What ALSO came out though was the culprit. I saw it laying on the ground where I had been working...apparently my chamber has gotten slightly leaded up and it made a lead 'hoop' where the bullet normally would chamber, and this is what caused my stuck bullet.
More Info
As I have been testing quite a lot I have used various OAL of the rounds. Admittedly a lot of my bullets (originally) were loaded very short, shorter than magazine length. I've played with that a little bit but most have been shorter rounds. Rather recently I've shot probably 20 rounds that were more like actual magazine length. I still have room to play there if I need to make the OAL even longer.
I have shot at velocities (max) 1300+ fps, a lot around the mid 1100's, and a bunch 1050-1100.
Answers?
What causes this to happen? The leading I mean. After I unstuck that one round and got the bullet out of my chamber I shot 10 more rounds seated to that exact length as the stuck one and they ran like a champ. Not even a single hiccup. I originally thought it was the case, but on further inspection, no. It was the actual bullet that was stuck.
What can I do to avoid this issue? Shorter rounds? Longer rounds? Or is it just part of the turf? The powders have been primarily H110 but I have also used other powders as well such as IMR 4895 just to see (and it worked).
How though do I avoid leading my chamber up when using cast bullets?
-
Bob the nailer
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 277
- Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:03 am
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
Re: Powder Shootout. CFE Black vs A1680
Following this thread I'm eager to hear any of your latest results with the jacketed bullets? I'll throw a little something into the mix I've also been loading with puff- lon as a case filler for subs, however I coat my lapua 200 grain rbbt sub sonic bullets with Hbn. N120 is the powder I use and so far OCW testing is promising.
One ragged hole! The quest for accuracy continues...
Bob the nailer
NRA Life member
Varmint Hunters Assoc. Member
American Gunsmith Association
www.knowyourzero.com
Bob the nailer
NRA Life member
Varmint Hunters Assoc. Member
American Gunsmith Association
www.knowyourzero.com
Re: Powder Shootout. CFE Black vs A1680
I've had this exact issue happen. My best educated guess was that there were two issues:
1: The barrel was new and there were sharp edges in the chamber that was shaving the coated bullets.
2: The coated bullets were oversized at about .312.
I shot a several hundred supersonic jacketed rounds through the new barrel to brake it it. I resized the coated cast bullets to .309 - .310. No more lead rings.
Also, be certain that you are properly belling your case mouths, chamfering the inside of the case mouths, and only crimping enough to take the bell out.
1: The barrel was new and there were sharp edges in the chamber that was shaving the coated bullets.
2: The coated bullets were oversized at about .312.
I shot a several hundred supersonic jacketed rounds through the new barrel to brake it it. I resized the coated cast bullets to .309 - .310. No more lead rings.
Also, be certain that you are properly belling your case mouths, chamfering the inside of the case mouths, and only crimping enough to take the bell out.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 295 guests