New Member-Looking for Ammo

[mike ford]

Diz,
Did you run that with 9.3x72R case or 9.3x80R Collath case?
Mike

[Axel E]

Hi Diz, something is completely wrong with your quickload calculation! I just filled 46 grain Vihtavuori N140 powder into a 9.3x72R case. This load filled the case to within 23.7 mm = .93" of the mouth. The seating depth of a S&B 193gr copper jacket Tesco type bullet is a mere 6.4 mm = .252" from base to top of crimping groove. This leaves me with an air space of 17.3mm = .68" between powder and bullet base, far from a 100% or compressed load. Filled to within 6.5mm = .256 of the mouth, the same 9.3x72R case took 56 gr N140! 56 gr would indeed be very excessive. I knew this without a quickload program, as I once developed a regulating load for my friend's dr drilling, originally built and proofed for the high pressure Chr.Funk load, 225gr bullet in front of 49gr R5 for 2300 fps, using 49 gr N140 behind a 250 gr Hornady RN .358" bullet. Even this load is neither capacity nor compressed.
Mike, the DEVA approved loads given above are for the 9.3x72R Normal, not for the 9.3x80R Collath or the 9.3x72R Sauer & Sohn.

[Diz]

Axel,

I don't think there is anything wrong with the program just a bit of misinformation in the input data. I rechecked the bullet seating depth and it shows 0.827" (21.01 mm) which is far too deep. I think that may be the overall length of the bullet and not the depth. So I plugged in your number 0.252" (6.4 mm) and it made a huge change in the numbers as I expected. With 46 grains of N-140 the load density is now 83.3% which is very much in line with what you measured. The MV shows 2258 fps and Max pressure of 26,187 psi (1806 bar) This is a bit higher than your number but still safe. Powder burned was 91.91% and ballistic efficiency was 26.7%. From these new numbers it looks like a very good load indeed.

The purpose I had in mind here was to cross check the program against your tested data. This is something that I don't often get to do with some of the more unique calibers. It just goes to show how easy things can go wrong when using calculated data. I have been using this program a long time and would certainly have caught the error through actual measurement during loading (I don't have any of these bullets on hand). So this has been an excellent exercise in data testing and I greatly appreciate your sharing your information with me.

Thanks again, Diz

[mike ford]

Axel,
Except for the VV N540 load, the above "DEVA approved loads" seem just a little under powered. In my rifle S&B ammo(older berdan primed)averages 2110 fps, RWS was 2094, and DWM was 2153. Due to lack of ammo, testing was very limited.With more ammo,the averages might change, but will likely still be around 2100 fps.This was all factory ammo and must have been loaded to or below allowable pressure.
Mike

[Axel E]

Mike, shoot these loads from the same barrel over the same chronograph like you did those old factory loads. The obsolete RWS load was advertized at 2018 fps, the current Sellier & Bellot load at 1952 fps, both with a 193 gr flatnose Tesco type bullet. The long obsolete RWS 200 gr pointed bullet "High Speed" or Swiss load was advertized at 2247 fps.

[mike ford]

Axel,
I don't have experience with VV powders, but had data in my records for 3031( BTW, as a product of trying to type with one hand and hold data sheets with tha other hand, a couple of my previous numbers got mixed up.The 2110 fps figure was actually for RWS, and the S&B was really 2021fps).My data for 3031 exceeds that listed above for the "DEVA approved" data, so I won't list it here. Furthermore, it includes loads with and without kapok tuft tamped over the powder; about which we have already had a "discussion", so I won't list it here either. The point is all the results are "actual", using the same rifle and chronograph as you suggested above, with factory ammo all loaded with the flatnose, 193gr Tesco type bullet. My 3031 handloads(unlisted here) used the same type RWS factory bullets.The results show that to achieve velocities similar to those actually cronographed from RWS factory ammo, loads heavier than the DEVA loads were required. Note that this was done some years ago,and not in response to the current discussion.Both my rifles are Express proofed and it is quite possible(probable) that I would have limited my loads more if I were working with a BP(only)proofed rifle.
Mike

[Leatherman]

Hi Diz, something is completely wrong with your quickload calculation! I just filled 46 grain Vihtavuori N140 powder into a 9.3x72R case. This load filled the case to within 23.7 mm = .93" of the mouth. The seating depth of a S&B 193gr copper jacket Tesco type bullet is a mere 6.4 mm = .252" from base to top of crimping groove. This leaves me with an air space of 17.3mm = .68" between powder and bullet base, far from a 100% or compressed load. Filled to within 6.5mm = .256 of the mouth, the same 9.3x72R case took 56 gr N140! 56 gr would indeed be very excessive. I knew this without a quickload program, as I once developed a regulating load for my friend's dr drilling, originally built and proofed for the high pressure Chr.Funk load, 225gr bullet in front of 49gr R5 for 2300 fps, using 49 gr N140 behind a 250 gr Hornady RN .358" bullet. Even this load is neither capacity nor compressed.
Mike, the DEVA approved loads given above are for the 9.3x72R Normal, not for the 9.3x80R Collath or the 9.3x72R Sauer & Sohn.

OK I am back ready to load my reformed .405 basic brass to 9.3X80 collath. I got my pound of VV N140 powder and a brand new RCBS scale. My digital scale was giving me up to 3 grain variations in measurements so I canned that. I did the same measurement loading the 46 grains of VV N140 into my Norma 9.3X72 brass and it came up to 16.18mm = .637" to the top of the case, that's +.293" difference than Axel got in his brass. Don't know if it is the difference in the brass capacity or the powder but that is a significant difference. I dumped the same load into my reformed now 9.3X80 Collath and it measures 32.63 mm = 1.285" to the mouth of the case. So minus the seating depth of the S&B bullet I will have a 1.033" air space between powder and bullet. Keep in mind the Collath case is fatter than the standard 9.3X 72. I have done a little reloading in years past but never had to deal with excessive air space so I have no experience using fillers. I am assuming this will need a filler so now I have to do my homework on what to use, how much, so on, so on.

[sharps4590]

With that length of case I think I'd try it before resorting to a filler. That isn't too bad a case fill but I'll agree it is not optimal.

[mike ford]

Leatherman,
It may or maynot help, but my late mentor Gene Enterkin was having trouble, similar to yours, with the digital scale he was using to weigh bullets he was producing. He found out the problems showed up when the through wall airconditioner started running. You might try a cardboard box shield around the scale, if it is exposed to differing airflow.
Mike

[sharps4590]

As Mike mentioned that my furnace is about 8 feet from one of my loading benches and I have noticed when it's running, summer or winter, my electronic scale fluctuates. I have heard that fluro. lights can effect their accuracy. My shop is all fluro lights and I've never noticed it, checking it against my beam scale. I have come to believe I prefer my beam scale to the electronic one.

[Leatherman]

I have searched online and read a lot of comments on the use of fillers in reduced loads and nitro for black loads. There seems to be a lot of fans for it but at the same time there are some repuatable sources very much against the use of them. The biggest concern is pressure spikes and the possibility of ringing the chamber or worse. I can certainly see this with fillers like cream of wheat, grits,and some other materials that may bond and become a hard mass in the case given some time. I also can see problems with the use of wads behind a bullet with an air space. What I don't understand is why some don't advocate the use of Dacron but will suggest the use of Kapok for a filler. Dacron is a fluffy man made product , the Kapok is a fluffy fiber made from the seed pod of the Kapok tree. They both do the exact same thing that being they hold the powder against the back of the case for consistent burning. I can't see how there could be any difference. My concern is when I am hunting in my tree stand which is on top of a ridge, so most of my shooting is pointing down. With a possible 1" of air space in a case i don't see a consistant situation in pressures thus accuracy .The majority of comments out there are saying a filler helps in slow to moderate burning powders but are not necessary with the fast burning powders as they are not sensitive to ignition like the slower burning powders nor should fillers be used with max loads and a jacketed bullet. Well now I am still not sure what I will wind up with because it may take a hot load to regulate this double rifle. If it were a single barrel I would keep it mild and settle for acceptable accuracy out to 100 yds. I am going to load some up with a filler and some without and see what the chrono and the rifle tell me. I'll keep you posted.

[sharps4590]

If you have Grahme Wright's book on shooting double rifles he covers fillers and has listed pressure data from Kynoch and Birmingham proof house for some loads. Sherman Bell also did a rather extensive test with the results published in The Double Gun Journal. Both are good first source info and worthy of perusal.

I shoot a lot of Unique loads and some with a filler, a fairly fast powder. If you don't believe there is a difference between identical loads, one with and one without filler, do as you mentioned and run them across a chrono. Loads with a filler are much, much more consistent, at least in my experience. As with all things to do with reloading they must be used judiciously.

[mike ford]

Leatherman,
Whether you do or don't use a filler is up to you,you are aware of the differences of opinion. You asked why some use Kapok instead of Dacron. In my case, I used Kapok, because I suspected Dacron would melt and leave residue in the barrel. My friends that did use Dacron reported they had no problem with melted Dacron/residue.
Mike

[Diz]

Leatherman,

My experience with electronic scales is that your cell phone can really bother them at least mine does especially if I get a call. I usually turn it off or put it on the other side of the shop. They are also very sensitive to drafts and the slightest vibration. I have a very solid bench but cannot do anything on it while the measure is running or it throws it off. Otherwise I never see more than +/- 0.1 grain variation.

I used Kapok for filler in the past and it worked very well. It is a natural fiber as you mention and bulks up well. I don't have any more so I have been using Dacron with equally good results. I measure it out on the scale once I get the volume I am looking for to keep it consistent. I can easily recover what comes out of my 577-450 because it looks like a chicken flying out but I haven't seen any signs of melting. My experience is that anything that takes up space in the case changes the pressure somewhat but I agree with Sharps that the loads are much more consistent. I have been working with 50 caliber fiber wads in my 12.7 x 44R lately with some good results also. I always say your results may vary so good luck.

Thanks, Diz