Testing new powders as replacement for old
Nov 21, 2022 11:16:20 GMT -7
todddoyka and shootist---Gary like this
Post by Bullshop on Nov 21, 2022 11:16:20 GMT -7
I am starting this thread to continue on something I touched on in another thread. To prevent extreme thread drift in the thread about the metamorphosis of the Ideal/Lyman # 225415 I will continue here on the subject of new powders replacing old. To start this out I will copy the first post that began the drift to this subject from the #225415 bullet design.
Today I finally got to try some of the Ideal # 225415 bullets in my Springfield 22 hornet. This was not really an official test session because it was as much a test of a new powder as for the bullet. Its been really cold but I wanted to try these quickly and informally just to see if the powder and bullet might show me anything that would indicate potential for accuracy. Well in short they did show great potential that needs explored further.
As is I only fired two three shot groups at 100 yards resting on a frozen rolled up pair of old jeans. Both groups clustered tightly and repeated an apparent pattern of two shots nearly touching and one at maybe 3/4" out.
The powder I am testing is perhaps a wee bit too slow for the 22 hornet but certainly in the ball park but perhaps better suited to heavier bullets. The powder is from Accurate powders and is named LT-30 its intended use being for the 300 BO and other small case cartridges. It is placed next to another Accurate powder on the burn rate chart # 1680 with 1680 being # 64 and LT-30 # 65 on the chart. The big difference is that #1680 is a ball powder where as LT-30 is a small grain extruded powder looking much like Alliant 2400.
The reason I am testing this powder is to see if it is a suitable replacement for still another Accurate powder # 5744 which by that way is # 63 on the burn rate chart. Since they are so close on the burn rate chart LT-30 at # 65 and # 5744 at # 63 and both being extruded powders from Accurate powders my hope was to learn that LT-30 which is readily available may be a good replacement for 5744 which seems non existent now that Hodgdons owns Accurate powders. BTW the LT-30 container has Accurate powders on the front label but also has Hodgdons on the side label.
OK so with that little background my goal is clear and the 22 hornet is the very first test done with this powder. Since I have also wanted to at least try some of the Ideal 225415 bullets it seemed like a good pairing for a two birds with one stone thingy.
So it would seem that in this application the LT-30 performs very much like 1680 in the 22 hornet where the burn rate is a wee bit too slow but with a slightly compressed charge and a hot primer works pretty darn good. If anyone is interested I used 11gn of LT-30 powder with a CCI # 450 small rifle magnum primer. The rifles report was a pleasant consistent sharp crack indicating a good consistent burn with very little powder residue left in the barrel all good signs of potential accuracy. My old Accurate powder manual shows 1680 with a 45gn lead bullet at 1850 with a charge weight of 10.4gn and 2050 with a charge weight is 11.5gn. Using that to extrapolate velocity somewhere around 1950 is likely a good guess.
Next I intend to try the LT-30 powder in the application that made 5744 so popular in large volume BPC type cases. The 5744 is in high demand but the folks at Hodgdons seem to not be listening, or just maybe they are and leaving it up to us to figure out. So that is my quest with this powder but as good fortune would have it it has earned a place in my load data archives for use in the 22 hornet with the Ideal # 225415 bullet. Life is good !
OK so with an official start on the subject of new powders replacing old I would like to add some additional though simple test results on the use of Accurate LT-30 as a possible replacement for Accurate 5744 specifically for use in large volume BPC cases. Yesterday due to extreme cold my simple and very limited test was with the 50-90 Sharps cartridge a very good representative case for the intended purpose. To get the ball rolling I referred to my Accurate powder manual #2 that shows for the 50-90 Sharps with a 550 grain lead bullet a starting load of 31.5 grain of 5744 at 1241 fps and a max load of 35 grain for a velocity of 1411 and also very importantly a chamber pressure of 20.400
Using that data and starting with a 510 grain Paul Jones bullet of 40 grain less than the RCBS design used in the Accurate manual I felt safe at starting with the max listed load for 5744 at 35 grain especially since the LT-30 powder is two positions on the slower side on the burn rate chart.
I also want to point out that I initially used fired but unsized cases and held the bullet in place with a very light crimp that was loose enough that the bullet could be turned in the case with my fingers. To say that the first test went poorly is to put it mildly. The first shot was a concerningly long hang fire and the next two better but none hitting the target at 50 yards. With that disappointing first it was back to the loading room to regroup and assess the situation. From the hang fire and blackened cases it was obvious that the pressure was way too low for anything like normal combustion of the powder. Next was to try 37 grain resulting in slightly improved ignition without hang fires but still way off the mark.
At that point the light went on in realizing that I had to add some resistance to delay the bullets movement to get the powder to burn more uniformly. With that revelation I decided to full length size the cases and add a firm crimp. I also decided to add more bullet pull in the case I would not use the neck expander die that would slightly increase the inside neck diameter and reduce bullet pull. Instead I simply used a hand punch to flair the case mouth and retain the tight case neck with a better hold on the bullet.
That and jumping to a 40 grain charge resulting in a complete transformation of the powder burn and the next two three shot groups from 100 yards were nothing short of phenomenal but I also cant deny under the conditions generously infused with luck. The first three literally went into one hole at about 3/4" from outside to outside. The second three shot group had two touching or as close as can be without touching with a third about 3" out again not surprising under the conditions.
With that though I believe what I am seeing is positive results in this powder LT-30 as a replacement for 5744.
I still intend to continue on this, Lord willing and I have already prepared some ammo loaded to 41 grain a 1 grain increase over the previous load that shot so well. I decided to increase the charge because there is still some smoke residue on the cases and the cases simply drop from the chamber when the action is opened.
Since with my original sight setting at 52 points for the 650 grain bullet I hunted with is dead on with this load I assume it is somewhere in about the same velocity range at 1200 fps. When my small supply of the 510 grain Paul Jones bullets are used up I intend to try some of the hunting bullets with this powder. I wont say for sure yet but it sure is looking like LT-30 might be a suitable replacement for the possibly discontinued Accurate 5744 powder. What remains to be seen is if this powder ass its predecessor was is not position sensitive a test that will require warmer temperatures.. We shall see.
Today I finally got to try some of the Ideal # 225415 bullets in my Springfield 22 hornet. This was not really an official test session because it was as much a test of a new powder as for the bullet. Its been really cold but I wanted to try these quickly and informally just to see if the powder and bullet might show me anything that would indicate potential for accuracy. Well in short they did show great potential that needs explored further.
As is I only fired two three shot groups at 100 yards resting on a frozen rolled up pair of old jeans. Both groups clustered tightly and repeated an apparent pattern of two shots nearly touching and one at maybe 3/4" out.
The powder I am testing is perhaps a wee bit too slow for the 22 hornet but certainly in the ball park but perhaps better suited to heavier bullets. The powder is from Accurate powders and is named LT-30 its intended use being for the 300 BO and other small case cartridges. It is placed next to another Accurate powder on the burn rate chart # 1680 with 1680 being # 64 and LT-30 # 65 on the chart. The big difference is that #1680 is a ball powder where as LT-30 is a small grain extruded powder looking much like Alliant 2400.
The reason I am testing this powder is to see if it is a suitable replacement for still another Accurate powder # 5744 which by that way is # 63 on the burn rate chart. Since they are so close on the burn rate chart LT-30 at # 65 and # 5744 at # 63 and both being extruded powders from Accurate powders my hope was to learn that LT-30 which is readily available may be a good replacement for 5744 which seems non existent now that Hodgdons owns Accurate powders. BTW the LT-30 container has Accurate powders on the front label but also has Hodgdons on the side label.
OK so with that little background my goal is clear and the 22 hornet is the very first test done with this powder. Since I have also wanted to at least try some of the Ideal 225415 bullets it seemed like a good pairing for a two birds with one stone thingy.
So it would seem that in this application the LT-30 performs very much like 1680 in the 22 hornet where the burn rate is a wee bit too slow but with a slightly compressed charge and a hot primer works pretty darn good. If anyone is interested I used 11gn of LT-30 powder with a CCI # 450 small rifle magnum primer. The rifles report was a pleasant consistent sharp crack indicating a good consistent burn with very little powder residue left in the barrel all good signs of potential accuracy. My old Accurate powder manual shows 1680 with a 45gn lead bullet at 1850 with a charge weight of 10.4gn and 2050 with a charge weight is 11.5gn. Using that to extrapolate velocity somewhere around 1950 is likely a good guess.
Next I intend to try the LT-30 powder in the application that made 5744 so popular in large volume BPC type cases. The 5744 is in high demand but the folks at Hodgdons seem to not be listening, or just maybe they are and leaving it up to us to figure out. So that is my quest with this powder but as good fortune would have it it has earned a place in my load data archives for use in the 22 hornet with the Ideal # 225415 bullet. Life is good !
OK so with an official start on the subject of new powders replacing old I would like to add some additional though simple test results on the use of Accurate LT-30 as a possible replacement for Accurate 5744 specifically for use in large volume BPC cases. Yesterday due to extreme cold my simple and very limited test was with the 50-90 Sharps cartridge a very good representative case for the intended purpose. To get the ball rolling I referred to my Accurate powder manual #2 that shows for the 50-90 Sharps with a 550 grain lead bullet a starting load of 31.5 grain of 5744 at 1241 fps and a max load of 35 grain for a velocity of 1411 and also very importantly a chamber pressure of 20.400
Using that data and starting with a 510 grain Paul Jones bullet of 40 grain less than the RCBS design used in the Accurate manual I felt safe at starting with the max listed load for 5744 at 35 grain especially since the LT-30 powder is two positions on the slower side on the burn rate chart.
I also want to point out that I initially used fired but unsized cases and held the bullet in place with a very light crimp that was loose enough that the bullet could be turned in the case with my fingers. To say that the first test went poorly is to put it mildly. The first shot was a concerningly long hang fire and the next two better but none hitting the target at 50 yards. With that disappointing first it was back to the loading room to regroup and assess the situation. From the hang fire and blackened cases it was obvious that the pressure was way too low for anything like normal combustion of the powder. Next was to try 37 grain resulting in slightly improved ignition without hang fires but still way off the mark.
At that point the light went on in realizing that I had to add some resistance to delay the bullets movement to get the powder to burn more uniformly. With that revelation I decided to full length size the cases and add a firm crimp. I also decided to add more bullet pull in the case I would not use the neck expander die that would slightly increase the inside neck diameter and reduce bullet pull. Instead I simply used a hand punch to flair the case mouth and retain the tight case neck with a better hold on the bullet.
That and jumping to a 40 grain charge resulting in a complete transformation of the powder burn and the next two three shot groups from 100 yards were nothing short of phenomenal but I also cant deny under the conditions generously infused with luck. The first three literally went into one hole at about 3/4" from outside to outside. The second three shot group had two touching or as close as can be without touching with a third about 3" out again not surprising under the conditions.
With that though I believe what I am seeing is positive results in this powder LT-30 as a replacement for 5744.
I still intend to continue on this, Lord willing and I have already prepared some ammo loaded to 41 grain a 1 grain increase over the previous load that shot so well. I decided to increase the charge because there is still some smoke residue on the cases and the cases simply drop from the chamber when the action is opened.
Since with my original sight setting at 52 points for the 650 grain bullet I hunted with is dead on with this load I assume it is somewhere in about the same velocity range at 1200 fps. When my small supply of the 510 grain Paul Jones bullets are used up I intend to try some of the hunting bullets with this powder. I wont say for sure yet but it sure is looking like LT-30 might be a suitable replacement for the possibly discontinued Accurate 5744 powder. What remains to be seen is if this powder ass its predecessor was is not position sensitive a test that will require warmer temperatures.. We shall see.