Henry Rifle Forums

Recently I begin to read(slowly, because i need to translate ) "Lee Modern reloading"

and i find a scary information :

low powder charge can be dangerous, with slow burning powder and too much empty space in big case
(i think 45-70 is one...)

it seems to be very difficult to recreate conditions in laboratory for that, but it can happens !

As many beginners like me could have made this mistake, I thought it necessary to mention it and protect it in your opinion to confirm this really astonishing fact.

By the way, this gives me a new question to ask:
What could be the point of using a "slow" powder?

bruniX

With regard to powders it's not so much as there being a 'point' to their use but more of what you are planning to do.
Typically slow powders are used for higher end, higher velocity loads with heavier bullets such as what might be used for hunting or longer distance shooting.
Faster powders are typically used for 'lighter' loads OR loads with smaller cases with less capacity (such as certain handgun rounds).
Regardless you need to study your reloading manual(s) to learn about the various powders and loads for whatever caliber(s) you will be loading for and always start with the lowest powder charge shown in the manual for the particular load and powder you are using!
A reloading manual is largely in part a "DIRECTIVE' and needs to be followed.

Yup, also with certain calibers, how deep the bullet sits will affect pressures, 9mm is one that comes to mind, very important to use a good manual and follow the recipes listed.

Reloading is a delicate business. Careful research and testing is a must. That being said, I'm a huge fan of fast powders because I enjoy subsonic loads. Some of my 45-70 loads use tiny amounts of powder that seem ridiculous in a case that size, but produce very safe and accurate rounds. Like Mistered, I only use slow powders for high velocity loads. A slower burn produces velocities that can't be attained with a fast powder in rifle barrels.

you ask good questions, might find this interesting reading.

http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm

slow powders, fast powders are broken down to conductive and convective powders. So not all void space is dangerous and fillers are not always needed for light charges. Just need to understand the mechanism behind the powder and pressure curves.

most loading manuals will focus on proven safe loads for selective bullets and powders. I would not stray far from those listed and all should be well. I also use the Ken Waters Pet Loads book as he explains a lot of the interesting aspects of reloading various calibers and various guns.

Keep reading and asking questions, your on the right path

BruniX wrote:Recently I begin to read(slowly, because i need to translate ) "Lee Modern reloading"

and i find a scary information :

bruniX

safety cautions found in reloading manuals are there for a reason .... in short, for liability reasons, lawyers want them to tell folks what NOT to do .... it is easy and to over think such warnings .... the bottom line is, as others have repeatedly noted, follow the recommendation given for your firearm .... example : your Henry 45-70 is designed to safely handle trapdoor and Marlin 1895 loads ....that doesn't mean your individual rifle will like them, just that they are safe to use .... ours doesn't like low end trapdoor loads .... so we've had to move up the scale to find one it likes

Hey JEBar

I found that my Marlin 1895 likes hot loads with jacketed bullets but my ruger #1 likes light loads and lead bullets. go figger. I do have some full house loads only for the ruger in barnes 250 gr HP at 2500 fpps, they are watermelon smashers..............

mrguvna wrote:Hey JEBar

I found that my Marlin 1895 likes hot loads with jacketed bullets but my ruger #1 likes light loads and lead bullets. go figger. I do have some full house loads only for the ruger in barnes 250 gr HP at 2500 fpps, they are watermelon smashers..............

I bet they are .. .. the issue we've had with light (low end trapdoor) IMR 4198 powder charges is they produce inconsistent muzzle velocities .... I'm currently working with 44 gr pushing a Nosler/Winchester combined technologies 300 gr Ballistic Silvertip and early results look good

Color me a little skeptical on the light load detonation theory.

If it were a real issue, I would think that black powder cartridges, like .38 and .44 would have easily identifiable issues.

In my mind the major danger of a light load is a squib, followed by firing another bullet down a blocked barrel. That is a well documented hazard.

clovishound wrote:Color me a little skeptical on the light load detonation theory.

If it were a real issue, I would think that black powder cartridges, like .38 and .44 would have easily identifiable issues.

In my mind the major danger of a light load is a squib, followed by firing another bullet down a blocked barrel. That is a well documented hazard.

I'm a skeptic when it comes to the detonation theory too. You're right about squibs. There's a fine line between a load that will clear the bore and one that won't. You really have to be vigilant if you load at these levels.

clovishound wrote:Color me a little skeptical on the light load detonation theory.

If it were a real issue, I would think that black powder cartridges, like .38 and .44 would have easily identifiable issues.

Black powder cartridge loading has its own issues. Having a gap between bullet and powder is one.
As to smokeless Lever Gun Performance Studies, http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm, "The Use of Pistol Powders in Rifle Cartridges" gives some info on light load detonation.
It's pretty dense.

I used the data on this website to develop light loads for my 1888 Trapdoor and was able to develop accurate loads. >> http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm That being said, I have experienced high pressure when loading light charges for .38 Special PPC loads for my revolvers. Every so often it sounds like a Magnum cartridge is being fired and the primers on the hot rounds are flattened.

IMHO the big concern is with bottle neck rifle cartridges. I contacted Hodgdon by telephone and spoke with a gentleman about loading light charge weights in 30-06 cartridges with IMR 4895. Hodgdon H4895 is made in such a way that you can get away with loading at 60% of the published maximum charge weight for a particular cartridge. The rep from Hodgdon cautioned me about trying to reduce charge weights below the published recommended minimum charge weights with any powder other than H4895, because I could experience a "burning excursion." While trying to develop an accurate lower recoil cartridge, I pulled bullets from Greek HXP 30-06 ammunition and reduced charge weights to 80% of what was in the cartridges. I experienced delayed ignition when firing the rounds out of my M1 Garand and on occasion it sounded like a .300 Winchester Magnum was fired.

I haven't blown a handgun or rifle to kingdom come, but I have been worried a few times while experimenting with reduced charge weights in bottle neck rifle cartridges. As a rule of thumb, I stick with published minimum recommended charge weights when loading bottle neck rifle cartridges. Light loads in straight wall cartridges is another story.

Flinch wrote:I used the data on this website to develop light loads for my 1888 Trapdoor and was able to develop accurate loads. >> http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm

thanks for the link .... fascinating .... loading so few grains (like 8 - 12 gr of Unique) in such a large 45-70 case really has me wondering .... depending on how the ones I've loaded using IMR 4198 work out, I will most certainly give some of these loads a try

just curious, what worked best for you .. .. thanks again

Ojaileveraction posted the link before I did.

I am using small charges of HS-6 with 350g and 405g Laser Cast bullets for my Trapdoor loads. Accuracy at 50 meters is surprisingly good and recoil is not bad. I am not seeing any signs of overpressure. I also see decent groups with Unique.

Trail Boss gunpowder has a noticeably louder report and accuracy is not as good, so I am sticking with HS-6 for now.

My 44th edition of the Lyman Reloading Handbook shows a lot of reduced loads using Unique.
If anyone would like data for one of these loads let me know - i'll scan the page for the cartridge and send it.

Flinch wrote:I used the data on this website to develop light loads for my 1888 Trapdoor and was able to develop accurate loads. >> http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm That being said, I have experienced high pressure when loading light charges for .38 Special PPC loads for my revolvers. Every so often it sounds like a Magnum cartridge is being fired and the primers on the hot rounds are flattened.

IMHO the big concern is with bottle neck rifle cartridges. I contacted Hodgdon by telephone and spoke with a gentleman about loading light charge weights in 30-06 cartridges with IMR 4895. Hodgdon H4895 is made in such a way that you can get away with loading at 60% of the published maximum charge weight for a particular cartridge. The rep from Hodgdon cautioned me about trying to reduce charge weights below the published recommended minimum charge weights with any powder other than H4895, because I could experience a "burning excursion." While trying to develop an accurate lower recoil cartridge, I pulled bullets from Greek HXP 30-06 ammunition and reduced charge weights to 80% of what was in the cartridges. I experienced delayed ignition when firing the rounds out of my M1 Garand and on occasion it sounded like a .300 Winchester Magnum was fired.

I haven't blown a handgun or rifle to kingdom come, but I have been worried a few times while experimenting with reduced charge weights in bottle neck rifle cartridges. As a rule of thumb, I stick with published minimum recommended charge weights when loading bottle neck rifle cartridges. Light loads in straight wall cartridges is another story.

thanks a lot, Flinch,
this is exactly the type of information I was looking for (and suspected, because I would have been tempted by very low loads, but the Lee moddern reloading was reporting this stuff)!
thanks also for the link ....