Duck Hunting Forum banner

20 ga herters hull/head separation with reload

2K views 42 replies 9 participants last post by  Dave in AZ 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1454693100.831486.jpg

I loaded up some BPI invincible loads using 20 gauge herters once fired two and three-quarter inch hulls. This is a heavyweight ITX 13 load number 150227-6318. It is listed in the load of the week and also advantages eighth. It's a fairly high pressure load 11,500 psi going 1640 with 382 grains of heavyweight 13 shot. I dropped the powder One and a half grains down to 41 of lil gun. The only thing different I did was follow bpi recommendation and RSI also to waterproof the top of the crimp. I used a soft rubber RTV silicon sealant, similar to that sold by BPI but from Home Depot, with a very small amount smeared into the crimp. Same sort of stuff you'd put around a sink to stop a leak. Bpi itself recommends using crimp sealant, and states the pressure increase is "nominal", but then puts a sentence recommending it not be used with high-pressure loads. This why I dropped the powder a small bit--didn't need 1640 fps and figured it would drop pressures from the 11,500psi listed. The sealant remains soft and does not harden up like glue it's more like the gum on the back of a sticker but loses its stickiness upon drying; because of this it has very little tensile strength and I would not expected to increase pressure at all versus glues or hard drying sealants.

I fired one of these and the entire hull separated and was stuck in the chamber-- the extractor pulled the entire base metal head off leaving the plastic whole and complete and stuck in the chamber which I had to push out with the cleaning rod. The mouth of the hull was opened slightly lopsided, making me think the silicone may have caused issues opening and increased the pressure.

I will send in some of these to Precision for pressure testing because it looks like a great load, and per previous threads I'm interested in the pressure issues associated with crimp sealants.

Was looking for comments on folks who have had issues with either Herters 20 gauge hulls for reloading or pressure problems when sealing the crimp. Also, have used Herters as my "cheddite" hull... anyone know of another 20ga cheddite 2-3/4 hull readily available for reloading, something I can shoot off at the range for empties?


(other info: chamber was clean, not sticky; shot a box of 7/8oz 1550fps Kent after this without any issue.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Attachments

See less See more
1
#2 ·
Dave what do you think is wrong?
My guess would be stuffing 41 grains of Lil Gun in a 2 3/4" 20 ga hull would be a very good place to start..Right???
You guys aren't going to stop until somebody gets really seriously hurt... Do Not trust BPI's data unless you cross reference it first
Prime example of what many have been trying to say is in your hand right there.
Carry On
 
#3 ·
Hi y'all,

I am just curious, having shot lots of different data from various sources including BPI what is the reason behind not trusting BPI data? Should we trust RSI, Lyman, Hodgdon, or Alliant data more? In my mind all data published by big companies should be looked at very carefully. I always drop one grain of powder from every load I use that is from published data. Sometimes more. This is just to be on the safe side. I have shot BPI data for years and never had a problem. However, I do not shoot ultrahigh velocity and high-pressure loads. But that is just my opinion. The issue that Dave relates on his post could easily be simple hull failure or it could be excessively high pressure related to too much powder. I will admit that I'm very curious to know if BPI does indeed pressure test all their loads?

Dave, I'm glad you were not hurt or your shotgun damaged in any way. Please let us know if you have the load tested and what the data indicates.

Keep your Powder Dry.

Rob.
 
#4 ·
Thanks for the picture Dave, I now see what you were telling me in our last conversation. Never seen anything like that before and I seal all my waterfowl loads although I'm using fingernail polish sealant which does dry "hard". I put hard in quotation mark because I can peal the sealant off the bottom of the head around the primer and it is still slightly flexible. I assume its the same way on the folds of the crimp. I have used BPI data exclusively this past waterfowl season with ZERO malfunctions/problems and the loads were for steel, ITX-10 and HW13 shot. I have only used new/primed hulls to start with in all my loads and those are Federal paper basewad, Cheddite and Fiocchi, including the load in question that Dave loaded in a once fired hull, again with no problems. I don't know if this failure was due to an over pressure load, bad data or a manufactured defect in that particular hull and until that load has been independently tested and the results posted neither does anyone else on this thread. We can all make assumptions as to what the cause of this failure was but we may never really know until that load is tested and even then the exact cause may never be revealed, especially if the cause was a manufacturing defect in this one hull, as each test load is a destructive test and the EXACT parameters of that particular test can never be exactly repeated. Just my 2 cents worth.
 
#6 ·
BT Justice said:
Dave what do you think is wrong?
My guess would be stuffing 41 grains of Lil Gun in a 2 3/4" 20 ga hull would be a very good place to start..Right???
You guys aren't going to stop until somebody gets really seriously hurt... Do Not trust BPI's data unless you cross reference it first
Prime example of what many have been trying to say is in your hand right there.
Carry On
BT, I'm asking a serious question here. What data source(s) do you use to cross reference BPI's non-tox shot data with? I have not found any load data for 20ga from Lyman, Hodgdon or Alliant that uses similar recipes with the same components that BPI uses or even come close. Hodgdon and Alliant don't even publish non-tox shot load data for the 20ga and other than data for Bismuth shot the data from Lyman for 20ga steel shot is woefully lacking in adequate velocity to ethically kill ducks even within the effective range limits of the 20ga. So where does one begin to research cross reference data? Again, BT I'm asking a serious question here and would really appreciate if you, or others, can point me in the right direction.
 
#7 ·
dla said:
I'm pretty sure you wont have that problem if you stop gluing your crimp. The fact that the hull moved tells me that there was sigificant resistance by the crimp - sort of like a cut shell.

I reload Herters hulls to 11kpsi (according to Hodgdon load data) without issue.
dla, is that Hodgdon data for lead or non-tox shot? What are you using to seal your waterfowl loads?
 
#8 ·
azdukhuntr said:
dla said:
I'm pretty sure you wont have that problem if you stop gluing your crimp. The fact that the hull moved tells me that there was sigificant resistance by the crimp - sort of like a cut shell.

I reload Herters hulls to 11kpsi (according to Hodgdon load data) without issue.
dla, is that Hodgdon data for lead or non-tox shot? What are you using to seal your waterfowl loads?
The load data is for lead. I find the Herters hulls to be good for about 3 load cycles - usually the crimp folds crack.

I've been sealing my waterfowl loads with nail polish.
 
#10 ·
azdukhuntr said:
BT Justice said:
Dave what do you think is wrong?
My guess would be stuffing 41 grains of Lil Gun in a 2 3/4" 20 ga hull would be a very good place to start..Right???
You guys aren't going to stop until somebody gets really seriously hurt... Do Not trust BPI's data unless you cross reference it first
Prime example of what many have been trying to say is in your hand right there.
Carry On
BT, I'm asking a serious question here. What data source(s) do you use to cross reference BPI's non-tox shot data with? I have not found any load data for 20ga from Lyman, Hodgdon or Alliant that uses similar recipes with the same components that BPI uses or even come close. Hodgdon and Alliant don't even publish non-tox shot load data for the 20ga and other than data for Bismuth shot the data from Lyman for 20ga steel shot is woefully lacking in adequate velocity to ethically kill ducks even within the effective range limits of the 20ga. So where does one begin to research cross reference data? Again, BT I'm asking a serious question here and would really appreciate if you, or others, can point me in the right direction.
I was waiting for someone to ask that, and as we all know there are none. You ever wonder why that is and why Hodgdon is not publishing any of this data? Quite frankly I've asked the same thing of Hodgdon myself, you know what the answer I got from their Tech support was, there is no data because they don't recommend using Longshot or Lil Gun for a lot of the loads BPI is using them for.
So if Hodgdon isn't recommending it and they distribute the powder, why is BPI making recipes with it?
Good question huh?
Again I'm glad your not hurt , but start asking why these things are happening instead of thinking all BPI data is safe, it's not.
 
#11 ·
Rob R. said:
Hi y'all,

I am just curious, having shot lots of different data from various sources including BPI what is the reason behind not trusting BPI data? Should we trust RSI, Lyman, Hodgdon, or Alliant data more? In my mind all data published by big companies should be looked at very carefully. I always drop one grain of powder from every load I use that is from published data. Sometimes more. This is just to be on the safe side. I have shot BPI data for years and never had a problem. However, I do not shoot ultrahigh velocity and high-pressure loads. But that is just my opinion. The issue that Dave relates on his post could easily be simple hull failure or it could be excessively high pressure related to too much powder. I will admit that I'm very curious to know if BPI does indeed pressure test all their loads?

Dave, I'm glad you were not hurt or your shotgun damaged in any way. Please let us know if you have the load tested and what the data indicates.

Keep your Powder Dry.
Rob.
Rob ask yourself this question. BPI states on their website they have 6000 load recipes, granted they have been in business for quite some time. But for 6000 TESTED loads that would mean a minimum of 30,000 rounds fired in five shot test cycle, and I fire at least 3 = 5 round test cycles for any given load minimum which is still not enough really but usually it works out.
Now go figure, 15 rounds minimum per recipe and 6000 recipes and they actually fired off 90, 000 test rounds with as small an operation as they had for years...please get real.
 
#12 ·
BT Justice said:
Rob R. said:
Hi y'all,

I am just curious, having shot lots of different data from various sources including BPI what is the reason behind not trusting BPI data? Should we trust RSI, Lyman, Hodgdon, or Alliant data more? In my mind all data published by big companies should be looked at very carefully. I always drop one grain of powder from every load I use that is from published data. Sometimes more. This is just to be on the safe side. I have shot BPI data for years and never had a problem. However, I do not shoot ultrahigh velocity and high-pressure loads. But that is just my opinion. The issue that Dave relates on his post could easily be simple hull failure or it could be excessively high pressure related to too much powder. I will admit that I'm very curious to know if BPI does indeed pressure test all their loads?

Dave, I'm glad you were not hurt or your shotgun damaged in any way. Please let us know if you have the load tested and what the data indicates.

Keep your Powder Dry.
Rob.
Rob ask yourself this question. BPI states on their website they have 6000 load recipes, granted they have been in business for quite some time. But for 6000 TESTED loads that would mean a minimum of 30,000 rounds fired in five shot test cycle, and I fire at least 3 = 5 round test cycles for any given load minimum which is still not enough really but usually it works out.
Now go figure, 15 rounds minimum per recipe and 6000 recipes and they actually fired off 90, 000 test rounds with as small an operation as they had for years...please get real.
Do you have a point to all your BS? You're like some old lady who is always spouting off some crazy conspiracy theories. I spent my money, got LilGun loads tested, and they agree with BPI's published data. I'm happy and I don't see any reason to doubt BPI's 20 gauge LilGun loads. LilGun is a very slow powder for the application and I seriously doubt you can get enough of it in a 20 gauge hull to damage a gun.

Now I know you don't have any LilGun data to back up your FUD*. And I know you aren't going to spend any money getting a load tested. But it would be nice if you took a less antagonistic stance in regards to BPI's data - at least until you get an exact load tested showing BPI is wrong. By the way - some 39 year old experience with 10 ga load data that was a "one of" doesn't count.

*Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
 
#13 ·
BT Justice said:
Rob R. said:
Hi y'all,

I am just curious, having shot lots of different data from various sources including BPI what is the reason behind not trusting BPI data? Should we trust RSI, Lyman, Hodgdon, or Alliant data more? In my mind all data published by big companies should be looked at very carefully. I always drop one grain of powder from every load I use that is from published data. Sometimes more. This is just to be on the safe side. I have shot BPI data for years and never had a problem. However, I do not shoot ultrahigh velocity and high-pressure loads. But that is just my opinion. The issue that Dave relates on his post could easily be simple hull failure or it could be excessively high pressure related to too much powder. I will admit that I'm very curious to know if BPI does indeed pressure test all their loads?

Dave, I'm glad you were not hurt or your shotgun damaged in any way. Please let us know if you have the load tested and what the data indicates.

Keep your Powder Dry.
Rob.
Rob ask yourself this question. BPI states on their website they have 6000 load recipes, granted they have been in business for quite some time. But for 6000 TESTED loads that would mean a minimum of 30,000 rounds fired in five shot test cycle, and I fire at least 3 = 5 round test cycles for any given load minimum which is still not enough really but usually it works out.
Now go figure, 15 rounds minimum per recipe and 6000 recipes and they actually fired off 90, 000 test rounds with as small an operation as they had for years...please get real.
BT educate me a little here. How many hours would it take to load a shell, fire it in a test barrel and record the results with the old lead pellet crusher barrels? I'm assuming that the time to record the results have been significantly reduced with modern Piezo electronic measuring equipment. BPI states that the business was started in 1974 and I have to assume that the guy who started the business was loading ammo and possibly testing loads before that as I would find it hard to believe that someone would start such a business without at least a working knowledge of what he was doing. So from 1974 to 2014 is 40 yrs or 14,560 days. Lets assume the guy didn't work Sundays so the total number of days is reduced to 12,480, a 6 day work week. Lets take your 90,000 test rounds fired requirement and divide that by the number of work days in 40 yrs and we come up with 7.2 rounds loaded, fired and measured per day. I don't know how long it takes to load and test fire a single round but I believe it could be done in an hour's time, so its at least mathematically feasible to have loaded, fired and measured 7 rounds in a single 8 hr work day. Most every small business owner I've ever known or worked for works a lot more than 8 hrs a day running their business. It's more like 12-16 hours a day. That's assuming the guy was doing all of the work by himself. As the business grew employees were added reducing the individual testing work load even more. Now I know that not every load developed would have proven to be a safe load the first time it was tested thus increasing the development/testing time and I don't know what the average success rate is in developing loads is but I think its at least plausible to have done that over a 40 year span. If what I have proposed here in inaccurate, like I stated at the beginning of this post, please educate me. Please don't get me wrong, there are some BPI loads that have raised serious questions in my mind as far as the veracity of the published pressure goes but I find it hard to believe that we should dismiss all of their data as bogus. Just my personal opinion.
 
#14 ·
Good calculations azdukhuntr. Was looking for Herters info or crimp sealant info, not a BPI data discussion myself, as I don't have any data to even have that discussion. I'll get the loads tested, and will also replicate them without the crimp sealant for testing-- that should give a good data point on what sealant can do. I lean away from maligning the data until I have real tested info... This incident spurs me to look at this one specific load more deeply. LilGun is a slow powder, with data posted by Hodgdon for 28 and 410 lead loads only; this is more indicative of the sparsity of Hodgdon load data than an indictment of the powder's use in 20ga however, as they don't even post ANY 20ga steel or heavier-than-lead data at all! Concluding lilgun is inappropriate for 20ga use from that is no more reasonable than concluding steel shot or HeviShot from a 20ga is dangerous-- it's false logic. In most 20, 16, and 28ga hulls Hodgdon has only gone to the effort of testing one or two powders.

BT, I posted this thread precisely to GATHER DATA before I jumped to conclusions without data. My OP gives my two big areas of suspicion, crimp sealant and Herter's hulls. Your thoughts on seriously downloading this powder charge are what my plans are also; I actually avoided LONGSHOT and prioritized the LilGun HW loads due to OTHER threads that cast fear or doubt upon Longshot for steel. None of that should apply to denser HW loading, but I was being cautious anyways. Unfortunately there is almost zero data in existence for 20ga HW, so I can't disregard all BPI data-- it's all there is for 20ga if you're not doing lead.

I've posted a couple questions before on crimp sealant pressure, and while there are a lot of folks with opinions on what to use there is really no data posted on tested loads where the only difference is a sealed crimp-- at least in all the threads I've found. BT asked me what I thought was happening; I don't have enough info for an opinion, so I'll rather say "I'm investigating two areas that I most think bear scrutiny here". First, I do believe that the crimp sealant delayed crimp opening-- the off-center open mouth of the hull seems to indicate that. Looks like the load squirted out just one side of the open crimp or something. I didn't take a picture of the mouth, wish I had as I knew I was going to post here on it, but was in the field for 3 days and don't know what I did with the dang hull now. I begin to think a pic of the mouth might give folks more info than the end I photographed. That would cause the symptoms I saw I think-- front of hull driven forward into the forcing cone due to mouth not opening fully, and "ripping" the whole hull away from the basewad. It was then "stuck" in there by being too far into the chamber, past it really.
The second thing i suspect is that Herters, the "promo" load for Cabelas, are very cheaply made, and maybe not as strong as some other cheddite hulls. I base this on having had this same sort of original skeet shell have 'ripped' brass head by the ejector when shooting 7/8oz loads, as if the metal head is very thin and weak-- yet I shoot boxes the same day of Rem GC and don't have any issues. I looked at some once fired Herters hulls or the sort I used for this load, just a 7/8oz skeet target load from Cabelas, and many have an extractor groove "bump" on the bottom-- the sort of thing you'd look for as an over-pressure sign on metallic reloading. Of course an 1150ish skeet shell shouldn't have pressure issues, which makes me suspect the hull metal head is weaker/thinner than some hulls. Thickness is a saami spec that must be close for hulls to chamber and bolts to lock-up, so I would more suspect a weak alloy; I could maybe do some "bend testing" on the heads using weights to compare to other hulls. I have a couple threads on SGW about 20ga Herters issues including 2 incidents of commercial skeet loads having heads ripped and one of the basewad separating and being partway up the hull-- all in the first box I ever shot of it at the range. Win SX3 20ga, perfect function on 700 rounds or so of GC right after-- no gun issues I'm saying. I threw all of the hulls away and didn't plan on using it for reloads, but then I NEEDED some cheddite hulls for this load, so I used some despite my earlier misgivings.

As far as "cross checking" the data, I looked at every single data point out there, and had sufficient info to load it, I thought.
2.75" cheddite 20ga hull; ch209 primer; 7/8oz ITX13. 42gr LilGun= 10,400psi with HS12 shot, 42.5= 11,500psi with ITX13; 43gr = 9600psi in a Rio/Rio209 combo with ITX13. There was a lengthy article written about the 42.5gr load and it's field use by Curmudgeon, which gave me confidence that it was surely a truly tested load. The 3/4oz loads had 46gr and gave 9000psi, which seemed in line. DESPITE all that, I dropped the powder 1.5gr. So I think I did my due diligence on this.

My theory is that crimp sealant can cause significantly more pressure increases than anyone talks about, and rather than pointing the finger at BPI data I would FIRST put forward the (equally untested) theory that gluing crimps shut with any form of sealant can result in pressure spikes. It's self-evident that it SHOULD, and it's an un-talked of area or at least insufficiently researched area-- discussion with zero data abounds, and folks are quick to dismiss it. The only data I have EVER come across was Tom Roster doing a test to see what different crimp DEPTH did to pressure, and it was significant... if mere crimp depth can delay opening long enough to seriously increase pressure (I remember several thousand psi difference maybe?), then some form of sealant/glue should surely be suspect.
 
#15 ·
Dave, sorry about contributing to getting the thread off track. Looking more closely at your picture my guess, and that's all it is, is either the top of the wad got caught in the crimp or the entire crimp remained completely closed long enough for the wad column to exert enough force on the hull tube to completely rip it out from under the base wad and the metal head and only when the tube had traveled forward into the forcing cone was enough friction created on the tube to cause the crimp to finally release. As you know all of this took place in a fraction of a second. If you look closely to your photo you can see that the bottom edge of the tube is curled inward allowing the base wad to pinch that portion of the tube between itself and the metal head to help hold the three pieces together. Anyone who has ever cross sectioned a hull has seen this. Again its my guess because the curled edge of the hull tube is intact and not ripped or torn that this does not look like a structural failure of the hull tube plastic.

Am I wrong in assuming that because silicone sealant remains pliable after curing that as it stretched it would cause a longer duration pressure spike by keeping the crimp closed longer compared to a hard setting sealant that would fracture more quickly allowing the crimp to release? These are all assumptions on my part as I have not had any loads tested where the crimp was sealed. That might be something to send to Precision, identical loads except one has the crimps sealed and the other doesn't or testing identical loads using different crimp sealants. That might finally put this issue to bed or create even more speculation depending on the pressure results.
 
#16 ·
Those are good thoughts on the stretch vs. fracture of the sealant... I was assuming the soft pliable seal would be less of a pressure issue, but your idea makes me reconsider it. I do think testing several sealants would be worth it, and I could post the results as a useful data point for folks. How long the crimp stays intact in that microseconds period, thus keeping the volume constrained during peak burn, could have huge impact on pressure.

Here's an additional issue on crimp sealant I was worried about... you can see the sealant residue on the outside of the hull, and blown into the barrel. It's sticky and has noticeable size-- enough to maybe impede smooth movement of the next wads up the barrel? I'm rethinking the crimp sealant thing; I don't like the idea of some gummy plastic building up in the barrel throat. Maybe keeping shells in small batches in a baggie is smarter...
 
#17 ·
Obviously you guys have a lot to say about all this and can justify things anyway you want. It seems there a very small group here that won't heed warning from some of us that have been loading steel and non toxic a lot longer than they have.
All I can say is this over the years BPi's load data has come into question by more people than just myself, they have added deleted and updated so many recipes it's quite obvious a lot of their data is questionable.
Hopefully non of you will get seriously hurt from any of this, but I've seen it happen before and it's not pretty.
Your own safety is your own responsibility and I'm not going to try an convince some of you that should know better or question things instead of blindly following one data source for load information.
Eventually this will catch up with somebody, then you'll see the responsibility or lack of it BPI takes for what happens. Screw up using their load data and it's on you not them and they will deny any responsibility at all.
 
#18 ·
azdukhuntr said:
BT Justice said:
Rob R. said:
Hi y'all,

I am just curious, having shot lots of different data from various sources including BPI what is the reason behind not trusting BPI data? Should we trust RSI, Lyman, Hodgdon, or Alliant data more? In my mind all data published by big companies should be looked at very carefully. I always drop one grain of powder from every load I use that is from published data. Sometimes more. This is just to be on the safe side. I have shot BPI data for years and never had a problem. However, I do not shoot ultrahigh velocity and high-pressure loads. But that is just my opinion. The issue that Dave relates on his post could easily be simple hull failure or it could be excessively high pressure related to too much powder. I will admit that I'm very curious to know if BPI does indeed pressure test all their loads?

Dave, I'm glad you were not hurt or your shotgun damaged in any way. Please let us know if you have the load tested and what the data indicates.

Keep your Powder Dry.
Rob.
Rob ask yourself this question. BPI states on their website they have 6000 load recipes, granted they have been in business for quite some time. But for 6000 TESTED loads that would mean a minimum of 30,000 rounds fired in five shot test cycle, and I fire at least 3 = 5 round test cycles for any given load minimum which is still not enough really but usually it works out.
Now go figure, 15 rounds minimum per recipe and 6000 recipes and they actually fired off 90, 000 test rounds with as small an operation as they had for years...please get real.
BT educate me a little here. How many hours would it take to load a shell, fire it in a test barrel and record the results with the old lead pellet crusher barrels? I'm assuming that the time to record the results have been significantly reduced with modern Piezo electronic measuring equipment. BPI states that the business was started in 1974 and I have to assume that the guy who started the business was loading ammo and possibly testing loads before that as I would find it hard to believe that someone would start such a business without at least a working knowledge of what he was doing. So from 1974 to 2014 is 40 yrs or 14,560 days. Lets assume the guy didn't work Sundays so the total number of days is reduced to 12,480, a 6 day work week. Lets take your 90,000 test rounds fired requirement and divide that by the number of work days in 40 yrs and we come up with 7.2 rounds loaded, fired and measured per day. I don't know how long it takes to load and test fire a single round but I believe it could be done in an hour's time, so its at least mathematically feasible to have loaded, fired and measured 7 rounds in a single 8 hr work day. Most every small business owner I've ever known or worked for works a lot more than 8 hrs a day running their business. It's more like 12-16 hours a day. That's assuming the guy was doing all of the work by himself. As the business grew employees were added reducing the individual testing work load even more. Now I know that not every load developed would have proven to be a safe load the first time it was tested thus increasing the development/testing time and I don't know what the average success rate is in developing loads is but I think its at least plausible to have done that over a 40 year span. If what I have proposed here in inaccurate, like I stated at the beginning of this post, please educate me. Please don't get me wrong, there are some BPI loads that have raised serious questions in my mind as far as the veracity of the published pressure goes but I find it hard to believe that we should dismiss all of their data as bogus. Just my personal opinion.
This is a good point and one that I will answer.
The reason is something you guys don't know about but does exist, it's called computer generated results. There are programs out there the big ammo companies use that generate load data based on test loads using certain criteria such as a given powder run, hulls, primers and components used.
You guys honestly don't think these big ammo companies labs just grab a bunch of components and go try to make loads from them do you? Of course not they feed the data in to a ballistics program and they get viable load alternatives to try, years ago they had paper reams of test results from past testing and people had to actually guess a bit more as to what would work and what wouldn't, but they went back on past testing.
I can tell you myself it takes time, lots of time to develop safe loads, you think every load I have made up has worked, for every one good one I get 5, 6 or even up to 10 that didn't work because I try all the possibilities for the best performance and safest loading. I don't have the custom programs the big ammo companies do so I go about it the hard way and test loads that fail for one reason or another more times than are successful.
Stop and think about what I just stated for a minute and then think about how long it takes to make things work right and safely.
You guys ever think somebody else might have access to a load generating program and why so many of their loads haven't worked correctly over the years. BPI is a very very small company and they were a lot smaller years ago, so how do they possibly generate hundreds of new loads every year unless they have a bit of help with it somehow???
CARRY ON
 
#19 ·
dla said:
BT Justice said:
Rob R. said:
Hi y'all,

I am just curious, having shot lots of different data from various sources including BPI what is the reason behind not trusting BPI data? Should we trust RSI, Lyman, Hodgdon, or Alliant data more? In my mind all data published by big companies should be looked at very carefully. I always drop one grain of powder from every load I use that is from published data. Sometimes more. This is just to be on the safe side. I have shot BPI data for years and never had a problem. However, I do not shoot ultrahigh velocity and high-pressure loads. But that is just my opinion. The issue that Dave relates on his post could easily be simple hull failure or it could be excessively high pressure related to too much powder. I will admit that I'm very curious to know if BPI does indeed pressure test all their loads?

Dave, I'm glad you were not hurt or your shotgun damaged in any way. Please let us know if you have the load tested and what the data indicates.

Keep your Powder Dry.
Rob.
Rob ask yourself this question. BPI states on their website they have 6000 load recipes, granted they have been in business for quite some time. But for 6000 TESTED loads that would mean a minimum of 30,000 rounds fired in five shot test cycle, and I fire at least 3 = 5 round test cycles for any given load minimum which is still not enough really but usually it works out.
Now go figure, 15 rounds minimum per recipe and 6000 recipes and they actually fired off 90, 000 test rounds with as small an operation as they had for years...please get real.
Do you have a point to all your BS? You're like some old lady who is always spouting off some crazy conspiracy theories. I spent my money, got LilGun loads tested, and they agree with BPI's published data. I'm happy and I don't see any reason to doubt BPI's 20 gauge LilGun loads. LilGun is a very slow powder for the application and I seriously doubt you can get enough of it in a 20 gauge hull to damage a gun.

Now I know you don't have any LilGun data to back up your FUD*. And I know you aren't going to spend any money getting a load tested. But it would be nice if you took a less antagonistic stance in regards to BPI's data - at least until you get an exact load tested showing BPI is wrong. By the way - some 39 year old experience with 10 ga load data that was a "one of" doesn't count.

*Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
Out of all this when a gun blows up in somebody's face I hope you don't have to live with the fact it was your ignorance that caused it or you yourself are the one on the receiving end.
People like yourself should be restricted somehow to not doing this, your attitude is what's going to get yourself or somebody else hurt. Your dealing with things that can blow up STUPID, your attitude is going to be your or somebody else's downfall.
It's also unwise to question somebody and what they will or will not spend on something when you have no idea of what your talking about or the equipment and knowledge they have. You should invest in one of these like I did , you would learn a lot trust me.
 
#20 ·
BT I hope that class is still in session. Nice test equipment, the stuff you have is WAY above my pay grade. This is a question about powder charges and corresponding chamber pressures. Here are some different loads , first one from Hodgdon's reloading website, the others from BPI's LOTW.

From Hodgdon:

Federal 12ga 2 3/4" Gold Medal hull
Federal 209A primer
Hodgdon Universal powder
BP CSD-100 wad
1oz steel shot
Fold crimp

19.5 gr 10,200 psi 1200 fps
20.0 gr 11,300 psi 1250 fps
22.0 gr 11,500 psi 1300 fps

With .5gr increase in the powder charge, from 19.5 to 20.0, the pressure jumps 1100 psi but when the powder is increased to 22.0gr the pressure only increases by 200 psi. I understand that powder charge increases and corresponding pressure increases are not linear but those values seem to be a little backward. I would think a 2gr increase would cause the greater pressure increase not the .5gr increase.

From BPI:

Cheddite 20ga 2 3/4" hull
Cheddite 209 primer
Hodgdon Lil' Gun powder
CSD-20 wad with 1/4"x20ga felt spacer
7/8oz ITX10 shot
Fold crimp

42gr 11,400 psi 1620 fps

Cheddite 20ga 2 3/4" hull
Cheddite 209 primer
Hodgdon Lil' Gun powder
CSD-20 wad with 1/4"x28ga fiber spacer
7/8oz ITX10 shot
Fold crimp

41gr 9000 psi 1470 fps

In these two loads two things are different, the first is a different shot spacer material and size, although both are the same thickness and the second is the powder charge. Will changing the shot spacer material have an effect on pressure and can a decrease of 1gr powder reduce the pressure 2400 psi? The reduced powder load was billed as a "softer load for older guns". This one raised my suspicion because of such a large pressure drop from only a 1gr reduction in the powder charge.

Hoping you can help me understand this a little better.
 
#21 ·
The Universal load I'm not sure of, I never used Universal in steel loads., it's possible it goes that way as steel loads are very unpredictable sometimes.

Your Lil Gun load take a good long look a that one and ask yourself if it is right and the pressure jumps that much with just one grain of powder difference, is the load right to start with and is the correct powder to be using with these loads?
It could be the different spacer materials, I've seen that make a difference, but you really want to be messing around with loads that jump that high in pressure with a slight change in components and 1 grain of powder difference?
If I were testing a load like that I would scrap it, if for no other reason, different loading techniques and presses used by different people could make a serious difference in the pressures.. to much to fast is not good.
 
#22 ·
BT Justice said:
The Universal load I'm not sure of, I never used Universal in steel loads., it's possible it goes that way as steel loads are very unpredictable sometimes.

Your Lil Gun load take a good long look a that one and ask yourself if it is right and the pressure jumps that much with just one grain of powder difference, is the load right to start with and is the correct powder to be using with these loads?
It could be the different spacer materials, I've seen that make a difference, but you really want to be messing around with loads that jump that high in pressure with a slight change in components and 1 grain of powder difference?
If I were testing a load like that I would scrap it, if for no other reason, different loading techniques and presses used by different people could make a serious difference in the pressures.. to much to fast is not good.
I agree with you on both points but if these two loads had not been published together neither load by themselves would have raised any questions in my mind. If you decided to test the lower powder charge load and your results confirmed the published data would you test the higher powder charge load to see if those results could also be correct?

I took your advise and cross referenced an identical load except for powder charge from two well established and respected data sources.

12ga 2 3/4" Federal Gold Medal Plastic hull
Federal 209A primer
Alliant Steel powder
Precision Reloading TUPRW12 wad
1 1/8oz steel shot

From Lyman's 5th edition
26.5gr 10,000 psi 1355 fps

From Alliant PowderReloader's Guide
32gr 9600 psi 1425 fps

A 5.5gr increase in the powder charge results in a 400 psi reduction in pressure and a 70 fps increase in velocity. That one really makes me wonder. I understand what you're saying about how different presses and loading technics could effect test results but, at least on the surface, we seem to have completely contradictory results. So in this case whose data should we believe?

I think I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to have the loads that I have successfully used this past season tested to see if the results of an independent third party confirm the published data.
 
#23 ·
I skimmed over this post might messed it but here i go:

Dave,

Did you gaep and or rto the fold crimp plus use the sewlent?

If so the sealant is bad enough add the gaep. /rto tool over fold crimp would add even more psi from tighter crimp then with just using reloading press.

Anways just wondering on gaep tool, oh also the wad if crimped into fold would cause that as well..

Just throwing some thaughts out there without seing hulls ect...just going from alot of years of reloading and seeing all sorts of issues from this or that with nontoxic loads.

Goose
 
#24 ·
Thx goose. Yes, I did hit the fold crimp with a Precision RTO die a bit to round the crimp and ensure some taper; no real pressure though, just enough to shape it up...I had forgotten that. The solid crimp, gaep finish, and sealant might be it. The wad was for sure not in the crimp, it was at least 1/4" below it, added some flax seed to fill. Good ideas you had. I've got 18 of them loaded up, will send off to Precision and some without any crimp sealant and we'll learn both how that particular load does for pressure for real, and also what effect the sealant has; will be good data.
 
#25 ·
To add a bit more. You guys may think I sound the alarm to much with some of these loads, I've said this before and I'll say it again, These newer High Energy powders don't react to changes in components, loading style/crimping technique or even the crimp sealing like older lower Nitroglycerin content powders do.
Loading powders like Longshot, LiL Gun, and STEEL is not the same as loading powders like SR4756 or Blue Dot was, LiL Gun in particular has around 42% Nitroglycerin content in it, which is around double what powders like Blue Dot have or in the case of SR4756 which has no Nitroglycerin content in it a whole different ball game.

Cross referencing also means looking up other powders used in a given load combination, even if you have to go to steel or lead loads just to see what's used in a given hull. Looking at 3/4 oz 20 ga steel shot loads the most I could find was 24 -25 grains of STEEL powder, keeping mind steel shot develops more pressure than Hevi or ITX loads do.
Things to ask... although LiL Gun is definitely slower burning than STEEL powder, they aren't that far off of each in burn speed, it's not like trying to make a load using Red Dot vs Blue Dot which are very far apart burn speed wise. So you have two powders that are relatively close to each other in burn speed and you can use 70-75% more Lil Gun than STEEL in basically the same weight although different material load ????????????????????????????????
Think about it for a while
https://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/Burn%20Rate ... 5-2016.pdf
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top