Duck Hunting Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Some one said the charge and pressure difference is due to old steel vs the new powder between the precision data and the 5th lyman book. So does that make the lyman data unsafe to use when it comes to steel powder?
Publication Font Line Material property Book

Font Material property Fluid Publication Label
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,326 Posts
Lyman unsafe? Not necessarily. It could be PRI is a misprint. Or it could be both are probably recorded, but PRI used a deeper crimp, bigger shot size, etc.
I find it hard to believe Lyman would publish anything unsafe, but this is why it's a good idea to use more than one data source!

As a side note, you could switch to a win primer if you're concerned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
I can't tell what load youre looking at, but the only one close in both is the tuprw12 23 vs. 29 ish steel powder.

Both those loads are lower pressure loads and look totally safe. Looks to me the 29.5gr one just gets the payload moving out of the hull then has enough powder to produce more gas to accelerate load. I don't know what the filler wad xyfe12520 is.. if it is something hard and incompressable, vs a felt, that can spike pressure 1500 psi. I've posted a ton of times how taking up the existing expansion volume with incompressable wads will cause much higher pressure increases than most expect. Not sure what that wad is, but might be issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,903 Posts
I haven't found a bpi load yet that was accurate.

Loaded and tested one yesterday.
Fed hull
209A
Tc20
21gr longshot
1oz lead
1240fps
9200psi

I loaded it with ched primer and started at 20gr to be safer. It chronod at 1390 and locked the bolt back. Recoil was insane and the hull flew a good 15 feet.

I cannot stand BPI data
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top