16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 28 Aug 2014 Posts: 924 Location: Eastern Tennessee

I have been looking at a load that has conflicting psi and fps between Lyman's 5th and the hodgdon web. I mean not even close!

If I listen to the hog site the load is over 11500, if I listen to Lyman it is only 9200. Does anyone have advice? Hog suggest 11000 psi is reached at 20 grains of 800x while Lyman give a psi of 9200 for 22 grains.

I shot some before the catch and was impressed with the performance. I just don't want to damage my guns.

Question, is Lyman in PSI or LUP?

Trust the powder people !! They have lots to lose.
Go with the Hodgdon data

Mike

p.s. none of the guns that you have listed in your signature would
be damaged even by the Hodgdon pressures

Mike

fun reading
http://www.shotgunlife.com/shotguns/tom-roster/important-information-about-shotshell-pressures.html

Joined: 26 Apr 2010 Posts: 3177 Location: NCWa

They are both right given the equipment and components used. It's possible that the shells loaded by Hodgdon, then fired in Lyman equipment could produce the Lyman velocities and pressures. Additionally, when comparing loading data it is imperative that ALL components are the same. I note that on the Hodgdon site they list a load for 1 oz shot in a Federal hull, SP16 wad, 24 grs 800X 10,400 psi for 1375 fps, yet 25 grs produced 8300 psi and 1350 fps; the only difference (other than the 1 gr powder, was the 24 gr load used a Fed 209A primer while the 25 gr load used a Rem 209P primer. Seemingly unimportant things can make a big difference in the pressures produced by various loads.

Joined: 28 Aug 2014 Posts: 924 Location: Eastern Tennessee

Let me go ahead and spell it out so that it is clear what I am seeing:

Hodgdon website:
Cheddite Hull 1 1/8 oz
20.0 800x
Win209
SP-16
1200 fps
11000 psi

Lyman's 5th
Cheddite Hull 1 1/8 oz
21.5 800x
Win209
SP-16
1240 fps
9200 psi

So, for 1.5 grains more 800x I am getting 40 more fps and 1800 less of psi? I mean this would be great if its true, but it can't be can it?

I would assume that if 20 grains is 11000 psi then 21.5 grains of 800x would have to be in the 12000 to 12500 psi range or at the very least beyond 11500.

So as you can see the wads, primer, shot load, hull, powder type are all the same.

Joined: 26 Apr 2010 Posts: 3177 Location: NCWa

When I open the Hodgdon database it consists of questions, unlike the old format where several loads could be seen, this just has a flow chart that asks: ga, hull, then it shows what loads are available, powder brand & type. Sure decreases the ability to compare one load to another without going through a bunch of steps; and it doesn't show a lot of combinations. Another step for efficiency. Confused

Joined: 28 Aug 2014 Posts: 924 Location: Eastern Tennessee

AM - Yeah it's not as user friendly as the books (Hogs website). You would assume that 1 of the 2 testings on those loads was incorrect. I guess I was under the impression that of all load data, those 2 organizations were at the top of the game when it comes to 16 ga.

To your point skeettx - I am forced to agree, better to be safe than sorry (and too cheap to test them myself). I had made up 25 of them and ended up taken them apart and reloading to the Hog recipe. Only lost 2 hulls and 1 wad in the process!

Member Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 1338

Joined: 26 Apr 2010 Posts: 3177 Location: NCWa

Both tests are valid.

Remember that each lab has different techs, reloading machines, loading procedures, test barrels, test equipment, and component lots.

You are looking for perfection and for everything to fall into a nice neat little box......it probably won't happen.

Joined: 28 Aug 2014 Posts: 924 Location: Eastern Tennessee

Mike,

If you select 16ga, then 2 3/4 winch xpert plastic shells, then 1 1/8 oz you will see it come up.

It is referenced in other sources to be the same as cheds, however I understand there have been multiple hulls in the past under this name.

If you look in Lyman's it is referenced as winchester plastic hulls (I believe but not sure as not at home).

I'd love to be told hog is not based on current win hulls and Lyman is!

Joined: 28 Aug 2014 Posts: 924 Location: Eastern Tennessee

The more and more I have looked back it is clear this has been an issue discussed before. It seems to be that whether you are seeking data on Cheddite, Winchester xpert, or Winchester plastic base wad there are debates on if these are all the same hulls or not. As all my hulls are made by the Aussies there seems to be at least Cheddite and likely Winchester plastic base wad compatible data. Even if the data is really for a dead xpert hull, testing suggest the pressure would be equal to or less for the modern hulls. That seems to suggest that as dog states the Lyman 5th recipe seems to be consistent with that theory.

This load is the only 1 of 35 or so loads I have on my recipe list that was impacted by the recognition of cheddite/winchester loads.

Joined: 26 Apr 2010 Posts: 3177 Location: NCWa

Another aspect of the pressure reading is that it is an average or high point of the various pressure readings as plotted on a curve. The manuals don't give what the High, Low, avg deviation, std deviation, etc of the particular load is, so we don't know what the pressure of the shell that you fire will be- only that it falls within the parameters that the company that developed it considered to be acceptable.

Guest

It you had access to a chronograph you could get a better sense of what you are loading. It will not give you the pressure reading of course, but you could quickly check the velocities see what is happening in your shotgun. My basic $99 Chrony has resolved many similar situations for me.

As memory serves (which may or may not be well served Laughing

) 800X was first introduced by Dupont in the late 1970's or early 1980's. Apparently, the data published by Dupont for 800X and/or the powder itself went through a transition period.

In the early 1990's, I used some of the earliest published data from Dupont to load a box of 3/4 ounce 28 ga hunting loads. Those loads produced some rather hot results. Later published DuPont data recommended significantly lower powder charges for the same loads. So either the powder, the data, or both were further modified and developed for a time.

DuPont no longer manufactures canister grade smokeless powders and no longer publishes data for any of the Dupont/IMR products. Older published data compilations also exist and continue to be copied for publication by others. Some of the earliest canister grade 800X powder produced may also exist and may still be used to load ammo. So it is almost impossible to figure out what has transpired here.

Caution should be exercised IMO. I strongly recommend doing some further research before accepting any published data for 800X. I also recommend dropping your starting charges of 800X a grain or two to be on the safe side.