16ga.com ~ View topic

Member Joined: 06 Oct 2007 Posts: 2350 Location: West MI

FYI; load #M1605127 in The Sixteen Gauge Manual 5th Edit published by BPI is very dangerous!

The recipe calls for it to be loaded with a Fiocchi hull and primer. I did not have either so I loaded the recipe into 3- Win poly 3-Ched & 3-Fed hulls w/Win209 primers and sent them off to Tom A. for testing. Tom agreed that my hull and primer swap shouldn't have messed up the data too much.

I was looking for a quick trap load.

The load is so hot Tom went out of his way to call and tell me DO NOT shoot this recipe. It met the FPS as stated as 1400+/- but was off the chart in PSI with Tom refering to them as Proof Load type preasures in the 16k range.

My aim here is to not bash BPI; everyone can make mistakes and I appreciate what that Co. does in supplying the reloading fraternity. This is posted as a heads up to the validity of testing a recipe before shooting it and a warning to not shoot this specific load.

Tom is mailing the results over and I will post them when I can. He also said he would call Dave over at BPI and let him know of our test results.

Take care, Mike

Member Joined: 06 Oct 2007 Posts: 2350 Location: West MI

Got the test results from Tom in the mail yesterday;

Recipe; 2 1/2" Fiocchi hull & primer, 19.5 Titewad, BPI SG-16, 7/8oz #8 lead, roll crimp, 1400/11200

Tested averages in FPS/PSI

Fed 1432/16433
Ched 1404/17133
Win 2 piece 1430/19033

Hard to believe they are so far off the recipe. I found the values between the 3 different hulls interesting even though loaded with the exact same hand/scale verified recipe.

Take care, Mike

You still have not validated the data , you changed componets .

Untill you VALIDATE the data do not make assumptions , the curent state of this all is you still do not know .

But I am with you it looks out of proportion to me as well , but I would reserve my comments untill I knew for sure .

( My thoughts on this is that is WAY TO FAST A POWDER to put that much of a charge in a 7/8 OZ load , now a 3/4 and you have something there .)

( had you put 16.5 or so in the 7/8 OZ then I would say that would be a good load safe load , Speculation on my part of course , if you want a velocity load then go to a 13/16 OZ as a Max load and then the 3/4 OZ really shines here .)

Regards Charles

Member Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 592 Location: Minnesota

Mike - I'm with Charles - I see the logic your following but you changed the load components from the published data and therefore you technically have not validated the specific load. But without question this is a suspect BPI load. Only by testing the exact published load will we know for sure.

Guest

I have that particular manual and looked M1605127 and came up with this recipe:

7/8 oz. lead shot
2 1/2" Fiocchi hull with Fio-616 primer and roll crimp
19.5 grains of Titewad
expected 1410 fps with 11200 psi

I agree with the other posters that you changed enough components that I'm not surpised that you got those results esp. with an already hot load. I never loaded this recipe but the cook has to take the responsibility for messing with the ingredients....

Member Joined: 06 Oct 2007 Posts: 2350 Location: West MI

You guys are right a couple components have changed. But after talking w/Tom his intuition said that the component swap was very close and shouldn't have changed things that much. Dissimilar yes but not off the chart. Thats why he was concerned.

But, I'm not proud by any stretch (just a little when it comes to my niece, nephew and godsons) and willing to see things through + it's fun to mess with this stuff. I do not have any Fiocci hulls and primers and really don't want to invest in a bunch of them to get 4 or 5 when I have my share of the others.

This should be interesting, here's the idea; I'd be willing to trade some once fired RGL hulls for 5 Fiocci hulls w/primers for this trial/validation run. The trade can be disproportionate and should be in order to justify your shipping. I have plenty of the RGL's. Anyone have any Fiocci's? Mike

Member Joined: 02 Oct 2007 Posts: 1975

Mike. I've got some Fiochi new hulls with primers. I don't want any RGL's. Any other hulls? Like winchester compression formed? Only kidding. Email me your address and I'll ship you the fiochi's. Can you send them in the mail? my email address is phyle98@means.net

It is entirely possible the 19.5 grains of Titewad is a typo. I'm betting it should have read 16.5 grains. This is not the first time I've seen similar typos in BPI manuals. I had a couple show up in one of their older 28 ga data manuals a decade or so in the past. I was experienced enough to recognize the error and just penciled the two loads out. I also called BPI about the matter and got no clear reply--just double talk. I'm not a big fan of their booklets now.

Titewad has a similar burn rate to Red Dot, Clays, and Olin/WW 453 Ball. It is designed for 1 and 1-1/8 ounce 2-3/4 dram equiv 12 gauge target loads. Frankly, I can't understand how anyone could fit 19.5 grains of TW in the confines of a short 16 gauge hull under that wad and still get a good folded crimp. 19.5 grains of Titewad is a stiff 12 gauge load even with only 1 ounce of shot in some hulls. It would probably be too hot under a full 1-1/8 ounce load in any compression formed 12 ga. target hull I've ever used.

I use 16.5 grains of Green Dot in a 2-3/4 inch RGL hull to get a 1225 FPS, 7/8 ounce loads at 9.9K PSI. 16.5 grains Of Titewad would probably give about 11.5K PSI in a 2.5 inch hull under 7/8 ounces of shot. It might hit 13.5-14K FPS as well. I'm also betting it too would be a hot load--too hot for older vintage guns.

Anyway, its a good thing you did not fire off a couple in a vintage gun. I'm relieved to know you avoided getting hurt. Thanks for the heads up too. You've probably saved some folks some harm. Good on you.

Guest

I tried to hold off on "piling on" 16GG (since they're some other people on this BB who do it much better than me) but when 16GG makes such broad and negative statements about a company or individual without knowing the "facts", then "it's open mouth, insert foot" time. I took the time and asked BP about this load and they said that the "19.5 grains" of Titewad was correct.

While I don't find any need to use this particular recipe (too hot and too fast), I see a situation where the original poster changed the primer, hull and wad (don't know if he went from a rolled to folder crimp along with moving from a 2 1/2" to 2 3/4" hull) and he can't understand what's wrong. Not knowing the poster's skillset, I would ask if he measured the powder and lead on an accurate scale or just used his bushings.

These are all factors for handloading...

*Last edited by 16gaugeguy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:42 am; edited 3 times in total*

Terry, I got the same correct data answer from them about an all too obviously incorrect load in the 28 gauge manual I mentioned. I'm fairly familiar with most of the faster burning shotgun powders having tried them them at one time or another. I have done so in a considerable number of different 12 ga hulls and in combination with a considerable number of different 12 ga target wads and target hulls as well.

I've been shooting trap for nearly 25 years, and a lot of it was registered trap. That has required a tremendous amout of reloading to supply myself with enough practice and tournament ammo. I've tried or used just about all of the faster powders and 12 ga componants at one time or another depending on what I could get at the most reasonable price at the time. So I do not make the statement lightly or without some background knowledge.

I do know that all fast 12 ga target load powders are designed to burn withing a certain pressure range in order to provide enough energy to push 24 to 32 gram loads at typical target load velocities between 1090 to 1300 FPS. The powder design must also fit into the existing 2-3/4 inch 12 gauge shells and to work with the available 12 gauge target wads. So there is also limited range of available space for any of these faster powders. Hence, all these faster powders have a similar amount of bulk.

Some of these fast powders can safely be used in some 16 ga loads if the charges are reduced to 16 grains or under. 19.5 grains of any of these faster powders is way too much in any 2-3/4 inch 16 ga shell, let alone a 2.5 inch shell--even for a 7/8 ounce shot load. Even the available space inside the shell under the wad and shot is questionable. Experience tells me it is probably too small to accept the bulk of 19.5 grains of Titewad.

You can take the reply from BPI at face value if you want. I have learned not to trust them from experience. I'd also appreciate it if you also think a bit before shooting your own mouth off. You might be commiting the very sin you accuse others of in an attempt to even an old score you seem to be keeping. Doing so could lead some good folks to some unnecessary grief for no good reason. At least questioning the load data might help prevent trouble. We have the test report and the evaluation of a reliable expert that the load might be too hot. I took that into consideration. Did you?

Regardless, it is a very hot load-- too damned hot IMO for a fair number of guns that anyone might expect to have a 2.5 inch chamber. I think you might agree on that point if you can get past the baggage you seem to be toting around. Now perhaps you might want to get your tootsie out of your own pie hole. It's a bit unsightly. Very Happy

Guest

well 16GG shot registered trap.....big deal. What does it take to go to shoot trap?? Go to the trap range, put your money down and shoot a few rounds?? That makes you a legend?? Perhaps only in your mind...

Just because 16GG done some reloading I believe the first commandment of proper reloading is something like:

Do not change the recipe and use accurate measurements

I just have an issue when someone changes some stuff and then complains about the results. Several of us on this thread have said the similar vein but it takes on person from the Boston area to put the entire blame on a company.

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 224

May I make a suggestion?

I too have run into the same problem with some BPI loads as putz463...with the similar results of pressures at or above proof pressures.

I suggest that as a 16ga community, some of us voluntarily select a few load from the BPI 16 ga Manual, make them using the exact components, carefully weigh our powder and shot, and then submit the loads to Tom for testing and validation. I will volunteer to send 1 or 2 loads myself. We can then get some actual data that we can either determine the data is valid, or as a 16 ga community can present to BPI to get the situation corrected, or at least have reliable data to warn our fellows with.

If the load data is not safe...as in published loads are in more than one case approaching proof pressure, we as a 16 ga community should not stand for it. Readily available "Bad" data can only hurt the 16 ga, not help it.

Guest

Bowbuilder,

Why would you want to validate loading data that you have to pay for?

Don't waste money on retesting BPI's data.

Better to spend money on loads that you develop, and want to use.

No point in a needless confrontation, in a situation that you can't win. BPI is never going to admit that their data is garbage. However if you are into tap dancing, they do a wonderful tap dance around the subject of their reloading data and the parties that tested it.

I suggest someone load the data in question to the exact recipe using the exact same componants that are called for and have Tom test it. We are not questioning all the BPI data--just one specific recipe. Lets not start comparing apples and oranges to find out what a peach is like. We tend to do that enough as it is.

I also will continue to urge caution in this matter. BPI would certainly not pick up the tab for a damaged gun or injury to the shooter without one hell of a legal battle. If things did not look good for them, they would most likely declare bankruptcy, fold up shop, and disappear.

Please use some common sense and caution here folks. That is all I ask. I really do not want to see anyone here get injured or suffer the loss of a decent gun to prove a point. It is just not worth it to win an arguement like this one. I hope I am wrong too. I hope the load is safe. That would be perfect as far as I'm concerned.

...and Terry, you are out of line here. I hate to think it, but your bruised ego has gotten the better of you. I hope the rest of the folks do not dismiss my own and others' warnings to be cautious just because you have a problem with me. That is just not right under any circumstances and you know it. You discredit yourself in this matter. I never thought I'd ever see that. I actually thought better of you regardless of our past squabbles. I'm truely sorry to see it happen.

I have used a lot of Titewad powder.... It has a very fast burning rate, and is a high energy powder with small charge weights. Faster than Bullseye on Hodgdon's chart.
All my use has been 7/8oz and 15/16oz. in the 12 gauge. Hear even here, Titewad is very sensitive to component change. As a matter of fact I am using a combination of components with Titewad that gives the lowest pressure 12 gauge load with great performance ... I have burned plenty (on 4th 8lbs) of Titewad.

When I saw Titewad even listed in a 16ga load my mouth dropped open!
When I saw the charge I immediately responded with a brief summary on BPI's intelligence in the reloading game! (I don't think they are much)

As you can see in the tested data this powder is a no-no for 16ga and 7/8oz. You think I would trust even the load that barely qualified? Not this kid! With Titewad's "mode swings" in the listed loads... Humm! Even a deeper crimp, a tighter bored gun, maybe even a different lot of primers, wads, ... anything might cause this EXTREMELY FAST POWDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO JUST JUMP INTO PRESSURE RED!!!

I'd stay away from Titewad in anything but 12 gauge; even then only with light shot loads. This it was designed for and will do a great job: a lot of performance with very little as the name implies...

Slidehammer