Kevin Thomas
Well-Known Member
I've already described a situation wherein someone following the OPs instructions could most definately get hurt, or killed; the 7828 and 7mm STW example I cited earlier. To recap this one, when the 7mm STW was introduced, the factory ammo was being loaded with a very slow burning powder (actually, several, I'm sure) that would later be marketed as IMR7828. At the time of the cartridges intro, the slowest burning IMR powder available was the venerable IMR4831, the standard for magnum loads for the past 20 years. Using the OPs method, the reloader would breakdown a factory round and find an unknown extruded tubular powder, that by all appearances was most likely IMR4831. Given the further "test" of smelling it (burned or unburned, and remember, they are chemically virtually identical), it does indeed appear to be IMR4831. A logical assumption, especially for one who pooh-poohs the existance of "proprietary powders", and is convinced that the only powders extant are those he can buy at the local gunshop. Given the paucity of reloading data for the new cartridge, and his prediliction towards believing that factory rounds are loaded to absolute firewall pressures, it's not much of a leap to see him trying to duplicate factory velocities with what is in reality a significantly faster powder. You're "starting" loads could most definately be well above proof load levels. Whether or not the gun (and shooter) survives now becomes a matter of luck. Is that clear?
Given the numbers of new cartridges coming onto the market in the past few years (RUMs, SAUMs WSMs, WSSMs, etc.), I can pretty well guarantee you that many of these are using proprietary blends that aren't available to the general reloading public yet. They may eventually be added to a makers line (as IMR7828 eventually was), or they may remain proprietary numbers if the powder maker doesn't see a viable commercial success in releasing them. Again, the point is, you don't know one way or the other.
Also, the very notion that you can duplicate factory ammo is something of a misnomer. You mentioned Federal's Gold Medal Match 308 ammo, and your attempts to duplicate this combo. You also (as I recall) mentioned their use of IMR4064. I can name another maker that has a virtually identical load, except that they've used IMR3031. Again, two very different loadings, in which the charge weights can be dangerous if inadvertantly interchanged. The problem here is that most factory loads don't use a single powder, but several different powders, to afford the plants some flexibility in case the primary powder isn't available. If a powder will qualify in terms of pressure, velocity, accuracy, port pressure (in some cases), temperature reaction variations, etc., it can be used for that ammo. You'd mentioned Lake City's use of RL-15, and yes, that is indeed what they are currently using. That will no doubt change if ATK loses the next contract bid. In the time I've dealt with them, the M118, M852 and M118LR have been loaded with IMR4895, WC-750 and RL-15, depending on who the contractor was that was running the plant at the time. Bottom line is, it had to give 2580 fps @ 78ft, have maximum pressures within govt. specs, the correct port pressure, acceptable temperature variation and deliver the accuracy standard they require. Beyond that, if it meets the specs, it can be used. You'll again note that some of these are are cannister grade powders, and some aren't. But again, could easily be misidentified by someone assuming that it's the same stuff available at the local gunshop.
The assumption that reloaders are all prudent (or knowledgable) enough to avoid making such mistakes, is a very dangerous one. I've dealt with more than enough minor mishaps and a few truly catastrophic failures, attributed to someone who didn't know any better doing something that seemed "logical" at the time. Any time you hear yourself making the statement, "well, everyone knows . . .", think again; they don't. I had a guy who called our tech line once to ask why we didn't include the neccesary instructions about how to make the powder "fit" the case properly. Seems he was loading a 300 Weatherby, and immediately ran into a compressed charge situation. Actually, the max load (where far too many reloaders start) listed in the manual wouldn't fit in the case when he tried to dump the powder. Thinking about it a bit, he remembered that his wife had a mortar and pestle down in the kitchen. Taking the powder he intended to use, he ground the kernals into something resembling talcum powder. Reweighing the charge, he now found that the same weight only filled about half the case; plenty of room to spare. He ground up some powder, and loaded the cases. Before heading to the range, (thankfully) he called us to ask why we didn't include the instructions about grinding the powder in the reloading data. That was an absolute disaster averted by a simple phone call, but the assumptions he made about the powder were actually perfectly logical to a new reloader who didn't understand how smokeless powders work, the methods of controlling their burning rate, or how powder speed determines suitability in a given loading. Like I said, if you're going to give instructions to an audience, you have to think about how it's being received by that audience; to include a rank amatuer for whom what you think is "obvious', isn't. Factor in things you think you know that are wrong to begin with, and you see where I'm headed?
Given the numbers of new cartridges coming onto the market in the past few years (RUMs, SAUMs WSMs, WSSMs, etc.), I can pretty well guarantee you that many of these are using proprietary blends that aren't available to the general reloading public yet. They may eventually be added to a makers line (as IMR7828 eventually was), or they may remain proprietary numbers if the powder maker doesn't see a viable commercial success in releasing them. Again, the point is, you don't know one way or the other.
Also, the very notion that you can duplicate factory ammo is something of a misnomer. You mentioned Federal's Gold Medal Match 308 ammo, and your attempts to duplicate this combo. You also (as I recall) mentioned their use of IMR4064. I can name another maker that has a virtually identical load, except that they've used IMR3031. Again, two very different loadings, in which the charge weights can be dangerous if inadvertantly interchanged. The problem here is that most factory loads don't use a single powder, but several different powders, to afford the plants some flexibility in case the primary powder isn't available. If a powder will qualify in terms of pressure, velocity, accuracy, port pressure (in some cases), temperature reaction variations, etc., it can be used for that ammo. You'd mentioned Lake City's use of RL-15, and yes, that is indeed what they are currently using. That will no doubt change if ATK loses the next contract bid. In the time I've dealt with them, the M118, M852 and M118LR have been loaded with IMR4895, WC-750 and RL-15, depending on who the contractor was that was running the plant at the time. Bottom line is, it had to give 2580 fps @ 78ft, have maximum pressures within govt. specs, the correct port pressure, acceptable temperature variation and deliver the accuracy standard they require. Beyond that, if it meets the specs, it can be used. You'll again note that some of these are are cannister grade powders, and some aren't. But again, could easily be misidentified by someone assuming that it's the same stuff available at the local gunshop.
The assumption that reloaders are all prudent (or knowledgable) enough to avoid making such mistakes, is a very dangerous one. I've dealt with more than enough minor mishaps and a few truly catastrophic failures, attributed to someone who didn't know any better doing something that seemed "logical" at the time. Any time you hear yourself making the statement, "well, everyone knows . . .", think again; they don't. I had a guy who called our tech line once to ask why we didn't include the neccesary instructions about how to make the powder "fit" the case properly. Seems he was loading a 300 Weatherby, and immediately ran into a compressed charge situation. Actually, the max load (where far too many reloaders start) listed in the manual wouldn't fit in the case when he tried to dump the powder. Thinking about it a bit, he remembered that his wife had a mortar and pestle down in the kitchen. Taking the powder he intended to use, he ground the kernals into something resembling talcum powder. Reweighing the charge, he now found that the same weight only filled about half the case; plenty of room to spare. He ground up some powder, and loaded the cases. Before heading to the range, (thankfully) he called us to ask why we didn't include the instructions about grinding the powder in the reloading data. That was an absolute disaster averted by a simple phone call, but the assumptions he made about the powder were actually perfectly logical to a new reloader who didn't understand how smokeless powders work, the methods of controlling their burning rate, or how powder speed determines suitability in a given loading. Like I said, if you're going to give instructions to an audience, you have to think about how it's being received by that audience; to include a rank amatuer for whom what you think is "obvious', isn't. Factor in things you think you know that are wrong to begin with, and you see where I'm headed?
. Need a picture to prove it?
