Felt recoil experiment with 3 powders in the .45.

[tb1911]

I've been using titegroup exclusively since I had a lot of it. Many say it is snappy as compared to, say, Clays and I kinda felt I was at a disadvantage when shooting against supposedly softer shooting loads.

I decided to do an experiment. This was with an M&P .45 and a 1911 using 230 grain plated bullets. Using a chrono, I loaded up three different loads, all major and all almost identical power factors. I used Clays, Titegroup and WST, marking the cases so I could tell which was which after shooting. I would randomly select one of each, and load them up in a mag. So, every 3 round would have me shooting one of each without me knowing which was which. I did doubles too to further test, but you get the idea.

My job was to see if I could tell which was truly softer. I fully expected to find the recoil of the titegroup to be sharper then either the WST or Clays but the result really surprised me. I found virtually no difference in the recoil characteristics of any of them. I could not tell by the recoil impulse which was which. I had a friend help and we were pretty much in the same place. My splits were almost identical when I shot doubles, and I really saw no advantage to one over the other.

To be honest, I could tell when I paid attention, but not because of the recoil impulse, but becuase of the muzzle flash characteristics and sound.

I had some 200 grain loads too, and they did feel softer, but the power factor was slightly lower, so I am not sure about that one.

Now, this is with 230 grain .45 and someone told me that this may be true with the .45, but you will definitely feel a difference with say, a .40, but I wouldn't know why.

Has anyone shared this experience, or do you really feel a difference with the powder (in .45) all else being equal?

Should I expect the lighter bullet to feel softer given the exact same power factor? And finally, if I did this same test with a lighter bullet, (185 or 200) do you think I would likewise not feel any difference?

I would love to hear your thoughts on this...

Thanks!

[TonyK]

On a burn chart, titegroup, clays and WST are all very similar. I don't think you will see much difference until you try something outside the box

Try something way different like Power Pistol, Universal, 4756 or Unique.

I just shot a bunch of 185 and 200's today loaded with 4756 but they were loaded pretty hot so they really didn't feel any softer than the 225 FP's I prefer. But I am loading these for velocity rather than power factor and yes they are way high on the power factor. The 185's were doing almost 1000fps, the 200's 890fps and the 225's only about 800. This was using almost max loads from the Hornady load manual.

The one thing I did that changed the recoil impulse on my 1911's was to use a firing pin stop with a much smaller radius where it contacts the hammer. This definitely slows the initial response of the slide. But I don't think that is an option with your M&P

I have shot a lot of factory Winchester White Box and there is definitely a difference between the 230 and 185 versions but I have never run the 185's across a chrono

PB has a good feel but even pushing it way past max, it still has a hard time making power factor for IDPA

And like you mentioned how much of this difference is external factors, noise, smoke, flash and just expecting it to be different....

[UFO]

I noticed a difference between Tightgroup and Clays in my .38 Short Colts. TG was much more snappier than Clays. Both measured very close across the chrono....

[Hi-Power Jack]

TB1911, I use WW231 and no idea re: the three powders you used, BUT:

I've noticed that beginners/C shooters can't tell the difference between

115 gr and 147 grain loads in 9mm (or say they can't).

More experienced shooters see the difference and prefer the 147's.

Reall top notch shooters (anyone better than me:) sees the difference

and prefers the 124's.

As someone mentioned, there's not a great difference among your three

powders, but it is possible that an A shooter might feel the difference.

And, as has been mentioned above, there are many other factors that

come into play as well.

The current thinking is that to make major in .40 or .45, the heavier

bullets with fast powders will produce the "lightest recoil impulse",

so I'd expect your 185's, at major, to feel snappier.

Thanks for sharing your experiment - very interesting.

[BBQDawg]

Interesting experiment. Though I didn't try a blind test like you, I shoot coated 200gr SWC's. I loaded up some almost identical major power factor loads in WST, Clays, and N320. I would shoot a mag of each at some targets. I found the WST to feel a little snappier to me and the Clays and N320 softer. I went with the N320 because the load was more accurate. I could probably play with the Clays and get it more accurate, but since already had the N320 load shooting one hole groups off the bench at 12 yards just stuck with it for now. If I can't get any more N320 at some point, I'll work on the Clays load some more. I might add that the WST load was very accurate also. The Clays load overall was not bad, but just seemed to always have 3-4 strays just outside the bull in a 10-shot string.

[superdude]

Nice testing. Thanks for sharing that. Hands-on testing is often a real eye-opener.

Empirical tests show that one identified factor in differentiating recoil between different gunpowders is their charge weight. If two powders produce the same velocity but use different charge weights to do so, the one that uses more gunpowder weight produces more recoil. This is consistent with physics since the gunpowder charge weight should be included in the recoil formula. Look your load data over for charge weights. The so-called 'snappiness' reported for some gunpowders might influence this, and I don't know if that can be measured empirically or not. I've also noticed sound differences in powder that I thought might be influencing my perception of the recoil impulse. It's hard to filter out all these variables when human perception is the measuring instrument. That's one reason why people report different experiences when shooting the same ammo.

http://38super.net/Pages/Gunpowder%20and%20Recoil.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil#Including_the_ejected_gas

Other empirical tests show that when loaded to the same power factor, heavy bullets have less recoil. This is usually because they require less gunpowder charge weight to achieve their power factor when tested with the same gunpowder. But some people have a preference for one feel over the other - light bullets feel snappy, heavy bullets feel pushy. Only the shooter can determine what they prefer.

http://38super.net/Pages/Recoil.html#Anchor-47857

[tb1911]

http://38super.net/Pages/Gunpowder%20and%20Recoil.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil#Including_the_ejected_gas

http://38super.net/Pages/Recoil.html#Anchor-47857

Superdude,

This is awesome info and I thank you for sharing. Evidence is showing everything is contrary to what I assumed. I understand the weight of the powder plays in the the equation, but we are talking a couple of grains and it really should be an almost unmeasurable difference, but it apparently does make a measurable difference.

So, shooting the heaviest bullet with the fastest powder yields the least recoil power factor being equal. That's surprising. I guess as noted, it comes down to perception and what the individual likes. I would love to repeat the experiment with a slow power added to the mix like Unique and see what I think. I am going to do some similar testing with 200 grainers Monday although I am not sure I have all loads being equal. I will be shooting some 230 vs. 200 to compare too. I will report back my perceptions.

With the faster power though, the acceleration happens over a shorter period of time, (snappier) and even if a slower powder has more real recoil, it may feel better because of the slower burn and more push. This is speculation on my part and we are talking milliseconds which may not even be perceptible. Right now, I am leaning towards WST once I use up my Titegroup.

FWIW, I shot the .40 for years and have that dialed in nicely for me. I've only been shooting the .45 again this year. I live in Connecticut and since we are limited to 10 rounds now (don't get me started) I decided to go back to the .45 for carry (M&P) and for me, it is important to train with what I shoot, so I am shooting the M&P Limited 10 major for now. I am toying with the idea of using a minor load for production - I did load up some minor stuff that a swear was the softest shooting minor I ever shot, but one thing at a time.

[TonyK]

A few things in those articles to make me pause...

Charge weights are only going to be really important for comparison when using the same powder. Using charge weights as part of the equation for two different powders isn't really valid. I have shot 3.5 grains of titewad and it compares to 5.4 grains of PB with similar velocities but very different "felt" recoil. Both pushing a 225 FP out of my 1911. Both have the same power factor but the titewad is way faster burning, mathematical amount of recoil is probably even but the feel of them is completely different, titewad has a snap and the PB has more of a push.

Your hands are not a ransom rest... Numbers taken from movement of the rest are accurate but it doesn't equate to what you "feel". The way I hold my 1911 puts pretty much all the recoil straight back so what I perceive in the recoil is going to be way different than someone with a softer hold that allows the muzzle to flip more. For me the push is better, for someone who allows the muzzle more flip the snap might be better for getting them back on target. They might even perceive the push as more recoil because it may take longer to get back on target.

When changing bullet weights the charge weight might drastically increase such as 8.8 grains of 4756 pushing a 185 grain FP but only 7.6 grains pushing a 225 FP and they feel nearly identical, almost identical power factor as well 180 vs 181 for what came off the chrono

From what I have read many powders are not linear at all. Some even have do not go below limits and as everyone knows there are book do not exceeds. Too little or too much and you may be asking for trouble.

I think the one constant I have learned so far is that the more I learn, the less I know.

While someone can put out numbers all day and show you the physics, prove this or prove that, it all comes down to finding a load you like. Finding that "felt recoil" that you like is more important than any numbers...

[DougCarden]

We did this test 20 years ago. CLAYS with a 230 won hands down. It had low charge weight coupled with great accuracy and had the lowest felt recoil vs. the 200gr loads we tried. A CLAYS load running 790fps is still softer than the same velocity load of Titegroup, but it is close, and most shooters can't tell the difference. They can tell the difference between a WWB 230 load and the others due to the faster powder burn vs. the slower in the factory ammo.

DougC

[superdude]

A few things in those articles to make me pause...

Charge weights are only going to be really important for comparison when using the same powder. Using charge weights as part of the equation for two different powders isn't really valid. I have shot 3.5 grains of titewad and it compares to 5.4 grains of PB with similar velocities but very different "felt" recoil. Both pushing a 225 FP out of my 1911. Both have the same power factor but the titewad is way faster burning, mathematical amount of recoil is probably even but the feel of them is completely different, titewad has a snap and the PB has more of a push.

A charge weight comparison when using the same powder (and bullet weight) doesn't tell you anything that you don't already know about recoil. More gunpowder = more recoil because velocity goes up and this in itself means more recoil even if you don't consider charge weight.

Using charge weight as part of the equation for two different powders is valid and is the whole point of the comparison. The question is whether different gunpowders produce the same amount of recoil for the same velocity. The answer is that charge weight matters. If their charge weight is the same, their recoil force is the same. If their charge weight is different, their recoil force is different. (The Ransom Rest might be sensitive to differences in gunpowder formulation which can affect their impact on 'actual' recoil force that is not apparent from looking solely at the gunpowder's weight, as noted in the difference between TiteGroup and N320 which had similar charge weights but observable differences in recoil.) The mathematical amount of recoil between 3.5 grains of TW and 5.4 grains of PB is different (if they produce the same velocity with the same bullet), not the same.

You're right, the Ransom Rest is not your arm. Their mechanical pivoting is similar since the bore axis of a gun is above the pivoting joint. The meaningful difference is that the Ransom Rest is mechanical and the movement of your arm is interpreted by your brain. It's the subjective experience of the brain that makes recoil comparisons different and difficult. Different brains perceive the same experience differently, and when it comes to the type of recoil a person prefers, it's up to that person because there are many psychological variables that influence that perception, as well as variables with how their gun is set up - gun weight and weight distribution, recoil spring strength, etc. and how these might affect a person's 'preference' in how the gun acts during the cycling event. Ransom Rest movement is consistent with the physics of recoil, and its movement fits the theoretical (mathematical) model very well.

[TonyK]

Superdude

Guess we are just gonna have to disagree...

In your answer you say for two different powders that "If their charge weight is the same, their recoil force is the same" This isn't the least bit true when comparing something like fast burning titewad against a slow burning double base powder like PB. Upping the charge of titewad to the same charge of PB and the gun would probably blow up. Lowering the charge weight of the PB to compare with the titewad might get you a squib or a bullet that just drops out of the barrel. This compares apples to oranges, just doesn't work. Two different powders can have drastically different charge weights but still have similar recoil.

And two powders of similar charge weights and close on the burn rate chart can have drastically different characteristics. 7625 is only two spots away from 231 on the burn chart. But the best I can get out of max loads for the 7625 is about 700fps with 5.9 grains while 5.7 grains of the 231 is pushing over 830fps. And these numbers are off a chronograph not the book.

And even the data I am getting off a chronograph and the "feel" of my gun does not fit the mold of science and math. I just got back from firing rounds across the Chrony and all three batches felt almost identical and this was primarily due to velocities being so close yet I was using 3 powders, 231, Autocomp and 800X. All rounds were 225FP's with an OAL of 1.17, fired 20 rounds of each.

5.7 grains of 231 avg fps of 837

6.5 grains of Autocomp avg fps of 838

6.5 grains of 800X avg fps of 829

From your answer the 231 should feel softer because of the lower charge weight and that wasn't what I found.

I have also fired some rounds of 800X with 7 grains at almost 900fps and they felt no different than todays rounds. This also doesn't fit the more powder=more recoil argument.

For myself when comparing different powders in regards to "felt recoil", charge weight is not near as important as bullet weight, velocity and whether its a slow burning high volume powder or a fast burner like titewad. The gun and I only care about the charge weight as it relates to providing the pressure necessary to achieve a given velocity without exceeding the limits of my gun

While I do not disagree that the Ransom Rest will give you consistent repeatable numbers, it reacts in ways that are nowhere close to your arm. It can only pivot upward if memory serves yet we pivot at the wrist in four directions, two at the elbow, who knows how many ways at the shoulder and on down the line. In reality not much of a comparison. What might be really interesting is to prevent any sort of upward movement and attach a g-force meter to a Ransom Rest and compare those numbers..... I think that might be a far better way to compare "recoil force" between powders that are loaded to the same velocities and bullet weights.

What this says to me is that "felt recoil" is near impossible to set down on paper. So the search for my magic load will continue... Not that it will work for anyone else....

Edited December 30, 2013 by TonyK

[superdude]

I guess I wasn't clear when I wrote that. Sorry. Here's what I wrote, "The question is whether different gunpowders produce the same amount of recoil for the same velocity. The answer is that charge weight matters. If their charge weight is the same, their recoil force is the same." The logical link I was trying to make between the first and third sentence was: If the two gunpowders produce the same velocity (with the same bullet) AND their charge weight is the same, their recoil is the same. The key is the same velocity. That's how the math works out since they have identical values for charge weight and velocity. I thought that logical link was okay when I wrote it, but I guess not. Sorry for any confusion there.

This is specifically examined in the "Gunpowder and Recoil" article. (Shame on you for missing that. )

Burn rate charts suck. No two burn rate charts place all the powders in the same order. Hodgdon places Longshot at position # 52 after Accurate #7 at position #50, i.e. Longshot is slower than A#7. The Vihtavuori burn rate chart places Longshot at position #13 well before accurate #7 at position #17, i.e. Longshot is faster than A#7. See Table 1 in that article. They are guides and don't really tell you anything about charge weights, except that slower powder 'usually' require more powder for the same velocity, but there are so many exceptions to that unless you're only comparing really fast powders with really slow powders. They should never be used for charge weight determinations.

So the question is how were you measuring recoil force? If you're doing it subjectively, well, that sucks. It's not sensitive, reliable or consistent enough. No way. Also, if the recoil is only a little different, I doubt that many people could tell a difference. Doing the math with your example (I'm using 230 grain bullets since you don't specify, and a 2.6 lb gun), here are the numbers for your loads:

5.7 grains of 231 avg fps of 837 = 5.66 ft lb recoil.

6.5 grains of Autocomp avg fps of 838 = 5.84 ft lb recoil.

6.5 grains of 800X avg fps of 829 = 5.73 ft lb recoil.

Yeah, they probably feel the same. The maximum difference in recoil is 0.18 ft lb and that is only 3% of the total recoil of your Autocomp load. No wonder you can't feel a difference. Who could? (Sometimes it helps to do the math to see just what you're comparing.) This is also discussed in the cited article. See Table 3. (Shame on you for missing that, too. ) (By the way, congrats on getting the velocities so close. I know how difficult that is.)

The advantage of the Ransom Rest is that it's stupid. More force moves the gun farther. Period. The whole thing about "felt" recoil is fuzzy at best because the nervous system and all that neuronal processing is involved. That's where the Ransom Rest turns out to be pretty smart. It's not influenced by anything other than raw physical force.

Some powders might be snappy and others pushy and produce the same recoil force. That is where our nervous system might be able to distinguish between the two. I doubt the Ransom Rest could tell the difference in that case. But there might be some other way to distinguish snappy and pushy, maybe slide speed/acceleration.

I suspect that we agree on more than we disagree. From a scientific point of view, subjectivity is gawd-awful hard to measure and varies too much from one day to another and one person to another. That's why a mechanical method is preferred. Ask any scientist. They spend a great deal of time working on more objective ways to measure stuff.

[TonyK]

Awesome reply, and yeah I think we are arguing the same point from different directions! I trust the seat of my pants, sometimes too much...

I was shocked that the velocities came out so close, can't say I planned it that way just got lucky. But now I can load rounds instead of testing them. Xtreme 225 FP's sorry I left that out. Best part is that I have a decent supply of all three of those powders plus a fair chunk of 7625 that I really like even if it is slow. But I have gotten some decent velocity out of it by exceeding max limits but only by a little and I don't recommend doing so to anyone...

All the math hurts my head... Like you say Burn Charts suck, I read somewhere how they come up with the info and was lost after the first sentence.... Besides no one gives you actual info just an order or relative location compared to other powders and you hope its right!

Have a great night!

[superdude]

I was shocked that the velocities came out so close, can't say I planned it that way just got lucky. But now I can load rounds instead of testing them. Xtreme 225 FP's sorry I left that out. Best part is that I have a decent supply of all three of those powders plus a fair chunk of 7625 that I really like even if it is slow. But I have gotten some decent velocity out of it by exceeding max limits but only by a little and I don't recommend doing so to anyone...

Oops, my bad. You didn't leave it out. I simply missed it. For some reason I thought you were indicating power factor.... Jeez, I need to pay more attention. Sorry.

Have a good one, too!

[tb1911]

So I did a little more experimenting based off what I have read here. Now it was FREEZING cold and I am sure if I were indoors I might feel differently, but here is what I perceived:

Using 200 grain bullet and WST, Titegroup and Clays, virtually no difference in recoil - same as my results with 230 grain bullets. We loaded up some Power Pistol and if I really paid attention, for me, it did have more recoil. It wasn't dramatic, but it was enough for me to be able to tell I was shooting it as compared to the other three where the only way I could tell was not by recoil, but by the other characteristics.

Here's where things got interesting for me. I was lucky enough to load up some 200 grain loads using Titegroup and had some 230 grain also loaded with Titegroup and both had the same power factor - about 171, so the only variable was the bullet weight. The 230 grain loads were clearly softer and easier to bring back on target. The 200 grain loads felt like they recoiled harder. This may partly just be my perception - the 200 grain rounds were much shaper and snappier but whatever, I clearly liked shooting the 230 loads better. Again, this was contrary to what I thought I would like, but I was able to shoot the 230s faster and more accurately.

When I came in to this, I fully believed powder would make a significant difference and I was at a disadvantage by not playing around to find the best, softest load. I am a "B" shooter and maybe if I were a Master it would be significant, but for ME, using WST, Titegroup or Clays are all the same. I think I prefer WST because it is cooler and cleaner then Titegroup and more forgiving (pressure wise) then Clays, not because of anything else. A slower powder like Power Pistol does recoil a bit more, but I wouldn't feel like it really hurt me in a match.

I did learn that I like 230 grain loads over 200 grain loads for major. So basically, everything I expected was exactly wrong. I expected to like lighter bullets more and I totally expected slow powders to al least feel softer. I was totally wrong on both accounts.

Thanks for all your knowledge and help guys! This was really informative!

Edited January 3, 2014 by tb1911

[ZackJones]

This is a great thread! I'm going to do a similar experiment with 230g Bayou bullets with IMR Trail Boss, Bullseye, and Red Dot. I'm planning to chrono the loads and shoot them between two different pistols. The first being my S&W 625 JM revolver and the second being a Norinco Single Stack 1911 that I borrowed from my brother. I'm going to get my wife to go with me to the range and have her hand me moon clips / mags but not tell me what powder they're loaded with. It'll be interesting to see if I can tell any difference.

[spikers220]

I just did a 4 powder recoil test in my 40. Not a 45, but the information is relevant. I loaded up all loads to approx 170 PF. The powders were TiteGroup, VV N320, Clays and W231. I settled on TiteGroup a few weeks ago but I was bored and wanted to try them all at the same time. To my surprise, Titegroup, N320 and W231 all had similar recoil. There is no way I could feel a difference between those three powders. Clays on the other hand had a noticeably softer feel but my accuracy decreased tremendously. The recoil was softer, but NOT substantially softer. To each his own but I am sticking with TiteGroup and a backup of W231.

[BBQDawg]

What is interesting in this thread is the differences of opinion in perceived recoil. I first started loading about a year ago. I started with Titegroup. My shooting is all with government model 1911's in .45acp. I have shot a lot of Titegroup, WST, Clays, N310, and N320. Have shot a lot of loads sided by side (so to speak) of each. Nothing scientific, but just what I perceived, with all having right at 170 Power Factor. I perceived the harshest recoil in Titegroup, followed by WST, and with Clays having about the softest recoil. However, I could not get the accuracy I was getting out of the WST, N310, and the N320. I had the N320 about the same as Clays in soft recoil, but got my better accuracy with the N320. The N310 I quit using because was told shouldn't use with the moly coated bullets I was shooting. Accuracy wise, it was very close with the N320 and WST, but I felt the recoil was too sharp with the WST. Funny how a lot of people above felt differently about which had the harshest recoil. By the way, these tests were with 230gr RN and 200gr SWC's. I, too, feel, the 200gr SWC's have a little sharper recoil than the 230's, but in practicing shooting IPSC targets behind my house with a shot timer and keeping up with Hit Factors, I scored better times and Hit Factors with the 200gr SWC's so now shoot them full time with the N320.

[gondo]

On a burn chart, titegroup, clays and WST are all very similar. I don't think you will see much difference until you try something outside the box

Try something way different like Power Pistol, Universal, 4756 or Unique.

I just shot a bunch of 185 and 200's today loaded with 4756 but they were loaded pretty hot so they really didn't feel any softer than the 225 FP's I prefer. But I am loading these for velocity rather than power factor and yes they are way high on the power factor. The 185's were doing almost 1000fps, the 200's 890fps and the 225's only about 800. This was using almost max loads from the Hornady load manual.

The one thing I did that changed the recoil impulse on my 1911's was to use a firing pin stop with a much smaller radius where it contacts the hammer. This definitely slows the initial response of the slide. But I don't think that is an option with your M&P

I have shot a lot of factory Winchester White Box and there is definitely a difference between the 230 and 185 versions but I have never run the 185's across a chrono

PB has a good feel but even pushing it way past max, it still has a hard time making power factor for IDPA

And like you mentioned how much of this difference is external factors, noise, smoke, flash and just expecting it to be different....

Where do you think unique falls in there with felt recoil.... when i started reloading i aquired a ton of unique and have been loading 9 40 and 45 with it forever but my supply is getting lower and im not against trying something else...

Edited January 7, 2014 by gondo

[TonyK]

I haven't shot any Unique but I have a buddy who does and likes it. Maybe someone can chime in with something that has similar load and shooting characteristics

What seems to be coming out is that felt recoil may be more velocity related than anything, that and heavy bullets seem to have less snap than light bullets.

I really like the info that is coming out in this thread....

[Grump]

Um, so just how are you people having so many *choices* in powders? Can you actually find stuff to buy, did you do the 9-month backorder thing for online purchases, or are some of us here "coasting" with what we bought before the summer of 2012?

I'm down to buying the single pound of whatever pistol powder shows up every 3 months or so. Been more than a year since I've seen 231 or Unique. Saw Herco once in the last 18 months, Power Pistol twice, and Longshot all the time because it seems no one here is buying those same two jugs--until two weeks ago!

There is a jug of BMG 50 at one LGS. Another one has three rifle powders. A third had three jugs, two types represented.

They ALL say they order powder and just see what shows up. They can't get what they want. So, powder sales are down probably to less than 1/4 what they were in 2011 because it never gets on the shelves in the first place.

Okay, back to the OP.

I see recoil calculations in foot-pounds energy (Joules, anyone???), but power factors are roughly momentum. Not quite the same. I shot my first IPSC match a long time ago using a 4-inch .357 Mag, a duty rig, and 125-gr reloads that went 1425 fps. Now compare the FPEnergy of that with a 200-gr 175 PF load and tell me which is likely to recoil more?

So of course, your lighter bullet loads in handgun calibers will tend to recoil less or be "softer" than others in the same caliber with a heavier bullet. As well stated above, it might be only 3% less but it will be amenable to calculation and measurement too with a sensitive enough instrument.

But I believe that perceived "softness" or "snappiness" of recoil in the *same* pistol with different powders, same bullets, same PF just might truly exist and also might be a pretty minor effect that some would not notice. Even for those sufficiently attuned to notice a difference in blind testing, it still might not translate into any difference in split times. Now THAT would be worth testing AFAIC, once we find the A class or Master class people to test it...

The above-described testing tends to vindicate my own skepticism of the discussions of perceived recoil differences between powders, but the informed accounts of others also leaves me nearly convinced that sometimes there is a perceivable difference. But I'm such an insensitive clod I don't think I would notice. Not with a Bill Drill of like 3.8 seconds. Don't laugh too much--that's with the first round going downrange 1.7-2.1 seconds after the buzzer.

[ZackJones]

Regarding powder I found some Red Dot and Bullseye at a gun shop in North Carolina when I was visiting my brother. For Trail Boss I found a vendor with powder in stock and bought a case of it. I figured buying a case (10 bottles) was the wisest decision due to the hazmat fees. www.gunbot.net has a reloading option where you can search for powder. That's how I found Trail Boss. Our LGS had a pound of e3 on the shelf. I wish now I would have bought it when I saw it .

[spikers220]

In regards to powder purchasing. I have quite a few local places that have been getting powder on a regular basis. Many of which are up to two hours away but I have friends or family that can purchase it for me until I get there. I have been able to buy a few 8lb jugs of w231 recently at powder valley. Most of it just comes down to luck and being persistent.

[tb1911]

Here is a new twist: I shot the WST loads on an indoor flashlight stage and after a couple of double taps, i couldn't see a damn thing.

Next match, there were two similar flashlight stages and I shot one with Tightgroup and all was fine. I could see as I always did. I shot the other with WST and again, i couldn't see anything after a couple rounds. Smoke obscured the targets.

Anyone else ever experience this with WST???

Back to Tightgroup for me!

[jcc7x7]

ClayDot seems to have low flash and smoke in the 45 for dark stages