Doggorloader Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I have been told that if you switch between ball and stick type powders the fouling of each is not compatible with the other. Going as far as to say an accuracy wrecking crust would develop and be hard to remove. Is there any truth to this and/or is it only true with older type powders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I just don't see how this is possible. The powder residue gets scraped out of the bore with each subsequent shot. At least 99.9% of it anyway. Even if it is true, I don't see how it couldn't be fixed in 15 minutes with bore cleaner, Kroil, or bore paste. I've shot all kinds of mixed-bag ammo through rifles at random and never had "crust" to deal with. Maybe you have a crusty source.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 You must be talking about rifles, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Larry Cazes Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 I have heard of something like this occurring in rifle barrels and only may result in a loss of accuracy for a limited number of rounds (3-5) until the new fouling/barrel combination settles in. Never heard of a crust or crud that is hard to clean forming, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimel Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 This sounds like bench rest shooting lore. I knew a bench rest shooter awhile back and he was convinced everything in the world affected accuracy. He would regularly buy a big jug of powder, decide that lot wasn't compatible with his barrel and give it away or sell it dirt cheap. He kept many varmit hunters in powder for a long time. Buy hey...whatever floats your boat and makes you happy. I seriously doubt that most normal shooters could tell the difference, if there was any, in mixing powders from string to string. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Neill Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 I would guess this may be a distortion of the problems experienced early in the life of the M16. The gun/cartridge were developed with an extruded (stick) powder. The military, after adoption of the gun and cartirdge, loaded Ball powder. This changed the cyclic rate, and the powder also did have a bit more residue (ash) than the original powder. Combined with the increased cyclic rate, there were problems with the guns. Adjustments were made in the design and the AR platform has proven very reliable. I'm not aware of any real concerns today. Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggorloader Posted August 13, 2003 Author Share Posted August 13, 2003 This came up in a discussion at my club about trying either H4350 or IMR4350 instead of my usual H414 and yes it was a rifle application in this instance. An "old timer" who has "reloaded for everything there is" in the group came up with the "accuracy wrecking crust that would have to be removed by the strongest solvent there is" advice. It was enough to question the move. It seems that the consensus is there shouldn't be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Probably a corruption of a practice some long-range and NRA High Power shooters do: Two loads, one for "short" and one long, with two powders. For the 200 and 300 yard distances they'll load 69 grain match with a suitable powder. Then for 600 and 600+ they'll load 80 grain match with another suitable powder. They spend a great amount of time and effort to match powders for each use that don't cause changes in group size or zero. (Mostly concerned with size and windage changes.) It would be most unfortunate to have to spend four or five rounds re-conditioning a bore from the short to the long range load, while trying to hold center and account for wind, light, phase of the moon, etc at 600. For us? A monumental waste of time, effort and concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAB Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Perhaps there was a specific case where two powders reacted with each other? I doubt that it has anything to do with powder shape - once the powder burns, the shape is long gone SAB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now