Powders

[D.Hayden]

Softer?

I've seen and read posts talking about how one powder shoots softer than another, I can see how powders that have much different burn rates could be different, but I don't see how something like N320 could be tht different than WST. Is there a good explanation for this?

Dirty?

Is there information about how dirtyy a powder is? I started using Titegroup because of a Dillon article talking about how clean burning it was (that it's cheap is good for me), but posts here talk about that it's dirty at low preasures (like 45 ACP).

All I'm looking for is a good cheap powder that makes my Kimber 45 have the same recoil as my Beretta 9mm so the sites stay on track, and the gun is spotless after shooting.

Thanks, Dave

[Flexmoney]

Dave,

The person that wrote that article in Dillon's catalog was likely Duane Thomas...a regular on this forum.

I don't think you can go wrong with TG...or any of the other "favorite" powders in 45.

If you want your sights to track...work on technique.

As Steve Anderson (another forum regular) says...pick one and practice.

[benos]

All I'm looking for is a good cheap powder that makes my Kimber 45 have the same recoil as my Beretta 9mm so the sites stay on track, and the gun is spotless after shooting.

You might be looking for too much. While you may find a good, clean powder that will safely work well for both guns, it's not possible to make a 9mm Beretta feel like a Kimber 45, no matter what powder you choose.

Experiment with powders in your 9mm until you find one that burns clean, then you should find load data to load that same powder in your 45. Experiment with the 9mm first, since a 9mm works at a higher pressure than a 45.

That's about as good as you can get with powders.

And as Flex suggested, only practice will keep those sights tracking and returning nicely.

be

[diehli]

Brian, you forgot to read BarKim's .

[Norm Lee]

Hey Dave:

Prolly can't help you with the dirt determination factor (DDF). Your own experience and the advice of others will be the yardstick there. Light loads are sometimes problematical when combustion isn't complete.

In our business we generally respond "pick one" when someone says good and cheap so I won't make a powder recommendation.

But perhaps I can help a little with that softness thing. Recoil, as I'm sure you know, is all part of that equal and opposite reaction and momentum balance stuff from physics class. So in one direction we've got the mass times velocity of the bullet plus the mass times velocity of the other ejecta, burning gasses and whatnot. In the other direction you have the MV of the gun and shooter. Shooter absorbs as recoil the MV of the gun which is equal to the M*V=P of the stuff going the other way. So when you have a choice of ways to make a given PF (just another measure of momentum without benefit of real units) you need to decide between a fast light projectile and a slower heavier one. Or, for a given bullet weight, whether to use less of a faster powder or more of a slower. When we look at the formulas used to actually calculate recoil we see that it's generally assumed that the powder's mass is more or less completely converted to propellant gas. Interestingly enough, the gas is assigned a velocity up around 4000 fps. Now that's enough to make even small differences in powder weight significant in terms of felt recoil. The softest shooting load for a given power factor will feature a heavy bullet propelled by the smallest safe charge of powder required to make the necessary velocity. Note the emphasis on safe. I'm not advocating Bullseye with 220 gr bullets in a .40.

Cheers,

Norm

[TRG65]

BarKim

Steve Anderson has done a lot of work playing with powders to find what feels the softest. Like Norm Lee said this is the fastest burning powder your gun will safely shoot using a heavy bullet. For me those combinations are VV320 with a 147 bullet in 9mm and VV 310 and a 230 gr bullet in the .45. The .45 can use a faster powder than the 9 in most instances. I have used 320 in the 45 but I don't like it nearly as well as 310. I have used 310 in the 9mm but it seems to be too much pressure and leaves craters on my primers, 320 doesn't have the pressure signs in my guns. Steve doesn't get pressure signs with 310 and a 147 9mm in his blaster. So I say again, you will generally have the "softest" load with the fastest powder your gun will safely shoot.

Using VV in my 45 1911 and Glocks I literally have gone thousands of rounds between cleanings. My 9mm 1911 won't let me go more than about 500-700 rds between cleaning regardless of powder choice.

You're never going to be able to get a 165 pf .45 to feel like a 125 pf 9mm beween a 1911 and a Beretta. Personally, working with the recoil spring weight and shock buffs have cured my tracking problems more than powder changes.

[D.Hayden]

Ok, no-one ever gets my humor... I'm just challenged, I even spelled my forum name wrong, sorry I'll try again

What I was trying to ask was for good data on powder combustion in different loads. That TiteGroup in a 9MM 124gr at PF 135 seems to burn clean, but TG in 45 230gr @ 170pf seems dirty (around the slide and barrel, it's noticeable). I first started thinking about this when I was chronographing some loads, and the chrony was giving bad readings (anywhere from 125fps to 8000fps) when shooting TG in the 45, but not with the prev or next magazine with Unique (at about the same PFs), and I didn't have these problems with TG in my 9MM.

On the softer question, some posts I've read seem to say that 2 powders with very similar burn rates (in the charts), same bullet and PF, that one will feel 'softer'. If that's true, any way to know? Or is this just perception?

Thanks for taking it easy on me, Dave

[D.Hayden]

You're never going to be able to get a 165 pf .45 to feel like a 125 pf 9mm beween a 1911 and a Beretta. Personally, working with the recoil spring weight and shock buffs have cured my tracking problems more than powder changes.

Thanks for the info, I was composing mine when you posted...