ben b. Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 The argument for Solo 1000 is that it is a single base powder with burn rate similar to VV n320, seems like an equivalent powder. The pressure may be a surfing closer to the edge. Why not use 1250? I ain't dunnit neither, but I'm fixin' to, and curious why I don't hear more on this. Any opiners care to opine? cheers, Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apiarian Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Do not know your application, but S1250 is more like 3N37; very slow compared to S1000 or N320. Maybe? good with a comp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 Various charts have it all over. This Hornady chart is what I was thinking of, it's next to Power Pistol. I've seen load data that looks good with lower pressure relative to Solo 1000, other data that looks like no advantage. http://www.hornady.com/ballistics/powder_burning_rate1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 The argument for Solo 1000 is that it is a single base powder with burn rate similar to VV n320, seems like an equivalent powder. Close - but I was actually lookin at a replacement for N310 and N318 when I stumbled on Solo 1000 in 2004. Speed of Solo1000 put it in the running against those two and I had hoped that its single base chemistry would make it a clean, safe, alternative like V.V. Is 1250 also single base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 ...Is 1250 also single base?Yes, the Solo line is single-based.Care to guess if the Nitro line is double-based...? http://www.accuratearms.com/data/solo1250.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sargenv Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) There used to be a Solo 1500 some years ago but I guess it may have been too close to something else in their line or they didn't sell much of it. It was somewhere in the range of Blue Dot and I'd played with it a little bit with loading steel shot in 12 gauge. I think at the time I settled on Blue Dot which I sometimes still use today for that application when I'm not using Alliant Steel. I've not used any 1250 for anything thinking that it was kind of an in the middle powder.. It may be useful as a slower burn rate powder application where you want a single based propellant. Edited June 10, 2009 by sargenv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA Friday Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 heavy bullet+fast powder=low recoil If you can get away with a 40cal load with a faster powder and not blow the gun up or even walk the edge, why use a slower burning powder? It would be counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray_Z Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 It ain't broke, don't fix it. 4.8gr Solo 1000 180gr zero or MG HP 1.120 OAL = 170pf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted June 10, 2009 Author Share Posted June 10, 2009 According to the manufacturer info, most loads we see are walking the line, or over the line. The data Johann sent me for a 180 gr TMJ at 1.125" OAL says it is over SAAMI pressure specs. OK, I don't trust the mfg info. Nor do I trust primers as indicators of excess pressure. From the data and insider scuttlebut I've read or seen, the condition of the primers are either as useful as witchcraft. or marginally more useful than witchcraft. in detecting excess pressure. Apparently primers can also show excess pressure signs yet excess pressure is not detected using quantitative meaurements. And the mfg lists S1250 as lower pressure relative to desired velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA Friday Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 According to the manufacturer info, most loads we see are walking the line, or over the line. The data Johann sent me for a 180 gr TMJ at 1.125" OAL says it is over SAAMI pressure specs. OK, I don't trust the mfg info. Nor do I trust primers as indicators of excess pressure. From the data and insider scuttlebut I've read or seen, the condition of the primers are either as useful as witchcraft. or marginally more useful than witchcraft. in detecting excess pressure. Apparently primers can also show excess pressure signs yet excess pressure is not detected using quantitative meaurements. And the mfg lists S1250 as lower pressure relative to desired velocity. OK, get a lb of the stuff and test it out. Build a load, chrono it, record the results, and shoot it against an equal pf load of Solo 1000 and let us know what you come up with. It sounds like you have an itch, so scratch it. That's how new things are discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Smith Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 The argument for Solo 1000 is that it is a single base powder with burn rate similar to VV n320, seems like an equivalent powder. The pressure may be a surfing closer to the edge. Which brings up a question. Other than looking at the spent brass for signs of overpressure, how do you know what pressure range you are working in. Is there enough information in the published reloading guides to estimate this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted June 10, 2009 Author Share Posted June 10, 2009 According to the info kindly provided by Carlos some time ago, which I have, and the info I had from Johann the ballistician, which appeared the same but I lost, most loads you see posted on BE.com are in Over-pressure Land. Suspicion has been raised on these very forum pages that the good Herr Johann is running data from a pressure projection/estimation software app, and that the data provided is crap. I'm inclined to agree and distrust the info from Accurate, but lack anything other than the "reading fish entrails" provided by inspection of primers and brass. I certainly have not seen anything drastic, like case head separation. So I'll test 1250 for .40 just to see, I'm just not in a hurry at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98sr20ve Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 According to the info kindly provided by Carlos some time ago, which I have, and the info I had from Johann the ballistician, which appeared the same but I lost, most loads you see posted on BE.com are in Over-pressure Land. Suspicion has been raised on these very forum pages that the good Herr Johann is running data from a pressure projection/estimation software app, and that the data provided is crap. I'm inclined to agree and distrust the info from Accurate, but lack anything other than the "reading fish entrails" provided by inspection of primers and brass. I certainly have not seen anything drastic, like case head separation.So I'll test 1250 for .40 just to see, I'm just not in a hurry at present. The old data for Solo1000 and 9mm has Min length of 1.114, .40 is 1.125. I know I load my 9mm much longer then their min. So unless you are loading to min length like Solo did all those years back you really have no idea what your pressure really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 I'd go further and say that, unless you have current factory pressure test data, you really have no idea what your pressure may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98sr20ve Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 How many of you .40 guys are pushing the velocity of your rounds past the stated velocity in the Scotts data that we have in the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 How many of you .40 guys are pushing the velocity of your rounds past the stated velocity in the Scotts data that we have in the past? My .40 load 180 gr lead is right at the top of the old photocopy charts for 175 gr lead (similar velocity and powder charge), which I think were provided by Carlos (?) from a link here on BE. These are well beyond the current Accurate info, with much less velocity than the Accurate charts indicate. My 9mm loads are well beyond the data in the old chart, tho the listed 9mm loads are quite short. My 200 LSWC .45 loads are in the neighborhood of the old chart info, but the OAL in the chart is pretty short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98sr20ve Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) How many of you .40 guys are pushing the velocity of your rounds past the stated velocity in the Scotts data that we have in the past? My .40 load 180 gr lead is right at the top of the old photocopy charts for 175 gr lead (similar velocity and powder charge), which I think were provided by Carlos (?) from a link here on BE. These are well beyond the current Accurate info, with much less velocity than the Accurate charts indicate. My 9mm loads are well beyond the data in the old chart, tho the listed 9mm loads are quite short. My 200 LSWC .45 loads are in the neighborhood of the old chart info, but the OAL in the chart is pretty short. My 9mm loads for 124 gr are only 20fps beyond the old book I have. There is no data for 147 gr 9mm loads in the old Scotts info I have. Where is the new Accuarate info you speak of? Edited June 13, 2009 by 98sr20ve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray_Z Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I have been using the same load for 5 years. 180gr zero HP, 4.8gr solo 1000 at a 1.20 OAL. I have never shown any pressure signs at all on the primers. More economical, more consistent across the chronograph, clean burning. fast burning so less felt recoil. Like I said before, it ain't broke, don't fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) My 9mm loads for 124 gr are only 20fps beyond the old book I have. There is no data for 147 gr 9mm loads in the old Scotts info I have. Where is the new Accuarate info you speak of? Here is what I have: Caliber: 9mmx19P. Barrel length: 4" Powder: Accurate - Solo 1000 Bullet weight: 147 grains Start load: 2.7 grains (775 - 850 Fps) Maximum load: 3.0 grains (825 -875 Fps) Edited June 13, 2009 by ben b. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98sr20ve Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 My 9mm loads for 124 gr are only 20fps beyond the old book I have. There is no data for 147 gr 9mm loads in the old Scotts info I have. Where is the new Accuarate info you speak of? Here is what I have: Caliber: 9mmx19P. Barrel length: 4" Powder: Accurate - Solo 1000 Bullet weight: 147 grains Start load: 2.7 grains (775 - 850 Fps) Maximum load: 3.0 grains (825 -875 Fps) When I loaded 147 gr for minor I was loading them to about 890 fps. But it took way more then 3.0 grs to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 The data I posted is recent info. My own loads took 3.6 with a 147 lead to make PF 130. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodownzero Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 The data I posted is recent info. My own loads took 3.6 with a 147 lead to make PF 130. Mine make it easy at 3.5 and might do it at 3.3 with 147s. Mine made minor at 3.5 out of a 3" barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike cyrwus Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 It ain't broke, don't fix it. 4.8gr Solo 1000 180gr zero or MG HP 1.120 OAL = 170pf -------------------- Ray Z I have been using the same load for 5 years. 180gr zero HP, 4.8gr solo 1000 at a 1.20 OAL. I have never shown any pressure signs at all on the primers. More economical, more consistent across the chronograph, clean burning. fast burning so less felt recoil. Like I said before, it ain't broke, don't fix it. So, which one is it??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA Friday Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 It's 1.20. 1.135 is factory OAL. a 40 S&W round with a 180 jacketed bullet with 4.9gr of Solo 1000 at 1.12 OAL would be at the very least stout. More than likely, it would be too stout and bad ju-ju on a small scale would happen. My favorite 40 cal load is a 180 BBI, 4.7gr of Solo 1000, 1.185 oal, mixed brass and Wolf SRP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike cyrwus Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 It's 1.20. 1.135 is factory OAL. a 40 S&W round with a 180 jacketed bullet with 4.9gr of Solo 1000 at 1.12 OAL would be at the very least stout. More than likely, it would be too stout and bad ju-ju on a small scale would happen. My favorite 40 cal load is a 180 BBI, 4.7gr of Solo 1000, 1.185 oal, mixed brass and Wolf SRP's. I know... I wanted to point out the error, that could go boom. 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