What happens if one substitutes a 'normal' powder charge with an even slower powder that still fills the case? Taking that to extremes, is it still dangerous as the powder charge is still below theoretical range even thought the case is full? Could something like pyrodex be used for reducing the velocity?

I have noticed that the minimum load for a heavier bullet is less than that for a lighter bullet (obviously) but this means more freespace in the case. So why not load the lighter bullet on top of the lower minimum charge?

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:
I have guns in ~ 62 cartridges and ~ 40 powders, but I can buy more.

If anyone has a detonation recipe, I am willing to try it and report back... tomorrow if I have the materials in stock.

I will tell you the powder is 2495.
The rest will be by PM to protect the innocent.

http://groups.google.com/group...ark#8a719942d59cb554

I can see I was debating this back in 2001, and they were complaining the topic was old then.

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
What happens if one substitutes a 'normal' powder charge with an even slower powder that still fills the case?

Often did this with 5010, 5020, 4831 and H870: blows a whole lot of unburned powder out on the snow.

Some fella on this forum once said-" If all that powder did burn you might find out you had too much in the case. " I found out he was absolutely right. It did not happen, however, with ordinary loading. roger

quote:

Originally posted by Barstooler:

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Barstooler:



That is the Barstoolers opinion and he is certainly entitled to it.

Hand loading gives you the ability to explore and learn. It further gives us a reasonable opportunity to do things as we choose and to shed the blinders that obstructionests would impose.
Using reduced loads for the 257 Weatherby can be safely accomplished and can be fun. If you think you'll like and enjoy it , do it. roger

I "explore" limits between published min/max loads. That is the beauty of handloading. You go outside (below) that and blow your head off "learning" because of a 1:10,000 chance of a pressure excursion with a slow burning powder, then don't blame anyone but yourself. That's my only point.

Personally I think your point is well taken; If ,however, if you were implying or saying that I was propagating the idea to use reduced loads of slow burning powders lower than recommended in loading guides, that is totally incorrect.
If you go back and read earlier postings on this thread you will find the facts. roger

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:
http://groups.google.com/group...ark#8a719942d59cb554

I can see I was debating this back in 2001, and they were complaining the topic was old then.

I suspect it has been around as long as newbies have been blowing up rifles and trying to blame it on someone besides themselves.