quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
: Have had it:

Those with intelligent perception----4

those that think they have----------18

those with no clue ------------------4

Total brain fart perception----------3

Feel free to pick and choose. roger

aww we are all probably guilty of both number two and three....

but it isn't as bad as on the Political forum...

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
I completely forgot about a VERY BAD experience I had with Blue Dot.

On New Year's Eve, I went to load some rounds for a .223 Rem. The load features 13.5 grains of BLue Dot under a 36 grain Barnes Varmint Grenade. THe primer is a Rem 7 1/2. The MV is 3260 fps from a 23" barrel.

Talk about a BAD experience...

I walked into the loading room, got my brass prepped and noticed I was OUT of BLue Dot. And, my local gun store wouldn't be open for several more days!!!

Shazzzbutt!!!

Now we have TWO bad experiences!!!!

Was anybody hurt????

( humor, guys, humor!!!)

Howdy

Good fight here, a real target rich environment!

Some might bring up "detonation" and some might bring up the boogeyman!
P O Ackley tried to blow one up that way and it just did not happen. From what I hear the military had some problem with it in deck guns in the early days of smokeless, but god only knows why.

With detonation safely out of the way, who here can say they have never double charged? If so I'll not comment on you likely moral fiber. I have never shot one but I HAVE pulled several out of the loading block with red dot and 45 acp. That gentlemen, led me to stop using powders that did not fill the case to half way, at least! It was the one that I was just about to seat in my press!

As for pressure, well Blue Dot must peak before the slow powder yet my guess is that the peak is only slightly (a few thousand) more than the slower powder @ the same muzle velocity due to the energy loss of friction in the bore in relation to the lesser volume of expanding gasses. Let us not forget that the volume of powder is directly linked to the volume of combustion gasses produced. In this vein a "detonation" would have to be a DIFFRENT chemical reaction that was forced "against the grain" by some factor involved, a reaction which would have to have a burn rate of RDX to have the inertia necessary to breach a modern chamber with such a modest quantity of reactive material (powder).

Hot Core and others-you have done all that you can to attempt do dissuade some folks of a potentially dangerous habit. I do not necessarily agree with the reasoning of all the dissenters in the blue dot debacle but now it smacks of pride.

Blue Doters Be Warned double charges WILL cause damage to something! Whether or not it destroys the toy is questionable,but do you want to find out? If you insist on doing it, I think, if you can assure that you get the same charge every time then it SHOULD be safe. That is no guarantee Stay away from that like the plague!

Seafire- In a nation where a dirt bag thief can SUE his intended victim when he fell through a sky light lacerating his leg on some kitchen knives; just because there was a ladder to the roof, I would be supremely careful what I posted in public. That is not to say; if you Warn them that double charging is easy and this may be VERRY dangerous for said reasons, that you should not post it, but cover you six o’clock!
I may use the data in a controlled test with a piezo strain awg and plug the values into a metal stress simulator at a later date, but for now no denaro!

May you all Handload to your heart's delight, with both hands and eyes! Keep em in the Ten Ring

quote:

Originally posted by Rex Rat:
In this vein a "detonation" would have to be a DIFFRENT chemical reaction that was forced "against the grain" by some factor involved, a reaction which would have to have a burn rate of RDX to have the inertia necessary to breach a modern chamber with such a modest quantity of reactive material (powder).

It seems possible to detonate and not deflagrate nitro-based propellents. I remember reading somewhere how a Finnish guy (who else?) built hollow or rather shaped charges with N310 (similar to Red Dot) ignited by some detonator capsules.

Do not do this at home.

Look here also for a possible explanation of the SEE (secondary explosion effect).

quote:

Originally posted by seafire2:

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
I completely forgot about a VERY BAD experience I had with Blue Dot.

On New Year's Eve, I went to load some rounds for a .223 Rem. The load features 13.5 grains of BLue Dot under a 36 grain Barnes Varmint Grenade. THe primer is a Rem 7 1/2. The MV is 3260 fps from a 23" barrel.

Talk about a BAD experience...

I walked into the loading room, got my brass prepped and noticed I was OUT of BLue Dot. And, my local gun store wouldn't be open for several more days!!!

Shazzzbutt!!!

Now we have TWO bad experiences!!!!

Was anybody hurt????

( humor, guys, humor!!!)

Humors the best medicine but sometimes it just ain't there. This part of my postings keeps getting overlooked, the non humorous part and I wish to heck I'd saved those pictures.
"Quote"
montdoug

Also and yet again my involvement in this started several years ago about the time this craze started when a guy on another site told the story of his reduced Blue Dot load in his .223 contender and posted pictures of his eye surgery. This part of what I been saying keeps getting completely ignored but I guess it isn't a big enough problem with Blue Dot loads to count in the poll! OOOPPS, (memory's screwed since my brain blew up). I just made a phone call to a friend off the site where the photos of that eye surgery were posted to check my facts on the disaster. I apologize for being wrong, it wasn't a reduced load in a .223 it was a reduced Blue Dot load in a .17 Remington Contender. My friend agreed that "reduced" Blue Dot loads in a .223 are probably safe if they are reduced enough but agreed they have no business of any kind in any .17 caliber.

Once again amigo I'm sure your on top of reduced loads in .223 and up, it's the little stuff where my concern is.
Ben says the powder spikes pressure, I know small calibers spike pressure funny, bad combo.
Taking a .223 down to a Hornet? Sounds fun! I prefer Unique cause I have about 12 lbs of it but that's another topic all together .

Doug,

I remember reading the article on the other site that you speak of.. it was brought up here and had a link to it posted....

If I remember correctly, the person whom had the unfortunate accident, was trying to assume that load data from a 223 would work in a 17 Rem, since they both are the same sized case...

I have had emails asking if that was possible, to substitute load data for the 223 with the 17 Rem or the 17/223, 17/222 etc... I have told them that it was not, even tho load data capacity for larger cases was interchangable... such as the 243, 260, 7/08, 308, 358 all have the same max load of Blue Dot, regardless of bore diameter...but I have responded that smaller bore diameter's change the equation...

that is why for velocity potential in the sub 22 caliber bores, I have been a proponent of cases like the BR and the 22.250 necked down...

from all my work, I have learned that short and fat cases, are more user friendly to B/Dot than are long and thin...

a 20 BR case is easier to work with that a 204 Ruger with Blue Dot, even if your goal is to get the same velocity.. the BR case will have less pressure in it..

That is also why I maintain a Fireball case is better to use B/Dot in than say a 17 Rem Case....a 222 case necked down is better to use in the 17 and 20 bore than a 204 case...

As far as Contenders, I haven't used them, but knowing Mike Bellm here locally and as a personal friend.. I have listened to him more than a few times, telling me about the importance of head space and the weakness of design locking up on closure...

He even got me to fire a Contender chambered in 375 H & H with a 15 inch barrel, where he was explaining the importance of proper head space on a cartridge like that, in a Contender, to make sure that the action locked on closing properly....

so a combination of using 223 data for a 17 Remington, plus theorizing that there may have been a minor head space issue with his Contender ( which if not properly headspace, it will snap open on discharge by the recoil and pressure as I understand it... Mike Bellm's web site has an article on it... Mike is a fanatic on proper headspace on a Contender, particularly the wilder the load)...

A bolt action is safer on a high pressure overload than a Contender, for the shooter...
as we know, as soon as the firearm is coming apart, that is when we are in real trouble...

Kinda why my friends haven't been able to talk me into a Contender yet..and as I said, I have even fired the 375 H & H in a handgun... that is a wild ride to say the least... but it was properly headspaced.... but I have seen other contenders come open by themselves just after the round went off...

just recently someone posted on one of these sites the damage done to someone's hand that had it placed improperly on the firearm shooting a 460 Rowland or something like that...
it wasn't an overload or anything.. it just shows what can happen if something goes Kaboom and one doesn't have any steel in the way between the kaboom and their body parts...

all in all, that is why I am strictly a bolt action guy...

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
: Have had it:

Those with intelligent perception----4

those that think they have----------18

those with no clue ------------------4

Total brain fart perception----------3

Feel free to pick and choose. roger

Sorry you feel that way, Roger.
I don’t know where I fall on your scale, but it really doesn’t matter to me.
So I’m sorry if I “pissed†on you or at you, seems as though you were collateral damage…

My point, although it looks as though it was lost in the fray was that Hot Core contends that he is an old-timer, etc. in reloading, yet he apparently believes just because a load is found in a manual, that the load is safe.
Which is absolute BS as you well know.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
I no longer support any Load that is not found in a Manual. I strongly encourage EVERYONE to begin using Factory Tested Loads and forget Blue Dot as a Reduced Rifle Load. ...

I have been reloading for nearly 20 years, I am by no means an “old-timer†as I know guys who have been reloading for over 50 years. I learned VERY EARLY into my reloading, that every load in every manual is an academic guideline and I have seen many loads well below published max that exhibited signs of high pressure, with no CHE or PRE required, thank you very much.

(Except MAYBE "Chi" and "PRE"(fontaine), AKA "run like the wind")

I HAD SEVERAL VERY BAD EXPERIEINCES USING Seafires Blue Dot LOADING METHOD.
They shot so well I burned up all the Blue Dot I had in stock and have gone through most of another Jug. Jug that is, not pound bottle.

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
: Have had it:

Those with intelligent perception----4

those that think they have----------18

those with no clue ------------------4

Total brain fart perception----------3

Feel free to pick and choose. roger

Sorry you feel that way, Roger.
I don’t know where I fall on your scale, but it really doesn’t matter

.

You're right on both counts, Flippy. roger

quote:

Posted Wed Mar 12 2008 4:38 PM Hide Post
Doug,

I remember reading the article on the other site that you speak of.. it was brought up here and had a link to it posted....

If I remember correctly, the person whom had the unfortunate accident, was trying to assume that load data from a 223 would work in a 17 Rem, since they both are the same sized case...

That's not at all how I remember it seafire, it was merely a reduced load of Blue Dot in the round in question which as I've been advising against all along was a .17 as it turns out.
Regardless of your opinions seafire my contention remains the same Blue Dot is unsafe in sub.22 calibers and is way to fast, especially for cases as large as the .20 BR. My .20 Dasher which is merely a .20 BR improved uses N540, that's 66 places apart on a powder burn chart from Blue Dot! I flat don't comprehend your obsession with making one powder work in all cartridges. I especially don't understand how a guy can in all good conscience post recommendations for loads on rounds he's never fired.
I apologize in advance for how rude this is going to be but frankly seafire you don't know what your talking about. I'd politely let it pass but your advice is going to get someone hurt! Ben at Alliant said so and as the only one in this discussion that has shot all the rounds your posting loads for I'm certain of it. At the very least when there's this much question about it and you've never shot any of the loads your posting data for why is it you can't accept anyones but your own belief based on anything? As Ben stated "in rifle cases Blue dot can spike pressure", same exact thing the Sierra Tech said not to mention me saying it as it pertains to small calibers over and over ever since the topic came up.
For the last time, YOU CAN"T JUST GO STUFFING SUPER FAST PISTOL POWDERS IN .17 and .20 CALIBER CASES!!!!
I know you have quite a following here and that's a-ok by me. I only really got involved in this when the .17's and .20's came into play cause that's all I shoot. My only hope is that anyone considering loading for .17 and .20 caliber rounds realizes that you have absolutely no experience with the rounds your giving advice for and they check other sources before doing something stupid like taking your advice. Sorry bout that, but there it is.
If a guy can afford to buy a new rifle or have a nice wildcat built but can't afford to buy the appropriate powder to make it perform as intended he needs a new hobby cause he sure can't afford this one.
I really don't want to discuss this any further cause it's obvious that years of personal experience in a shooting and reloading discipline don't carry near the importance to you of your personal "opinions" and you refuse to consider anyones but your own ideas. So while I like you personally I find trying to discuss things with people of that mind set quite boring.
As a last aside. I have to agree with Hot Core my friend. The way your giving out load data on rounds you have absolutely no experience with, against the advice of guys that do have experience with them as well as against the advice of the Technical adviser from the company that produces the powder your giving data for. Just know that when someone takes your advise and goes 40 percent load density on a Blue Dot load in a .17 Ackley Hornet and looses their eyes because of it your "this is for advanced reloaders only" caveat is still gonna net some blind guy every thing you own or are likely to own in the future. Ya might at least consider it cause your pushing your data pretty hard against all advice, and quite frankly I just don't get it. There has to be some kinda payoff in this for ya but I sure can't figure it.

Well Doug,

you are missing some of my points.. but one gets to the point, that you realize you really don't win arguments with folks you can consider friends.. you only prove a point and gain hard feelings...

So we'll just consider something like H 4350 as the ideal safe powder for under 22 caliber and we won't have to worry about someone getting hurt...or a powder like Trail Boss would also work great for not getting anyone hurt...

it eludes me, that we discuss this, while pistol reloaders work in tight parameters like this every day... and paying attention does not seem to get them hurt..

But you do need to look at the fact.. Ben Amonette is not an expert on Blue Dot in rifles...because he openly admits the factory hasn't tried it... so just as I am no expert on the rounds you don't think I have had the chance to shoot... how can Ben Amonette or the factory be experts on loads they haven't loaded or tested? That one escapes me...

I've seen loads floating around like using SR 4756 and Sr 7625 in 17 K Hornets, and 19 Calhoons...Calhoon even lists powders like 700 X and 800 X in some of his load data, according to a friend who just purchased one..

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject...anyone who wants to sue me, can go ahead and feel free to...they may find it is a bigger obstacle than they ever thought.. but that is a different subject that I won't get into publically on the forum..

my only bother is being at odds with you on the subject.. I really don't like the idea of being at odds with you on any subject as I respect your experiences and opinions..

but I also have others whom have a lot more science lab experiences with this..

and yeah we will work with this.. and we will also find out what exactly pressures can run doing some of this data...

and guidelines that I did post and tell folks to work up, was a response to several folks who have used it in other cartridges and desire to use it in the smaller cartridges... and taking your advise into account, along with common sense, was that smaller bore and smaller cases are tighter parameters.. but are still do'able..

so once again, you claim I haven't even shot some of these cartridges.. and you acknowledge that you haven't loaded B/Dot in them or anything else.. so at this point, it is an academic argument..

but I will proceed testing this stuff... to prove it either right or wrong... but I have done a lot of other stuff that folks emphatically told me I was wrong and was going to hurt someone... and then independent sources vindicated what I had said all along...I don't think this will be any different...that is why it is said to work up loads.. and know how to do so..

so would you rather have me give parameters based on the experience I have or just let someone else just dive in and try it for themselves?

the only conclusion I draw here, is arguing with a friend sucks...

My point is that with the various small caliber rounds one gets the appropriate powder for the application and there are no problems. The little wildcats in particular are very persnickety as to what works and what is over the top. Why take risks?
Thin little cases with .17 caliber openings are no place to be using unpredictable powders and load density is paramount. No one loads a .17 Ackley Hornet down to turn it into a .17 Mach2. 20 grain V-Max's are $16.00 a box or worse and you can buy 4 boxes of 50 Mach2's for that.
Reduced loads in a .223 might make sense and be safe but in the subs they just don't, it's just an unnecessary risk with no up side.
There is one thing we definitely agree on however...

quote:

the only conclusion I draw here, is arguing with a friend sucks...

Pax

quote:

Originally posted by seafire2:
...a 20 BR case is easier to work with that a 204 Ruger with Blue Dot, even if your goal is to get the same velocity.. the BR case will have less pressure in it..

Hey Sefire, What do you base that on?

quote:

but I have seen other contenders come open by themselves just after the round went off...

Sure glad I haven't. Did of you all get hurt? What was the Cartridge?

quote:

...all in all, that is why I am strictly a bolt action guy...

Trying to understand this without putting words in your mouth. Are you implying the Blue Dot Loads(which I no longer support) should only be used in Bolt Actions? And that people with Contenders orother actions should not use them?

quote:

Originally posted by Mattkcc:
Maybe someone should ask the maker of Blue Dot if it's ok.

We have never tested or recommended using Blue Dot for reloading rifle cartridges. We have heard of the practice and have received calls from reloaders looking for data. Our response has consistently been that we do not recommend Blue Dot be used in rifle applications due to us not having and test data to verify that it is safe. Blue Dot is a fast burning powder for rifle cartridges and pressure spikes can easily occur because of this. Thanks for your interest in contacting us and let me know if you have any additional questions.



Ben Amonette

Consumer Service Manager

Alliant Powder Company

That's interesting ... if they've never done any testing why am I looking at published Blue Dot loads (with pressure data) for jacketed projectiles in 221Fireball, 30M1 carbine and 45/70 and cast projectile loads in 30/30Win and 308Win? Add to that published Unique cast loads with pressure data in 25/20, 30Carbine, 30/30Win, 308Win and 458WinMag?

Didn't the Hercules powders change hands to Alliant perhaps explaining why they have no data?
Cheers...
Con

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:
...Hot Core contends that he is an old-timer, etc. in reloading, yet he apparently believes just because a load is found in a manual, that the load is safe....

No folks, that is taken out of context and as such is in fact a Lie.

quote:

Originally posted by seafire2:
...But you do need to look at the fact.. Ben Amonette is not an expert on Blue Dot in rifles...because he openly admits the factory hasn't tried it... so just as I am no expert on the rounds you don't think I have had the chance to shoot... how can Ben Amonette or the factory be experts on loads they haven't loaded or tested? That one escapes me......

Hey Seafire, I must have missed the part where Ben said "they haven't Loaded ot Tested it", can you point that out to me.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I would tend to believe they have Tested it, found it to be UNSAFE in specific applications and therefore do not recommend it. Or, their knowledge base indicated to them it was simply a bad thing to do.
-----

Just spotted Con's post. It seems Alliant has Tested Blue Dot in rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Rex Rat:
Howdy

Good fight here, a real target rich environment!

quote:

...I may use the data in a controlled test with a piezo strain awg and plug the values into a metal stress simulator at a later date, but for now no denaro!

Hey RR, I'd sure be interested in your results "when" you have an opportunity to Ka-Boom your Lab Equipment.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Just spotted Con's post. It seems Alliant has Tested Blue Dot in rifles.

Hot Core,
Circa 1983 though ... powder may have changed ... but I'm sure the owners have which may explain why the current group has no data. Highest pressure load given is with the 221 Fireball: 60gr Nosler SB at 2020fps and 43500cup, lowest is a cast 45/70 load at 8200cup
Cheers...
Con
PS: Just to add that the old Hercules load-data only listed Unique, Blue Dot, 2400 and Rel 7. There were 3 Rel 7 loads listed for the 243Win whereas the "now" manual only has 1. Perhaps they did the work back then only because they had to whereas once the powder line expanded they figured, why would you want to when there are more suitable loads?? The new manual doesnt list any Blue Dot in rifle loads.

Howdy Con.
I have an Aussie friend I communicate with on a regular/irregular basis and what I know from that is that a lot of the powders we have you folks don't and vice versa and some that we do share are differen't burn rates from here to there. Also some powders we share have one number here and a different one there.
This quote really interested me.
"Quote Con"
That's interesting ... if they've never done any testing why am I looking at published Blue Dot loads (with pressure data) for jacketed projectiles in 221Fireball, 30M1 carbine and 45/70 and cast projectile loads in 30/30Win and 308Win? Add to that published Unique cast loads with pressure data in 25/20, 30Carbine, 30/30Win, 308Win and 458WinMag?

Didn't the Hercules powders change hands to Alliant perhaps explaining why they have no data?
Cheers...


Con
That's real interesting and my questions would be:
What is the publication?
What year was it published?
And most importantly , do you have the means to copy and post that here? Sure would be germane to this thread and would be most helpful and appreciated.
The next question of course would then be with all the company swapping going on is todays stuff that same as what your data's for? That would be a question for Alliant.
Thanks.

Well I guess this thread is going to go as far as :


So bad into the fray once again, because ignoring it would probably be taken as an act of surrender or whimping out..

Okay to answer some of the questions from H/C

1. Okay... 20BR easier to work with, vs the 204 Ruger...working with about 15+ different calibers with B/D, I can tell you that it favors case shapes that are short and fat vs long and slender... case in point.. a 284 and a 280 Rem have the same capacity and are the same bore diameter... the 284 will hold more B/D safely than the 280... just have noticed the pattern also with other cartridges....a 20 BR also has more capacity for powder period.. therefore, whatever is max in a 204, won't be in a 20 BR...based on that, and case profile.. the 20 BR would be my choice in a 20 caliber, or the 221, followed by the 222...taking under the concept that the shooter wants to use B/D for loading it....

Contenders.. I've seen enough of them do so at the range.. also knowing a smith that works on Contenders and Encores exclusively, as a friend, I know that this is a major problem with them not locking up... back to his telling me how important it is to have the case properly headspaced in them...I have shot them in the 17 Mach 2 on the smallest chambering... to 375 H & H and 444 Marlin & 45/70 on the upper ends...

3. Am I implying that Blue Dot loads should only be used in Bolt actions? No, what I am saying, not implying.. is that I consider a bolt action the safest action for any cartridge, that is why I use them.. minus having a few lever action 30/30s and a 444 Marlin....I have always said that they won't cycle an AR or Mini 14.. and figured that the pain of single shooting each round would be deterent enough for most owners of them.. yet some folks still use them in the semi autos..
semi auto actions are also more sensitive... break opens.. I have friends who own break opens and Lord knows do I get the constant pitch " you need to get one of these"... I just don't like them the way I like a bolt action...

T/Cs and Encores, evidently can have a lock up problem if they are not properly headspaced...

" have missed the part where Ben said "they haven't Loaded ot Tested it", Ben said that directly to me on a phone conversation...that is why he requested the load data that I had worked on, indicating that he would like his lab guys to try some and work on it.. as he got a lot of calls asking about it...so that is why you missed it..

Now as Con brings up, older load data existing...

I have followed IMR load data for quite a while, as it is usually my preferred powder company... once their free brown handouts loaded each cartridge with each powder that they recommended for rifles, from SR 4759 to IMR 7828.. however over the years, some of those loads slowly disappeared from public info, and newer cartridges didn't list them at all...

RL 7 used to be used all the time for a lot of loads.. check out Lyman Manual # 47 for example.. they even have load data for the 300 Win Mag ( as I loaded some the other night)...

All I know, is that the slower powders reloaders use, the more they burn, the faster they have to replenish their stock so they buy more powder, and the slower the powder the more idiot proof it is based on overloads...so one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that carries several benefits for the powder companies to not show data using faster powders...

many of the bullet companies manuals migrate from faster powders to the more slower ones in their load data...

when we had fewer lawyers to harass the firearms industry, looking to create client work, many experts spoke of flexibility of a rifle cartridge by handloading it down with fast powders...Townsend Whelen was a good example...

Between Lawyers and Marketing, we are all bombarded with being convinced that we are better off burning faster powders...heck, if you load 4350 or RL 25 in your 223, you will never have a blow up...

folks also try to convince us of this load density BS that the more load density we have the more accurate the cartridge is going to be.... I personally have not noticed that pattern.. but I do see people buying more powder more frequently who believe that axiom..

on Lyman's cast manual, pag 247, they list load data for the 221 with powders like Red Dot, Green Dot, Unique, Blue Dot, 700 X PB, SR 7625, HS 7, AL-8.....Thats in a XP 100

they also use Blue Dot in the 256 Win Mag case in a Contender ( page 249)

Blue Dot is tested in a 30 Carbine, in a Ruger Blackhawk, page 252...

These are tested for handguns! which have a lot tighter parameters than a rifle.. and will take a lot less pressure...but they are being loaded to waht is considered safe...

they also use Blue Dot in the 375 H & H on page 220, and in the 444 Marlin...pages 230 and 231..

22 caliber small bores, they are recommending powder that are much faster in burn speed than Blue Dot...even in the 22 Hornet and the 218 Bee...so if there is safe data for those cartridges, using much faster powders than Blue Dot, how can Blue Dot be considered unsafe in those cartridges?

in 223 class cartridges, they are working with powders close to B/Dots burn rate yet are getting impressive velocities, with low pressures... case in point, the 222 on pages 126 and 127...

This is going to be an academic ping pong ball back and forth... those against it, will not have their minds changed, and those of us that use it, are not seeing the horror stories opponents are telling us that are just waiting to happen...

I've had a bolt action Ruger suffer a blow up with a load of 25 grains of H 335, and a 55 grain SP , with a Win Small Rifle primer.. no barrel obstruction etc...so does that mean that load is unsafe?

I'll tell anyone, you shoot enough, you will have a problem eventually...

I have had a Black Hills 223 factory load come apart on me and mess up a firearm...

I have had a Winchester Factory load in an 06 also come apart...

Black Hills wanted all the info and box etc, so I sent to them and that is the last I ever heard of it...so they didn't seem to care...

Winchester was told, that I not only had to repair the action, but it also wasted the stock, which I sent to them... they returned a new stock to me ASAP.. like in Days, with a check that I had said was the price for fixing the action.. NO questions or commments asked..

I have had primers pop, from load manuals way below max load.. yet other loads from that manaul worked just fine in the firearm...

the load that popped primers in that firearm, were digested in other firearms of the same caliber with no problems what so ever, and to include they would take the max load without popping primers..

it is all just the law of averages.. if folks don't want to deal with it, they should not be loading.. and they should not use what they personally may think is unsafe..clear as that...

but way too many of us, haved used Blue Dot in tons of firearms and have shot thousands of rounds accumulatively.. and the horror stories just are not happening or no one is bringing them up....

and considering the number of emails and PMs I get requesting load data in calibers from 17 Fireball to 458 win Mag..I don't get ANY emails of someone telling me how they screwed up something using that data.. I do get a lot of emails from folks telling me how thrilled they are with the results of the data....

so I have some idea that I am not overly in the wrong here...

ya know, Doug keeps bringing this up on smaller than 22 caliber bores, and its use...

until I test it, I am not going to do anything but give out recommended guidelines and stress the importance of working up in very small increments.. but it is the motivation to get get barrels in those calibers and test it myself.. nothing else to prove his point, or prove mine...

and I am not ego driven that I will not be afraid to point out if he is right.. at the same time, I am not so shy to point out if the results prove that he is wrong, regardless of the strenght of his convictions or his desire to pass on what he vehemently feels is safety... that is why I respect him so much...

ot of sheer respect for both of you is the only reason that I have answered all these questions that both of you propose...and also why this thread started.. to have other users chime in to point out any experienced problems...2000 plus views and we don't have much negativity being posted by others..

For anyone who wants to .. go above under "Find" and type in Blue Dot... there was 24 pages of threads and posts listed.. I went thru them the other night ( not all of them) but there is an entire library of folks requesting data and giving positive results on their uses of it..in all sorts of calibers...

If we are dealing with a ticking time bomb here, it just doesn't seem to go off very often..

and we won't even get into the requests and emails I get from others from other web site, that I didn't even know existed...

and most folks like the zippo price tag I put on the sharing of the info..I do it to help fellow shooters out.. no difference than some telling another shooter, use a Leupold scope because it will perform better under these circumstances than a tasco...

I'm starting to need a vacation from this thread...

quote:

Originally posted by montdoug:
Con
That's real interesting and my questions would be:
What is the publication?
What year was it published?
And most importantly , do you have the means to copy and post that here? Sure would be germane to this thread and would be most helpful and appreciated.
The next question of course would then be with all the company swapping going on is todays stuff that same as what your data's for? That would be a question for Alliant.
Thanks.

montdoug,
The data was listed in the May 1983 issue of Australian Shooter's Journal the publication of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. The data is really an "advertisement" of sorts as it's presented by the importer of the time Fuller Firearms and the powders/load data are presented as the "Hercules Reloading Guide". The advert is inline with the times when reloading "manuals" where quite abbreviated and Hodgdon, Winchester, Hercules and ADI promoted their powders by taking full page advertisements that showed the company load data.

I'll scan it but need someone to post it for me ... volunteers?
Cheers...
Con

montdoug,
Forgot to add that the Reloader 7 data for the 243Win is more extensive in the old (1983)manual compared to the current manual, and the new manuals load is lighter ... whether that's a "lawyer" thing or an indication of changed burn rates I have no idea.

Note though that I did start using Blue Dot in the 358Win using a container of the older Hercules stuff and switched to the Alliant marketed stuff with no perceived change. But I didn't chronograph or do anything for an accurate comparison so must consider that it may just have been a lucky substitution.
Cheers...
Con

quote:

I'm starting to need a vacation from this thread...

Seafire, I agree, we'll find something else to argue about later
Sorry for losing my infamous temper. Bane of my life! (got the scars to prove it).

Con, thanks and if you can send it to me I'll use my meager computer skills to try and get-er posted, I'll private message my email address to ya and thanks.
I remember my first .221 Fire Ball in an XP100 back in the day, as memory serves it cost $105.00 new in the box. At that time RL7 was "THE" powder for it. When the round was reintroduced in rifles (finally) I got a CZ and in it RL7 is accurate but slow and the top pick is AA1680 or H4198. That's a real nifty round in that 527. As seafire pointed out a great case to wildcat on as well.

WHEW!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it safe to come out now???????

quote:

Originally posted by montdoug:
Con, thanks and if you can send it to me I'll use my meager computer skills to try and get-er posted, I'll private message my email address to ya and thanks.

No worries, it should be there now. Just make sure to highlight its OLD DATA as the charges or Reloader 7 definately appear to be a few grains higher then compared to now. Or maybe blank it out except for the Blue Dot loads?
Cheers...
Con

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
: Have had it:

Those with intelligent perception----4

those that think they have----------18

those with no clue ------------------4

Total brain fart perception----------3

Feel free to pick and choose. roger

You know, I think I have been all of these at times. It's hard to admit it but its true.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by seafire2:
...a 20 BR case is easier to work with that a 204 Ruger with Blue Dot, even if your goal is to get the same velocity.. the BR case will have less pressure in it..

Hey Sefire, What do you base that on?

Seafire response:

quote:

1. Okay... 20BR easier to work with, vs the 204 Ruger...working with about 15+ different calibers with B/D, I can tell you that it favors case shapes that are short and fat vs long and slender... case in point.. a 284 and a 280 Rem have the same capacity and are the same bore diameter... the 284 will hold more B/D safely than the 280... just have noticed the pattern also with other cartridges....a 20 BR also has more capacity for powder period.. therefore, whatever is max in a 204, won't be in a 20 BR...based on that, and case profile.. the 20 BR would be my choice in a 20 caliber, or the 221, followed by the 222...taking under the concept that the shooter wants to use B/D for loading it....

Hey Seafire, I still don't see the answer to How you know there is less Pressure. Case Capacity is certainly important, but you can still get Peak Pressures way to high in small or large cases.

So, saying the BR case will have "Less Pressure" in it is simply dependant on the Load.

quote:

but I have seen other contenders come open by themselves just after the round went off...

Sure glad I haven't. Did of you all get hurt? What was the Cartridge?

Seafire answer:

quote:

Contenders.. I've seen enough of them do so at the range..

How many Contender Ka-Booms have you seen?

I'd guess I've been very lucky in that I've only seen flicks of an 338Wildcat Encore Ka-Boom, which was apparently due to the Flutes being cut too shallow. The thread mentions it was the first time that company(not T/C) had made a barrel in that cartridge.

Con I got your post but it's so small I can't seem to enlarge it enough to make it legible in a post on the site.
I'm sure the powders have some differences from then under Hercules till now under Alliant but I wasn't able to contact Alliant today and find out how much difference there actually is.
I did note that even then while Hercules did post loads in the .221 Fire Ball they then skipped the .222, .222Mag, .22-250, .223, .225 (I had one a them), .243 etc. etc. Next round they recommend it for is the .30 Carbine. It appears Hercules had the same concerns with it that Alliant does.
When my wife gets home I'll see if she can figure out how to post it.
It's a tiff file, and it's 320px by 240px it's 12.33 KB. Not very large to expand to readable size. If anyone thinks they can pull it off private message me with your email address and I'll forward it to ya to try.
I sure wish I'd off saved all my first reloading manuals from the 60's, sure would be interesting reading.
Thanks for sending it Con and sorry I'm so computer challenged.

montdoug,
No worries ... I'll send it again as an Adobe file tomorrow from work ... strange that its so small ... it opened full screen size for me?? Computers are meant to make our lives easier right?

Ok, lets try this:
Hey it worked !!! Please note this is an advertisement from 1983 and IS NOT CURRENT LOAD DATA. Presented for purposes of this discussion only. Anyone with half a brain would check the latest Alliant manual before using any load data from 25 years ago!!

Many loads are higher than current manual loads suggesting a change may have taken place in burn rates compared to modern powders. DO NOT USE.

Image edited out ...
Cheers...
Con

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:
...Hot Core contends that he is an old-timer, etc. in reloading, yet he apparently believes just because a load is found in a manual, that the load is safe....

No folks, that is taken out of context and as such is in fact a Lie.

Huhh?

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
That said, I find it amazing that ANYONE would post Loads that have NEVER been Tested….
Since Mr. Ben's post from Alliant,
I no longer support any Load that is not found in a Manual. It is a Liability issue for sure. And if the big dollar companies don't want to deal with it, I for sure don't want to either.

There are all kinds of excellent Reduced Loads in the Powder and Bullet manufacturers Manuals that have been Tested on their $$$Million$$$ equipment. I strongly encourage EVERYONE to begin using Factory Tested Loads and forget Blue Dot as a Reduced Rifle Load.

Hot core, your words, not mine.

By saying

quote:

I no longer support any Load that is not found in a Manual

you are indeed supporting loads published/listed in manuals.
And by supporting such loads, you would deem them safe.

Or is it that you support them, yet you find them unsafe?

Most of the loads tested by the factories have not been tested in my rifle, and are as such, just academic guidelines.

Your experience may vary.

I'm going to keep using Blue Dot. I'm going to keep staying very in-tune with what I'm doing when I'm reloading. Just as I've read horror stories about Blue Dot (but not many), I've also had guys tell me they wouldn't shoot any reloaded round in their guns because of some horror story they had heard or read about. Reloading can produce disastrous results even if your trying to reload published loads but you aren't following safe reloading procedures. I had a guy refuse to buy a rifle from me because I had been using reloaded ammunition in it Confused

Wow, I just got done reading all three pages of this thread. My ass hurts from sitting to long.

Anyhow, I have a question for Doug and others on the use of fast pistol powders in very small rifle cartidges. Knowing how you feel about Blue Dot in these cases, do you feel the same with other fast powders like Unique? The reason I ask is that there is published data out there for these smaller cases using Unique. Rifle #6 Nov 1969 has data for the 17-223 using Unique.

As for the AR problem, I am of the camp that says "bad timing" due to port pressure of the Blue Dot load. Knowing that an AR cannot fire out of battery, the most logical cause is that the round was being ejected while still under pressure. Blue Dot or any very fast powder should not be used in auto- loaders unless you can shut off the gas port completely. Here is a link to a guy that blew up an AK with 2400.
http://forums.handloads.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=17472&PN=3

1) I bent the frame on a Colt Agent Allumimum frame 38 special with 18.5 gr BLue Dot, 110 gr JHP. The max published load is 7.8 gr, so I was shooting more than a double charge. 18.4 gr was ok, but not 18.5 gr.

2) I had case head failure with 16 gr Blue Dot 33 gr in 19 Badger. Max load is 9.5 gr, so I was at 168%. 14 gr was ok, but not 16.

3) I had a case head failure with 12 gr Blue Dot 33 gr jammed into the lands in 19 Badger, 9.5 gr is max. 11 gr was ok, 12 gr was not.

4) I have had Blue Dot stick in the Uniflow Powder measure. 35 gr Vmax and 223 this is not a big deal. One shot is wimpy and one shot had the primer fall out. That could be a BIG deal in other situations.


I have excellent results firing many hundreds of rounds of two loads:
1).223 35 gr Vmax moly 15 gr Blue Dot, jammed into the lands, 3500 fps
2).223 60 gr Tactical and Police moly 13 gr Blue Dot, jammed into the lands, 2500 fps.


What does it all mean?
1) I have had allot more good experiences than bad with Blue Dot.
2) Cool clean burn make it an excellent choice for reduced rifle loads for advanced handloaders.
3) Due to peakiness, it is a lousy choice for hot loads.

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:


1 I have had Blue Dot stick in the Uniflow Powder measure. 35 gr Vmax and 223 this is not a big deal. One shot is wimpy and one shot had the primer fall out. That could be a BIG deal in other situations.



2 Due to peakiness, it is a lousy choice for hot loads.

These are 2 of my concerns.

It seems evident that additional control to avoid an overload must be instituted before and after the powder is dispensed.

Pursuant to safety truely reduced loads should be the ticket and not seeing as a rule for daily usage how far we can go before we encounter a real problem. roger

Old age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone..

quote:

Originally posted by steve4102:
Wow, I just got done reading all three pages of this thread. My ass hurts from sitting to long.

Anyhow, I have a question for Doug and others on the use of fast pistol powders in very small rifle cartidges. Knowing how you feel about Blue Dot in these cases, do you feel the same with other fast powders like Unique? The reason I ask is that there is published data out there for these smaller cases using Unique. Rifle #6 Nov 1969 has data for the 17-223 using Unique.

As for the AR problem, I am of the camp that says "bad timing" due to port pressure of the Blue Dot load. Knowing that an AR cannot fire out of battery, the most logical cause is that the round was being ejected while still under pressure. Blue Dot or any very fast powder should not be used in auto- loaders unless you can shut off the gas port completely. Here is a link to a guy that blew up an AK with 2400.
http://forums.handloads.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=17472&PN=3

I've done a fair number of "reduced" loads with Unique and it worked fine. I don't personally have a problem with any number of fast powders and "reduced" loads (including Blue Dot) until it gets to the .17 cals. With the sub.22 caliber loads I use the appropriate powders because the small cals do indeed spike pressure differently and besides, why on earth take a risk when you don't have to? Using small amounts of extremely fast powders to get mid range loads is a whole nuther deal and my personal feeling is that it is an unsafe practice.
I would indeed love to see the CUP numbers on a 3,375fps 40 grain load with Blue dot in a .223. Until somebody shows me "safe" "consistent", temperature stable numbers on a load like that I'll retain my personal opinion of the practice. I will also keep my whining about it to a bare minimum for the good of the order as well as peace and harmony on the site .
The .17's and .20's are a different deal.

quote:

Originally posted by montdoug:

The .17's and .20's are a different deal.

Anyhow, here is the load. for the 17 cal 17-223.

18 Williams FMJ, Alliant Unique 4.5gr 2,790fps

Hope it works well for you. I have no experience whatever with such things but that load does look reduced and if that's what a guy wants to do it's sure his choice. If I were to do a reduced load as I mentioned, Unique is what I'd personally use. But I'm not so it really don't matter what I think.
Just a personal opinion but I didn't have the small caliber rifles built that I have to find a reduced load that near duplicates a .17 HMR.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
...Hey Seafire, I still don't see the answer to How you know there is less Pressure. Case Capacity is certainly important, but you can still get Peak Pressures way to high in small or large cases.

So, saying the BR case will have "Less Pressure" in it is simply dependant on the Load.


...How many Contender Ka-Booms have you seen?
...

Sure hope Seafire has not Ka-Booomed himself.

Darn shame Seafire has not responded, so I'll have to answer those questions "based on" what I've seen him post.
-----

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
...Hey Seafire, I still don't see the answer to How you know there is less Pressure. Case Capacity is certainly important, but you can still get Peak Pressures way to high in small or large cases.

So, saying the BR case will have "Less Pressure" in it is simply dependant on the Load.

Obviously Seafire doesn't know how the Pressure actually responds, but "claims" there is less Pressure. I really don't understand this because I think of Seafire as a normally rational thinking Reloader.

Wishful thinking concerning Pressure is an extremely bad practice.

quote:

...How many Contender Ka-Booms have you seen?

And apparently even though Seafire mentions, "Contenders.. I've seen enough of them do so at the range..", I can only surmise the number is Zero.

PM sent to H/C...

because I am getting tired of on line pissing matches on an academic subject...

pressure testing these loads are being looked into.. it will only prove they are safe in the rifle tested...

software programs estimate pressure of my highest blue dot loads in the 42 to 45K psi range...lower loads are of course lower in pressure..

Seafire has not responded, as this thread is turning into a pissing contest and has run its course, so I was more on less on vacation from it, whether anyone approves of that or not...

this has had a lot of views, and we are just not seeing horror stories popping up all over the place here....

only ONE has actually been brought up by Doug.. and he didn't know the complete details and corrected himself publically that he was wrong, in his initial reports...

I followed his discussion of this on another forum he is a member of.. and no one over there seemed to put forth any horror stories either..

This is turning into a witch hunt, and no one is finding any witches...so what can be concluded from that?