The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => Ammunition, questions, and handloading techniques => Topic started by: Wobbly on July 14, 2013, 11:03:12 PM
-
I've been reading about this powder on Benos and other shooting forums and got interested. Just found my first can in an LGS last week, and decided to try it on 9mm. So I thought we'd have a thread on this to assemble all the data from all who want to comment.
First of all, this is a very fine grain ball powder. It looks exactly like Accurate No5. So if your powder measure leaks the numbered series, then don't bother trying this powder. :P
The Accurate Burn Rate Chart (http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/burn_rates.pdf) places 7625 as an equal to Unique and Universal. That means in 9x19 it would be good in SD loads for mid-weight bullets, or nice for general use heavy weight bullets. I also see lots of use for it in loads for 38 Super, 38 Spcl, 357 Mag, and 40.
I found the best load data on the Hodgdon web site and a 2006 IMR load booklet. Otherwise, being in the crowded field it is, it's listed inconsistently throughout most common manuals.
My tests loads are ready. More when it stops raining !
-
I've been using it for 9x19 loads for about 5 or 6 years now and really like it. It burns clean and gives good velocity for the charge weight. I use it almost exclusively with 115 gr. bullets, since that's what I load the most of in 9x19. The paper targets don't seem to mind being hit by the lighter bullet, and they're cheaper.
Hope this helps.
Fred
-
I've been reading about this powder on Benos and other shooting forums and got interested. Just found my first can in an LGS last week, and decided to try it on 9mm. So I thought we'd have a thread on this to assemble all the data from all who want to comment.
First of all, this is a very fine grain ball powder. It looks exactly like Accurate No5. So if your powder measure leaks the numbered series, then don't bother trying this powder. :P
The Accurate Burn Rate Chart (http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/burn_rates.pdf) places 7625 as an equal to Unique and Universal. That means in 9x19 it would be good in SD loads for mid-weight bullets, or nice for general use heavy weight bullets. I also see lots of use for it in loads for 38 Super, 38 Spcl, 357 Mag, and 40.
I found the best load data on the Hodgdon web site and a 2006 IMR load booklet. Otherwise, being in the crowded field it is, it's listed inconsistently throughout most common manuals.
My tests loads are ready. More when it stops raining !
Like N. 5 or N. 2?
N. 5 is fairly slow burning powder. It'd not be very suitable for lighter (124gr or so) bullets or most common HG barrel lengths.
-
IMR SR7625 is one of the most underrated powders of all time. I've burned through roughly 15 pounds of it, 18.4 grains at a time in my 20 gauge. It's clean burning, consistent, and produces high velocity with comparatively low pressures in shotgun rounds. What more could you ask for?
When I bought my MEC 600 JR at an auction about 15 years or so ago, included in the box was an unopened 8 lb jug of SR7625. I figured since I had the powder, I might as well use it. To this day, it is still my go-to powder for 7/8 oz 20 gauge target loads. Our local Scheels was closing out old 8 oz metal cans when they were switching over to the 1 lb plastic cans. I bought somewhere around 10 cans for something like $5 a can.
The Lyman 49th lists it in .32 acp, .32 s&w long, .32 H&R, .32-20, .380, 9mm, .38 super, .38 s&w, .38 special, .357, .44 special, .45 acp/ar, and .45 colt. It is quite a versatile powder. Also a good powder for Cast, since the burn rate is close to Unique.
-
My tests loads are ready. More when it stops raining !
Who do you think you are, the Wicked Witch of the West? Get out there and get wet and stop keeping us in suspense.
-
My tests loads are ready. More when it stops raining !
Who do you think you are, the Wicked Witch of the West? Get out there and get wet and stop keeping us in suspense.
I agree! Just move your targets back a bit. Vapor trails are super easy to see in the rain!
-
Who do you think you are, the Wicked Witch of the West? Get out there and get wet....
That's it! I'm sending the flying monkeys tonight. O0
-
I read Wicked. Ain't skeered of no flyin' monkey. Clowns are another story.
-
I shot in the rain today.
Ditto IDescribe.
-
Honey do's, my youth program, and if you can believe.... even MORE rain.
The good news is, the back yard is now holding during the down pours.
The bad news is that the front yard just washed away for the third time. :P
-
The Loads
Fans and detractors alike can finally rest. ;D I got a chance today to shoot the 7625 test loads, while dodging more rain drops and lightning bolts.
Powder: IMR 7625
Primers: Federal #100
Bullets: 124gr Zero HP
Brass: All were Winchester ex-white box marked "Win"
Load data taken from a 2006 IMR pamphlet stating: 4.4gr to 4.9gr for 124gr FMJ at 1.110" OAL
Since my SP-01 has a 13# spring, I elected to start lower. All shot groups were 5 rounds at 35 feet. Shooting was mid-afternoon, humid, 85F. Groups weren't measured, but all results were acceptable. The results recorded by a Chrony were as follows:
4.1gr 921 fps avg
4.2gr 933 fps avg
4.3gr 959 fps avg
4.4gr 988 fps avg
4.5gr 1002 fps avg
4.6gr 1018 fps avg
SDs were low. All rounds ejected properly, with brass landing from 3 to 6 feet away.
The Powder
SR-7625 from research is a single-based powder. It's finely ground to about the same size as common black pepper. That makes it meter very well, and drops are consistent. Like other single-based powders it burns very cleanly, leaving only a layer of soot inside the gun. There are no residual unburned particles or ash, even at very low loads of 4.1gr.
Density is such that even at 4.1gr, a double load would fill a 9x19 case making loading errors easy to detect. 7625 burn rate varies from chart to chart, but on the whole is generally considered equivalent to Unique. 7625 would be an outstanding replacement for Unique, or an inexpensive replacement for N330.
Some rumors persist about 7625 varying more than necessary from lot to lot (which may account for the Burn Rate chart discrepancies). If buying multiple cans, I suggest purchasing them from the same store and checking lot numbers. I paid $25 for a new 1 pound can from a store that also carried Red Dot and Blue Dot for $18.
;)
-
Thanks Wobbly for the good info on your 7625 work-up.
Looks like it's fairly slow burning and would do well from mid to high range loads.
The fact that it burns clean as a single-base powder and should meter well is a plus over Unique.
Your test loads were pretty light, but how did the groups look above 1000 FPS?
P.S. Your components for the work-up could have come from my supplies and the data would be verbatum the same except for the bullet weight. :)
I borrowed a copy if that's ok with you.
-
Thanks, Wobbly. Quick question -- you said the IMR stated an OAL of 1.110. Is that what you went with?
I usually load Zero 124gr HP at 1.110", so I was delighted to see load data with that exact OAL. Like I said, it was a 2006 IMR booklet, now out of publication.
Also, I don't see much point in a separate 7625 thread. If it is all the same to you, I'll add my data to this thread when I have it.
Be my guest.
;)
-
More 7625 testing today. This time with a 10mm and 170gr lead.
Not much data on this, but I was really interested in working this through using lead bullets. I actually hit the middle of the load range with my first loads, then worked to the top and bottom ends. (There is obviously more room left on each end of the load spectrum.) Each load group consisted of 4 rounds. Gun used stock springs and all loads ejected perfectly. No FTFs. As expected, each load shot cleanly. No accuracy data, but the center of the target was gone when I finished.
Caliber: 10mmAuto
OAL: 1.260"
Primer: Winchester Large Pistol
Powder: IMR 7625
Brass: Starline
Bullet: Missouri Bullet "#2", 170gr Lead FP
Gun: 5" barrel Dan Wesson 10mm Pointman
5.1gr 923 fps
5.3gr 957
5.5gr 972
5.7gr 992
5.9gr 1019
6.1gr 1067
;)
-
"No accuracy data, but the center of the target was gone when I finished."
Definitely need to do something about those target rats.
-
I'm going to try to get more testing done myself, this time with SMPP (magnum). Use the same loads and see if the chrono can see any differences in my 'tried and true' loads. That might be helpful to several forum members since mag primers are showing up and don't seem to evaporate off the shelf like standard primers.
;)
-
Not that anyone was dying for the results and needed to be notified... ;)
Well, I did wake up with heavy congestion. O0
-
Okay, so here we go. A couple nights of partying delayed me a couple of days. I am, for the record, totally stealing Wobbly's report for a template. ;)
Environmental Conditions -- It's Florida, so temperature was hot, and the air was saturated with water. 8)
(Powder, primers, and brass were the same for all 4 bullets tested)
Powder: IMR 7625
Primers: CCI 500
Brass: Starline virgins
__________________________
The Loads:
Bullet #1 124gr Berry's Hollow Back Round Nose Thick-plated Double Struck (why didn't they go with a long name?)
Load data was taken from the Hodgdon online load database. I could not find exactly what I needed, but the Hodgdon database did have 130 grain Berry's RN loaded at OAL 1.15, which was almost .02 under what those bullets push test to in my barrel, so I used that, starting at the bottom of that data, reasoning that with the same powder and OAL but with a lighter bullet of the same basic design and manufacture, I would be starting in a safe range.
The results from the ProChrono:
4.2gr 941fps avg ES-28
4.3gr 972fps avg ES-57
4.4gr 999fps avg ES-29
4.5gr 992fps avg ES-21
4.6gr 1022fps avg ES-15
4.7gr 1059fps avg ES-20
Between the 4.4 and 4.5 strings, I began to suspect that a cloudless sky, direct sunlight, and shiny Berry's bullets were messing with the chrono. I used cardboard to block direct sunlight from the side, and things settled down. I suspect that is the reason for the drop in extreme spreads. And I suspect that the results of the first three strings are high.
Bullet #2: 124 Montana Gold JHP
Again I had a little trouble finding a precise load to draw from. These bullets push test to 1.089 in my barrel, and I didn't feel comfortable going longer than 1.079. Sierra's fifth edition has load data for 125 jhp at 1.075, indicating safe charges between 4.5 and 5.4 grains. After noting some load discrepancies between Hodgdon and Sierra with another bullet and the 7625, a discrepancy in which Hodgdon was the more conservative of the two, I decided to drop Sierra's starting charge down to 4.2, and I went with the slightly higher OAL of 1.079.
The results from the ProChrono:
4.2gr LOST -- Hit the wrong button :o
4.3gr 1027fps avg ES-16
4.4gr 1046fps avg ES-21
4.5gr 1056fps avg ES-22
If you want to use MG 124JHP with this powder, at a similar OAL, I would recommend starting a bit lower than I did. Everything went fine, but I believe a bigger cushion would be prudent. I am going do a second round of these and start lower so that I have a longer list of charges to compare to accuracy bumps attained from those charges to better see what's going on. I will post here again when I do.
Bullet #3: 125 BBI Round Nose -- Moly-coated
Bullet #4: 147 BBI Flat Point -- Moly-coated
I mention these two here because I did test them and planned on including them, BUT I have chosen not to include the data. There wasn't anything particularly close to draw from with my OAl. I really had to do a lot of extrapolation from published loads and from other shooter's loads to find a starting range I felt was safe, and I don't feel comfortable posting it where others might take it for science and use it. I will say that both bullets produced sufficiently accurate loads; however, while extreme spreads and standard deviations were acceptable, they were a little higher than the other two bullets. I also had greater variation in actual loaded OAL with these two bullets, so that might be a contributing factor.
SHOOTING EXPERIENCE:
Feel -- I have a lifetime of shooting paying more or less no attention to how one powder feels vs another. I pay attention now, but I lack a variety of experiences in the short time I have been paying attention, so a meaningful assessment of feel is impossible. At every velocity with every bullet I shot, it was pleasant to shoot. That's about as specific as I can get.
Accuracy -- I didn't measure groups, but I did run new targets for every string, and everything was decent. There were no instances where bumping up to the next tenth of a grain cut group sizes significantly. It was the same for all four bullets I tested with the 7625: within the loads for a particular bullet, accuracy was boringly consistent from one charge to the next. And while the loads with the Montana Gold were a bit tighter than the other three, I strongly suspect that that credit goes to the MG bullet on its own, not some particular affinity between 7625 and the MG's.
That's it. Feel free to chastise me at will. Thank you for playing along. ;)
-
Good soli data with bullets I use. Thank you.
My MGs will load a little longer (1.098), so I think I can hit my preferred sweet spots on speed with a 4.6gr load. 8)
Maybe the same situation with the Berry's HBRN-TP at 1.135" @ 4.7grs-ish. Using n320, it needs .1 grs more than my other 124 shorter oal bullets use.
When I can get a round tuit, I'll post results.
Can someone give me verbal comparison of 7625's "particle size" compared to Win 231 or AA#5?
With 4.6 grs of 7625, how "full' is the case, over half?
-
With 4.6 grs of 7625, how "full' is the case, over half?
My mistake. Meant to include that. Yes, 4.6 is over half. Half is 4.3.
Someone else will need to address size relative to w231 and/or AA5. ;)
-
Thanks, appreciate the volume info.
re particle size: I expect it's bigger than AA#5 , but don't know for sure. My powder system will work with AA#5, but it's real close to being too small for the LEE Disk system to handle without leaking all over the press.. AA#5 is also small and dense enough to triple charge light loads. Win 231 is moderately small flattened ball powder that loads great. That's why the odd question. ;D
-
I may put some more numbers up in the coming days, but I shot almost 300 rounds today, all with IMR 7625, including 150 in three 50 round batches: Berry's 124 HBFP at 130 avg PF, Berry's 124 HBRNTPDS at 131 avg PF, and Montana Gold 124 HP at 132 avg PF. This was not "working up loads". This was having three decent loads and wanting just to shoot. :)
Today was my first day shooting a large batch of Berry's flat points at a single charge weight. I liked them a lot. They rivaled the Montana Golds in accuracy, but felt recoil was a little less. Of the eight different bullets I've been seating over 7625, if I had to load up a few boxes to shoot at a match this weekend, it would be the Berry's flat points. We'll see how that plays out with more shooting. ;)
-
More data. :-)
Powder, primers, and brass were the same for all bullets tested:
Powder: IMR 7625
Primers: CCI 500
Brass: Starline
Bullet #1
Black Bullet International 125 grain Round Nose
OAL 1.1
I previously had trouble finding a comparable bullet with which to get published load data for this BBI bullet, but the answer was staring me in the face all along. The load data I previously arrived at through some rather tedious number-crunching and cross-checking/comparing is confirmed by Hodgdon?s online database, using the 125 grain LCN. I don?t know how I missed it. I trust this data is safe to use for this BBI bullet as I have identified 125 grain lead LCN bullets online that appear to have come from the same mold as the BBI 125 grain RN, the only difference being that the BBI?s are moly-coated. I suspect LCN vs RN in this specific instance is just a difference in naming. I believe ?conical/cone nose? is actually the appropriate term for this BBI bullet.
The results from the ProChrono:
3.6gr 945 fps avg ES-22 PF-118
3.8gr 975 fps avg ES-55 PF-121
4.0gr 1008 fps avg ES-18 PF-126
4.1gr 1030 fps avg ES-24 PF-128
4.2gr 1058 fps avg ES-13 PF-132
Note: 4.1 grains is the max load listed by Hodgdon for the comparable bullet. If you load over 4.1, you are loading over the published max load for the closest comparable bullet.
Bullet #2
XTreme Plated 135 grain Round Nose Flat Point
OAL 1.13
Load data came once again from Hodgdon?s online database. Here I used the load data for a Berry?s 130 grain RN. Between XTreme Plated?s recommendation to use mid-level jacketed loads and the extra bullet weight, I decided knocking off .4 grains/10% from the published starting charge weight of 4.2 grains would create a sufficient safety buffer.
The results from the ProChrono:
3.8gr 903 fps avg ES-53 PF-121
3.9gr 912 fps avg ES-18 PF -123
4.0gr 946 fps avg ES-26 PF-127
4.1gr 963 fps avg ES-25 PF-130
4.2gr 996 fps avg ES-35 PF-134
Also, yesterday I shot a batch of 50 identically loaded Montana Gold JHP?s using the load that achieved an average velocity of 1056 from my previously posted data in this thread. I fired the first ten over the chrono, getting an average velocity of 1069 this time.
I'll post more data when it's ready. :-)
-
You guys are making me look really bad; forcing me to get off my keister.
:-\
-
Today, I took out two test batches of 50 with AA#2 with 135 Xtreme Plated and 147 BBI...
BUT I also loaded 50 of the 125 BBI with IMR 7625 at 4.2gr (which in the previous test averaged 1058) for actual shooting practice. I ran the first ten rounds over the chrono, and got an average of 1063 fps. Here's the thing : the actual string was:
1057 1054 1066 1065 1072 1064 1064 1064 1064 1064 ;D I don't know how common it is to get five consecutive identical velocities, but I was pretty excited.
-
It's sure not common with my loads. Good job!
-
More 7625 testing Sunday. This time with Mag primers.
Caliber: 9x19 Luger
OAL: 1.130"
Primer: Winchester Mag SPP
Powder: IMR 7625
Brass: Mixed
Bullet: Berry 124gr HBRN
Gun: CZ SP-01
4.1gr 1027 fps
4.2gr 1041
4.3gr 1055
70 F, Clear, Bright
;)
-
I'm impressed how 7625 shows a very reliable progression with .1 grain changes
Wobbly, did you notice any differences with the "Mag" primers? Hotter?, burns cleaner?, snappier? Make you feel younger? O0
-
Quick question, Wobbly. My HBRN-TPDS push tests to over 1.2, so loading them at 1.16 is plenty away from the lands. I'm sure you're in the same boat, so I'm wondering why you chose 1.13 over something longer. Educate me, please. :)
-
Here's something interesting -- if I seat my HBRN to 1.3, the seating depth will be .001 shallower than where I've been seating my HBFP, and I think we can agree that .001 is a wash. However, I need 4.5 grains to get the HBFP to 1050. You're getting the HBRN there at the same seating depth with 4.3.
And now I'm curious. I'm going to have to load up the two at the same seating depth and see what happens. I'll let you know tomorrow. ;-)
-
Quick question, Wobbly. My HBRN-TPDS push tests to over 1.2, so loading them at 1.16 is plenty away from the lands. I'm sure you're in the same boat, so I'm wondering why you chose 1.13 over something longer.
I tried to find his posts where he mentioned just that issue, but didn't find it.
There are differences between rifle oal/cols and pistol oals. In rifles, a short jump to the rifling usually makes a noteable improvement in performance. Not so much so in pistols.
One immediate "gain" with the shorter 1.125-`1.135"/1.140" ( a concession to Wobbly ;)) commonly used 124grRN oals, is retention. The bullet tends to be held tighter, builds a tiny bit more pressure before release and also loads "straighter" in the case. Hitting the ramp when feeding won't knock the bullet out alignment as easily as a 1.160 oal.
Mine also tend to "gain" accuracy in this same range of oals. I found a post by "Clint" who has done a lot testing on this subject and found the same accuracy gain with the 124 HBRN at shorter oals. I suspect the above "gains" have something to do with that.
Wobbly will add his thoughts with a clearer explaination than I can 'gen' up.
-
Here's something interesting -- if I seat my HBRN to 1.3, the seating depth will be .001 shallower than where I've been seating my HBFP, and I think we can agree that .001 is a wash. However, I need 4.5 grains to get the HBFP to 1050. You're getting the HBRN there at the same seating depth with 4.3.
And now I'm curious. I'm going to have to load up the two at the same seating depth and see what happens. I'll let you know tomorrow. ;-)
The "HB"RN is a deceiver, because that hollow base ADDS to the empty case volume---maybe .005" or more..
Hope this makes sense. :-\
-
That's interesting. The only other variable I can think of is that with extra jump space, the bullet is actually traveling faster and has more momentum when it hits the lands.
Tomorrow I will be shooting HBRN at 1.13 and HBFP at 1.065, which are effectively identical in terms of seating depth. The HBRN will have a jump space of a little over 0.07 while the HBFP will have a jump space of .01. We'll see what happens. I'm curious about accuracy, of course, but I'm also curious about velocities for the same powder charge at the same seating depth.
-
Here's something interesting -- if I seat my HBRN to 1.3, the seating depth will be .001 shallower than where I've been seating my HBFP, and I think we can agree that .001 is a wash. However, I need 4.5 grains to get the HBFP to 1050. You're getting the HBRN there at the same seating depth with 4.3.
And now I'm curious. I'm going to have to load up the two at the same seating depth and see what happens. I'll let you know tomorrow. ;-)
The "HB"RN is a deceiver, because that hollow base ADDS to the empty case volume---maybe .005" or more..
Hope this makes sense. :-\
I definitely get the hollowback cavity increasing case volume relative to a non-HB, but in this case, Wobbly is using Berry's HBRN, and I'm using Berry's HBRN-TPDS and HBFP, so all 3 bullets in question are Berry's 124 hollowbacks. Or am I missing something else?
-
Yes, it makes logical sense to load to the same "seating depth" for both the 124gr hollow base bullets. Actually it's somewhat "logical" to load ALL 124gr bullets to the same seating depth, but that usually isn't going to give the same performance with "very different" bullet bullet shapes. When no oal data is available for a specific bullet, that's a place to start.
Interested in your results.
-
I definitely get the hollowback cavity increasing case volume relative to a non-HB, but in this case, Wobbly is using Berry's HBRN, and I'm using Berry's HBRN-TPDS and HBFP, so all 3 bullets in question are Berry's 124 hollowbacks. Or am I missing something else?
There are only 2 bullets in question, the 124grn HBRN and the 124grn HBFP. All that extra description ("-TPDS") comes with the bullet. In other words, you can't get a HBRN without also getting the thick plating and double striking. That makes it too much for my little fingers to type.
Sorry for the confusion. ;)
-
I'm impressed how 7625 shows a very reliable progression with .1 grain changes
Wobbly, did you notice any differences with the "Mag" primers? Hotter?, burns cleaner?, snappier? Make you feel younger? O0
I'm looking for any slight increase in bullet speed. Just wondering if the 6K+ mag primers now in stock will force me to rework all my favorite comp formulas, or conversely, can I use a mag primer to boost me a reliable 10 fps so I have a choice (more powder being my sole choice at present) of how to make PF. Once I find an OAL that feeds well and leaves plenty of room for powder, I'm reluctant to seat .005" deeper to get me "over the top".
Quick question, Wobbly. My HBRN-TPDS push tests to over 1.2, so loading them at 1.16 is plenty away from the lands. I'm sure you're in the same boat, so I'm wondering why you chose 1.13 over something longer. Educate me, please. :)
As stated previously, seating the bullet deep into the case is important for accuracy increases. I usually seat these at 1.140", but my die was already set for 1.130" so I went with it.
;)
-
Gotcha. Is there a minimum seating depth you consider "deep enough" for that accuracy factor? Also, is there a max seating depth with 9mm beyond which you consider pressures too unpredictable to mess with?
OKAY, the results are in:
Primer: CCI SPP
Powder: IMR 7625
Brass: Starline
10-shot strings
Berry 124gr HBRN
OAL-1.3
Seating Depth-0.236
4.5 gr
1055 feet/sec
ES-27
SD-7
Berry 124gr HBFP
OAL-1.065
Seating Depth-0.237
4.5gr -- 1073
ES-24
SD-7
So with nearly identical seating depths, the HBFP with considerably less free-bore got 18 feet/sec more an average.
-
Gotcha. Is there a minimum seating depth you consider "deep enough" for that accuracy factor? Also, is there a max seating depth with 9mm beyond which you consider pressures too unpredictable to mess with?
The longest OAL for 124grn RN is around 1.140".
The shortest OAL for 124grn RN is a mechanical limit. First you want the crimp to meet the ogive of the bullet. Then there is a point where the inside of the case gets thicker. Forcing a bullet into that area will simply swage the bullet to a smaller diameter, and that's not helpful.
;)
-
I have exactly the same experience with the HBFN being a little faster than the HBRN. Mine are @ 1.135" and 1.065" respectively. I use .1+ grs less powder (n320) with the HBFN to make them close to the same speeds. Approx. 129-130PF which works fine for my uses.
-
Then there is a point where the inside of the case gets thicker. Forcing a bullet into that area will simply swage the bullet
Out of curiosity, I took a cutting wheel and cut one of my Starline brass down the middle. The wall starts thickening 0.300 in from the mouth. That's actually quite relevant for the 147gr BBI's I've been playing with. They push test to 1.129. If I load them at 1.12, that's just .004 from where the wall starts thickening. That' s not much of a window. ;)
-
Out of curiosity, I took a cutting wheel and cut one of my Starline brass down the middle. The wall starts thickening 0.300 in from the mouth. That's actually quite relevant for the 147gr BBI's I've been playing with. They push test to 1.129. If I load them at 1.12, that's just .004 from where the wall starts thickening. That' s not much of a window. ;)
This is also the reason why almost every 147 grain bullet is bevel based.
-
That's a shallow push test result, ID. I have been loading the BBI 147gr at 1.135ish. I'll have to check my push test data, but I believe it was in the 1.150s. The load I was running was at 1.145 w/ 3.3 grains of n320. I dropped the OAL to 1.135 w/ 3.45 grains of n320 and these are like lasers. I love 'em. Great price and great customer service (I doesn't hurt that I shoot with the owner every other week either.) Been wanting to try the 135 gr BBIs. Chandler is starting a new coating this month, very excited about trying them.
-
Okay, I've got some BBI 147 data. I need to say in advance that the data I'm going to show is NOT the complete data I've accumulated. When I started testing this load, I started with 2.8, 3.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4. 3.4 was not where I needed it to be in terms of power factor for the shooting sports, but it was the highest I loaded for that first batch. I am leaving that first batch out because on the second batch, I loaded at a longer OAL, so the earlier data doesn't line up. I started the second batch where the first one left off -- at 3.4. So here it is:
Powder: IMR 7625
Primers: CCI 500
Brass: Starline -- Once-fired
OAL: 1.121
The results from the ProChrono:
3.4gr 848 fps avg ES-17 PF-124
3.5gr 871 fps avg ES-21 PF-127
3.6gr 889 fps avg ES-16 PF-130
A power factor of 130-135 is what I was shooting for with the top load, so I just barely made it. I will probably load and test it at 3.7gr in the future.
Also, I was confident that 3.6gr would make the power factor of 130-135 I was looking for, so I loaded up an extra 20 bullets at 3.6, which I shot against 50 rounds of MG 124gr JHP. In terms of the differences in recoil between the 147gr and 124 grain bullets with the same powder at roughly the same power factor, I'm leaning away from the heavier bullet in terms of preference. The slightly sharper recoil of the 124 grain bullets feels better to me. I prefer the feel of the BBI 125gr bullets in the same PF range, as well. The 147's definitely feel softer, but they don't feel better. I'm going to have to break out the 115's next. ;)
-
IDescribe, I experienced the same using the Berry's 124 vs their 147s. The 147s were softer but felt S L O W--and not as 'right' as the 124's. In my case the 147s also shot some higher. :-\
-
We haven't been posting any accuracy tests, so I thought I'd put up a few targets from Wednesday. :)
Montana Gold 124gr JHP
OAL 1.080
IMR 7625 - 4.5gr
Benchrest
10 shot string
10 yards measured
(http://imageshack.us/a/img202/3558/b7kx.png)
XTReme Plated 135gr RNFP
OAL 1.11
IMR 7625 - 4.2gr
Benchrest
10 shot string
10 yards measured
(http://imageshack.us/a/img822/4921/h8bu.png)
These were not selected targets; these were the only benchrest-shot targets, so I can't say for sure that the wider spread of the XTreme's vs the MG-JHP's is 100% the bullets and not a little me, but this has been a pattern with the two bullets with a variety of powders, with the MG's painting tighter patterns in general, so I suspect it's fair.
That's it. Hope everyone enjoyed Turkey Day. ;)
EDITED to remove extraneous pic and commentary.
-
This has been an educational thread for someone thinking about reloading. Now, if I could just find some powder.
-
Smitty -
You'll like IMR 7625. It's been fairly easy to find since casual reloaders tend to go with the industry "standards": HP-38, Unique & Bullseye. It's also a "single base", one of a rare breed, which shoot cooler and cleaner. And it's almost half the price of Vit. It also meters really well for consistent loads.
What's not to like. ;)
-
Wobbly, what size/shape are the IMR powder particles compared to say 231? Bigger? Smaller?
-
It's a fine grain ball, a lot like Accurate No7. Except that it's all black, you could mistake it for ground black pepper.
-
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6075/3kr2.jpg)
And I just got notice that Recob shipped my 3 pounds of 7625 and 1 lb of PB. I feel better. ;)
-
Hmmm, looks slightly bigger than AA#5, which is a good thing for some LEE powder disc users..:D
Thanks, IDescribe.
-
Smitty -
You'll like IMR 7625.
Well, of course if you asked my opinion on the WSF thread or the N320 thread, then my answer would change.
I hate thread highjacking! ;D
-
And the first XTreme 124 HP data is in. I have lots of data with lots of different bullets with this powder now, so I started a little higher than I would have if I was new to the powder. Here it is:
Powder: IMR 7625
Primers: CCI 500
Brass: Starline -- Once-fired
OAL: 1.08
The results from the ProChrono:
4.3gr 1014 fps avg ES-26 PF-125
4.4gr 1039 fps avg ES-32 PF-128
4.5gr 1057 fps avg ES-28 PF-131
I should add that I started to run a string at 4.6 grains, but the the first few velocities came in 5-12 feet/sec faster than 4.5 grains, plus one anomalously higher, so I didn't finish it. I kind of wish I had finished it now just to know, but I got to a PF of 131 with 4.5, which is all I want, so I didn't pursue it. As I sit here typing this, I realize that I haven't tried to get any 124 grain bullets higher than a 135 power factor with 7625, so it could be 7625 is fast enough that it's approaching its limit in the 1050 to 1100 range with various 124 grain bullets.
Accuracy was normal at 10 yards -- small and tight. At 25 yards... I honestly don't know how to assess it. I really don't know what's good. And I think I've gotten old enough that my vision is starting to become a factor. I'll post a pic later. It's a 10-shot group, and it's about 3.5 inches at its widest and 3.25 inches at its tallest. And this is off of a benchrest. I can keep them on a sheet of notebook paper at 25 yards offhand, but not 3.5 inches. As I sit here and look at it, I have to think most of the spread is me, so I think the bullet is performing admirably. ;)
-
Here you go:
XTreme 124gr HP
IMR7625 - 4.5gr
Benchrest
10 shot string
25 yards measured
(http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6788/rdtb.jpg)
So it turned out to b 3.3 x 3.1. I lowered my point of aim after the first couple of shots, which does me no good on width, but that may account for the two high shots. I'll see if I can do better tomorrow. ;)
-
Just a quick comment: the more powders I test, the more I like 7625. :)
-
Just a quick comment: the more powders I test, the more I like 7625. :)
Totally agree. I have tested 7625,WSF, WST, Power Pistol, Bullseye, Universal, 231/HP38,E3 and Titegroup and the main powders I am keeping in good quantity is 7625 and WSF for 9mm. Now if Recobs can get in some 8lb jugs I will be happy.
-
Over on the Enos forum hodgdon says they are going to discontinue their SR 4756 and SR 7625.
For reloaders who like their SR powders like me this stinks, maybe a few emails could help change their mind.
>:(
-
Wow. Such a solid performer. Such a shame.
-
Over on the Enos forum hodgdon says they are going to discontinue their SR 4756 and SR 7625.
(http://www.dedroidify.com/blogimages/No-Darth_Vader.jpg)
This has always been my favorite powder for 20 gauge. My last remaining 8 oz cans are now going into hibernation mode.
-
Over on the Enos forum hodgdon says they are going to discontinue their SR 4756 and SR 7625.
Bummer! :( I'm going to miss SR 4756.
-
Over on the Enos forum hodgdon says they are going to discontinue their SR 4756 and SR 7625.
For reloaders who like their SR powders like me this stinks, maybe a few emails could help change their mind.
>:(
Bummer! I'm new to reloading and chose 7625 as my starting point due to the many positive attributes of this powder mentioned by forum members. Can anyone suggest a few more powders with similar attributes to 7625? Unique might be a close match from what I can tell.
-
In my experience Unique is kind of dirty at the lower end of the load data, and kind of snappy once it cleans up at the upper end.
It's not one of my favorite powders.
-
In my experience Unique is kind of dirty at the lower end of the load data, and kind of snappy once it cleans up at the upper end.
It's not one of my favorite powders.
Thanks, Painter. Good to know. In your opinion, what would you say the closest alternative to 7625 is?
-
Closest to the 7625 has to be Viht N320 but it is in very short supply.
-
I don't know to be honest. I haven't used it.
I'd try Ramshot Zip or Accurate No 2 or No.5 if SR 7625 is discontinued. By the data they will make power factor easily. I don't have any experience with them either. I've used Accurate No.7 and it works well for higher velocity rounds.
I like the VV powders too, but like Rip says they are hard to find. All powders are hard to find right now.
-
Bummer! I'm new to reloading and chose 7625 as my starting point due to the many positive attributes of this powder mentioned by forum members. Can anyone suggest a few more powders with similar attributes to 7625? Unique might be a close match from what I can tell.
I usually quote 7625 as a replacement for Unique !! :'(
Let's remember that the rumor is still unconfirmed. If you buy an 8lb can of 7625 it will last you the rest of your life, then you won't have to worry about it.
The next faster IRM powder called PB holds a lot of promise for Minor PF. If you're just doing pistol plinking, then you might try that one. Since pistols burn through so much ammo, good choices for powder in this speed range are plentiful. Unfortunately, all powders are somewhat hard to find right now.
;)
-
AA#5 powder loads and results are similar. It's also single-based and clean-burning. It IS one of the smallest powder particles available, so it measures nicely if your powder system handles very fine powders.
-
Haven't used AA5, so I can't speak it's cleanliness, but it's for sure double-base. Solo 1000 is their only shotgun or pistol-appropriate single-base powder, and it might be their ONLY single-base powder. Don't know about their rifle powders. ;)
I haven't used Ramshot Zip or fired loads made with it, but I have a reloader buddy who just started using it and loves it.
-
This thread again? Well, I got the 147gr XTreme Heavy Plate RN, so yes, this thread again. ;-)
A couple of quick comments on the XTremes. Accuracy-wise, I'm impressed. Most of the powder and bullet combinations I've shot in all the testing I've done over the last few months have produced similar groups. There have been a couple of standouts with Montana Gold JHP being my best-grouping bullet overall. I'll need to shoot these XTreme 147RN's knocking Montana Gold off its pedestal, but the groups I've seen the last two days with these with two different powders have been better than what I'm accustomed to seeing with my Montana Gold. I'm not giving them the crown yet, but they are at the very least quite good.
Second, XTreme plated are super shiny, which is not great for chrono-ing. And the last two mornings here in central Florida have been beautiful, cloudless skies, which is also not great for chrono-ing. So my extreme spreads and standard deviations were not great. ;) That said, I the avg velocities showed the same consistent incremental progression I'm accustomed to seeing from 7625, so I don't think the results are too far off. Gotta build that doghouse one of these days so I don't have to deal with the sun anymore.
Anyway...
Caliber: 9x19 Luger
Bullet: 147gr XTreme Heavy Plate RN
Powder: IMR 7625
Primers: CCI 500
Brass: Starline -- well-used
OAL: 1.160"
The results from the ProChrono:
3.5gr 832 fps avg ES-60 PF-122
3.7gr 869 fps avg ES-82 PF-127
3.9gr 908 fps avg ES-62 PF-133
4.0gr 926 fps avg ES-67 PF-136
4.1gr 948 fps avg ES-47 PF-139
I plan on loading a bunch of these at 4.0gr and taking them out this weekend. I'll update if anything of interest shows up. I'd do it tomorrow, but tonight I installed a Timney Trigger on my Mauser98, so tomorrow is rifle day. 8)
-
ID, What firearm did you get that data with? I am shooting a CZ85. I am about to start reloading. The only powder I've been able to find that people say a double charge won't fit, in 9mm, is 7625.
I plan to use Berry's 147g plated. I've been using the ammo from Automatic Accuracy that uses this bullet. I've been able to find 1 source of documented load data for 147g bullets and 7625, the Hodgdon web site. It shows a 147 GR. HDY XTP at 1.10 OAL and a starting load of 2.8 grains and a max of 3.3.
I know I can load longer. The Berry's 147 ammo I am shooting today is mixed head stamp with an OAL of 1.14. I will push test my gun when my press gets here, but here's my current plan:
To start, I will use Starline new brass (I will shift to mixed once I have a load that works well and there's no evidence of problems. I will start with the "good", move to the "bad" and not use the "ugly"), CCI 500 SPP, OAL of 1.14 or a little longer if push test allows, Berry's 147g plated bullets. I am going to start at 3 grains of SR 7625 and work up to no more than 3.5 using a chrono at each level before moving to the next level. I am looking for about a 130 power factor.
I am concerned that most of you are using loads way above the Hodgdon web site. Based on the load data from Hodgdon, the plan is to stop at 3.5g and make sure there's no problem. Can I go higher with this set up as long as the chrono progression is consistent and the there aren't any problems on the ejected brass? Am I missing something?
-
The gun is a CZ-75 Shadowline. I should have some data with 7625 and Berry's 147. I will check when I get home. 3.0 gr of 7625 is going to be light with a Berry's 147. It may be a good place to start, but I promise it it's not where you'll finish.
Jacketed, plated, moly coated, and lead all load differently, so you can't really compare our loads to what Hodgdon says for an XTP unless we're loading XTP's. If it is the only thing to go by, then it's all you have, and you work with what you have, but data for a jacketed hollowpoint isn't great data for a plated round nose, even of the same weight. Differences in seating depth and how far the bullet is from the lands makes a difference as well. That said, yes, you will see people loading above published data, but there is more to say about that than what is practical to type with my giant fingers on a phone. ;) I will get back with you later.
-
Smitty,
I will start with the "good", move to the "bad" and not use the "ugly"), CCI 500 SPP, OAL of 1.14 or a little longer if push test allows, Berry's 147g plated bullets. I am going to start at 3 grains of SR 7625 and work up to no more than 3.5 using a chrono at each level before moving to the next level. I am looking for about a 130 power factor.
Sounds like your going in the right direction by using what published data you have. Where data conflicts, stay conservative and work up.
FWIW, "LEE Modern Reloading", pg. 357, [compiled from published sources], shows:
147gr XTP, SR7625, 3.9 (871) - 4.3(950) , 32900 CUP. 1.130"
As IDescribe said, the diffences in bullet nose shapes, coating, length and diameter can have a big affect on results. If you can find the LENGTH of the 147XTP and compare that to the Berry's 147RN, you can adjust the oal and make it even safer to use. If the Berry's bullet is .01" LONGER, then make make the oal .01" longer to match the load data.
Starting at the LOW end can make using same-weight data like this safe to use and then work up slowly.
It's much safer to load higher if you have a chrono to very results.
-
No experience chrono-ing in cold weather. Don't know what to expect when temps go back to normal (65-95)
9mm CZ75 Custom Shadow, ProChrono Digital
R&P Cases, Federal SPPs.
1-24-14
IMR 7625 LOAD TESTS, (only 5 rds/string)
Temp 34 degs
LOAD, AVG.. ES. S.D. P.F.
BRY 124 HBRN 1.135" OAL
4.7 1089 135
4.8 1098 54 22 136
4.9 1115 25 9 138
Zero 125 JHP 1.100" OAL
4.4 1010 6 3 126
4.5 1034 24 9 129
4.6 1049 22 6 131
P.D. 124 JHP 1.095" OAL
4.5 1065 30 10 132
-
No experience chrono-ing in cold weather. Don't know what to expect when temps go back to normal (65-95)
1-24-14
IMR 7625 LOAD TESTS, (only 5 rds/string)
Temp 34 degs
LOAD, AVG.. ES. S.D. P.F.
BRY 124 HBRN
4.7 1089 135
4.8 1098 54 22
4.9 1115 25 9 138
Zero 125 JHP
4.4 1010 6 3
4.5 1034 24 9 129
4.6 1049 22 6 131
P.D. 124 JHP
4.5 1065 30 10 132
How long are you loading?
-
Thanks Smitty, corrected
Some load dataand some posters indicated the Berry's 124 HBRN required a heavier load to match other 124 bullets. That apparently isn't so in my Shadow.
I expect 4.5 - 4.6grs will drive any 124gr bullet I use to 130PF. (= n320 load +10%) The cold weather test is the only unknown for hot weather performance.
I'll test the HBRN with two more test loads using 10 rds each to get more accurate data results from the Pro Chrono Digital.
Just one more test string of 10 for the others and throw in an MG 124 JHP into the bunch too. I'll also load up an additional dozen or so to use on regular targets to get a feel for the new load accuracy at speed.
No complaints with the IMR 7625 powder so far.---Look'n good.
-
No complaints with the IMR 7625 powder so far.---Look'n good.
Makes me want to try 4756. ;)
-
Seems like I get 'hooked' on powders either really hard to get or being discontinued. ::)
8# jugs last a significant while for feeble, decrepit old guys. ;D ::)
-
Makes me want to try 4756. ;)
It's a good powder for higher velocity loads, but HS-6/W540 has it beat.
Factory Data: http://www.imrpowder.com/data/handgun/9mmluger.php
-
Based on this data from the IMR web site, (Thanks JWC, I thought the stuff on Hodgdon was all the factory data there was) I could start around 3.6 and got to 4.2 with no problems. Given the longer barrel, I should be able to get the 900 fps I want around 4 grains of power.
147 GR. HDY XTP (Max load table)
DIA: .355" COL: 1.130"
HiSkor 700-X 3.7 935 32,100 CUP
PB 4.0 950 32,800 CUP
SR 7625 4.3 950 32,900 CUP
SR 4756 4.4 950 32,700 CUP
HiSkor 800-X 5.3 1025 32,900 CUP
-
All of my Berry's 147 with 7625 data was a while ago. I had several runs, a couple of which were when I was figuring out my chrono, and the data was suspect. I never loaded lower than 3.4gr and never higher than 3.9gr. My OAL was always 1.16. What I'm going to give you is an approximate average of a couple trustworthy tests instead of one test on one day. I actually had a problem with OAL consistency with the 147 Berry's that I did NOT have with my double-struck 124 HBRN Berry's, and when I ran out of the 147's, I chose not to buy more.
Pistol: CZ-75 Shadowline
Bullet: Berry's 147 RN
Powder: IMR 7625
Primers: CCI 500
Brass: Starline -- virgin
OAL: 1.16
Remember that the results are approximate, rounded to the nearest 5 feet/sec increment, averaged from a couple different test runs:
3.4gr ~820 fps
3.6gr ~860 fps
3.8gr ~905 fps
3.9gr ~920 fps
Hope this helps.
-
The only powder I've been able to find that people say a double charge won't fit, in 9mm, is 7625.
This is not quite right. There ARE powders suitable for 9mm where double charges won't fit, but with 7625, specifically, a charge for a heavy bullet could in fact be doubled and not overflow. I actually tested the limit and posted it earlier in this thread. With my Starline brass, 7625 overflowed at 8.6 grains. Anything under 4.2 grains could be double-charged without overflow. It's possible, maybe even likely, you've read people saying 7625 is safe from double charges, but what they mean is that it's bulky enough that a double-charge is so high in the case that it's hard to miss. So it's not so much "with 7625 you can't double-charge" as it is "with 7625 you're not going to double-charge" or "with 7625 it's easy to catch a double-charge."
I plan to use Berry's 147g plated. I've been using the ammo from Automatic Accuracy that uses this bullet.
If you like the Berry's 147 because of this experience and thus want to create your own bullet with a Berry's 147, you have a good chance of liking the Berry's 147.
If you want to use Berry's 147 because you want to recreate Automatic Accuracy's cartridge, you're going to have a frustrating time. ;)
I know I can load longer. The Berry's 147 ammo I am shooting today is mixed head stamp with an OAL of 1.14. I will push test my gun when my press gets here, but here's my current plan:
To start, I will use Starline new brass (I will shift to mixed once I have a load that works well and there's no evidence of problems. I will start with the "good", move to the "bad" and not use the "ugly"), CCI 500 SPP, OAL of 1.14 or a little longer if push test allows, Berry's 147g plated bullets. I am going to start at 3 grains of SR 7625 and work up to no more than 3.5 using a chrono at each level before moving to the next level. I am looking for about a 130 power factor.
With a 124 RN grain bullet, there is some argument that seating deeper than necessary is of benefit because the bullet will seat straighter. I think a lot of people here do this with 124 RN's, me included. With a 147 grain bullet, seating deeper than necessary is of no help in that regard because the extra length of the bullet means you're already seating more than deeply enough. If Matt Mink determined that 1.14 was the best OAL because that's what his tuning with charge weight and OAL came to in terms of best accuracy and recoil properties, then 1.14 is only going to do you any good if you're using the same powder. Since that's not the case, I would recommend starting with a longer OAL, where pressures, which you are concerned about, don't shift as sharply with charge weight. With 124 grain Berry's HBRN, dropping from 1.16 to 1.14 will change your seating depth from .206 to .226, but with 147 grain Berry's RN, dropping from 1.16 to 1.14 will change your seating depth from .263 to .283. The deeper a bullet is seated, the more dramatic pressure changes are with changes to OAL. .283 is DEEP for 9mm. .206 to .226 is not that dramatic, .263 to .283 is. If you want to relieve some of your anxiety of developing a load for a bullet for which there is no published data, choose the longer OAL. That's my two, maybe three cents. ;)
I test 10 shot strings. Some people do 5-shot strings. One off round in a 5-shot string can skew averages significantly. Go with 10, minimum. If I were going to test 3.0 to 3.5, I would load 10 rounds at 3.0, 10 at 3.2, 10 at 3.4, and 10 at 3.5. Check the average for each string as you advance. Also, after you load a magazine, turn it over backside/primer-side down, and hit it firmly against the table top, or whatever you're shooting from. Not super hard, but firmly. Some people will tell you this does no good. Others do it all the time. Before I started doing it, the first shot of most strings was slow compared to the rest of the string. After I started doing this, that anomaly vanished. It supposedly knocks loose powder stuck to case walls, breaks up any clumps, and gets all the powder in the cases in the same basic starting distribution. If you don't this, the first shot you fire will do it for all the other bullets, leaving only the first bullet you fire without this benefit. I have seen a measurable difference doing this. Give it a shot. It can't hurt. ;)
If you decide to stick with OAL 1.14, you might get to a 130 PF at 3.4 or 3.5 grains, or it might take 3.6/3.7. I don't know. My 147gr BBI moly-coated lead get to PF 130 with 3.6 grains of 7625 at a seating depth of .295. So that's seated deeper, but it's moly vs plated. It's not apples to apples.
I am concerned that most of you are using loads way above the Hodgdon web site. Based on the load data from Hodgdon, the plan is to stop at 3.5g and make sure there's no problem. Can I go higher with this set up as long as the chrono progression is consistent and there aren't any problems on the ejected brass? Am I missing something?
You're missing experience and your own load data. If you give me a 9mm bullet right now that there is ZERO published data for with IMR 7625, even with a bullet weight I haven't worked with, I have enough of my own data with 9mm and 7625 to figure out a safe starting load. Weight comparison is obviously important, as is surface type/coating (lead, moly, plated, jacketed). But the main thing after these considerations is seating depth. The powder doesn't care about OAL. The powder cares about seating depth. And that's one of the most significant reasons why finding data for another bullet of the same weight isn't the perfect solution. Seating depth determines how much space is left in the cartridge for the powder to start its ignition and expansion. That matters a lot. As an example, I just started testing with American Select. I suspect seating depth to be the culprit for the discrepancies between my results and some published data. The first two lines below are published data. The next two lines with the Montana gold are my results.
Sierra 125gr JHP -- OAL 1.075 -- 4.6gr AmSel -- 1050 feet/sec
Speer 124gr JHP -- OAL 1.120 -- 5.0gr AmSel -- 1053 feet/sec
MGold 124gr JHP -- OAL 1.080 -- 3.8gr AmSel -- 1042 feet/sec
MGold 124gr JHP -- OAL 1.080 -- 4.0gr AmSel -- 1071 feet/sec
So there you go. This is how things can play out trying to compare different bullets to each other. My OAL is bleep close to the Sierra OAL, yet I got to almost the same velocity with 0.8 grains less powder. Why? Because despite the same weight, same bullet type -- JHP, and almost the same OAL, my bullet is seated deeper. Different bullet diameter? Probably a hair. Same thing to a lesser degree with the Speer bullet, but the longer OAL is an additional factor there. And as far apart as these numbers are with all three bullets 124/125 grain jacketed hollowpoints, how different would it be if I tried to compare the Sierra 125gr FMJ to a 124gr Berry's RN? WAY different. The point is that you can't just find load data for a bullet of the same weight with the powder you want to use and treat it like it's apples to apples. It's not.
And how about an illuminating actual apples to apples example with the Sierra 125gr FMJ and IMR 7625:
From the Hodgdon website, with IMR 7625:
Sierra 125gr FMJ -- OAL 1.090
Starting Load 4.1gr for 996 feet/sec -- Max Load 4.6gr for 1074 feet/sec
From current Sierra Reloading Manual, with IMR 7625:
Sierra 125gr FMJ -- OAL 1.090
Starting Load 4.5gr for 900 feet/sec -- Max Load 5.4gr for 1100 feet/sec
Same bullet. Same powder. Same OAL. Both data sets PUBLISHED. Yet the data is wildly different. Hodgdon's MAX is 0.1gr higher than Sierra's starting load. I have identified anomalies in Lapua/Vihtavuori's published data that seems to treat their manufactured bullets more favorably than other manufacturers'. Is that a product of marketing through data manipulation? Or do they just have more extensive data with their bullets? Maybe a little of both. I don't know. But what I do know: your own data is your best data. While it's great you want to settle in on a go-to bullet/powder right away, variety has its benefits, and your own data with a wide variety of bullets and powders is worth more than any single reloading manual.
You asked about some of us (me, perhaps? ;) ) using loads outside of published data. I would suggest that this is rarer than you think it is for a not so great reason -- there often is no legitimate published data. I think I demonstrated above why this is true. Finding a bullet close in weight or type is sometimes the best option we have, but it's hardly the same as having published data for a particular bullet and powder at the OAL you need. And if there is no published data, we can't be operating outside of it. It's a guideline. And you'd be well-advised to respect that guideline with starting loads, but beyond that... max loads... your chrono, your experience, and the experiences of others might be just as valuable. What I'm doing, and some others, is monitoring velocity increases relative to powder weight increases and judging by that whether or not pressures are okay. Others rely on reading primers. I look at primers, but I trust chrono data to a greater degree. Those relying solely on reading primers with pistol rounds are probably getting to higher pressures than those reading velocity trends.
Also, if max standard pressure for 9mm is 34,000 (35,000?) and Hodgdon's data for a max load is 31,000 then their max isn't the actual max. Will you get there with the next 0.1gr? Maybe. If you go above that, does the gun blow up? Doubtful. And definitely not if it's rated to take +P ammo, which goes up to 38,500 PSI. And even then, healthy cases in guns built for it can handle a few thousand pounds more than that. So am I worried that going 0.1 or 0.2 grains above max published data? I'm not. Are their drawbacks? Yes -- wear and tear on the gun and on your brass, plus the risk of brass ruptures if you're not using healthy brass. Yet another consideration is just how good is your measuring equipment? That's something else to consider before pushing a little bit beyond published loads.
Basically, if you have the experience, know-how, and confidence in your gear, and you are aware of the risks and how to evaluate them, venturing a little above max published loads can be done safely.
Edited about 15 times for clarity and type-o's. Might need a few more.
-
Wow! Thanks ID. I bought the Berry's because I like the heavier bullets. I've used several 147's and some 135's. It gives me a starting point at an OAL that I know will run in all of my guns.
The variation of max load on the Hodgdon web site and the IMR web site bothers me a bit.
Should I load to the max OAL using the method here? http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=34225.0 or do CZ's get magazine limited on length?
-
The variation of max load on the Hodgdon web site and the IMR web site bothers me a bit.
Yeah, that's a pretty big gap. Then again, there's an OAL difference of .03, which is actually a pretty big difference in seating depth when your that deep, and 147 grain jhp is definitely deep. Not sure if that's a big enough difference to explain the difference in max loads, but that's why we start small and work up -- because we don't know if both are right, and if not, who is right.
Should I load to the max OAL using the method here? http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=34225.0 or do CZ's get magazine limited on length?
Use Wobbly's push test to check max OAL for every bullet with every gun you ever own. Even if you're using retail manufactured ammo from the big boys, check it in your barrel.
In this case, I'll bet a nut that your Berry's 147 RN push tests close to or over 1.2, which is longer than the magazine will take. Normal 9mm max OAL is 1.169, and that's the max the magazines are designed to handle. However, even though your gun will almost certainly handle 1.169 with Berry's 147 RN, that doesn't mean you would ever want to try to load to 1.169. You will have OAL variations, and you wouldn't want to try to load right at the limit and have OAL variations take you over it. Load a bunch of dummy bullets (no primer/no powder/no crimp) with Berry's 147's and see what your OAL variation is. You would not want that variation to possibly extend the occasional bullet beyond the 1.169 limit of the magazine. Adjust your max OAL based on that. A target OAL of 1.16 with Berry's 147 RN was enough of a cushion for me, but if you're getting greater variations than I was, it might not be for you.
-
I leark on this forum everyday reading all your guys post.
Now i do own several reloading manuals an got the vihtavuori, hodgdon reloading data but the amount of data an the detail you guys post it in along with the extremely detailed explaination (ex. ID above) i have found it to be way more useful than any published data i have found.
-
Reloaders in forums are another source. I wouldn't recommend them as the primary source. ;)
-
Should I load to the max OAL using the method here? http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=34225.0 or do CZ's get magazine limited on length?
Use Wobbly's push test to check max OAL for every bullet with every gun you ever own. Even if you're using retail manufactured ammo from the big boys, check it in your barrel.
This is much more critical than you may suspect. I have two different bullet moulds that throw a bullet the same weight. Bullet profile A can be loaded to a OAL of 1.130" and bullet B can only be loaded to 0.988". These are the same WEIGHT bullets, but since the SHAPE of the bullets are totally different, they contact the throat at drastically different points. As you may expect, load data for bullet A absolutely CANNOT be use for bullet B. Infact, load data appropriate for bullet A would be dangerous if used with bullet B.
Others rely on reading primers. I look at primers, but I trust chrono data to a greater degree. Those relying solely on reading primers with pistol rounds are probably getting to higher pressures than those reading velocity trends.
Completely agreed. Reading primers as an indicator of pressure signs is worthless, at best. By the time you get any significant pressure indicator in a primer, it's too late. You're already 5-7,000 PSI too high. And you may get pressure signs with brand F and none with brand W, R, or C. That doesn't mean that if you don't get pressure signs with brand C, you are automatically in the safe zone.
-
re only chronoing 5 rds per load:
For a first time work-up with a new-to-you powder, this gives a go-no-go test for further load development. Unless you have unlimited components available it saves useless loads.
With n320, I'm comfortable to load more of each new bullet from the get-go.
Like ID said, once you have some history with a powder, a new bullet can be worked up pretty fast with reliable judgement based on experience.
I have some more 7625 loaded based on my last chrono 5-round tests with 3 different bullets. 10 each to chrono again, and some to test on targets for accuracy and "feel". These tests should provide more reliable info and be close to what I prefer---hopefully. ;)
LIKE James said, make sure your loads FIT the bbl before doing any tests.
-
re only chronoing 5 rds per load:
For a first time work-up with a new-to-you powder, this gives a go-no-go test for further load development.
I can see that. Would have saved me some time with the bullet puller this weekend.
-
1-28-14
CZ75 Custom Shadow, ProChrono Digital
R&P Cases, Federal SPPs.
IMR 7625 LOAD TESTS (10 rds/strings)
Temp 33 degs, sleeting lightl, 15 kt winds
LOAD, AVG.. ES. S.D. P.F.
BRY 124 HBRN 1,135"/1.140" OALs (Battery warning flashing--data somewhat wierd) New chrono battery for next bullet thanks to the range owner.
4.39 1026 127.2
4.46 1040 31 - 13 128.9 Modifying this #46 disc hole to drop 4.50 grs & going back to 1.135" oal as a good-to-go load if 129 -131PF :D
ZERO 125 JHP 1.10" (This will be a back-up powder choice here)
4.46 1044 31 - 10 129.5 (WILL be 4.5grs as good-to go) 8)
P.S. I'm waiting to see what a 50+ degree increase in temp. will do to these7625 loads
-
1SOW nice work up. I will be interested as well with a temperature rise results. I would like to see it stay the same since it is closer to my data O0. I love that 7625.
You probably couldn't detect any difference in recoil compared with n320 dressed like the Michelin Man out there in those horrible conditions.
-
Well, you know that the ammo and gun must both be "cold soaked" before the testing begins to be accurate.
We'll need photos of icicles hanging off 1SOW before we can believe some of this data. ;D
-
We'll need photos of icicles hanging off 1SOW before we can believe some of this data. ;D
I bet that cowboy hat gets awful heavy when covered in snow and ice!
-
1SOW nice work up. I will be interested as well with a temperature rise results. I would like to see it stay the same since it is closer to my data O0. I love that 7625.
You probably couldn't detect any difference in recoil compared with n320 dressed like the Michelin Man out there in those horrible conditions.
4 layers of upper clothing including the hoodie. I didn't hang around to test for off-hand feel as I had no fingers that could feel anything. ;)
As a youngster, I played hockey, ice fished, even made igloos enjoying winter. NOT ANY MORE!
We'll need photos of icicles hanging off 1SOW before we can believe some of this data.
I HAD icicles hanging on my pond's water wheel !
-
My 8 lb can arrives this Saturday !! Wahoo!
-
My 8 lb can arrives this Saturday !! Wahoo!
Congratulations! 8) It's great when you can actually get the powder you want!
-
Cool beans in that-there jug. 8)
I just opened mine yesterday to refill my MT 1# bottle.
-
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Good is that I fount some 7625 at my LGS, and the price was only $22.99/lb.
The Bad is that there were only 2 pounds there.
The Ugly is the embarrassing bag they put my powder in to take home. I was worried someone would see me walking to the car. I've got a reputation on the line, here! Couldn't they have used a Kotex bag or something a little less embarrassing!?!
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/jameslovesjammie/IMG_20140226_145405_507.jpg) (http://s26.photobucket.com/user/jameslovesjammie/media/IMG_20140226_145405_507.jpg.html)
-
Still nothing by me :(
-
The Ugly is the embarrassing bag they put my powder in to take home. I was worried someone would see me walking to the car. I've got a reputation on the line, here! Couldn't they have used a Kotex bag or something a little less embarrassing!?!
:o Now that's just cruel! >:( But then again, they did give you a good price on the powder, so you might just have to let it slide. ;)
-
What would the bag look like you had turned inside out? :o
-
What would the bag look like you had turned inside out? :o
The 7625 would have been embarrassed and then not perform as well. O0
-
Here's some 7625 instock. Kinda pricy at $28.50/lb.
http://www.ballisticproducts.com/IMR-SR-7625-1-lb-can/productinfo/0907621/
-
I cleaned my pistol today getting ready for a steel shoot tomorrow. It hadn't been cleaned in maybe three matches and several range sessions.
Most of the ammo shot was propelled by 7625. I've settled on 4.5/4.5+ grs for 124/125 bullets. The Shadow was noticeably more sooty (thick sooty in the chAmber, feed ramp and back to the trigger) than with n320.
Doesn't change my outlook on the powder, but just passing on my findings.
Another bad result ( :D): I'm upping all my loads to a little higher PF to get the same sight-rise the 4.5 7625 load is giving. My shooting improved.
Accuracy also improved on some of the bullets--especially the MG JHPs.
-
I'm upping all my loads to a little higher PF to get the same sight-rise the 4.5 7625 load is giving. My shooting improved.
Accuracy also improved on some of the bullets--especially the MG JHPs.
I'm not exactly following that statement. Are you upping to 4.5, or going over 4.5... to 4.6 or 4.7 ??
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
;)
-
Sorry, I expect the gurus to know what I'm thinking. O0 Upping my "other loads"--n320, et al, to match the 4.5grs (or even slightly higher) IMR load performance.
-
Gotcha. You like the handling of IMR 7625 with MG 124gr JHP, and you need to bump up a couple of other loads hoping to get them to react the same, actually preferring the slightly higher muzzle climb. I'm running my 147's hotter than necessary, and I definitely like the extra snap. I've also just run a boatload of 4.5gr of 7625 under MG 124gr JHP, same load as yours, but slightly shorter if I remember correctly, and I love the load. It feels fast.
Interestingly, I read an article by pro shooter Carina Randolph a couple of days ago on shooting .40 minor, and in it she discussed a number of pros opinions on shooting .40 minor. Matt Mink, who shot .40 minor before switching to CZ, commented that while he tried all the different bullet weights with forty, a couple of his best matches lifetime were shot with 135gr .40 bullets, which goes against the point of shooting .40 minor -- to go with heavier rounds and get softer recoil. Mink acknowledged that with either heavy or light rounds, the gun is faster than you are, but he suspects that because the gun FEELS faster with the lighter rounds, when the shooter tunes into that faster feeling, the shooter shoots faster.
That's Matt Mink and Carina Randolph, though. It's all voodoo to me. ;)
-
Yup.
-
New reloader here and the first powder I managed to select was a pound of 7625 I paid too much for on Gunbroker.
To my surprise I walked into one of the LGS today, which I have been checking weekly for useful powder, and found several cases of 7625 and snagged one for myself, so it is still out there and fresh product is being sent out!
Thanks to all that have contributed to this thread, I am waiting on my Shadow, which should be ready next week and expect I will try several of the loads mentioned in this thread. I have a load that I have been testing on my Walther PPQ with 135gr BBIs that feels real nice and have some 124gr Xtremes on the way as well to test out.
Now to go test this load I have been working on... ;D
Robert
-
7625 is a really good powder to work up a predictable load. The ONLY drawback I've seen is that is a little sooty.
Thi is the last year of manufacture for IMR 7625; hopefully Hogdon or someone will market the same powder under another name, like Hogdon did with WIN 231 under the Hogdon HP-38 name.
Tell us how your first tests shoot.
-
Thi is the last year of manufacture for IMR 7625; hopefully Hogdon or someone will market the same powder under another name, like Hogdon did with WIN 231 under the Hogdon HP-38 name.
Not likely. That practice died with Winchester's Component Marketing Department and the sale of the St. Marks Florida Powder making facility to a holding company.
-
That's too bad. It's also a very popular shotgun load for many clay competitors.
-
7625 is a really good powder to work up a predictable load. The ONLY drawback I've seen is that is a little sooty.
Thi is the last year of manufacture for IMR 7625; hopefully Hogdon or someone will market the same powder under another name, like Hogdon did with WIN 231 under the Hogdon HP-38 name.
Tell us how your first tests shoot.
Here are the results... The 3.2 to 3.8 tests were from last weekend and I did the 4.0 tests today. I made 300 rounds of the 4.0 a few days ago and burned through about half of them on a quick trip today using my PPQ. I figure I will hold off on making many more until I can run them through the CZ which has a 5" barrel as compared to the 4" barrel on the PPQ to be sure I hit the 130 number and a little extra..
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/845/cnno.png)
-
Isn't that pretty how 7625 progresses so predictably with .2 gr increases. It does the same with .1 gr grain changes too.
7625 must have read Richard Lee's articles on pressures and reloading. ;D
I like n320, but it's not always that linear with .1 gr changes. It sure is cleaner though. :)
-
Isn't that pretty how 7625 progresses so predictably with .2 gr increases. It does the same with .1 gr grain changes too.
7625 must have read Richard Lee's articles on pressures and reloading. ;D
I like n320, but it's not always that linear with .1 gr changes. It sure is cleaner though. :)
Too funny!
To be fair to Richard Lee, IMR SR-4756 also follows a strict geometrical progression in "real-world" testing.
You may have noticed that the standard deviation decreased dramatically with the higher charge weights. Obviously, this was a very small sample size, but I have found that to be consistent with my own testing with these two powders.
-
Radom,
I know you've been out of the reloading world for a while, and I hate to be the one to tell you this...
All the SR series powders are on the chopping block. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but someone had to. My 20 gauge will miss 7625 the most.
-
Radom,
I know you've been out of the reloading world for a while, and I hate to be the one to tell you this...
All the SR series powders are on the chopping block. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but someone had to. My 20 gauge will miss 7625 the most.
That's terrible!
For anyone who has never seen the old IMR 8 oz. tins, here's a pic of some I bought on "clearance" right before the switch to the plastic 1 lb. containers.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee109/Doc_Steve/IMRPowder_001.jpg) (http://s234.photobucket.com/user/Doc_Steve/media/IMRPowder_001.jpg.html)
Here's the real reason I posted these pics.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee109/Doc_Steve/IMRPowder_002.jpg) (http://s234.photobucket.com/user/Doc_Steve/media/IMRPowder_002.jpg.html)
-
That 130 PF or maybe a little more, is the sweet spot for 9mm minor PF competition reloaders.
This smooth progression is what sold me on 7625, even though I wasn't real happy with how sooty my pistol gets after 100 rds. Over 200 rds is dirty. Over 300 rds, I might not have 100% trust that it would feed/extract .
The pistol needs to be cleaned more often than with some other powders.
-
For anyone who has never seen the old IMR 8 oz. tins, here's a pic of some I bought on "clearance" right before the switch to the plastic 1 lb. containers.
Read that statement as "Look at what the prices used to be like before we had a couple of Democrat presidents."
I've got some of my own...
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-F7LOBF9Bk8I/TtbqKHLACSI/AAAAAAAAEL4/Ge7N7VKoOhQ/w976-h732-no/IMG_0095.JPG)
-
Gotcha beat, Wobbly!
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/jameslovesjammie/2013-02-02_15-57-22_752.jpg) (http://s26.photobucket.com/user/jameslovesjammie/media/2013-02-02_15-57-22_752.jpg.html)
-
Here is some more load data... The updates were done with 10 shots each. I like the 135s enough that I loaded up 400 of them for tomorrow, but I may get rained out. :-[
That's very interesting. The Walther demonstrates the "behavior" I always associate with this powder (SD decreases as charge increases), while the CZ does not. Granted, we're looking at small sample size (not a criticism), but I still find it interesting. Both IMR SR-7625 and SR-4756 have always shown a predictable geometric progression in my testing.
I have a lot of raw data, but I would need to input it in Excel to verify. This is the only free time I've had since tax season ended, so expect it sometime after I come back from vacation in early June. I don't think I could force myself to work with a spreadsheet in the name of "fun" for at least a month. I should have been a teacher, they get the entire summer off without front-loading the insane hours!
-
Equipment
Caliber: 10mmAuto
Bullets: RMR 180gr plated RNFP
Brass: StarLine (new)
Primer: Winchester Large Pistol WLP
OAL: 1.250"
Pistol: Dan Wesson 10mm Pointman (5" 1911)
Qty: 8 rounds each, slow fired
Weather: 40F and highly overcast
Chrono: ProChrono DLX
Powder: 7625 (6.3-7.0gr)
Max Velocity: 1200 fps
Load Avg Vel SD
6.6gr 954 26
6.7 979 24
NOTES
• Meters great
• Smooth response, typical of other single-base powders
• These loads were too low, and need more testing
;)
-
Don't know if anyone is still shooting 7625, but I've been loving it in 38 Special. No chrono data, but 4.1 works great with 148gr coated lead DEWC, like MBC and ACME. 4.3gr seems to be best with plated Berry 148gr DEWC.
These are flush seated, or at the first cannelure exposing about 0.10".
(https://i.imgur.com/SAGILUb.jpg)
Berry with flush seating
(https://i.imgur.com/pjSexpC.jpg)
Alternate loading for MBC with crimp cannelure
-
What are you going to replace it with when your supply is used up? 7625 is discontinued.
-
Probably have to go full-on N320 and N330. But since I got an 8lb can, which I only use for pistol, that decision won't need to made until I'm 95 or so.
-
Probably have to go full-on N320 and N330. But since I got an 8lb can, which I only use for pistol, that decision won't need to made until I'm 95 or so.
;D
The shotgun guys really miss that powder.
-
Right when 7625 became hard to get I noticed that there were two 8lb jugs at my Club's supply depot. I bought both and sold the other to a friend at work. We've both since retired. Now I feel like calling him and asking what became of that jug.
-
Right when 7625 became hard to get I noticed that there were two 8lb jugs at my Club's supply depot. I bought both and sold the other to a friend at work. We've both since retired. Now I feel like calling him and asking what became of that jug.
Believe it or not, I still have a few of the old 8 oz. "cans." As you well know, I love me some 4756, but I was never too crazy about 7625. The way things are now, I suppose I will have to load some lead and that 7625 if I want to shoot my 10mm anytime soon...
In all seriousness, IMR SR-7625 is very versatile for its burning rate. The only problem is that niche is sort of small...
-
The only problem is that niche is sort of small...
Thus, 4756 !! ;D
-
The only problem is that niche is sort of small...
Thus, 4756 !! ;D
PREACH IT, BROTHER!!!
-
In all seriousness, you may want to consult older manuals and sources when dealing with older lots of powders. "Cans" of IMR powders are getting a little bit old, by now. I don't mean that they are expiring (unless they smell bad), but they do benefit from older load data. In the handgun realm, I wouldn't try to "reinvent the wheel" by loading them with plated bullets, or other new designs. Stick with the bullet weights/types that were available from 1970-2005. I wouldn't waste any currently unavailable powder on plated bullets, FWIW.
-
"Cans" of IMR powders are getting a little bit old, by now. I don't mean that they are expiring (unless they smell bad), but they do benefit from older load data.
90% of the bad smell is the nitric acid coming out of solution. Since 7625 and 4756 are single-base powders they have no nitroglycerine to break down.
;)