:: Forums »

#16: Re: accurate data on 22 hornet question Author: Aloysius, Location: B., Belgium

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:50 am
----
Can I put a question here? Isn't it so that on the burning rate list of Accurate the 2015 is only 1 step slower than the 1680? Then how should I understand "way too slow" ? In my dictionary "way too slow" is something like comparing a 3100 with a N° 2...
When I look at the burning rates, I know MY .22 Hornet (an Anschütz you would also adore) likes N110, PCl512, H110... so looking at Accurate I would think 4100 would do the trick (and that's much faster than the 1680).

I'm a little bit afraid that when I step over to N120, which has about the burning rate of A-1680, the Hornet-case is to small to get enough powder in to reach a decent velocity.
I use N120 in my short barreled Winchester in 30/30 Win, so the 1680 could also fit in there.

That's the funny thing about reloading, you never know it all...

#17: Re: accurate data on 22 hornet question Author: Pumpkinslinger, Location: NC foothills

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:05 am
----
Aloysius, I've noticed that powders can move around on that "burning rate" list, depending on who put the list out. And ALL of them say not to use the list to substitute powders.

www.hodgdon.com/burn-rate.html

www.reloadbench.com/burn.html

www.reloadersnest.com/burnrates.asp

Good article here >> www.chuckhawks.com/pow...n_rate.htm

#18: Re: accurate data on 22 hornet question Author: dan1dad, Location: St.Louis Missery

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:11 pm
----

Aloysius wrote:

Can I put a question here? Isn't it so that on the burning rate list of Accurate the 2015 is only 1 step slower than the 1680? Then how should I understand "way too slow" ? In my dictionary "way too slow" is something like comparing a 3100 with a N° 2...
When I look at the burning rates, I know MY .22 Hornet (an Anschütz you would also adore) likes N110, PCl512, H110... so looking at Accurate I would think 4100 would do the trick (and that's much faster than the 1680).

I'm a little bit afraid that when I step over to N120, which has about the burning rate of A-1680, the Hornet-case is to small to get enough powder in to reach a decent velocity.
I use N120 in my short barreled Winchester in 30/30 Win, so the 1680 could also fit in there.

That's the funny thing about reloading, you never know it all...

I found out that trying to load with 2015br that the hornet is too small for the recommended powder. It over fills the cartridge, and its hard to compress the powder that is outside the case. I had been loading with Alliant 2400 at around 9.5 gr with ok results, but I was looking for something a little different to run with. I thought 2015br would be good as its also used in many of the other cartridges I have. I like to minimize the amounts of powders , keep it simple type of philosophy.

#19: Re: accurate data on 22 hornet question Author: dan1dad, Location: St.Louis Missery

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:34 pm
----
a side bar since Ive been doing a little research on just how many gun powder companies General Dynamics Doesnt own. The list is smaller for Does not own than does own, but I ran across this interesting tid bit, I thought at least.

-------------------------------
Lighting the Fuse on Gunpowder Fraud
For decades, the St. Marks Powder company, has been producing gunpowder for the military but not testing it as required. St. Marks, a division of General Dynamics, sells about $100 million worth of gunpowder every year, most of it used in small-caliber weapons. General Dynamics rushed to self-disclose the fraud when they found out a whistleblower might come forward. Under the FCA, a company is required to pay double damages, rather than triple damages, if they self-disclose.

www.boydcfe.com/news.html

--------------------------------------------------

-> Reloading Ammunition

All times are GMT - 7 Hours

Go to page Previous 1, 2 :| |: Page 2 of 2