Reduced loads
Sometimes, they don’t come out too, I guess.
6 Responses to “Reduced loads”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 9th, 2010 at 11:47 am
hey, look, detonation.
December 9th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
I dunno, I want more info before I go along with their claims. How do they know that the amount of powder was half of what it should have been? Did they take some full power loads from the manufacturer apart and compare? If not, they are full of shit.
Second, detonation, or Secondary Explosive Effect (SEE) from reduced loads is, from all the literature I can find on the subject, still a matter of voodoo. Some claim in only happens with reduced charges of fast powders, others say it’s a phenomenon of slow powders. Most claim it has something to do with the size of the case vs the charge weight.
Some will say it has to do with slow powders that fail to ignite properly at first, then smolder, and then the smoldering fumes detonate. Others go on about how the powder can detonate if the firearm is pointed down so that all the powder is at the base of the bullet. Still more claim that the powder lying along the side of the case all spread out like, can ignite at both ends, and when the two flame fronts come together *boom!*
A few experts are actually honest and admit that they have NO IDEA what causes detonation or SEE. In fact they admit further that SEE may not even be an accurate term. They go on to explain that nobody has ever been able to, in a laboratory setting, reproduce a claimed SEE detonation.
To this day, we have no way of knowing if any claimed SEE detonation was legit, or just a major foul-up by the reloader/shooter. A lot of supposed detonations are almost certainly caused by a previous round squib, or for the case of reduced loads, a double charge.
I’m not saying that SEE/detonation doesn’t happen, I’m just trying to clarify that claims of such are highly suspect. Especially claims such as the ones made by the guys in the linked post.
December 9th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
All we know right now is that it’s a ka-boom. There’s no telling what kind of powder was in those cartridges. I doubt that those were factory loads, as the factories normally have QC controls to find a dangerous load. The liability is just too high to let that kind of mistake slip through.
Reduced loads aren’t a bad thing, but the handloader has to do his research and know what the dangers might be. I use reduced loads in a number of calibers, but I pay strict attention to detail when handloading.
Reduced loads are very, very useful for any number of tasks.
December 10th, 2010 at 12:54 am
All of my books indicate a minimum charge for a reason.
December 10th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
And what is that reason?
December 14th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
As an engineer, my guess would simply be that it was the lowest charge tested. It’s not like they go test reduced loads for everything to see if they can get them to blow.