Author Topic: Need a .44 AMP recipe (Read 17404 times)

JesseL · « **Reply #25 on:** September 20, 2012, 12:48:09 pm »

Personally, I wouldn't go over published max loads until you're really sure what you're doing and have access to at least a chronograph.

WeTheArmed.com

HiVelSword · « **Reply #26 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:07:42 pm »

Keep in mind that the people who created that load data are expecting me to shoot it out of a .44 Automag pistol made in the 70's and by a few different companies. Some Automags were manufactured with a bit more care than others.

But neither of them are a modern rifle designed to shoot .308.

only1asterisk · « **Reply #27 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:14:45 pm »

I'm not sure the Hodgdon load is directly comparable as the bullet, primer and brass are all very different, BUT HVS shouldn't do anything he isn't comfortable doing.

only1asterisk · « **Reply #28 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:15:48 pm »

Quote from: HiVelSword on September 20, 2012, 01:07:42 pm

Keep in mind that the people who created that load data are expecting me to shoot it out of a .44 Automag pistol made in the 70's and by a few different companies. Some Automags were manufactured with a bit more care than others.

But neither of them are a modern rifle designed to shoot .308.

That doesn't change the pressure limitations of a large pistol primer.

HiVelSword · « **Reply #29 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:17:00 pm »

I'm comfy!

Yeah, I know. Famous last words.

JesseL · « **Reply #30 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:17:07 pm »

Quote from: HiVelSword on September 20, 2012, 01:07:42 pm

Keep in mind that the people who created that load data are expecting me to shoot it out of a .44 Automag pistol made in the 70's and by a few different companies. Some Automags were manufactured with a bit more care than others.

But neither of them are a modern rifle designed to shoot .308.

It's not necessarily that simple. The relationship between pressure and the burn rate of a given power isn't linear and the higher pressures go the less predictable it becomes. When you push things beyond the published loads you can get into territory where very small changes can cause exponential pressure increases.

Right now, you don't know what you don't know. Exploring in uncharted waters without at least a few instruments isn't smart.

Quote from: only1asterisk on September 20, 2012, 01:14:45 pm

I'm not sure the Hodgdon load is directly comparable as the bullet, primer and brass are all very different

True.

Quote

, BUT HVS shouldn't do anything he isn't comfortable doing.

I'm more worried about what he is comfortable doing

HiVelSword · « **Reply #31 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:20:00 pm »

Quote from: only1asterisk on September 20, 2012, 01:15:48 pm

That doesn't change the pressure limitations of a large pistol primer.

True but some Automags are prone to parts breakage. So to me it's logical that they don't want to send Buffalo Bore level .44 mag loads out of a rare pistol that might break. The weaker the load, the safer it is, no?

HiVelSword · « **Reply #32 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:22:33 pm »

Quote from: JesseL on September 20, 2012, 01:17:07 pm

Right now, you don't know what you don't know. Exploring in uncharted waters without at least a few instruments isn't smart.

So if no one has any idea how fast a .44 AMP round will go out of a 16" barrel then what good is a chronograph going to do me?

JesseL · « **Reply #33 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:23:05 pm »

Quote from: HiVelSword on September 20, 2012, 01:20:00 pm

The weaker the load, the safer it is, no?

No. Light loads of slow powers can be just as dangerous as heavy loads of fast powders. The mechanism is poorly understood, but it's known that you can see a detonation in some conditions with loads that are too light.

The book minimums exist for reasons just as good as the maximums.

JesseL · « **Reply #34 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:24:17 pm »

Quote from: HiVelSword on September 20, 2012, 01:22:33 pm

So if no one has any idea how fast a .44 AMP round will go out of a 16" barrel then what good is a chronograph going to do me?

You can track what kind of velocity changes you see in relation to changes in powder charge and see when something is getting out of whack. A sudden jump in velocity would be a very bad thing.

HiVelSword · « **Reply #35 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:34:47 pm »

Quote from: JesseL on September 20, 2012, 01:17:07 pm

When you push things beyond the published loads you can get into territory where very small changes can cause exponential pressure increases.

My point is those Hodgon loads even the "max" load might not be a "max" load if AR-10 carbines in .44 Automag were all the rage. Do I know that for a fact? No. And we'll never know but Cor Bon lists their .44 AMP load (fair to assume out of an Automag) at 1,450 fps for 1,119 foot pounds. No, I've no idea what primers or powder they used for that load.

That Hodgdon max load is a 240 at 1,241 fps for 820 foot pounds. Seriously? The Automag was designed to equal the revolver cartridge in a semi-automatic hunting handgun. That is not equal by any stretch of the imagination. To me, 820 foot pounds is erring on the side of caution.

HiVelSword · « **Reply #36 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:38:28 pm »

Quote from: JesseL on September 20, 2012, 01:24:17 pm

No. Light loads of slow powers can be just as dangerous as heavy loads of fast powders. The mechanism is poorly understood, but it's known that you can see a detonation in some conditions with loads that are too light.

The book minimums exist for reasons just as good as the maximums.

Greatful to know this. Thanks, Jesse.

Okay so what are H110 and W296 considered. Slow powders or fast powders?

JesseL · « **Reply #37 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:45:49 pm »

Quote from: HiVelSword on September 20, 2012, 01:34:47 pm

My point is those Hodgon loads even the "max" load might not be a "max" load if AR-10 carbines in .44 Automag were all the rage. Do I know that for a fact? No. And we'll never know but Cor Bon lists their .44 AMP load (fair to assume out of an Automag) at 1,450 fps for 1,119 foot pounds. No, I've no idea what primers or powder they used for that load.

That Hodgdon max load is a 240 at 1,241 fps for 820 foot pounds. Seriously? The Automag was designed to equal the revolver cartridge in a semi-automatic hunting handgun. That is not equal by any stretch of the imagination. To me, 820 foot pounds is erring on the side of caution.

I'm not saying it can't be pushed beyond that.

I'm saying that without at least a chronograph it's impossible to know how much beyond that you can safely push it, and someone who hasn't done any reloading is nowhere near qualified to wing it.

The smart thing to do is to work with the published loads for a while, read The ABC's of Reloading a few times, get some experience with the fundamentals of handloading, buy a chronograph (they're not expensive), and if you really want to start working up loads outside what's published and tested get a PressureTrace.

Quote from: HiVelSword on September 20, 2012, 01:38:28 pm

Greatful to know this. Thanks, Jesse.

Okay so what are H110 and W296 considered. Slow powders or fast powders?

They're magnum pistol powers, which puts them at the very slow end of handgun powders and the fast end of rifle powders.

http://www.hodgdon.com/burn-rate.html

HiVelSword · « **Reply #38 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:48:34 pm »

Oh, excuse me. The max load for a 240 on H110 on that chart is 1,185 fps.

748 foot pounds.

Um, yeah. Would that even cycle the bolt on an Automag pistol?

Edit: Okay, that's the starting load. Max was correct. 1,241 with 820 foot pounds. I think anyone who looks at those numbers would say that's total weaksauce with maybe a few whiskey foxtrot tangos.

HiVelSword · « **Reply #39 on:** September 20, 2012, 02:01:01 pm »

Quote from: JesseL on September 20, 2012, 01:45:49 pm

I'm not saying it can't be pushed beyond that.

I'm saying that without at least a chronograph it's impossible to know how much beyond that you can safely push it, and someone who hasn't done any reloading is nowhere near qualified to wing it.

The smart thing to do is to work with the published loads for a while, read The ABC's of Reloading a few times, get some experience with the fundamentals of handloading, buy a chronograph (they're not expensive), and if you really want to start working up loads outside what's published and tested get a PressureTrace.

Can't get a chrony by this weekend. I will settle on the first load that cycles the bolt. If it's 1*'s starting load of 20 grains of W296 then so be it. I won't try anything hotter until I have at least a chronograph.

It was never my intent to make monster stomping rounds for initial testing. That's silly. But what I don't think is silly is wanting a load that will cycle the bolt. And the first one that does on the low end I don't believe would be unsafe. I'm not Maverick from Top Gun. I was going to start with the 20 and end with the 23 but stopping anywhere if I got sticky extraction. And if for some reason 23 grains didn't give me extraction issues that doesn't mean I was going to try 24 or higher until it did.

Give me a little credit.

JesseL · « **Reply #40 on:** September 20, 2012, 02:03:26 pm »

The thing that jumps out at me on that chart is that there's only 2 grains difference between their min and max loads.

That suggests that there's not a lot of wiggle room in what's safe.

Looking at some of the .44 Remington Mag data, I see an even narrower range and it corresponds to an 11,000 CUP jump in pressure.

That's a 4.3% increase in powder resulting in a 44% increase in pressure. Definitely getting into territory where whacky things can happen quickly.

JesseL · « **Reply #41 on:** September 20, 2012, 02:08:08 pm »

Quote from: HiVelSword on September 20, 2012, 02:01:01 pm

Can't get a chrony by this weekend. I will settle on the first load that cycles the bolt. If it's 1*'s starting load of 20 grains of W296 then so be it. I won't try anything hotter until I have at least a chronograph.

It was never my intent to make monster stomping rounds for initial testing. That's silly. But what I don't think is silly is wanting a load that will cycle the bolt. And the first one that does on the low end I don't believe would be unsafe. I'm not Maverick from Top Gun. I was going to start with the 20 and end with the 23 but stopping anywhere if I got sticky extraction. And if for some reason 23 grains didn't give me extraction issues that doesn't mean I was going to try 24 or higher until it did.

Give me a little credit.

Has the gun been test fired with factory loads at all yet? If not, it's not really possible to say what the relationship between cycling and safe pressure really is.

Even then, it's certainly possible to come up with a load that is wildly overpressure but still wouldn't cycle. Pressure and gas volume available at the port are only vaguely related to peak pressure.

If it won't cycle with published loads, I'd say the gas system needs looking at before it needs more powder.

HiVelSword · « **Reply #42 on:** September 20, 2012, 02:33:51 pm »

Quote from: JesseL on September 20, 2012, 02:08:08 pm

Has the gun been test fired with factory loads at all yet? If not, it's not really possible to say what the relationship between cycling and safe pressure really is.

Even then, it's certainly possible to come up with a load that is wildly overpressure but still wouldn't cycle. Pressure and gas volume available at the port are only vaguely related to peak pressure.

If it won't cycle with published loads, I'd say the gas system needs looking at before it needs more powder.

Sorry, Jesse. I'm not going to wait 6 months to a year for Cor Bon to maybe ship me some .44 AMP.

I'm going to start with 20 grains. If it cycles I'll stop. If I get the tiniest bit stickiness I'll stop. If I blow myself up I'll pretty much stop then too. And you can tell me you told me so.

Once I have that load I'll wait to get a chronograph before thinking about anything fierce.

And coincidentally I asked Marty this question back in June. I "read" his reply but never actually read it. Just marked it as "read".

I just found it again. The load he tested was made by a friend (I'm thinking it might have been Tony Rumore). 22 grains of 296. Bullets were 240 but he neglected to tell me what kind and no velocity numbers.

Again, I'll start with 20. All I need is one student who wants to take my class and I should be able to order a chronograph. I'm in a dry spell but I might have someone by next weekend.

JesseL · « **Reply #43 on:** September 20, 2012, 02:50:37 pm »

Starting with 20 is probably fine. I'd think real hard about going over 21.0 though.

My guesstimations for what things might look like beyond that:
Going to 22 could easily take you somewhere north of 54,000 PSI which would hopefully still be safe for the AR-10 platform.

Going to 23 could be anywhere from 80,000 PSI (probably won't blow up the gun but sure ain't good for it) all the way to straight up detonation.

Of course, that's also getting into the area where temperature variations, small variations in crimp or seating depth, barrel fouling, etc. could cause major variations too.

HiVelSword · « **Reply #44 on:** September 20, 2012, 04:20:06 pm »

Yeah, I'm hoping 20 or 21 will do it. I think it will.

I have some Slipstream too. I need to watch a Youtube vid on properly lube an AR because mine's the Sahara. I'm sure that if I don't lube it sufficiently well, then I can forget about an accurate depiction of cycling.

Hey, in my defense I've only owned one in the past and had it for such a short time (Armalite M-15) that I never got to shoot it.

Now is a good as time to any to start learning. But hey, I managed to put my lower together. So I'm not completely useless!

seanp · « **Reply #45 on:** September 20, 2012, 10:53:44 pm »

Quote from: HiVelSword on September 20, 2012, 12:05:04 pm

Also, about the only sign of overpressure I know of would be sticky case extraction. What else should I keep an eye out for?

Flattened primers, imprinted case bases, split primers, primers that are loose after firing, gas jet cutting on case base, or breech block face, soot around primer pocket...

seanp · « **Reply #46 on:** September 20, 2012, 10:57:15 pm »

Quote from: HiVelSword on September 20, 2012, 01:07:42 pm

Keep in mind that the people who created that load data are expecting me to shoot it out of a .44 Automag pistol made in the 70's and by a few different companies. Some Automags were manufactured with a bit more care than others.

But neither of them are a modern rifle designed to shoot .308.

Keep in mind some of the load data published in the old days is no longer valid either, or was dangerous in the first place, and is why "new" load data is the standard to go by. I know of at least one powder, and at least one publication that this is true for.

only1asterisk · « **Reply #47 on:** September 21, 2012, 01:36:43 am »

For comparison the Sierra 5th Ed. gives a top load of 24.6 grains of Win296 and 20.8 grains of H110 respectively. This is in reworked .308 brass. Hornady has also published a load of 24ish grains of Win296, but I can't lay hands on the book to verify and check the make of brass.

Winchester 296 is a good choice for this pressure range and pressure tends to be quite linear, even under compression. You aren't going to walk off a cliff with it.

HiVelSword · « **Reply #48 on:** September 21, 2012, 11:08:24 am »

Okay, about the only thing I accomplished yesterday was the creation of some dummy rounds (5) and the other 10 which are sitting in the mag have a date with a bullet puller. It was a real PITA to adjust everything. It’s like when I adjusted the crimping die then the seating die would change a smidge and vice versa. But I finally got the crimp measurement to consistently hit .456 and the o/a length to hit 1.600.

Next week (it has to be next week) we will make actual loaded rounds.

I also see that I’m going to be starting from scratch with the mag spacer. The way Marty carved it (it’s polymer, delrin, something plastic) the nose banks to the center as the round is stripped forward. So the theory works. I just need the control spacer with the correct ramp to be measured and programmed into a CNC machine.

Another observation? 15 rounds of 240 grain Automag cartridges in your hand is weighty. I can imagine how much a loaded 25 round mag will weigh.

Oh, I knew that this gun would be a pig. But it's turning more into Hogzilla's baby.

HiVelSword · « **Reply #49 on:** September 21, 2012, 11:11:30 am »

Quote from: only1asterisk on September 21, 2012, 01:36:43 am

For comparison the Sierra 5th Ed. gives a top load of 24.6 grains of Win296 and 20.8 grains of H110 respectively. This is in reworked .308 brass. Hornady has also published a load of 24ish grains of Win296, but I can't lay hands on the book to verify and check the make of brass.

Winchester 296 is a good choice for this pressure range and pressure tends to be quite linear, even under compression. You aren't going to walk off a cliff with it.

This comforts me. Thanks, 1*! Though I will still start with 20 grains. Can't wait to actually put some rounds down range.

So tired last night I never even chambered a dummy round. I'll do that when I get home from work.