Hornady 300g SST -- 80g Blackhorn

[ENCORE50A]

It seems that same thing from same people always comes up. How about these people do some experimenting or testing and stop complaining. Always some controversy

Bob, read the posts from sabotloader above yours. If you get so upset because I comment in a public forum, please just hit the "ignore button".

 

[ronlaughlin]

It was March 22, 2010 when wife, and i headed out to catch our first bullet. We had a couple laundry jugs, and some real real hard fir boards. She was along to photograph the capture, and we both got all ready, then i pulled the trigger. She did great. The trap not so much.

The bullet blasted right through the 'trap'. We looked, and looked, and looked, but couldn't find the bullet. After tiring of the search i set up another trap, and the bullet blasted right through it too. However, i spotted the bullet up hill away, and brought it down to show wife, and photograph it. Whilst showing her the bullet i looked off to the side, and spotted the first bullet.





Here they are, our first captured bullets.

The reason we went out that day is because we wanted to catch a bullet, and see what it looked like. This morning i went out alone, and with more experience, and better equipment caught a bullet. The reason i went out was to catch a bullet, because i wanted to see what it looked like.

The reason i attempt to catch bullets is because i want to see what they look like.




Me, i don't care what these bullets will do at long range. We can only hunt with iron sights, or non magnified glass. My goal when catching these bullets has never been to simulate long range performance. However folks ask questions, and i have always answered questions as best i can about long range performance. Long range bullet performance is not what i personally am interested in studying. However, i don't mind sharing calculations with anyone that is interested.

This business about volume, and weight.......as long as i have been reading, and writing to this forum it is my understanding that all powder measurements are in volume if not specified.

For me, catching bullets is not a job. Catching bullets is play. The reason i attempt to catch bullets is because i want to see what they look like.

 

[ronlaughlin]

It was as much fun finding the bullet this morning as it was finding the first bullet in 2010. :mrgreen:

 

[sabotloader]

Ron - those are beautiful captured Gold Dots or maybe back then they were still called Deep Curls....

This business about volume, and weight.......as long as i have been reading, and writing to this forum it is my understanding that all powder measurements are in volume if not specified.

This really has been the common understanding but today all these years later and with the advent BH-209 that 'common thought' really is not the standard anymore for BH-209. I believe there are far more people weighing BH-209 in search of that long range accuracy.

Going along with that us old guys that have been here since the time of the dinosaurs had that understanding but we are fewer in number and being replaced by a new generation of forum members that do not know the unwritten rules.

More and more posts are discussing weighed BH loads versus volume measurement. In fact a few years back on this forum it was requested that BH loads needed to be labled when the load posted was a weighed load. That worked for a few and for awhile but it has long gone by the way side. Unless you are really familiar with BH loads - at times it can be difficult to know for sure what is being discussed especially to the new shooters that come to this forum.

I think we have wrestled with how to handle powder load definitions because even today more and more are even loading T7 by weight.

 

[Idaholewis]

I don’t shoot BH and never have, But from the very start of my Muzzleloading i have weighed my charges by weight on a good quality beam scale and placed the pre weighed charges in little vials, In fact i have NEVER once used my volume measures in the field (or at least that i can remember?) To me personally it just made better sense to pre weigh my charges in weight on a true Accurate Beam scale VS a Volume measure That gets you ‘Close’ My goal from the very start has been the best possible accuracy i could achieve, From the very beginning i have worked at taking out every variable I possibly could. I honestly cannot say if Weight VS Volume is more Accurate as i have never tested it? But again Weight Grains just made better sense to me from the get go.

From the beginning on forums i have tried to remember to state that my charges are pre weighed in Grains, and Not Volume. I usually write it down on my Targets, and when i take a close up photo of a target i shot and post it on a Forum it is usually quite easy to read my Load Data on said Target. This serves as 2 purposes, it allows me to have record of it by looking back through my photos, and for a newcomer that is reading the thread to see exactly what i did to shoot the target they are looking at. No doubt i get in a hurry now n then and skip writing the info down, But myself and most anyone on these forums that know me, know that i NEVER use a Volume measure, i ALWAYS weigh my charges in weight Grains, But I can definitely see how easy it could be for a newcomer to misunderstand, if the load Data is not clearly written in the Pic/Video, or in the Post

 

[Idaholewis]

I just went and checked the Target photo i posted this morning, i was SURE i had written it down as weight grains on my target? NOPE, I hadn’t! Just went and edited the Target. I have done it Repetitious for so long that I don’t really think about it. One thing about Swiss Blackpowder i have found (Thru many pounds of it) that Weight Vs Volume is SUPER close, within a couple of Grains. I know Pyrodex is NOT, and it appears BH is NOT either

 

[ronlaughlin]

........Nowhere in the current posts does Ron actually explain either the method or the purpose of these tests......

What i have done to explain the method is show the photo of the 'trap'. Mundane necessary things like aligning the jugs with the shooting bench, verifying the aim of the different bullets, setting up the camera, insuring the range of 25 yard, insuring the proper load of powder etc. have been left out. The purpose is quite obvious; catch the bullet. Catching the bullet is what i try to accomplish each time; often it isn't easy.

Please keep in mind this isn't my job, this is play.

 

[sabotloader]

........Nowhere in the current posts does Ron actually explain either the method or the purpose of these tests......

What i have done to explain the method is show the photo of the 'trap'. Mundane necessary things like aligning the jugs with the shooting bench, verifying the aim of the different bullets, setting up the camera, insuring the range of 25 yard, insuring the proper load of powder etc. have been left out. The purpose is quite obvious; catch the bullet. Catching the bullet is what i try to accomplish each time; often it isn't easy.

Please keep in mind this isn't my job, this is play.

Ron what I am indicating has nothing to do with the 'Mundane', as you label them. things that you are doing... All I am saying your post show a number given for the powder - it does not indicate weight or volume. From there I am suggesting it would probably be more beneficial for the general readers if the the load was posted with weight or volume so all would grasp what load is being shot.

From there would it be better if you explained the purpose of the trap as it started out. Many and I would say lots of people reading you posts do not understand why there are two different loads being used and what you started this whole testing trying to simulate.

For myself 2010 was a long ways back there but I really thought there was a simulation part of the testing not just the capturing of the bullet. Heck if you might remember I was doing the same thing in a different medium but it wasn't just for the joy of the capture. I wanted to know how the bullet reacted and compare that reaction with other bullets. And I think that is how many look at your testing. It is judged as a bullet comparison or even reaction test.

 

[ronlaughlin]

Mike, i just looked through the first two pages of the inline forum. In every thread in which a powder charge was mentioned, the charge was always listed as X grain. No mention of volume accompanied the charge. It is understood by the members of this forum. powder charges are measured in volume. Whenever i want to express my charges as weight i write something like 57.6 (weighed) grain, or i write the charge is 80 grain. It is understood that when i write 80 grain, it is a volume measure. Interestingly, one of the threads i looked at was one of yours, where you stated a powder charge of 110 grain; you did not write volume; it wasn't necessary for you to write volume. On this forum charges are understood to be volume measures, unless one writes (weight).

Mike, if you would think back to when Tom first suggested something should be placed in front of the water jugs, you may recall that the initial tests were done using 50 grain of Blackhorn. Placing the carpet/plywood in front of the jugs changed how the bullets functioned. Because some of the popular bullets were failing, i switched from using 50 grain Blackhorn to 80 grain Blackhorn. This additional energy allowed most every bullet tested to work. At that time about the only bullets that worked with 50 grain Blackhorn, were the Lehigh, and Bloodline bullets. The XTP, Deep Curl, TEZ, and Partition bullets didn't work when 50 grain Blackhorn was used, is why 80 grain Blackhorn is also used. The purpose was/is to compare bullets. My focus was on catching bullets; it still is.

Mike, the tests were not done to simulate. The tests were done to see whether or not the bullets worked. Over time, beings how this is an open forum folks started comparing the 25 yard performance with longer range performance. Making this comparison is OK with me, and i have helped make calculations to answer good faith questions. However, my goal, my objective then and now, is to catch bullets; see what they look like. When i do one of these captures, i am not simulating anything.

 

[sabotloader]

Mike, i just looked through the first two pages of the inline forum. In every thread in which a powder charge was mentioned, the charge was always listed as X grain. No mention of volume accompanied the charge. It is understood by the members of this forum. powder charges are measured in volume. Whenever i want to express my charges as weight i write something like 57.6 (weighed) grain, or i write the charge is 80 grain. It is understood that when i write 80 grain, it is a volume measure. Interestingly, one of the threads i looked at was one of yours, where you stated a powder charge of 110 grain; you did not write volume; it wasn't necessary for you to write volume. On this forum charges are understood to be volume measures, unless one writes (weight).

I agree with everything you have said and yes I am also in violation... but I really do think that we should not make assumptions when it comes to powder loads and I will try myself to make sure that I follow my own suggestion of indicating or saying how the load number is obtained. Often I try to include the wording 'thrown on site'.

Reading through a lot of posts as I have done the question has risen to ask if the load is weighed or volume. Times change and at this time it is becoming more popular to weigh and more and more people are expecting weight. I am not suggesting a hard rule one way or the other. I am just thinking it would serve a better purpose if the powder load were explained. Ron think about the number of people moving into ML shooting. When we started it was common place if not the only way that BP and BP subs were loaded was by volume - today not so much.

Mike, if you would think back to when Tom first suggested something should be placed in front of the water jugs, you may recall that the initial tests were done using 50 grain of Blackhorn. Placing the carpet/plywood in front of the jugs changed how the bullets functioned. Because some of the popular bullets were failing, i switched from using 50 grain Blackhorn to 80 grain Blackhorn. This additional energy allowed most every bullet tested to work. At that time about the only bullets that worked with 50 grain Blackhorn, were the Lehigh, and Bloodline bullets. The XTP, Deep Curl, TEZ, and Partition bullets didn't work when 50 grain Blackhorn was used, is why 80 grain Blackhorn is also used. The purpose was/is to compare bullets. My focus was on catching bullets; it still is.

And that is what I might be suggesting, especially for those reading your tests today. They/Them have no way of knowing how the testing evolved from it's infancy to the present. This explanation is perfect for the in-initiated!

Mike, the tests were not done to simulate. The tests were done to see whether or not the bullets worked. Over time, beings how this is an open forum folks started comparing the 25 yard performance with longer range performance. Making this comparison is OK with me, and i have helped make calculations to answer good faith questions. However, my goal, my objective then and now, is to catch bullets; see what they look like. When i do one of these captures, i am not simulating anything.

Let me say I was around when the first tests were done. I and many others made the assumption you reduced the load to see what the bullet would perform like at that reduced velocity. We if not you then compared your stated test velocities to the velocitiy that we would see at a given range to see if expansion would occur at what ever the computed velocit and range worked out.

My bad on the assumption - but that is exactly my point! Assumptions are not always good. You and all of us providing and accurate explanation of forum posts on any testing would certainly help reduce the assumptions. Shoot it might even help the manufactures that look into the forums on occasions be more well informed.

I, personally, will try to be more informative even though after all of these years it is not the natural thing to do for myself.

 

[twild]

Ron thanks for testing my bullets, I do appreciate it. I'm sorry this latest round of testing has turned into what it has. I think people need to realize that Ron is helping people out when he does these tests. Like he says it is not his job he's not getting paid, he is doing a favor!

 

[GM54-120]

If a bullet impacts the target at XXXX speed it makes no difference if that target was at 25 yards or 200 yards. The bullet doesn't know the difference. Impact velocity is all that matters.

If you have an accurate BC and muzzle velocity you can easily determine at what velocity/distance you feel is good enough to insure adequate expansion/performance/energy.

Whether intended or not it is useful in that regard. We know at what point the bullet fails to perform as designed or is becoming marginal when compared to other bullets using the same testing methods.

 

[Muley Hunter]

I always thought Ron was showing how all the different bullets he tests compare to each other. He's not coming up with a load someone should copy. It's a bullet performance test Nothing more. It's up to the reader of the test to come up with their own load. Ron is just showing how a bullet will perform in a typical hunting load shot at most hunting ranges.

 

[edmehlig]

I always thought Ron was showing how all the different bullets he tests compare to each other. He's not coming up with a load someone should copy. It's a bullet performance test Nothing more. It's up to the reader of the test to come up with their own load. Ron is just showing how a bullet will perform in a typical hunting load shot at most hunting ranges.

Couldn't agree more! Ron has done a great job in testing bullets for us all at his expense and time and not expecting anything in return nor getting paid for doing this.

 

[Busta]

VOLUMETRIC measuring of loads is and has ALWAYS been the INDUSTRY STANDARD when it comes to Black Powder and Black Powder Substitutes. Period!

That was until the experts showed up.

Thanks Ron for all you do. I appreciate it, and it looks like those pencils will kill deer just fine, like they have 100% of the time for me in ~35 kills.

The other crap that gets posted here lately, reminds me why I don't come here or post much anymore.

 

[LBAhunter]

I always thought Ron was showing how all the different bullets he tests compare to each other. He's not coming up with a load someone should copy. It's a bullet performance test Nothing more. It's up to the reader of the test to come up with their own load. Ron is just showing how a bullet will perform in a typical hunting load shot at most hunting ranges.

Couldn't agree more! Ron has done a great job in testing bullets for us all at his expense and time and not expecting anything in return nor getting paid for doing this.

:yeah: