Jump to content

New ssb150


Recommended Posts

Guest cookoff013

normally powders are pretty consistant lot to lot. 

what often compounds doubt is when different lots are tested with recipes that are not efficient or ideal for that payload. also often compounded by differences in analisys technique such as different gun / distance to chronograph. i have found powders are very consistant at there maximum payload. 

if i take an example of vectan AS, it is nolonger advertised as a 32g powder, but its been tested alot over in the states and is suitable for standard 1200fps loads. its pretty consistant and easy too. the powder manufacturers have decided that it now suitable for 24g loads ! which just happens to the most expensive way to use this powder.
 

now i would advise anyone to experiment and have loads professionally tested. that way decent data is recognised.
thats with any powder, any usage !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its intresting you say that as the people i have spoke to about the new lot have said its lower pressured then the first batch that came out. One even said its almost identical to csbo now. Apparently its more consitent and less suseptable to pressure spikes like the old lot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cookoff013

Lower pressure? 
is that done using a large sample set? because there is having too little data to have a accurate verdict on batch lot comparisons.

i have some issues about the term pressure spikes, because that means either pressure is too high or there are loads in a batch where the pressure is low. its a slight inverted statement because loads that are for standard testing, and go over, would nearly always pass CIP HP, aka 1050bar. 
when i did a bunch of testing with a "faster burning powder" i was loading 7/8oz steel and getting about 500bar. i loaded in the same shell one an` `alf ounces of tungsten believe it or not pressures didnt skyrocket, i did only manage to go up +400bar. its pressure was actually below the CIP HP criteria, but sadly failed on the variance. 
the ballistic test was to work out the best payload for that powder and "we" (the royal we) had a fantastic energy output with 32g of stuff, but the data for the 36g load shouldnt be ignored it passed and gave a great overall shell. the model we used was a shell, and a standard powder charge +10%.
 

that upper payload did vary too much and failed on variance even though no pressure got near the HP limit.

would that mean the pressures spiked? no, one could argue of the whole dataset i had, if i had removed the highest pressure and re-calculated it would have passed, but also if i had removed the lowest pressure it would have passed a re-calculation.

the glass is half full and empty etc....

the key to that project was to find where the energy dump is and abuse it. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i mean is the old variant of ssb150 was very inconsistant. From what i have been told as in i have not used it yet or experienced the powder im going off what im told. I have spoke to people who have used the old stuff and said it wasnt suitable for certain loads are now using it for the loads that they couldnt use it for before i.e 39 and 42gram 3.5 inch steel shot loads the older variant seemed to only suit lighter loads in 3 &3.5 inch hulls. And they are also saying they are using a few extra grains to get the pressure upto hp level. So please dont critisize me as im going off here say and im only after opinions from people who have experience and knoledge of the powder so please dont make this into a argument.

Im only after some facts and advice as i have only ever used alliant steel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have loaded some 3" 36 gram steel loads using data from the Maxam site, that also corresponds to the components used in the 3" lighning steel loads, i have been quite happy with them.

I might get Claygame to load a 3.5" 42gram load and proof it for me to see it that would be feasible  load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cookoff013

there is actual data for 42g loads. 

its on the website.

http://www.maxamcomponents.com/en/outdoorsbrand/componentes/products/powders

it would probably be the first powder charge to be tested. and if you were to have a go. can i also remind you that there is a 2 tier MAP system and for your benefit, it is not stated which tier or shell length is quoted by maxam. now with my experience try and stick to the maximum payload for extracting all that energy from the powder. it should make the shells more consistent too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cookoff013

thats cool.

i wouldnt mind banging a few through a pressure barrel. i alway love doing some weird stuff with reloads.

the worst thing for a reloader, is old data, where a product has changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/03/2018 at 10:40, cookoff013 said:

thats cool.

i wouldnt mind banging a few through a pressure barrel. i alway love doing some weird stuff with reloads.

the worst thing for a reloader, is old data, where a product has changed. 

Spot on cookoff. And from what im told the old data sheets clay and game have for ssb wont be suitable with this new lot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no surprise!

Maxam have had several inconsisten batches with the PSB powders so, was only a matter of time they'd come out with a differen SSB.

Be interesting to know wheter it became slower or faster... which will then affect the loading capability

Couple of other things i noted in respect of the link to the Maxam cataloge:

Suggested speed seem to be very low for steel cartridges

The catalogie appear to be very obsolete: there are in there powders such as PSB1 and PSB2 which have been discontinued a good 4 years ago and replaced by PSB+ (1, 2 & 2 Special)

Perhaps is not C&G that has the wrong data....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...