Originally Posted by
darkker
Pretty good Trick you got there!!! Thank you for the split in the thread, I was wondering how I started a thread in my sleep, HA!!!
So just so I can keep a train of though I have to number things, just easier for me to not ramble(unavoidable).
A1) That isn't true, but I get your point, Today most list weight, not all, and it wasn't always weight. If you are old enough, or strange enought to follow the rabbit hole, you know a great deal of the load data WAS in volume previously.
A2) I was also recomended not to sail too far, as the earth was flat. While widely accepted as fact, may not have been the best advice, no? It is widely done for the handloader, no arguement there. But it is absolutely not the industry standard. Industry being shooting or ammo production, there is no major ammo manufacturer who loads a weight of powder in their cases, they all load volume. So perhaps the better question is why don't the reloaders follow the industry?
A3) Lets remember context here, and keep sane. Schnyd112 was of the opinion that telling people they don't have to load by weight, was dangerous. I contended that not informing people how powder works, and ignoring that info is dangerous. But on face value alone, no it isn't IF you understand the method.
A4) So If you want to do volume, but cannot find data in such; you use your measured VMD and start with the associated number. THIS is why most people cannot wrap their head around volume, This is an association ONLY. Take the start load in grains, and multiply by your VMD for that bottle.
A5, A6, A7) Remember the context. Suggesting you can load by another method than weight, got me called out as being "dangerous", by someone who doesn't understand my system, Nor how powder works or is built. I pushed the "dangerous" part back after touching on how things actually work. Either way is perfectly acceptable if you reasonably follow common sense. This is an arguement of minutia. I was told the world was flat by a non-sailor, and we are discussing it. Not which will cause the decline of western civilization.
As for the powder manufacturers, THEY actually DO tell you loads in volume. The names and companies you think you know, don't make Shizz. They are marketing brands alone. The manufacturers are Defense Contractors, Governmental conglomorates, or State Owned Defense contractors. They flush surplused powder to the waste market, which is where the names you do know, get a hold of it and create names and sloagans about those names.
B1) Yes, which doesn't play against me. It actually compounds if using weight. Back to the VMD/BR tie I spoke of.
B2) That mentality is exactly why people continue to get confused, bad info... Weight IS NOT Volume. You are judging a volumetric devices ac curacy, not by testing against another volumetric measuring device; that's poor form. Furthermore you are ignoring what I said earlier about powder having a shifting BD/BR tie (although suddenly I think I incorrectly wrote vmd...) Powder has a changing BD, that is how the burning rate gets kept in check. Of course the weight is going to change!! Using the dippers, CONSISTENTLY, will ALWAYS yield a moving weight. They will deliver a consistent volume, but because of how the powder is made, a consistent volume has a moving weight target.
C1) My statement is no more incorrect, than telling someone volume is dangerous. What have you outlined? That no one lists volume? Well actually they do, you were mistaken. That they never have? Again they did. That The manufacturers don't list in volume? Because ya, they do. The resellers you know about however don't. Of course.... They also don't do much in-house testing of pressure, gets farmed out. And it's done with Copper Crushers, which was widely bemoaned by everyone in SAAMI for not being accurate above @ 45,000 PSI.... 15-20,000 psi wrong, when used outside it's operation range. They won't list nominal variance specs for what they resell... Yeah, I think they sound exactly like an upstanding company who should be considered the "expert" voice in this subject. :)
C2) Again, nuance discussion. Neither way is "bad", but one method ignores how powder gets built, and actually works.
C3) This is flat wrong, you are just to young. There was a very great deal of info published in volume for a long time, specifically by Olin, but have a few other manuals listing it; and of course Lee continues to list volume.
C4) I have no issue with this. That's why I briefly touched on how volume works.
C5) Now wait a tick..... You argued in B2 that volume devices are going to vary by a grain, now you claim that they are within a tenth?? You can't have it both ways jim :p. Although you are confused about how to properly use each method. What you are doing is throwing a consistent VOLUME, not weight :)
This specifically goes to my conversation about BR/BD shifts, and the fact that essentially no one but Eurenco lists any of this info. SOME lots of powder are consistent in BD, but some are not. Go back to WC844 and WC846. Those powders are ONLY different on the "as-built" side. There is only one recipie, but no two loaves of bread are ever the same... Speaking of those powders and what "the industry" tells us: You know that WC846 has it's original patent from the 1930's! So much for Hodgdon's fluff telling you that H335 was designed for the 223.
