Gunboards Forums banner

9mm Blue Dot: Why Hornady load so different

2K views 17 replies 9 participants last post by  Oldstuffer 
#1 ·
I load Blue Dot in my Destroyer Carbine and it does great

I have loaded it before in 9x19 at suggested loads by Alliant, Lyman and others at around + or -8grs, no issues.

Wanting to load up 9x19 124gr for my Colt 16” carbine, and I see loads from 7.9 to 8.3 grains as I have used in the past....until I see 6.6grs listed as max in my Hornady manuals.

Shall I go with my past experience or proceed with caution? I holler at guys reloading with NO reference manuals....do I have too many?
 
#2 ·
I like to use 5 different manuals if possible.
I also have 50 years of Handloader Magazine and I often research data in those magazines. However I am very careful with magazine data that has not been pressure tested in a pressure gun.
That way I can throw out the high and the low.
Then I tend to average the remaining maximums.
If the data passes the eyeball and smell test I just use one of the starting loads in the remaining manuals.
For people looking for a black and white answer - I don't have one. Manuals tend to vary more than we expect.
 
#4 ·
If you compare the books of today with the books of the past it seems they're all dropping the load data down due no doubt to lawyers. If you have worked up a good load that works well in your stuff I'd use your own data. The books are recommended loads and are based on the test barrels they use rather than your real life firearms. I've always found that their max loads are a bit on the low side for most stuff. I don't recall what my 9 para data is but I've been running Win 231, Bullseye and Unique. In order to get any of my european stuff to work I'm loading at about the top of the book data. In order to get near the velocities the things should be running I'm a little higher. So far I've seen no issues with wear on the guns or pressure signs on the cases and primers. I know pistol stuff doesn't usually show pressure but the rifle stuff does....
One thing to consider however is that the Destroyer is a solid locked breech bolt action and will handle more pressure than the brass probably can. The AR's converted to 9mm with straight blowback can beat themselves up with factory loads and handguns don't really compare to either of those so if you do go over the listed loads keep an eye on things.

Frank
 
#6 ·
If you compare the books of today with the books of the past it seems they're all dropping the load data down due no doubt to lawyers. If you have worked up a good load that works well in your stuff I'd use your own data. The books are recommended loads and are based on the test barrels they use rather than your real life firearms. I've always found that their max loads are a bit on the low side for most stuff. I don't recall what my 9 para data is but I've been running Win 231, Bullseye and Unique. In order to get any of my european stuff to work I'm loading at about the top of the book data. In order to get near the velocities the things should be running I'm a little higher. So far I've seen no issues with wear on the guns or pressure signs on the cases and primers. I know pistol stuff doesn't usually show pressure but the rifle stuff does....
One thing to consider however is that the Destroyer is a solid locked breech bolt action and will handle more pressure than the brass probably can. The AR's converted to 9mm with straight blowback can beat themselves up with factory loads and handguns don't really compare to either of those so if you do go over the listed loads keep an eye on things.

Frank
No.....................

It's the exactitude of modern high speed computerized peizoelectric strain gauge pressure sensing systems, which are far more accurate than the old Copper (and Lead) crusher pellet systems ever were.
 
#5 ·
I load Blue Dot in my Destroyer Carbine and it does great

I have loaded it before in 9x19 at suggested loads by Alliant, Lyman and others at around + or -8grs, no issues.

Wanting to load up 9x19 124gr for my Colt 16” carbine, and I see loads from 7.9 to 8.3 grains as I have used in the past....until I see 6.6grs listed as max in my Hornady manuals.

Shall I go with my past experience or proceed with caution? I holler at guys reloading with NO reference manuals....do I have too many?

What is the OAL difference between the other data and the Hornady?
 
#9 ·
Another consideration is that some powders have changed. We all know about lot to lot changes in powders, but some powders are considerably different even though the numbers or the names are the same. Case in point, Unique. It's a completely different powder than it use to be. I used the Lyman #42 and #43 loading manuals for many years. Comparing the loads in those older manuals to the newest Lyman manual you will see that most of the max loads in the older manuals are higher than the new manual max loads. The lawyer thing and the change in how the measurements are made is also true but that's not the only reason. Powders have changed too. I would be hard pressed to load higher than the modern max loads. There are legitimate reasons not to. Do as you will but I'll be sticking to the newer loads because no one really knows, except the powder manufacturers, WHY the loads changed.
JMHO
DaveL
 
#10 ·
Case In Point: Unique.

Unique has existed 120 years, absolutely NOTHING about it is "the same"

Alliant still has, in it's possession, THE FIRST BATCH, stored, that they test EVERY CURRENT BATCH AGAINST, and the "modern" Unique is as much the same as it ever was.

Bullseye, another Case In Point, it is 122 years old, a Laffin & Rand Co. powder created in 1898.


Red Dot was created in 1932 along with 2400.

Herco, somewhere in the 1930's.

1965 brought us Green Dot and Reloader-7.

Blue Dot dates to 1972.

How about Dupont IMR powders?
3031 dates to 1934.
4064, 4198, 4227, and 4320 were created in 1935.
4350 came to be in 1934.
4831 was released to the public in 1973, BUT, was the powder used in 20mm Oerlikon cannon shells in WW2, Bruce Hodgdon was selling it (Gi surplus/pulldown) as H4831 as of about 1949.
4895 came to be in 1962.


Then there's the Olin/Winchester spherical powders that came to the public in the 1950's, but they were making WC846/BallC during WW2.

  • 231 reformulated 230 with 22.5 percent nitroglycerine and no deterrent coating so grain size and shape could be changed to minimize bridging in loading machines.]
  • 296 reformulated 295P introduced in 1973
  • 571 magnum shotgun propellant introduced in 1973.
  • 748BR Ball Rifle propellant introduced in 1968 and replaced by 748 in 1973.
  • 760BR Ball Rifle propellant (similar to H414) introduced in 1968 and replaced by 760 in 1973.
  • 780BR Ball Rifle propellant introduced in 1968 and discontinued in 1972.
  • 785 (similar to H450)[SUP][11][/SUP] introduced in 1973 for the .243 Winchester.


When Bruce Hodgdon ran out of GI Surplus powders to sell (that DID take a while), he started having the original makers make some for him to sell,


  • BL-C (Lot 2) was newly manufactured by Olin in 1961 with 10 percent nitroglycerin, 10 percent diphenylamine stabilizer, and 5.75 percent dibutyl phthalate deterrent, but without the flash suppressant used in the surplus military propellant
  • H110 was surplus .30 carbine powder introduced in 1962 for loading the .30 carbine and magnum revolver cartridges. It IS re-labeled W296.
  • H335 was surplus Olin WC844 for full-charge loads in the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester.
  • H380 was Olin WC852 for full-charge loads in the .30-06 Springfield
  • H414 was introduced in 1967 for full-charge loads in the .270 Winchester and .30-06 Springfield. This IS W760.
  • H450 was for large capacity and magnum rifle cartridges.
  • H870 was surplus M61 Vulcan propellant introduced in 1959 for loading very large capacity magnum cartridges with bore diameter of 0.3 inches (7.6 mm) or less
  • HS5 was introduced in 1963 for shotgun field loads.
  • HS6 was introduced in 1963 for heavy shotgun loads. This IS W540.
  • HS7 was introduced in 1973 for magnum shotgun loads. This IS W571.
  • Trap 100 was introduced in 1973 for shotgun target loads. This is the discontinued W452.
  • HP38 was introduced in 1975 for target loads in handguns., this IS W231.


Canister Powder makers provide to us handloaders VERY MUCH "the same" gunpowders, decade after decade, no matter where and with what, the powders get made.

NONE of them are "the same" as they were when they were invented, due SOLELY to environmental and financial reasons of the processes, but every one of them works the same as they ever did.
 
#11 ·
This is an accurate statement.
Quote
NONE of them are "the same" as they were when they were invented, due SOLELY to environmental and financial reasons of the processes, but every one of them works the same as they ever did.
End Quote

In some cases we will have guns that are new to over 100 years old using the same propellant. Bullets and primers also vary and you worry about a little variation in powder? The whole point of working up a safe load is to insure you don't get bit by all the variables.
 
#15 ·
This is an accurate statement.
Quote
NONE of them are "the same" as they were when they were invented, due SOLELY to environmental and financial reasons of the processes, but every one of them works the same as they ever did.
End Quote

In some cases we will have guns that are new to over 100 years old using the same propellant. Bullets and primers also vary and you worry about a little variation in powder? The whole point of working up a safe load is to insure you don't get bit by all the variables.
Well, and then you have the crowd (very heavy among shotgunners (the lowest pressure and highest safety margin guns there ever were)) who think that once a gun gets "old" it for some reason becomes Frail and Weak, like my Great Aunt Lizzie.
Not because it is badly worn, or badly rusted away, but just because it's old.

But then you have a subset of THAT crowd who think those gun barrels are prone to "fatigue" and "hoop stress" and so they use "low pressure ammunition" to "extend barrel life" so as to avoid "fatiguing" their barrel(s).............

A sizeable number of my guns are over 50 yrs old now, and most of them are in regular use, they are primary grabs, and they get the same "full-power" ammo they always got.
 
#17 ·
Steel has a fatigue limit also called the endurance limit.
If the load stresses stay below that limit the barrel life will be practically indefinite- maybe numbered in the millions of rounds.
For this reason steel makes an excellent material for a loading press.
On the other hand aluminum has NO fatigue limit meaning if you cycle it enough it wil break. Not so good for a reloading press.

This is why you would not want a skeet or trap gun with an aluminum barrel.

Some airplanes exceed the fatigue life of their airframes or wings and require rework or scrapping.
 
#18 ·
Steel has a fatigue limit also called the endurance limit.
If the load stresses stay below that limit the barrel life will be practically indefinite- maybe numbered in the millions of rounds.
For this reason steel makes an excellent material for a loading press.
On the other hand aluminum has NO fatigue limit meaning if you cycle it enough it wil break. Not so good for a reloading press.

This is why you would not want a skeet or trap gun with an aluminum barrel.

Some airplanes exceed the fatigue life of their airframes or wings and require rework or scrapping.
All true.

What I noted is that, people shooting 12,000psi shotgun shells, in steel barrels with an elastic limit upwards of 60,000psi, are worried about "metal fatigue" of that steel, and so shoot 7,000psi shotgun shells, to reduce "barrel fatigue".

It is stupid, and pointless.
 
#13 ·
I don't thing lawyers had any direct effect on loading ballistics.
Fifty years ago the accepted pressure testing technology was something like a Modern-Bond test receiver and interchangable pressure test barrels.
Pressure was taken via the copper crusher method. There was NO electronics except for maybe a 4 function calculator.
Today transducers can give a direct reading of pressure vs time.
When manufacturers found out the pressures produced by the copper crusher method were higher than expected loads were adjusted to agree with the transducer technology.
 
#16 ·
And the same thing happened with shotshells due to the same improvements in testing vs. the old LEAD-Crusher method (pressures are too low for copper crushers to register).

Modern electronics discovered that often fast-powder target loads were over-pressure and many slow-powder hunting loads were under pressure because in the milliseconds of firing, the hard spike of the fast powders crushed the lead the same as the slower powders did for longer at less pressure.
They THOUGHT they were the same, until technology came to bring a more accurate by the fractional millisecond pressure reading method.

"Oops,,, well, looky there..... Guess we'd better revise that load there".
 
#14 ·
I wasn’t wondering why the load data changed OVER TIME....CURRENT data from all the sources I can tap put that Blue dot load around 8.0 grains of Blue Dot, and it is no secret that this powder gives you about the Max velocity you can get in 9mm with sane pressures.

Just so strange the Hornady load of 6.6 grains with this slow powder runs around 1100 FPS which is reachable with many faster powders. Older Hornady data did go up to 7.7 grains.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top