HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Density of Blackhorn Powder
View Single Post
Old 08-09-2013 | 11:28 AM
  #8  
ronlaughlin
Nontypical Buck
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,732
Likes: 0
From: Rapid City, South Dakota
Default

Originally Posted by SuperKirby
I see Wabi's point. It does seem like if you're having to adjust the weight you'll inevitably change the volume............
Yes, i agree. What i have always done over the years i have been burning Blackhorn, is keep the weight constant for a given load, even when opening a new bottle from a different lot. This means the volume 'inevitably' changed. Whenever i loaded my rifle with 110g Blackhorn, the powder always weighed 77g, but the actual volume, was really unknown.




Originally Posted by SuperKirby
How much, if any, does this change the velocity. And the goal for accuracy is to ultimately have the exact same velocity shot to shot. That said, I'm not sure 2 or 3 grains one way or the other will change velocity enough to notice. Have you ever noticed that changing jugs requires adjusting the scope?
Myself, i always felt if the weight from lot to lot was kept the same, the velocity would also be kept the same or nearly so. Of course, the velocity probably isn't exactly the same from lot to lot, even when maintaining the same weight. To me, holding the weight is more important, than holding the volume. It very well may be, i am totally wrong.

Over the years of hunting, shooting, reloading, shooting, reloading, hunting, right or wrong, we always tried to sight our rifles in for hunting using all components from the same lot. Perhaps it was anal, but we purchased enough bullets, and made sure they they were from the same lot, so we used them same bullets for sighting in and for hunting. The same thing was done with primers, powder, and brass.




Originally Posted by SuperKirby
............................ It would just be an interesting experiment to see if you're better to adjust the volume to equal the same weight or the weight to equal the same volume.
Yup, i agree.
ronlaughlin is offline  
Reply