The SASS BP "Standard" ...

Retrieved: 12/20/2014
Last Post: 06/11/2006

...looks to be under assault because of the practicality of enforcement.

The same 1cc/15gr load of BP will produce varying amounts of smoke according to climactic conditions, barrel length, bullet weight and possibly even more interestingly... individual loading practices.

Apparently 7 shooters were challenged at Mule Camp as to the volume of their smoke. All but 2 FAILED the challenge. It was specifically mentioned that the same EXACT weight of powder was used to compare a .38 125gr load to a .38 90gr load, resulting in the 90gr load being ruled as "unacceptable."

The type of load that more than meets standard here in the West... will not necessarily satisfy the BP gods of the East.

This is an ongoing discussion on TOB TG Wire.

What to do?

Virgil Ray Hality
May 31, 2006

I started reading a Mule Camp thread on the SASS Wire. Does that thread have the actual powder and primers noted as well? (for the 5 that failed)

So you are saying that the 38 Spl cartridges with 90 grain bullets and 1cc of black powder or substitute did not make as much smoke as a 38 Spl cartridge with a 125 grain bullet?

Lars
May 31, 2006

UMM, thought the "BP smoke standard" does not go into effect until EoT 2006.

Manatee
May 31, 2006

Lineas: Don't be "fooled" by the claims. 15 grains of bp in any cowboy case smokes relatively the same. What you may not know is that the lighter bullet might have had a large amount of filler.

Climate does change. There is a picture of this weekend's shoot for St. Jude's on the Shady Creek site. The smoke in the picture looks very light. On that stage, it was. The wind was blowing and the picture was well after the shot.

On another stage, the same loads generated clouds of smoke. Low wind and high humidity.

If the TG's want to drop the standard because people failed the test... most of them using 32 short cases, then they are gonna be in opposed elections at the end of the year. Trust me on that one.

A shooter fails to meet the standard because he doesn't load 15 grs and we feel bad for them? Sheesh.

Lou Graham
May 31, 2006

I think the "Mods Covenant" goes into effect at EoT, the rest of the changes went into effect in March. We were hard against Winter Range and the mods were delayed until EoT so folks would have time to get new guns or modify existing ones to comply.

My understanding was the "suspect" ammo was to be shot side by side with the "standard ammo" - so if it's windy or humid or sunny, it's the same conditions the smoke is compared under. I've never tried my own comparison but I do use the Goex Cowboy which is supposed to be the minimum smoke producer. Never had anybody say my .38 loads don't smoke enough, but I've never loaded BP with anything but the Snakebites. I would think that 1 cc of powder and a 90 gr bullet would need something else in the case to fill the gap. Maybe the filler is the problem rather than the powder.

Pettifogger
May 31, 2006

If you have 15 grains of real BP or any of the substitutes in the case, then you are by definition legal. Were the people challenged using less than 15 grains? If they had 15 grains and failed some subjective "smoke" test, then the standard is unworkable. If they loaded less than 15 grains and smoked less, then they got what they deserved.

Greeenriver
May 31, 2006

My understanding of what was posted oh the SASS wire was that the loads that "Failed" were the 32 loads in less than 32mag cases. It's impossible to get 1cc of BP in a case smaller than the .32 Mag, I believe, as 1cc of anything will fill the .32 Mag case to the top, or so close as to be not noticable.

A 1cc load of any BP or sub should produce the same smoke as 1cc of Goex Cowboy, which was used to set the standard. the bullet weight above the 1cc of powder should have no effect on the ammount of smoke.

Just my opinion, but I am loading 1cc of Goex Cowboy in 10 casses of every caliber I shoot to carry with me as a baseline as soon as I can come up with a pound of the GCB.

Lou Graham
June 01, 2006

I sort of recall the short .32's being discussed while the standard was being worked on and if memory serves me, they were "iffy" to produce enough smoke because they didn't hold enough powder. Best bet was to use a sub that generates more smoke.

I'm glad to see folks paying attention and raising the question if it don't look right.

BP loads are supposed to produce smoke. That "ain't rocket science" as Driftwood would say.

Puffbuster
June 01, 2006

Please understand ...

I'm passing on information that comes direct from "the horses' mouth" i.e., the Match Director of Mule Camp.

No specific mention was made of which round/caliber failed the challenge ... just that 5 of 7 did. Of those, two shooters had "smokier" rounds with 'em so decided to stay shooting as FC/FCD. Since the MD mentioned that he had to discuss the issue with "parents" I'm assuming that some rounds were downloaded for the kids... who then elected to use their parents' loads.

Specific mention WAS made however of the 90gr vs. 125gr comparison. The MD stated that he was cognizant of the loading practices used with each round... that they were EXACTLY the same... and the 90gr load failed the subjective test.

When a challenge is made, the suspect loads are fired against the "baseline" loads... at the same time. No difference in climactic conditions.

15gr/1cc of black powder/substitute in a case does NOT automatically make the individual round "legal." Only if the round produces a VOLUME OF SMOKE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN A BASELINE LOAD OF 1cc/15gr OF FFg BLACK POWDER. Individual loading practices, particularly the amount of compression can severely inhibit smoke production.

In testing, the BP Standards Committee did discover that a case loaded with 15gr of BP produced "X" volume of smoke. The SAME load, HIGHLY COMPRESSED, produced a smoke volume that was noticeably less. The Committee did express surprise at the alleged bullet weight issue... their opinion was that the 90gr load whould have produced MORE smoke.

By definition, a "standard" must be able to be tested objectively. My opinion is that the "standard" be changed to read something like: "It is expected the blackpowder competitor shall contend with smoke-obscured targets. To insure this, all shotgun, revolver, and rifle powder charges must produce smoke at least equivalent to a baseline load of 15 grains by volume (1 cc) of FFg Goex Cowboy, loaded in a .38 Special case behind a 125 RNFP bullet with no lube and fired from a 4 5/8" barrel."

Once the above conditions are met, the volume of smoke could then be subjectively rated by a "Challenge" committee. A subjective test is NOT the best under any circumstances, but in this instance... once an effort is made to control as many variables as possible... it's probably the only acceptable method.

A particular concern of mine is that a specific round developed for the average climactic conditions here in the West and acceptable here, might fail a challenge in the East. For example, let's say that I shoot a round with 9 grains of a BP substitute that is, on the average, SMOKIER than a "baseline" of 15 grains of Goex Cowboy... and it passes challenge and subjective testing under hot, dry temperatures. Sell that same round... remember, it's approved for use under the average climactic conditions here in the West... to a shooter back in the cooler, humid East... and the load fails challenge. (NOTE: this is an EXAMPLE, this particular load doesn't exist as far as I'm aware... so don't pick at the details, eh?)

As I understand it... I can build two EXACT same loads, let's say 15gr of a BP substitute behind a 125gr RNFP bullet (with NO lube... use the right type of lube and a shooter could in effect generate MORE smoke). In Round #1, seating the bullet to correct OAL allows for roughly 1/16th inch of compression... in Round #2 I add filler to fill the case and then seat the bullet to correct OAL, which dramatically increases the compression of the powder. With my current understanding, as each round is fired, Round #2 will produce a lesser volume of smoke... which round is the "correct" baseline?

What to do?

Puffbuster
June 01, 2006

The solution: Load at least 15 grains of whatever you use.. .bp or sub. Any challenge can then at least be objectively measured if the subjective test fails.

Now, if some gamer compresses 15 grs of bp to reduce smoke, then they don't meet the spirit of the category do they? And they should be thrown out of the category post haste.

This is more bs from folks who want to screw up an otherwise fun and difficult category. Screw em.

I'm glad to see San Quinton took a stand. Mebbe there will be less problems at EOT. But, you can bet your bippy I'll be watchin my stage real close. They better load up when they hit our area.

Manatee
June 01, 2006

Also, if you are using 9 grains, that is a half-full wimp load. Push the envelope and you stand to be ridiculed by those who comply with 15 grains or more.

They should publish the names of those who fail the test at EOT.

Puffbuster
June 01, 2006

Geez, what part of

Quote from: Lineas A. Puffbuster on June 01, 2006, 06:19:36 AM
"...let's say that I shoot a round with 9 grains of a BP substitute... (NOTE: this is an EXAMPLE, this particular load doesn't exist as far as I'm aware... so don't pick at the details, eh?)

My point is there can exist no control over the individual loading practices that folks use to make the "baseline" loads. And you don't have to be a "gamer" to compress a 15gr load... just maybe a bit uncomfortable with any airspace.

Puffbuster
June 01, 2006

Lineas: I know what yer sayin. BUT, 15 grains is a stated MINIMUM. If folks push the minimum then die by the sword.

If you are concerned with air space, LOAD THE DANG CARTRIDGE LIKE IT IS SUPPOSED TA BE LOADED! DON'T GAME IT! LOAD IT!

That is all. Watch your step as you disembark the aircraft.

Pettifogger
June 01, 2006

Lineas, I disagree that a case with at least 15 grains of real black or one of the current substitutes COULD be illegal. If someone is shooting a .38 Special with 18 grains of BP, 777, APP or Pinnacle, then by definition they have produced smoke equivalent to that amount of powder. Because more than the baseline of powder is in the case, PERIOD no argument.

Despite all of the goofy BS that has been said about shooting BP and producing smoke, if a bullet is pulled and the charge weights over 15 grains then unless this game has gone totally off the deep end (or as Manatee would say, the Gumps have taken over) it is inconceivable that any Match Director would be so short sighted as to disqualify a shooter because someone else believes, based on a subjective test, that enough smoke was not produced.

Where the problem comes is when someone is trying to use less than 15 grains volume equivalent of some sub and hoping it produces enough smoke to equal 15 grains of BP. If they take that risk and lose, so be it. But, anyone that has at least 15 grains of BP or an equivalent volume of sub in their ammo should have no problem.

page 2
Lou Graham
June 01, 2006

Don't forget our battle cry from Winter Range...

MORE POWDER

I'd like to remind everyone that nobody ever fell off the middle.

It's the ones on the edge that get in trouble. 15 grains? What happens if I use 14.6? How about 13.7? How low can you go? If ya wanna know, live on the edge. Manatee will help you find out

Puffbuster
June 01, 2006

Y'all are missing the point... the rule states NOTHING as to 15gr being THE minimum. It says that a competitor must produce an EQUIVALENT VOLUME OF SMOKE to a 15gr/1cc load. Which begs the question... 1cc/15gr of WHAT? Goex Cowboy (which is as I understand it, the least smokiest of the substitutes out there)?... 777?... Pyrodex?... APP (which is one of the smokiest)?

ABSOLUTELY NO PROVISION is made to pull a round and measure the amount of powder in it. It's not provided for via rule, and therefore CAN'T BE DONE to appeal a failure of challenge. When a challenge is issued, a committee is formed, the offending rounds are shot against the "baseline" rounds and a ruling is made by the appointed committee... period, end, finito.

Moreover, the BP Standards Committe PROVED TO THEIR SATISFACTION that a more highly compressed 15gr/1cc load will produce SIGNIFICANTLY LESS SMOKE THAN A LESSER COMPRESSED LOAD. It makes no matter what you believe, Pettifogger... The Powers That Be what made the rule have a DIFFERENT belief... an' theirs is the only one what counts at this juncture.

And in the interim, let's not beat the messenger here, okay? While I have a commercial dog in this fight, I'm not pretending that I'm the "go to" guy about BP shooting. I'm just raising some question... and the answer that is rapidly becoming apparent to me (as well as to other folks now that the rule has been tried in fact) is that IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE... on a 100% FAIR basis. My concern is that "X" round built under "Y" conditions might not pass challenge at "Z" match.

FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION: Mule Camp builds their "baseline" loads using 15gr of Goex Cowboy... EOT uses 1cc of Elephant... HOW uses 15gr of APP... the match of your choice uses Shuetzen... and maybe the individual loader compressed his/her load more than another... or added a different kind of filler... or used a certain lube... or maybe s/he built the load on a day with extremely low humidity... each of these loads produce a noticeable difference in smoke volume... SO WHAT'S THE REAL "BASELINE?"

The point I'm attempting to beat into some fairly thick skulls (including mine) is that the current rule encompasses WAY TOO MANY variables (and many of them are too subjective anyway) to be construed as a STANDARD. To my way of thinking, a "standard" must be capable of being definitively measured via OBJECTIVE means... e.g. "X" grains/cc of "Y" powder behind a bullet of "Z" weight using a standard/magnum primer and fired through a pistol of "A" barrel length.

Puffbuster
June 01, 2006

I asked this some time back and got no answer. Well, here goes again.

Who loaded the standard test rounds for Mule Camp?

Who loaded the test rounds for EOT?

Rawhide
June 01, 2006

I was there and on one possee that had two challenged. One passed, a 45 loaded with around 22-25 grs of 777. The other was my grandson shooting 32HR mags in his Rugers loaded to the top with 777 and a 90gr pill. Tex was shooting on my posse and initiated the challenge. I stayed out of it other then to talk to my grandson after the testing was over. The test was run as noted above. The 45 passed but the 32 failed. It seems that 777 does not produce enough smoke to "measure" up. As I said above, 22-25 grs of 777 was also challenged and it did pass. According to my son-in-law the case was full with close to 15 grs of powder, all that would fit with minimal compression. There was smoke and a lot of clang. Tex reasoned that since he shot so well that the smoke may have been marginal. My grandson changed to his mom's 38s and won his category and shot it clean. He had to shove the 38's into his holsters since they were cut for the 32s.

He also went on to place 82nd overall in the main match and also win his category also. He also shot the main match clean, and fast. He had lengthly talks with Tex about the whole thing and understands that there had to be a first as far as testing goes. I believe he would agree with me when I say I am glad he was tested since he was able to handle it. By the way, not a sole challenged my 35gr 44/40 Goex loads.

Carolina Lead Foot
June 01, 2006

Rawhide, I have no idea who loaded the test rounds and really do not care. Having something to test against that we (BP shooters in general) can agree on is great. I would love to have a grey card that we could use as a standard like I used to have when I shot a lot of Black and White photos. We used it to test the light with our light meters and it was a known standard. THis standard is the best we have at the time being. In my grandson's case his dad was with him and believed the test was conducted ok. The loads were close (how do you measure??). His brother's loads were also close but on the other side of the line. So one passed and one failed. No one was real upset about the testing and the outcome could not have been better. Until someone can come up with an electronic meter to test smoke to a given standard the test that was performed at Mule Camp will have to do. If anyone is against it then they may need to add a little more powder to their loads to assure they pass any reasonable test. THis test was reasonable.

By the way, I was also a stage driver (worker) at Mule Camp and would have called this test on anyone who I believed warrented it. By the time the main match started the word was out that testing was being done and it seems all light loads were no longer seeing the light of day.

Pettifogger
June 01, 2006

Carolina, if that's the case, and Tex has the support of the rest of the Wild Bunch, then SASS should simply disqualify BP .32s from competition just like they do with cap & ball. They should simply state the minimum accepatble round, e.g., BP catagory must shoot a minimum of .38 caliber with no less than 15 grains of BP or volume equivalent of a sub and a bullet no lighter than 125 grains. Then all they need to do is pull a bullet and weigh the charge and the bullet. I am really disappointed that the situation is as you posted Carolina lead foot.

Carolina Lead Foot
June 01, 2006

Pettifogger, I will not disagree with you but would suggest something a little different. With a standard now there, one only has to be comfortable that he will pass. I understand that a HR Mag case when loaded with a 115gr pill would probably have had passed. I know the 38 loads did pass with 125gr pills and around 16-18grs of 777. So once the word gets out that WE and I do mean WE (being all BP shooters) are serious about making smoke and have something to test your loads against, people that may have in the past skated by the rules will think twice about it. Do as I and others advocate along with yourself. Shoot at least a 38 loaded above the min. If you have 32s and that is all you have and you want to try to make them pass the test, then go for it. If they pass then shoot them but be ready to shoot in a different category if they fail.

Just my thoughts on the subject. I have been advocating full loads and would love to eliminate any filler etc, etc. But that is not reasonable.

Pettifogger
June 01, 2006

I've been shooting BP since the mid-1960's. Right now I am shooting C&B, but plan on switching back to FCD after EOT. I was going to use my Ruger .32s because some days I can barely cock larger guns because I am getting arthritis in my thumbs. I would hate to spend the time and money to go to a big match and then have two shooters tested using the same loads shot from a .32 and have one pass and one fail. That is nonsense. The test needs to be based on objective criteria or it is a farce, as your story shows. Two brothers shooting the same load, one passes and one fails! Hogwash.

Jayne Cobb
June 01, 2006

Quote from: Pettifogger on June 01, 2006, 04:10:42 PM
Carolina, if that's the case, and Tex has the support of the rest of the Wild Bunch, then SASS should simply disqualify BP .32s from competition just like they do with cap & ball. They should simply state the minimum accepatble round, e.g., BP catagory must shoot a minimum of .38 caliber with no less than 15 grains of BP or volume equivalent of a sub and a bullet no lighter than 125 grains. Then all they need to do is pull a bullet and weigh the charge and the bullet. I am really disappointed that the situation is as you posted Carolina lead foot.

Howdy gang,

The fact remains that the rule worked, and it worked to the satisfaction of everyone involved, if you weren't involved then it doesn't affect you, except for giving you something to urinate and moan about, and those of you who want to pick fly specks out of the pepper can go do so! If you don't like having to worry about whether your 32s can cut the mustard then don't shoot them! The line was drawn, deal with it or move on with your life!

Puffbuster
June 01, 2006

'kay, folks ... I started this thread 'cuz I wanted to air some concerns that were arising on the TG forum of TOB.

LET'S PLAY NICE!

Jayne, your response is marginally acceptable. (And let me emphasize the "marginally.") At no point is/was a personal attack warranted.

Pettifogger endeavored to highlight a seeming inconsistency with the testing method... albeit in a little more direct terms than I might have used. I was getting ready to ask CLF if his son-in-law loads different .32 rounds for each of his sons... but PF beat me to it.

This particular issue was hotly debated before, and it appears that it will be hotly debated again... but it WILL BE DONE in a civil manner.

(Or we start playin' "whack a mole"... )

Puffbuster
June 01, 2006

Now, IF partner A shoots 15 grains of any bp or sub and gets called, tested and failed, there is something inherently wrong with the test.

We did not specify bullet weight or cartridge size. But, if a pard chooses to shoot 38's with a 90 grain bullet, it should be OK if he uses 15 grains or more of powder. Period.

I certainly hope Tex had to pay for his challenges. He won one and lost two, it seems. Show me the money Jerry?

Lou Graham
June 01, 2006

The short .32's have always been problematic. I don't think the Wild Bunch saw them as an issue until the horse was in the next county, never mind out of the barn. 32-20 is a historic BP cartridge so .32 caliber is legal and a problem.

When I had to get smaller guns (Model P Jr) to be able to shoot gunfighter style, I very specifically got .38's for this very reason. I wasn't confidant that I could get enough BP or sub in the case of a .32. I believe the "standard" rounds are supposed to be loaded with 15 gr. of Goex Cowboy, the minimum "smoker" so we shouldn't see APP or Elephant or anything else being used for the test. I don't know how it's being handled or who does the test rounds but I'm a Posse Marshall for the Tri-State this weekend, so maybe I can find out more about how this is supposed to be done and report back. I don't know that there's much in the way of smokeless BP shooters around here, but there will have to be a process in place just in case.

Puffy, I can understand your worry, you need to know for sure some mad customer doesn't come gunnin' for ya 'cause his loads got challenged. You could travel the country and do field tests

Pettifogger
June 01, 2006

Lou, have you tried those P Jr.s with BP yet? When I tried them they were real BP unfriendly. They have absolutely no gas ring to shield the base pin from fouling.

Virgil Ray Hality
June 01, 2006

CLF, were the two boys shooting the exact same loads in 32?

Greeenriver
June 01, 2006

The actial wording of the BP standard makes NO mention of bullet weight, only that the smoke produced must equal 15grn or 1cc of BP. A 32mag case WILL hold 1cc of any given powder. if the case is full to the top, it is slightly over 1cc. the bullet placed on top of this powder charge should have NO effect on making the standard, because by the wording of the standard, no bullet weight is set.

1cc of BP or sub under any bullet is LEGAL! No if's ands, or buts about it. If you decide to load in a 32 short, or 32 long case, it WILL NOT hold enough powder to make the standard.

This has all the makings of a witch hunt, if this standard is not applied evenly and as written, it will become a farce and an embarsement to SASS, and to all who love the BP catagories.

The 32mags were and are a popular firearm. They have been used in the BP catagorys for a long time. They are the smallest cal that will hold a full 1cc of BP or sub. The recoil of a 32mag is lite enough for about anyone with problems shooting the larger cal guns. There is no justification for using a smaller case in them to try to skate under the standard, and there is no justification for trying to disqualify any 32 mag load that has 1cc of BP or Sub in it under any bullet that fits over the charge.

page 3
Wills Point Pete
June 01, 2006

Well, I reckon I'm puttin' out enough smoke, given that I am shooting close to the old Cavalry load of 28 gr of Goex ffg behind a 250 gr lead RNFP. It's funny, I shot a match here in Arizona, the loads did not smoke near as much as in the more humid northeast Texas. Seems the drier the air, the less smoke.

Mostly I have the opposite problem, everyone complaining that I run too much powder. So I settled on the old Calvary load and ignore everyone. If challenged I will cordially invite the challenger to take a long walk off a short pier, I have more than enough real black in the case. I am monumentally uninterested in what someone thinks about the amount of smoke, that is more dependant on atmospheric conditions than the amount of powder.

Want to test my load? Pull the bullet and weigh the powder. Don't tell me about what some committee thinks.

E.R.Beaumont
June 02, 2006

I thought that since it would be way expensive to come up with objective test equipment to measure smoke, that we would actually measure the amount of powder in the round. We allready knew that a 35 grain .44WCF load would smoke much more than a 15 grain .32 load.

The only requirement is to produce as much smoke as 15grains/1cc of powder. By what twisted convoluted logic is it deemed that 15 grains/1cc of powder does not produce as much smoke as 15grains/1cc of the same powder? No matter what weight bullet or caliber.

We do not want any subjectivity in this thing at all it is a rule. It has to be totally black or white, yes or no, on or off. Hasn't any one learned anything about weasel room and loopholes? As has been said before, this ain't rocket science. If my loads contain the legal minimum then by definition my load produces the smoke amount of the legal minimum.

The BP Standard was not about picking nits it was about correcting an overcite in the rules. To be enforceable world wide the rule needs to be objective my North Wet legal loads need to still be legal when I get to Texas, or Manitoba, or even Georgia. Nope, sorry I don't care what your badge number is, 15 grains is the rule, if that is what my loads are then they are legal, and so am I.

Carolina Lead Foot
June 02, 2006

Allow me to correct some mis reading of my words. I always say English or any language is not the best way to communicate.

There were not two brothers shooting 32s. There was an uncle (45) and a nephew (32). Both loaded with 777, both challenged, one pass one fail.

THis whole discussion is getting out of hand. As a BP shooter I do not care about how much powder is in a load as long as the amount of smoke is appropriate for the day. At times my 44/40 will hang in the air for a couple more shooters after me. It looks great and is what I am looking for. On other days it leaves little smoke in the berm because of the wind, direction of the wind and volocity. The smae load at different times of the day or day of the week. If a person is thinking his load may not pass the muster, then load it up with more powder to make more smoke. It is almost like scoring a hit or a miss. If you think it is to little smoke then it probably is.

We have a method that will evolve into something better, maybe. Leave as is and go on with your lives. Anyone who knows me understands that I am sensitive to anyone with a limitation when it comes to being alive. If you need to use 32s to make your life capable then I would suggest something other than 777. APP in 3f appears to be the smokiest you can get. Goex Cowboy was used because from what I understand it has about the least amount of smoke. If you get my point, great. If not please just go on with what enjoyment you get out of shooting and do not worry to much about this or any other standard that may or may not ever affect you.

I need to go drive my school bus now, so I will check in later.

CLF, who believes in his heart that the standard does work and does not need to change.

Jayne Cobb
June 02, 2006

Quote
Jayne, your response is marginally acceptable. (And let me emphasize the "marginally.") At no point is/was a personal attack warranted.

I understand. This is not someplace where one can call a spade a spade. Still there has to be some way to tell the truth or nothing will ever get accomplished, sorta like our current political situation. Ok, as I noted before those affected by this were happy with the outcome, those standing back and complaining have no reason to do so, other than for the joy of complaining. These are the same ones who raised objections to using a volume standard that could be weighed or measured, no doubt. That idea was soundly attacked because, "no one will want to pull bullets and weigh charges at a match!", just like the even simpler idea of putting a base line speed on black powder cartridges which could be checked almost instantly with a cheap chronograph. The truth here is, some people will never be satisfied until they get specifically what they want and to hades with everyone else. Others won't be happy unless they have something to complain about.

Oh Lineas, conventional wisdom dictates that one should not attempt to moderate a conversation that one is directly involved in. It leaves too much room for the appearence of abuse of authority. Not saying that is what is happening, but it is something to consider.

And if my disgust with certain attitudes shows through sometimes, I apologize.

Lars
June 02, 2006

I find this an interesting, but not surprising, discussion. Having lived in the world of "standards" all my working lifetime, I am quite aware of the recurring situation that standards sometimes need some kind of revision when applied to the actual conditions of use. This "BP smoke standard" seems to be still another. The revision may be small but, when two shooters, each meeting the required 15 grains by volume measure/1.0 CC fall on opposite sides of the judgement, some revision seems called far.

There is still another perspective on this diverse result - error or uncertainty limits. None of this business is truly "black and white", as much as we would like it to be, especially for a rule leading to disqualification. Did one of the two shooters benifit from the uncertainty and the other suffer from it?

I will likely switch from 44-40s to 32-20s in the coming few years and sure do not expect to see a "BP smoke standard" so restrictive as to eleminate the traditional, authentic 32-20 BP loads, no matter which BP I choose to use.

Jayne Cobb
June 02, 2006

Quote
The revision may be small but, when two shooters, each meeting the required 15 grains by volume measure/1.0 CC fall on opposite sides of the judgement, some revision seems called far.

Lars, you are falling into a trap of misunderstanding. It is not "required 15 grains by volume measure/1.0 CC" that is the rule. I wish folks would get that idea out of thier heads! The rule addresses THE VOLUME OF SMOKE produced by 15 grains! Got it? It's about the smoke not the amount of powder. Once you get past that, you can start to achieve some level of understanding of the rule. This is why a pard shooting a sub that produces more smoke can get away with shooting less than 15 grains either by volume or by weight. But ya gotta keep it in mind at all times, because your favorite black powder, Swiss, is one that actually produces LESS smoke than say, Goex, under any given range conditions.

Lars
June 02, 2006

And THAT is just the kind of revision that the rule needs if it is ever to be more than an all too subjective "guideline", backed by a lot of hullaballu.

Asking some folks to eye-ball the relative amount of smoke and make a "black and white" decision is rather a mushy business, especially near the lower limit. One more shot to the foot for SASS.

Howdy Cowboy
June 02, 2006

Quote from: Jayne Cobb on June 02, 2006, 09:26:36 AM Quote The revision may be small but, when two shooters, each meeting the required 15 grains by volume measure/1.0 CC fall on opposite sides of the judgement, some revision seems called far. Lars, you are falling into a trap of misunderstanding. It is not "required 15 grains by volume measure/1.0 CC" that is the rule. I wish folks would get that idea out of thier heads! The rule addresses THE VOLUME OF SMOKE produced by 15 grains! Got it? It's about the smoke not the amount of powder. Once you get past that, you can start to achieve some level of understanding of the rule. This is why a pard shooting a sub that produces more smoke can get away with shooting less than 15 grains either by volume or by weight. But ya gotta keep it in mind at all times, because your favorite black powder, Swiss, is one that actually produces LESS smoke than say, Goex, under any given range conditions. As Lars rightly pointed out I think this is the issue. How can you eyeball the "VOLUME" of smoke produced with any sort of reasonable accuracy or consistency. I realize that the reason for this wording of the rule was to address people that shoot smaller calibers (.32) who felt that it might not be possible to actually get 1cc of BP or Sub into a case. Perhaps we should consider eliminating 32s from the BP category?

Since I don't shoot Goex how do I know if I am producing an equivalent volume of smoke with my 38 spl 777 loads?

Manatee
June 02, 2006

Jayne has it mostly right.

The intent of the rule was to eliminate the situation that occurred last year at a few majors and has happened on numerous occasions that I observed: The amount of smoke generated by a bp classified shooter is so low as to be not distinguishable from some of the smokier smokeless loads (Unique, etc.).

Now, if Tex is establishing a bright line test for what HE perceives to be smoke marginally below the 15 grain factor, then he is pushing the rule beyond its initial intent.

To challenge a shooter who is shooting 22 grs of 777 in a 45 is ludicrous!

Methinks the problem lies in the observation, NOT the rule.

Lars
June 02, 2006

Quote from: Manatee on June 02, 2006, 10:26:32 AM
Now, if Tex is establishing a bright line test for what HE perceives to be smoke marginally below the 15 grain factor, then he is pushing the rule beyond its initial intent.

Methinks the problem lies in the observation, NOT the rule.

Manatee, THEREIN lies the "problem" reported to have occurred at Mule Camp. Basically, pushing a standard to the edge and then making "black and white" judgement calls, at the limit of the standard, based on the crudities of eyeballing the amount of fleetingly disappearing smoke.

I agree that the problem lies in the observation. We differ in that I see a need for revision of the rule, IF it is going to be rigourously applied at the 15 grains by volume measure/ 1,0 CC limit. That revision might take the form of a confirmation by opening the ammo that did not pass the eyeball test and weighing the powder charge (volume measurement is now buggered to some degree by the compression of the powder).

An interium practical measure might be for shooters using 32s of any kind to not shoot on same posse as Tex.

Pettifogger
June 02, 2006

Jayne, I respect your zeal in supporting what you believe to be the proper interpretation of the BP standard. However, your assertion that people who were not there (in Mule Camp) have no interest in the matter and that anybody asking questions about the standard is a whiner is misplaced. I am not in Washington, D.C. right now yet I am very concerned about the 650+ Senate Immigration Bill, even though I am not there and can't vote on it. Unfortunately, I totally agree that a standard was needed because of the abuse caused by a few. That is why most rules and laws get written, to address abuses. And, I am interested because traveling to matches is not cheap and if anyone has facially legal (in other words, the rule requires X and you arrive with X) ammo and is challenged and DQ'd for ammo that doesn't smoke enough, then I think everyone that shoots BP has a right to know exactly how "X" is determined. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the literal language of the rule and suggest that the ROII manual does not support your interpretation either. That is what we are trying to determine in this post, what exactly is the rule and its parameters. The rule provides:

It is expected the blackpowder competitor shall contend with smoke-obscured targets. To insure this, all shotgun, revolver, and rifle powder charges must produce smoke at least equivalent to a base line load of 15 grains by volume (1 cc) of ffg blackpowder.

E.R.Beaumont
June 02, 2006

Manatee, I for one will second that. Was there a cash requirement to protest someone else's ammo, or was it free for the asking?

The requirement is to make as much smoke as 15 grains/1cc of accepted powder. If your load is 15 grains/1cc of approved powder, your load automatically producer the volume of smoke from 15 grains/1cc if the approved powder. It is science, it is physics, it is logic.

If you have a protest, then pull six rounds at random from the guy's/gal's ammo and pull the bullets. Bullet puller ain't that expensive and there is no question, it is a yes/no, answer. You folks that want to measure smoke with the "Mark I non-calibrated Eye-Ball" are just wrong.

Smoke is ethereal, it blows away on the breeze, it hangs in the air, and all of this dependent on where the sun is in relation to the observer. No, measure the amount of powder, it is not subjective, it is objective and will be the same any time, anyplace, any weather.

MY two bits in the kitty.

page 4
Manatee
June 02, 2006

I think Pettifogger has said it very well. There is an expectation that ANY bp OR SUBSTITUTE loaded with 1 cc will produce as much, if not more than the standard load of 1 cc of Goex Cowboy.

I do not believe Tex, or anyone else, has the right to challenge a shooter that appears "close" to a 1 cc standard. That is gamesmanship.

As I stated on the SASS Wire, I will shoot my loads and do not want to be bothered by any testing. If an official wants to test my load, grab a handful and go away.

After the match, I'll find out who the jerk was that questioned my integrity and we'll have a word or two.

During the match, leave me alone.

Pigeonroost Slim
June 02, 2006

What a can of worms!

It could be a really fun game; but, NO. We gotta get serious about winning goo-gaws and trinkets, or building pride. So some are gonna cheat and others are gonna push the rools to the limits and some one else is gonna take advantage of a simple rool to complain when he should'a been satisfied to be quiet. It could'a been fun...

Virgil Ray Hality
June 02, 2006

It is still a fun game PRS. There are many people in this world that fear grey areas and need very specific instructions. Then there are others who feel rather comfortable in the grey zone where rules are more subjective.

In this case, there are people who have a need or desire to push to the smallest amount of powder allowed, and the subjectivity scares them. I suspect because the penalty for making a mistake is really severe. Those that don't have a need or desire to push to the smallest amount of powder allowed, have no fear of this rule.

The rule and its enforcement is really simple for those that don't test the limits of the rule.

Manatee
June 02, 2006

Yah. that's what I thought until they called the dude with 22 to 25 grs of 777 in his 45 revolvers...

Now I ain't so sure.

Virgil Ray Hality
June 02, 2006

I know what your saying Manatee. My thoughts have been mulling and wandering all over this.

I have been thinking a scenario over in my mind about this because I was "on display" at the PA match. While I expected other Darksiders to take note of how much smoke I produced, I did not expect Pards from other categories to be inspecting for smoke output. And I know they were.

I have seen candy striping and that was quite funny, so I know what it looks like.

I have seen what I thought were pretty wimpy BP loads, but the Pard said he had 20 grains of BP. He had what looked like enough smoke. So I let it go.

If somebody challenges my loads. Thats OK. It won't get inside my head. I am a hell of a lot tougher than that mentally. I suspect anybody who has the stamina to be among the top ten at a regional match will have a tough enough mental game too.

The problem I will have is, when I see something that looks wrong to me. I have no reference point for a challenge. There is the rub. A person who does not have the experience or a way to compare. Even me. I don't shoot 32 Magnums. Nobody I know shoots 32 Mag with BP. I have never seen it. First time I see it, I bet I'll say something like"What was that?" So, I think arming the smoke patrol with what to look for will be very important. Best I will ever do is load up a few 1cc 38spl rounds for my son and let him pop them off to see what it looks like.

The challenge will be easily handled. Deciding who to challenge is much tougher.

Lars
June 02, 2006

GREAT POST Larsen E:!!!

I came back to quote whatever is in the online RO manuals, etc. but you already did it.

Looks like someone put a little common sense into the published rule. Now, IF someone would just put a little common sense into the use of the rule in a challange situation -- that should NOT be Tex. As it stands in what Larsen E. quotes, the individual is responsible to assure that any sub 15,0 grain by volume measure/1,0 CCs BP load, no matter what the BP, smokes as well as the 15,0 grain/1,0 CC load. Absolutely NO nonsense about which BP smokes the most or the least, no matter what the bullet, or lube, or filler, or wad, etc. The shooter that has used due diligence in preparing his low-end BP loads, meeting the published rule, should NEVER be in danger of disqualification -- USING THE PUBLISHED RULE.

SO, where is the rule that describes the challange process and how the testing is to be done?

Note added later. Just checked the online SASS Shooter's Handbook, the ROII manual, the Match Admin manual -- no mention at all of the process for testing suspected and challanged BP loads thought to not be making enough smoke.

Virgil,

It is this kinda crud that has caused many to leave SASS and to shoot CAS at NCOWS, at W3G, at GAF Musters, at clubs that do not require SASS membership and may not even be SASS affiliated. There is also BPCR in its various forms, the Vintagers, etc. etc. SASS is hardly the only BP game that uses authentic old guns -- some are more authentic than the SASS hollywood stuff (not hard to acheive).

Personally, I really don't care about the fate of the 32 H&R Mags, or the 38 Specials, but, they really are not much different from the classic old BP rifle cartridge, the 32-20, for which about 10% of Colt 1873s were chambered and which started life in the 1873 Winchester in 1886 or so. With its standard 115 grain bullets at about 1200 fps from a rifle and 900+ from a revolver it is more than adequate for all CAS main match shooting, BP or nitro loads. I used one for years as a teen and pre-teen -- I may finish my CAS years shooting one.

Dutch Bill
June 03, 2006

I would question the idea of a smoke "standard". The amount of smoke produced by a charge of bp or one of the subs can be highly variable.

With bp you have 75 parts of potassium nitrate. All of the potassium ends up as a solid product of combustion when the powder burns. Some is ejected from the gun with the spent propelling gases while some is retained in the bore as fouling. The proportions of how much is ejected versus how much remains is highly variable. The particle size of the potassium carbonate and potass ium sulfate that makes up the solid residue varies greatly.

What we see as smoke is not unburned carbon.

So for smoke variables you have amount retained in the bore versus amount ejected. Then you have particle size. That governs how long the "smoke" particles will remain suspended in the air versus how much will quickly fall to the ground in front of the shooter.

In dealing with the subs. Pinnacle, APP and Black Mag are based on ascorbic acid and potassium nitrate. In most cases the ratio of potassium nitrate to ascorbic acid is a 30/60 mixture. So there is less potassium there to form potassium carbonate. But these are generally cool-burning powders. There are more along the lines of a cool-burning gas generating composition. Potassium carbonate is the only solid product of combustion and since the powder burns cool with a greater volume of gas you get more of it ejected from the bore when the gun is fired, compared to the same charge of bp.

I spent 37 years in the chemical industry, synthetic polymers, as a lab tech. In any test method you want to eliminate all of the variables except the one that will give the desired property data. With this smoke standard you have a host of variables to deal with each time the gun is fired. That makes it tough to reproduce results.

Over the past few years I had a bunch of questions thrown at me by those who run bp only shoots. Like how to tell smokeless in duplex loads or how to identify bp subs from bp in a charge. In a way they are going at this from another direction.

At one point about 10 years ago I had a buddy who could tell what brand of bp a shooter was using by differences in the color of the smoke produced by each one.

Pettifogger
June 03, 2006

Dutch, now you gone and done it. You put rocket science into the discussion. Next thing you know this thread will degenerate into some kind of reasoned discussion.

Lars
June 03, 2006

I have a question about a different aspect of this than "simply" what happens inside the chamber and gun barrel. That is, what happens in the few feet distance in front of the muzzle, in varying atmospheric conditions? We know from experience that at a place like Mule Camp in May the amount of smoke from any of the smokey bulk powders is way more than one sees at Winter Range in February (yes, wind conditions are part of this). We normally associate the greater smoke at Mule Camp with humidity and with the creation of a "fog" when the atmospheric mositure condences around the particles because of the sudden injection of a cloud of fine particles. But, is this essentially correct?

To go further, given that the number and size of potassium carbonate partcles can and do vary as a function of the loading, which bulk smokey powder was used, etc., etc., how much variation would you expect in the amount of visible smoke in a high humidity area, such as Mule Camp in May, from the same charge of such powder in different loadings? Would this variation be visually different in hot dry southern AZ in February? In southern New Mexico in June, etc.? I can imagine that this is a complex subject, with no easy answer.

SASS has published the assertation that 15,0 grains/1,0 CC of a given BP or sub generates essentially the same amount of smoke regardless if the cartridge is 32 H&R Mag, 38 Special, 44-40, 45 Colt. This testing this was certainly NOT based on actual conditions at each of the diverse climatological sites where major SASS matches are held, AT the seasons when these matches are held. One could think that the "BP smoke standard" has lots of room for "refinement" IF it is going to be used to make black and white judgement calls at or even near the 15,0 grains/1,0 CC boundary.

PS: I make no appologies for contributing to the degeneration of this thread into any kind of reasoned discussion.

Dutch Bill
June 03, 2006

You ask some difficult to answer questions here.

This is going back a few years now. I had read where the smoke we see from firing bp is unburned charcoal. Trouble is that this idea did not match what I saw in fouling recovered from the bores of my bp rifles.

So I set up a big plastic funnel and would shoot through the funnel. The funnel collecting some of the solid particles suspended in the spent propelling gases.

This collected material was then looked at under the computer microscope.

In cool weather the particle size of the "smoke" was so small that individual particles could not be seen at 200X under the microscope except for a few scattered "fluffy" white beads.

In hot weather the number and size of the beads increased while the amount of very fine particles decreased.

I suspect that when the gun spits out a lot of the large beads they quickly fall to the ground. In cool weather I noticed that when I shot the rifle the cloud of smoke just sort of hung in the air and drifted up range.

At high humidity the cloud of smoke seemed to disperse rather quickly even if there was only a little breeze.

At high humidity the water in the air forms tiny droplets. We see these as haze. At low humidity the water will be as single individual molecules of water suspened in the air and sort of widely spaced.

I suspect that at high humidity the particles of "smoke" collide with the tiny droplets of water and simply dissolve into the droplets.

Some years back I needed some bp residue for some work I was doing. I open flashed powder in shallow pans. If I did this with the R.H. below 30% the residue was snow white and stayed that way.

If the R.H. was well above 30% the residue would be white for only a very brief period of time and would quickly turn grey in color. At very high humidity the residue would quickly get a greasy black color.

From your last paragraph.

It would appear that the SASS takes the idea that 15.0 grains (1.0 cc) of a given bp or sub will produce the same amount of solid particulat matter as a product of combustion without variation. That being that 55% of the original charge weight will be found as solid particulate matter after powder combustion and that all of this would be ejected from the gun. Overly simplistic and highly inaccurate.

They leave no room for the degree of variability in this.

Puffbuster
June 03, 2006

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY!

(so okay, y'all said it better and added colloborating facts, sheesh...)

Dutch Bill
June 03, 2006

Most of the time I worked as part of an R&D group in the chemical plant. I was the only non-college union card carrying one of the crowd. Surrounded by engineers and Phd's.

Now with a PHD any BS out of their mouths was gospel. An engineeer needed at least one tech source for backing. With me I needed the info chiseled in stone tablets and signed by God himself. So out of habit I tend to get carried away with the backing data.

No different than your times with the brass!!!

Manatee
June 03, 2006

San Quinton proposed utilizin blanks with 1 cc of Cowboy as the standard. Anyone find find fault with that approach?

Virgil Ray Hality
June 03, 2006

Lars, what exactly are you referring to as crud?

Pettifogger
June 03, 2006

Maybe he means the fouling you get when you shoot real BP with the wrong kind of lube.

page 5
Puffbuster
June 03, 2006

"Certified" blanks... as per the mounted folk? Who makes 'em, what's their recipe... and will the addition of a bullet have any impact on the smoke volume?

The 'standard' has to duplicable... for cryin' out loud, where's the difficulty is stating that the 'standard' is 1cc Goex Cowboy, in a .38 Special case, behind an unlubed 125gr RNFP bullet seated to an OAL of 1.whatever and fired from a 4 5/8" barrel... now go forth and make your favorite recipe to match the 'standard' volume of smoke from this load?

This HAS GOT TO BE SIMPLER than what everyone's making it!!

P.S. Can someone backstop me on this? I just recalibrated my Dillon electronic measure, pulled out my trusty Lee dippers (double-checked that I had the correct 1cc size) and 'test-dipped' 10 loads of APP FFFg... NOT shaking down the powder in the dipper and carefully scraping it level with the top of the dipper. My average came to 12.6 grains.

Would someone double check me?

Manatee
June 03, 2006

Blanks. Any cartridge ya want for your caliber. 1 mag primer. 1 cc Goex Cowboy. Use Florist Foam on top of the load.

Purty simple. Easily made by anyone.

Good idea? Yup.

Manatee
June 03, 2006 Lineas: 12.6 by weight? The 15 grains refers to the old volume measurement. Get a bp muzzle loader measure that has volume in grains.

Pettifogger
June 03, 2006 Lineas, broke out some of the unholy grey and 10 dippers went from 12.4 to 12.9. Average 12.6. I did't scape, I just dipped, bumped on the side of the container to level and poured it in the scale pan. Manatee, we were measuring 1cc of APP, it weighs less than 1cc of BP. The standard requires 1cc, not an actual 15 grains of a sub.

Virgil Ray Hality
June 03, 2006

Lineas, I tried two different methods with my stash APP fffg. I made sure to calibrate the scale run a series of test measures that I did not record. Then I re calibrated again once the scale was "warm". Then I started the test.

I tried the true dip and scrape 10 times as you described and came up with an average of 12.1 grains as weighed by my RCBS electronic scale.

I also did 10 "scoop and shake till level" which is how I usually fill a Lee dipper. I came up with an average of 12.7 grains as weighed by my RCBS electronic scale.

Lars
June 03, 2006

QUOTE from Dutch Bill:
"It would appear that the SASS takes the idea that 15.0 grains (1.0 cc) of a given bp or sub will produce the same amount of solid particulat matter as a product of combustion without variation. That being that 55% of the original charge weight will be found as solid particulate matter after powder combustion and that all of this would be ejected from the gun. Overly simplistic and highly inaccurate.

They leave no room for the degree of variability in this."

Thanks Bill!!

I too like that way of stating the situation.

To all,

I doubt that I am alone in seeing this whole "BP smoke standard" as a well intentioned effort to remedy a farcical situation, an effort that is now being applied to folks honestly loading at or very near the 15,0 grains by volume measure/1,0 CC boundary and being coming victums of a zealot treating this very fuzzy boundary (made even fuzzier by eyeball jugdements) as a simple black and white boundary. Thereby introducing a measure of quite unneeded crud into the lives of honest shooters.

Manatee
June 03, 2006

Yup. And if we didn't have people cheating to win top honors, this would never have come up in the first place. The only thing worse than having to measure your compliance with a standard, is having a bp title won by a cheater.

Lars
June 03, 2006

FYI, with Pyrodex and 777 the 15,0 grains by BP volumed measure is very close to 11,0 grains by weight. These two chemically altered BPs weigh about 0,732- 0,736 as much as would be expected if the grains volume by a commercial BP volume measure is taken as weight -- in other numbers, 100 grains from a volume measure will weigh 73,2 to 73,6 grains by weight.

Virgil Ray Hality
June 03, 2006

Thanks for the clarification, Lars. We shall soon see if the Zealots are running amok amongst us.

TAKAHO KID
June 03, 2006

Dutch Bill, is there a reasonable simple field test to check for duplexed loads?

Correct me if Iam wrong but dosen't the problem rear its ugly head more at the large national level matches as opposed to the local or even state level?

If so then a simple test procedure (if available) would be reasonable at these events rather then the well intended but subjective smoke test.

Lars
June 03, 2006

There is a rather practical way for shooters wanting the lightest BP load but also wanting to avoid adverse consequences of having their loads tested against a very fuzzy standard in a very impercise manner. That is, load some distance above the stated standard of 15,0 grains/1,0 CC.

Of course, this just raises another question -- how much above is prudent? Would be nice if we would come to know just how fuzzy and impercise the currently used standard and testing procedure are in actual use at matches.

Hodgdon lists 20,0 grains of 777 FFG by BP volume measure in a 38 Special case with 125 grain bullet. Even more in a 357 Mag case -- hardly a real problem for most 38 shooters because their guns are already chambered for 357 Mag.

I keep seeing reference to 17-18 grains of 777 FFG by BP volume measure for 32-20 with 115 grain bullet. With compressible Pyrodex-P in 32 H&R Mag I would suspect that well over the 1,0 CC amount can be used.

As before, those using 32s, other than 32-20, will be living on the edge for BP matches and categories.

Anyone shooting a straight cased 44 or 45 can join the 38 Special shooters, as regards recoil in revolvers, by loading round balls, a Circle Fly lubed wad and 20-22 grains by BP volume measure of ANY bulk smokey powder. We have used these loads for years and the only complaints about the smoke have been that there was "too much" (from non-BP shooters, natch). Basically, these are 44 cal C&B loads.

I know from personal experence or from friends that 777 FFg in 357 cases, in 32-20s and in the 44 & 45 round ball loads in revolvers can provide all the accuracy and reliable performance needed for CAS. Since the stereotype "win at all costs" shooter is that he or she is focused on performance, not on the "holy black" syndrome, this approach would seem to offer a safe path.

Puffbuster
June 03, 2006

But it may have been a brain phart on my part. I've always worked to the rule that BP subs were measured by weight, not volume... with "real" BP measured by volume.

Therefore, when the "standard" was announced, I "assumed" (yeah, I know...) that the distinction between "15gr/1cc" was meant to say "either 15 grains by weight OR 1 cc by volume.) Kinda figgered that it woulda been kinda illogical to state two VOLUME measures without accounting for weight.

And being the true sheep that I am, I never looked to question the accumulated wisdom of them what set the standard.

A 15gr charge (by measure of my BP brass measuring doohickey) equals 10.5grs weight of APP FFFg... as stated before, a 1cc dipper averages somewhere in the neighborhood of 12.5grs weight. I'm figgerin' that a weight difference of +/- 2 grains is probably enough to give someone a conniption fit... but I'm thinking that the difference is in the shaking of the dipper to level it, versus just sliding the attached funnel 'crost the BP measure.

I've been loading a charge of 10.5grs (weight) FFFg under both a 95gr (my Bride likes 'em) and 125gr RNFP using a magnum primer... plus my customers really like those loads as well... smoke volume has NEVER been an issue. I just loaded 1,000 rounds for EOT with 12.5 grs (weight)... and with this latest finding, my Bride has instructed me that she wants her "old" loads back .

The TG meeting at EOT is gonna be interestin' ... to say the least.

Howdy Cowboy
June 03, 2006

Hogdon also states 15 grains by volume for 38 spl using a 158 grain bullet and they state NOT to exceed these maximum loads. In fact they recommend starting 10% below and working up to, but not exceeding, the maximum. So the recommendation to load above the 15 grains is not safe when it comes to 777. (I do realize that they publish maximums well below the real maximums for legal reasons).

According to the Hogdon site for 777 all measurements are by volume not by weight. I am not sure how other companies publish their data for BP subs. Also I might add that 777 is generally considered about 15% hotter than normal BP (whatever "normal" is) so a 15 grain load of 777 should satisfy just about anyone although I cannot speculate as to whether it produces as much "equivalent" smoke as 1cc of Goex.

page 6
Manatee
June 03, 2006

It makes MORE smoke that Goex Cowboy... except on Tex's posse, apparently.

Lars
June 03, 2006

The 777 FFG load I quoted is from Hodgdon's webbsite and is 20,0 grains measured by BP volume measure with a 125 grain, not a 158 grain, bullet. Yes, the Hodgdon recommened 777 FFG load for 158 grain bullets in 38 Special case is 15,0 grains measured by volume. Of course, what true BP gamer would EVER use a 158 grain 36 caliber bullet in a 38 Special case?

I think I recall that Hodgdon once listed a 20,0 grains volume, 158 grain bullet load in 357 Mag cases.

Note that the 20,0 grains by BP volume measure with 125 grain bullet is listed as giving only about 9000 psi chamber pressure, well below the SAAMI spec for 38 Special. Almost all (truly all?) of Hodgdon's 777 FFG loads for revolver cartridges have listed chamber pressures well below the SAAMI specs, in keeping with Hodgdon's very conservative stance.

FYI, on the APP webbsite the powder amounts are given in grains by weight.

The 15% more power for 777 FFG is generally taken to be relative to Pyrodex-P and Goex FFFG. I do find that 15% to be about right in my guns between Pyrodex-P and 777 FFg.

Howdy Cowboy
June 04, 2006

Quote from: Lars on June 03, 2006, 07:17:21 PM
Howdy,

The 777 FFG load I quoted is from Hodgdon's webbsite and is 20,0 grains measured by BP volume measure with a 125 grain, not a 158 grain, bullet. Yes, the Hodgdon recommened 777 FFG load for 158 grain bullets in 38 Special case is 15,0 grains measured by volume. Of course, what true BP gamer would EVER use a 158 grain 36 caliber bullet in a 38 Special case?

Heck I was thinking of going to cork bullets. I figure I could get a bunch of wine corks and make my own. That way they act as bullet and wad. Do the rules say you have to use lead bullets?

I think I recall that Hodgdon once listed a 20,0 grains volume, 158 grain bullet load in 357 Mag cases.

Note that the 20,0 grains by BP volume measure with 125 grain bullet is listed as giving only about 9000 psi chamber pressure, well below the SAAMI spec for 38 Special. Almost all (truly all?) of Hodgdon's 777 FFG loads for revolver cartridges have listed chamber pressures well below the SAAMI specs, in keeping with Hodgdon's very conservative stance.

I am sure Hogdon has conservative loads for legal reasons. I can just imagine the law suit when someone loads 16 grains into his great-grandaddy's 38 spl colt that was used at the Battle of Little Big Horn and it goes KaBoom! But, with all due respect, I don't think SASS nor the Open Range, should be advocating loads that are outside the manufacturer's specifications (even if they are totally safe)

FYI, on the APP webbsite the powder amounts are given in grains by weight.

The 15% more power for 777 FFG is generally taken to be relative to Pyrodex-P and Goex FFFG. I do find that 15% to be about right in my guns between Pyrodex-P and 777 FFg.

Strangely enough I didn't find the 15 grain 777 load to be over-powered at at all. I also noticed at the end of the match that I couldn't really remember there being an over abundance of smoke. I do recall a stage or two where the rifle targets were a bit hazy (someone painted them white...guh ) I think my loads are OK but I guess I'll see if I pass the Tex test at EoT since he's on my posse.

Lars
June 04, 2006

HC, I am sure we will all stay turned for the next episode of "Tex and the BP smoke saga".

pony lakota
June 04, 2006

A lot of opinions here. Kind of confusing. I am a SASS member, however I do not compete. (Fusion surgeries in both wrists, hope to compete in a handicap BP category someday.) I keep reading about amounts of smoke. That seems like trying to determine the horsepower in NASCAR by how loud the race car is. There must be a better, easier way. I am just an objective observer, so these are fair and honest questions from someone on the "outside".

Could things be made simpler? Why are BP substitutes legal at all? I can really identify with some of the comments by Manatee and Lou Grahm (hope I have your names spelled correctly). It seems that other than some type of felt wad or grease cookie a shooter should have to fill the brass with powder until it can be properly compressed by the bullet. Perhaps SASS is falling victim to modern times and double standards. No jacketed bullets, but it is OK to shoot 32 Mag, 38 Spl., 44Mag and other "modern calibers". Reduced loads, short stroked levers etc. etc. are legit; but a year or two ago a top shooter (I think it was Lead Dispenser) gets criticized for wearing a short sleeve shirt.

Maybe there are too many rules and options. Seems like the rules need to be more restrictive. Again I am just an observer. You Ladies and Gents are doing the shooting.

Hedley Lamarr
June 04, 2006

Pony, all opinions are welcome. (Though some disagree about that.)

Just to set one thing straight, the "issue" with Lead Despenser was rolled up sleeves, not short sleeves. A lot of hot wind about nothing, as it turned out.

Penny Wrangler
June 05, 2006

Well I'm shootin my 125 gr bullets (leaving the 96ers at home even though they smoke just fine) with plenty of smoke hanging in the air from the 1cc load of APP. Doing all that probably in various pantaloon sets some with short sleeves, some with no sleeves because its going to be hot. Let someone protest either one and I'm probably not going to be a happy camper.

Soot Sister
June 05, 2006

Takaho Kid, in a previous posting you asked about a test fpr duplexed powder.

Real simple one here.

Any and all of the BP's or BP's subs will break down rather quickly in water.

Smokeless powders will not.

There are some papers dating back about 20 years dealing with identification of black versus smokeless and possible duplexing as a cause of "bp only" gun failures.

They used acetone in the gun with the idea that smokeless is soluble in acetone while bp is not.

They just went at it backwards. If you pull a cartridge apart where you suspect a mix of bp, or a bp sub, with smokeless you simply add it to warm water and stir. Dump it on a paper towel or a very fine screen. The grains of smokeless stand right out as not being soluble in the water. A small pocket magnifier would help give an idea of just what sort of smokeless was being admixed.

TAKAHO KID
June 05, 2006

Hello Dutch Bill, simple solutions are best as usual. I just gave it a try out in the shop. Slick!

Any official with a kenetic bullet puller, a bit of warm water, a cup and a paper towel or fine mesh screen could do this one in about 10 seconds.

Sure beats measuring smoke clouds!

Lars
June 05, 2006

Pony Lakota, hearing from the interested onlookers is often revealing and are welcomed my most of us. Those deep into the conflict often get a little too "fixated" on the "real facts". It is not just the interested onlookers that think the current "smoke standard" method leaves a LOT to be desired.

Dutch Bill
June 05, 2006

Takaho Kid,Some time ago I had one shooter ask me if he could add some "liquid smoke" to a charge to produce more smoke. I suspected that he had wanted to "doctor" smokeless to produce as much smoke as bp does.

The "liquid smoke" in question was the stuff they sold for American Flyer train sets. Where you cut the tip of a little vial and added a few drops of the liquid into the smoke stack of a steam locomotive which then puffed smoke while it ran around the track.

Some of the rules in various aspects of bp shooting really brings out the characters.

Lars
June 05, 2006

Dutch Bill, It would seem that if one wanted "more smoke" a goodly measure of very fine grained potassium carbonate would be the the "perfect" fix. This comment is from someone that spend years figuring out how to beat the competition's latest advances in technology and tactics.

Grey Traveler
June 05, 2006

All I know is, when I shot Carolina Leadfoot's stage at Mule Camp, he said "Good Smoke".

I had 30 grains of APP in my 44-40s.

John Boy
June 05, 2006

I like Bill's simple test to determine smokeless in the cartridge. For the gamer that then starts to argue... 'It's the charcoal'... the recognized forensic test is the Modified Greiss Test: http://www.firearmsid.com/A_distanceExams.htm

This one is not too complicated or time consuming either.

Takaho, as for the liquid smoke... it is glycols, glycerine, and/or mineral oil, with varying amounts of distilled water. Tell that shooter, ya - it's good stuff. Should mix real well with BP

As for me, I'm gonna carry a bottle or two of this stuff in my cart to see how many challanges I can come up with...

TAKAHO KID
June 06, 2006

Quote from: Dutch Bill on June 05, 2006, 07:10:56 PM Takaho Kid, Some time ago I had one shooter ask me if he could add some "liquid smoke" to a charge to produce more smoke. I suspected that he had wanted to "doctor" smokeless to produce as much smoke as bp does.

The "liquid smoke" in question was the stuff they sold for American Flyer train sets. Where you cut the tip of a little vial and added a few drops of the liquid into the smoke stack of a steam locomotive which then puffed smoke while it ran around the track.

Some of the rules in various aspects of bp shooting really brings out the characters.

I love that one!

Now the question is do you want the fresh piney scent or the coal smell?

page 7
Lars
June 06, 2006

I can see it now - the most traditional class of SASS shooters becomes the class of shooters that is subjected to various forensic chemical tests to determine that they are shooting legal "BP" loads. There is a kind of symetrical irony in that.

Maybe the real solution is to quit worrying about the loads used by "BP" shooters and just turn on a couple of smoke generators 10 seconds before the timer beeps for them.

FYI, one can buy "liquid smoke" in a variety of flavors - my favorite is "Hawaiian luau pit roasted pig" - it really does taste like the real thing. Roasted buffalo would seem good flavor for SASS long range shooters and roasted jackrabbit for main match use.

Carolina Lead Foot
June 06, 2006

There are a lot of reasons for shooting BP. The smoke is only one part of it. Keeping your guns running for a whole match is to me the real challange (used to be at least). Shooting clean matches is another (believe I have 5 so far this year). I shot Mule Camp (17 stages and got to clean my rifle and shotgun on Friday morning just prior to the main match starting. Had 1 miss in the BP match and 3 in the main match. Times were the best I ever posted (finally got off the last page) and shot my IAC '87 the whole match. It was a great shoot and am looking forward to next year. Make smoke, as much as you can, have fun and be safe.

CLF - who wishes every day was a shooting day, but realizes some days are school days

Dutch Bill
June 06, 2006

Got a funny one for you regarding smoke smell.

During the late 19th century the Spanish made some very fast burning sporting powders using hemp stems that were a waste by-product of rope manufacture.

So I reasoned the powder burning had to smell like the hemp stem waste.

So a buddy of mine in another country got his hands on some hemp stalks. A by-product from a less than legal operation. He charred it and made it up into a small batch of powder and yes it smelled like somebody smoking the funny stuff.

We joked about selling seats down wind from the charcoal retort vent.

I could see that powder at the range I shoot on! Police use the range to train on.

But if you shot enough of that powder the judges would not care how much smoke it makes.

Part of the Spanish hemp stem powder joking included the English battle against the Spanish Armada in the mid-1500's.

Wre the Spanish using cannon powder made with hemp stem charcoal???

That could explain why the English ships got in under the Spanish cannons. To get the full effect of the smoke?? A Spanish galleon fires a broadside. Then you here a bunch of English sailors yelling "awesome".

Another joke.

Picture a Spanish admiral. The ship captain says, Sir, the English demmand another broadside!

TAKAHO KID
June 06, 200

Nothing like going to the range for medicinal purposes. Got to love it.

Lars
June 06, 2006

Dutch Bill, now that hemp charcoal BP is a nice suggestion for the really devious BP gamers! "But if you shot enough of that powder the judges would not care how much smoke it makes." Just think, get Tex and the smoke judges to stand downwind - and watch them request repeated test shots.