Lil Gun vs 1680
#143818
04/11/2014 9:38 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649
dhom
OP
addict
|
OP
addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649 |
Has anyone who experimented with Lil Gun also tried 1680? Is this a good alternative since the burn rates are very close?
|
|
|
Re: Lil Gun vs 1680
[Re: dhom]
#143836
04/11/2014 3:54 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
FAH
member
|
member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 186 |
You may want to look at the posting by me dated 2/11/14, 4th page of shooter's bench, before you consider Lil'Gun. Good luck.
Practice Perfect FAH
|
|
|
Re: Lil Gun vs 1680
[Re: FAH]
#143881
04/12/2014 10:13 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649
dhom
OP
addict
|
OP
addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649 |
FAH,,,,,,, I haven't used LIL GUN because of the warnings I read. I can't help wonder about 1680 because the burn rate is so close. Before I would start a search for more powder, I was trying to draw on others experience. Does anyone know if you can get LIL GUN velocities and pressures from 1680 without the extremes of the former?
|
|
|
Re: Lil Gun vs 1680
[Re: dhom]
#143903
04/13/2014 12:55 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,608
s4s4u
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,608 |
From what data that I have found to cross-reference, it depends on the chambering. What is your flavor?
Rod, too.
Short cuts often lead to long recoveries.
|
|
|
Re: Lil Gun vs 1680
[Re: s4s4u]
#143917
04/13/2014 10:06 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649
dhom
OP
addict
|
OP
addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649 |
When I get down to caliber it would be 45 colt, 454, and 475 L.
|
|
|
Re: Lil Gun vs 1680
[Re: dhom]
#144097
04/17/2014 11:00 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 130
MePlat
member
|
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 130 |
"since the burn rates are very close"
Where did you get they "are very close"? 1680 is several grains slower. It is at least 4 grains slower than H110/W296. It would make more "sense" to compare it to 2400 since they are closer.
Full Speed Ahead, Show No Mercy, and Never Look Back.
Do You Think I Really Care?
|
|
|
Re: Lil Gun vs 1680
[Re: MePlat]
#144137
04/18/2014 9:34 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649
dhom
OP
addict
|
OP
addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649 |
Very close to LIL GUN at least in my Lyman cast book.
|
|
|
Re: Lil Gun vs 1680
[Re: dhom]
#144138
04/18/2014 1:01 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 130
MePlat
member
|
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 130 |
I have the Lyman 49th book. What cartridge? What bullet weight? Have you checked any other books? I like to consult several books before I make a decision on things. I know from using AA1680 in the past it is roughly 4 grains slower than W296/H110. Maybe a tad slower than that. Since Lil-Gun is faster than W296/H110 by a tad then I don't understand. Generally when dealing with "small" charges a couple or four grains is a larger difference than two or four grains are compared to a "much larger" charge. 4 grains are a higher percentage of 25 grains than 4 grains are to a 60 gr powder charge. 4 grs to 25 is 16 percent. 4 grains to 60 is 6.7 percent. I am sure you know this. Keep this in mind when looking at relationships from one powder to another. I see the calibers now. What I said still holds true. Consult more then one source. 1680 is farther from H110/W296 than Lil-Gun is from H110/W296 in burn rate and load data.
Last edited by MePlat; 04/18/2014 2:05 PM.
Full Speed Ahead, Show No Mercy, and Never Look Back.
Do You Think I Really Care?
|
|
|
Re: Lil Gun vs 1680
[Re: MePlat]
#144166
04/19/2014 9:51 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649
dhom
OP
addict
|
OP
addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649 |
MePLAT,,,,,,,,,,,I did some checking with other reloading books and you are correct. The listed burn rates very between them. I was just looking at burn rates in the Lyman cast book. The burn rates seem to be all over the place. I wonder why so many variations?
|
|
|
Re: Lil Gun vs 1680
[Re: dhom]
#144178
04/19/2014 6:51 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 130
MePlat
member
|
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 130 |
Contrary to popular belief pressure is not the only criteria that labs use to determine maximum load. It can be compression of the load, is adding more powder getting anywhere, consistency, and a host of other things many of which we don't know about. That is the reason we consult several sources. AA1680 is a good powder but it fills a position that makes it slower than some cartridge and bullet weights need.
Last edited by MePlat; 04/19/2014 6:52 PM.
Full Speed Ahead, Show No Mercy, and Never Look Back.
Do You Think I Really Care?
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
103
guests, and 0
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|