doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com 800x GREATEST POWDER EVER FOR LOW PRESSURE LOAD?

Ok, I know there will be skeptics here. Over the last year I have been experimenting with 800X powder for everything from 28 gauge to 10 gauge. I know that it does not meter that well but + or - .5gr has not made a difference in any gauge from my single stage Mec 600 Jr. I regularly shoot 50-75 strait at skeet with my vintage and modern guns alike with this powder. The "magic" 12 gauge low pressure load is as follows: 19.5gr. 800X, Win AA case, Windjammer blue wad, Rem. or Win. 209 primer, and 1 1/8 Oz. of #8 or 9shot. Pressure is 5000 psi. For all you short 10 gauge lovers out there I just developed a great load. Here it is: 24gr 800X, Rem SP10 plastic wad, Win. 209 primer, 1 1/8 Oz. of shot with 2 16 gauge card wads or 1 1/4 Oz. shot with no card wads. This is very soft shooting. My point is that 800X is not the best powder for all applications but it is convenient to load all gauges except .410 with one powder! I will develop an 8 gauge load this week with 26-28 grains of 800X and 1 1/4 Oz. of shot. And yes, I shoot these 800X loads in all of my Damascus guns and my modern over/under shotguns. I hope people will respond with their thoughts. If you need my pet loads for 14, 16, and 20 gauge I can provide those as well.

That 12 gauge load would concern me.

Hodgdon lists that load at 20.5 Gr. and that's with a W209.

They publish nothing with the Remington primer, significantly even with Remington shells. Rem 209 is a very mild primer.

The Windjammer wad has about the poorest gas sealing of any wad available.

End result is a very dirty load at best, at worst you may be flirting with a 'secondary explosion' scenario.

It works like this:

The weather gets a little chilly, the Remington primer sort of lights off the 800X which has a reputation of being difficult to ignite anyway. It kicks the shot charge down barrel a short distance and the fire which wasn't too intense in the first place goes almost, but not quite, out. Then the pressure builds up from the slowed ejecta, the powder finally gets to it's ideal combustion pressure... and... Kaboom.

I would at the very least use a W209 and the published charge.

It made me sick to see the old gold medal go and the old federal paper is kaput too. I�m not that keen on those new federal shells that replaced the gold medals (the new gold medal grand with steel base rather than brass). Progress.....not always for the best, sadly.

I am in total agreement with Jones here. 5K pressure with a slow burning powder is flirting with Danger. I read a very knowledgeable report on this & in "Hindsight" it is now believed this Secondary Explosion effect was one of the major factors in giving Damascus a bad name for use with Smokeless powder. The other was loading dense smokeless with a bulk dipper.

In the early days of smokeless there was still many primers around which were rather weak, being designed for Easy to Ignite Black Powder. This may indeed have led to this secondary explosion effect when loading Smokeless which was harder to ignite.

As my personal loading has always been for hunting I do not load below 7K & more generally in the 8K range. The faster powders ignite easier & the higher pressures results in much more efficient burning of smokeless.

When I want 5K pressures I shoot Black. Just my thoughts which were asked for.

I have a few guns that I shoot 5-6K shells in but have decided to review my practices. If a gun is not able to safely shoot 7K loads it is probably best not to shoot it at all. If it is only safe to shoot with extreme weak loads that�s a concern it really is tough weak to shoot at all. Since I have many other guns to shoot it just seems best to retire the ones I am concerned about due to safety issues.

When you raise you pressure level to 7K you get a larger variety of loads to try. Most do very well, even in cold weather. Once you decide to reload your options get better. If you accept that 1100 FPS kills birds just as dead as 1200 or 1300 FPS velocity does not matter. Pressure and patterns become what you choose from. Larger shot size retains energy down range and helps make slightly slower loads performance better on live birds.

I had such poor results I gave away 4 pounds. I have reloaded for 45 years and tried almost every shotgun power and this stuff doesn't make.

bill

Hi all, well, my 2c worth. I use 800-X for my 12ga LP loads. I've never had an issue with this powder, except it meters poorly. I do weight each of my powder drops and while it takes time, I'm only loading a few boxes, so no big deal for me. The load I use does a fine job on wild ringnecks. I've never had any issues with this load in cold weather. I like it and have been using it for a few years now. Here's the load I use:

2 3/4" Plastic Gold Medal Hulls
Windjammer wad w/overshot card
Win 209 primer
24grns 800-X
5900psi
1200fps

Like I said, this one works for me and I'm happy with it.

Best,

Greg

800x does have a reputation for not metering well. On a Multiple stage loader it does have a lot of variations in drop weights. On my SpolarPower loader it is not too bad but that machine has a vibrator on the primer tract which might help. A in line powder baffle on a MEC helps but big flakes just don�t drop the same every time.

To start with, using someone's "pet" load that they worked up on their own and have never had pressure tested is just stoopid.

As mentioned above low pressure loads can be nothing less than dangerous. Like KY Jon says - If a gun is not able to safely shoot 7K loads it is probably best not to shoot it at all.

And, of course, 800X is smelly crap. GreenDot and Unique are both far superior in every way. As are a number of other powders. Why anyone uses 700X or 800X for anything is a total mystery to me.
Please don't tell me why - I actually don't GAF
thanks

I should mention, the load I use is from IMR. It's listed on their Load Data section of their website.

Best,

Greg

Greg--Interesting that it works well in cold weather. And I know it gets cold where you live! Whenever I've been looking for a 1 1/8 oz 12ga pheasant load, low pressure, I've used one with Unique, Gold Medal hull and Fed primer, Federal 12S3 wad. Right off the Alliant website. About 1,000 psi hotter than yours, but also very reliable on cold weather pheasant hunts.

Hey Col, never had any bloopers with this one in the cold. I do keep a hand warmer in my shell pockets and switch out the shells in the gun. Keeps the shells nice and warm. I switch out the shells in my gun about every 10 minutes or so. Seems like a bother, but it's really not.

Best,

Greg

It's not that low pressure loads are inherently dangerous, but that reduced charges of slow burning powders are best avoided in ALL applications.

Jim Legg who did quite a bit of target shooting with 'reduced' loads recommended the old Nitro 100 when it was still available and had published loads in the 5-6K PSI range.

The idea is a moderate peak pressure spike and a pressure curve that rapidly falls off when the load clears the chamber. The chamber being the strongest part of the barrel of course.

I have been shooting this load for over 4 years. I shoot 97, 98, regularly at skeet every week. some of the members of my club have switched from American select, clays, etc. The windjammer wads seals beautifully in all hulls. I find the 8 petals on this wad to be very effective. I live in Utah and shoot this load in 10 degree weather with no problems. I hunt Hungarian partridge, pheasant, sharp-tail and sage grouse with this load. Plain and simple it just works. I have heard a lot of people claim they get "bloopers" in cold weather. I have never had one. By the way, if you put this load on a pattern board it is amazing! Yes... there are a few flakes of powder in the bores but this cleans up easily like any other powder. Bottom line, this powder works great in every gauge except .410!

I would have to disagree and say that low pressure loads are definitely not dangerous. Sherman bell and Tom Armbrust I believe would have to disagree. A 5000 p.s.i. load is easy on the shoulder and your gunstock!

Your Shoulder & the Gunstock does not Know or Care what the pressure is.
What gets to the stock & shoulder is how much shot you throw & how fast you throw it.

If you throw 1 1/8 oz @ 1200 fps no matter if the pressure is 5K or 10K you have done the same amount of work. "Average" pressure for the entire length of the barrel is pretty much the same. Perhaps not absolutely identical, but not enough difference to Get up on your Tricycle about.

DO NOT confuse peak pressure with total pressure. When you change burning rates of powder & wind up with identical ballistics you have simply re-arranged the pressure curve, not truly reduced it

The shot clears the barrel in a matter of micro-seconds & the gun will move in most cases no more than about 3/8 inch. The rest is from the inertia built in during that brief moment of time.

It Is a proven fact that low peak pressures can, & indeed have, given the results mentioned. You can believe it or not but it has been well documented. It occurs more often in Rifles than Shotguns, but can occur in shotguns as well.

Smokeless powders for the most part just don't burn well below a certain pressure level. When you get below that level then you are treading on Thin Ice.

Well, I guess I have not tread on thin ice yet. Some faster powders definitely have more "felt" recoil than 800X. I will try 27 and 28 grains of 800x in some 8 gauge loads and report how it performs at skeet and sporting clays. I think this powder is way over looked by reloaders. Yes, it is an "old school" powder but it outperforms many of the more modern powders by a long way! If someone knows of another powder that can be used in 28 gauge to 8 gauge please let me know. Thank you for your comments.

Powder is Not Gauge specific, it is load density specific. Load density = the weight of shot lifted per Sq In of bore area. Considering nominal sizes a 28 has a bore diameter of .550" & an 8 gauge a diameter of .835". As the area of a circle is proportional to the Sq of their diameters an 8 gauge has 2.3 times the area of a 28. "IF" you loaded the 28 with 3/4 oz & the 8 with 1 3/4 oz they would use the same powder. All other gauges would have a proportional load for that powder. You could even load the .410 with it if you dropped the shot load in proportion to that little bitty hole. You would have to go down to between 3/8 & 7/16 oz in the .410. Nothing magical at all about it just fairly simple math. The same can be done with any powder, different powders are of course suitable for different load densities.

By dropping the charge weight & loading on the Low Velocity principal a faster powder can be used than would normally be used for that shot weight.

There's the answer where pressure and recoil are concerned. There is no direct relationship between pressure and recoil. So as far as recoil that can be measured goes, the focus is only on shot charge and velocity. (Actually, on the total ejecta--which also includes powder and wad. But because neither of those weighs much in comparison to the shot, they're only a minor consideration.)

As far as what one FEELS . . . there you get into an area that can't really be measured. But blind tests conducted with British shotshells and reported by the late British shotgun guru Gough Thomas showed that a team of shooters " . . . unanimously voted that the variety giving the least sensible (felt) recoil were those that, unknown to them, had been loaded with the fastest-burning powder."

"As far as what one FEELS . . . there you get into an area that can't really be measured. But blind tests conducted with British shotshells and reported by the late British shotgun guru Gough Thomas showed that a team of shooters " . . . unanimously voted that the variety giving the least sensible (felt) recoil were those that, unknown to them, had been loaded with the fastest-burning powder."


Which is the opposite of the thoughts of every single trapshooter I used to shoot with years ago. They loaded Green Dot and PB to 'spread the recoil out over time'. Push vs. sharp kick.

I read Garwood 20 years later and just shook my head. His dissertation on tiny headspace variations making enormous differences in felt recoil is rich too.

He may have been an engineer, but his train was off the rails.

Great thoughts again. Thank you. It is interesting how some people feel that faster powders like Red Dot in their mind "kick" less. I like the 28 gauge to 8 gauge analogy. I am currently loading 13.5gr of 800X in my 3/4 Oz. loads. That would be 27gr. in the 8 gauge with 1 1/2 Oz. which is the neighborhood I was thinking. I will start with 26gr with 1 1/4 Oz. of shot. I will load 1 1/2 with 27gr., then 28grains and see what they do. I wondering if 800X could be used in 4 gauge as well.......? I might have to try some of those too!

What is it they say about old trapshooters? Sooner or later, they all go to a release trigger due to a flinch?

Remember, there is some science behind what Thomas wrote. When calculating recoil, while all factors other than shot charge and velocity may be minor, you can't completely exclude them. Thus, the amount of powder used is part of the total "ejecta", along with the shot and the wad. And with fast-burning powder, you use less of it than you do with slow-burning powder. Which means--assuming everything else in the load remains the same--you should expect to feel less recoil because you've reduced the total ejecta by a few grains. So what Thomas reported is not at all counter-intuitive. Push vs sharp kick . . . would you rather have the nurse push the needle in slowly, or do it quickly?

I always favored a faster powder for my low pressure load. 700x was my choice most of the time. Never had any noticeable variation due to temperature. Regular "Clays" was another of my powders for a low pressure load.

Comparing getting a shot to recoil is like comparing apple to oranges. The needle penetrates, the guns Butt doesn't. Would you rather I place a hammer against your shoulder & slowly push on it or Draw it back & hit you with it.

That was essentially what Thomas said which was nothing but Pure Bull. He stated the only conclusion he could come to was that with the faster powder the kick was so "Fast" the shooter didn't have time to feel it. Go back & read it again for yourself.

"IF" you honestly believe that Crap I've got a Whole Bunch of stuff I'd like to sell you. Thomas was not even present at this "Blind Test", had only the powder makers word. He had no idea even as to what powders were tested.

Actual recoil & "Perceived" recoil can be, & often is, entirely different.
First time I ever fired a Colt 1911-A1 I thought its Kick was unbearable. I stupidly wasn't wearing ear protection. Shot it again the next day with ear protection, same gun, shells from the same box & it was a pussy cat. The recoil didn't change but my perception Did.

Best thing to do with Thomas' test is to throw it in the trash & forget it. His report on it was & is absolutely useless.

Being an "Engineer" sure didn't help him much in this case. As I recall he was a Civil Engineer. Understand I'm not knocking the trade, but they are trained to lay out & measure land, roads etc, not calculate recoil forces in a
gun.

Based on a 1 1/8 oz load the difference between using 20 grains of powder versus 30 grains would give a total weight difference of about 2%. I Firmly believe you best seriously Re-Think there being any Science involved at all in Thomas' report of this incident.

I may be a Tennessee Hill-Billy but I for sure AIN'T that stupid.

I've known many Civil Engineers, including my late father-in-law and most recently, my nephew graduated from a great Tennessee institution, Vanderbilt, with a Civil Engineering degree. A Civil Engineer from any accredited college is fully equipped to calculate recoil forces and much much more. They routinely deal with dynamic forces in their trade. Lest that building or bridge fall down.

I vote for Miller hitting Larry with the hammer! Make that a sledge hammer.

Total agreement Chuck, as I said I was not knocking Civil Engineers in general. Thomas sure didn't apply any of that ability in this instance though, his Conclusion was utterly ridiculous. Perhaps they get a lot more training in those fields today than when Thomas was schooled.

Simply stating one has been schooled in the highest field of Mathematics for instance doesn't impress me a lot if they say that 2+2 = 22.

Thomas simply made a big deal over this & didn't even have the facts to base his decision on. Certainly not something any "Wise Engineer" would do regardless of his field,

Yeah, not everything GT wrote was gospel.

Burrard wrote facts, Garwood wrote novels.

I'm with Chuck on 700X. As far as what engineers can and can't do, a Bloomberg writer visited last week. Her father was a field worker in bare feet, his school a slate hanging from a tree, saw a discarded application for college in Bangalore, filled it out to become civil engineer and graduated with doctorate from Southampton University in England, specializing fluid dynamics, went on to assist in design of dams, bridges, jet fighters and helicopters. I can't imagine recoil physics as beyond any engineer.

Speaking of 'published' loads, our powder companies live in some strange alternate universe.

The 'lower' pressure loads they publish rely heavily on the flimsy 'Windjammer' wad and clones thereof. Usually in a Federal straight wall case. Can you say 'powder migration'?

It's a stupid concept. Recommending components that are mismatched like that just because they tested 5 of them under controlled conditions right from the loading bench to the pressure gun and didn't observe any inconsistency just defies common sense.

Let those rattle around in your pocket for a couple weeks and try them in cold weather and report back.

Many 'published' loads are physically either impossible to assemble with crimps that hold without adding extra filler, or they can't be made to fit without 100 pounds of wad pressure.

'Published' does not mean either 'good' or 'practical'.

They also think we want to run 7/8 oz. 12 gauge shells at 1250+ FPS. They totally misunderstand the concept of a 7/8 oz. load.

They need to scrap 75% of the 'published' garbage loads starting with all the ones that use wads for tapered hulls in straight wall cases. Dumb Dumb Dumb.

AND BRING BACK PB.

The first guy who applied theoretical knowledge to practical application became the first 'engineer'.

That's all they do. Some are way better at it than others.

Many seem to have a problem estimating 'real world' operating conditions for the stuff they design.

Every single thing designed and made by man has at one time or another failed. Sometimes spectacularly.

Credentials don't mean a lot, a legacy of success does.

King;
When the boat left I believe you were still standing on the Dock. First the subject was 800X not 700X. Recoil physics was obviously "Beyond" Gough Thomas AKA Garwoood else he would not have made the Utterly Foolish statements about them he did, doesn't matter what Sheepskin he had.

Whatever it is you want to load, there's a better powder than 800X. Period. One that burns clean, meters well, doesn't start the neighbors' dogs to barking, a powder that doesn't need excuses or qualifiers.

All I can say is I use 800-X in a Straight Walled hull with a Windjammer wad and in cold weather. I have never had an issue with powder migration or bloopers. Just my practical experience with them.

I like the load, but it sure seems to me you don't like any of those components. To each his own I guess.

To answer a question that may arise. I did cut open a couple of my loads at the end of the season (after bouncing around in my shell pocket) to see how they fared. I saw no appreciable powder migration and every thing was tight and proper with load stacking. Again, just my experience.

Best,

Greg

I'm glad that combo works for you, I'm also surprised it does.

Any and every wad other than a Federal style wad that I've used in a Federal hull has been blooper and/or dirt city.

Admittedly, I gave that practice up early on.

My opinion is that there's a reason Federal wads look the way they do, maybe that 'engineering' business again.

I use wads that were made for the hulls I use and tend to favor fast powders for light loads.

I am amazed at myself for sticking with old school Alliant powders for so long though. When their manufacturers induced shortage finally made me buy from the 'powder trust' I discovered Titewad and intend to never turn back.

Hey, I have to say that it is a dirty load, but that's what they make cleaning kits for. I clean my guns after every use, so no big deal for me.

Like I said, to each his own

Good Luck!

Greg

Well now . . . let's see what Thomas DID say about slow vs fast-burning powders. To summarize the facts of the tests conducted by IMI:

"They involved the firing of many thousands of cartridges by a team of nine experienced shots of varying build, shooting under a wide variety of conditions with guns of different types, weight and boring. The cartridges were all loaded to give the same velocity to the same shot charge, though by means of powders of various rates of burning. The shooters did not know what they were firing, but were merely required to give marks for recoil. They were unanimous in assigning the lowest recoil to the cartridges with the fastest-burning powder, the dynamical effect of which was checked throughout by electric accelerometers built into the stocks of the guns, and their conclusions have since been widely confirmed." Gough Thomas, "Shotguns and Cartridges for Game and Clays", p. 155.

That seems to be a pretty complete description of the test in question. I'm sure more thorough than a hillbilly from Tennessee or a jack pine savage from the North Woods of Wisconsin can do. But if Mr. Miller would care to conduct a test of his own--with witnesses, a group of experienced shooters, etc--I'm sure we'd all eagerly await the results.

But one question for our resident hillbilly: What difference does it make to a powder company whether they promote a fast-burning powder or a slow-burning powder? Both have their advantages. As noted here, the slow-burning powder produces a lower peak recoil, which some people may feel is advantageous. On the other hand, you use less of the fast-burning powder to produce the same velocity, which results in cost savings to the individual choosing that powder for reloading. So both--for different reasons--are going to have their fans. And powder companies all seem to offer a wide variety from which to choose, for whatever reason the reloader decides to make his selection.

And it probably should be noted that in Hatcher's formula for measuring recoil, the powder weight is multiplied by 1.75. So although it's far lighter than the shot charge, it's a more significant factor than just the weight of the powder compared to the weight of the shot.

I too am with Greg on this one. I think 800X powder is way overlooked. Put that load I mentioned at the beginning of the thread on paper and compare to any other load you want. That is a "magic" load that kills both clays and birds dead! Again, can anyone show me a powder that can load 28 thru 8 gauge consistently? Please show me one. PB and IMR 7625 were and still are great powders but they are no longer made. I think 800X is now the king!

At my local gun club today I shot skeet and I used 800X for 2 7/8 10 gauge loads in my Remington 1879 with Damascus barrels. 24.0gr with a Sp10 wad was spectacular! Then I shot 16.0gr in my Dryese side swing 16 gauge Damascus gun...a real pleasure. Lastly, I used 13.5gr in my 28 gauge SKB model 605 over/under. I shot 24 out of 25 with 10 gauge, 23 with the 16 gauge and 24 with the 28 gauge. All with 800X. I did not have time to shoot my 20 or 12 gauge guns. I will try 27 grains for my 8 gauge and report soon. Long live 800X!!

You could use less powder by going to 20/28 in the 28 gauge. And it's likely cleaner than 800X. Nice that it's so versatile . . . although the 8 gauge shooting community isn't real big. I've only used 20/28 in 28, 20, and 16 gauge. In the 16: 7400 psi, 1180 fps pushing 7/8 oz target load as tested by Mr. Armbrust. The 20ga load is 7200 psi, 1200 fps pushing 3/4 oz target load. I shoot the latter in a Brit 20 that was originally 2 1/2" but lengthened to 2 3/4" and reproofed.

I have a good stock of 800x as I use it for 1 1/4 oz NP BB coyote loads in my combo guns and quite a bit in small game/finisher loads in my 222 Rem, 5.6x50R, 223, 22-204 and 25-204. It was my goto powder for the 41 Mag also.

Rifle data. http://jamescalhoon.com/bee.php

I have a good stock of PB for my Bismuth and ITX loads but it is nice to know I have a backup for the future. Thanks for the write up.

I have a very old RCBS powder dump(original black paint) that throws 800x quite accurately with the pistol drum installed and set at 5gr, one pull for 5gr, two for 10gr etc. I never need to adjust it.

For my target 2 1/2" 12ga loads it is 700x(11/16 oz of 9's and 7/8 oz of 8's) and Green dot in the 16ga.

I've learned more from these posts to my interests than others in a long time. Thank you.

The presumption being that that is a desirable state of affairs. I am unconvinced that it is even remotely possible to restrict the use of but a single powder and optimize any reload. And is that not what is touted as the rational for reloading? It's certainly not costs anymore.
Some of the above statements about wads are as well nothing less than absurd. If they were true the legal liabilities associated with the products would be incredible!

get real, people

Larry;
Answer me one question completely "Honestly"; do you still describe this as a "Blind" test. If so then any further discussion is totally worthless. That description of nine experienced shooters firing "Thousands" of rounds through guns equipped with Accelerometers is Certainly not describing a Blind test.

If you will concede this one point then I will copy & quote this last challenge to me in a new post & give what I believe will be a meaningful answer. As long as you continue to change your stories as often as one of the "Minnesota Fats" cue balls caroming off the rails of a pool table then answering is useless. I give you an answer & you change the Question to make me "Appear" wrong, not matter what I say.

Well Miller . . . you ARE wrong when it comes to dynamic/measurable recoil. You don't need as much fast-burning powder to produce the same velocity with the same shot charge as you do slow-burning powder. AND THAT IS FACTORED RIGHT INTO THE FORMULA USED TO COMPUTE RECOIL. Science . . . not what anyone feels or does not feel. Thus, the slow burning powder is already starting out in a hole when it comes to recoil. I'll admit it's not a particularly deep hole, but science does show that the slow-burning powder produces more measurable recoil than a fast-burning powder. Excellent example from the Alliant website:

12ga, 1 oz load, AA hull, Win 209 primer, CB 1100-12 wad. 1200 fps. 16.9 grains Extra Lite--near the top of Alliant's fast burning powders--will get you there. Takes almost 3 more grains of Green Dot (19.8) to match it. And you're now counting on what people FEEL (or what YOU think they should feel) not only to compensate for that scientifically established deficit, but to produce less recoil with the slower burning powder than the faster burning powder. And where would we find your scientific evidence to support that belief??

As for the accelerometers, you must be assuming (and you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME) that the shooters were checking the results shown by the instruments. Why would that have to be the case? Would seem more likely to me--I admit that I'm also assuming--that a powder company employee is checking and recording what the instruments show, making sure they're working, being reset if necessary, etc. If that's the case, then the shooters don't know what they're shooting, and if they don't read the instrument, they don't know what it's recording.

But easy enough to prove you're right--if what you believe is that it's chiseled in stone that a slower-burning powder in two loads of equal shot charge producing equal velocity will produce less recoil. Show me the results of a test proving that to be the case. And if we were to hold you to the same standard that you wish to hold Thomas, then you would have had to be present at the test to verify that you have first hand information on how it's carried out and on the results.

I have found that 7625 gives me the best results in my 16 gauge loads - teamed with an R16 wad and Rem 209A primer in a WAA16 hull.

Is the elaborate test referenced by Garwood corroborated by any other source?

'The Field' magazine perhaps? Anyone?

It's a very vague report notably lacking in particulars.

Far as I'm concerned without verifiable references it didn't happen.

You are right C.Man...I loved 7625 for my 16 and 10 gauge loads. I wish to God they would bring it back! The loss of PB and 7625 was the main reason I investigated using 800X.

Larry, have you run the numbers, 7016.9 grains vs. 7019.8 grains? No kidding, that's not a particularly deep hole.

Anyway, you started off acknowledging 'felt' and 'perceived', why did you drop it? At the very least, can't we show the graphs 'proving' the necessarily higher pressure a faster powder needs to develop due to shorter duration, to get the same total force under the curve?

You can load every gauge from 28 up to 10 with Green Dot. There, that is one. It is not the best in all those gauges. But it does meter better than 800X. I once knew a shooter who had worked up .410 loads using Red Dot. They worked, but I would never call them a good idea, or the best option. If you like 800X for everything, then good for you. I'll keep using different powders to get the best performance I can instead of using a "universal" powder and settling for what ever performance it can give me in a given load.

As to PB. I started rounding up extra, a couple years ago for my low pressure loading needs. I've got about 40 pounds so far. I even know where another 8 pound keg is sitting on a store shelf waiting to be bought. Intend to buy it next week if I get a chance. So even powders which are long discontinued are still out there if you look and get lucky. I just wish I could find some $10.00/thousand 209 primers, or $11.00 a bag shot.

Jones, perhaps you ought to pose that question to this forum's own "Crossed Chisels" (David Trevallion). In their book "Shotgun Technicana", Trevallion and the late Michael McIntosh start out with "Acknowledgments"--which includes a photo of Mr. G.T. Garwood (Gough Thomas). They give him special mention. Why don't you ask Mr. Trevallion if he thinks Thomas knew what he was talking about? And perhaps, if you don't care to take that risk, you can produce evidence--from a scientifically conducted test--that slow burning powders produce less recoil than fast-burning powders. And remember, as I pointed out above, that you're starting in the hole--since the formula for computing recoil tells us that the more powder you use--and you always use more slow-burning powder to get the same velocity for the same shot charge--the more recoil you get.

Craig, didn't I state that it wasn't a particularly deep hole? But it is a scientifically measurable hole, isn't it?

Since we can measure pressure . . . Craig, why do you think that pressure is NOT included in the formula used to compute recoil? If pressure has a measurable impact on recoil, I'd think it would be included in the formula. Instead, it's rather conspicuous by its absence.

So we're left with measuring what people feel. And why should it come as a surprise, in what Thomas reported, that people felt what the recoil formula tells you they SHOULD have felt?

Unfortunate data acquired in a controlled and repeatable study

http://www.claytargettesting.com/study2/pages/study2a.html

as always, Mr. Winston has nothing but facts to contribute

I wish I knew where an 8 lb. keg of PB was! If you have any to spare please let me know.

Larry, I was just pointing out that your 'scientifically measurable hole' amounted to something like .04% more mass being ejected. Of course that number is measurable, I was just scratching my head that you used it as justification for the higher felt recoil of low pressure loads in the GT piece.

As to not using pressure, maybe that's just convenience or laziness. I would think it's much easier to weigh payloads and record velocities. But, somehow or another, velocity was created in a way related to pressure and different pressure curves may be related to varying rates of acceleration, again for all else being equal except for fast vs. slower powders.

I'm pretty sure some people can detect differences in pressure and acceleration, in non shooting situations. It seems that those things are undetectable as they relate to the so called calculated total recoil vs. quantifying felt recoil, or are they?

Thank you. Someone actually came up with one. I have used green dot in the past but typically it has higher pressures in almost every gauge.

I�ve used 800x for 20+ years now. I�ve never had 1 single issue with the stuff. Yes, no doubt it�s messy (flakes everywhere when reloading), it leaves residue in the bores (no big deal, I clean barrels after each use anyway). I have really had no issues with consistency in regards to drop weights. I still use 800x if I�m loading 1 1/8 loads (rare for me, unless I�m loading for waterfowl, sometimes a heavy pheasant load or two). I�ve heard for years that 800x could become unreliable in cold weather. I haven�t experienced that. I�m not quite sure what others consider cold, but Midwest winters can be somewhat brutal, and I�ve also used the loads on ptarmigan in the interior of Alaska in December-Feb.
I have favorites when it comes to powders, and I always have a couple pounds of 8 hundy in the cabinet.

That has been my experience as well with 800X. That is why I started the thread. I can't think of a powder that is more versatile among all of the gauges except for the .410 bore. It leaves a few flakes of powder in the bores after firing but that is easy to clean up like any other powder.

First & Foremost let me say I am not knocking 800X powder. For anyone it suits fine. I did look up a burn rate chart & it falls between Lillian's Herco & Blue Dot. I then went to Alliant's web site & looked at their Handloaders guide. GUESS What loads for either one of these powders can be found for 28 gauge through 10 gauge, they do not list 8 gauge. As I said there is Nothing "Magic" with 800X that makes it a universal powder.

Personally for my "Light" 12 gauge loads I use Green Dot. I am simply Not Hung up on this exceedingly low pressures & find the faster powder imminently better for light loads & also more economical.

Unfortunately Alliant only gave loads in the 10 gauge for 3�" shells & mostly in the heavier loads. As long as one sticks to a bit milder loads a powder in the burn range of Unique can also be loaded in all the gauges mentioned.

When Black Powder was the only available propellant then of course it was used universally in all gauges. Loads were developed which fit its burn rate.
The same can be done with virtually any powder on the market which will burn successfully at shotgun pressures. One would of course have to vary the loads to fit the burn rates. 700X & 800X would of course not use the same weight shot charges, but either "Could" be loaded with appropriate charges in all gauges.

Quite often we find the small gauges being loaded heavier in proportion to their size than the larger bores so they often call for slower powders than do the larger gauges.

For instance very good loads can be had for Red Dot in the 12 gauge for 1 oz loads. It is not suitable for 3/4 oz loads in the 28, BUT, if you dropped the
shot charge to 9/16 oz then it would be ideal.

My main question is WHY would I want to limit myself to just one powder to begin with. I could do rather well with Three, one fast, one medium & one slow.

My reason for only using 800X is multifold. First, I have 6 Mec 600 Jr. loaders from .410 to 10 gauge. One powder for every machine is very convenient. I don't have to change anything. Just add shot and powder. Second, 800X is generally low pressure for my Damascus guns. Third, All of the loads I have developed and tried break 25 at skeet, sporting clays, and kills birds dead. With the right wad combination it patterns beautifully. Why change when one powder does it all? I am over 50 years old and simple, reliable, is good! As far as the 8 gauge is concerned...It will be fun to work up a load. If I can use it in a 10 gauge it will surely work in the 8. Shotgun loads are generally very forgiving within reason. this is not the case with many rifle and pistol loads where 1 grain can mean the difference between a stuck bolt, backed out primer, or worse, a blown top strap in a revolver!