Have used PB: Nice but pricey
Nitro 100: was OK but they have reformulated and not a good low pressure powder from what I can tell. A pretty good everyday powder.
7625: My favorite probably but apparently will be discontinued, a little pricey and nearly impossible to find now.
I try to keep my loads for the damascus guns around 5k or less.

any thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you!

There's a 700X load that uses 1 oz. of shot and scoots out at around 1,000 fps. Not bad for developing only 6,400 psi. That's what I use, although my cousin is in charge of loading'em. He's a big-time trap shooter and a newbie vintager. He's now using them for his league and Annie-Oakly shooting as well..
Ken

I use 18.5 green dot with 1 oz. Low press and plenty power

Go to the Hodgdon site or Alliant site, there are plenty of low pressure loads.

+1 for the Green Dot, People complained about it being "dirty" but it is only the lightest of light ash. I have used it for decades, it's a fine powder for light shotgun loads

From another thread I posted on:

All is not lost. You can get low pressures with other powders, too. The last loads I had Tom Armbrust test was with Solo 1000.

Average for five:

1192 fps
5182 psi
1 oz. 7 1/2s

These were in either STS or Nitro hulls, not AAs, but I really wouldn't expect much difference as they are all compression formed hulls. Might want to send a sample to Tom to make sure, tho'.

SRH

On second thought, I need to check and make certain which hull I loaded those in. The letter from Tom A. is out in the shop. I'll get back to you on it, to be certain. Don't want to post any misinformation.

SRH

I was able to match very consistent low pressure (~7k) 1oz loads using either WinAA or Rem (STS, Nitro, Gun-club) hulls with either SR7625 or International clays. Loads were found in Lyman #4 Shotshell book. They used win-Lite 1oz wads (or clones).

I was also able to do similar 7/8 oz 20g loads in Rem STS or WinAA hulls with same powders from same loading source.

Win or Rem 209 primers worked with little difference in pressure.

The Intl Clays load would actually cycle a Beretta Auto 391 although the 7625 wouldn't.

I imagine that Hodgden could supply lower pressure loads such as what you want.

Green dot has a similar burn rate and flexibility but I found it didn't burn completely with these low-pressure/low payload reloads. Birds/clays couldn't tell the difference but it just meant a little more work cleaning the barrels.

Green Dot is a faster powder & will Burn, MUCH, MUCH more reliably than 7625 ever thought about at low pressure & particularly in cool temps. Plus you use less of it & its cheaper per unit to boot. Better all the way around than 7625 for anything other than the heavier loads for which 7625 was "Designed".

I've always wondered, whenever I read about 5,000 psi loads, whether some folks have determined that if low pressure is good, then even lower pressure must be better. Anyone have any basis, from vintage double literature, for keeping pressure that low? I sometimes think it must be people who were winners in a limbo contest: How low can you go? As noted above, one issue with very low pressure loads can be performance in cold weather. A lot of the old reloading manuals would carry notations such as "not a good cold weather load" on some low pressure recipes.

Larry this is reverse magnumitist at work. If 7K is good then 6 or 5 must be better. Logic of the lazy or ill informed.

I would rather find the load that patterns best, at a decent pressure level, but very few will pattern four or five loads to see if one low pressure load patterns well. When I use to reload for duck hunting I spent afternoons testing loads, perhaps trying as many as ten, to come up with the best one for the gun I was using. Kept notes for each load. Sometimes the pattern would be vastly different for just a few grains change or a wad change. Listed is not recommended in my books. But too many will just see it and use it without any more investment of their time than that.

Powder and primers are important, but don't overlook the wad. My 12 ga. target loads (American Select, Win 209, Win AA) drop 700psi if I use a Rem TGT wad instead of a Win AA wad. With my 20 gauge target loads, switching from WinAA to RXP20 wads drops the pressure by 2100 psi.

It would seem to me that anything at or below the 8,000 psi black powder levels would be fine. As long if the gun was in good shooting condition, and having the action bedded in case of wood shrinkage due to age. In guns that have not been bedded, dropping around 20% of psi, or to around 6400-6500psi seems prudent in order to take it easy on the old girl's wood. The exception would be a very light English gun, perhaps even lower...

"The Wood" would much prefer a 1oz load moving 1150 FPS @ 9K PSI than a 1¼oz load moving 1250 FPS @ 7K PSI. PSI is not a factor in figuring recoil nor is it much of a factor in what the wood feels.

I'm with Stallones, 18 gr Green Dot, 1 oz shot

I have found that about 7000psi is the proper low pressure.. Lower than gives irregular ignition and irregular results on birds and clays

Ok, If it's not a matter of PSI, then what is the major factor involved in determining recoil and consequential effects on wood? Is it FPS? Is it a relationship between load weight and FPS? Is anyone able to explain the actual physics? That way we can avoid merely asserting opinions.

Recoil is the factor. Heavy loads, at low velocities, still put a lot of stress on wood. It has been suggested that light loads, at low pressure and most often low velocities, generate low recoil and hence less stress on wood. It all comes back to simple vector physics, for every vector, action or force there is an equal and opposite vector, action or force. If you push a payload out the barrel a force is thrust into and against the stock.

Ok, but I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind what 2-Piper alluded to, that a 1oz/1150FPS/9000PSI load would be easier on the wood rather than the 1oz/1000FPS/6500PSI load that I have been using.

Ken61, 2-piper was merely restating the free recoil formula, where mass and velocity are the only determinants of same. Since your load is equal in mass and lower in velocity, he would be most accepting of it, even if it had higher pressures...which it doesn't.

Ken;
I made absolutely no comparsion to the 1oz/1150FPS/9KPSI to a 1oz/1000FPS/6.5KPSI load. Quite obviously that load would be still easier on the wood than the load I stated.
I in fact stated that 1oz/1150FPS/9KPSI was easier on the wood than a 1¼oz/1250FPS/7KPSI load which it is in spite of the later load having a lower PSI.
Indeed I stated to use the same factors used for calculating Recoil when considering the wood, PSI is not one of the factors of Recoil.
Indeed PSI is necessary to cause the movement of the load down the barrel, but the amount of weight moved & the speed at which it is moved are the factors of recoil. We too often get hung up on pressure as being "Only" the peak pressure. If you accelerate 1oz of shot out the muzzle to 1150FPS you have done a given amount of Work, irregardless of the peak pressure of the load. If you compared the Average pressure (Area under the pressure curve) over the entire length of the barrel of two loads moving the same amount of shot to the same speed you would find them for all practical purposes identical, even though they may have a widely varying Peak Pressure.

Ok, Got it, thanks. So, is it a significant advantage, as far as effects on wood, to use the lower psi load? Or, is it insignificant? One oz. seems to be a suitable standard for shot amount, especially for shooting trap at the longer distances. Would the higher psi load be more effective for that purpose, with it's higher FPS? Given that both loads are at or below the 8,000 PSI pressures of the black powder loads that the guns were designed for? I get a little "Anal" about this stuff, especially when I show up at the range and someone sees my guns and begins preaching "Anti Damascus" mythology to me. I like to have very specific information for my response.

Recoil can best be related to Newton's third law of motion (for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction).

The formula for calculating recoil is:
Recoil calculation formula
If you're interested in recoil you may calculate it for any gun with the following formula:

E= 1/2(Wr/32)(WbxMv+4700xWp/7000xWr) squared

E= energy in foot pounds
Wr= weight of gun in pounds
Wb= weight of shot and wad in grains
Mv= muzzle velocity in fps
Wp= weight of powder in grains

You will notice that chamber pressure is not a component of the recoil calculation and is only marginally related to Mv in that for a given load a higher chamber pressure will most generally result in a higher Mv.

Ok, I understand this, even with my Liberal Arts education. Now, do you have a suggestion as to how I can present that to a 75 year-old farmer who only completed the eighth grade?

I'm kind'a kidding, My usual explanation about black powder equivalency is usually adequate. But not always..

Wb must be in pounds, I guess?

Guns are proof tested to a certain psi level. Stock is not attached. So pressure, in and of itself, isn't the real culprit where wood is concerned. Moderate recoil is best for wood, and you get moderate recoil by keeping the velocity moderate and using lighter shot charges. Pressure comes into play where barrels are concerned. Too much pressure and a thin spot in the barrel, not too far from the chambers where the pressure is still high, can do bad things. That being said, most catastrophic failures (burst barrels) are due to obstructions and not pressure. If you have good barrel wall thickness, you're not very likely to blow a barrel even with a shell that approaches proof load pressure. And that is significantly higher than standard service pressure for the loads we shoot. If you somehow manage to double charge a load, that could do it. There's also the possibility of accelerating gun wear by shooting loads which, while not high enough to burst the barrels, exceed the service pressure for which the gun was designed. But as long as you stay within the pressure parameters for which the gun was designed, you should be in good shape as far as pressure goes. Assuming, of course, a gun in appropriate shootable condition.

There are several recoil calculators on the web.

As others have stated, recoil is dependent only on ejecta mass and velocity. Note that there is no place to input peak pressure as it is irrelevant.

This is an extreme example that illustrates why one shouldn't merely guess at recoil. Some would be quick to assume that the recoil in a 6 lb SxS would be more severe with a 1 &1/4 ounce load than with a 1 ounce load and often that would be the case. But not necessarily. Since both velocity and mass are the major factors, it's necessary to know both. Pushed fast enough, a 1 ounce load can recil more heavily than a 1 & 1/4 ounce load....



I like the above calculator ( http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp )because it lets me compare 2 loads side-by-side. The numbers I used are from data published in Lyman's 3rd edition.

The foot-lbs of recoil energy begin to make sense when I correlate the input values to real-world situations. I know that I can tolerate 300+ target loads in a day, provide they are 1 ounce @ 1250fps. I also know that 1 ounce @1300 fps would be objectionable. In my 8.5 lb O/U, that's a difference of only 2 ft/lbs, 14 versus 16.

I know I can shoot 200+ in a day with my 6.5lb 20ga SxS with no ill effects. Not surprisingly, 7/8 ounce @1175 generates....14 ft/lbs.

I know that 1 &1/4 ounce @ 1260fps is about the most I want shoot through my 12ga, 7.5lb 12ga bird gun. That's 25 ft/lbs. No wonder then that when I use my 6.5 lb 20ga for late winter pheasants I'm OK with a second barrel load of 1 &1/8 ounce of #5 @ 1175fps...that's only 22 ft/lbs.

All weights are in grains unless otherwise noted. I will update the formula to make sure that this is clear in the future.

Well speaking as a 70 year old with a few more miles than the average Iowa farmer of about the same age you are probably wasting their time trying to change their minds. God love them and accept them as the are, misinformed by years of misinformation from ammunition companies, half assed gun experts that inhabit some gun clubs or proclaim themselves experts because that got an article published in a well known but notably slanted Outdoor magazine looking for a sensation article to titillate the masses.

I think I'm making progress. Next time I intend to lay out a selection of the old girls for them to ogle at and even shoot if they want to. Most have never had the chance to really look at or shoot Damascus Parkers, LCs, Bakers, Stevens, English hammerguns, etc. I'm trying to develop an interest to start up an Eastern Iowa/Western Illinois Vintagers chapter.

No question that "experts" in print can be wrong. I recently read--from one of the "experts"--that once you have a pressure figure in bars (as stamped on British guns until recently), then all you have to do is multiply x 14.5 and you have psi; therefore comparing "apples to apples" with pressure figures for American guns. Well, in order to compare apples to apples, you have to make sure that none of the apples are oranges. Although the British proofhouses converted from crushers to transducers to measure pressure in the 1990's, they continued to use the old bar figures (850 bar was standard proof) AS MEASURED BY CRUSHERS as their proofmark. (They finally dropped all proofmarks expressing pressure as a number in 2006, replacing them with STD for standard pressure, SUP for superior pressure.) And when you have a pressure figure in bars as measured by the old crusher system, you can't convert it to a psi equivalent by multiplying x 14.5. You end up with LUP (lead units of pressure, still seen in some reloading charts) and not psi when you're dealing with measurements taken with lead crushers. The mathematical formula will not magically convert those crusher bar oranges to psi apples.

If it is low pressure you value most, move away from the AA hull and move to a larger volume hull, i.e. Federal Gold Medal.

If it is making the best out of the AA Hull then hit the Hodgdon site or Alliant site as JDW described, there are options thre.

While I do not believe it a great extreme cold weather powder I have found SR7625 a good low pressure powder in a Gold Medal Hull.

To be true to a double classic sensibility you should forgo AA plastic and use paper, Federal paper hulls. I load several light loads in Federal Papers and find them to be a pleasure to shoot.

KY Jon has a good point. I try to use Federal etc Paper for my SxS loads when possible. They are tradional and give lots less pressure.

I load paper when I hand load black powder and roll crimp. You can't beat the smell, it's as good as the smell of the original Hoppe's No. 9....

While paper is nice and I admit it is a fine quality approach. That said it is not required to go low pressure. It can be done with Federal Gold Medal plastic and some other plastic hulls too.

Paper is nice, no argument there, but it is not the only low pressure choice.

Once you embark on various older styles, paper or all brass you will find some decent psychological rewards. Some are scared off by the complications of older methods and you really should not be.

That said if you want to avoid those minor complications you can stick to plastic and do fine.

I use Cheddite, Rio, B&P and Eley for my 2 1/2" low pressure loads.



From what I've read tapered hulls are designed propel target loads with smaller charges of fast burning powders. Ammo companies don't use them for heavy field loads.

He Gill
I think 5000psi is way low the powder wont burn as designed and the wad is not sealing. If the barrel wont handle 7000psi it wont handle 5000psi and it is over the hill. In a un neglected Damascus gun the barrels are as strong as steel tubes or stronger.
Remember recoil is a function of velocity NOT pressure.
I think steel barrels were much cheaper to make and the bad news about Damascus was marketing not fact.----- Cliff

I would strongly consider going to 7-8K psi, as much below that most powder burn is highly erratic. I really like 7/8 oz 12 ga. loads, have loaded them for over nine years.

My favorite recipes, all w/ AA hulls, all 7/8 oz:

17.2 gr/Clays
17.5 gr/Red Dot
16.9 gr/E3
17.5 gr/Promo
17.2 gr/Clay Dot

All w/ CB 7/8 oz grey wad (AA clone)

You might also try 3/4 oz wads w/ the above powders, but bump up the powder about .4 grains (safe w/ same charges above, just check for acceptable powder burn, i.e., not much residual powder in barrels).

"In a un neglected Damascus gun the barrels are as strong as steel tubes or stronger."

I was hoping that was true, but it is not.

Soon to be published tensile strength testing showed both Twist and Crolle Damascus to average about 54,000 psi
Hunter Arms Armor Steel was 101,000 psi.
Published tensile strength for 4140 chrome-moly - 90,000-100,000.

HOWEVER, from Sporting Guns and Gunpowders, 1897 in a discussion of the 1891 Birmingham Proof House Report - “…the strength of the Damascus was so much in excess of all ordinary requirements that no fear need be felt of their giving way…”

It was STS hulls, the wad was Claybuster 1100-12, and the primers were Cheddite 209, charge was 18.1 grs. Solo 1000.

SRH

I have a recipe for hunting loads (1 1/8 oz) in a Gold Medal hull. Unique, Federal primer, Fed 12S3 wad. Runs around 7,000 psi, something under 1200 fps. Great pheasant load, works well in vintage guns--although I would not want to shoot a round of sporting clays with it in a 6 1/2# game gun.

It is good to know that because I have been misinformed by barrel makers about this. But 54000 PSI seems to cover 7000 to 8000 pretty well The only barrel fail I have ever had was thought to be caused by an obstruction.

Realize that even though the strength of the steel is given in PSI & the chamber pressure is in PSI, this does not mean that a steel having a 54,000 PSI strength has a 6 3/4 times safety factor for an 8,000 PSI load. The formulas for calculating this are fairly complicated.
For a simplified example a ½" steel bar has a bit less than 20% of a square inch in cross section so if made of 54,000 PSI steel it would suspend only less the 20% of that weight without breaking. Dependant upon its actual Yield strength it would stretch long before it broke. In the shotgun barrel a bulge results when the yield strength is exceeded & a burst when the tensile or ultimate Strength is exceeded.
Perhaps one of our Engineers can give us the best formula to use for calculating this.