onehandgunner
Single-Sixer
When loading Universal in a 44 mag case with a 240 gr. bullet with a powder charge at near minimal load ( 7.0gr.-8.5gr. ) is there a position sensitive problem? Thanks.
Is Universal position sensitive ?
- Thread starter onehandgunner
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
I've never read of, or "experienced" position sensitivity for Universal. I started using Universal for my 44 Magnums just prior to the obumma administration when I could not find Unique and I use it in my 5, 44 Magnums for medium loads. I have not done any chrony testing for powder position, but I don't experience any irregular accuracy or fliers...
I like Universal enough to have purchased 10 lbs of it and have tried it in nearly all my handgun calibers...
I like Universal enough to have purchased 10 lbs of it and have tried it in nearly all my handgun calibers...
Not that I have noticed either. I have tested over a chrony and multiple calibers. A good powder. I tested 7.5 to 8.5 under 240g SWC. In .44Mag, I didn't mark the loads as particularly accurate out of a 6 1/2" SBH though. But that was my test gun. Yours may be different.
onehandgunner
Single-Sixer
Thanks for the replies. The two of you are the ones whose opinions I look for the most. What prompted me to ask about this is , I was reading a thread on the cast boolits website about 44 spc and 45 loads. Universal was discussed and a poster was very negative about Universal being used as a low to mid range powder in large capacity cases. At first I thought it was a post about it is so bad send me all you have and I will dispose of it for you. Not quite, in-fact has has other posts as to how bad it is. I do not have a way to measure velocity or do any type of test other than load and shoot and if it works it works. So I thought that I would ask how others feel. Now on to social distancing, I have been avoiding getting too close to the mower but today I had to get up close and personal. Thanks, Jerry
woodperson
Single-Sixer
I do not know the answer to your question. I load Tightgroup which is advertised as not position sensitive and Universal and other powders in ,357 and .41 mag, I get about the same results with Tightgroup and Universal as far as grouping and shooting targets. I sorta prefer the Universal though neither powder has as much fill as I would like. I have gravitated towards Trail Boss for my coated bullet every day plinking loads. Almost all my low and mid range loads seem to be about the same accuracy. The most accurate loads for my guns and shooting are full power Lil gun loads but I do not shoot them very often,
Clovishound
Blackhawk
There are some folks out there who see position sensitivity behind every bush. They become very down on any powder they regard as being position sensitive. Several years ago I tried to induce this in some .38 spcl Universal loads over a chrony. I could see no significant changes in velocity between those I pointed the gun towards the ground and then slowly brought back to level, and those I pointed in the air, and slowly brought back to level. Perhaps there would have been a difference between shooting straight up and straight down, but I never shoot like that anyway.
DHD
Single-Sixer
I'll qualify this by saying I haven't shot pounds and pounds of it, but have used it quite a bit. It has never given me anything but respectable groups. I spend some time trying to load quality ammo, but when it comes time to load the revolvers, I don't pay any particular attention to position of powder charge (I use more H110 and HS6 than anything else so it doesn't matter). Universal may be as accurate as the other 2 mentioned but I don't usually shoot that light of loads.
contender
Ruger Guru
I have seen this thread for a few days & wanted to be a clown & say; "Yep, it has to be in the case!"
But I waited until you got a little info & didn't want to be a smart-arse.
That said,, long ago, due to the rare but potential possibility of having a charge of powder be too light in filling a case, making the potently position sensitive ammo, I learned a trick. I was using 3.8 grns of Bullseye in .38 spl cases, and seating the HBWC bullets about 1/4 way out of the case. BUT,,, before seating, I would add a "filler" in the form of poly fiber fill, (think pillow stuffing sold in craft stores.) I'd make a small ball of it,, insert it in the case on top of my powder, use a flat ended punch that just fit the case, and lightly tamp the poly in place on top of the powder. That way,,, it kept powder directly on top of the flash hole, no matter what position I held the gun in.
My accuracy was excellent & my chrono showed very consistent velocities, low SD & extreme spreads.
Just my experiences using a light charge in a larger capacity case.
But I waited until you got a little info & didn't want to be a smart-arse.
That said,, long ago, due to the rare but potential possibility of having a charge of powder be too light in filling a case, making the potently position sensitive ammo, I learned a trick. I was using 3.8 grns of Bullseye in .38 spl cases, and seating the HBWC bullets about 1/4 way out of the case. BUT,,, before seating, I would add a "filler" in the form of poly fiber fill, (think pillow stuffing sold in craft stores.) I'd make a small ball of it,, insert it in the case on top of my powder, use a flat ended punch that just fit the case, and lightly tamp the poly in place on top of the powder. That way,,, it kept powder directly on top of the flash hole, no matter what position I held the gun in.
My accuracy was excellent & my chrono showed very consistent velocities, low SD & extreme spreads.
Just my experiences using a light charge in a larger capacity case.
Rick Courtright
Hawkeye
Hi,
My experience with Universal began with 20 ga shotshells, which I believe were the original target for the powder chemists' efforts. Those who load shotshells will remember that every shotshell load is a compressed load. We put ~30 psi or more pressure on the powder thru the wad as the shell is assembled. So when it's fired, the primer is facing what's essentially a semi-solid mass of powder. The idea is to get a good strong burn going in those micro seconds before everything starts to move down the barrel.
Ok, jump forward a few years: there was no Universal on my shelf, and the Unique was running low (even a 15 lb keg eventually runs out) so I bought a jug of Universal for handgun use. I found it behaved quite like Unique, especially in that the burn was far more consistent with some crimp on the bullet, whether jacketed or cast. Years ago we had a gentleman on the forum who was a commercial loader, Weshoot2, and Tim spoke often of the importance of the "right" amount of crimp being required to allow a good burn particularly with light loads, and sometimes it could take a bit of experimentation to determine "right." For myself, I learned I could load light loads of Unique which burned like a coal furnace all the way to almost spotless barrels, changing nothing but the amount of crimp. So I tried that approach with Universal and found the results were much like Unique, and I've stuck with that practice using either powder.
Contender's filler idea is one that comes and goes. Most of the folks I've seen write about its use seem to echo his experience, reporting good results. I've never tried it, but in reading over the years, it sounds like a reasonable approach, as long as one sticks with light loads and just enough filler to locate the powder and hold it there until it's burning well (microseconds.) I've seen warnings about using fillers, but I think they're probably aimed at the loader who stuffs too much filler in the case, producing a compressed load, especially if it's a little hotter load to begin with. "Start low, work up" is good practice here.
Rick C
My experience with Universal began with 20 ga shotshells, which I believe were the original target for the powder chemists' efforts. Those who load shotshells will remember that every shotshell load is a compressed load. We put ~30 psi or more pressure on the powder thru the wad as the shell is assembled. So when it's fired, the primer is facing what's essentially a semi-solid mass of powder. The idea is to get a good strong burn going in those micro seconds before everything starts to move down the barrel.
Ok, jump forward a few years: there was no Universal on my shelf, and the Unique was running low (even a 15 lb keg eventually runs out) so I bought a jug of Universal for handgun use. I found it behaved quite like Unique, especially in that the burn was far more consistent with some crimp on the bullet, whether jacketed or cast. Years ago we had a gentleman on the forum who was a commercial loader, Weshoot2, and Tim spoke often of the importance of the "right" amount of crimp being required to allow a good burn particularly with light loads, and sometimes it could take a bit of experimentation to determine "right." For myself, I learned I could load light loads of Unique which burned like a coal furnace all the way to almost spotless barrels, changing nothing but the amount of crimp. So I tried that approach with Universal and found the results were much like Unique, and I've stuck with that practice using either powder.
Contender's filler idea is one that comes and goes. Most of the folks I've seen write about its use seem to echo his experience, reporting good results. I've never tried it, but in reading over the years, it sounds like a reasonable approach, as long as one sticks with light loads and just enough filler to locate the powder and hold it there until it's burning well (microseconds.) I've seen warnings about using fillers, but I think they're probably aimed at the loader who stuffs too much filler in the case, producing a compressed load, especially if it's a little hotter load to begin with. "Start low, work up" is good practice here.
Rick C
I've read on the pros and cons of using a filler and did try some cream of wheat once or twice (mostly for it's reported "barrel scrubbing" attributes). But I haven't felt the need for a filler in a hand gun cartridge (mebbe ignorance is bliss?). When I couldn't find Unique several years ago I got some Universal and eventually, because I like it's performance, bought 8 lbs of it.
Contender, did you experiment with filler loads vs non-filler loads? When I was playing a lot with DE wadcutters in 38 Special I had a "standard" load (I was checking effects of OAL/bullet seating depth) and I always shot them with my experimental loads, at the same time, for a good comparison...
Contender, did you experiment with filler loads vs non-filler loads? When I was playing a lot with DE wadcutters in 38 Special I had a "standard" load (I was checking effects of OAL/bullet seating depth) and I always shot them with my experimental loads, at the same time, for a good comparison...
contender
Ruger Guru
When I was doing my filler loads,, using Bullseye & all, it was back in the late 1970's & into the early 1980's. It was when I was on a budget,, and I wanted Bullseye to be a "do all" powder w/o costing me much. Well, as time passed & I found I really needed to find the best powder/bullet combo & not try & be so frugal,, I stopped loading that particular load.
I had studied a lot about fillers back then,, including the use of cream of wheat etc. In my mind,, using anything that would mix with the powder didn't feel right in my opinion. And back then, I didn't have a Chrono, or anything else to help me study the differences,, so no,, I do not recall any stand out revelations about filler vs. non-filler loads.
But I do know that later on,, when I did get my Chrono, I found that my old loads were quite good in Extreme Spread & Standard Deviation. Plus,, quite accurate too!
I had studied a lot about fillers back then,, including the use of cream of wheat etc. In my mind,, using anything that would mix with the powder didn't feel right in my opinion. And back then, I didn't have a Chrono, or anything else to help me study the differences,, so no,, I do not recall any stand out revelations about filler vs. non-filler loads.
But I do know that later on,, when I did get my Chrono, I found that my old loads were quite good in Extreme Spread & Standard Deviation. Plus,, quite accurate too!
Similar threads
