AutoComp in 9mm with 115-gr JHPs? Most close to What?

[Grump]

I use QuickLOAD a lot before working up loads. But the latest update doesn't have that powder, or CFE-Pistol (or was that BE-86?). Anyway, one of those is one that many people say loads (at least in top-velocity 9mms) almost exactly the same charge weights as AutoComp...

So I'm asking if anyone has real-world experience with AutoComp charges, in 9mm, using 115-gr JHPs, give pretty close to the same velocities *in the same gun*, as identical charges some other powder...other than CFE-P or BE-86???

My own load/chrono results in 9mm using AutoComp, including correct case capacity and barrel length data, has shown that discontinued Winchester Action Pistol/current Ramshot Silhouette with its burn rate adjusted to my velocities matches closely, in loads predicting 26,000 or more PSI. But the modified WAP burn rate then deviates from reality in my AutoComp results at lower pressures. Alliant HERCO seems to match my actual results much better, based on nearly identical charge weights and velocities.

So has anyone played around enough to know what powder most closely matches AutoComp in the 9mm, with the same charge weights???

Thanks!

 

[Duvel]

My results with AutoComp were almost identical to CFE (9mm, 115gr MG), neither of which are listed in QL.

 

[Grump]

My results with AutoComp were almost identical to CFE (9mm, 115gr MG), neither of which are listed in QL.

Uh, yeah, that's exactly the problem and why I posted the inquiry.

I find it odd that Winchester Action Pistol has been discontinued for what, 10 years, and is still listed. Several well-known and almost ancient powders like 700-X are not listed. And it seems that newer powders are not listed in database updates for...a very long time.

So, any chance that you could post your own case capacity calculations, bullet used, seating depth, barrel length (and all that stuff QL uses) with your AutoComp load velocities so I can compare my results with yours?

In 9mm, here's what I got:

WCC cases (H20 capacity averaging 14.12 gr, range is 13.8 to 14.3 depending on year)
case length 0.7404 inch
Nosler 115-gr JHP
Seated 1.10-1.12 OAL
Rem 1-1/2 primer if anyone cares
5.85 gr Win AutoComp
4.4-inch barrel
1183.5 fps
ES 15.8
SD 5.4

Primers looked just like factory loads, for what that's worth.

Using a different powder that matches fairly closely with minor adjustments to track the velocity, QL estimates the PMax at 25,647 PSI (piezo of course).

The Winchester online reloading data uses a Speer Gold Dot HP, which QL says with the same load yields 30 fps more speed at 3,030 PSI more pressure, so I'm sure my load with a lower-pressure bullet really is safe and within SAAMI specs. All of these loads have generous and lawyer-friendly safety margins. In fact, using the Winchester OAL but the rest of my data, QL estimates velocity (with the different barrel) at within 32 fps. This is with my fudged powder profile substituting for AutoComp.

 

[Duvel]

I really need to stop glossing over posts, then replying

Grump, I look over my data and post it here a bit later.

FWIW: I read that Broemel won't add many 'shot shell' powders because of their erratic burn characteristics.

Edit: This may, or may not, be of help - http://webcity.net/benchrest/OtherChrono/9mmAllPowders.html

 

[Grump]

Duvel:

Yes, that is a bit of help. Sort of a reality check. WAP continues to be another close match--will tweak it a bit when I get back into it and then compare with the next chrono run.

 

[Duvel]

I intend on furthering the results, it's just the 10 has all my attention right now.

That, and the weather isn't the best here.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Why not look at the data provided by Hodgdon on their load data site? It is up to date and tested.

 

[Grump]

The Hodgdon data on-line is where I *start*.

I like more in-depth study.

Getting a reasonably accurate powder profile is essential to MY loading, like when I use a *different* bullet than in the published data. I also use different seating depths most of the time (for example, some pocket guns will feed and cycle just fine with published load OALs...but a live round will hit the ejector before the bullet clears the rear of the chamber.) If I have a reason to load shorter, I really want to know how much of an effect that variation from the one-size-fits-most data will have on what I intend to use.

For example, Hodgon's HS-6 data with the Speer Gold Dot shows a CUP pressure result at max that looks like there's a generous safety margin. Adding 0.1 gr of powder in QL pushes the piezo pressure estimate a bit over SAAMI regular pressure specs. Using MY fired case capacity figures, there is a likely need to add 0.2 gr to get the same velocity, AND I'll have an added 0.2 gr more of powder safety margin--if nothing else is changed.

The HS-6 data is a bit unusual. Another bit of Hodgdon published load data using piezo pressure measurements and a different powder gives a QL estimate of 9 fps slower but 645 PSI higher than published. The percentage from published is inconsequential. But that load is more typical in that the pressure is less than 83% of the max standard, or a 17% pressure safety margin. I might take that into consideration if my own load workup takes more powder to get a velocity that still gives me a safe estimated pressure AND at least .2 gr of powder charge safety margin...

I like to explore these things before working up a load. Chrono results are my first warning/stopping point--regardless of so-called "pressure signs", if the bullet is going faster than what QL says it can with that powder and that barrel and that specific bullet while giving me my safety margins, I won't use that load even IF it matches any published charge weight. I did that with a .357 Mag load I had been using for years--backed it off.

 

[Duvel]

I believe the OP is looking for 'identical' loadings, to work up a comparison between Autocomp / CFE and QL listed powders.

Hodgdon's starting data is all over the place, so for his purpose it isn't of much use.

I think (pre coffee).

 

[Duvel]

Grump

The link below is apples to oranges, but you may be able to glean something useful.

http://webcity.net/benchrest/10MMPublished/10mmAllPowders.html

It's a project I'm working on, and by the end of next summer (or the one after that!) I might have enough data to plot the information I'm looking for / wish to share.

If I can find the time to invest a PTII's results will become part of the equation.

I will state, that while useful, I don't value QL's 'stand alone' predictions.