I pulled a 68 gr. bullet apart from a blue box, wanted to measure the powder load and it came out to 24.5 grs of what looked to be TAC.... Has anyone else done this?

I have done it also but I pulled their 75 gr Blue Box bullet.  It is why I now have a supply of TAC in my inventory.  

I got sick of paying ~$1/round for factory ammo and replicated their recipe using my handloads.  That way, I can shoot at lower cost and if needed (in a pinch) I can use the supply of Blue Box that I own with no changes in zero.

The biggest surprise was the cannelure on the bullet and the radical amount of force needed to "pull" the bullet (I use an inertial puller).  I almost broke the puller getting out the one bullet.  There was no sealnat/adhesive in the neck, just a cannelure.  As it turns out, Hornady sells some of their bullets with a cannelure even though their "HPBT-M" bullets do not have one.  It isn't a knurled cannelure, it was smooth-surfaced but a factory cannelure, nonetheless.

I'm trying to figure out how you "know" it's TAC powder? Unless it's known as a fact that is what BH uses.

Unless you call and they verify it is indeed TAC  powder this practice is very dangerous. It may look like TAC, it may be similar to TAC, it may be a blend of TAC, but it may not be TAC. Many times ammo companies will use a blend, or a proprietary powder. In fact, many are using St. Marks and others that are similar to some powders but not the same.

If you want to duplicate a load, the best way is to shoot the factory load in your rifle, through a chronograph, and then pick a powder that is suitable for that bullet and velocity, and firearm, and work up your load incrementally until you reach that velocity.

I used to do that, so that the trajectory matches closely with factory, and surplus loads in .308 and 5.56.

What I found out, and actually knew anyway, was that of course, my rifle was generally more accurate with a load that was a bit different in velocity, but either higher or lower than the factory stuff. The difference was usually within 25-50 fps, and not enough to worry about as far as trajectory until well beyond where I shot with, except the .308 at distances beyond 700 yards.

Shoot the factory through a chronograph, and then work a load up.

I was once arguing with a guy on our chat who hates Wolf ammo.  This guy is a F.A. instructor in Buenos Aires and has full auto stuff like a FAL, a G-18, etc.  He would say that it's woefully inconsistent and underpowered.  I'm agnostic on the issue, as I'm a reloader, but what the hell?  I'll play along.

We were going back and forth and then I remembered that I had two rounds of 55gr Wolf 223 that somebody had left on the ground at the range and I had picked them up with my empty brass and placed them on my reloading bench.

I quickly ran into my reloading cave during our conversation and pulled both bullets and weighed them.  Each weighed 55.0 grains on my ChargeMaster 1500.  I ran back and typed that out.  He shrugged.  I then ran back to the bench and miced the bullets––.224" right no the noggin.  I returned to the chat and let him know.  Two for two I said, but he still maintained that it's crap and will never touch his guns.

Next up, I left and weighed the charges, which going by memory, were say...24.0grs and 24.1grs, so close enough for government work.  I gave my buddy the news and I could tell he was getting mad at my revelation.

I think I even measured the empty steel cases with live primers and they were almost exact.  Obviously, it was only a sample size of 2, so meaningless, but as the conversation progressed, I was able to at least provide some pertinent data that showed things to be uniform.

I know, I know...not as exciting as pulling down some Black Hills remanufactured stuff, but it's a good story, nevertheless.

Chris

Jeez this gets really old.

Ammunition manufacturers do not use the same canister powders that are sold to re-loaders. Period.

The company order a very large lot of powder with the desired burn rate specifications needed to produce the desired pressure and velocity in the round being loaded.  That lot is then developed by the powder manufacturer to meet those specifications.  In the case of a spherical ball powder like TAC,that will mean that the specific lot is mixed by a ballistician from various very large production lots of spherical ball powder with known characteristics to produce the requested specifications.   Those specifications will be much wider than the "same" powder sold as canister powder for reloading purposes.

The company then develops a specific charge weight for that lot of powder to develop the desired pressure and velocity in the round.

To put that in simple terms it means that one round may have 24.0 grains of powder and a different round using a different production lot of powder may use a charge of 24.8 grains of powder.  It may all look like TAC, but it isn't and you can't assume the charge in the factory round's case acts like TAC or that loading that weight of TAC in your case will be safe.  

The related piece of internet stupidity that surfaces about once  week is the idea of a specific charge for military ammo.  Someone will find an official data sheet that lists a nominal powder charge for a specified powder then assume that this is "the" mil spec charge weight for that caliber.  The problem is that military powders also have comparatively wide specifications and arsenals follow the same process of developing specific charge weights for each lot of powder.  And again, the differences between lots are much greater than for the canister powders sold to re-loaders.

Consider that WC 846 was the powder used in US made 7.62x51mm NATO M80 ball ammo.  When they were looking for a suitable powder for the 5.56x45mm NATO M193 rounds, they found that one end of the powder made to the rather broad WC 846 specification worked well in the M193 round.  So that end of the WC 846 specification range became WC 844.   BLC-2 and H335 are generally similar to WC 846 and WC 844 respectively, so looking at the original WC 846 specification, it's obvious that using a mil surp powder is a lot like deciding you can use H335 and BLC-2 interchangeably.  Most of us would be dumb enough to do that, and similarly, most of us should not be dumb enough to think we can use any mil surp powder without starting low and working up to the desired velocity - if possible.      

Personally, I'd never bet on my ability to tell ball powders like BLC-2, H335 and TAC apart, so I label them very carefully at every stage of the process.  Ball powders all look pretty much the same and if you think they do not, try different lots of the same powder and sooner or later you'll find powder of the same type that looks as much different as two different types of powder.

DakotaFal,

Would you mind describing your source for this bit of (mis) information ? Or some background about yourself to base those claims from ?

dc

Up to the point where you posted this, no one made such a claim.  <–– You've misread what was posted and assumed too much.

syclone170 siad, "...grs of what looked to be TAC."  

I said I used TAC in my attempts to replicate the ballistics of their ammo.


Neither of us said BH uses TAC.

Read my recent post above.  You guys are not reading what is posted and are making unfounded assumptions.  No one said they use TAC.

Actually, I did exactly what you posted - matched their ballistics using a load developed using TAC powder.  TAC meters very well in my Dillon and I was going to load a lot of this ammo.  I tested over a very wide range of charges but the load I ended up with used 23.5 gr of TAC (from the lot I purchased).

It's the only load I have where I use a crimp.

Read my posts above  <–– actually read them, rebutting erroneous arguments gets really old.



All the mil specs on ammo that I've seen specify a mean velocity and a standard deviation with an accuracy requirement for a given number of rounds.   I think bullet weight and variability is specified and controlled.  There's more to it but those are the basics.  I thought the specs were pretty good for what they are after.

What part of his post do you consider to be misinformation?

The name of the game in commercial ammunition manufacturing is profits. Market sets the price contingent on supply and demand. A well run company optimizes profits by controlling costs. There's two grades of powders available in every label, cannister and non-cannister. Cannister grade is what we buy at retail, non-cannister is sold factory direct or wholesale to commercial cartridge makers. Difference being between the two, cannister grade has consistency from lot to lot where non-cannister grade powder requires load work for each lot. Cannister grade is more expensive to make and why we pay a premium vs surplus, non-cannister grade powders.

Sure there's some custom blends, Hornady for instance but given enough time we get this too. Replicating factory ammunition by comparing powders works. Won't be the exact same blend, then again it could be depending on how lots were blended when manufactured. Use chronograph and match velocities. If you get to max published velocity and cartridges don't perform same then maybe there's a blends difference or you guessed the wrong powder.

Some of my pet loads have been recommended by commercial cartridge makers and suggest powders by name. Bullseye for instance is over 100 years old and still used by ATK and non ATK companies. The AMU Camp Perry .45acp load was built by trial and err by one cartridge manufactuer working closely with Hodgdons.

Black Hills using non-cannister grade TAC ? Yea, that's likely what's in the case. Then again Black Hills might have requested the blend be changed a bit. I match velocity and call it a day. So what if there's a slight shift of impact, optic dials remedy this.

Trollslayer I wasn't rebutting your post. eta, go back and read Dakota's post.

Yes, I did.  I'm trying to figure out which part of his post you're having trouble with.  I'd like to know if he's got some bad info in there.

Insinuating commercial cartridge makers don't use same label powders as we do. I happen to know a few industry people and know better. For some insight on those contacts see this thread.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_4/129809_UPDATE___NEW_PICS_glock_21c_goes_BOOM_.html&page=5&anc=1387164

You're right I did, and I'm not the only person who did. So, obviously the way you put your post together gave the perception that TAC is what you think BH used. I didn't assume anything.

Tac was mentioned in the ORIGINAL POST. When I pull down factory cartridges I do the same thing, start comparing to powders on hand. When I think its been matched I then weigh the charge and break open the manuals to verify the POSSIBILITY I'm working with the same powder. The only assumption made in my process is visually ASSUMING what powder commercial cartridge maker used. Just because visual looks to be the same doesn't mean blends are same. Regardless, my load data is worked from published data from a starting point somewhere less than max. Then shot over chronograph.

I'm going to say this. There's better combinations out there than attempting to replicate factory loads. In theory sounds great, in practice it ain't all that great. Kind of mindless if you ask me.

I have seen that tac was used in the 69 SMK load awhile back(and it was said here awhile back)but maybe never truly confirmed)>I have duplicated that load and settled on a load that was a bit short of the BH powder charge with no problems for just a little more accuracy for my blot gun.It really shot well enough out of my colts with1-7 barrels.Just remember just cause I said this dont mean sh––cause I am nobody anyway.

So your previous (snot assed) comments aside, you're now indirectly saying we're in agreement.

Commercial ammunition manufacturers will use non canister powder as the wider specs mean lower powder production and acquisition costs at the comparatively minimal expense of working up a specific charge for that lot of powder.  

Calling that powder "non canister TAC" versus "TAC" is essentially semantic horse shit.  It's not "TAC" as it does not meet the much narrower specs of the canister powder marketed as "TAC".   But you already know that.

You also agree that mil spec/mil surplus powders like WC 844 and WC 846 are also very wide cut when it comes to specifications and you agree you need to work up a specific load for it.

And you agree that the specs on military ammunition do not require a specific powder charge, thus there is no "data sheet" with a valid actual charge weight - which was exactly my point.

And no one was talking about custom blends - just required specifications that are met by the powder manufacturer creating the specific ball powder lot by mixing batches of ball powder to meets the required specifications - the same process that's been happening for non canister and canister powders since Olin invented the process using surplus WWII cannon powder as a base in the 1960s.

So exactly what mis information was I spreading?

As for my "source", I'll just point out I've known the owner of BHA for 47 years and leave it at that.

I have to wonder if the people working in these ammo plants are just laughing thier asses off on all our speculation of these magic blends

No, they just ignore and go on with their business. The less we know and the more we "think we know" suits them quite well. When I can get the attention of someone in the know I'm all ears. But I'm starting to appreciate how we get overlooked. Just not ready to throw in the towel just yet.

We agree to some degree in that powders come in two grades. Cannister grade and non-cannister. Both are blended from the same formulas, differences being one is an exact mix and the other a very close mix. You're overall assessment I completely disagree with and tone of your assessment.

I have no idea how they do this stuff at all, but Lets just say TAC is the foundation for a particular load, with a dash of Xterminator. What if a particular lot if TAC is just right? Hey who cares how they do it, we do it our way

We have a person in htf who works for Lake City Arsenal. More than once I've seen him mention the use of hobby grade press for load work up. I've not asked why, just assumed its there for working up new powder lots. Once we identify or think we identify a powder the only safe method is to find data supporting our visual assumption and work that data with chronograph. But there's other things to factor like case capacity, neck tension, crimp or no crimp.

You lost me right there in the red.

It is TAC or it's not.  

Danny

He made a guess, which means he doesn't really know for sure. Doesn't matter if its Tac or someother label. Go to the data you guess the powder to be and work a work up from within the data corresponding to powder being used.


eta, * to be extra, extra clear on this you work in this case, Tac data with Tac powder.*

Example, M 118 LR. Number one son carries an earned spear tattoo on his arm and given the challenge coin he earned at Fort Benning to go with it. Working the job(s) he does he's privy to info. It was rumored and true ATK is using an ATK branded powder for M 118 LR. 42 grains of Reloader 15 is the load by the way. Muzzle velocity at 2,580 fps. To confirm was simple using Sierra data we replicated the load using once fired M 118 LR. We later worked load using LaPua brass. This load is Sierra's accuracy load by the way.

M118LR: 42.0 gr of Alliant Reloder 15 => 2580 fps with which bbl length, 26" ?

26" Shilen, 1/10 twist, match chambered. See Sierra data, 42 grains rated @ 2,600 fps  using 1/10 twist Savage barrel. Sierra pushed bullet and powder past 2,600 fps. 42 grains is Sierra accuracy load.

42, Not 52

I think I'm missing something.

I thought the whole point of reloading is to find the best load for your rifle- one that you cannot get from the factory.

Are y'all telling me there are factory loads that are better than what I can make myself? I'm fairly new to this, but my handloads are appreciably better than any factory load I've tried.

I have an open mind to any comments/jabs.

What has not been stated but underlies this discussion is the fact that Blue Box ammo functions well and is accurate in many rifles.  It is in mine.  

Like I said above, I have a small supply of Blue Box and a large supply of handloaded ammo replicating Blue Box.  I can switch back and forth without worrying about changes in POI or zeroes.

If you don't mind paying $1 per shot, go right ahead and use factory ammo.

We said just the opposite. When we, we being Perkins Custom LLC of mexico, Mo. built rifle pictured below.


At the urging of Jason Perkins I bought a box of 168 SMK hbt grain Federal Gold Medal Match cartridges. His reasoning being that GMM was the pinnacle for testing accuracy. I shot 10 cartridges of GMM and 10 180 grain SMK hpbt handloads. GMM grouped moa Handloads grouped sub-moa
There was zero bias on my part as I was looking to test the guns accuracy, not the cartridge. First test group was GMM, after walking down to see grouping my stomach dropped through my ass and hit the ground. I had little hope my 180's would shoot better and they did, much better.


Pictured is the frst groups fired from new barrel at 600 yards.





Regards,

dc.

Very likely it is TAC.

I fired some rounds of 77 gr. Black Hills "blue box" over the chronograph.

Then I pulled a bullet from a Black Hills "blue box."
Powder weighed 23.9 grains.

Then I loaded some 77 SMK's with 23.9 grains of TAC.
Fired THOSE rounds over the chronograph.

Got the same velocities from my hand load as I got from the Blue Box.

I well understand that ammo manufacturers don't source their powders from the shelves of the LGS.
I further understand the concept of "blended" lots of powder.

Visual comparison of the powder from the "blue box" and the powder from the jar of TAC was indistinguishable to me.