Does shearing stick powder hurt the load?

[meaty-btz]

I don't understand how it can be that far off either but it happens. usually when I am throwing loads to set up the PM, they will be fairly consistent, .1 or .2 off. But Then I'll throw 50 in a row in the cases, and check a few of em, and i'll find some that are WAY off. Usually overcharged. Almost never undercharged.

Ahh! I see. That has more to do with powder column changes. The kind of thing you deal with as the powder column changes weight and position. I would never expect more than 20 throws for most powders before the throws start to deviate outside the norm.

That is perhaps one of the largest problems with gravity feeding powder. Try it some time by putting a full stack of powder and measure the drop then unscrew dump from top till only 10 throws remain and measure the drop. You likely will be off by SEVERAL GRAINS.

It's the kind of thing you need to account for in gravity feeds. Which is why I kind of boggle at progressive loaders whose column weight changes as they mass produce but they don't check the throw weight? Maybe it uses a different system? I am not up to date on progressives. I am still that troglodyte using a single stage.

[thenodnarb]

The baffle is supposed to help. My hornady LNL has a baffle, my uniflow does not. I think you can purchase a baffle separately for the uniflow.

why would it get heavier with less powder in the hopper?

[stilly]

I've been looking at the design and operation of powder measures like the RCBS Uniflow and it seems that they would shear (cut) some of the individual granules of stick powders as they are rotated to drop the load. Is this a problem?

I THINK that if you shear it in a coffee grinder and then pour the powder into the shell that it might cause an issue, but I have not measured it and I have not done it. I HAVE heard and ONLY heard folks warn others to not do it.

Personally speaking, I think nobody has the balls to do it themselves and report back.

Maybe I will put it on my list of things to test once I have full health coverage and can get fixed enough to walk/run...

[ExtremeX]

I THINK that if you shear it in a coffee grinder and then pour the powder into the shell that it might cause an issue, but I have not measured it and I have not done it. I HAVE heard and ONLY heard folks warn others to not do it.

Personally speaking, I think nobody has the balls to do it themselves and report back.

Maybe I will put it on my list of things to test once I have full health coverage and can get fixed enough to walk/run...

The ones that tried never got the chance to report back

[stilly]

sweet! Then Imma be a PiOnEeR!

[JagerDog]

I lay all the powder out in a single layer and cull any short sticks of 4831 and toss them in the garden.

But no....

[JMP]

I THINK that if you shear it in a coffee grinder and then pour the powder into the shell that it might cause an issue, but I have not measured it and I have not done it. I HAVE heard and ONLY heard folks warn others to not do it.

Personally speaking, I think nobody has the balls to do it themselves and report back.

Maybe I will put it on my list of things to test once I have full health coverage and can get fixed enough to walk/run...

See post 3. Stick powders will see the largest increase in specific impulse since you would be increasing the surface area, creating more ignition points. Also, you be breaking the carbon coding that retards the burn. Spherical powders would see less change as they are more controlled through differing types of nitrocellose to slow combustion. If you look at your US869, the granules are already very small.

For more dramatic changes, you'd want to create a solution to separate the compounds, but this generally requires ethers, and you don't strike me as someone with the requisite knowledge of chemistry to even get near such a process. So, please do what everyone in the world does and use the powder unaltered as it was intended. Scientists at DuPont figured most of this out before you were born. Refinements have been made since. Let the chemical engineers at Hodgdon, Olin Corp., etc. do the job they've been paid to do; they have much more knowledge than even you.

It has nothing to do with balls. Rather, it is not rational to take a highly engineered formula and destroy it when there are probably 50 other choices that are better. Your proposition is equivalent to buying a professionally machined barrel, then trying to etch some addition grooves at home to increase the twist rate.

[meaty-btz]

The baffle is supposed to help. My hornady LNL has a baffle, my uniflow does not. I think you can purchase a baffle separately for the uniflow.

why would it get heavier with less powder in the hopper?

Powder LOCK. The grains don't bind as much with less weight pressing down so they flow better into the chamber for dispensing.

When it comes to using my uniflow I have found that there is a technique that varies with the powder type. Learn you powder. For reddot and bullseye i do tap/tap against the stops on each throw, not heavily, but uniformly light. Every 6 throws I will tap the powder colum three times to resettle things and then throw out the next powder throw as it will be uniformly heavy (settling) then back to within .1 grains for a while till I need to settle things again.

H4895 required.. BANG BANG against the stops to produce a uniform charge consistently over time. The hard bang on each throw would constantly resettle the powder column.

Manual powder droppers can change drops by how you use them. SO consistent behavior is key. BANG BANG.. tap tap.. or whatever just do it the SAME every time.

Frankly all the new reloaders jumping on progressives scare me. They don't know to understand consistent motions, how to learn to understand each powder as it is different. The fact that most have not lost hands or guns must be pure LUCK.

Severing one or two grains in a charge of 35-50grains or whatever will not make any notable difference in temps. Now lots of chopped grains might.. but that shouldn't be happening.

[highpower790]

No!...lol!

[74c5]

You cannot, by dropping powder, cut the sticks enough to impact the location on the exponential burn rate curve that it sits in.

[stilly]

See post 3. Stick powders will see the largest increase in specific impulse since you would be increasing the surface area, creating more ignition points. Also, you be breaking the carbon coding that retards the burn. Spherical powders would see less change as they are more controlled through differing types of nitrocellose to slow combustion. If you look at your US869, the granules are already very small.

For more dramatic changes, you'd want to create a solution to separate the compounds, but this generally requires ethers, and you don't strike me as someone with the requisite knowledge of chemistry to even get near such a process. So, please do what everyone in the world does and use the powder unaltered as it was intended. Scientists at DuPont figured most of this out before you were born. Refinements have been made since. Let the chemical engineers at Hodgdon, Olin Corp., etc. do the job they've been paid to do; they have much more knowledge than even you.

It has nothing to do with balls. Rather, it is not rational to take a highly engineered formula and destroy it when there are probably 50 other choices that are better. Your proposition is equivalent to buying a professionally machined barrel, then trying to etch some addition grooves at home to increase the twist rate.

1. I do not care to start messing with ethers and having gas canisters at my house as I would be tempted to experiment with them and other things.
2. I am not a chemistry major although I grasp the concepts and DID get an A in chemistry in high school and have used my chemistry skills to do other things, small things. Like make nitrogen tri-iodide and other fun things. I am no stranger to chemistry.
3. Scientists might be all high and mighty on themselves and think they are gods, and that is what makes it fun to see if we can figure out a few things that they did not know, or theorize... Like if you take a Picolo Pete fountain (pyro reference) and knock off the base and then smash the top and light it it will buzz around on the ground a bit and then explode in the end. But left alone it will emit sparks into the air and make noises. Most of my chemistry is applied to killing bugs and other things that piss me off. Same with my physics knowledge...
4. Whatever the HACK is it needs to be simple, nothing that is too complicated or too involved or else it is not a hack, it is straight chemistry.
5. You know nothing about who I really am or what I can do in real life. You only know what you see here. But thank you- high praise high praise!

[JMP]

5. You know nothing about who I really am or what I can do in real life. You only know what you see here. But thank you- high praise high praise!

You are right, but you are truly one of my favorite posters on CGN. If you want to shoot the **** IRL, guns & ammo are on me.

[1bulletBarney]

Most of my chemistry is applied to killing bugs and other things that piss me off. Same with my physics knowledge...

Another mad scientist...

[thenodnarb]

5. You know nothing about who I really am or what I can do in real life. You only know what you see here. But thank you- high praise high praise!

???

[oso grande]

I was wondering if dip & trickle was necessary, hence the question. But it would appear from the responses here that it's not.

If you're loading rifle cartridges to the maximum capacity...you must use a trickler. A measure is not accurate enough.
OG