BH 209 by volume weight

[Pathfinder60]

I have a T/C Clear-U-View powder measure and I was weighing out some BH209 charges the other day and I had something odd happen. 100 grains by volume were weighing out between 81 and 81.2 grains by weight...??? I know the formula says 100 grains by volume should be around 70 by weight but that's not what I'm getting by a long shot! Anyone have an idea what might be up here?

 

[MrTom]

Different lot numbers of Bh209 have different densities. Hypothetically the 70% rule is used as a standard but the differing densities in different lots of powder will weigh different when using the measured 100 grains. I suggest measuring out 10 charges, then weighing each and average out the the ten weights. Use the average for your weighed weight using that particular lot number of powder going up or down to the nearest 10 grain mark. If your average weighed weight is say the 81.2 , weigh your charges at 80 to stay consistent. With Bh209 even 5 grains will not yield much difference on paper or animals.

 

[Drchesler]

I have the same powder measure and have noticed the same thing. 90 grains by volume measures out closer to 70 by weight for me.

When I transfer a 70 grain (weight) charge to one of the blackhorn 209 graduated tubes, it often will indicate closer to 90 grains by volume. If I give the tube a small shake it loosens up the powder and it levels off right at 100 grains (volume).

This has caused me to distrust volume measurements as the amount of compaction inside the measure seems to vary from one charge to the next depending on how quickly I pour it, or if I give the measure a tap with the powder flask, etc.

My question is this: Do we believe the volume to weight ratio of blackhorn 209 varies by as much as 10% from lot to lot?

That would be very surprising to me since the powder is so consistent in granule size and shape.

 

[MrTom]

Each lot can vary in weight vs volume. How much I can't honestly say and for all intents and purposes, volume is volume and that's how BH209 is "suggested" to be measured. I weight my charges but when I open a new lot number of the powder I do the ten volumetric measures, then weigh each one and get the average weight for the ten and that's what I weigh to for my charges using that jug of powder. If you're using a measure for 100 grains, you don't need to worry and volume is volume and doesn't change.

 

[MSalyards]

All powders are different from lot to lot. When ever you measure by volume you should do it the same way ever time. Just a rule I follow with all loading procedures.

 

[Usmc22]

Following. Thought by volume was good...

 

[michiganmuzzy]

I will weigh bh209 occasionally just to double check a load, but i load it by volume normally.

 

[Charlie-NY]

I stopped using volumetric measuring a long time ago. Once the inexpensive plastic vials became available I found it much easier to fill them at home (using a scale). I've got vials in two different sizes and enough of them to make range time easier, faster and I presumably get more consistent results down-range.

 

[tpcollins]

I have a RCBS 5-0-5 beam scale. I use weight only for my charges, I don’t trust volume scales for making sure EVERY load is identical.

Whenever I do an OCW I’ll have loads and a chart listing 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, and 84 grains by weight.

This covers 100 gr to 120 gr but I rarely shoot past 76 grains by weight.

 

[sabotloader]

One problem does exist... and Western and General Dymamics have indicated this several times. The weight of BH changes with lot numbers while Volume remains the near the same from lot to lot.

 

[Pathfinder60]

One problem does exist... and Western and General Dymamics have indicated this several times. The weight of BH changes with lot numbers while Volume remains the near the same from lot to lot.
[QUOTE
True...so the question bears asking, with granular density varying that much from lot to lot, how can charges by volume be considered consistent? Additional mass would imply additional energy...would it not? I'll continue to weight my charges the same as I've always done with my smokeless centerfire cartridges. And this only applies to BH209.

 

[sabotloader]

Pathfinder,
True...so the question bears asking, with granular density varying that much from lot to lot, how can charges by volume be considered consistent? Additional mass would imply additional energy...would it not? I'll continue to weight my charges the same as I've always done with my smokeless centerfire cartridges. And this only applies to BH209.

Certainly with total smokeless powders. What I was suggesting is for B-209 only.

This thread could offer you some insight

Lot 35 -- Lot 36 -- Lot 37 | Modern Muzzleloader

 

[Pathfinder60]

Certainly with total smokeless powders. What I was suggesting is for B-209 only.

This thread could offer you some insight

Lot 35 -- Lot 36 -- Lot 37 | Modern Muzzleloader

I remember this thread...some very good insights in it. I've decided to shelve this issue until warmer weather arrives (Ohio) and I'm going to take it all for a day long range day complete with a chronograph because IMO velocity variations will be the "tale of the tape"...so to speak. I'm a former 300m meter and 1000 yard bench rest shooter so this isn't about deer hunting accuracy..it's about shrinking group sizes at extended yardages. Aim small...miss small. The question that keeps coming back in my mind is am I going to be able to shut this down before I end up with a 600 yard custom smokeless rifle? Yet another rabbit hole to stand on the edge of and peer into the abyss... lol.

 

[sabotloader]

IF I were a target shooter for money with a ML - there is not doubt in my mind that I would be as consistent as possible and in that case I would be weighing charges myself. Actually I kinda do now but I have to adjust my conversion for for each different lot number of BH. And in my world using a ML with open sights as required by Idaho my magic range max is 200 yards, If you lived here in Northern Idaho you would know the terrain id far from flat...

 

[Pathfinder60]

IF I were a target shooter for money with a ML - there is not doubt in my mind that I would be as consistent as possible and in that case I would be weighing charges myself. Actually I kinda do now but I have to adjust my conversion for for each different lot number of BH. And in my world using a ML with open sights as required by Idaho my magic range max is 200 yards, If you lived here in Northern Idaho you would know the terrain id far from flat...

I know that part of the country...are you near Cour D'Alene? Definitely not flat in those parts!

 

[sabotloader]

I know that part of the country...are you near Cour D'Alene? Definitely not flat in those parts!

South down the US 95... to Moscow

 

[rangerod]

I think Pathfinder has the right idea. The difference to me seems to be density. Smaller individual particle size will pack tighter and therefore show a different volume than a larger particle size even though they would weigh the same. I would suspect weighing would give consistent velocity.

 

[Drchesler]

I remember this thread...some very good insights in it. I've decided to shelve this issue until warmer weather arrives (Ohio) and I'm going to take it all for a day long range day complete with a chronograph because IMO velocity variations will be the "tale of the tape"...so to speak. I'm a former 300m meter and 1000 yard bench rest shooter so this isn't about deer hunting accuracy..it's about shrinking group sizes at extended yardages. Aim small...miss small. The question that keeps coming back in my mind is am I going to be able to shut this down before I end up with a 600 yard custom smokeless rifle? Yet another rabbit hole to stand on the edge of and peer into the abyss... lol.

I'm in Ohio, too, and would be willing to put money and time into this if you'd like some help with the testing. Shoot me a PM if you're interested.

On a slightly different note, I ran the ballistics for my hunting load through a calculator and determined that my drop is approximately +/- 3 inches from point of aim out to 175 yards for muzzle velocities from 1850 to 1950 fps (150 yard Zero). The difference in drop at 225 yards is 1.5 inches over the same velocity range.

That makes me feel a lot better about slight variances in powder charge as it pertains to my personal ethical hunting range.

-Don

 

[Pathfinder60]

I'm in Ohio, too, and would be willing to put money and time into this if you'd like some help with the testing. Shoot me a PM if you're interested.

On a slightly different note, I ran the ballistics for my hunting load through a calculator and determined that my drop is approximately +/- 3 inches from point of aim out to 175 yards for muzzle velocities from 1850 to 1950 fps (150 yard Zero). The difference in drop at 225 yards is 1.5 inches over the same velocity range.

That makes me feel a lot better about slight variances in powder charge as it pertains to my personal ethical hunting range.

-Don

I'll definitely take you up on your offer of help...two heads in this instance would almost definitely be better than one... especially when one of them is mine!

 

[tpcollins]

One problem does exist... and Western and General Dymamics have indicated this several times. The weight of BH changes with lot numbers while Volume remains the near the same from lot to lot.

I’ve gone back a measured the weights of the BH209 I had left from previous seasons quick load tubes and found they were a tad lighter. I could only think that the powder may have dried out over a year’s span. in those quick loads

Right, wrong, or indifferent - I’d dump those last year’s quick loads back in the container and mix it up.

We were allowed use our regular firearm used in our firearms season for Michigan’s ML season this year so I don’t know how last year’s came out.

I’ll put that on my lost of "looking for things to do during the Covid Lockup".