Powder Burn

[Redfoot Ranch]

Understanding that muzzle-flash isn't unburned powder, but the secondary combustion of propellant gasses once they meet available oxygen outside your bore. What is the targeted % number of powder burnt in the barrel that y'all strive for?

A current one-hole load 1 I have tuned was observed this weekend with a muzzle-flash. Returning home I checked Quickload and found this load is only burning a pinch under 98% of the powder in the 24" barrel for this rifle. Ideally, I would think 100 burn mitigate less shot report as well as cleaner internal on a muzzle brake and/or suppressor.

Thoughts?

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Yes, I've been hit in the face by unburned powder from a brake using reloads. Just stung a little but pissed me off when the shooter said that was impossible. But to answer your question it is an accepted reality for working up an accurate load especially with this trend towards shorter barrels. Getting towards 100% ignition could be in the over pressure area. People don't have time or resources for that area of choices when working up a load. Good question though. Others will chime in.

 

[supercorndogs]

I have dumped 4831SC out of my can on my 23" 6.5 creed.

 

[Redfoot Ranch]

After purchasing QL a year ago & getting by the somewhat steep learning curve while referencing it, and loading to reloading manuals available today, I have learned to trust the output info. The output falls in line with manuals I have from the 60's and 70's, before liability as we know it today reared up.

Very spot on for pressure as witnessed in load development. After this 'flame shooting' with complete burn experience I feel like I need to take it an additional step and look for 99%+ burn in the barrel also resulting in a higher 'ballistic efficiency' within the program.

With load development to begin real soon on 3 new wildcats I believe it will save me time, components and barrel life finding the best loads.

 

[Milo 2.5]

I have dumped 4831SC out of my can on my 23" 6.5 creed.

LOL, it built up on me and then burned in the can, smoke billowing out, then the magneto fell to the ground, melted the strap.

 

[Redfoot Ranch]

.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Understanding that muzzle-flash isn't unburned powder, but the secondary combustion of propellant gasses once they meet available oxygen outside your bore. What is the targeted % number of powder burnt in the barrel that y'all strive for?

A current one-hole load 1 I have tuned was observed this weekend with a muzzle-flash. Returning home I checked Quickload and found this load is only burning a pinch under 98% of the powder in the 24" barrel for this rifle. Ideally, I would think 100 burn mitigate less shot report as well as cleaner internal on a muzzle brake and/or suppressor.

Thoughts?

I was going to give you thoughts on another forum, but here goes. Ideally, a 100% burn is the goal. but most of the time you need to utilize a faster powder, or up the charge of powder being used to get a cleaner burn. Either of those situations may not be desirable.
I try strive for 99.8% burn utilizing QL, but I really have no way of verifying that is what's happening. I do have a Hawkeye borescope, and can monitor the barrel, really does not mean much other than if I am on top of it, I can clean before accuracy degradation.
Then factor in that different powders not burning completely are not going to react the same. You get a hard carbon buildup with certain powders, the rodeo starts and you are riding the top bull in the country.
I do not feel there is a definitive answer here to be given.

 

[Redfoot Ranch]

Thank you Milo 2.5. Your response was what I was hoping to hear and find here.

After mucking this thread up on my phone while trying to figure out how to edit a post, I will wait to get to my computer tonight to look at this further.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Thank you Milo 2.5. Your response was what I was hoping to hear and find here.

After mucking this thread up on my phone while trying how to edit a post, a will wait to get to my computer tonight to look at this further.

There are guys on accurate shooter that can give different experiences. Beware though, even though they may be right, they clean guns after 30, maybe 70 shots, rare you read anyone shooting 100 w/o a clean job. if you are willing to clean, their advice may be spot on. I clean, not going to be a professional gun cleaner though.

 

[supercorndogs]

LOL, it built up on me and then burned in the can, smoke billowing out, then the magneto fell to the ground, melted the strap.

Damn. LOL. How many rounds? I want to say I only went a couple hundred.

I have been thinking that a borescope may be a very valuable tool.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Damn. LOL. How many rounds? I want to say I only went a couple hundred.

I have been thinking that a borescope may be a very valuable tool.

12 rds, was testing the powder in a friends 6 creed, barrel was warm, can was scorching hot, end of that crap right quick.

 

[Redfoot Ranch]

I was going to give you thoughts on another forum, but here goes. Ideally, a 100% burn is the goal. but most of the time you need to utilize a faster powder, or up the charge of powder being used to get a cleaner burn. Either of those situations may not be desirable.
I try strive for 99.8% burn utilizing QL, but I really have no way of verifying that is what's happening. I do have a Hawkeye borescope, and can monitor the barrel, really does not mean much other than if I am on top of it, I can clean before accuracy degradation.
Then factor in that different powders not burning completely are not going to react the same. You get a hard carbon buildup with certain powders, the rodeo starts and you are riding the top bull in the country.
I do not feel there is a definitive answer here to be given.

OK, Milo 2.5, I made it to where I can see all of what I am doing. I am curious as to why you strive for the "99.8%?"

For a bit more insight, my OP originated from a load in my 204R. Based on chamber capacity, and other incidentals, the load I was firing was IMR4895, .6 gr below where I found pressure in this rifle, with QL giving 22.1% for BE. It was also 2.4 gr over Hodgdon's max and 1.8 gr over the Lyman 49th max. Looking further into QL I find that IMR3031 will give me 100% burn & 24.7% BE and VV-N133 will give 100% burn with 25.2% BE. All 3 over the aforementioned powders are with 24 pounds of chamber pressure and below max.

I want to utilize QL to all of its' abilities going forward as I begin loading full-house loads in 243AI as well as the 3 new wildcats I need to develop from the ground up. The nagging question in my mind now, for those that may have more knowledge than I, is should I strive for 100% burn in a given rifle's barrel or what is my bare minimum? Additionally, what would be considered a minimum 'Ballistic Efficiency' to strive for?

Thanks, in advance, for all responses and input!

 

[Milo 2.5]

OK, Milo 2.5, I made it to where I can see all of what I am doing. I am curious as to why you strive for the "99.8%?"

For a bit more insight, my OP originated from a load in my 204R. Based on chamber capacity, and other incidentals, the load I was firing was IMR4895, .6 gr below where I found pressure in this rifle, with QL giving 22.1% for BE. It was also 2.4 gr over Hodgdon's max and 1.8 gr over the Lyman 49th max. Looking further into QL I find that IMR3031 will give me 100% burn & 24.7% BE and VV-N133 will give 100% burn with 25.2% BE. All 3 over the aforementioned powders are with 24 pounds of chamber pressure and below max.

I want to utilize QL to all of its' abilities going forward as I begin loading full-house loads in 243AI as well as the 3 new wildcats I need to develop from the ground up. The nagging question in my mind now, for those that may have more knowledge than I, is should I strive for 100% burn in a given rifle's barrel or what is my bare minimum? Additionally, what would be considered a minimum 'Ballistic Efficiency' to strive for?

Thanks, in advance, for all responses and input!

I'm familiar with 3 types of carbon buildup in barrels, 2 I understand, the 3rd kicks my ass and is relatively newer to me, and 2 powders I am using seem to be notorious for doing said bad deed, lol
From shooting for yrs, pistols, AR's to LR rifles, it stands to reason a clean burn is a win-win. So utilizing QL also, I look for a powder that gives a 95% or better fill ratio, and high burn completion and work around it. I do not experiment with powders for the most part, and feel about any powder in a range can work, but powders differ in the benefits we desire, stability, copper agents, etc...
Going back to my 99.8%, even though by QL, I cannot tell you that is what is happening inside the case and barrel, it is a guideline. If you mess with QL, by adding powder the % of burn always goes up, but over that coarse, things change quickly as to what pressures are achieved, so a balance is needed.
Like SCD ^^^ and I were talking about H4831 not burning and powder is blown out then end of the barrel, at what point does it really become detrimental? A field mouse would be able to discern a suppressor is going to magnify issues compared to a brake or bare muzzle as far as buildup is concerned.
Feel free to pm if you want my experiences with carbon fouling in a barrel.

 

[Redfoot Ranch]

I'm familiar with 3 types of carbon buildup in barrels, 2 I understand, the 3rd kicks my ass and is relatively newer to me, and 2 powders I am using seem to be notorious for doing said bad deed, lol
From shooting for yrs, pistols, AR's to LR rifles, it stands to reason a clean burn is a win-win. So utilizing QL also, I look for a powder that gives a 95% or better fill ratio, and high burn completion and work around it. I do not experiment with powders for the most part, and feel about any powder in a range can work, but powders differ in the benefits we desire, stability, copper agents, etc...
Going back to my 99.8%, even though by QL, I cannot tell you that is what is happening inside the case and barrel, it is a guideline. If you mess with QL, by adding powder the % of burn always goes up, but over that coarse, things change quickly as to what pressures are achieved, so a balance is needed.
Like SCD ^^^ and I were talking about H4831 not burning and powder is blown out then end of the barrel, at what point does it really become detrimental? A field mouse would be able to discern a suppressor is going to magnify issues compared to a brake or

I'm familiar with 3 types of carbon buildup in barrels, 2 I understand, the 3rd kicks my ass and is relatively newer to me, and 2 powders I am using seem to be notorious for doing said bad deed, lol
From shooting for yrs, pistols, AR's to LR rifles, it stands to reason a clean burn is a win-win. So utilizing QL also, I look for a powder that gives a 95% or better fill ratio, and high burn completion and work around it. I do not experiment with powders for the most part, and feel about any powder in a range can work, but powders differ in the benefits we desire, stability, copper agents, etc...
Going back to my 99.8%, even though by QL, I cannot tell you that is what is happening inside the case and barrel, it is a guideline. If you mess with QL, by adding powder the % of burn always goes up, but over that coarse, things change quickly as to what pressures are achieved, so a balance is needed.
Like SCD ^^^ and I were talking about H4831 not burning and powder is blown out then end of the barrel, at what point does it really become detrimental? A field mouse would be able to discern a suppressor is going to magnify issues compared to a brake or bare muzzle as far as buildup is concerned.
Feel free to pm if you want my experiences with carbon fouling in a barrel.

I will PM you, the first chance I can get back to my computer, to further pick your brain.