Alcan powdrs
- Thread starter Tomme boy
- Start date
richhodg66
Well-Known Member
My Speer manual from 1974 sees to have quite a bit of data for Alcan 5 for 9mm jacketed loads.
I've been using quite a bit of Alcan 7 in .38 Special and .357.
I've been using quite a bit of Alcan 7 in .38 Special and .357.
fiver
Well-Known Member
with a 125 J-word
al-5,,, 6 to 7
al-7,,, 6.5 to 7.5
al-8 is a slower powder [in the 800-X/Steel area] you'd use 2400 start data as a stopping point for it in stuff like the 357 with 148-175gr cast/jacketed bullets.
i got some H-110 data for the 9 with a 124 too if your interested... LOL
al-5,,, 6 to 7
al-7,,, 6.5 to 7.5
al-8 is a slower powder [in the 800-X/Steel area] you'd use 2400 start data as a stopping point for it in stuff like the 357 with 148-175gr cast/jacketed bullets.
i got some H-110 data for the 9 with a 124 too if your interested... LOL
richhodg66
Well-Known Member
I was given close to four pounds of Alcan 120 a few years ago, hard to find data, but found a couple of pistol loads in an old Lyman manual and between that and being told it burned like Red Dot, I started using it in all kinds of things using Red Dot data (I really think it burned a little slower than Red Dot, at least it seemed that way). It was good stuff, metered well and was accurate in a lot of handgun and reduced rifle cast bullet loads. I used it up and doubt I'll ever see more, but I'd take another can of it in a heartbeat.
I like what I've seen so far from that Alcan 7 particularly in .357.
I like what I've seen so far from that Alcan 7 particularly in .357.
JonB
Halcyon member
I like the Alcan powders.
I extrapolated (or maybe interpolated?) a load for 41 Mag and 200gr to 220gr cast bullet.
I had 357 mag data and 44 mag data. I did some math in my head and came up with a charge and posted it here as a question. Ian pipes in with a Ken Waters pet load for a 210gr cast bullet said to be equivalent to factory, and it was only 0.5 gr higher than what I came up with.
I extrapolated (or maybe interpolated?) a load for 41 Mag and 200gr to 220gr cast bullet.
I had 357 mag data and 44 mag data. I did some math in my head and came up with a charge and posted it here as a question. Ian pipes in with a Ken Waters pet load for a 210gr cast bullet said to be equivalent to factory, and it was only 0.5 gr higher than what I came up with.
richhodg66
Well-Known Member
At a gun show a while back, a guy had a quantity of Alcan shotgun primers, 220(?) I considered getting them, and I probably have a manual old enough to have data, but I have heard those are rather hot primers. Might have missed a good opportunity.
RBHarter
West Central AR
Some yr ago , let's call pre nontoxic shot , Win 209s were the lowest pressure standard primers following up the line to Rem 57 , and 2-3 other 209s . Strong caution was made about substitution of any primers in any load combination but especially the use of the Fed 209A where it was not the specific primer called out . I saw data , Ballistic Products Inc I think , that demonstrated in a 12 ga trap load a rise of 10kpsi from the W209 to 209A . That's a big deal when it jumps from 8600 to 18000+ . For whatever it's worth the Rem Nitro Mag steel cases are marked 1050 BAR right on the cases , I'll save the math that's 15,000 psi and that's a hot load load for anything 12 ga .
When you move into Mag primers the Win 209 M was only a little hotter than the 209A but again the further up you go the more the pressure can climb with any given load .
I don't know if it's good or bad but Federal changed their 209A dropping it down in pressure contribution to fit in with the rest of the standard 209s about 1992 and marked it as a 209 .
The 220s were most likely a mag primer .
Food for thought .
The pressure examples may have been in the Lyman 3rd edition shotshell manual , the one just before they added all of the steel shot data .
When you move into Mag primers the Win 209 M was only a little hotter than the 209A but again the further up you go the more the pressure can climb with any given load .
I don't know if it's good or bad but Federal changed their 209A dropping it down in pressure contribution to fit in with the rest of the standard 209s about 1992 and marked it as a 209 .
The 220s were most likely a mag primer .
Food for thought .
The pressure examples may have been in the Lyman 3rd edition shotshell manual , the one just before they added all of the steel shot data .
richhodg66
Well-Known Member
I have a Lyman shotshell manual from the 60s or early 70s with Alcan data in it. I probably should have bought those primers. Wasn't long ago, a guy at a different show had probably a couple thousand Alcan wads. Guess I could have been in business for a long time.
I like that Alcan 7, sure meters nice and good data for it in several revolver cartridges. 9.5 grains of it works real nice behind a 158ish grain cast bullet in the .357. Been meaning to try to interpolate a load for 10mm, just haven't sat down to research it and do the math yet.
I like that Alcan 7, sure meters nice and good data for it in several revolver cartridges. 9.5 grains of it works real nice behind a 158ish grain cast bullet in the .357. Been meaning to try to interpolate a load for 10mm, just haven't sat down to research it and do the math yet.
fiver
Well-Known Member
RB you got a bunch of that backward.
the win 209 has stayed super consistent since the 60's
the rem 209 jumped up to match it when they went to the P designation.
and the fed 209 was equal in strength to the winchester then they jumped to the 209-A which is a higher brisance level.
i have the changeover 209-A booklet they put on every box back then right here in hand.
anyway you can't jump 10-K in pressure with a 209 primer change.
2-K is more the spread and 2500 is pretty much the outer boundary, Alliant etc. will advise a primer swap is okay if your pressures are 8500 or lower.
i'd have to go downstairs and look at my Alcan shot shell data, but their primers were a little hotter than most every one else's [except Herters] but not any hotter than todays Federal primer.
off the top of my head their 120 data was/is exactly the same as the red-dot load i use now days with a winchester primer,,, only not with an Alcan wad [even though i could as i have a couple of cases of them]
the win 209 has stayed super consistent since the 60's
the rem 209 jumped up to match it when they went to the P designation.
and the fed 209 was equal in strength to the winchester then they jumped to the 209-A which is a higher brisance level.
i have the changeover 209-A booklet they put on every box back then right here in hand.
anyway you can't jump 10-K in pressure with a 209 primer change.
2-K is more the spread and 2500 is pretty much the outer boundary, Alliant etc. will advise a primer swap is okay if your pressures are 8500 or lower.
i'd have to go downstairs and look at my Alcan shot shell data, but their primers were a little hotter than most every one else's [except Herters] but not any hotter than todays Federal primer.
off the top of my head their 120 data was/is exactly the same as the red-dot load i use now days with a winchester primer,,, only not with an Alcan wad [even though i could as i have a couple of cases of them]
RBHarter
West Central AR
I didn't get into reading all the books until the 90s . At that time the W209 was at the bottom and the 209A was available for a while longer . Maybe it was peculiar to that combination as an extreme . I have a pile of Herters wads and there's lots of information but not much data .......
I loaded everything with W209s or H209s for myself . I have often wondered but never enough to search the book how close we were to "unfortunate circumstances" with the loads I assembled with my Dad . On the other hand everything was in paper bases and only 1-2x cases and that 1-1/4 oz bar only threw about 1-3/16 oz so maybe it all worked out .
I used Fiocchi 616 and W209s interchangeably from primed cases through 5-6 cycles without any incident . I found the pressure data interesting from the BPI Status of Steel .......in hindsight I probably did some pretty dumb things but I had the book a set of numbers and a desired result . I shot a bunch of Fiocchi low base high brass cases and CSD 118s with 1-1/16 oz of 1s and Bs ......turns out the CSD shouldn't have larger than #3s in it . I didn't get any bolt scaring but there's a definite line from the brass in my BPS chamber . 100% 40 yd patterns ....... I can't even duplicate the loads now that I have a chronograph . 4756 is gone ...... Just as well anyway the BPS is tired and the Boito O/U has a choke bulge oddly enough in the more open choked barrel . It's just not going to be the same cut back to 26" ...... It's 28 now .
In shotguns I don't deviate or tinker . Maybe it's time for me to back track and check the information I thought I knew well .....
I loaded everything with W209s or H209s for myself . I have often wondered but never enough to search the book how close we were to "unfortunate circumstances" with the loads I assembled with my Dad . On the other hand everything was in paper bases and only 1-2x cases and that 1-1/4 oz bar only threw about 1-3/16 oz so maybe it all worked out .
I used Fiocchi 616 and W209s interchangeably from primed cases through 5-6 cycles without any incident . I found the pressure data interesting from the BPI Status of Steel .......in hindsight I probably did some pretty dumb things but I had the book a set of numbers and a desired result . I shot a bunch of Fiocchi low base high brass cases and CSD 118s with 1-1/16 oz of 1s and Bs ......turns out the CSD shouldn't have larger than #3s in it . I didn't get any bolt scaring but there's a definite line from the brass in my BPS chamber . 100% 40 yd patterns ....... I can't even duplicate the loads now that I have a chronograph . 4756 is gone ...... Just as well anyway the BPS is tired and the Boito O/U has a choke bulge oddly enough in the more open choked barrel . It's just not going to be the same cut back to 26" ...... It's 28 now .
In shotguns I don't deviate or tinker . Maybe it's time for me to back track and check the information I thought I knew well .....
fiver
Well-Known Member
oddly enough i was just looking at some data from the lyman number-2 shot shell manual.
they were showing the same-same with the alcan and the win 209 primer.
the alcan took 1/2gr less across the board.
which was the same trend between winchester and the cooler remingtons [non-P's] when the same-same was also used.
so the Alcan from then was pretty darn close to the federal 209-A now.
you can get some weird stuff in primers from time to time.
nobel sport makes a couple of different primers [one waaay too cold] and they were actually making primers for winchester at one point.
winchester sent them the formula and the specifications they wanted.
remington now makes three different primers, but only sells one to the public [Vista is following that plan for now]
they were showing the same-same with the alcan and the win 209 primer.
the alcan took 1/2gr less across the board.
which was the same trend between winchester and the cooler remingtons [non-P's] when the same-same was also used.
so the Alcan from then was pretty darn close to the federal 209-A now.
you can get some weird stuff in primers from time to time.
nobel sport makes a couple of different primers [one waaay too cold] and they were actually making primers for winchester at one point.
winchester sent them the formula and the specifications they wanted.
remington now makes three different primers, but only sells one to the public [Vista is following that plan for now]