Bob Kingsbury
New member
Curious about the nature of 133 and Humidity, I did a test.
This was done using one lot 820-04.
An open container was placed in a refrigerator near the air intake. It
remained for 3 days to lower the moisture content. A similiar amount
was placed under the stars outside next to a recording Hum gage
88% was recorded . I don't know how much of that moisture
was actually absorbed, but I called it wet. Imediately
in the am, I weighed 28.7 into glass vials. Repeated with the dry.
My measure was preset for 28.7 from the jug.
The Dry gave 286 for 10 charges and the wet gave 282.
Certainly the wet had taken on some water content, but
the overall effect was that the powder swells and a preset
cavity yields less per setting.
The glass vials were then cronographed. Using the same
cases. The wet gave 190 less fps.
Unless you spread your 133 out under the stars, it will
probably nevr get that wet. This shows that moisture
content has a definite affect and its direction
This was done using one lot 820-04.
An open container was placed in a refrigerator near the air intake. It
remained for 3 days to lower the moisture content. A similiar amount
was placed under the stars outside next to a recording Hum gage
88% was recorded . I don't know how much of that moisture
was actually absorbed, but I called it wet. Imediately
in the am, I weighed 28.7 into glass vials. Repeated with the dry.
My measure was preset for 28.7 from the jug.
The Dry gave 286 for 10 charges and the wet gave 282.
Certainly the wet had taken on some water content, but
the overall effect was that the powder swells and a preset
cavity yields less per setting.
The glass vials were then cronographed. Using the same
cases. The wet gave 190 less fps.
Unless you spread your 133 out under the stars, it will
probably nevr get that wet. This shows that moisture
content has a definite affect and its direction
