tidbits that make you say hmmmm

[goodgrouper]

Not much going on here in this sub forum lately so I'll throw out an observation or two.

tidbit#1
Went shooting today. Set up a tent over the benches to load and clean in. Snow had drifted in on the concrete pad and benches overnight. Then a propane heater was set up and turned on full blast. Within about 20 minutes, the snow was melted and there was a big puddle right under the loading table. 1/4" deep. Powder (N133) was accidentally spilled into the puddle. Powder sat in water for 6.5 hours. At the end of the day, the powder was still hard. It did not swell, did not get soft, did not change shape, did not change length. Looked to be as though you could wipe it off, and load it.

Humidity affecting powder some say? Well, it don't get more humid than standing water.




Tid bit #2. Calculated some new ballistic coefficients a few weeks ago for the 68 grain Bruno BT. Plugged it into my Exbal ballistics program last night with two different speeds. One at 3250 and one at 3400 fps. Ran the charts to 200 yards and guess what.......... there was a whole entire .1" of an inch difference in drift. Not exactly enough to get your shorts in a twist over.


Now, before you crank up the incinerators, let me slip into my fire retardant swimsuit and find the nearest pool to jump into!

 

[alinwa]

Not much going on here in this sub forum lately so I'll throw out an observation or two.

tidbit#1
Went shooting today. Set up a tent over the benches to load and clean in. Snow had drifted in on the concrete pad and benches overnight. Then a propane heater was set up and turned on full blast. Within about 20 minutes, the snow was melted and there was a big puddle right under the loading table. 1/4" deep. Powder (N133) was accidentally spilled into the puddle. Powder sat in water for 6.5 hours. At the end of the day, the powder was still hard. It did not swell, did not get soft, did not change shape, did not change length. Looked to be as though you could wipe it off, and load it.

Humidity affecting powder some say? Well, it don't get more humid than standing water.




Tid bit #2. Calculated some new ballistic coefficients a few weeks ago for the 68 grain Bruno BT. Plugged it into my Exbal ballistics program last night with two different speeds. One at 3250 and one at 3400 fps. Ran the charts to 200 yards and guess what.......... there was a whole entire .1" of an inch difference in drift. Not exactly enough to get your shorts in a twist over.


Now, before you crank up the incinerators, let me slip into my fire retardant swimsuit and find the nearest pool to jump into!

re #1-You should have loaded a round with it...... BTDT, it lights

re #2-Completely true...... but even this is incidental to the fact that what you're really worried about is DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE GROUP. Unless you've got that 150fps difference IN YOUR GROUP that tenth doesn't even show up! What you get to REALLY work with is 1/20th of that tenth.........

The "gain" in drift to be had between 3250 and 3400 is undetectable, un measurable and completely unusable. A perfect example of a theoretical gain given real credence.




Now..... that said...... if 3400 SHOOTS BETTER now ya' gots sumpin....

al

 

[Boyd Allen]

Re tibit #1:
Yer two sinetiffic fro me. Astounding methoodolligie. Yup yup. Ya got me ther

 

[alinwa]

Re tibit #1:
Yer two sinetiffic fro me. Astounding methoodolligie. Yup yup. Ya got me ther

C'mon Boyd

At least take the time to explain that humidity can be more wetting than standing water and that the humidity conundrum doesn't actually concern itself with the powder itself and, and, and........ c'MON Boyd....

kindofa' hit-n-run ain't it?

LOL

al

 

[Boyd Allen]

Goodgrouper is smart enough to know where the holes are, and anyone else that has studied the subject will see them without their being pointed out. If someone doesn't see them, it would take too much space to explain...hence the comment. This is just a hobby;we can have a little fun can't we?

 

[goodgrouper]

I forgot to mention, after the N133 went for a swim, some 8208 XBR was spilled into the puddle too but it refused to get wet and just walked on the water instead!

 

[alinwa]

I forgot to mention, after the N133 went for a swim, some 8208 XBR was spilled into the puddle too but it refused to get wet and just walked on the water instead!

LOL

Now i don' care who you are, 'at's FUNNY right thar!!!

"The powder didn't get wet, the water got 8208!"

al

 

[K Hope]

Right; so if I’m following this right, rebar’s physical properties change with relatively small changes in ambient temperatures and Nitrocellulose is not affected by humidity.

Something doesn’t sound right there but who knows. A different perspective might be one along the lines of: “There are some things that count that can't be counted, and there are things that can be counted that don't count.”

Ken

 

[jackie schmidt]

Consistancy in Pet Peeves

If you have frequented this board for any length of time, you know that most of the regular posters have certain pet peeves. Mine has always been Remingtons insistance on calling the 40x a "Benchrest Rifle".

GoodGrouper's is shooters who shoot 6PPC's at over 3300 fps, and ANYBODY mentioning the words humidity and tune in the same sentence.........jackie

 

[goodgrouper]

If you have frequented this board for any length of time, you know that most of the regular posters have certain pet peeves. Mine has always been Remingtons insistance on calling the 40x a "Benchrest Rifle".

GoodGrouper's is shooters who shoot 6PPC's at over 3300 fps, and ANYBODY mentioning the words humidity and tune in the same sentence.........jackie

LOL!
No, but seriously, my pet peeves are the old wives tales that get propagated around as facts, and die-hard superstitions conflicted by science. Faith in an idea because so-and-so says it's "just the way it is" doesn't work with me. If one can't prove it with scientific method, then he can't call it fact.

If one goes to enough benchrest matches, sooner or later he's going to hear somebody say, "I don't want to dip below 3400 fps because I'll get blown around in the wind too much". Or, "3250 fps is just too slow because I'll give up too much to the guys shooting faster". Well, the science doesn't lie. You'll give up about .1 of a whole inch at 200 yards all else being equal.

Sometime after that at another match, you're bound to hear someone talk about tuning their load based on this or that and sometimes they'll talk about humidity and temperature being equal partners in their effects. Science shows that it's clearly not the case. Externally, internally,and physically just ain't so. What they are mainly seeing is the temperature's effects on combustion, and because it's rare to get temp flux without humidity flux, they get equal blame for the tune going away but they don't affect it anywhere near equally in reality. Once in awhile, there will be a humid morning and a given temp. A load will be found that works in that environment. Then the day warms up, the humidity might drop and the load is adjusted. Then in the evening, the temp goes back down to what it was in the morning but the humidity doesn't come back. If one loads for the cooler temp and ignores the humidity, he will find he can get the tune back that he had in the morning and if that load is shot over a chronograph, the velocity will prove it. Cross off internal ballistics.

Now run an external ballistic drop chart with any bullet you wish out to 1000 yards or further if you'd like. Run that bullet at 100% humidity and then run it again with 1% humidity. At best, I can find about 3 to 4" of difference at 1000 yards. Most are less than that. Cross external off.

Now for physical. Take your powder, dump it in water and see if it changes it. Load your powder into your powder thrower inside a sauna and then dump it into your cases inside a greenhouse if you want. See if the powder cares. In my experiment, it didn't know the difference beyond what an 1/8 moa capable rifle could prove. Cross off physical. Now, proponents of humidity theory, are there any other methods of testing we should include here that I'm not aware of?

Btw Jackie, I also can't figure out that 40x thing! And I guess we could add guys who claim teen aggs with AR15's too!

 

[John Kielly]

Now for physical. Take your powder, dump it in water and see if it changes it. Load your powder into your powder thrower inside a sauna and then dump it into your cases inside a greenhouse if you want. See if the powder cares. In my experiment, it didn't know the difference beyond what an 1/8 moa capable rifle could prove.

I ran into an issue loading for some 1200 shooting I had to do last weekend, the result of which was that I got up at 5:00 am to measure the loads. I drop from an old Redding measure (not even a 2 screw BR model) into a scale pan which I then pour into the pan on my electronic scales. I check the scales before, after & during with a test weight which is the mass of the load I want to use. I was using VV N550 powder which is fine enough to meter to relatively close tolerances.

However, at 5:00 am, instead of seeing the usual .2-,3 grain spread on the loads tossed (I'm not tossing with a rhythm - its weigh one, flip it into the case, toss the next & weigh), I found that the spread was well over ½ grain.

Now I know that you expect good results from your Harrels & the like & we're not talking apples & apples, but is there any chance that this phenomonon might contribute to your tune issues?

 

[HovisKM]

All I know, is that, if one's rifle is capable of the same accuracy at 3400fps vs. 3250fps. The person better be shooting 3400fps (assuming he can keep either velocity in tune all day). Cause I can tell you what .100 wind drift at a 100yd bench match is worth, the difference between a HOF point and 32nd place.

Hovis

 

[Joe Krupa]

I tread in this discussion with much trepidation...

... but, my OPINION is that there are things that can't be measured (within our "limited" ability to measure) that do count, and lots of things that can be measured that don't count. A big misnomer in this sport is to give all variables equal weighting.

That being said, three additional things:

1) There are some top-level competitive shooters that do watch humidity and temperature in order to get an "indication" that their load will change before they see it on the target. This is done by these individuals after shooting literally tens of thousands of rounds in competition and knowing that something bad will happen if you don't. If you don't have some method of monitoring something (as developed by shooting a lot), then you are simply "guessing" as to what to load for the prevalent existing range condition that you are competing in.

Even though I don't consider myself in this "top level", I watch these factors during a match because my shooting system is dependent on it. And I have only shot slightly in excess of 100,000 rounds of 6PPC in competition and don't feel comfortable without monitoring these. I have also seen changes in density altitude affect what a load does, but it is something that would be "measured with a yardstick more so than a set of calipers". It is my understanding that this "tool" has supposedly been debunked here on this forum.

I know of a Super Shoot winner and National Championship shooter who charts the amount of wator vapor density and temperature against the nodes of the load of powder and weighs every charge that he shoots. This charting is done because he wants to get an indication of what load to use and this is the system that he has developed (under HIS scientific method). My guess is that he also has passed the 100,000 mark in shooting his 6PPC.

I also know of a number of top-level (and over-100,000 round shooters) who will "aerate" their powders before a match, which seems to take the edge off a "spikey" powder. And I know of other shooters who "humidify" their powders before a match in areas of very low humidity. This process is accomplished by speading powder out on something in a hotel bathroom with the shower running. Some may call this "urban legend", but trust me when I say this, it is done and done regularly. And this is only done because of years of shooting (and lots of it) has shown that it is necessary. (I must admit that I don't know of any shooter who soaks their powder before a match in water or any fluid, but I sure would like to compete against them if they do.)

2) I shoot around 3,250 fps not because that is the "magic" velocity; but, because the bullets that I use seem to buck conditions at that velocity in many of the barrels that I shoot. I only know this only because when I change lots of powder, I want to know how the next lot compares velocity-wise with what I was shooting; thus the use of my chronograph for that purpose opnly. I view the velocity as incidental. I would shoot at 3,000 or 3,500 if that were the velocity that would buck conditions. I view velocity as a variable that the bullet needs to be within some "relevent range" more so than needing more or less. It's the "condition-bucking" metric that is important to me.

I know top-level competitors who shoot at over 3,400 fps with a different powder than I typically shoot, who have won all over the world. I have discussed this with them and they, too, view velocity as incidental to the condition-bucking characteristic.

3) I, and most of the "competitors" that I know love to compete against those shooters who are "paralyzed" by their pet peeves.

Come out and shoot the matches.

 

[goodgrouper]

Cause I can tell you what .100 wind drift at a 100yd bench match is worth,
Hovis

Hovis,
The .1" difference was at 200 yards, not 100.

 

[goodgrouper]

Now I know that you expect good results from your Harrels & the like & we're not talking apples & apples, but is there any chance that this phenomonon might contribute to your tune issues?

I think it would certainly be something to consider. Last night, a friend of mine and I were testing his Harrels thrower to see how close his settings were to my Harrels with the new XBR powder. Then for fun, we did N133 too. Turned out, his thrower was getting as much as .4 grain variation with N133 and only .1 with XBR. When I have chronographed loads that were intentionally weighed to be .1 off, .2 off, and .3 off in the 6ppc, I didn't see any distinguishable velocity increase until .3 of a grain was reached. So I would imagine that his .4 variation could sure be causing some problems.

Incidentally, the two throwers threw the same weights by setting (well, within a tenth or so).

 

[goodgrouper]

... but, my OPINION is that there are things that can't be measured (within our "limited" ability to measure) that do count, and lots of things that can be measured that don't count. A big misnomer in this sport is to give all variables equal weighting.

That being, three additional things:

1) There are some top-level competitive shooters that do watch humidity and temperature in order to get an "indication" that their load will change before they see it on the target. This is done by these individuals after shooting literally tens of thousands of rounds in competition and knowing that something bad will happen if you don't. If you don't have some method of monitoring something (as developed by shooting a lot), then you are simply "guessing" as to what to load for the prevalent existing range condition that you are competing in.

Even though I don't consider myself in this "top level", I watch these factors during a match because my shooting system is dependent on it. And I have only shot slightly in excess of 100,000 rounds of 6PPC in competition and don't feel comfortable without monitoring these. I have also seen changes in density altitude affect what a load does, but it is something that would be "measured with a yardstick more so than a set of calipers". It is my understanding that this "tool" has supposedly been debunked here on this forum.

I know of a Super Shoot winner and National Championship shooter who charts the amount of wator vapor density and temperature against the nodes of the load of powder and weighs every charge that he shoots. This charting is done because he wants to get an indication of what load to use and this is the system that he has developed (under HIS scientific method). My guess is that he also has passed the 100,000 mark in shooting his 6PPC.

I also know of a number of top-level (and over-100,000 round shooters) who will "aerate" their powders before a match, which seems to take the edge off a "spikey" powder. And I know of other shooters who "humidify" their powders before a match in areas of very low humidity. This process is accomplished by speading powder out on something in a hotel bathroom with the shower running. Some may call this "urban legend", but trust me when I say this, it is done and done regularly. And this is only done because of years of shooting (and lots of it) has shown that it is necessary. (I must admit that I don't know of any shooter who soaks their powder before a match in water or any fluid, but I sure would like to compete against them if they do.)

2) I shoot around 3,250 fps not becasue that is the "magic" velocity; but, because the bullets that I use seem to buck conditions at that velocity in many of the barrels that I shoot. I only know this only because when I change lots of powder, I want to know how the next lot compares velocity-wise with what I was shooting; thus the use of my chronograph for that purpose opnly. I view the velocity as incidental. I would shoot at 3,000 or 3,500 if that were the velocity that would buck conditions. I view velocity as a variable that the bullet needs to be within some "relevent range" more so than needing more or less. It's the "condition-bucking" metric that is important to me.

I know top-level competitors who shoot at over 3,400 fps with a different powder than I typically shoot, who have won all over the world. I have discussed this with them and they, too, view velocity as incidental to the condition-bucking characteristic.

3) I, and most of the "competitors" that I know love to compete against those shooters who are "paralyzed" by their pet peeves.

Come out and shoot the matches.

Joe,

Sure appreciate your post. It is good to hear from all sides and all points of view.

To all,
Honestly, I have spent days in the local library and on the internet researching this theory and the evidence to support it is seriously lacking. I have found a few military tests done circa WWII that mentioned humidity in passing as having a minute effect but they didn't explain why or if they isolated humidity from temperatures in the test. And for every little tidbit that mentioned humidity, there were maybe a dozen that related temperature effects only.

Frankly, I don't care if Tony Boyer does it, if he can't explain why then it becomes a matter of belief and not fact. This is precisely the reason why Einstein's theories had to be proven in equational mathematics before the scientific community could accept them. No doubt old Al was a smart guy, but if he couldn't prove it on paper, then it mattered not. Even when he had the equations written down for his gravity theories, it still required another person to verify it by solar eclipse.

I have no doubt there are guys who are "steaming" their powder in the bathroom in the motel the night before the match. Just as I'm sure there are other guys "airing" out their powder on the kitchen table on Friday night. There are probably guys who wear lucky ball caps and hope for bench number 7 too. All I'm saying is that isn't there a distinct possibility that the human brain might observe the result of one thing and link it's effects to something completely unrelated or at the very most, only partially related? In other words, isn't it plausible that someone might make a tune correction that worked out for the better based on a humidity gauge when it actually was the change in temp or density altitude that caused the change? If one can't isolate each individual factor and test it alone without the other factors interfering, wouldn't it stand to reason that those results could be convoluted and therefore border on the "belief" rather than fact?

I have observed many "top competitors" using weather gadgets too. But how do you know they are looking only at the humidity reading and ignoring the temp and/or the density altitude readings when they decide it's time to change the load?

I'm no "top competitor" and I have not put 100,000 ppc rounds downrange yet, but I've had some success in registered matches and I have only used a simple thermometer and a Shaeffer type graph system to plot a chart. ANd I've never seen an anomaly that couldn't be explained by temperature. NEVER. If it was humidity AND temperature, then so be it. But it could be corrected for by only paying attention to the temperature. My future plans are to buy a density altitude device and begin plotting a Shaeffer type graph based on data obtained from the density altitude and compare it to the temperature graphs to see how close they are. But until then, I will be competing with no gadgets other than my thermometer.

As for the velocity/drift tidbit, I agree with you Joe. It is a well documented scientific fact that some bullets take longer to dampen the yaw of repose in certain RPM windows. If a bullet is in this window, it's drift will be greater. If the Rpm's are reduced or increased out of that window, the drift will be less. So it is FOOLISH to FORCE a bullet into a velocity just because the shooter wants it to go that fast! If your particular bullet shoots best and appears to have better wind bucking capablity at 3250, then you'd be crazy to force it to 3400 just to keep up with your neighbor.

One should also take into account that your neighbor whose claiming 3400 might not actually be getting 3400. Unless you know for certain that he's using a high grade chronograph, it's best to take his number with a grain of salt. The Shooter Chrony's are very common and are notorious for giving velocities well above what a good Oehler or CED will show.

Best of luck and good shooting.

 

[alinwa]

Thanks Kroop, well said, I give you the GOLD!






Now, on the subject of "the tenth of an inch of wind drift between 3250 and 3400"............ I've beat this subject so many times that the horse is now just a dust heap at the side of the road BUT.... it needs to be said.

A'gain

People always have to interject stuff like "a tenth of an inch is the difference between winning and losing" and "are you gonna' give away that tenth" and se, completely missing the fact that YOU'RE GIVING AWAY NOTHING!!!!!

The tenth of an inch CANNOT OCCUR IN YOUR GROUP unless the rounds IN YOUR GROUP vary from 3250 to 3400.

The group just moves over a tenth of an inch.

THE WHOLE GROUP moves over

the whole group....

The WHOLE group...

NO "tenths of an inches" need apply!!!

WHO CARES if your group forms a tenth of an inch over???? Yer ain't "giving up" NUTTIN', all's yer doing when touting the "tenth of an inch difference" is:

'A'- not understanding the question

'B'- presuming that the other person is too silly to understand that YES, CHUCKING A TENTH IS A BIG PROBLEM! (or would be a big problem... IF that's what you were doing )

'C'- playing head games......


How can I illustrate that going up 150fps does not give you a tenth inch advantage to play with??? It absolutely cannot make a difference like that in a group...... 150fps WILL NOT shave a tenth off your windgroups!!

Here are some examples:

100yds, 10mph full crosswind, TOTAL DRIFT:
-3250fps= 1.08"
-3400fps= 1.04"

200yds, 10mph full crosswing, TOTAL DRIFT:
-3250fps= 4.61"
-3400fps= 4.34"

This is how far THE WHOLE GROUP moves over provided a constant wind. It's actually more like 1/4 inch than 1/10 of difference @ 200......

AND...There is a scenario where the faster velocity could shave off a tenth, but only when you've screwed the pooch so horrible that you'll be wishing you were a certain Netherlenderish speed skater's coach. Let's say you're shooting 200yds at 3250 and you miss a 5mph push.....if you do this, the missed change will cost you a whole lot more than a tenth!!! .....like it'll cost you over TWO INCHES in your group and yes, in this pertickler case you COULD "save a tenth" in your group because the faster 3400fps bullet would only open your group up 2.17" VS the 2.30" of the 3250 bullet. Shooting the same shot at 3400 would have SAVED you .013 in group size.... "thirteen thou of free savings!!"

"Saved by the shave" using that faster bullet ....... a faster bullet will conquer the wind and save you over a tenth of an inch in group size. (IF it flies cleaner...)

Too bad your group is now well over 2.5 inches across either way!!!

The only way you could be helped out by 150fps is if you're shooting so bloody bad you have no chance of winning anyway. in REAL terms the 150fps is "worth" closer to 1/100th of an inch than 1/10th.

It's "the difference of the difference" or a small fraction of a percentage of total drift value.

There. I'm done....... I've flogged even the DUST of that horse into oblivion. Let's hope that the resultant cloud of particulates isn't carcinogenic.



al

 

[zippy06]

Very good reading.
Al don't stop. keep going......
Joe that was a good bump.
Joe there are still some holes that need to be filled. Questions that need answers.

Maybe, in April. If you make it. And are not helping other people.
I will unload your truck. And set up next to you.
And we can discuss BR.
And I might reload your truck.

Let's get back to humidity.
What I saw was a higher humidity in the morning. When I dumped, I saw the load was light.
This was pointed out to me by a friend of Joe's.
My thinking was humidity was not affecting the powder's properties. But, the surface tension of the powder. Or(not sure if this is worded correctly).
The moisture was collecting on the surface and being attracted to other moisture particles.
The ions are negatively charged and are attracted to a positive charge IE. other powder, powder bottle, powder measure, powder measure chamber, scale,....
The affect is to not repel, but to attract and take up more space. The space between the powder grains are farther apart. And can not compact easily.

When I meet Joe. At WWCCA Oct.2008. It was raining. After lunch. People started having problems dropping powder. The tubes were jamming up.
And I think, I heard measures were dropping light.....

An observation...

 

[greg]

Will youse guys...

LOL!
No, but seriously, my pet peeves are the old wives tales that get propagated around as facts, and die-hard superstitions conflicted by science. Faith in an idea because so-and-so says it's "just the way it is" doesn't work with me. If one can't prove it with scientific method, then he can't call it fact.

If one goes to enough benchrest matches, sooner or later he's going to hear somebody say, "I don't want to dip below 3400 fps because I'll get blown around in the wind too much". Or, "3250 fps is just too slow because I'll give up too much to the guys shooting faster". Well, the science doesn't lie. You'll give up about .1 of a whole inch at 200 yards all else being equal.

Sometime after that at another match, you're bound to hear someone talk about tuning their load based on this or that and sometimes they'll talk about humidity and temperature being equal partners in their effects. Science shows that it's clearly not the case. Externally, internally,and physically just ain't so. What they are mainly seeing is the temperature's effects on combustion, and because it's rare to get temp flux without humidity flux, they get equal blame for the tune going away but they don't affect it anywhere near equally in reality. Once in awhile, there will be a humid morning and a given temp. A load will be found that works in that environment. Then the day warms up, the humidity might drop and the load is adjusted. Then in the evening, the temp goes back down to what it was in the morning but the humidity doesn't come back. If one loads for the cooler temp and ignores the humidity, he will find he can get the tune back that he had in the morning and if that load is shot over a chronograph, the velocity will prove it. Cross off internal ballistics.

Now run an external ballistic drop chart with any bullet you wish out to 1000 yards or further if you'd like. Run that bullet at 100% humidity and then run it again with 1% humidity. At best, I can find about 3 to 4" of difference at 1000 yards. Most are less than that. Cross external off.

Now for physical. Take your powder, dump it in water and see if it changes it. Load your powder into your powder thrower inside a sauna and then dump it into your cases inside a greenhouse if you want. See if the powder cares. In my experiment, it didn't know the difference beyond what an 1/8 moa capable rifle could prove. Cross off physical. Now, proponents of humidity theory, are there any other methods of testing we should include here that I'm not aware of?

Btw Jackie, I also can't figure out that 40x thing! And I guess we could add guys who claim teen aggs with AR15's too!

stop badmouthing the 40X...your ruining the reasale value

 

[Pete Wass]

There has been plenty said here

Very good reading.
Al don't stop. keep going......
Joe that was a good bump.
Joe there are still some holes that need to be filled. Questions that need answers.

Maybe, in April. If you make it. And are not helping other people.
I will unload your truck. And set up next to you.
And we can discuss BR.
And I might reload your truck.

Let's get back to humidity.
What I saw was a higher humidity in the morning. When I dumped, I saw the load was light.
This was pointed out to me by a friend of Joe's.
My thinking was humidity was not affecting the powder's properties. But, the surface tension of the powder. Or(not sure if this is worded correctly).
The moisture was collecting on the surface and being attracted to other moisture particles.
The ions are negatively charged and are attracted to a positive charge IE. other powder, powder bottle, powder measure, powder measure chamber, scale,....
The affect is to not repel, but to attract and take up more space. The space between the powder grains are farther apart. And can not compact easily.

When I meet Joe. At WWCCA Oct.2008. It was raining. After lunch. People started having problems dropping powder. The tubes were jamming up.
And I think, I heard measures were dropping light.....

An observation...

about this very subject over the years and plenty said about the air density being the culprit, not the powdah. There also has been plenty said about being able to tune the barrels with tuners to overcome the air density thingy. I believe there are a number of folks now who do , in fact, have a suystem to use to compensate for the changes in air density without doing anything with loads or powder. Can a "Machine" do it? Hell yes it can . I've seen it myself. Takes the powder thingy completely out of the equation. Guess lots of folks still don't belive it , eh?