Titegroup and cold weather...

hlpressley

hlpressley

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
1,339
Location
Indian Trail, NC
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Don’t use it in the cold and think you’re going to see the same results you are accustomed to. Shot a Steel Challenge match today with my ole trusty M&P and the same load that I’ve been loading for years, (3.2 TG under 147gr Xtreme). It was about 12-15 degrees when we started but it really didn’t feel that cold with the sun and no wind. I couldn’t hit the big side of the barn for nothing! Slide was barely moving and the sights looked like they were stopping 3-5 times per shot! It was that slow. I missed more on the first stage than I probably missed all of last year, combined! It never got any better. The only decent stage was Smoke & Hope and for those that don’t know, you don’t need accuracy for that. I had no idea what was happening during the match. My sights are fixed so they couldn’t have moved. Once I got home I set up a target at 15 yards and fired 7 shots and all 7 were about 4” low.

Moral of the novel, Titegroup is apparently extremely temperature sensitive. I’ve used it for 5+ years and never knew. Google will confirm the same.
 
When i moved to Michigan i found that slide lube makes a huge difference in cold weather as the viscosity increases. Grease and heavy oil was a no go and thin oil helped improve performance without changing the load.
 
I think I’d look at bullet lube and gun lube before concluding that it’s the powder.
 
How would the lube on the gun, I use Slip 2000, which is pretty thin, play a role in a POI shift? This gun probably didn’t have a whole drop of oil on it anyway. I haven’t cleaned it in probably 3 or 4 thousand rounds.

It was pretty obvious to me that the velocity was off. Does “lube” play a part in that too?
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting thread and made me google some. Found this allegedly from Hodgdon themselves as to the velocity spread of their powders for a given rifle charge. I didn't find pistol data, but some powders below were very sensitive. Allegedly ball powders are worse, but the data below doesn't back that up exactly.

Velocity spread in FPS between 0-125 degrees F:

1. H4350: 4 (FPS)
2. Varget: 8
3. H4831C: 10
4. RL 12: 26
5. AA4350: 29
6. AA2460: 36
7. IMR 4064: 46
8. VIT 550: 49
9. RL 15: 50
10. VIT N140: 50
11. AA2520: 63
12. IMR 4350: 67
13. RL22: 75
14. RL 19: 94
15. AA3100: 113
16. W 748: 114
17. VIT N560: 121
18. IMR 4831: 127
19. IMR 4895: 166
 
Sas quatch said:
This is an interesting thread and made me google some. Found this allegedly from Hodgdon themselves as to the velocity spread of their powders for a given rifle charge. I didn't find pistol data, but some powders below were very sensitive. Allegedly ball powders are worse, but the data below doesn't back that up exactly.

Velocity spread in FPS between 0-125 degrees F:

1. H4350: 4 (FPS)
2. Varget: 8
3. H4831C: 10
4. RL 12: 26
5. AA4350: 29
6. AA2460: 36
7. IMR 4064: 46
8. VIT 550: 49
9. RL 15: 50
10. VIT N140: 50
11. AA2520: 63
12. IMR 4350: 67
13. RL22: 75
14. RL 19: 94
15. AA3100: 113
16. W 748: 114
17. VIT N560: 121
18. IMR 4831: 127
19. IMR 4895: 166
Click to expand...


Interesting how the extruded powders are less effected by temps than the ball.
My next ponder is if compressed extruded powder is effected less or more than non compressed.
(Since we all know that crunched extruded rifle powder is magic.)
 
3.2gr of TG with a 147 is a light load. I think my Glock 19 (factory) functioned about 50/50 at that charge so I bumped up to 3.4gr.
 
11B CIB said:
3.2gr of TG with a 147 is a light load. I think my Glock 19 (factory) functioned about 50/50 at that charge so I bumped up to 3.4gr.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
3.2gr burns really dirty in my pistols due to (i suspect) the low pressure not sealing the brass in the chamber walls. Chamber gets nasty faster than a higher charge.
 
My gun sends a 150 over 900fps with 3.15 grains of titegroup.
Use a 9lb recoil spring.

Edit: that makes 135 for minor PF (125 min).

Edit 2: and it runs my Grocks!
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
My gun sends a 150 over 900fps with 3.15 grains of titegroup.
Use a 9lb recoil spring.

Edit: that makes 135 for minor PF (125 min).

Edit 2: and it runs my Grocks!
Click to expand...


Hopefully you did not get those numbers from my chrony. That thing lies worse than Hillary.
POS needs to go back for repairs.
Can you believe a single round of 5.56 skimming the side of it threw it off by 90-100fps!
My next one will be rated for at least 30 cal.
 
Slacker said:
Hopefully you did not get those numbers from my chrony. That thing lies worse than Hillary.
POS needs to go back for repairs.
Can you believe a single round of 5.56 skimming the side of it threw it off by 90-100fps!
My next one will be rated for at least 30 cal.
Click to expand...

I got it from 3 different chronys now. Most recently Robs.
 
Slacker said:
Hopefully you did not get those numbers from my chrony. That thing lies worse than Hillary.
POS needs to go back for repairs.
Can you believe a single round of 5.56 skimming the side of it threw it off by 90-100fps!
My next one will be rated for at least 30 cal.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we could find a .50 to shoot the new one with!
 
NKD said:
My gun sends a 150 over 900fps with 3.15 grains of titegroup.
Use a 9lb recoil spring.

Edit: that makes 135 for minor PF (125 min).

Edit 2: and it runs my Grocks!
Click to expand...

It’s still a light load :p
 
This load was ran across the chrono back in September at the NC Section match. It averaged 902 fps. That’s about 132.5 power factor. I wouldn’t necessarily call that a “light load” for target shooting. I don’t do any face shooting, it could be different.
 
hlpressley said:
This load was ran across the chrono back in September at the NC Section match. It averaged 902 fps. That’s about 132.5 power factor. I wouldn’t necessarily call that a “light load” for target shooting. I don’t do any face shooting, it could be different.
Click to expand...

Just because it cycles certain guns and is a popular load doesn’t mean it’s not light. It’s Hodgdon’s MINIMUM load in their data book. Calling it light isn’t a bad thing; not sure where you get that impression. I load mine to use the least amount of powder across the board and still cycle all my 9s...I prefer a light load. If the guy is having problems with cycling the load in cold temps....I’m just doing the math.

And those match shooters...are they using ALL stock guns? None of them modified?

Searching Le Google, I’m seeing some people with G19s and 17s torn about 50/50: some say they have zero problems and others say it doesn’t work, all factory/stock springs etc. Margin of error and tolerances (Variances in spring rates by a Hair) could make all the difference

Still unsure why calling it Light is bad
 
NKD said:
It could be heavier, but it is what it is supposed to be. Would be pointless to load it hotter.
Click to expand...

Why does everyone think that it being called light is bad?

I load all my 9mm and 45 ammo as light as it can be. If it’s not cycling the gun, it’s too light, so going from 3.2 to 3.3gr may provide better consistency and still be a functionally “light” load. I wouldn’t call 3.3 or 3.4gr hot by any stretch of the word
 
11B CIB said:
Why does everyone think that it being called light is bad?

I load all my 9mm and 45 ammo as light as it can be. If it’s not cycling the gun, it’s too light, so going from 3.2 to 3.3gr may provide better consistency and still be a functionally “light” load. I wouldn’t call 3.3 or 3.4gr hot by any stretch of the word
Click to expand...
“Light” or not, that isn’t the point of the post. I’ve shot I don’t know how many thousands (definitely north of 100k) of these rounds at this charge with the same “light” load and I’ve never had a single issue. It’s always done exactly what I needed it to do. Except for yesterday when it was extremely cold. The point of the post was to convey that ammunition loaded with TG will not perform the same at extreme low temperatures. Your comments make it sound like the round was destined to fail due to it being “light”. That simply isn’t the case.
 
hlpressley said:
“Light” or not, that isn’t the point of the post. I’ve shot I don’t know how many thousands (definitely north of 100k) of these rounds at this charge with the same “light” load and I’ve never had a single issue. It’s always done exactly what I needed it to do. Except for yesterday when it was extremely cold. The point of the post was to convey that ammunition loaded with TG will not perform the same at extreme low temperatures . Your comments make it sound like the round was destined to fail due to it being “light”. That simply isn’t the case.
Click to expand...

I’m not saying they’re destined to fail because they’re light. I’m simply saying they’re light. You’re adding that bit in yourself.

My loading experience, 3.4gr of Titegroup has functioned across ALL temperature spectrums (from about 12* to triple digits) Suppressed and unsuppressed.

What are you going to do differently to ensure cold weather function in the future? THAT is the point of the post, I thought

I’m not being argumentative nor am I being condescending. I’m posting my experience and asking questions. You are inferring something that is not there, and I can’t help that.
 
11B CIB said:
What are you going to do differently to ensure cold weather function in the future? THAT is the point of the post.
Click to expand...
It may be the point that you’re trying to add in, but it actually wasn’t the point of the post.

But, to answer your question, I’m only using Titegroup until what I have is gone. I have switched to something that works better for me that I will be using from here on out. I won’t be loading anymore match ammo with TG.
 
Last edited:
hlpressley said:
It may be the point that you’re trying to add in, but it actually wasn’t the point of the post.

But, to answer your question, I’m only using Titegroup until what I have is gone. I have switched to something that works better for me that I will be using from here on out. I won’t be loading anymore match ammo with TG.
Click to expand...
Well that begs a question. Is it secret?
 
Slosolo2 said:
Well that begs a question. Is it secret?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Just figured I would keep it to myself as to avoid another argument as to which is better, etc.

I have switched to Clean Shot from Shooter’s World for my 9mm loads. Will continue to use N320 for my .40 major loads.
 
Last edited:
hlpressley said:
Not at all. Just figured I would keep it to myself as to avoid another argument as to which is better, etc.

I have switched to Clean Shot from Shooter’s World for my 9mm loads. Will continue to use N320 for my .40 major loads.
Click to expand...
Love me some cleanshot.

Have you tried cleanshot for .40?
 
hlpressley said:
I haven’t. I really like N320 and I have several pounds. Once it’s gone, I will likely try Clean Shot.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I've heard great things about n320 but price puts it out of my choice.

Just worked up my first 9mm loads with cleanshot. See what they do Tuesday hopefully.
 
hlpressley said:
Not at all. Just figured I would keep it to myself as to avoid another argument as to which is better, etc.

I have switched to Cleanshot from Shooter’s World for my 9mm loads. Will continue to use N320 for my .40 major loads.
Click to expand...
I'm going to try to shoot the IDPA match at Pappy's and maybe also the Falling Steel, I'd like to discuss because I just picked up some tite group and extreme 147s on Tre Roach's advice. I only bought 1 pound to see if I liked it. First batch didn't run my gun but it's a 3" barrel and it was cold, not as cold as the match you were shooting but your op did make me wonder if I should wait until it's a bit warmer and check them again before bumping up the grains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom