Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters DATA POINTS H-414 & w 760

They are not the same. I suppose lot to lot variation might be a factor, but I just finished a run with my 375 H&H and 300gr Hornadys. 76gr with F-215 primers. The average difference after sixteen rounds (eight shots each) was right at 100 FPS slower with the 760. On the other hand after many tests of various calibers with RL-22 (or 23) and Norma MRP the results were virtually identical. Thoughts anyone?

Start using Ramshot Big Game, Alliant 15.5, or 16 instead.

That difference could be easily attributed to lot-to-lot variances. You would see the same differences in different lots of H4350

Same could be said for RL22 and MRP. While usually very close MRP is a tad more consistent lot to lot, RL22 does vary quite a bit.

Yep.

Plus, powders will perform somewhat differently with different bullet weights.

I have a collection of Amrican loading manuals going back to the 1950s that fills a 4-foot-long shelf. One from the early 2000s (long after SAAMI switched to electronic testing) contains both H414 and W760 in a number of cartridges. In some the difference in velocities with the same round and bullet is virtually identical, while with the same round and a different bullet weight it's over 100 fps.

All I can say is that in this particular application in my 375 H&H the variance was there and it was a lot. No big deal as I've switched to RL-15 and TSXs in both 270 and 300 grain as well as Barnes solids.

If you test a number of different manufacturing lots of the same powder you'll find that much variation, or close to it, in many. In general, manufacturers of handloading powders try to keep lots within 2% of the "target" burn-rate, but it doesn't always work out quite that small--especially since relative burn-rate (as I hinted at above) varies with the cartridge and bullet.

Also, MOST new batched of the "same" powder vary some, due to variations in manufacturing conditions. From what I've been told, this is primarily due to differences in atmospheric moisture during manufacturing, but can also be due to the variations in the organic chemicals used to make the powder.

The common solution for this is to keep some of the previous batches of that powder, which turned out to be faster or slower-burning than the target burn-rate, and blend them with the new batch to "adjust" it's burn-rate. I've done this myself when two batches of canister powder vary noticeably in burn-rate.

Ammo manufacturers don't usually use blended powders. Instead they buy unblended powders in bulk, and the ammo company adjusts the powder charge to match the pressure/velocity of previous batches of ammo.

John, I had a similar experience with H-4831. My double is regulated with that powder, then all of a sudden it wasn't. Velocities were off quite a bit (different powder lot). So I've since switched to IMR 4831 and it works better with about three grains less powder.

Haveyou tried different lots of IMR4831? It will also vary, like any powder.

It's also more temp-sensitive than H4831, which can also make a difference in a double. Have experienced that more than once--and doubles are often used in hotter temps. Have found more temp-resistant powders tend to be more reliable in doubles. Though of course some POI variation usually doesn't matter much on the animals usually hunted with doubles, due to their size and relatively short ranges.

H414/W760 is far more temp-sensitive than IMR4831.

If 760 and H414 were different powders, Hodgdon who has been reporting identical velocities for like powder charges for several years, would not have willingly ceased marketing H414 where rightly or wrongly, a market of followers had been created.

Another point, I used to load 64gn of 760 behind 150gn bullets in my .30/06, 30+ years ago and you will never see charges that high these days. 62gn has been my load for perhaps 20 years to this point.

Batches vary, data varies, bullets change both in shape and hardness. (How many remember when Speer used to be the hardest of the big 4?)

Lasty, to understand powder lot variation, you need to use the same lot in various cartridges and bullet weights and compare that to historical data in those same rifles. (Using as much of the same consumables as possible)

It is common to note that a particular batch may emulate several loads in several rifles so therby appearing consistent, then throw a load way out of wack in other rifles that is inconsistent with your historical records.

Handloading is invaluable if nuance identification and management is important such as in attemting to rationalise or limit powder inventlries.

How does one keep the Moisture/ humidity weight/ volume of your powder stable. I wonder if using a dehumidifier in a container with the lids off the powder jars would make a difference.

John, so far I've not noticed the lot-to-lot variation with the IMR as I experienced with the H-4831. You are of course correct on the sensitivity issue and IMR & H-414, but I will offer this; I used my 375 H&H in Africa when the temps were in the low 100s in September and two days ago (when I first posted) I shot the same rifle/load up here at our place in the PA mountains where the temps were in the mid-30s and velocity was on the button at 2550. Also, when I do my load testing in hideous, hot, muggy Florida :), I try my loads when the temps are in the mid 90s for that very reason. Lastly, the two most popular powders in doubles are IMR 3031 (alsmost but not quite a one for one swap with cordite) and RL-15.

Today I just finished regulating my new 375 H&H Flanged magnum (it was regulated at the factory with Norma PH ammo w 300gr Woodleighs @ 2395 fps) and it regulated well both with Woodleigh and Hornady 300gr Bonded bullets, the best and most consistent powder (SD 9-12 fps) was IMR 3031. BTW, Norma does have load data on their website using RL-22 and UNP (?) no clue as to that powder and the rifle does shoot ok with them but IMR 4831 was the best, right at 2425 FPS BTW.

jorge

PS: Aussie, your post is noted, that is why when working loads for double rifles, I regulate to velocity and if I match or get close, the rifle regulates.

Try shooting rocks. Lot to lot variations won’t matter as much as shooting paper…

Years ago, while testing loads for my .375 H&H the RL 22 I had on hand showed identical velocities to the max book load I was using but I ran out of that can. The next pound of RL 22 I bought had to be increased by 2gs to get a similar velocity. I'm sorry but I don't have those records anymore to show what the velocity difference was.

It's been a while, but I was using 414 in a 243, ran out of it and used some 760 as the data was said to be the same. The 760 gave better accuracy and if I remember correctly, somewhere between 90-100 fps faster. Anyway, I've used 760 ever since, partly because it's been easy to find and meters good, but also because it has always given me good results in everything I've used it in. While I'm certain that there are lot to lot variances in every powder that's ever been made, and I've seen it especially in the military surplus stuff, I've not in 760. However, there is a lot that goes into the equation called reloading..............brass, primers, powder, bullets, seating depth, temperature, as well as the firearm, so not everyone's experience is going to be the same.

Jorge,
A velocity based plan is a good start but keep open minded just the same, as I once regulated a couple of doubles using Barnes X bullets which were obviously not what these pre WW1 English doubles were regulated for.

My other point which I have never seen covered before, is that it is not uncommon to requalify a powder in several rifles and chamberings and yet discover an anomoly in something else. Have seen that with massive velocity losses over previous loads, book loads and published loads. It does happen. H 4831 has been the worst offender for me followed by AR2206 where I have recorded burning rate variations of 6% over the Oehler 35P between lots.

These days, I blend the balance of depleting powder lots with newer replacement volumes and then requalify the powder charges for "MY" new lot.

Thanks, Aussie, I see your experience with H4831 is similar to mine. I only have one British double, a Cogswell & Harrison 375 and the cordite charge to IMR 3031 ratio is bang on, within 1 grain or less. The other two are newer continental (blasphemy!) doubles, one Frog and one Guinea

That's exactly the opposite of what you want to do. The drier powder gets, the "hotter" it burns.

When Western Powders introduced the first Ramshot rifle powders over 20 years ago, they also built a pressure lab with piezo-electronic testing. They're located in Miles City, Montana which is very dry--and hot in the summer. They eventually discovered they had to build an air-conditioned powder-store/loadomg room with doors and cabinets that were essentially sealed. Otherwise the stored powder dried out and burn-rate increased noticeably.

Easy to fix shoot up all your h414 and forget about it ,because hodgdon has. Next when you buy 760 get a 8lb jug or as many same lot 1lb bottles as you can. A lot to be said for large lots of powder and primers just to insure continuity for awhile. Mb

[quote=jorgeI]John, so far I've not noticed the lot-to-lot variation with the IMR as I experienced with the H-4831. You are of course correct on the sensitivity issue and IMR & H-414, but I will offer this; I used my 375 H&H in Africa when the temps were in the low 100s in September and two days ago (when I first posted) I shot the same rifle/load up here at our place in the PA mountains where the temps were in the mid-30s and velocity was on the button at 2550. Also, when I do my load testing in hideous, hot, muggy Florida :), I try my loads when the temps are in the mid 90s for that very reason. Lastly, the two most popular powders in doubles are IMR 3031 (alsmost but not quite a one for one swap with cordite) and RL-15.

Jorge,

Yes, I'm well aware of the 3031/Cordite relationship--but one of my least favorite powders for any rifle purpose is RL-15, even after Alliant claimed its temp-resistance had been improved around 20 years ago

In general, even the most temperature-sensitive of today's rifle powders aren't affected in temperatures from around 20 to 85 Fahrenheit. Depending on the powder, cartridge and rifle, they can provide fine results even into the 90s--but have yet to test any temperature-resistant powder that doesn't gain velocity as temperatures rise above 90, though the rise isn't as much as with "standard" powders.

One good thing about doubles is the connected barrels are stiffer than single barrels, which helps resist point-of-impact changes even if the velocity varies some. But have seen doubles "deregulate" at temperatures around 100 F.--even if just the ammo got warm. One of the doubles I've worked up loads for was a Manton .450-.400 3", and after trying several powders found H4831 Extreme worked great--until one day at the range, while practicing for an upcoming hunt, it suddenly deregulated. This was because I'd left the translucent plastic box of ammo on the bench in midday sunlight, which resulted in a "greenhouse" effect, warming the ammo considerably. After leaving the ammo in the shade for a while, the rifle re-regulated.

Don't know what you consider hot hunting temperatures, but I've hunted in Africa in temps much warmer than 100 in Tanzania. In fact I hid my the small thermometer after afternoon temps reach 105+ one day--and they got considerably warmer after that. (The hunt took place from mid-September to early October.)

But have also gotten wonky results even in bolt-action rifles at temps in the low 90s. When I went to Namibia on a plains game hunt 25 years ago, right around the summer solstice, I took a .338 Winchester Magnum with two loads, one with H4831 Extreme and 250-grain Partitions for larger game, and another with RL-15 and 200-grain Ballistic Tips for animals up to around 500 pounds in more open country. Both loads shot to exactly the same POI at 100 yards here in Montana, at temperatures from 65 to 80, but when temps got into the low 90s over there, the RL-15 load shot around 2-3" higher--while the H4831/250 load shot right to the same place it had in Montana.

Haven't used any RL-15 for hunting since, even in Montana, because our hunting temps can run from well below zero to over 100. (In fact Montana has the widest recorded temperature spread of any of the 50 states, from -70 to +117 F., and I've actually hunted from -40 to +105. Which is one reason I'm so fond of temp-resistant powders.) I do keep some RL-15 around for handloading articles, because so many hunters use it in less variable climates.