Having tried many of the newer offerings I find myself going back to the old stanbys like IMR's and H's. Since I hand weigh all charges I can see where many new ones excel in the metering dept but after chrono results don't see a big significant difference with most of my chamberings. I still like to load as close to full case capacity as possible but with many newer powders you don't even come close...Comments?

I don't use pressure trace on anything but some of the odd ball stuff I play with. But I think I can get better velocities using some high energy powders. VV N560 and N570 are some of the ones I use a great deal and I feel like I get great filling and top velocity in a lot of different cases. Who knows what those pressures are but pressure signs are absent, the loads comport with QL predictions, and my brass is not suffering.

Define better.

I suppose more environmental temperature stability is better.

I'm inclined to agree with a long ago comment by Neal Knox to the general effect that more powders to choose from means more benefit from choosing a powder that does a better job of meeting specific needs than any other powder. Bearing in mind that fine gradations mean another powder just may be better for an otherwise similar load.

I can load most of the rifle cartridges I shoot with 4895 for acceptable results - a given varmint cartridge might need cleaning less with TAC or one of the newish powders that deals differently with copper fouling. BallC(2) works with many of the cartridges I load for but another powder might be less temperature sensitive.

Again I don't suppose there are any new powders that are vastly superior over a large range of cartridges and so obsolete existing powders (though I'll never shoot 3.5 grains of Bullseye behind a #130 bullet with Alox/beeswax for extended indoor sessions again when there are IMHO better powders and better lubes for gallery pistol). I do think new powders to choose from means finding a powder that is better in a particular load than many of the commonly used old standbys. Somebody is buying enough 3031 to keep the line running though.

I don't know.I have been using the same powders I have always used for many years. It doesn't seem to be broken ,so I am not goingto try to fix it.What I use gets the job done.

They're all good, old and new. Each one does something -in somebody's gun, at least - that none of the rest do.

And none of them are magic pixie dust.

Magpro is close!

Some of the new powders are improved, but in ways that won't affect the ways most of us shoot and hunt.

Also, some of the "same old powders" have improved considerably over the decades, including IMR4350 and H4831. In fact they're not really the same powders they used to be.

I've been using H4831 since it was a mil-surp powder, and that version was quite different than today's H4831SC. The burn rate and basic applications are very close (it's still probably tbe best all-around powder for the .270 Winchester) but the latest H4831SC is far less temperature-sensitive and much easier to meter through a measure. It's also denser, so fits in case/bullet combos it didn't before. IMR4350 is also much less temp-sensitive than it used to be, while retaining it's outstanding accuracy.

The biggest improvements I've seen have been in ball powders. They used to be much more temperature sensitive and dirty-burning, but these days they've improved considerably in both areas. This means they have the advantage of precise metering without the need to clean the barrels of our prairie dog rifles every 50 rounds. In fact these days I usually never clean my PD rifles on a 2-3 day shoot.

The average deer or elk hunter who never shoots over 300 yards will probably never notice any difference, but for certain applications, yeah, today's powders are noticeably better.

A little depends on the cartridge in question.

I hate the way most IMR stuff meters, but they don't give up much.

I welcome the opportunity to try the latest and greatest powder to come on the market. There is a circle of fellow reloader's that are of like mind and we exchange powder to experiment in our respective firearms.

Without new components coming on line some of this reloading business could get boring.

The LeverEvolution propellant in my 30-30's works well and is more accurate than any powder I have used for that cartridge.
I follow Hodgdons loading data and use the bullets they suggest along with all the components they suggest and they publish low pressure for these loads 34,ooo to 36,ooo CUP and I have exceeded previous velocities by 100-50 fps.

While it is true you can get better velocities with VVN560 and VVN570 the downside is shortened barrel life....I went back to the "1" series.

I've gone to Ramshot X-Terminator and Tac for my 223. I can't say the accuracy's any better than IMR 4895, H335, Benchmark or 748 but the velocity's good and there's a lot less rifle cleaning.

I'm still using the older powders on the 30-06 and 7x57. I've got plenty of it, they work and I don't shoot them as much as the 223.

I have burned at least 40 lbs of 560 and have never had a barrel life issue. I have seen a 6x47 lapua toasted in 400 rounds using varget. I got 1600 rounds out of my last 6x47 using 560, 1800 and over 2200 out of the previous two. Turns out that maybe varget is not the best powder for that application, but it is still a great powder. I have heard the claims of short barrel life before, usually by people who have burned less than a pound of it.
I don't know what you were shooting it in and what grain bullets, but my experience with heavy for caliber bullets and extremely full cases does not mirror yours. I have probably 30 lbs of the 1 series powders laying around would love to trade them for 5 series.

Plus one to this post. ALso note what are you exactly after? Often if you can gain 100-200 extra FPS safely some say its not worth it. But isn't that often the difference between say a 30-30,308,30-06,300 mag and so on.

For me, before I jump into something new, I go 2 ways, if its totally brand new to me, like my 284,I'll try the "best" powder to start with, because most don't like max loads anyway so if I start with faster possibles, I don't loose as much as I back off a bit.
The other thing on a known performer, what am I trying to better? If its temp sensitivity, I"ll work with that by testing. If I"m trying to gain something like less drop or less wind drift, I calc that out, and then backwork it to see what I have to gain and how I can get there and then I test. Often it has to be a combo of bullet, powder, bullet coating, etc.... OR move to a larger round if need be.

I tried Superformance in my 300WSM with 130, 150, and 165gr bullets. The accuracy was so bad that I didn't even bother to chrono it.

I ended up with H414 with the 130 and Rl-19 in the 150 and 165gr. Velocity may not be as high as book shows with the Superformance, but the accuracy more than makes up for it.

I try to use the same old proven stuff and load everything with H4895, H4350, H4831 (including the SC version), and Varget. I don't know if Varget would be defined as a "new" or "old" powder.

But for certain purposes, I use others.

AA2230 is far and away the best powder, in my opinion, for the best velocities and loading density in the .458 Winchester with 450 or 500 grain bullets.

Varget for the .223. I am beginning also to use it wherever I use H4895.

RL15 is the best for the .375 H&H, and also may be the best for the .223.

RL 15 isn't bad for the 223, but IMHO of MANY barrels and who knows how many rounds, it is not the best for the 223. Varget overall used to take that, and if I were active in shooting enough, TAC might rule that these days.

If you are using VVN560 and Varget for the same application you dont have a [bleep] clue what you are doing!!!!!

Reading is fundamental. I never said I used varget in the 6x47 case. I said I saw a barrel trashed by varget. I have always used VV560 since swapping from N160. The guy your assuming does not have a clue was Don Geraci Bench rest hall of famer, world record holder, and gunsmith. I will say this for him, he shot a clean 600 with like a bunch of Xs, might have been a NRA senior record if the match had been sanctioned.

Hunter is one of the newer powders I tend to like,it's 4350 burning rate is very compatible with many of my chamberings and accuracy is very good.I need to do some load testing with the RL's as I have both numbers but just haven't had the time or weather window lately.

I am a big fan if 550 and 560 and have been for years. Always accurate and often a bit faster. My 338-06 has only seen 550 since it was put together in 1995. I use 560 in my 270 Win, same, same. I am liking TAC and CFE223 a lot too with HS-6 and Titegroup in my handguns.

Here's a nice burn rate chart if anybody is interested in exploring Ramshot stuff.

http://www.ramshot.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/burn_rates.pdf


Travis

I never could make my 338-06 shoot 550 and I built the rifle to shoot that powder. The thought of 200 grain hot cores at 3K with an 06 case just turned me on. I have been meaning to try the 550 with some 180 TSXs just to see.

Travis,

That Ramshot burn-rate chart conforms very closely to my own experiences with their powders compared to the other brands. (It does help to have a good ballistics lab on-site.) Pretty good stuff, especially compared to many of the older ball powders.

There are a bunch of really good powders today!

1998 Handloader #191 February-March has a great article regarding old reliable cannister powders. JB authored this.

Funnest thing about Ramshot is making your own load data...

Big Game is kickin' ass in my .308 and 190's.


Travis

Woody,

even tho I experiment with a lot of powders, I have slowed down a lot over the last few years... I wasn't seeing anything new... just the same performances in a different container...

the last new powder I tested out was AR Comp...because it was from Alliant and I like their stuff...also Tried their VarmPro, but was not impressed with accuracy after testing 3 lbs of it, in different caliber..

most of my shooting is done in sub 30/06 sized calibers... especially a lot of 22 cal, 6mm and 6.5 mm...

I find that for pretty much all of my needs, I am going to powders that have been around for decades... IMRs line from SR 4759, to 4198, 3031, 4895 and 4064...

Alliant, I stock and use a lot of RL 7, RL 15 and AR Comp... sad that RL 12 in no longer around...

For Hodgdon, its H 322, and H 414 and BLC 2 the most....occasionally Varget and Benchmark... and less so, H 4350 and H4831SC

although I still have plenty of other powders in the above companies lines, these are the ones I purchase the most of...

For hunting, 4064 and IMR 4895 get used a lot by me... and followed by 3031..

for the kids I take out and teach, it is IMR 4198 and SR 4759...

haven't seen much more of them give an increase in accuracy, of all the ones I have on my shelves...

When I started handloading back in 1968 I was sold on the idea of saving money. Of course I spent more and shot a lot more than I would have other wise. But it made sense since I used my lawn mower money to buy a new rifle to replace the 30-30 I was shooting. That was a 7mm Remington Mag, the hot rock cartridge of the day. I started with Surplus 4831 and I used a lot of it, Bought 50 lbs of it in 1969 when a 270 came my way. That power along with IMR-4350 that I loaded in 7 x 57's was pretty much all I ever used, till RL-22 came along. That has been my go to power for 20 years now. I use that and IMR-4350 in my loading. I like to shoot, holes in paper to prove a load and then I like to just go and hunt. I don't have the time or inclination of endless load development anymore. These days I just shoot a 7mm RM after chasing the pot of gold for 40 years. And in 2013 I have come to the conclusion that a 30-30 is all I really need, It just took me 46 years to figure that out. I must be getting old.

endless load develpment days are gone when you learn what Audette means.

That Ramshot chart is highly comical, if for no other reason than they list Silhouette as being quicker than WAP (Winchester Action Pistol), when Ramshot themselves are upfront about the two powders being the exact same thing. Same with AA2700, H414, and W760. They're all the absolute identical powder, but the chart lists 760 as being a different quickness than the other two.

That's comedy right there!

Some of the chart is based on other manufacturer's charts. It wasn't all that long ago that 760 and 414 were rated on ALL charts as different. After Hodgdon bought the rights to the Winchester powders they finally started listing exactly the same data for both powders. Most other data lists them differently--due to differences in powder lots. Which just shows how much powders vary from lot to lot.

Also, any powder burn-rate chart is a SWAG, since powder rate varies depending on the cartridge, bullet weight and pressure. Oh, and the LOT of powder.

Travis,

I've used that chart quite a bit... I find it useful.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

I've pretty much stopped using IMR and other stick powders. They meter like gravel - lots of crunching and jerkiness in the powder measure.

Rumor says the Quick Measure works well with IMR and other stick powders but I tend to agree that often eqully good external ballistics - speed and accuracy - can be had with other powders. In that sense I suppose the other powders are better but I could equally phrase it that the IMR series is now and always has been good enough.

That's all fine, but frankly an immaterial red herring for two main reasons. First, didn't I see that this is a ~2-year-old chart? So 'fuzzy' info from Hodgy vs. Olin in 1975 is impertinent. For goodness' sake, they tell you themselves the powders are the same thing, and Handloader Magazine has published that info in the case of both Silhouette/WAP and 760/414/2700. Secondly, the thing about different cartridges and bullet weights is tenuous at best, since you'd be testing the powders in the same cartridge/bullet combos.

Honestly, I think one should expect a highly-experienced professional ballistics lab to have enough data & experience to have a pretty good idea when 2 powders are the same or extremely close. Whether that's reasonable or not, though, the corporate knowledge of the powders being identical (or just a quick look at Hodgy's website) is certainly enough to correct a chart like this. That way, your company is telling handloaders one coherent thing, rather than two (or more) different things depending upon who's talking that day. It also shows your customers that the date on your documents has meaning beyond just updating the corporate logo across the top.