Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles Latest powder burn rate chart

also wrong

Yes Lou Murdica had a lot to do with LT32, but so did Don Nielsen.
Also they dropped the BR from the 2015 when they changed formulation and machines from the Czech Republic lots and if I remember correctly the BR got added when it went from Israel production to Czech. The 2015 Canadian is made on the exact same machine as LT30 and LT32.
In fact Canadian 2015 was used to blend and smooth out LT32 before LT30 even came out. The most satisfactory blend of 2015/LT32 turned out to be 60/40 32 to 2015. ES and SD dropped some while velocity stayed nearly the same. When LT30 came out the in thing was to blend 50/50 with 32 to come up with LT31.
I never had much luck with that exact blend, but did have good luck with a 40/60 blend of 32/ 30. Earlier this year I tried a 40/30/30 blend of LT32/30/2015 it looks promising but unfortunately after just one match I took a hiatus from competition and rifles, so I haven’t done any extensive testing yet. BR Central has a lot of threads on the development of these and the blending. Also it seems that the new T’s are lot to lot dependent as to how good they perform just as the 8208-T322 or T32 for short.

From early thread on BR Central

Speedy,

The LT-32 is an exact copy of the original T-32 manufactured in the same plant and on the same machinery as the original. Lou Murdica has been extensively testing it and he tells us it is the easiest powder to tune that he has seen in 40 years. According to Lou, the chamber that everybody was using in the 80's will work with this powder. The bullets do not need to be seated way out in order to get more powder in the case. In testing the powder in our Bond Universal receiver against the origin "T' powder, my S.D.'s were about 30% lower with the new powder versus the "T" powder. Lou and Don Nielson donated 16 pounds of the original T-32 lot of powder for our quality control and that is what the new powder is shot against. All of our powders are allowed to deviate +3% to -5% in pressure from the quality control lot except LT-32 which we cut the deviation percentages in half in order to have the best lot to lot consistency in the industry for this powder. Another advantage of LT-32 is the fact that our Accurate 2015 can be blended with this powder if anyone wants to adjust the burn rate. 2015 is also manufactured on the machinery, has the same geometry but is about 10% slower that LT-32.

Just a note on Hodgdon's 8208. The 8208 that is being brought into the country is not being brought in for the benchrest market as most people believe. It is being brought into the country for military contracts and it just so happened that it worked in the PPC. It is being QC'd for those military contracts not for benchrest shooters. There is more money in the military side of selling powder. I work directly with the company using it for military applications. LT-32 is just the opposite. We developed this powder specifically for the 6mm PPC and it is QC'd in the 6mm PPC.

I can send you a sample if you would like.


Best regards,
Keith Anderson
Western Powders Ballistic Lab

Trying RL23 in 280ai and see some differences that seem odd between shown burn rates of H4831sc and Rl 23.
With 4831 see pressure at 62-63 with 139LRX and with RL23 pressure shows up at 60 grains. Based on burn rate alone I would have thought the opposite would be true?

H414 is missing. It’s between Winchester 760 and Viht N150 on a chart I have.

Rl 12, not made in what 30yrs, but still on chart. They should have put Hi-Vel and Lightning on also.

Interesting reference thanks.

Based upon the comments am I to understand that the shape of the "bottle" you burn it in has a significant effect on the pressure developed?

This would make sense based upon what I have read about rifle case development.

Also to those who have seen many years of this table: is there much "drift" from year to year in specific powders?
(I have read about drift from batch to batch, as applies to consistency for precision shooting.)

Thanks