|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,203 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,203 Likes: 1 |
h335 has always been faster than 748 by about 1.5g in 223's with 55g bullets.
HP38 is HS6
H414 is a tad slower than 760
Win 296 is not H110, H110 is Win 295 (non-canister)
This whole thread should be deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 3,945
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 3,945 |
I have used H335 for years in my 308s with 150 grain Bullets,ocasionally someone will tell me that H335 is dangerous in the 308 and that I should switch to something safe and proven like W748. I just smile and tell them they are probably right.  Britt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,445
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,445 |
h335 has always been faster than 748 by about 1.5g in 223's with 55g bullets.
HP38 is HS6
H414 is a tad slower than 760
Win 296 is not H110, H110 is Win 295 (non-canister)
This whole thread should be deleted. I wonder if Mule Deer ever gets exasperated by internet threads(grin) Thumbs up to JB for sticking around anyway. Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,557
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,557 |
Depending on who published the reloading manual, the powders are listed in different burning rate orders. Lot-to-lot variations are likely more significant that the powder name differences! Hey, it's a campfire. We can chew on these discussion all we want.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,950
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,950 |
Keith
You are 100% totally, absolutely correct, of course. Those guys that work in the powder labs just confused with all their elaborate pressure testing equipment, controlled environments, pressure barrels made to exacting standards, and the rigors of testing hundreds of lots of powders through dozens of barrels with millions of rounds analyzed.
The fact that they are privy to how the powders are made and what they are made of is just fodder for more confusion on their part.
To top it all off, Mule Deer, who gets his information from these poor confused donks, spends so much time shooting, researching and testing on his own, that he doesn't have time to lean on the gun counter at Uncle Ted's Sporting Goods, Transmission Repair and School of Cosmetogogy and get the REAL information about guns, powders and the effect of lunar cycles on women and elk.
I can see you are new here, and I am already impressed not only by your encylopedic knowledge of guns, but the courtesy you exhibit towards the sole remaining gunwriter who posts here ( I was going to say why JB posts here, but I can't think of why he does...)
Keith, thanks again, and as soon as you get over 50 posts to your credit, we'll have it arranged so only the threads you deem worthy will be allowed.
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 20,494
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 20,494 |
I think that the safe money is with Mr Barsness. He gets my bet.
"Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." (Prov 4:23)
Brother Keith
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,310 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,310 Likes: 3 |
Keith
You are 100% totally, absolutely correct, of course. Those guys that work in the powder labs just confused with all their elaborate pressure testing equipment, controlled environments, pressure barrels made to exacting standards, and the rigors of testing hundreds of lots of powders through dozens of barrels with millions of rounds analyzed.
The fact that they are privy to how the powders are made and what they are made of is just fodder for more confusion on their part.
To top it all off, Mule Deer, who gets his information from these poor confused donks, spends so much time shooting, researching and testing on his own, that he doesn't have time to lean on the gun counter at Uncle Ted's Sporting Goods, Transmission Repair and School of Cosmetogogy and get the REAL information about guns, powders and the effect of lunar cycles on women and elk.
I can see you are new here, and I am already impressed not only by your encylopedic knowledge of guns, but the courtesy you exhibit towards the sole remaining gunwriter who posts here ( I was going to say why JB posts here, but I can't think of why he does...)
Keith, thanks again, and as soon as you get over 50 posts to your credit, we'll have it arranged so only the threads you deem worthy will be allowed.
Fred
Dang you Fred,ya made me spit coffee on my keyboard!!!
Its all right to be white!!
Stupidity left unattended will run rampant
Don't argue with stupid people, They will drag you down to their level and then win by experience
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7 |
h335 has always been faster than 748 by about 1.5g in 223's with 55g bullets.
HP38 is HS6
H414 is a tad slower than 760
Win 296 is not H110, H110 is Win 295 (non-canister)
This whole thread should be deleted.
Your post is what needs to be deleted
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,467 Likes: 5
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,467 Likes: 5 |
With all do respect to everyone... I'm somewhat "new" here, but at nearly 73 years I'm not exactly "new"! My experience with W748 and H335 tells me that H335 is significantly faster. And Hodgdon No.27 Data Manual confirms that view: From fastest to slowest, H335 is listed in the No.55 spot and W748 in the No.70 spot with 14 powders between. BL-C(2) is No.71. So, HODGDON believes there is more than a slight difference that might be explained by a different lot of powder. Another point: if BL-C(2) is the same powder as H335 (both HODGDON powders), then why in the name of sanity do they list them as DIFFERENT powders with H335 being ALWAYS faster in their OWN MANUAL???    Plus, I just put a small pile of W748 (from a recent canister) beside a small pile of H335 (from a recent canister). W748 is significantly darker than H335... I guess Olin who makes Hodgdon ball powders were using a different coating that day.
"What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul" - Jesus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,491
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,491 |
CZ, Your experience mirrors mine in that 748 has acted slower for me than 335. Additionally, it seems that much data that I use typically calls for more 748 than it allows for 335 which seems to support that. (Perhaps one is simply more conservative than the other, but from the same published source? The 223 and 358 Win both seem to bear this out. Hmm?)
I've also thought 110 and 296 were not exactly the same; they smell different to me when burned.
Sometimes, the air you 'let in'matters less than the air you 'let out'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,294 Likes: 10
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,294 Likes: 10 |
Well, all I know is that I once got a letter directly from Chris Hodgdon, spelling out the complete list of H/WW pairings. H335 and W748 were conspicuously NOT on the list.
You may draw your own conclusions.
For the record, the list Chris Hodgdon himself gave me is:
HP38/W231
HS6/W540
HS7/W570
H110/W296
H414/W760
Last edited by RockyRaab; 08/23/08. Reason: spelling
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7 |
In the 2008 Hogdon Annual Reloading Manual Magazine the load data listed for H-335 & W-748 are identical, as is H-110 & W-296, as is H414 & W-760
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,491
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,491 |
FWIW, H335 is #66 on the Hodgdon burn rate chart, while W748 is #82 and BL-C(2) is #83. Perhaps they aren't different, but they sure don't look quite the same either. Go figure.
Sometimes, the air you 'let in'matters less than the air you 'let out'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,235 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,235 Likes: 2 |
What the whole thread points out to me is:
Don't start with a maximum load, in any powder, from any book or internet thread.
Apparently there is enough variation between lots of the same labeled powder to be problematic, as well as enough variation on a given day based on atmospheric moisture, temperature, etc. to say nothing of chamber variations, free-bore, etc.
My own personal observation has led me to believe that untrimmed brass can lead to high pressures with a very safe load.
I will not attempt to remember which powder is the same as which, based on an internet thread, nor which powder is different, or slower, or faster.
I have on my shelf several reloading books, some of which must be 30 years old, I have at least 3 cans of powder (partial) that must be 15 years old.
What lot number goes with which manual or which manual goes with which can is beyond me to track, I will start low and work my way up to an accurate load. If I leave 100 fps on the bench, so be it. I can't kill what I can't hit, and I like to shoot for fun when not hunting, so 100 fps less is fine for me. I also shoot year around, with temperature extremes of 100 degrees possible (barely) and temp extremes of 50 degrees likely.
YMMV, good luck and safe shooting,
Sycamore
...Actually Sycamore, you are sort of right....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7 |
FWIW, H335 is #66 on the Hodgdon burn rate chart, while W748 is #82 and BL-C(2) is #83. Perhaps they aren't different, but they sure don't look quite the same either. Go figure. That is indeed the way that they are listed in the burn rate chart, yet they list the load data as exactly the same. Interesting, it looks like only Hogdon can answer that one..
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 20,494
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 20,494 |
Well, burn rate charts list things numerically, and there may not be a hair of difference between #72 and #83, and yet they way they perform in actual cases can be very much the same. A difference of 0.01 may put it lower in the chart, yet not change the load data.
I'm still with Rocky and Mule Deer.
"Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." (Prov 4:23)
Brother Keith
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,950
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,950 |
I think powder, in some instances, varies a great deal more from lot to lot than we think it does.
I suspect that what some people are attributing to different burn rates designed into a powder is actual lot to lot variation.
A tech rep from a powder company told me one time ( I think the tolerances are tighter now) that when powder is made, it's tested, and if it fell within two per cent of a given standard, it was boxed and sold. Outside that spec, it was sold to ammo manufacturers that would buy it in box car quantities and develope loading data for that specific lot of powder.
It's easy to think that powder and loading is an exact science, but it's far from it.
fred
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,219 Likes: 26
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,219 Likes: 26 |
Royce has it exactly right.
Falling within a 2% standard also means that plus or minus 4% is common. I have seen this myself with Reloder 15 within the past couple of years, and when the last batch of mil-surp H335 was sold (yes, it was another mil-surp powder, like the old H4831) they replaced it with a newly manufactured powder that differed about 8% from my old mil-surp lot. Or at least it did in one particular load in the .223.
That is the other thing most reloaders don't realize. Powder burn charts (and any computer programs based on them, like QuickLoad) are very approximate only. The way any given powder burns can vary from cartridge to cartridge, and even from bullet weight to bullet weight in same cartridge. A burn chart is not engraved in stone like words from Moses. It is a very slippery and flexible thing.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,218
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,218 |
You guys know that Chevy and GMC are pretty much the same right?
Karma and Trouble have busses, and there's always an empty seat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,218
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,218 |
OK, I was a wise guy. Thanks to Mule Deer and others that have chimed in with info on this post. It is quite interesting and I've heard for years about the powder comparisons. There's a great deal of he said/they said/I heard out there so getting actual concrete info is pretty nifty. Thanks again to JB.
Karma and Trouble have busses, and there's always an empty seat.
|
|
|
|
|
487 members (10gaugeman, 10gaugemag, 219DW, 12344mag, 222ND, 1beaver_shooter, 46 invisible),
1,719
guests, and
1,189
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,051
Posts18,521,271
Members74,023
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
