Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer Win 748 is Exactly H335? True?

Thanks, Rocky, that widens the data base considerably. Varmint loads!

5sdad, thanks for the offer. I have the old Win data -- but it's rather limited as to components. Knowing the equivalents makes a lot more modern components useful.

13579,

Since commercial canister powders are generally tested before release to burn within 2% of a standard, it is just about impossible to adjust a load to the same velocity and result in excessive pressures--unless your old load was on the ragged edge anyway.

One basic APPROXIMATE rule of internal ballistics is that pressure increases at about twice the rate of muzzle velocity. Thus a 2% increase in velocity would develop about 4% more pressure--or increase a 60,000 psi load to 62,400.

In practice using a chronograph to adjust for differences in lots normally results in even less increase in pressure. I know
this from working in a couple of pressure labs.

MD,

I agree. I've done this for years and never had a problem; I just load to the same apx. velocity and go with it!

By the way what is WC846? I know it is similar to H335, but is it the same powder under a different number?

M. Bell

Mule Deer:

All I know about internal ballistics is what I have studied in books and magazines. I have never seen a pressure gun, nor have I ever been in a powder manufacturing plant.

From what I understand, canister powders, those available to handloaders are carefully checked from lot to lot for the same, or near same burning rate. If the burning rate varied significantly from lot to lot, this could cause problems for handloaders. This might be one reason why powder available to handloaders is so expensive.

Again, from what I understand, companies that load commercially have means for testing burning rate, so variation from lot to lot would not be as important to an ammunition manufacturer as it is to a handloader.

For this reason, I might assume that a can of IMR 4350 I purchased 30 years ago would have the same burning rate as a can of IMR 4350 that is on a dealers shelve today. Would I be wrong in my assumption, other than the possible +or- 2% that you mentioned?

I have another question that maybe you can answer. On another forum, some of the readers claimed that the way to get a newly made lot of powder to match the burning rate of the same powder made 30 years ago, or last week, as far as that goes, that the powder manufacturers blended it.

In other words, they would mix some from a fast burning lot of 4350 with some from a slower burning lot of 4350, to get a "Just Right" burning rate, to match that of the powder manufactured from long ago, or even month to month. IIRC, the writer said that the powder manufacturer might even blend two different types of powder, for example Red Dot and Green Dot shotgun powders, to get something in between.

I disagreed with this statement, because from all I have read, mixing powders is a no no, and even if the powder has the same manufacturers number, for example 4350, mixing a fast 4350 with a slow 4350 to get a just right 4350 would still be mixing, or as the writer said, "blending." I don't think a powder manufacturer would do that. I think they would change the chemical composition to make the lots match. I received a lot of static because I disagreed with people who thought they were in the position to know better. Maybe they were. That is why I am asking you.

If you could 'blend' powders, why couldn't I mix a little 4350 with a little bit of 4831, to get something a little slower than 4350 and a little faster than 4831? Assuming I had a need for a powder with this burning rate, which I don't, and have no plans to try it. I like my rifles all in one piece. Not a piece here and a piece there.

Not to jump in before JB, but you were spot on until your last two paragraphs.

Once a powder is made and in testing, it is too late to tweak the chemical composition. So the only way to adjust the burn rate (if you are trying to hit a canister powder specification) is to blend it with other powder. BUT, it has to be the same nominal powder.

BTW, a single lot is often 100,000 pounds or more; if it cannot be blended to make the canister specification, it becomes a non-canister lot and is sold to ammo makers as such.

Physical differences between two different kinds of powder (4831 and 4350, as one example set) are such that if you blend them at home, you cannot be assured they are blended evenly or that they stay blended. Simple handling might well separate them to an unknown degree. You might fill your measure with powder that is much more one than the other - a very ungood thing.

Rocky is exactly right.

I will add that though canister powders are normally blended to maintain a certain AREA of performance, they stilol tend to vary slightly from lot to lot, the reason we shoudl always stat low when using a new lot of powder, even if we have used the "load combination" before.

The other side of the deal is that the large ammo manufacturers do NOT genrally use the same canister powders we do. Instead they buy their powder in huge lots of unblended powder, partly because it's a lot cheaper to do it that way. So when they run out of an old batch, and have to start loading with a new lot, they have to test the new stuff for both pressure and muzzle velocity, in order to safely reach advertised muzzle velocity.

In a way, this is essentially what I recommend doing with new lots of canister powder--though the average handloaded can only test for velocity, not pressure. However, when using different lots of the same powder, velocity is a very good indicator of pressure.

"(if you are trying to hit a canister powder specification) is to blend it with other powder. BUT, it has to be the same nominal powder."

I understand that, but in your last paragraph, you state that what if the 4350 and 4831 (not your exact words) become unblended (not verbatum, but close enough,I think.

What would happen if the fast and slow lots of the example powder, 4350 became unblended due to handling and transportation?

It still seems that would be an 'ungood thing.'

I understand the uses for non-canister powder, and why and how the ammunition manufacturers test it and the reasons why it can vary a great deal from lot to lot and still be usable.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if a box of .30-06 cartridges I might buy today would contain an entirely different powder that a box purchased a year ago, of the same manufacturer.

The same nominal powder would have the same physical characteristics: grain size and shape, mass density, coating lubricity and others. Not so with different powders.

Different nominal powders would possibly separate the same way a jar of little nails and big nails will always end up with all the big nails on top. Not to that degree, but my point is that the degree of separation would be unpredictable.

The biggest example of the factory ammo powder thing was in an article I read lately (and now cannot find). The writer stated that the exact same kind of ammo several years ago had nearly a case-full of a ball powder, but his new lot had a partial fill of a flake powder - and they performed the same!

Is the SEARCH function acting flaky again? I can't find it, but I'm sure there must be a post like:

Don't know about JB, but I almost always use the Quick Reply box, and then (out of sheer lamebrainedness) will hit the "Hop to: GO" button below instead of the correct "Submit" button. That sends any carefully crafted post to the Universe of Dark Matter, never to be seen again. But I THINK it got posted - until I try to find it.

Yeah, gee, I screwed up. First time it ever happened in my life. Hopefully the last.

It's not as though this website, this forum and this thread are the only things you have to do, John. Some folks might forget that you are employed.

(I'm not, which is why I kept coming back to this thread. Until now. Rocky...out.)

It's not that I'm trying to be a Barsness Basher.

But in answer to the thread's entire purpose you gave erroneous information. And dismissed those with doubts with the flip, "If you want to believe [they're] (yes, you did say 'very') different, ... feel free."
I imagine that you, if editor of the magazine, would consider this a factual error worthy of a note of correction.

And the thread's doubters were getting whacked by those who implicitly trust your experience and judgement- they deserved to have you calm your fan club (you may not have requested them, but you've got 'em).
(This should be a lesson to all who are in any fan club- no one is always correct all of the time. Take your idol's input as supportive, not infallible.)

I gave you a chance, just like Rocky did, to extricate yourself gracefully and set your own record straight. I received in return what might be a snide response; I'd like to think it's not.
Rocky, JB can't use busyness- he made a couple of replies regarding pressure, etc.

Here's another reply, and I'll try not to be snide.

I was indeed told some years ago by somebody who should know that H335 and W748 were essentially the same powder. Obviously that is not true in the same sense that H414 and W760 are the same powder--or so we are told.

I never saw any evidence in loading manuals to contest the H335/W748 claim, and in fact (as I stated earlier) never could see much difference when loading either powder. Obviously something has changed, or I didn't recall the conversation correctly, or the person I talked to was being rather general.

Things very well might have changed, since I know--or was told--that H335 today is not the same mil-surp powder it was until the early 1990's.

Just out of curiousity, last night I went through the latest Nosler manual (#6) and looked at case/bullet combos that listed both H335 and W748. I also looked at the same thing for H414 and W760 since we KNOW (or have been told, on this thread, by Hodgdon via Rocky Raab) that they are are indeed exactly the same powder.

The results were interesting. In cartridges up to 6mm, in every instance except one the maximum charge of H335 and W748 was within half a grain, and often identical. The exception was the .204 Ruger and 32 grain bullets, where the max charge of 748 was 2.5 grains heavier (29.5 to 27.0) though the velocities with the same charges were very similar.

In one instance with the .222 Remington, the maximum charge with 335 was a half-grain heavier. This means that 748 is not ALWAYS slower than H335. Powders do not always burn at exactly the same relative rate in all applications.

Only in a few instances in larger rounds did the maximum charges of both powders vary much. This was mostly in the .308 Win. and .338 Federal--though velocities with the SAME charges were often very similar. For instance, the .308 with the 125-grain bullet has very different max loads (46.5 with 335, 51.5 with 748) but the velocities obtained the with the SAME charges, if we do a little math, are almost identical.

Now let us look at H414 and W760, since we have been informed that these are exactly the same powder. As might be expected, maximum charges for various case/bullet combos were very similar. Most of the time they are very close, with max loads varying by a half-grain or maybe a grain.

But in one instance (55 grain bullets in the .243 Winchester) the maximum load is 2.5 grains different, or about 5%. Similar differences can be found in loads in the .250 Savage/100 grain. With the 115 grain in the .250, almost exactly the same velocity is recorded for charges a full grain (about 3%) apart, 36 and 37 grains.

There's also a 2.5 grain difference in the maximum load for the 7x57 and 150-grain bullets. In fact every 7x57 combo where both H414 and W760 are listed shows at least a 2.0 grain difference--WHEN USING POWDERS THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY IDENTICAL.

Now, we have already discussed how much powders can vary from lot to lot. I am assuming that's what happened with the H414 and W760 Nosler used in their tests.

But it is also striking that the data for H335 and W748 is so nearly identical in not just many but MOST of the smaller .224 and 6mm rounds. And even when max loads start to vary considerably, as in the .308, the VELOCITIES with identical charges are very close.

So, yes, evidently I made a mistake when claiming that H335 and W748 are exactly the same. I was told that some years ago, and never saw any published evidence to dispute it--especially when we consider that data for H414 and W760 (which ARE the identical powder, or so we're told) varies quite a bit.

I apologize for making a mistake--a mistake based on something I was told some years ago, and pretty much backed-up by loading data. Plainly, everybody should use data specifically for H335 or W748, even if it's identical.

It could be the same basic propellant but the grazing is different, for example. Besides slight lot to lot variations, there are other things that can be done to basic formulations from their creation to final packaging.

The best rule of thumb is to always follow the powder manufacturer/reloading manual instructions.

One way to solve the problem is, if the label on your can of powder tells you that it is W748, then go by the W748 data in your loading manual.

If the label on your powder can says 335 go by the loading data in your manual for 335.

I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that powder manufacturers might change the formulation from time to time and not tell anyone, even gun writers. For this reason, it might be best to go by the label on your can and the loading data that matches the label.

As commented on earlier, ammunition manufacturers will change the powder used in the same cartridge from time to time.

With powder being manufactured in several different countries, and some of it supposedly like other powders, but using different names, I think it would be best to go by what is on the label and in the manuals. Who knows, Powder X might be made in Australia today, and in Canada next week, and one of the other manufacturers might see a reason to 'tweek' the formula a little.

At the risk of "idol worship", the last paragraph of JB's sums it up.

Even if they were/are the same/different he still says to work up using the data. Go figure.

Innocent mistake, but not without advice to prevent injury; "with malice toward none".

Now, where is that MAX load of 296 that I use for H110 in my 45 Colt

Which is exactly what happened to me when Hodgdon ran out of mil-surp H335 and started marketing the new stuff. There was nothing on the can or in the data to indicate this was what had happened, so I tried my "standard" load of H335 and the 50-grain Ballistikc Tip in the .223. This normally got around 3450 fps in the .223 I then had, but the chronograph said 3800! Then I tried to open the bolt and found that difficult. The charge with the new powder had to be reduced 2-something grains to get down to the velocity was with the older mil-surp powder.

I didn't even find out what happened until a couple of years later when I mentioned this in an article as an example of being careful when using new lots of powders. One of the guys from Hodgdon called and asked when I'd had the "problem." I looked at my loading notes, and we figured out it was right when the newly manufactured powder went on the market.

So it pays to be careful. I had never has such a radical change in loading results before, but learned my lesson that day.

Since then I have had some other interesting experiences. One newer powder marketing firm was told by their overseas powdr mnaufacturer that differences from lot to lot were a thing of the past, at least in their state-of-the-art facility. This sounded good, and I liked the powders.

Among other cartridges I used them in was the .220 Swift. One of their powders turned out to be GREAT with 55-grain bullets, getting over 3900 fps from the 26" barrel of a Ruger No. 1, with very fine accuracy. I shot that load a bunch over the next couple of years--until I ran out of that powder and ordered some more. This came with new data that said, essentially, "DO NOT USE OUR OLD .220 SWIFT DATA WITH THIS POWDER!!!!" It turned out the new lot of powder was hotter than the old, and it a couple of years before they even listed .220 Swift data for that powder again....

Just some general thoughts on the whole matter:
1) As Dutch said, it is nice to know when powders are "the same" so that a person can utilize a powder for which there is a dearth of data for a given application. Given a close relationship of powders, this is where the working up to which John refers comes into play.
2) While the notion of following the powder manufacturers' data sounds like an excellent idea, the fly in the ointment here is that recent "best practice" indicates using the bullet makers' data since bullets have become increasing different from one another. Whichever way one turns in the choice between powder maker/bullet manufacturer data, he runs into the problem of very limited choices in the other component, especially in the case of going by the powder data.
3) How do the "Load Exactly This Much Powder" data for 296 and 110 fit into the whole notion of working up from starting loads?
4) How can shotshell data be so exact in the pressure that will be generated by a given set of components when the pressure generated by a given set of components can vary so much in a rifle load?
5) It seems to me that the whole business of pressure-testing, even though we have moved past reading copper deformation, is still very much dependent upon a whole lot of factors beyond the powder being tested. I would bet that if a person were to load a number of identical rounds and take them to the various labs to be tested, the results among the labs would vary a great deal. I would further speculate that the same rounds tested by different people (or even by the same person on a different day) would show different results. (Sounds to me like the basis for an interesting article for those capable of researching and writing one.) I would not be surprised to find that the above could very well be more of the reason for differences in data between "fraternal twin" powders than any real difference between the powders themselves.
As always, just my thoughts. Best to all, John

Thank you.
(And thanks for that research- I didn't mean to take so much of your time [I'm serious]).

Some might think that I ought to have started my case in a PM. I won't argue against them.
But you answered the thread so emphatically, but then didn't as emphatically correct yourself.
We trust you-- widely experienced, having industry connections, and pursuing study in this field. But if we get the impression that you won't acknowledge an error or won't adjust to new facts, our trust in everything you say or have said is shaken.
You've railed in print about others who quote and carry forward unverified info and old wives' tales.

And I wanted it as part of the thread because the thread will drift around in the ether for a long time.
I wouldn't complain if Rick edited out much of this thread, took out the nay-sayer whacking and my entries, and left, as useful information & campfire debate, the question and the various responses.

I'd urge you to use qualifiers where needed ("I've been told they are, essentially.", "My information is from some years back...", "At one time, at least, ...") and to not stick your neck out unnecessarily; offer facts and opinions under their correct headings (brevity does save some time- sometimes).

(And thanks for the .257 article. It should help sustain enough popularity to keep the brass makers chunking cases out.)