Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Newer powders are they really that much better?

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.