MD,



Did I read you correctly that 748 is exactly H335. We don't have H335 here in Australia but we sure do have 748. That's the powder I've been looking for to use in a 223AI.

I'll put up with the dirtiness if it is.

Regards,
JohnT

I look forward to the way he explains "no." (They both originate in the same factory in Florida though, I believe, just like W296 and H110. However, they are more different than the latter pair IME.)

I use both powders and in my estimation, H-335 is faster burning that W-748 so no, I don't think they are the same. Bogth have their uses though.
Paul B.

They are the same powder. Individual lots may vary, but they're the same. H414 is the same as W760 as well. This has been true for years.

Additionally,HP38 and W231 are also the same.

So you are saying I can interchange load info between these powders?????( I would rather ask a dumb question than make a dumb mistake)

IIRC, BLC-2 is closer to WW748 than H335 is.

While we are comparing aren't alot of the norma powders the same as reloader powders, ie R22 and MRP?

Right on! I've never found WW748 and H335 to be even close! And I've used "tons" of each. H335 is my favorite in my 458 Win and proved to be much faster in both my 350 Rem and 458 Win than 748. TAC and H335 appear near identical in results in the 458 Win according to BARNES Number 4.

The Norma powders are the same depending on who you talk to but I have found a huge difference between R-22 and MRP which is supposed to be the same. I would say that you can use the same starting loads but who knows from there. If the difference that I saw between R-22 and MRP is merely lot variations, then I won't waste my time working up loads with this stuff anymore unless I have at least 10 lbs of one lot on hand. There was that much variation!

It doesn't matter what you call it. H335, W748, BLC-2, etc. are all of basically the same powder. They will differ in burning rate slightly, and only because of when they were made, and which can the powder company decides to pur them into, after doing some pressure tests.

If anybody would test various lots of other powders, they would find similar differences in burning rate. This is because there is no way to produce exactly the same powder every time, mostly due to variations in atmospheric moisture. The diffferences can be compensated for somewhat by blending different lots, but in reality there isn't all that much difference. If you want to believe that 748 is a very different powder than H335, feel free. But it ain't. The difference is just in various lots of the same powder. They just pour it into different cans.

John - this falls under the heading of useful information to know. Thanks, John

I had heard about W748=H335, but not that BLC-2 is the same too. Is true?

When I used to reload for 30-30 and 308 Win, I could use WW748 and BLC-2 almost interchangeably. Charge weight for a given pressure were about the same. WW748 had a darker color (more graphite?) and BLC-2 was a lighter gray color. Granule shape and size looked the same.

BLC-2 isn't quite the same, but very close. The way I understand it, BLC-2 and H335 originally were different lots of the same military surplus powder, with slightly different burning rates, so we packaged under different names.

H335 and W748 are the same powder.

Thanks for that MD. One for the memory banks. Very useful info.

Regards
JohnT

Yessir, Just one more reason Wolfe will be crying in their Beer,, Solid info we can take to the reloading bench ! Like the song says Who's gonna fill his shoes..........

Sorry that you were dissapointed, he said yes

From Hornady's powder burning rate chart.

73. H-335, Hodgdon
74. BL-C(2), Hodgdon
75. AAC-2460, Accurate
76. W-748, Winchester

As you can see, all three are very close.

Many many years ago in the 60's I bought 50 lbs of surplus H335. It was in 1 lb paper sacks with a plastic liner and the instrcutions was to use BL-C data. Ibeleive I bought it form Hodgens. I used it in .308 and a 7.65 Argentine mauser mostly

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 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

I wonder if Mule Deer ever gets exasperated by internet threads(grin) Thumbs up to JB for sticking around anyway.
Carry on.

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.

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

I think that the safe money is with Mr Barsness. He gets my bet.

Dang you Fred,ya made me spit coffee on my keyboard!!!

Are you saying that you have inside, the inside infomation that trumps JB's plain old inside infomation? H-110 is indeed the same as W-296. W-295??? indeed not. H-414 is the same as Win-760 even Hogdon give the eact same data for H-414 as well as the same data for H-110 & W-296 in the lastest edition of their reloading magazine.
Your post is what needs to be deleted

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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..

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.

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

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.

You guys know that Chevy and GMC are pretty much the same right?

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.

The difference is that GMC torques their nuts and bolts.

If your having trouble getting that 6mm PPC to do bugholes with
8208,322, etc.,etc.Just switch over to a full case of Win 748.Just top it off and seat the bullet.Bugholes at 200 are automatic.
dave

MD,

Where does WC846 fit into this discussion? I've loaded a lot of it using H335 data and it worked fine in the .223 Rem.

M. Bell

Of course we all know that a blue Chevy pickup cannot be the same or perform the same as a red Chevy pickup because they look different than each other.

All I know is that I rarely use 748 or H335 anymore as they seem to be quite a bit dirtier than the newer ball powders (Ramshot comes to mind) I used 748 in .223 and had to clean a lot to keep accuracy good. YMMV but this is what I found. I also noticed the same thing with H870 and H450, both were dirtier than a whorehouse bathroom.

"...both were dirtier than a whorehouse bathroom."

Don't want to know how you know that....

And, H-110 is the same as W-296.

Hey dave7mm, funny, your procedure for loading 6PPC is basically what I do with H335 and a Sierra 60 gr. HP. It shoots .3" very consistently out of my 26" Encore custom barrel. Now I'm curious if the same charge of BL(C)-2 will do that same thing. I'll have to find out when I get my reloading stuff unpacked and bench setup. I'm in the middle of moving to internship right now.
Selmer

I set a range record agg with it at 200 yards for 5 ,5 shot groups at my local BR range.Blew the "old hands" away when they saw the Win 748 can on my tailgate.The extra black crud didnt seem to hurt me,accuracy wise.
dave

Guys,

I shot about 20 groups yesterday with a 250AI looking for the best load. Guess what powder delivered the best three shot group at 100 yards, out of four of the best powders tested for the 250AI?
It was 748, with the 87 grain Speer TNT bullet.

Don

Edit to add: The other powders were IMR-4895, IMR-4350, and RL-15. Bullets were many from 75 grains to 115 grains and everything in between.

dave7mm,
I worked up my first PPC loads with H335 and H322 and couldn't get N133 at the time. I have a few different loads with "standard" bullets from Nosler and Sierra that shoot in the .3s regularly, .2s if it's a really good day. I use it for varmint hunting and don't use wind flags or any such thing when shooting for group. I have used the N133 now and don't really see any improvement. Maybe it's the cat's ass for BR guns, but in my heavy barreled Encore, the Hodgdon powders are just as good or better.
Selmer

This is very handy knowledge to have - especially in Australia as Hodgdon powders are not available, but Winchester powders are. It is amazing the amount of powders which are essentially the same but packaged differently. We Aussies have some great locally produced powders from ADI, many of which are sold as Hodgon powders in the US,but sometimes loading data is scarce. It is handy to have data developed by other companies and sources (gun mags/writers etc) to use.

Hodgon Clays,International,Universal,H4227,H4198,H322,Benchmark,H4895,Varget,H4350,H4831sc,H1000,Retumbo,H50BMG are all manufactured by ADI in Australia.

Also IMR Trail Boss is made by ADI but in Aus is sold as IMR Trail Boss but is also Known as AS-25BP

These along with the above mentioned Winchester powders helps keep us Aussies shooting.

I use both in .30-30. 30.5 gr. of H335 and 33.5 gr. of W748 send a 170gr. at 2100fps. The only way I can square this experience with what John is claiming is if both are made the same, but if the end product tests one way it is W748, but if it tests another way it is H335, and maybe it doesn't meet the criteria for either and is used in some other way.

Could it be that the company produces a large lot of powder, and if it burns a little slower they label it one way, if it seems to burn a little faster they label it the other way?

Hence, it would be the "same" powder, but they specifically are looking for a certain burn rate and label it accordingly. That might explain why H335 seems to burn faster than W748 even though they are technically the same powder.

Just got off the phone with folks at Hodgdon and Barnes. What you say is partly true and partly not. The guy at Hodgdon was emphatic in stating that these powders should NEVER be interchanged. Technically, H335 is the fastest powder of the 3 under discussion (H335, W748 and BL-C(2)). W748 has a different amount of deterrent coating. They are made in the same place but they still have to fall within the specifications of a "control lot" for that specific powder designation. There may be some overlapping, but the control lot for each is distinct.

This is the most important point: The BURN SPEED of H335 is INTENDED to be FASTER and DISTINCT from W748 or BL-C(2). "THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DISTINCT BURN SPEED" in the words of a technician at Hodgdon. H335 was originally a mil-surp for the 5.56 NATO (.223 Rem) and BL-C(2) was originally a mil-surp powder for the 7.62 NATO. They were similar but H335 was INTENDED to be faster than BL-C(2); according to Hodgdon, and they ought to know since those are their own powders.

This all very similar to what a higher-up at Hodgdon told me some years ago, but he was less emphatic about the differences. He basically said that H335 was pretty much the same as W748, at least at that time.

I have seen individual lots of H335 and W748 that were so similar in burning rate that when loaded in the same .223, with the same brass, primer and bullet, that they produced muzzle velocities within 25 fps of each other on the same day.

Now, admittedly I mostly saw this overlap before Hodgdon switched to "newly manufactured" H335 some years ago. But I have seen lots of H335 vary enough that they would easily overlap performance of BLC-2 and W748.

I have also gotten somewhat different (though not totally contradictory) information from various people at various companies over the years. This probably isn't because they are trying to be secretive or misleading, but more likely because products change, even powders. Newly made H335 isn't exactly the same powder as the mil-surp stuff, and even old reliable IMR4350 has had it's formula changed slightly over the decades.

All of which is why the handloading manuals advise us to use NEW data for handloading.

You mean my old Hornady manual showing the 7RemMag at 3400fps with 139's/H4831 might be warm? (grin)

.....or my old Speer manual showing 3200 fps using 4350 with their 180 Hot Core?

Faster than the best load in the same manual for the 300 Wby!

Ted

The anchor cables have parted, and we're left drifting with erratic compass on seas where both the charts and the reefs change continually.

--Bob

I H335 isn't necessarily the same as H335, how can we say it's exactly the same powder as WW-748? ......................DJ

I was told that H414 was 760 that H repackaged.

You are about two and a half pages of replies behind on that, RinB.

Heaven forfend that I would contradict you, JB. That reply early on was as strong as I could make it without saying "Ummm....no" to your first comments here. However, what you just said does indeed match my own conversations with Chris Hodgdon. Those three powders (H335, W748, BLC-2) are in fact distinctly different formulations. Their burn rates are close -and can shift a bit with batch variations- but they are absolutely not the same powders.

Rocky,

Whew! I'm glad we finally got through that one....

This thread has been very informative. Now I know why, when 748 didn't shoot well in my .223, Blc-2 and H335 were no better.

I would have taken a bible oath that H414 was great stuff while 760 was useless. But think I'll shut up on that and go back to the bench.

O

Well, at least I'm not too confused anymore.

tol..,

The great advantage to these forums is people with insider info can pass it on. After reading them a bit you can determine who knows what they're talking about and who just reads a lot and passes it on as experience.

O

Mayday mayday, my head is swimming!!

I repeat.....

That's what I was trying to say.

i love reading this stuff when i get a chance. i guess i just spend too much time in the load shack on on the range and dont have enough time to make the # of post to be knowledgable

Hmmm? And I never have been crazy about 748 in my 223s - never mind what many others report- while 335 has almost always been just what they seemed to want. And 414 and 760 both seem to work equally well for me.

Some of this comes down to almost intangible, indefinable personal preferences, Klik. I'm exactly the opposite with regards to 748 vs 335 in the 223. I had one unexplained high-pressure incident with H-335 in the 223, and haven't used it since that day. But I'm completely comfortable with W748.

Curiously, we may both be right. Certainly, we both BELIEVE we are! And that may be all that really matters.

JB's method of chronying the accurate load and on the next lot of working towards that velocity,solves the lot varation easly.

By way of contribution and not tub thumping, I have an article upcoming in the next "Varmint Hunter" magazine about how to precisely and safely judge lot-lot variations. Naturally, I can't post it here until it is in print, but I think you might find it valuable.

Some of these equivalents are life savers, however. I came into about 16 lbs of 452AA, and had very little data until I found out it is the same thing as Trap 100.

Now, what is W571 equivalent to (having ended up with 12 lbs of that, too)? FWIW, Dutch.

It is HS-7, Dutch.

It is HS-7, Dutch.

Dutch - I've got a Winchester eleventh edition load data handout that has 452 and 473 data. PM me with an address if you would like it. Best, John

"JB's method of chronying the accurate load and on the next lot of working towards that velocity,solves the lot varation easly."

I don't agree. If the new lot is faster burning, you have higher pressures than you have at the same velocity with the slower lot.

Hence my infallible method, Mr Odds. Stay Tuned (or join Varmint Hunters Association and get their next issue!)

I guess your right. I never thought about those guys who shoot smaller than the 308 case. :)and on the edge I use to burn some Nobel clearance powder ,N-47," two grains faster than 4350".(like Big Game,N-550,etc) My M-70 30-06 would shoot clover leafs with Hornady 165 bts at 2650f/s.But with each lot# I used,I had to work up.

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.)