Reference: Relative Burn-Rate chart for various powders

For those who like to roll their own.

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
AndyC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 10493
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:34 pm
Location: Garland, TX

Reference: Relative Burn-Rate chart for various powders

#1

Post by AndyC » Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:47 pm

Remember Kitty Genovese

Image

Amateurs skip safety-checks - pros don't.
Preferred Travel Agent - 72 Virgins Dating Club, Iraq
There's nothing quite like the offer of 230 grains to a man's chest to remind him of his manners


Richbirdhunter
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 7:45 pm
Location: DFW Denton County

Re: Reference: Relative Burn-Rate chart for various powders

#2

Post by Richbirdhunter » Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:42 pm

Good info, thanks
Disclaimer: Anything I state can not be applied to 100% of all situations. Sometimes it's ok to speak in general terms.


K-Texas
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:34 pm

Re: Reference: Relative Burn-Rate chart for various powders

#3

Post by K-Texas » Mon May 28, 2018 9:05 pm

Hodgdon does a pretty good job with their burn rate charts; while they update them more than most. No burn rate chart is perfect and there some clear examples of that with this latest one. Refardless of that, Hodgdon does about as good as anyone else, and probably better than most! ;-)
Anything that can be corrupted by man; will be corrupted.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want . . .


flechero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2620
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Reference: Relative Burn-Rate chart for various powders

#4

Post by flechero » Tue May 29, 2018 10:36 am

K-Texas wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 9:05 pm
No burn rate chart is perfect and there some clear examples of that with this latest one.
In the interest of safety and accuracy, would you point out the obvious errors you saw so I can correct/update my printed reference chart?

THanks :tiphat:


MaduroBU
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 534
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:11 am

Re: Reference: Relative Burn-Rate chart for various powders

#5

Post by MaduroBU » Tue May 29, 2018 1:24 pm

Is there any way to import new powders into quickload?


K-Texas
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:34 pm

Re: Reference: Relative Burn-Rate chart for various powders

#6

Post by K-Texas » Wed May 30, 2018 1:22 am

First, let me thank you for the question, and let me apologize for the slow response. My wife's younger brother is in dire straits and in hospice in Abilene. If you can find Hodgdon's previous burn-rate chart to the one we're discussing, IMO, it's the better of the 2. The problems I've observed with the placement are most often associated with powders that are imported.

The one I mentioned about being an immediate example involves handgun powders that most of us would consider for magnum handgun loads. AA #9 is an excellent powder, but when looking at the newer chart they show Ramshot Enforcer just ahead of AA #9, and 4100 just after #9. I can't tell you exactly how that occurred, except to say that somehow 4100 and Enforcer were sold by two different brands. They are, in fact, identical and made in Belgium.

After Accurate introduced 4100, they were bought out by Western Powder Co. No real news there except that if you have Accurate annual load guides from early on from the first decade of the new millenium/century, AA#4100 is shown to be a good bit slower burning than AA #9. Not a fault for either powder, and I have them both, but Enforcer/4100 are definitely slower burning than AA #9. I believe that there are other examples concerning Ramshot Powders because it is the newer brand name. What I will do, as soon as I can, is point out other discrepencies. ;-)
Anything that can be corrupted by man; will be corrupted.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want . . .


K-Texas
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:34 pm

Re: Reference: Relative Burn-Rate chart for various powders

#7

Post by K-Texas » Wed May 30, 2018 5:24 pm

Still looking at handgun powders, N330 should be ahead of Unique while Western shows V-V 3N38 to be slower than AA #7. And, of course, AA #7 is a Western powder. ;-)
Anything that can be corrupted by man; will be corrupted.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want . . .


K-Texas
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:34 pm

Re: Reference: Relative Burn-Rate chart for various powders

#8

Post by K-Texas » Thu May 31, 2018 7:27 pm

Didn't mean to turn this into a 1 man thread, but in my last post I should have also mentioned that Universal being ranked behind Unique is very suspect, IMO, and today I noticed that they have the new W244 ranked slower than W231. Since W244 is really an updated version of W231 with some chemicals added for very low flash and copper fouling eraser, it's not what I've seen in the data so far, so I suspect that W244 is actually a tad faster burning than W231. W244 is also one of the newer powders that I look forward to trying. I've made some great target loads with W231 in 9mm, but I have other powders that work better for .45 ACP, and for lighter loads I use WST among others. I'm kinda hoping that W244 will replace both powders.

I do not use W231 in .45 ACP for factory level defense loads. I use True Blue for that, or something a tad slower to equal +P type defense loads like Silhouette. ;-)
Anything that can be corrupted by man; will be corrupted.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want . . .

Post Reply

Return to “Reloading Forum”