» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > Handloading > Handloading Procedures/Practices
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-16-2007, 07:42 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 344
Powder interchangeability?


Registered Users do not see the above ad.


Many months ago, I read on one of the other reloading forums about some of the Hodgdon powders that were the exact same powder (different designation) as the Winchester (Olin) brand. The claim was as follows: 1) H335 is Win 748 2) H414 is Win 760 3) H110 is Win 296 4) H38 is Win 231. Does anyone on this forum know this to be a "fact" or a "myth?" I've got most of these powders, except H38 and I can't tell the difference by looking at them. According to the "burn rate" charts published by the various powder companies they almost always show there is a difference and part of the difference is that their brand is more "efficient" If they are the same powder, I could dispense with purchasing one of the brands, IF I could use the loading tables for either one interchangeably (BIG IF!). It would really come in handy if I didn't have any H335 for my 444, but had lots of Win 748 for my 30/30; considering there is no load data from Winchester powder for the 444. Thanks in advance for any inputs. Regards, Riley

Last edited by riley; 02-16-2007 at 07:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-16-2007, 11:53 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 95
I know that some of those powders are very close cousins but I don't know that any are duplicates. I hear the same rumors but I have used most of the powders of what you speak and find that you can use similar charges and get similar results but not the same chrony readings. JMHO Chief
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-17-2007, 04:54 AM
M1Garand's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,243
They may have similar burn rates but I doubt they are "interchangeable".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-17-2007, 05:51 AM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,067
An article was published in Shooting Times magazine identifying H110 and WW296 as being the same powders, manufactured by Primex in St. Marks, Florida.

Don't know about the rest. You could call Hodgdon and ask.
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-17-2007, 06:17 AM
Rocky Raab's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 3,321
I have this from the mouth of Chris Hodgdon himself.

HP38/W296

HS6/W540

HS7/W571

H110/W295

H414/W760

Note: H335 is NOT W748.

The powders are interchangeable, but loading data may NOT be, due to lot/lot variations, age, etc.
__________________
To see my books and articles, just Google my name.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-17-2007, 07:19 AM
Jack Monteith's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 7,788
Don't you mean H110/W296?

Bye
Jack
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-17-2007, 08:02 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,570
and HP38/W231, not 296
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-17-2007, 08:17 AM
Violator22's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 816
That is what I was thinking, seems the loads go back and forth in the maulas between W296 and H110, one manual shows just a hiar more H110, another manual shows a hair more W296 for basically the same load. I didn't know that about the rest, but I thought that might be true. Les
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

WE MUST TELL EACH OTHER THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS OUR COUNTRY. SHOUT LOUD AND PROUD, I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!

"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun!" Ash from the Army of Darkness
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-17-2007, 09:00 AM
M1Garand's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky Raab
I have this from the mouth of Chris Hodgdon himself.

HP38/W296

HS6/W540

HS7/W571

H110/W295

H414/W760

Note: H335 is NOT W748.

The powders are interchangeable, but loading data may NOT be, due to lot/lot variations, age, etc.
Well that's news to me....I guess you learn something every day.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-17-2007, 09:28 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jefferson Parish (via N.O.)
Posts: 9,035
Probably right, but in recent years have had some problems with the same BRAND of powder in differnt LOTS when working near the max. load for a specific rifle.

So I'm cautions...when i buy powder of a different lot, will back off 10% and work up (or down, depending on what pressure signs show up). I'd certainly back down a good bit more, probably all the way down to listed starting loads, if switching to a different brand and lot of "interchangeable" powders.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-17-2007, 09:49 AM
unclenick's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Posts: 10,857
I also called Hodgdon on the issue of H110/296. The tech I spoke with confirmed they are the same powder from the same plant, made at the same time, and put in drums with the different labels. The reason I had asked was that in my QuickLOAD database, the two have somewhat different characteristics, with H110 producing about 10% higher pressures for a given load. Also, looking through loading manuals. I see differences in the recommended loads for the two powder names where both are listed for a bullet and cartridge combination. Usually a few tenths of a grain. Sometimes one is shown as providing a velocity edge over the other.

It turns out this difference is due entirely to lot variation. QuickLOAD's database for powders is from lab measurements of purchased samples. The powder makers don't publish the nominal data, and in fact may not have it for all their powders. The Hodgdon tech said it costs about $50K to run the full battery of tests on a sample, and where they do have all the information, they consider it proprietary and don’t reveal it. Besides, unless they mixed samples taken from different lots over a period of time, they wouldn't know how representative a particular lot was to give information on?

They blend canister powders to try to get some measure of lot-to-lot performance matching. I don't know what tests they base the mixing on? It can't be standard burning rate tests alone. Looking through the measured data in QuickLOAD’s database, the burning rates don't all follow the expected order. In other words, burning rates for some samples don’t drop into the slot they usually occupy in published burning rate tables. Broemel's measurement of Hodgdon Clays, for example, found it to be faster than either Norma R1 or Vihtavuori N310. In published tables, those two powders are put down as being fastest and are faster than Bullseye, while Clays is usually put after Bullseye in the same tables. Undoubtedly, though, the lot of Clays tested for QuickLOAD was, indeed, faster than the lots of any of the other powders Broemel tested. For that matter, I don't know what data published burning rates are based on if the manufacturers refuse to publish the information in standard units?

The powder maker's main concern would have to be that different lots generate about the same chamber pressure for the same charge weight. Given that total energy density can vary as well as burning rate, matching the latter element alone would not accomplish that objective. Indeed, you can probably only get a lot-to-lot pressure-to-charge weight ratio to match exactly in just one load. I would think they probably blend to curve fit chamber pressures to match a reference charge weight as closely as possible for a group of loads the powder is commonly used in. This would mean that even if you have a powder with which you’ve been lucky enough to get away with using exactly the same load for twenty years, had you measured chamber pressure all along, you would likely have found it actually varied measurably. Just not enough to cause damage. You would also have found that muzzle velocities varied some with the lots, too.

My point in describing all the above is to provide some idea of just how large powder lot variation can get. It can certainly change burning rate order on the charts. It can certainly cause 10% or more pressure variation in a given load. The bottom line is, unless you use loads safely below SAMMI maximum that allow for worst case lot variation (e.g., Winchester’s listed 296 loads) you have to work a load back up from a reduced level with each new lot of powder. This is for safety and the life of your gun and barrel. Even if it is safely below pressure maximums, If you are using a finely tuned accuracy load, you may find a change in powder lot has de-tuned it?
QuickLOAD’s properties for H110 / 296. Note that solid density is the only thing that matches exactly. All other differences are due to lot variation:

Heat of explosion: 4110 / 4300 Joules per gram
Ration of specific heats: 1.2200 / 1.2350
Burning Rate Factor, Ba: 0.7941 / 0.6300 liters per second
Progressivity/digressivity factor, a0: 5.2172 / 9.0970
Progressive burning limit, z1: 0.275 / 0.285 x 100%
Factor b: 1.8329 / 2.22416
Propellant solid density: 1.620 / 1.620 grams per cubic centimeter
__________________
Nick
__________________________
Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
"First contemplation of the problems of Interior Ballistics gives the impression that they should yield rather easily to relatively simple methods of analysis. Further study shows the subject to be of almost unbelievable complexity." Homer Powley

Last edited by unclenick; 02-17-2007 at 10:01 AM. Reason: typo correction
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-17-2007, 12:32 PM
Rocky Raab's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 3,321
Oh, for crying out loud. Try hard and STILL screw things up. Sigh....

Here are the CORRECT pairings:

HP38/W231

HS6/W540

HS7/W571

H110/W296

H414/W760

Note: H335 is NOT W748.

There. (Thanks to those who caught my idiotic typos.)
__________________
To see my books and articles, just Google my name.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-17-2007, 06:14 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THAYER, MO
Posts: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1Garand
Well that's news to me....I guess you learn something every day.
This is a good reminder that when you work up a load, especially a maximum load, for any powder that load is only good for that lot. When you change lots you should check and adjust, if necessary, the load.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-17-2007, 09:53 PM
maroontoad's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Northern Territory, Australia
Posts: 181
Australian Defence Industries (ADI) also make powder for Hodgdon.

Benchmark is ADI Benchmark 2
H322 is ADI AR2219

H4895 is ADI AR2206H OR the other way around (read it and forgot).

I have been told but haven't verified that:
Varget is ADI AR2208
RL15 is Norma N203

It's a big world that's getting smaller rapidly! Globalization, good or bad? Gives us more choices now, but tomorrow we may only get the choice that makes the most money for the only corporation that's left.

Snow.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-18-2007, 03:22 PM
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 19,714
Yeah, you're right, Maroontoad - used to have a chart for the conversion of RL and Norma powders, but have misplaced it somewheres.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
NRA Certified Police Firearms Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NAHC Life Member

"Firearms only have two enemies - rust and politicans" author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-25-2007, 08:34 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 278
Check the Hodgdon website. They now own IMR and Winchester powders: http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Original .38 Special black powder round? Gatofeo Handgun Cartridges 7 10-25-2012 06:31 AM
Found! Original loads for C&B revolvers Gatofeo Muzzleloaders 4 09-26-2005 08:26 PM
Proper use of cap and ball revolver - revised Gatofeo Muzzleloaders 0 02-11-2005 01:48 PM
Debate over Vihtavuori Powder .454er Handloading Procedures/Practices 10 03-13-2004 07:11 AM
Debate over Vihtavuori Powder .454er General Discussion 1 03-11-2004 09:17 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:39 PM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
View Privacy Policy | Contact Webmaster | Legal Information
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2