Compressing Powder

[Dr Ray]

I always found 760 “touchy” in out heat and loads.
Probably me though.
And,, for some reason I could never seem to get the groups as well as when I used AR2209 powder.
I also used 760 Mac loads in 22/250 and had flattened primers.
My fault there as I should have backed off the loads.

 

[Dr Ray]

Max loads I means. This text hates me!

 

[sestoppelman]

I forget the source but I recall that there are several Hornady powders that are the same as Winchester powders. HP38= W231, H414=W460, H450=W785 and a few others that slip my mind at the moment. I don't recall that H335 was the same as W748, but it wouldn't surprise me. Differences between the testing of the powders appears to be results of different lots.

Also W296 and H110.
Don't believe H335 and 748 are the same though. I surely would not try to interchange with them without some verification.
I have several burn rate charts and none show them anywhere close to each other.
Dr. Ray have a source for that info?

BTW Ray B., I think you meant Hodgdon powder, not Hornady.

 

[Ray B]

Remembered a few more: H110=W296, HS6=W540, HS7=W571.

 

[sestoppelman]

LOL Ray, see post above yours!

 

[Ray B]

You got me!!! Hornady makes bullets and presses; Hodgdon is powders. Well at least I didn't say Norma and Nosler, my other common transposition.

 

[fourfive8]

Some charts

 

[sestoppelman]

Those are interesting charts. I have several and none show H335 and 748 in the same zip code. I have always considered 748 as much slower and I have used both.

 

[fourfive8]

CoElkHunter,
I'd just use up that 748 for practice in the Lott... or at least some of it @ about 82-83 gr a pop with cheap-as-you-can-find 450, 480 or 500 gr bullets for practice.

Then for serious DG loads, Hodgdon's Extreme powders are worth looking at. Unless I'm way off, H335 is very temp sensitive so wouldn't be my choice at all for that. The Extreme powders are purposefully temperature insensitive being the same as ADI powders developed for the temp extremes in Australia, re-branded here and sold by Hodgdon.
http://ns.hodgdon.com/extreme.html

 

[CoElkHunter]

Those are interesting charts. I have several and none show H335 and 748 in the same zip code. I have always considered 748 as much slower and I have used both.

Yeah, again my Hornady manual shows H335 eighteen clicks faster than W748? And, where’s the Chinese made powder in these charts? They import firecrackers and make everything else?Ha! Ha! Ha!

 

[CoElkHunter]

CoElkHunter,
I'd just use up that 748 for practice in the Lott... or at least some of it @ about 82-83 gr a pop with cheap-as-you-can-find 450, 480 or 500 gr bullets for practice.

Then for serious DG loads, Hodgdon's Extreme powders are worth looking at. Unless I'm way off, H335 is very temp sensitive so wouldn't be my choice at all for that. The Extreme powders are purposefully temperature insensitive being the same as ADI powders developed for the temp extremes in Australia, re-branded here and sold by Hodgdon.
http://ns.hodgdon.com/extreme.html

Well if I had Dr Ray’s Lott I would? But for now it’ll be cramming the powder in my WM and shoving a Barnes bullet on top! I’ll plan for the worst and hope for the best! Ha! Ha!

 

[fourfive8]

Yes, quite a difference between them, unless it's a testing anomaly by the Hornady lab or the lab doing the Hornady testing. If not an anomaly, then the data is showing each yielding different potential chemical energies at different pressure curve points during the bullet travel in the bore.

 

[sestoppelman]

Just had a look at some reference books. Hornady says H335 at 84, 748 @ 98. Hodgdons says H335 @ 65, 748 @ 82. Misc charts show H335 at 81 and 66 while 748 is at 101 and 82 respectively.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Yes, quite a difference between them, unless it's a testing anomaly by the Hornady lab or the lab doing the Hornady testing. If not an anomaly, then the data is showing each yielding different potential chemical energies at different pressure curve points during the bullet travel in the bore.

Yeah you got me? Maybe just pick one powder in the middle? I wonder if you could grind up a cylindrical powder like H4831 in a blender and use it like a ball powder? Probably not, but then again it would compress real well! Ha! Ha!

 

[sestoppelman]

Powders do behave somewhat differently depending on the actual application. This is why manuals always caution against placing too much faith in burn rate charts.
In other words a specific powder wont necessarily have the same burn rate in two different cartridges.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Just had a look at some reference books. Hornady says H335 at 84, 748 @ 98. Hodgdons says H335 @ 65, 748 @ 82. Misc charts show H335 at 81 and 66 while 748 is at 101 and 82 respectively.

My Hornady manual shows only about a 6-7gr increase for the 748 vs the 335 with their 500gr bullet in the WM? Probably conservative? But wow, look at all of the variations of powders and loads we’ve seen here? I’m wondering how these variations can be so great?

 

[CoElkHunter]

Just had a look at some reference books. Hornady says H335 at 84, 748 @ 98. Hodgdons says H335 @ 65, 748 @ 82. Misc charts show H335 at 81 and 66 while 748 is at 101 and 82 respectively.

Yeah, I can’t imagine trying to cram more than 75-80gr of 748 in a WM case with even a Barnes 450 gr bullet? I’m going to load it down a bit for practice and use my factory Barnes for hunting? Let the Barnes or other cartridge manufacturers do the extreme compressed hunting loads?

 

[sestoppelman]

Well again, the application is a big determining factor in burn rate. The one rate chart I saw that showed 748 actually faster than H335 was from Barnes. I discount it as an outlier for the reason that many of the powders on the chart were way off of others charts.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Well again, the application is a big determining factor in burn rate. The one rate chart I saw that showed 748 actually faster than H335 was from Barnes. I discount it as an outlier for the reason that many of the powders on the chart were way off of others charts.

Good point(s)!

 

[fourfive8]

Sorry about that CoElkHunter, was thinking about Dr Ray's buffalo hunt in Australia, his thoughts about the various powders and typing about your using up the 748

But the same principles apply to both the WM and Lott. My experience with load development for the WM and for the Lott (450 Watts) indicate no real need to compress charges much if any and certainly no need to compress for using up powder like the 748 for practice with cheap bullets. But, I'd still avoid temperature sensitive powders like H335 for developing a serious DG load in the WM. IMO well worth trying one or two of the Extreme powders. You do have some room to adjust seating depth if your rifle is like most WMs with a fairly long throat. I'd certainly try both Varget and Benchmark in your WM. Depending on type of bullet, you could very well be able to seat out farther, have very little or no compression and still crimp into a groove. Some bullets have the crimp groove well down the shank for exactly that purpose... to allow for extra powder capacity as is needed in the WM. And the banded Barnes automatically have that option.