Powder Burning Rate Chart

[CoElkHunter]

From my 1971 Sierra reloading manual. I found H-335 is almost identical to WW-748. I have a small amount of H335 and LOTS of WW748. I was using H335 in my .458 WM but will now use WW748 for PRACTICE on the range. Seems I can also use it in the .416 Rigby, .416 Ruger, .338WM and others. With the unobtanium of some powders and costs of powder today, I might as well use the 748 up. Might not be the hottest or most accurate powder in a given cartridge but for practice I don’t care. I have newer reloading manuals but I noticed this manual shows a higher max velocity with the same powder, which leads me to believe the newer manuals are loaded down so to speak.

 

[grand veneur]

One have to be very careful with the powder burning rate charts because each one shows something different. First of all, you have to know whether it is a single base or a double base powder and then to compare the relative velocity and the relative pressure of each powder sort, as long as these parameters are available.

As for the load data, one have to refer to the latest one or in case of doubt to contact the company. I have also noticed that for a lot of cartridges many loads have been reduced over the years. Whether this was for safety reasons or because the powders are no longer the same, I don't know.

 

[USMA84DAB]

I have caught manuals being wussified over the years too. The corporate lawyers are always trying to drive their company to be more safe, so they slow down the load/lower the powder charges.

Another way to tell is see what Gordon's and QuickLoad say.

 

[Luvthunt]

Used 748 for many years in my PD rifles and it worked OK but believe it is a much dirtier powder then 335. Had to do less brush cleaning with H 335.

 

[BFaucett]

The most recent Relative Burn Rates list on Hodgdon's website:

Reference Data – Hodgdon Powder Company

hodgdonpowderco.com

(scroll down)

Direct link (2 page pdf file):

RELATIVE BURN RATES FROM FASTEST TO SLOWEST (rev. JULY '24)

https://hodgdonpowderco.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Copy-of-2024-Smokeless-Relative-Burn-Rate-Chart-WEBSITE.pdf

Cheers! Bob F.

 

[CoElkHunter]

The most recent Relative Burn Rates list on Hodgdon's website:

Reference Data – Hodgdon Powder Company

hodgdonpowderco.com

(scroll down)

Direct link (2 page pdf file):

RELATIVE BURN RATES FROM FASTEST TO SLOWEST (rev. JULY '24)

https://hodgdonpowderco.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Copy-of-2024-Smokeless-Relative-Burn-Rate-Chart-WEBSITE.pdf

Cheers! Bob F.

Winchester 748 isn’t even listed on Hodgdon’s chart? Interesting.

 

[BFaucett]

Winchester 748 isn’t even listed on Hodgdon’s chart? Interesting.

Scroll down. It's on page 2. #114.

Cheers! Bob F.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Scroll down. It's on page 2. #114.

View attachment 680402


Cheers! Bob F.

Thanks, I see it now. Wow, Hornady’s manual shows W748 MUCH slower than H335, but my old Sierra manual shows W748 at #49 and H335 at #50. Very strange. I can’t believe the powder formula for either/or has changed that much?

 

[flying sailor]

I have some older manuals from the mid '70's when I first started reloading. Interesting to compare the old and the new. I am conservative also, but I still want the best possible loads I can produce. I have never gone max, unless it is for 9x19 for a sub gun, in which case I use the Mk2Z load for the British Army. Never know when I may have to shoot some chipmunks or a ground hog!

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Powders burn differently in different cartridges. It’s best to follow published load data.

 

[Rafiki]

My go to powder is H335 for my 500 Sharps 2 1/2" (50-90 Sharps). I've tried W748, no way does it come close to H335 no matter what the charts say. Using burn charts is really only useful for comparison purposes to get you into the ball park for choosing a propellent.