Powder Selection Question

[SaintPanzer]

I'm about to take a reloading pause, mostly because in about a month all my gear will be going into a container, to be shipped overseas, and it will be a while before I see it again. In the meantime, I can do research, and I'm trying to understand some things I don't fully understand so I can make better decisions. Hoping someone can help with the theory. Today's question relates to powder selection:

Of course, "use what's in the reloading manual" is the right answer... but let's get a little more specific than that. Most manuals I've seen list several powders. Some are even from the same company... and of course their marketing materials explain the differences, at least to a degree. What I am wondering is how you select between the two (or three or four or...) ?

Let me get a little specific, just to help with the hypothetical. I'm playing with a 30-06, which in this case has a 22 inch barrel. I have other toys with longer and shorter barrels, but let's stick with this one.

I also usually play with VV powders. That selection is a different rabbit hole, so let's stick with this one. Looking at the manual, I can choose N140, N150, N160, and N165. There are others, but let's stay there for now. That list is "most hot" at N140, and then less hot as they go on. Marketing materials all say they are "suitable". So how do you select between?

To list the "marketing materials:

N140: This powder is a true multipurpose powder, which can be used for a large range of calibers from .223 Remington to .308 Winchester, 30-06 Springfield and .375 H&H Magnum, just to name few.

N150: It is commonly used with heavier bullets in accuracy loads and hunting loads in cartridges with middle case volumes, like the .30-06 Springfield, the .308 Winchester and the 6,5×55 SE.

N160: Vihtavuori’s N160 rifle powder is especially suitable for large and magnum calibers (especially belted Magnums) starting from 30-06 with heavier bullets, .243 Winchester, .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5×55 SE, 7 mm Weatherby Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Winchester Magnum and all the Winchester Short Magnums. It also fits large capacity/small bore cartridges like the 6.5-284 Norma.

N165: N165 is a very slow burning rifle powder, making it a superior choice for the same range of cartridges as N160 when using heavier bullets. As slightly higher velocities can be achieved with N165, it is an excellent choice for long-range shooting and big game hunting.

Of course, those are only the N100 series powders.

If my rifle has a "shorter" barrel (22 inch instead of the "standard" 24 inch), should I go with a hotter powder to ensure a more complete burn in the barrel? What if the barrel was even shorter than that? Or will the slower burn lead to a more gradual pressure build, which would be good if I had an older rifle? Should a heavy for caliber bullet mean the slower powder? What do we mean by "heavy bullet"? 220 grains in a 30-06 strikes me as heavy, but 185 grains? 165? For that matter, is it "heavy for caliber"? My 6.5 shoots 140 and 160 grain bullets, with a smaller than Swede case capacity. My 9.5 shoots 270 grains, with but a 2.25 inch case. Would the N165 be good for all? Or do we go back to "short barrels/make sure it all gets burned? What about a light for caliber? Or, in these times, should I just grab whichever is on the shelf, as there's not a lot of choice out there these days?

I'm at the point where I can load safely, and am getting decent OCW tests to select a load, but I want to be better informed and have better reasons to make choices rather than "just guessing".

Thanks in advance.

 

[Desperatezulu]

Availability is a (the?) big driver in selection these days!

Back to the objective measures that you're touching on - even within a specific calibre, some powders are better suited to heavier or lighter bullets.
A big question is whether you're happy to find an accurate load at an acceptable-to-you velocity for your chosen bullet or you do want to find the highest node? Or simply the highest speed without pressure signs?
If an accurate load at an adequate velocity is the goal, then the powder options are likely quite broad. If you're after a specific outcome, then things get more complicated.

Some people prefer single base or double base powders. Others want temperature stability.
Case fill percentage and complete burn can be selection criteria.
Some calibres are a bit case capacity limited, so a more 'energetic' powder might achieve a desired velocity at a safe pressure where no other powders will (RL-17 in a 9.3x62 comes to mind).

There are nearly always compromises with any given choice - seldom is there an ideal powder that gives perfect case fill, complete burn, low flame temp (for barrel longevity), temp stability all at the highest accuracy node just below the max pressure!

The internal ballistrics software packages can be helpful in shortlisting powder options because with your known system dimensions (barrel length, case cap, bullet type & weight etc) you can play around with powders and see which powders get you in the ballpark.

So in your example with the Vihta stable for a 180gr Nosler BT bullet (I'd say heavier than 180gr would be heavy for cal in the '06 and lighter than 180gr would be light for cal), simulating the powders you listed I note the following:

N140: Highest accuracy node (below Pmax) at 51.1gr for a vel of 2620 ft/s. Case fill =84% and 100% burn
N150: Highest accuracy node (below Pmax) at 52.3gr for a vel of 2675 ft/s. Case fill =95% and 100% burn.
N160: Highest accuracy node (below Pmax) at 59.1gr for a vel of 2700 ft/s. Case fill =104% and 95% burn. This is a compressed load and incomplete powder burn, so not a very efficient load.
N165: Highest accuracy node (below Pmax) at 62.1gr for a vel of 2665 ft/s. Case fill =108% and 86% burn. For me this is an excessively compressed load and powder burn too poor - powder is too slow IMHO.
Based on the above data, my choice would be N150. Using GRT the above took me maybe 2 mins (typing it out took a lot longer!)

Playing with other powders, RL-26 could get the 180gr to 2850 ft/s at 55k psi (at a fair bit lower pressure than the above loads). So if I was chasing speeds I'd look here.
Vihta N550 gets 2750 ft/s with 55.4gr with case fill of 95% and 100%, so definitely one to consider if you insisted on stayingin the Vihta family.
Norma MRP would get a similar speed at a much lower pressure. And so it goes...

 

[shootist~]

Will H4350 or IMR4350 be available at your new location?
If so, either is a "go-to" powder for the 30-06 and 180s.

I load H4350 and 180 gr A-Frames and am very happy with accuracy and velocity (2,750 fps) in a 22" Tikka.

 

[Rare Breed]

I'm about to take a reloading pause, mostly because in about a month all my gear will be going into a container, to be shipped overseas, and it will be a while before I see it again. In the meantime, I can do research, and I'm trying to understand some things I don't fully understand so I can make better decisions. Hoping someone can help with the theory. Today's question relates to powder selection:

Of course, "use what's in the reloading manual" is the right answer... but let's get a little more specific than that. Most manuals I've seen list several powders. Some are even from the same company... and of course their marketing materials explain the differences, at least to a degree. What I am wondering is how you select between the two (or three or four or...) ?

Let me get a little specific, just to help with the hypothetical. I'm playing with a 30-06, which in this case has a 22 inch barrel. I have other toys with longer and shorter barrels, but let's stick with this one.

I also usually play with VV powders. That selection is a different rabbit hole, so let's stick with this one. Looking at the manual, I can choose N140, N150, N160, and N165. There are others, but let's stay there for now. That list is "most hot" at N140, and then less hot as they go on. Marketing materials all say they are "suitable". So how do you select between?

To list the "marketing materials:

N140: This powder is a true multipurpose powder, which can be used for a large range of calibers from .223 Remington to .308 Winchester, 30-06 Springfield and .375 H&H Magnum, just to name few.

N150: It is commonly used with heavier bullets in accuracy loads and hunting loads in cartridges with middle case volumes, like the .30-06 Springfield, the .308 Winchester and the 6,5×55 SE.

N160: Vihtavuori’s N160 rifle powder is especially suitable for large and magnum calibers (especially belted Magnums) starting from 30-06 with heavier bullets, .243 Winchester, .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5×55 SE, 7 mm Weatherby Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Winchester Magnum and all the Winchester Short Magnums. It also fits large capacity/small bore cartridges like the 6.5-284 Norma.

N165: N165 is a very slow burning rifle powder, making it a superior choice for the same range of cartridges as N160 when using heavier bullets. As slightly higher velocities can be achieved with N165, it is an excellent choice for long-range shooting and big game hunting.

Of course, those are only the N100 series powders.

If my rifle has a "shorter" barrel (22 inch instead of the "standard" 24 inch), should I go with a hotter powder to ensure a more complete burn in the barrel? What if the barrel was even shorter than that? Or will the slower burn lead to a more gradual pressure build, which would be good if I had an older rifle? Should a heavy for caliber bullet mean the slower powder? What do we mean by "heavy bullet"? 220 grains in a 30-06 strikes me as heavy, but 185 grains? 165? For that matter, is it "heavy for caliber"? My 6.5 shoots 140 and 160 grain bullets, with a smaller than Swede case capacity. My 9.5 shoots 270 grains, with but a 2.25 inch case. Would the N165 be good for all? Or do we go back to "short barrels/make sure it all gets burned? What about a light for caliber? Or, in these times, should I just grab whichever is on the shelf, as there's not a lot of choice out there these days?

I'm at the point where I can load safely, and am getting decent OCW tests to select a load, but I want to be better informed and have better reasons to make choices rather than "just guessing".

Thanks in advance.

I run all powder options first through my Quick Load software to check for the following:
1. My targeted FPS
2. How many grains to achieve it
3. Internal pressure to insure saftey
I then select the powder that does the above with the mess grains given in my experience the result is far less recoil. For example for my 500 NE I used 80 grains of 3031 powder. The same FPS required 110 grains of 4350 powder with the latter producing 21% more recoil

 

[Rare Breed]

Least not mess

 

[SaintPanzer]

Thank you. I hadn't considered pre-running the numbers. That makes sense, though I'm not sure I understand how the programs determine the highest accuracy node. I thought that's why I did OCW ladder tests, as barrels may differ.

I've been able to develop nice loads using the N160, I've learned that I can make the loads more accurate than I can shoot, which only means I need more practice shooting.

I understand there are "go to" powders for the 30-06, that's really not the question. I'm trying to find out what other variables should be considered when selecting a powder. As best as I can determine, shorter barrels should have you thinking of faster powders. This is also important because most manuals assume a 24 inch barrel. But what if yours is shorter (or longer)? My understanding is the slower powders work well with the longer barrels, because they can max velocity using the length to finish the burn.

I do not like compressed loads, although I understand it can be done. What I have done is look for velocity nodes that are in the safe range, and then do an OCW test. I usually pick the "slower" nodes, because I figured a high temp day might make me over-pressure if I go with the max load. A compressed load may make that even worse.

 

[Rare Breed]

No question, doing what I do, different powders give different accuracy and you just have to test and learn but my method has worked well for me.

 

[Desperatezulu]

Thank you. I hadn't considered pre-running the numbers. That makes sense, though I'm not sure I understand how the programs determine the highest accuracy node. I thought that's why I did OCW ladder tests, as barrels may differ.

Accuracy nodes are based on OBT theory. You are of course correct that barrels vary but OBT usually gets you very close to, if not immediately on, the accuracy node.
OCW is fine but usually requires a lot more shots and is much more dependent on the biggest variable of all, the shooter's skill, to filter loads. Ultimately both theories aspire to the same thing - finding the load that exits the muzzle at the quietest point in its harmonic vibration orbit. Just slightly different ways of getting there.

Obviously OCW requires empirical data, which means testing every short-listed powder with all the challenges that that entails. At least with software you can narrow the herd a little without having to test powders that are likely to be on edge of suitability.

Obviously the software helps a lot with tweaking different barrel lengths and bullet combos and the likely outcome with different powders. Yes it's never perfect but it does give a pretty good indication.

 

[SaintPanzer]

Thanks again. Yes, the OCW requires shooting (darn!) and relies on shooter skill (I need the practice anyway), and the OBT relies on maths. I'm a history major, so given the choice between maths and shooting...

I do like picking nodes that are one node down from max charge, assuming I can get decent bullet performance. Just a little more flexibility there in case I need to go higher. Obviously, we don't have the temperature sensitivities of cordite, but...

I like the idea of running the numbers. Now, if I could only get QuickLoad to work under Windows 11, or if someone wants to pick up the mantle from GRT...

 

[MS 9x56]

If y

I'm about to take a reloading pause, mostly because in about a month all my gear will be going into a container, to be shipped overseas, and it will be a while before I see it again. In the meantime, I can do research, and I'm trying to understand some things I don't fully understand so I can make better decisions. Hoping someone can help with the theory. Today's question relates to powder selection:

Of course, "use what's in the reloading manual" is the right answer... but let's get a little more specific than that. Most manuals I've seen list several powders. Some are even from the same company... and of course their marketing materials explain the differences, at least to a degree. What I am wondering is how you select between the two (or three or four or...) ?

Let me get a little specific, just to help with the hypothetical. I'm playing with a 30-06, which in this case has a 22 inch barrel. I have other toys with longer and shorter barrels, but let's stick with this one.

I also usually play with VV powders. That selection is a different rabbit hole, so let's stick with this one. Looking at the manual, I can choose N140, N150, N160, and N165. There are others, but let's stay there for now. That list is "most hot" at N140, and then less hot as they go on. Marketing materials all say they are "suitable". So how do you select between?

To list the "marketing materials:

N140: This powder is a true multipurpose powder, which can be used for a large range of calibers from .223 Remington to .308 Winchester, 30-06 Springfield and .375 H&H Magnum, just to name few.

N150: It is commonly used with heavier bullets in accuracy loads and hunting loads in cartridges with middle case volumes, like the .30-06 Springfield, the .308 Winchester and the 6,5×55 SE.

N160: Vihtavuori’s N160 rifle powder is especially suitable for large and magnum calibers (especially belted Magnums) starting from 30-06 with heavier bullets, .243 Winchester, .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5×55 SE, 7 mm Weatherby Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Winchester Magnum and all the Winchester Short Magnums. It also fits large capacity/small bore cartridges like the 6.5-284 Norma.

N165: N165 is a very slow burning rifle powder, making it a superior choice for the same range of cartridges as N160 when using heavier bullets. As slightly higher velocities can be achieved with N165, it is an excellent choice for long-range shooting and big game hunting.

Of course, those are only the N100 series powders.

If my rifle has a "shorter" barrel (22 inch instead of the "standard" 24 inch), should I go with a hotter powder to ensure a more complete burn in the barrel? What if the barrel was even shorter than that? Or will the slower burn lead to a more gradual pressure build, which would be good if I had an older rifle? Should a heavy for caliber bullet mean the slower powder? What do we mean by "heavy bullet"? 220 grains in a 30-06 strikes me as heavy, but 185 grains? 165? For that matter, is it "heavy for caliber"? My 6.5 shoots 140 and 160 grain bullets, with a smaller than Swede case capacity. My 9.5 shoots 270 grains, with but a 2.25 inch case. Would the N165 be good for all? Or do we go back to "short barrels/make sure it all gets burned? What about a light for caliber? Or, in these times, should I just grab whichever is on the shelf, as there's not a lot of choice out there these days?

I'm at the point where I can load safely, and am getting decent OCW tests to select a load, but I want to be better informed and have better reasons to make choices rather than "just guessing".

Thanks in advance.

If you don’t already have a copy search the web and / or e-bay and get a copy of Ken Waters “pet loads”. MrWaters is the expert most handloaders aspire to. He explains this very topic much better than I can ever hope to. In general I load several different powders looking for the one that shoots the tightest groups with the bullet I have selected. Good luck and think safety first.

 

[MS 9x56]

Will H4350 or IMR4350 be available at your new location?
If so, either is a "go-to" powder for the 30-06 and 180s.

I load H4350 and 180 gr A-Frames and am very happy with accuracy and velocity (2,750 fps) in a 22" Tikka.

Also works very well in 7x57 with 175 grain bullets.

 

[MS 9x56]

Keep in mind every rifle is an entity unto itself. As for pre running the loads in a computer program it may be useful for checking theoretical pressure but as far as how it will work in your rifle? There is only one way to determine that.

 

[Rare Breed]

Thanks again. Yes, the OCW requires shooting (darn!) and relies on shooter skill (I need the practice anyway), and the OBT relies on maths. I'm a history major, so given the choice between maths and shooting...

I do like picking nodes that are one node down from max charge, assuming I can get decent bullet performance. Just a little more flexibility there in case I need to go higher. Obviously, we don't have the temperature sensitivities of cordite, but...

I like the idea of running the numbers. Now, if I could only get QuickLoad to work under Windows 11, or if someone wants to pick up the mantle from GRT...

I can run your quick load numbers. I need the following: 1. Barrel length, grain of bullet, powder, targeted FPS.

 

[SaintPanzer]

I can run your quick load numbers. I need the following: 1. Barrel length, grain of bullet, powder, targeted FPS.

Thank you! As I said, taking a small break to move, but will be in touch when I get back to it!

 

[SaintPanzer]

If y

If you don’t already have a copy search the web and / or e-bay and get a copy of Ken Waters “pet loads”. MrWaters is the expert most handloaders aspire to. He explains this very topic much better than I can ever hope to. In general I load several different powders looking for the one that shoots the tightest groups with the bullet I have selected. Good luck and think safety first.

I'll go through my copy again. I remember the section about checking pressure, but that's not the issue. It's a "what powder would be a good place to start (not the same as what have people had success with in the past), given a list of available powders, which may not currently include the Pet Load ideal powder.

Testing, of course. But let's be clear: I worked up a load using VV N160 and Brenneke TOG bullets. I think I was getting three holes touching at 56.7 grains (I have it written in my log book, that's going off memory. It was not a compressed load (I think 98% case capacity) and if memory serves, 2620fps measured on my Labradar against a QuickLoad predicted 2710.

Good accuracy, adequate velocity for a 165grain bullet, and yes, it was extremely effective.

Would I have had the same accuracy with more speed had I chosen the VV N150? Or would the N165 been the better starting point? Testing is great, I had fun, but with the smallest jar of powder being 1kg, and Brenneke bullets at 50 euro for 25, being close at startex has some serious economic advantages.

Also, IIRC, I had "safe loads" in the book starting at 44.8 grains, and hitting compression around 58 grains, with the loading manual max around 60.2. 44.8 was safe, and I jumped to 49.0 and stepped up at .3 grain increments for 19 rounds, ending at 54.4, recording velocities. I stopped there that day, because if I did get pressure signs in the first 19 rounds, I didn't want to have to dump a lot of rounds. That worked, so I continued up to 99.9% load. I then did a ladder test, and settled on my final. But could I have gotten there quicker?

 

[MS 9x56]

Only quicker way I can think of would have been to start at 50 grains. Bullets have gotten expensive no doubt. I have stopped shooting 5 round groups for that very reason. Good luck developing a load and good luck with your hunting.

 

[perttime]

... I worked up a load using VV N160 and Brenneke TOG bullets. I think I was getting three holes touching at 56.7 grains (I have it written in my log book, that's going off memory. It was not a compressed load (I think 98% case capacity) and if memory serves, 2620fps measured on my Labradar against a QuickLoad predicted 2710.

Good accuracy, adequate velocity for a 165grain bullet, and yes, it was extremely effective.

Would I have had the same accuracy with more speed had I chosen the VV N150? Or would the N165 been the better starting point? ...

Looking at Vihtavuori data...
- 56.7gr of N160 in 30-06 is a bit high but I wouldn't worry about that.
- N150 burns faster. I don't think you can equal the N160 velocity without pressures going over the top.
- N165 burns slower. No VV data. Quite likely, you'd have a compressed load before equaling N160 velocity.
- VV lists N555 as giving more velocity.