Are Accurate powders more dense than others? Their 1 lb. jug is smaller than a 1 lb jug of most anything else (except Vhitavuori). but the loads call for about a grain more than other powders and I seem to go through a lb of Accurate faster than a lb of Alliant powder???

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I'd say that Accurate is perhaps THE most dense powder, on average, available on the market. But then again, I'm a handgun guy and a handgun handloader, so my comments are pretty much contained to handgun.

As such, the powder is the cheap part of most any rounds I load. It's been quite a while since I considered a lighter charge weight/economy to be even a tiny part about choosing a handgun powder.

I'm a pretty good shopper, so I "save" money in other places, but I never worry about it when selecting a propellant.

You can not "generalize" powder density by one particular brand. Powders within any brand have different formulations or chemistry..Density will also vary by lot number and even what environment it is in. Just like flour, Bakers weigh" flour they do not use a measuring cup as humidity and altitude will vary the exact weight.

LEE has a chart of their measurements, but if you do the same with you sample of powder it may or may not be different.

Frequently Asked Questions
/vmd-explanation

http://leeprecision.com/cgi-data/instruct/VMD.pdf

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

I agree with Rule3, but I still think the Lee VMD chart will give you a good "on average" approximation. Check it out.

A quick look shows Accurate powders occupy a smaller part of a CC per grain of powder than many pistol powders I know by name. If it holds true for the powders you are comparing, that would seem to make them more dense.

But since you are using volumes of powder that result in a given charge WEIGHT . . . if your charge target weights were the same for two powders, you should use up a pound of each equally fast, regardless of their bulk density.

In a word, yes. Very fine ball/spherical powders. Many other powders share sim density.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Of course I'm speaking in general. The only Acc powder I've tried and looked at load for is Acc #7, but it always seem a grain or so heavier in the load tables besides coming in a small container.

I guess that could be an optical illusion.

I do know that 'Trail Boss" is intentionally less dense and bulky.

The shape may also affect how a powder 'packs'. Small ball powders pack without much space between the grains. When I worked with granulated carbon they used to 'trickle' the grind into a graduated cylinder to get it to pack to maximum in order to standardize the value of the density as closely as possible. We used to manufacture activated carbon from coal, which was heavier than the wood based stuff we later used. (And then there was coconut shell based product)

I can't afford Vihtavuori, though it's supposed to be great. Thanks to the shortages I have about 8 different pistol powders, mostly Alliant, Hodgdon, IMR and a couple pounds of Acc #7 which is really good for several applications, including soft shooting reduced loads in 9mm with 147 grain bullets.

Since powder is more available and a little cheaper than it was, I'm not as concerned about economy/load, but I was curious as to why the Accurate powders come in what appears smaller containers. What I do worry about is being able to keep enough powder on hand in case another shortage hits.

I have close to 20 lb of powder at home. I understand that I can only store more if it is contained in a one inch thick wood cabinet.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I've attached a useful chart that compares powders by burn rate and density. I go to it often when trying to select a powder that will fill the case I'm using.

Attached Files

powder burn rates.pdf (51.0 KB, 96 views)

Thanks. That is good chart. I shows what "we" have been trying to emphasis (in other threads)"magnum" powders being not only slower burning but dense. They fill the cases up so it's less likely to have an oops and blow things up compared to FAST powders.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Well, as to the running through a pound of powder quickly, that will be a function of weight of the charges rather than density. It doesn't matter how fluffy say, 10 grains of a powder is, you load by weight, so you will get 700 rounds from a pound of powder. If the load calls for 9 grains, then you will get 777 rounds with just a little left over.

This is why fast powders like Titegroup are so economical. Compare a slow powder for H110 in .357 with a 158 grain jacketed. It calls for over 16 grains max. Titegroup calls for a little over 6 grains max. That is a huge difference in powder.

True but look at the performance.

Titegroup generates more pressure and LESS velocity.

Depends on what you want in a load. Plus the odds are greater for a new reloader to have bad things happen with such a fast powder in a magnum load.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

I was not recommending the fast powders, merely using them as an example to explain the differences.

I have used Titegroup and Bullseye. They have their advantages as well as disadvantages. For .38 and .357, I much prefer slower powders like Universal. I really like 4227 in .357, but it costs a good bit more to load than Universal.

The price of a powder isn't on the tag, it's in the charge weights. I consider some of the super-slow powders for .44 Magnum (2400 and such) to be very expensive because they require something like a 22-grain charge when something like Unique only demands 10.7-11 grains for a fairly stout load.

I'd love to buy some n310 or n320, but nobody wants to carry it locally, because everybody local thinks it's so expensive.

The proper terminology is BULK density, which refers to granular materials, not solids or liquids. essentially the weight per unit volume, grams per cc, pounds per cubic foot, etc., of the granular material, depending upon what units you want to use. As noted, tables of bulk density for various propellants are readily available. The older editions of Handloader's Digest always had bulk density tables in them.

I use AA#5 for hot 9x23 Winchester loads as it is by far the best propellant for it, as its high bulk density (near the top of the list for pistol powders) allows the greatest mass of propellant in the relatively small-volume case. Ball powders always have higher bulk densities than granular powders, as the packing efficiency of balls (especially balls of mixed diameters) is much greater than sticks or flakes.

That is a VERY useful chart. Good having that info in one place.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

It's not just 'peak' pressure but the shape of the entire curve as well as where the peak is from ignition to the time the bullet leaves the barrel. I'd love to delve into internal ballistics more but it's a huge can of worms.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

To a poor guy like me that's substantial. It's premium stuff, but I don't really need premium stuff when the regular priced powders go 'bang' and shoot a bullet out of the end of the barrel. It's kinda like not developing a taste for expensive scotch or coffee. I do, however, see that some of the Vihtavuori line give top performance in some loads. That would be worth the extra cost if used sparingly.

I see it around here occasionally, but usually it's only one or two lbs at any one time. Not much of a selection.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

...for the proper term. Should have used that at the beginning of the thread. Oh well......

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I have the impression that #7 is denser AND takes bigger charge weights. The pound of lead vs. a pound of feathers thing applies here, though not so extreme.


Here's a story that has nothing to do with anything, but it's a good one.

Someone discovered that Black Widow webs had a huge price/lb in the world market for cross hairs in optical equipment (i.e. rifle scopes, since this is a gun site) and considered getting into the supply business. The problem was that the entire world supply of webs for a year was about.... one pound.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Powder manufacturers, like most makers of any product, like to buy stuff in bulk. I have notices that, pretty often, all of a powder maker's products of the same weight will be in the same size container, but when you open a new one, they are filled to different levels. Same weight of contents but take up different amounts of space.

...very observant.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Lots of misunderstanding on that point. Slow powders are about greater velocity without exceeding a given pressure level.

If somebody is going to be unsafe with dense powder they'll be unsafe with bulky powder.

As for density, that's a different kettle o' fish. I load 9mm, .38 & .45ACP with Bullseye & Green Dot. Load data is close enough to almost be considered identical but Green Dot is roughly 33% more bulky than Bullseye. Bigger flakes I think. In fact a double charge of 2 x 4.6 gr in a .45ACP case would be so obvious Stevie Wonder couldn't miss it.

As for the Lee spreadsheet, it's useful for getting in the ballpark, that's about it.

Just for information, there is the actual density of the powder (quite likely nearly the same for all nitrocellulose powders) and the bulk (packing) density of the powder (that includes imperfect packing and lots of air space). Reloaders only need worry about bulk density.
No, I don't see any difference in loads that isn't explained by ball vs flake and burn rate vs charge weight.
You can compare bulk density using Lee VMD data (VMD = inverse of bulk density).
AA2 uses about the same charge weight as Bullseye and Red Dot, at very similar burn rates.
Compared to the cost of bullets (unless hand cast from free lead), powder cost is really insignificant.

The speed produced is the integrated value of the area under the pressure curve (total work done on bullet), not the peak pressure. So the oft repeated statement that compares peak pressure to MV is at best irrelevant. Some beginners get the notion a load with the lowest possible peak pressure is a good idea, but such loads are often smokey and erratic. What I try to teach new loaders is to choose a balanced load with a powder that is not crowding either end of the pressure range for that caliber, and concentrate on their technique to learn consistency.

It is true that more of an overload can be put in a large case with a faster powder, but I don't accept the inverse implication that slow powders are foolproof.

Nothing is foolproof for a sufficiently ingenious fool.

__________________
Science plus Art

Never ever said that slow powders where fool proof.

I said,
"Plus the odds are greater for a new reloader to have bad things happen with such a fast powder in a magnum load".


Generally the powder that fills the case up the most (within load data!) is a powder that will give the best results/ Load density per caliber/powder.


"dumping" a double charge of say 2400 in a 357 is not possible but a a double of TG is. Also the slower powders in relation to above will not in general cause a Kboom if by accident a charge slightly higher than recommend max load. Where again a faster powder is more likely to cause a pressure spike. Yes, there are many variables as to what powder, caliber etc etc.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

I have used Xtra light minimum powder loads below data manuals to
powder flowing over a rifle case to get either maximum fps or a 90% accuracy load.

It just depends on what works our for you in the loads you develop.
Some people try to pinch pennys while others don't care on the amount of powder to get a good load.

However I do like a 45% case volume in revolver or pistol loads and at least a 80% of standard rifle powder, for standard size bullets.

Lead or plinkers are a whole new ball game......... that take extra care.

Finally got to use all the calculus you took.

__________________
Reg. Magnum wants/Rossi wallet

Not all, but at least some of it. After retiring the first time, I decided to teach math and physics in college.
Gave a standing offer to skip any section that did not have a practical use, and never had to skip anything. Nothing like real life engineer/physics problems to illustrate "Why calculus?"

__________________
Science plus Art