H-110 and W-296 Are Not The Same

[Dragon88]

Do you really believe this handgun data from Hodgdon?

Yes, that's one of my favorite 357 loads to shoot.

 

[MMA10mm]

Since I used to work in a chemical production plant, I have some idea of what lot to lot variation actually means. If you are allowed 1% water, you can blend two tanks of "juice" that are .5% and 1.5% water in equal parts and you'll get 1% in an evenly dispersed mixture/blend.

That isn't rocket science and it's also what powder manufacturers do. The canister powders are made/blended from bulk lots to produce the desired numbers and they'll be pretty close, if not exact.

Organic chemicals usually don't produce one variety of product. Nitrocellulose is no exception and produces a mono-nitro, di-nitro and tri-nitrocellulose in its normal production and varied by the amount of time the cellulose is exposed to nitric acid. The composition of each batch/lot can be determined in several ways, so the composition isn't an unknown.

To think there is wide variation is to fool yourself, but there will be minor amounts of variation.

Actually, this IS rocket science. The reason General Dynamics owns St. Marks Powder is because of their involvement in the aerospace industry.

And, although from a chemists point of view and from a "production" point of view, your last assertion may be right, from an ammunition makers (or handloaders) point of view, this last statement is dangerously faulty. You are right in that a wide variation is non-existent from a production stand-point. When you're trying to hit a certain set of numbers (values) in a chemical process, you can get pretty darn close. HOWEVER, look at the problems/efforts that are gone through with ball powders in particular (since that's what we're talking about - other powders go through similar processes, but it seems to require less effort to get them "right").

Ball powders are DEGRESSIVE burning, NOT PROGRESSIVE, because of their spherical shape. (As the sphere burns away, it get's smaller and with that smaller surface area there is less and less gas production due to the geometry, heat and pressure involved.) THEREFORE, St Marks Powder has to coat the powder after testing the production lot to see how degressive it is. (First lot-to-lot variation involves how close to the ideal they get with that individual lot without coatings.) From that point, they add coatings to adjust the burning rate. These coatings not cause the powder to be PROGRESSIVE. How much or how little they have to coat that particular lot causes another lot-to-lot variation. THIRD, we have the normal lot-to-lot variation that happens with anything man-made - maybe this jug got a portion of powder with a little more deterrent coating than that jug, etc... As you can see, there are many factors that play into lot-to-lot (and even within-lot) variation.

Now, the reloader comes along and doesn't know about this stuff, he just knows SMP made this lot of 296 (without the "W," it is SMP's powder name) to get as close to the burning speed, size, shape, and progressiveness as possible for "W296" or "H-110". He feels it's correct to use the published load data (and it is), but maybe he thinks - I just loaded some of this and I used XX.X grains, so I'm just going to use that. That's where he gets into trouble. With the new lot number, he needs to go back to the starting load and work up his load again.

I'll give you a real-life example - I really like 231 (HP-38 as sold by Hodgdon) and have developed loads with it for all of my pistol calibers. One day, the jug runs dry, so I buy a new jug. All of my old loads don't work... I had started with 9mm, so I go back and review. I use(d) 4.4grs with a 124gr LRN bullet and got 1200fps out of my Browning Hi-Power with my old lot. It was a fairly hot load by American standards. My new lot of 231 wouldn't reliably cycle the slide until I got to 4.7grs. The old load of 4.4 with the new lot of powder was giving me velocities in the 800s and 900s. (Wide velocity swings happen because of inconsistent combustion which often accompanies too low of pressures.) Once I got up to 4.7-4.8grs with that lot of powder, velocities went up to 1050-1100fps, and I had good reliability.

So, from a handloader's perspective, lot-to-lot variation can be a VERY big deal, even though from a production standpoint, the powders are so close, they should be considered the same...

For years we were told, in a round about way, they weren't the same powder. Thus we had different data published.

To say "If the people who manufacture and sell the powders say they are the same, that pretty much settles the matter for me.", is to assume they aren't lying again.

We have been indirectly told H4227 isn't the same as IMR4227, but then we find out one has been dropped and the actual dropped powder is in the container now. Does that really give you a sense of security in believing what the manufacturers say?

Do you really believe this handgun data from Hodgdon?



Semperfi,

It is entirely possible for one lot to shoot better than another lot of the same powder, especially if there are several years difference in their production dates. That may be a result of solvent loss over the years or even moisture intake. Either situation would change the actual weight of the powder itself that you are loading, because you aren't weighing the lost solvent or you are weighing extra moisture. That's even if they are identical in the beginning.

While I like your point to Semperfi at the bottom, I have to go back and reiterate that we ALL use data from someone else. If you can't trust what Hodgdon's reps are telling you about the powders they are putting on the market (even though they would be taking a HUGE LIABILITY RISK to "lie" about something that goes AGAINST safety - as opposed to not taking a liability risk at all if they lie on the side of being more safe), then by extension you can't trust the reloading manuals that are put out by anyone... (And, maybe in a way we agree on that - in that I'm trying to point out the importance of starting over with load development whenever you change LOT # of powder, and not just assume any load between start and max in a load book is safe...)

ArchAngelCD,

I used different load weights between the H-110 and W-296 because the data I have indicated those would be safe loads to start with.

Everybody who has read this post is missing the main gist of my experience.

Even though H-110 and W-296 are the same powders. IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT IS THE MOST ACCURATE POWDER FOR YOUR HANDGUN YOU MUST LOAD AS MANY POWDERS AS YOU CAN. Your results may vary from mine, your handgun may shoot one powder better than another.

But, when looking for the most accurate load for your weapon, to be truly satsified one should load as many powders as possible. My data proves that.

For years I shot only H-110 and Unique. I go tired of Unique being dirty and I wanted to find a powder that provided a better overall accuracy in all of my handguns. I settled on Bullseye. On the average it gave me the best overall accuracy with clean burning. BUT it still was not the most accurate for each and every handgun. I now have the time to "branch out" and try other powders. Every handgun I have shot so far in this approach [10 or so] has shown that it prefers one powder over the next. If I want the most accurate load for each handgun I need to have 10 powders available.

mkk41 states, "But YOU know better , huh?" My response: My data proves that in MY M27-2, one powder does exceptionally well with one bullet but on the next bullet it does not. I never said I knew better. I have said here that one must always be willing to experiment to find the most accurate load for each handgun. And it is obvious that even powders reputed to be the same can produce different accuracy levels. Even if the difference is attributable to lot variations. And it is obvious that the difference can be as much as three inches.

Paul5388 states, "To think there is wide variation is to fool yourself, but there will be minor amounts of variation." My response: Look again at my data, the difference between 4 1/4 inch groups and 1 1/4 inch groups at 25 yards is a big enough variation that I think I want to shoot the smaller grouping load.

n4zov...you already read about it so I guess you already wasted your time. And everybody else's because you had nothing constructive to add.

To add more; I have loaded only Bullseye and then swapped out different bullets until I found the most accurate load. However I have also found out that by staying with one bullet and swapping out powders I can find a more accurate load. But...if you again look at my data, if I had only chosen the Sierra 158 grain HP and loaded as I did I would be left the impression that my pistol does shoot well. And I know the Sierra 158 grain HP is a very accurate bullet in other handguns.

Therefore, if one has the time, and I realize, the money; he/she should experiment as much as possible with several bullest and powders to find the right load. And even if the powder companies, or a lot of reloading aficianados state two powders are exactly the same, I suggest you do the experimentation and see for yourself. In my case they are not the same.

To prove this further I should probably load H-110 and W-296 to maximum loads with the same bullet and components, then chronograph them. If they provide the essentially same ballistics then we have two powders that are the same. But since they provide different levels of accuracy, perhaps I might find out different.

So I have two more steps to take. Load to max on H-110 and W-296 and see what, if any, are the differences in velocity.

And then choose one of the two, or both powders, and load several different lots of each powder and see what the differences in accuracy are.

Stay tuned if you wish, and I will be back with that report in a few weeks.

Except you n4zov, I would not want to waste your time anymore.

Ya'll have a good night.

semperfi,
I think you're missing the point of why this thread has dregged up so much discussion and disagreement. Your "test" created wrong conclusions and was fraught with mis-steps as far as using/applying the scientific method. You used different loads and you hand-held the gun and you used a criteria that doesn't apply to the question at hand. (Accuracy cannot be used to compare if two powders are the same or not. You should have used velocity.)

If you want to make this a meaningful test, you need to use the EXACT same sets of components except for the difference of the powders, you need to use a chronograph, and you need to make it a statistically large enough sample to be meaningful. This last point means you have to shoot more than 5 rounds with each powder AND you need to buy five different lot #s of each powder and run the test with all of them on the same day (to minimize conditional variation).

Even then, I am confident what you are going to find is that, statistically, the 10 different sets of powder are going to overlap.

If you want, for fun, you can mount the pistol in a machine rest (such as a Ransom Rest) during the test and compare the accuracy too. I'd be willing to bet you're original "accuracy variation criteria" were neither accurate or meaningful. But if you DO find one lot that is exceptionally accurate vs. the other 9, you'd better get out your checkbook and buy a hundred pounds or more so you have the ideal powder in a lifetime supply...

 

[Paul5388]

While what you wrote sounds good, it might be a good idea to read a little more about the actual process of powder manufacturing. This page, from Hatcher's Notebook may help you understand the process a little better.

The ball size decreasing isn't the only consideration, since just about everything being consumed get's smaller. Of course, the issue is really surface area, where the burning takes place. That can be partially overcome by perforating the powder particles, which actually increases the surface area in the combustion process.

The use of deterrents pretty well negates the "degressive" aspect and is a necessary approach to combat the tendency to almost detonate (all of it burning at too high of a rate). The tremendous amount of surface area presented by the small spherical shape would provide a large increase in initial pressure, which isn't a desirable feature. Therefore, deterrents are used to thwart that tendency and allow the pressure to build in a more normal "progressive" fashion.

Since the process is an exothermic reaction (it produces heat), it falls within the normal methods of speeding a reaction. The methods for speeding a reaction are: increase concentration, increase pressure, increase temperature and increase agitation. As you can see, two of those methods are present in powder combustion, so the increases cause the reaction rate to accelerate, not decelerate.

Variations in lots occur when different ingredients/chemicals are used in the production process. The amount of cellulose present in a particular raw material can vary by tremendous amounts. A change from cotton to wood (sawdust) as a raw cellulose material does affect the final concentrations of nitrocellulose, but the nitrocellulose is still identical in either process. It just needs to be concentrated and/or separated by fractional distillation or other means.

All of that to say, there aren't any wide variations in the final product, if the producer is competent, but there are minor lot to lot variations.

 

[semperfi71]

MMA10mm,

I never intended my test to be "scientific" and never said so. I did a "test" that I believe most of us have time and affordability to do. Of course my test is not a be all to end all. Never said it was. BUT, if anybody wants to find the BEST powder for their specific weapon they need to test a lot of powders...unless they get lucky and the first group is accurate enough for their needs.

I know full well that if I [and I will] increase my W-296 load up to full velocity, it may change its accuracy. But I have to start somewhere as to what is the most accurate.

I was not comparing the powders to debunk the reports that H-110 and W-296 are different powders as sent out the factory door. But I used that as my "Intro" to garner interest from my fellow S&W'ers. It worked and we had an interesting discussion here.

But for whatever reason they can be different when we finally buy them and load them. Why I do not know. But in my test with one bullet loaded with H-110 was more accurate and in another W-296 was. I already have a lot of H-110 and will be buying another canister of W-296 and be set for life.

You also stated: "(Accuracy cannot be used to compare if two powders are the same or not. You should have used velocity.)" BUT, I did not do this test to determine the velocity and therefore claim one powder is less or more than the other. My test was an ACCURACY test. So I tested for accuracy. A difference of 1 grain between powders SHOULD not create such a wide variance in accuracy. But I admit it could. A lot of things are possible when we reload that will enhance or degrade accuracy.

As to the use of a Ransom Rest, go back and read my posts. How many of us really have, or have access to a Ransom Rest? So we test over a rest with our hands. This gives us the best possible tight-holding combination with the resources we have. Plus, just as soon as we stand on our hind feet and plink or target shoot, those 1/1/4 inch groups are going to open up. I would rather then be shooting the load that grouped 1 1/4 inches from a hand-held rest than the one that grouped 4 inches.

Additionally, I have been doing my accuracy testing this way since I bought my first centerfire handgun. That was how Elmer, Skeeter, Venturino, and the rest did it with handguns and rifles. I can hold pretty steady as I do it. If it groups as I shot these groups it is accurate enough for my uses. And I definitely do not think that using a Ransom Rest will shrink the 4 inch H-110 load to compete with the 1 1/2 inch W-296 load.

I do trust all of our main reloading sources. There are those here who claim the older manuals listed hotter/faster loads and this "watering down" today is due to liablility concerns. It may be true. They also may now have better equipment to measure with. My manuals date from 1971ish to now. And I use the data online from the manufacturers sources. As such this is why I started with a little less W-296 than the H-110, over the average it appeared these were safe loads to use. Not too low and not too high.

You are most correct, and I said the same which I will expand on. One must never work up a maximum load and then insert a new lot of the same powder and expect the same results. At the worst high pressures can occur. For many years, as long as I remember this warning has been cited by the manufacturers, the reloading manuals, and the bullet makers who have manuals. And amongst savvy reloaders.

Plus, once the powder leaves the factory dock we have no real clue as to where it went, how long it sat there, how it was stored, and who did what with it in the store we bought it from. I am always careful with loading towards maximum loads because of that.

Also, I know of a few shooters who buy their powder from "dealers" at gunshows. I never do this. There may be truly reputable dealers at the show but when I walk up to "Joe Slopechutte" and he is selling a couple of guns, some packaged bullets, beef jerky, and some powders, even in their factory containers, I walk on by. I had a friend give me a pound of "H-870" years ago, in a non-factory container. He assured me that the gunshow seller was reliable. I have never used it.

When loading for accuracy one must load for accuracy not velocity. If one wants the best load he/she must experiment with a lot of powders, unless they get lucky with the first load or so. Once they find the right combo, they'd better go out and buy enough for their lifetime.

Lots can change, the company can discontinue the powder (like discontinued H-870, an excellent powder in my .25-06, I'm still mad at Hodgdons for that...just kidding), or everybody will start a "run", as earlier this year, and you are out of luck for a long while.

 

[semperfi71]

AND..........let me add this.........

IMR, or is it Hodgdon's? Makes two types of the same powders. IMR4831 and IMR4831SC or is it Hodgdon's H4831 and H4831SC?

Anyhow they assure us that the powders are the same, I think the SC [Short Cut] was designed to meter better. I'm a belt and suspenders guy. Just cutting the length of the kernels...what can that do the change the charactersitics of the powder? Since these powders are supposedly progressively burning I will always assume the shorter kernel of the same powder may burn differently. Plus there has been several sources that do not recommend compressing powders too much because it can change their properties due to crushing the kernels.

So, when I return to loading for my smokeless centerfire rifles (I have not done so in many years) I will try BOTH versions of standard and short cut. If they shoot the same, THEN I KNOW FOR SURE. If they shoot differently, then they are the same as I have stated for H-110 and W-296; at the bench, when I shoot they are different.

Additionally to all.

Almost everyone, even in the labs (or they used to), shoots their rifles from a human hand-held rest...for accuracy. Why is that not the same for handguns? Almost all of us do that as well.

Ya'll be careful now.

 

[MMA10mm]

While what you wrote sounds good, it might be a good idea to read a little more about the actual process of powder manufacturing. This page, from Hatcher's Notebook may help you understand the process a little better.

The ball size decreasing isn't the only consideration, since just about everything being consumed get's smaller. Of course, the issue is really surface area, where the burning takes place. That can be partially overcome by perforating the powder particles, which actually increases the surface area in the combustion process.

The use of deterrents pretty well negates the "degressive" aspect and is a necessary approach to combat the tendency to almost detonate (all of it burning at too high of a rate). The tremendous amount of surface area presented by the small spherical shape would provide a large increase in initial pressure, which isn't a desirable feature. Therefore, deterrents are used to thwart that tendency and allow the pressure to build in a more normal "progressive" fashion.

Since the process is an exothermic reaction (it produces heat), it falls within the normal methods of speeding a reaction. The methods for speeding a reaction are: increase concentration, increase pressure, increase temperature and increase agitation. As you can see, two of those methods are present in powder combustion, so the increases cause the reaction rate to accelerate, not decelerate.

Variations in lots occur when different ingredients/chemicals are used in the production process. The amount of cellulose present in a particular raw material can vary by tremendous amounts. A change from cotton to wood (sawdust) as a raw cellulose material does affect the final concentrations of nitrocellulose, but the nitrocellulose is still identical in either process. It just needs to be concentrated and/or separated by fractional distillation or other means.

All of that to say, there aren't any wide variations in the final product, if the producer is competent, but there are minor lot to lot variations.

First, I have read widely about powder production, much of which is from newer sources than Hatcher's Notebook (1947), but I've read from it as well, and even some older sources as well. Did you know that the first ball powders from Winchester were made here in Alton, IL from surplussed cannon powder from WWI that had been stored underwater in outdoor bunkers and was "reclaimed" by processing it into ball powders for WWII? (That's right folks - all those GIs shooting M-1 Carbines during WWII were basically shooting re-processed WWI cannon powder - converted through chemical process into that new-fangled ball powder...)

Second, nothing I said above disagrees with what you wrote later. I even used the same terminology of surface area to make my point. I may have not gone into quite as much detail, but my description of the process is accurate and understandable from a handloader's point of view. (A guy just trying to make safe, effective loads.)

By reading your last paragraph, I guess you missed my point. You have been saying there isn't a huge lot-to-lot variation, but a minor one. Right, I get that - from your perspective as a production person and hitting a certain set of values in testing. I think you're missing MY point. From a handloader's point of view, the "minor" lot-to-lot variations can be enough to cause a gun not to function correctly (like my example with an experience with a particularly slow lot of 231) all the way to blowing up a rifle/pistol/shotgun if the loader is not careful and start over at the beginning load and work up (or down) carefully. From that person's point of view lot-to-lot variation can appear quite large. When 4.4grs of 231 wouldn't cycle the slide, and going to 4.7grs just got decent functioning without hitting the old velocity threshold (my standard, if you will), at a load that is at or over the max published in most of Winchester's load guides over the years, from a handloader's perspective looks like a DANG LARGE variation.

I've handloaded long enough to know that without pressure signs, and with good data in terms of velocity, case head expansion, and cycling of the firearm being weak or brisk, I can get a pretty good idea that a particularly slow lot of powder means I can safely go over the published maximum load. But, I know some guys who flat-out refuse to do so, and would consider that powder "defective" and would demand their money back...

 

[MMA10mm]

MMA10mm,

I never intended my test to be "scientific" and never said so. I did a "test" that I believe most of us have time and affordability to do. Of course my test is not a be all to end all. Never said it was. BUT, if anybody wants to find the BEST powder for their specific weapon they need to test a lot of powders...unless they get lucky and the first group is accurate enough for their needs.

Well, if that's all your intent was, I suppose you should claim victory, because you've certainly stirred up a lot of discussion!

I suppose an argument could be made that the way you started off sure implies(d) that your intent was more than that by making the assertion you started off with, but I'll not take up that flag.

I hope that the lively discussion has not just been entertaining but also educational for your loading practices and tests in the future. By some of your answers though, I'm not sure...

 

[semperfi71]

MMA10mm,

My original post pretty well covered everything I have repeated after. And my statements have always been quite clear.

1. H-110 and W-296 are very well the same powders, BUT in some handguns they will shoot to different accuracy levels, so one should try them all if need be to find the sweet load.

2. Handloads, over a hand-held rest has been the accepted form of accuracy testing since I started in 1973 in the case of most handloaders and gunwriters.

3. A Ransom Rest will give better results, but how many of us have one?

4. I never said my testing was scientific, then again never was the gunwriter's either, since they did as I did.

5. I have never tested accuracy as to lot variations, but I will soon and I will report it here.

6. If you are wondering about me then how do you test your handloads for accuracy?

 

[Skip Sackett]

Let me lighten this up a bit......................

MMA10mm,

2. Handloads, over a hand-held rest has been the accepted form of accuracy testing since I started in 1973 in the case of most handloaders and gunwriters.

3. A Ransom Rest will give better results, but how many of us have one?

4. I never said my testing was scientific, then again never was the gunwriter's either, since they did as I did.

5. I have never tested accuracy as to lot variations, but I will soon and I will report it here.

6. If you are wondering about me then how do you test your handloads for accuracy?

Well, I can tell you how I check for accuracy in my handloads, and only another steel gripped Marine will understand this: "I use myself!" When you have gone through U.S.M.C. boot camp you learn all that stuff. How to be rock hard and never flinch and ..........................................................

Only another Jarhead will really understand the above statement!

 

[semperfi71]

OORAH! Devildog!

 

[Paul5388]

(That's right folks - all those GIs shooting M-1 Carbines during WWII were basically shooting re-processed WWI cannon powder - converted through chemical process into that new-fangled ball powder...)

I think this is basically what Hatcher was saying and the chemical process was to merely coat with nitroglycerin and a deterrent. All of it necessary to get the needed energy out of the single based cannon powder. Cannon powder is/was single based to extend the life of the big bore barrels.

From a handloader's point of view, the "minor" lot-to-lot variations can be enough to cause a gun not to function correctly (like my example with an experience with a particularly slow lot of 231) all the way to blowing up a rifle/pistol/shotgun

And you have actually seen or experienced this? I think I have great reservations about any of that being possible. The manufacturers aren't about to let their specifications be so close to blowing up a gun that a lot variation would cause it. The more probable cause is inattention to proper handloading processes.

 

[MMA10mm]

And you have actually seen or experienced this? I think I have great reservations about any of that being possible. The manufacturers aren't about to let their specifications be so close to blowing up a gun that a lot variation would cause it. The more probable cause is inattention to proper handloading processes.

Yep, have been writing about it... My experience with 231.

I was a commercial bullet caster and reloader from 1993 to 1996, and I've purchased several hundreds of pounds of 231 (some of it marked SMP231, but most of it W231 - I live a short drive from Winchester's plant in East Alton, IL.) Out of the 20 or so lot numbers of 231 I've had over the last 20 years, one was exceptionally slow, as described above, and one was slightly faster, so I had to reduce my loads 4-5% to maintain proper performance and safety. This is well within the "drop your max load 10% and work up" standards. The vast majority of lots were within 2% (plus OR minus - so total variance of 4%) of my standard loads. If you include the extreme spread of fast-burning to slow-burning, I've experienced a 13% variation in burning rate (4% faster than normal to 9% slower) with W231 over 10 years and about 20 different lot #s.

My standard load in 9mm is 4.4grs of 231. When I get a new lot #, I start at 4.0grs and work up watching pressure signs and velocity readings. Once I found a load that seemed to be working right per velocity and pressure signs, I tried the loads through a half-dozen pistols that hit a pretty good variety to make sure they were reliable (a couple types of Glocks, a Browning Hi-Power, Walther P88 & P38, and some others). I've gotten pressure signs at 4.4grs (with the fast lot I referred to above) and had to stop and load at 4.2grs, even though I was getting about 75fps less velocity than normal... Then I had that ultra-slow-burning lot I referred to in a previous post that I had to load at 4.8grs to get reliable feeding in all the guns involved, and still gave pretty low velocities compared to normal (by almost 100fps).

Except for 10,000 rounds I made with Federal primers (that didn't work well in my reloading equipment, so I switched back to Winchester), all of the ammo was loaded with Winchester primers. Cases were all military, and bullets were all cast Saeco #115 124gr Pointed RNs. OAL was carefully watched and it was all loaded with the same dies... There was no "handloading errors" when I was doing the load development work or the loading of production lots.


Recently, I purchased a keg of HP38, because I found a good deal on a mail order - better than local prices for W231... It is about 2-3% slower than my standard W231 loads.

I admit that most people don't go through enough of the same kind of powder to really notice these lot-to-lot variations. I only did because I had to test loads whenever we switched lot numbers of powders. Most handloaders will go through three or maybe four lot numbers of a favorite brand/model of powder in a lifetime.

I still really like 231; I just wish they would make a less-smokey version of it... I don't mind the variation that much, though I wish I didn't have those kegs of really slow and really fast lots...

 

[Paul5388]

So, it's a matter of anecdotal experiences and you didn't actually see or experience "all the way to blowing up a rifle/pistol/shotgun"?

Here's some data I recorded on powders that varied by as much as 60 years and intentionally pick that way.

You'll notice the loads are more than 10% over what is recommended in modern reloading data and yet even the 1949 M&P didn't complain about the loads. Now tell me again how your loads are potentially going to blow up anything except a Kaboom prone Glock.

Once upon a time I loaded some 9mm with 4.9 gr of Universal and a 124 gr Golden Saber.

125 GR. SIE FMJ Hodgdon Universal .355" 1.090" 4.3 1031 26,900 CUP 4.9 1118 30,600 CUP

That load would back the primers out on a Ruger P85 (or whatever), it would pierce primers in a Glock, but it shot fine out of a Taurus PT92. 30,600 cup is approximately 15% less than the max SAAMI specification for 9mm and CCI primers are noted for being hard enough. Regardless, the guns didn't blow up, but they did tell me they didn't like that load.

It might also interest you to know a MEC 600Jr, even with an adjustable bar, doesn't meter normal shotgun powders very well. Yet, we've shot the loads it produced for the last 35 years without incident, even the 4 dram equivalents in 2 3/4" hulls.

 

[MMA10mm]

So, it's a matter of anecdotal experiences and you didn't actually see or experience "all the way to blowing up a rifle/pistol/shotgun"?

Here's some data I recorded on powders that varied by as much as 60 years and intentionally pick that way.

You'll notice the loads are more than 10% over what is recommended in modern reloading data and yet even the 1949 M&P didn't complain about the loads. Now tell me again how your loads are potentially going to blow up anything except a Kaboom prone Glock.

Once upon a time I loaded some 9mm with 4.9 gr of Universal and a 124 gr Golden Saber.

That load would back the primers out on a Ruger P85 (or whatever), it would pierce primers in a Glock, but it shot fine out of a Taurus PT92. 30,600 cup is approximately 15% less than the max SAAMI specification for 9mm and CCI primers are noted for being hard enough. Regardless, the guns didn't blow up, but they did tell me they didn't like that load.

It might also interest you to know a MEC 600Jr, even with an adjustable bar, doesn't meter normal shotgun powders very well. Yet, we've shot the loads it produced for the last 35 years without incident, even the 4 dram equivalents in 2 3/4" hulls.

I never said I've seen a blown-up gun from lot-to-lot variations. For the record, the only gun I've had any damage to because of reloads was a Beretta 92F that got a swelled barrel because the new shooter who was using it did not know what a squib load was, and bulged the barrel when he pulled the trigger on the next round. (I was yelling and screaming to not pull the trigger, but he couldn't hear me through the ear protection and because I was about 50 yards away - walking back to the truck for a new target...)

What I said was that in my experience, the lot-to-lot variation is enough that it CAN BE dangerous to not back off 10% when starting to load with a new lot # of powder and NOT trust that the companies do such a good job that lot-to-lot variations are "minimal" as you said. This is evidenced by my experience with 231 which had up to 13% burning speed variation in the different lots I've used.

Now, as far as your above post, you accuse me of use anecdotal evidence and then you throw those arguments at the end of your post in there? I've loaded all kinds of loads that were far above the "book" maximum, and they worked fine, and I've had other "book-safe" loads that were fine in one gun, but not another. By your own standard these comments are meaningless due to being anecdotal.

As far as your chart comparing "the load," it appears you checked two lots made many years apart through three guns, and through this experience you found variations of less than 1% to as much as 2%. That's much less checking than I did, and it mirrors the vast majority of my testing. I'd suggest you just haven't chosen a large enough sample to run across those (thankfully) rare lots that DO vary greatly from the norm.

Another factor is that this entire thread has been talking about ball powders, and my comments have been with the implied understanding that these issues are more prominent with ball powders. I have a LOT of experience with ball and flake powders - more so than extruded/tubular. The production process with ball powders combined with their nature makes them a little more inconsistent in terms of their exact behaviors than flake and (again with my limited experience) tubular powders. The production companies have to do a lot more coating (type and amount) with ball powders, and often the end result is varying performance (both in regards to pressure and velocity - and often those two factors will change separately, such as the load that gave me similar or higher pressures but lower velocities). So, to compare Unique and SR4756 to the issues I've been describing with ball powders is a bit of an apples to oranges thing.

Still, so far, I've seen nothing in your posts that refute my experiences. In fact they confirm them, except for the extreme variations. I can only presume you haven't tested enough different lot #s of the same powder to run across this or these larger variations may only exist in the occasional lot of ball powder but not flake or tubular... Still, no matter what kind of powder I use, I'd drop back 10% to re-work-up the load when a new lot # comes my way.

 

[Paul5388]

Let me remind you, this is what you said.

From a handloader's point of view, the "minor" lot-to-lot variations can be enough to cause a gun not to function correctly (like my example with an experience with a particularly slow lot of 231) all the way to blowing up a rifle/pistol/shotgun

That implies it's possible to blow a gun (rifle/pistol/shotgun) up by the variation between lots, but you haven't seen it happen nor have you ever heard of it happening.

'nuff said.

 

[MMA10mm]

Well, in a way I have heard of it happening. Why do you think there are all the warnings about backing off and starting load development over again when switching to a new lot?

I have recorded 13% lot-to-lot variations from slowest to fastest, and although this did not happen to me, nor have I heard of a specific instance of it, IF a load was developed with the slowest lot and then by happen-chance the fastest lot was loaded and the unsafe practice you are suggesting was followed - I think it is VERY possible to blow up a gun. And, you're right that I've never seen a blown-up gun from lot-to-lot variations, but I have seen my buddy's model 29-1 have the cases need to be pounded out with a mallet and dowel rod because he didn't start over when switching from one lot to another. That's close enough for me!

For the life of me, I don't understand why you insist on arguing about a safety procedure on a public forum where less-experienced handloaders may read your "insight" when you have data that is less extensive than mine AND goes against the safe-practice recommendations of the powder manufacturers and everyone else in the reloading industry (such as the bullet manufacturers who put out loading manuals, and other published literature in the handloading field)??

I guess you're so smart about all this that you know better than them all...

'nuff said...

 

[Skip Sackett]

I have recorded 13% lot-to-lot variations from slowest to IF a load was developed with the slowest lot and then by happen-chance the fastest lot was loaded and the unsafe practice you are suggesting was followed - I think it is VERY possible to blow up a gun. And, you're right that I've never seen a blown-up gun from lot-to-lot variations,

10MM,
This would be totally dependent on caliber. Case in point: 45AR. Load a case full of AA#9, and yes there are some loads for that and some heavier bullets, and change the burn rate by 13% and you still can't get enough powder in it to blow a firearm up. Double up on Bullseye or worse, Titegroup and sure, you are going to have a catastrophic failure. Have a 13% increase even with Bullseye or one of the faster powders and you might have sticky extraction but not a "blow up".

No doubt about having to work up loads from lot to lot BUT, someone shouldn't worry about "blowing up" a gun with the difference. If that was a real possibility, powder companies would be out of business. EVERYTHING made by man has tolerances. Powder companies aren't going to let things hit the market knowingly that could cause that kind of damage. Some have slipped through and gotten caught later and a recall was issued.

I don't think scare tactics are the way to handle this issue either. Follow safety like you mentioned, work up all new loads. Don't get hysterical and exaggerate conditions. Facts, lets deal with them, no guns have been blown up, to our knowledge, on lot to lot variations. On that we can agree.

"Nuff said................

 

[alwslate]

I remember reading an evaluation of 231 when it was pretty new on the
market that stated emphatically that 231 was designed to give consistant results from different lots by volume rather than weight. The
thought was that most handloaders use measures to charge pistol cases, especially with ball powders. I don't know if this concept can be
applied to all ball powders expected to be used in small amounts in
hand gun loads that run at much less pressure than typical centerfire
rifle cartridges but perhaps the powder company reps could shed some
light. As far as seeing signs of excessive pressure from charge weight
variations of .2 grains or so in hand gun loads that operate in the
range of 15 to 30 thou. psi it seems a bit unlikely. Most loading manuals caution against trying to read pressure from primer indications
alone.

 

[Paul5388]

Every safe load isn't necessarily published in the loading data, especially if you compare old data with new data. Even the old data isn't on the verge of a catastrophic failure, so why would you or anyone else think it is?

Sticky extraction is pretty subjective and what is excessive for one person may not be for another person. However, sticky extraction isn't a harbinger of disaster, unless you keep increasing the load.

It might also be noted that everyone doesn't necessarily use ball/spherical powders. Maybe they have more problems with their quality control with the St. Marks' products, but if that was the case, I'd quit using any problematic powder, regardless of who makes it.

 

[billybob44]

Great for you+the Wife..

Tree, the differences between powder and girlfriends needs to be mentioned. Try all the powders you want. Don't use the same philosophy with women unless you like taking penicillin!

The wife and I celebrate 32 years this week!

Must be something about us Hoosiers-My Wife+I had 37 years in the 26th of last month.