Handloading - Similar/Same Powder Availability

[JohndeFresno]

Synopsis: SAME or SIMILAR powders to substitute for what you cannot find - participation definitely expected here, for the benefit of all of us handloaders!

First, my apologies for not viewing, posting replies to several recent posts. Lately, that thing called "life" has is interfered greatly with the very important business of daily participation on this great forum! Having said that:

There is much understandable concern about not being able to find the proper powder and components due to - well, you know - the current situations, involving politics and resultant panic buying.

So here is a review of similar powders, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, based upon past and present information that seems to be afforded. I claim no expertise in these areas; I am merely presenting information from sources that seem to be reliable.

Problem: There is still confusion about which powders can be safely and accurately substituted for others, after all of these years and despite our current state of technology. So perhaps our resident expert "Levergunners" can chime in with their expertise.

Example, one of dozens if not hundreds of disagreements:
Latest publication by a major company, Hornady, indicates that two powders are NOT the same
Hornady, 9th Edition, Page 790 (.357 Magnum)
140 gr. HP XTP
H-110 Start, 15.7 gr., 1150 fps; Max. 18.4 gr. 1400 fps
W-296 Start, 15.8 gr., 1150 fps; Max. 18.2 gr., 1350 fps
That is, Start loads are different, and W-296's max does not allow safe loading beyond 1350 fps but H-110 allows 50 fps more with .2 more grains.

Yet - The very latest Guns & Ammo Magazine (December 2013), Pg. 28, "Propellant Powerhouse" written by Layne Simpson, says "W296, H110 and Alliant's Power Pro 300-MP are identical spherical magnum revolver propellants made at the same facility."

We have heard this before, and then we have heard that this is no longer true, or that the powders are treated differently by distributors who add retardants or lubricants that change the powders slightly. The context of what Mr. Simpson says indicates that they are exactly the same as sold; he adds no disclaimer to the above quote in this otherwise detailed article.

I believe, almost invariably, incorrect facts come from politicians because they are liars; but incorrect facts from reloaders are because they don't know what they are talking about! So who is right here? Who really knows his subject?

Many gun writers have said over the years that W296 and H110 are the same; yet the reloading books, written from company test results, differ in that view. Is it because the companies DON'T always test their product, and rely on the powder companies to provide info?

That would account for the common excuse that I have read that goes something like this:
"Different primers, atmospheres, barrels and barrel lengths, and test media give slightly different results."

I am not picking on Hornady. It is my favorite supplier for most of my jacketed lead bullets; and I just grabbed their book as an example. Other publishers show the same apparent discrepancies. I have trouble believing that they would use different test media within their factory or lab; so why the differences? Who has the correct answers? Who can we trust to know what they are talking about?

Here is my info gathered over the years, whether correct or not!
Hodgdon H-110, Win 296, (and now) Alliant Power Pro 300-MP - SAME; St. Marks Powder Co.
Hodgdon HP38, Win W231 - SAME; St. Marks Powder Co.
Hodgdon HS6, Win W540 - SAME; Winchester powder discontinued
Hodgdon HS7, Win W571 - SAME; Winchester powder discontinued
Hodgdon H4895, IMR 4895 - NOT THE SAME
Hodgdon H4198, IMR 4198 - SIMILAR, NOT SAME
Hodgdon Clays, Universal Clays, International Clays - NOT THE SAME
Accurate AA 4350, AA XMR 4350, Hodgdon 4350 EXT - SAME OR SIMILAR; mixed info

For those who are in the know - what say you? As for me, I finished stocking up on what I need over the last few years; but there are many "here" (on this forum) trying to find available powders that may be the same as or similar to powders that they need but cannot currently locate.

Thanks in advance for your input.

[Rusty]

John, if you remember Junior who used to post here, he has his own website at www.castbullet.com.

One of the articles he has on his website discussed measuring powder. He was talking about the advantages of measuring with a scoop or a volume vs weighing charges. He does give a good argument for the reliability of a plain old powder scoop.
I can see where measurements taken on different days with different amounts of humidity would make a difference.

[JohndeFresno]

John, if you remember Junior who used to post here, he has his own website at http://www.castbullet.com.

One of the articles he has on his website discussed measuring powder. He was talking about the advantages of measuring with a scoop or a volume vs weighing charges. He does give a good argument for the reliability of a plain old powder scoop.
I can see where measurements taken on different days with different amounts of humidity would make a difference.

I certainly remember Junior. It's too bad that he no longer posts here. I am a big fan of his 7.63x39 cast .30-30 bullet load.

Now: You present a good point, Rusty. But wouldn't a major ammo maker have a completely environment controlled lab?

[86er]

Well I had W296 that I used a lot in one caliber. I know the velocity with each bullet very well. I used H110 and got a somewhat different point of impact. I checked the velocity and it was 100 fps and change LESS with the same load. Now, I will say my 296 was a few years old and the 110 I tried was supposed to be virtually new, so maybe that made the difference. But, I am not willing to use the new 110, I'd rather try new 296 and hope to get the performance I had with it. If not, I'll have to use the new 296 and adjust accordingly.

I've loaded thousands of W231 filled 45 ACP. I used some HP38. The HP38 was noticeably more dirty in the pistol and the SD went up about 10%. It worked acceptably for paper punching and plinking but my results would leave you to believe there is a distinct difference in the powders.

One powder that is decidedly different than others but can be a good choice with the right load in substitution is Benchmark. It can be used for most cartridges where 3031, H335 or H4198 would be used. However it is not grain for grain, you have to use the appropriate load for it. My point is if you cannot find one of the 3 mentioned powders but can find Benchmark you can probably find a load that gives same performance with similar pressure to get you by.

[jdad]

Someone, on the S&W board, posted an email they received from Hodgdon. It stated that 231 and HP38 were the same formulation.

[Griff]

I tend to stick with one powder per caliber. Although I do use the same powder in a couple of handgun cartridges and my shotshells.

In developing loads for the 2 rifle cartridges I loaded for (the .30-30 & a 7mmRemMag), I first tried 3031. Good, but not for the 7mmRM... so I tried IMR4320... Excellent for the .30-30 and again, not so good for the 7mmRM. I then tried IMR4350, not so good for the .30-30, but excellent for the 7mmRM. At about this time I had added a .30-06 M-1 and found that powders for the 7mmRM could be utilized in the .30-06. But, I still found even 4320 to be rather inconsistent in the .30-30, due to grain size. When I bought a Marlin chambered for the 375Win., a friend recommended RE-7... excellent metering for the .30-30 and my 375Win, but not even listed for the 7mmRM in my #10 Speer manual. It's still listed as pretty close to the performance of IMR4350 in the .30-06, but with less powder. So... for close to 30 years I've used RE-7 for 3 cartridges, and saved the IMR4350 for the 7mm. I'd still be using RE-7, but someone recommended BL/C-2 for the .30-30... and as it turns out, I won a can at a match... then another. I loaded up 50 rounds, and intended to test it out, as it's also listed for both the .30-30 and .30-06, but haven't gotten around to it... although somewhere in my boxes of loaded ammo, there's 50 rounds of .30-30 loaded with it... Wonder where it could be? It might have already been shot! No very good for making a comparison.

I've gone thru several iterations of the same process in handgun powders. And whatever I've used, it's also done double duty in shotshells. I started out with 700X as I only loaded for the .45Colt and 45ACP. Again, it metered well, I got good SDs and adequate fps with lower density than powders like Unique and Bullseye. Plus, it was slightly cleaner. I've tried AA#5, 231, Unique and Bullseye, not necessarily in that order. Then, someone recommended RedDot. And I've used it for many years. The last time I went to buy an 8lb jug, the shop didn't have any, so I bought some Clays (as that what was on the shelf). And it became the powder of choice for the 45ACP and 45 Colt.

When I started loading for the .38 Special, (which was our departmental issue), I used Unique, the same powder as our reloaded practice ammo was loaded in. When my wife started shooting she complained about dirty it was. A friend recommended PB as one of the cleanest powders he had ever used. So, that's what the wife got... and she never complained afterwards. Cases looked as tho' they'd never been fired, even before they were tumbled. In fact, if brass hadn't gotten dropped in the dirt, I probably wouldn't have even tumbled them!

Now with the addition of .223 Rem and a .40S&W to the reloading tableau, more powders will get considered. Having read several good things about CFE223, even in cartridges other than the .223Rem, it may get used in the .30-30 and .375Win; especially after reading about it in the Hodgdon 2012 Manual. Supposedly, it can reduce copper fouling that already exists, besides keeping it from being deposited in a clean barrel. Although it's not very effective in large capacity, belted-magnums or the .30-06... so they may be still be loaded with IMR4350.

I just cannot find myself to "settling" for a similar powder in certain cartridges. While I recognize that some powders can give similar performance, in each instance I find that something else is given up... either efficiency or increased cost to load. Either of which is something that I don't like giving up. Who needs costs to load rising? Well... up from already inflated prices.

[JohndeFresno]

Thank y'all for the posts.

And, 86er, you hit the jackpot for helping me to decide that, regardless of what I read, field use proves that each powder is different, even if that difference is minimal.

So - before I start tinkering, back to the load books - bullet companies, powder manufacturers - for reliable baseline load info!

SAVED in my archives.

[Buck Elliott]

Recent Hodgdon's Annual Manuals list identical loadings and identical results for W-296 and H-110.. Any variation between those two particular powders is due to lot-to-lot variation in manufacturing..

I have seen sealed drums of H-110 that were no more than relabeled W-296, as the Winchester label was still visible on the drums.

In working up a load for my .45 Colt '73, I found that - as advertized - IMR-4198 is somewhat faster, and Not the same, as H-4198.. Hodgdon's literature makes the clear distinction, which is borne out in the field..

[Old Savage]

Any powder YOU have should be practically tested but not at max. Different rifles have sometimes different results with the same powder, probably most often. I have one .243 in which minimum loa dings are max. Largest measurement I can eek out of the grooves is .2415.

With any new rifle, I buy a box of factory loads and chronograph those to get a general idea of the rifle's characteristics. Speer in particular, has come up with some very different results with a couple of their rifles than my experience. Then I try to find a reloading manual that closely matches that rifle. This all becomes the basis for any personal powder testing I do.

[JohndeFresno]

Thanks, Buck. The 4198 thing is clearly resolved; but the other issue you describe is still a mystery, since so many writers insist the other 2 powders are identical!

OS -Yup - I do the factory load comparisons with handguns, too!

[AJMD429]

Another thought it the "Powder Application Guide" application on the AmmoGuide.com site...

http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/aipowders.cgi?

"Single Powder" Mode. In this mode, you choose a specific powder of interest and AmmoGuide reports the cartridges that use that powder.

"Multi Powder" Mode. In this mode, you choose the cartridges of interest and AmmoGuide reports the powders that are common to all.

[JohndeFresno]

Yes, very nice! I have used that tool as a suggestion of which one to buy for a caliber of the currently available powders at any given time. Thank you for bringing that up.

[Model 52B]

Canister grade powders used in reloading are certainly more consistent than the large lots of powder that ammo manufacturers buy that are blended for a specific application - but there is still some variation.

If you experimented with several lots of H-110 and W-296, you'd find there is as much variation within each type as there is between each type. That suggests that whether they are exactly the same or different is irrelevant as each varies enough that you'll find weight and velocity differences from one lot to another.

In short, I try whenever possible to buy powder in larger 4 or 8 pound kegs, or at least buy several 1 pound cans with the same lot number. And, when I have to switch powder lots with a load, I'll adjust the load as needed to produce the same velocity at the same temperature in my rifle as the old load, if I want them to be interchangeable. It's the velocity that matters not the charge weight, so when I record load data i list both the nominal change weight and the measured mean velocity.

If you're serious about reloading and don't have a chronograph yet, you need to get one as it will tell you an awful lot about what's going on, well beyond what you'll see on a 100 hard target.

[JohndeFresno]

Excellent info, 52b. That seems to finalize the mystery of the variance between two "identical" powders. I agree with the chronograph, too, for verifying that your load is within a reasonable range of what the books and other data predict with a given setup.

It is cumbersome to use with all of the other shooters wanting to use the lanes; so I do all of my chronographing away from the range at a private location against a dirt bank.