Powder=Accuracy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
lordpaxman said:
For rifle, Nosler publishes load data and flags the most accurate powder. I’ve read case fill is pretty important to a more consistent burn but suspect it’s just one of many factors. I’m interested in the responses as well.
Click to expand...

Early on in my reloading endeavor, I became friends with a guy that worked at a major sports retailer that worked in the gun department. He has people sending him their rifles so that he can develop the "perfect" loads for their rifles. His house is nothing but a reloading factory!!!
He took me under his wing for a short while. The first thing he showed me was notebooks after notebooks of data from the last 15 years!!
He then turned to his computer and started typing a bunch of data that was Greek to me but one thing I learned from his notebooks and the stuff on his computer was that, just as you said, filling the case with enough powder to almost overfill it (compress) was the thing that most shocked me. I didn't even know that was possible let alone preferred or wise.
The powder I use doesn't have a load that reaches that level and at max it produces a pretty hefty KABANG!!! I don't shoot at that much charge anymore, I'm too sore and deaf afterwards!;)
I'm using a powder charge a little below middle of the charge load listed in my books and that seems to be working pretty well.
I'm currently fixated on bullet seating depth. Seems that my rifles like the bullet either just touching the rifling or just a few thousandth's off of it.
 
AJC1 said:
Speaking of manufacturers marked accuracy loads, make sure you know exactly what those loads were developed and tested in. You may be surprised to find out, almost every load is shot in a test fixture with a barrel that looks nothing like a gun you have at all. For me finding 357 loads shot in 10 inch barrels is not at all going to give similar results. I've never seen a 10 pistol and that's sbr territory and I'm out going their either.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that!
How/why can a company claim this powder gave them the best results when NOBODY owns the "gun" they tested with?
I understand that a company can't go out and buy every gun made for every caliber, that company would cease to exist in short order.
But how does one apply the data they provided?
And as far as burn rate charts go, I've printed up or have lists in my books and none of them agree with one another completely.
I think burn rate charts are at best a reference of subjectivity.
 
DynoDan1 said:
How/why can a company claim this powder gave them the best results when NOBODY owns the "gun" they tested with?
Click to expand...
You answered your own question there, Dan. A company can claim this powder gave THEM the best results - they're not claiming the same powder will give anyone else the best results in whatever gun that anyone else is using.
It's no different than me claiming that for mule deer and elk hunting with my .308 Norma Mag, so far I gotten the "best results" with 76.0 grains of H-4831 behind a Sierra 165 grain HPBT bullet. And if I was to recommend a mule deer and elk hunting load to other .308 Norma Mag shooters, that's the one I'd recommend they try. It might not work as well for them as it does for me, but you gotta start somewhere. And when you're looking for a good load, it's often helpful to hear/read about what other handloaders have experienced with certain loads - even if those "other handloaders" are professionals working for a powder company.
BTW, I like Hodgdon manuals because they list loads using powders other than their own brand.:thumbup:
 
.308 Norma said:
You answered your own question there, Dan. A company can claim this powder gave THEM the best results - they're not claiming the same powder will give anyone else the best results in whatever gun that anyone else is using.
It's no different than me claiming that for mule deer and elk hunting with my .308 Norma Mag, so far I gotten the "best results" with 76.0 grains of H-4831 behind a Sierra 165 grain HPBT bullet. And if I was to recommend a mule deer and elk hunting load to other .308 Norma Mag shooters, that's the one I'd recommend they try. It might not work as well for them as it does for me, but you gotta start somewhere. And when you're looking for a good load, it's often helpful to hear/read about what other handloaders have experienced with certain loads - even if those "other handloaders" are professionals working for a powder company.
BTW, I like Hodgdon manuals because they list loads using powders other than their own brand.:thumbup:
Click to expand...
I love that they list accuracy loads. I just wished they used common barrel lengths. A 4" or a 6" would be much more realistic in a 357 than most other lengths. Yes there is longer and shorter options.
 
Seedy Character said:
I like the manuals by the bullet manufacturers.
Hornady, Nosler, and Barnes are my faves.
Comparing several sources sheds a new light on things.
Click to expand...
I wish all references listed pressure as tested. If I could have exactly my wish the entire pressure curve for all tests. Decisions are made to reduce maximum loads due to erratic loads and h110 on the low end for the same reason. I would like that knowledge and which.powders do it.
 
AJC1 said:
I wish all references listed pressure as tested. If I could have exactly my wish the entire pressure curve for all tests. Decisions are made to reduce maximum loads due to erratic loads and h110 on the low end for the same reason. I would like that knowledge and which.powders do it.
Click to expand...

My shotgun manual does list the pressure.
 
Seedy Character said:
My shotgun manual does list the pressure.
Click to expand...
My lyman manuals do and I love them

I've gone a little off the OP so I'll refocus...
Powder causes a shockwave that vibrates the barrel. Finding a powder that vibes well with your barrel is my interpretation of ocw testing. Making minor timing changes is the seating depth. Manually adjusting the results is a tuner. The natural vibes your barrel likes is like searching for the perfect mate. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you date for years. Some matches are ok and a few your mother cant stand.
 
Slamfire said:
In my opinion, just ask the good shots what they use, and copy. What you will find is that there are a number of well characterized loads, that shoot well in just about everyone's guns,
Click to expand...

I agree.

If you asked people who shoot .308 in F/TR what powder they are using you’ll generally get two answers: H4895 and Varget

If you ask bench rest folks who shoot 6BR or variants there of, you’ll generally get two answers: H4895 and Varget

Why are those two powders more accurate than 6-10 others that would also work for those cartridges?

I have no idea
 
Nature Boy said:
I agree.

If you asked people who shoot .308 in F/TR what powder they are using you’ll generally get two answers: H4895 and Varget

If you ask bench rest folks who shoot 6BR or variants there of, you’ll generally get two answers: H4895 and Varget

Why are those two powders more accurate than 6-10 others that would also work for those cartridges?

I have no idea
Click to expand...
Maybe because the limiting factor at those events is the shooter and the two powders discussed have won and people replicate those winning loads. It's not a bad plan, but it sure limits variety. Most of the bullets being used are also the same Berger or lapua.
 
Last edited:
In using rifle loads, generally the slower the powder burn, the more accurate the powder. One expert I listen to often said what matters most in rifle loads is not so much powder but the bullet and run out.
 
DynoDan1 said:
Can someone explain how a certain powder can improve accuracy.
Click to expand...

It’s pretty rare for two different things to provide identical results.

That means one will do “better” than the other.

There are some ingredients that are known to be usually better than others but that’s not a guarantee. We still have to try them, to know.
 
DynoDan1 said:
I think burn rate charts are at best a reference of subjectivity.
Click to expand...

I think that is true of much of the information we deal with. That's why when you pick a component for loading you compare all the data you can find. That's why we start with a low powder charge and work up. It helps to utilize multiple reference sources and all those sources are subjective for each item tested under their conditions. Subjective is opinion and we all have one on each. But Safety should be Job One and the guiding light to all we do or choose. I'll pick accuracy as Job Two!!

That's why we all participate here to compare our thoughts and share our experiences. And that's a good thing. Research, Test, Compare and Share!!!!
 
Lots of speculation and a couple of good guesses but I haven't seen anyone from Alliant or Hogden weigh in with actual data. I do know of one barrel manufacturer that donates a fair amount of barrels to various companies for testing. Like Sierra..
 
These are the ways I choose my powder:
1. I find a great deal. For example I found a great deal on AA2, AA5, AA7, and AA9.
2. I search for common accuracy loads like 5.0gr BE for 230gr LRN or .2.8gr BE for 148gr WC. I'll try Bullseye. I read BD is good for both .357 and .40S&W so I'm trying that.
3. I find someone's accuracy load who used a firearm like mines. I also review Ken Waters' Petload book
4. I look at the load manual. I look for three powders that has a MV that max out to about the same and choose the middle or slower burning powder of the three. I haven't does this in awhile and don't have a reloading manual to remind me but I use to look at the MV and looked at which seemed to have a lower MV for the powder used compared to the previous powder and chose the previous powder, thinking that it must be burning efficiently. There's no scientific proof for it, just my best guess.
 
Howa 9700 said:
Now that I'm loading again in the modern era, I have started looking beyond just the published loads in the manuals to try to understand they "why" of it and am seeing all kinds of stuff that on the surface appears contradictory.

For example, a 243 Win, 260 Rem and 308 Win are basically identical cases, differing only in the diameter and weight of the bullet. A guy might think the same powders could be used and would only result in changes in velocity......perhaps the lighter bullet going faster is all. But such is not the case. Worse, even in the same caliber, heavier bullet requires LESS powder? How can that be. A lot of it seems to run counter to what ought to logically happen. From a ballistics standpoint, there is a lot going on that is hard to understand.

But the one thing that keeps turning up consistently is the idea of a full case of powder being the optimum, and presumably this gets you a consistent burn, with corresponding consistent pressure wave such that there is repeatability from shot to shot. From there, it is a matter of getting the right amount of a powder of optimal burn speed to time the movement of the bullet to the harmonics of the barrel.......the pressure waves that run up and down the barrel, and you then get the opportunity to further fine tune that by several means such as seating depth, etc.

But from what I'm seeing, once you get into the right ballpark, there is no "perfect" powder. Once upon a time there probably was a best choice, but these days, there seems to be a lot of overlap. For example, I have found several powders described as being developed or "optimized" for the 308, yet even those are broken down into categories such as light loads (like a 150 or lighter) vs. powders for heavier bullets like the 175 or heavier. And no fewer than 4 powders in the 4350 speed range, not counting Ramshot Hunter.

So the abundance of choices (at least on paper) is either a blessing or a curse, depending on how deep you want to plow this field. These days, I consider it a blessing as having choices means all the eggs are not in one basket.....so we get the opportunity to experience "good enough" vs. never knowing what "perfect" would get us.
Click to expand...
A lot of that is explained by the ratio of bore diameter to case capacity. It's not exact. But it gets you close on picking powders or bullet weights to try. What works well in 223 works well in 308 and in 35 Whelen. Notice the case capacity jumps as does the bore diameter.
The less powder for heavier bullets is because you are limited by pressure. Not velocity.
You have to push harder to move heavier bullets so they build pressure faster. There are some caveats like vld bullets vs monolithic etc.
 
Wow!!
Lots of good information.
Thanks.
Next question I have is in regards to types of bullets.
I have read and heard that there are basically 3 types of bullets.
Secant, tangent, and hybrid ogives.
Which is better/ preferred? Why?
 
Powder selection is about the smallest factor in accuracy. If you aren't using good loading practices, a different powder isnt going to compensate. Most people simply cannot shoot good enough to tell a difference. I've never seen or heard of an appropriate powder for the application causing poor accuracy.
 
DynoDan1 said:
How/why can a company claim this powder gave them the best results when NOBODY owns the "gun" they tested with?
Click to expand...

In many cases, there truly is an optimal combination of powder and charge weight for a given cartridge and bullet which is simply hard to break, so there IS relevance for a load which reliably shoots better than most. It’s rather rare to find a well developed load which only shoots well in ONE rifle.

As examples: I’ve fired 27.3grn Varget under 50grn Vmax in literally hundreds of 223/5.56 barrels in the last 20yrs after having been given this load recommendation. I say it here often, if this doesn’t shoot well in your rifle, your rifle is broken. 42.0 grn Varget under a 140 NAB in 7-08 is another load which has reliably shot well for me and others I’ve witnessed across many rifles. Having burned through 8 barrels so far from 4 different makers, 41.7-41.9grn H4350 under a 105 Hybrid has been virtually idiot proof in 6 creed (in Hornady brass).

If a reloader rather haphazardly throws components together and just shoots 3 round groups at 100yrds across the tailgate of their truck, maybe I won’t take that as gospel that it should translate to other rifles. But there are several methods of load development which produce robust loads which should be very accurate and stable in almost any barrel shooting them.
 
DynoDan1 said:
I have read and heard that there are basically 3 types of bullets.
Secant, tangent, and hybrid ogives.
Which is better/ preferred? Why?
Click to expand...

Depends on your application.

Most people find tangent or hybrid ogives to be the most forgiving. But quite often, when the smallest groups in the world are being fired, secant ogives are responsible.

99% of shooters really won’t be able to shoot the difference.
 
DynoDan1 said:
Wow!!
Lots of good information.
Thanks.
Next question I have is in regards to types of bullets.
I have read and heard that there are basically 3 types of bullets.
Secant, tangent, and hybrid ogives.
Which is better/ preferred? Why?
Click to expand...
This is completely a different topic, recommend a new thread.
 
Varminterror said:
In many cases, there truly is an optimal combination of powder and charge weight for a given cartridge and bullet which is simply hard to break, so there IS relevance for a load which reliably shoots better than most. It’s rather rare to find a well developed load which only shoots well in ONE rifle.

As examples: I’ve fired 27.3grn Varget under 50grn Vmax in literally hundreds of 223/5.56 barrels in the last 20yrs after having been given this load recommendation. I say it here often, if this doesn’t shoot well in your rifle, your rifle is broken. 42.0 grn Varget under a 140 NAB in 7-08 is another load which has reliably shot well for me and others I’ve witnessed across many rifles. Having burned through 8 barrels so far from 4 different makers, 41.7-41.9grn H4350 under a 105 Hybrid has been virtually idiot proof in 6 creed (in Hornady brass).

If a reloader rather haphazardly throws components together and just shoots 3 round groups at 100yrds across the tailgate of their truck, maybe I won’t take that as gospel that it should translate to other rifles. But there are several methods of load development which produce robust loads which should be very accurate and stable in almost any barrel shooting them.
Click to expand...

If I could find Varget I'd love to try it.
I think I'm very thorough in my case prep perhaps too thorough.
I started off shooting 10 shot groups and then went to 7 and now I'm at 5, easier to keep track of and to insert the data on to my spread sheet.
It's not that my shots are all over the place, I quite often shoot 1 MOA @ 100 yards or better, (not always but often). It's just that I don't know if I'm as good as I'm gonna get with what I got. My goal may be unrealistic but I'd like to essentially put 5 rounds through one hole @ 100 yards. The hole doesn't have to be.308 in diameter just one kinda big hole. I've come close more than a few times just not enough times in a row in my opinion.
Your insight and advice has been very helpful to me, I will try implementing it my next time out.
 
DynoDan1 said:
I think I'm very thorough in my case prep perhaps too thorough.
Click to expand...

To be honest, in my experience, your case prep is probably too much. Without knowing anything about your process, but keying on the word “thorough,” I’d be willing to bet it’s more than needed. I’m not convinced much of anything needs to be done beyond sizing, trimming, deburring, and chamfering to shoot sub-MOA, even sub-1/2moa. I have done all of the tricks and used all of the traps in the past, but in the last 3 seasons, I haven’t weight sorted, capacity sorted, neck turned, uniformed flash holes... I just size and expand, then trim, deburr, and chamfer in one step, and load. I shoot as many .1” and .2” groups as I ever have, with far less work. Sub-half MOA is plenty for any shooting I do, so that’s what I do.

DynoDan1 said:
It's not that my shots are all over the place, I quite often shoot 1 MOA @ 100 yards or better, (not always but often). It's just that I don't know if I'm as good as I'm gonna get with what I got.
Click to expand...

It might be as good as it gets, depending upon your bullet choice, load development method, and rifle. Modern rifles will all mostly shoot sub-MOA, but we can’t expect miracles out of a cheap 3-9x40 Simmons scope on top of a 50yr old Remington 700 with a 7lb trigger and inexpensive soft point bullets shot across the hood of a pickup either.

DynoDan1 said:
My goal may be unrealistic but I'd like to essentially put 5 rounds through one hole @ 100 yards. The hole doesn't have to be.308 in diameter just one kinda big hole. I've come close more than a few times just not enough times in a row in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It probably is unrealistic. Putting 5 shots even into a cluster tight enough to yield a .6” hole is tough. Even RIDICULOUSLY well built and RIDICULOUSLY well tuned BR rifles can and will regularly slip bullets out of the group - or let the shooter push them out. The internet is the only place where rifles only ever cluster shots into one hole. In the real world, even when mechanical errors are minimized, rifles will shoot a spectrum of groups, with the largest group twice or thrice as large as the smallest (some folks will even point to 5x as the high expectation).

One trick to make your groups into one hole is to shoot more shots. In 5 rounds, there are good odds of slipping one out of the group. Shooting 10, it’s pretty easy to punch out gaps and turn a “flyer” into the edge of a one hole group. I have shoot a lot of 15 round warm up groups during some practices, just working on position building - even though my 5 shot groups might hold 1/2moa and NOT be in one hole, my 15 round groups might be 3/4-1moa group punched out as one hole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
loads and Accuracy
Replies
4
Views
469
TN Shooter
T
LiveLife
  • Locked
Accuracy nodes during load development
Replies
4
Views
964
Walkalong
Walkalong
Bayourambler
  • Locked
Ball powders and accuracy
Replies
14
Views
1K
spitballer
spitballer
7
  • Locked
45 ACP: Effects of Powder on Accuracy
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Hondo 60
Hondo 60
Quoheleth
  • Locked
Powder affecting accuracy?
Replies
13
Views
4K
peterotte
P
Back
Top