Aside from burn rate - powder selection

[Allen One1]

Aside from looking at burn rate what other factors need to be considered when choosing a rifle powder. For instance a reloading manual lists Varget and H4350 for the same cartridge and bullet weight. CFE223 is between these two in burn rate. Would it be safe to assume that this powder could be used in this application? Or are there other limiting factors that would keep you from working up a load with an unlisted powder?

 

[murf]

it is never "safe to assume" when reloading. the reloading manuals include only those powders suited for a particular cartridge. using any other powder is looking for trouble. if you can't find a particular powder in any reloading manual, don't use it.

luck,

murf

 

[Dwb1957]

That's one of the reasons some people have several different loading manuals because some manuals show some powders that others don't. Lol I'm one of them guys that's got most not all but I kinda like looking at the different loadings.

 

[Ironicaintit]

When in doubt, drop a line to the powder manufacturer

 

[hdwhit]

Allen One1 wrote:
Aside from looking at burn rate what other factors need to be considered when choosing a rifle powder.

I wouldn't start from burn rate charts.

There is no universal standard for determining burn rate. Powders burn at different rate depending on whether they are burned in open air, in a confined space, in small quantities, in large quantities, at various temperatures, etc. Compare the burn rate charts published by Hodgdon with the chart published by Vihta Vuori. If you go by Vihta, the fastest powder is Hodgdon's Titewad while Hodgdon has Titewad at #6 with the fastest being Norma R1. It's not that one chart is "right" and the other "wrong", they're both right - they just used different methodologies.

Consult a published reloading manual or data published on-line by one of the powder manufacturers and look for a load that has a large difference between the starting load and maximum load. For example, if Powder A starts at 20 grains and reaches maximum at 22 while powder X starts at 21 and reaches maximum at 27, then I would start with powder X since it gives you more "room" to work with.

Of course, you need to select a powder you can actually find where you shop.

Also, some types of powder may flow through your powder measure more easily than others and that may be something to keep in mind.

Keep in mind that you are looking for the load that gives you the most accuracy, NOT the highest velocity. No matter how fast and powerful you can launch a bullet, it is worthless if you can't hit the target with it, so think accuracy, not speed.

Beginning with the Starting load (and if you consult several sources and their Starting loads are all a little difference, it is okay to select a figure that is a consensus of your sources) load up some test rounds; five, maybe ten. If you won't get to the range for a while, load subsequent strings of 5, 10, whatever, increasing the charge incrementally as you go based on how "wide" the difference between the Starting and Maximum loads is. Make sure you package the rounds so you know what each was charged with - so you don't start at Maximum.

At the range, begin with the Starting load and fire a string for accuracy. Check the cases for pressure signs (i.e. disfigured case heads, extractor marks, cratered primers, etc.). If none are seen, move on to the next highest load, and so on. Stop when you reach maximum without pressure signs or you see pressure signs in the brass. If you see pressure signs, then you want to retreat to the next lightest load that didn't give you pressure signs and work around it.



Good luck.

 

[hdwhit]

...CFE223 is between these two in burn rate. Would it be safe to assume that this powder could be used in this application?

No.

We don't know the reason the source you consulted omitted the powder. It could be that the company's market research said few people used that powder so they didn't test it. If that's the case, you would expect to find it in a different manual.

Again, the limitations of the burn rate charts show up. If you consult the chart published by Vihta Vuori, CF223 DOES NOT appear nestled in between Varget and H4350.

 

[hdwhit]

Or are there other limiting factors that would keep you from working up a load with an unlisted powder?

Possibly.

As I said above, it is most likely that the publisher of your data simply didn't test the powder, but, it could be that the particular powder was omitted from the data because it had something that made it unsuitable in this cartridge.

 

[Axis II]

it is never "safe to assume" when reloading. the reloading manuals include only those powders suited for a particular cartridge. using any other powder is looking for trouble. if you can't find a particular powder in any reloading manual, don't use it.

luck,

murf

how about when a manual doesn't list a powder but Hodgdon does?

 

[Allen One1]

Thank you for the responses.
All of the advise above is very good, I'm impressed. I have picked up a new gun in 6.5 Creedmoor which is a new caliber too me. As I am researching for this cartridge I fine myself becoming interested in the internal ballistics of a cartridge. Why does one powder work differently than another, what do different brands of primers really do inside the case. I realize I can't test all of these and some combinations are likely to be unsafe, hence the questions as part of my research. Believe me, I'm not one to go off in my own direction without a pretty good indication that something is going to work. If in doubt back away.

I am pretty sure I can get suitable powder for the 6.5 so I don't have a big urge to get overly creative. The thing is, ever where you go on the internet or even at the range the answer is H4350 and 140 gr bullets. H4350 has been hard to find for several months so I would like to try something else rather than fight to get a specific powder. I have a couple of suppliers about an hour drive from the house that I am going to call today; watch they will have H4350 in stock. But I am leaning to RL17 right now.

I will be calling Hornady and Hodgdon about this powder question as suggested above. They surely have reasons for not listing a powder. I can believe that Hornady wouldn't test every powder but I would think Hodgdon has a pretty good reason that they don't recommend it.

I am also going to start collecting burn charts, I hadn't noticed that there were large differences.

Thank you,

 

[Axis II]

Thank you for the responses.
All of the advise above is very good, I'm impressed. I have picked up a new gun in 6.5 Creedmoor which is a new caliber too me. As I am researching for this cartridge I fine myself becoming interested in the internal ballistics of a cartridge. Why does one powder work differently than another, what do different brands of primers really do inside the case. I realize I can't test all of these and some combinations are likely to be unsafe, hence the questions as part of my research. Believe me, I'm not one to go off in my own direction without a pretty good indication that something is going to work. If in doubt back away.

I am pretty sure I can get suitable powder for the 6.5 so I don't have a big urge to get overly creative. The thing is, ever where you go on the internet or even at the range the answer is H4350 and 140 gr bullets. H4350 has been hard to find for several months so I would like to try something else rather than fight to get a specific powder. I have a couple of suppliers about an hour drive from the house that I am going to call today; watch they will have H4350 in stock. But I am leaning to RL17 right now.

I will be calling Hornady and Hodgdon about this powder question as suggested above. They surely have reasons for not listing a powder. I can believe that Hornady wouldn't test every powder but I would think Hodgdon has a pretty good reason that they don't recommend it.

I am also going to start collecting burn charts, I hadn't noticed that there were large differences.

Thank you,

trust me when i say this. Get one here, thefiringline and others and ask what powder for that round and take the most responses for a particular powder that is listed or safe as noted above and run with it. I have 2-3 rifle powders sitting around that absolutely sucked when it came to my 223rem. I now ask on a thread and if i get 30 responses and 15 of them are a certain powder i buy that powder ONLY after checking to make sure its compatible. Use what's in the book and check several books, hodgdons, etc and use that. I too became obsessed with velocity, etc but realized when it came down too it if the bullet wont group well then no matter how fast its going doesn't mean a thing if its not accurate. I have drove myself crazy over such things but now if its proven i use it and sometimes have to wait until i can find it. I am going through the same issue with 45-70 now because i cant find a particular bullet. If gun week wasn't 7 days away i would just wait and use what's proven. If h4350 is in the book or Hodgdons then wait or call around and take a drive to get it. You will be a lot happier using something proven but please make sure you have data for it.

 

[someguy2800]

If a load manual list two different powders for a cartridge it is very likely that different powders between those two on the burn rate chart can be made to work, but there is no guarantee of what a safe starting and max charge are. Different powders have different energy densities. Also some powders are able to burn efficiently with low load densities and others need more full case fill to work well. You can sometimes make some inferences based off other cartridges with similar case volumes and expansion ratios to fill in the gaps, but this is a game for the advanced hand loader, not a beginner.

RL17 should work well in 6.5 if you can find published load data for it. Its very similar to 4350.

 

[spitballer]

burn charts, I hadn't noticed that there were large differences..

...roger that, for example it's hard to explain why the Hodgdon 2017 annual would list H-Varget as faster than BL(C)-2. Obviously charts differ, and - lapua.com/upload/reloading/reloadingburningratechart2011.pdf - is worth checking also, but FWIW I use load data to make propellant selection rather than a burn chart, even with an over-length bbl

 

[ATLDave]

Other than burn rates, some of the many factors one might (or might not) consider significant in selecting powders include:

Ease of metering
Standard deviation/spread of velocities for a given charge
Case fill
Temperature sensitivity
Flash/anti-flash additives (less significant for rifles than pistols)
Cleanliness of burn and/or de-fouling agents
Cost per round
Reputation for lot-to-lot consistency
Reputation for accuracy in given caliber
Max achievable velocity with book loads
Position sensitivity (less significant for rifles than pistols)
Gas volume produced (generally correlated with burn rate but sometimes slightly different)

This is surely not an inclusive list, just some stuff I could think of off the top of my head that I have considered (or heard others consider) in making a powder use or purchase decision at one time or another.

 

[Sunray]

"...an unlisted powder..." Powders are tested, not just listed. If there's no data in one manual, there might be in another. Remember that powder makers' manuals only give data for their products. Just like bullet makers only give data for their bullets.
However, if you can't find data anywhere, including here(lots of us have old manuals or just know where to find stuff.), do not make up your own. It means the powder isn't suitable for that cartridge.
Not finding data by bullet maker doesn't matter. That makes no difference. Loading is done by the bullet weight. And close can count though. Hornady's 178 grain bullets can use either 175 or 180 grain data. A few grains doesn't matter.
Anyway, the easiest way to pick the powder is to use whatever powder was used in the accuracy load, if there is such a thing(Lyman's manual does. One of the reasons to buy one.), given for a particular bullet weight.

 

[444]

I understand that you are looking at this from more of a technical standpoint: trying to understand and learn.

But, for actually working up a load in a rifle: I tend to not try to reinvent the wheel. The first thing I do is do an internet search and see what other people are doing. Then I check that against the manuals/website.

FWIW: As you mention: in 6.5 Creed, with 140 grain bullets, H4350 is considered to be THE powder. This is so widely accepted that I didn't question it. Too many people say the same thing. But, I was in your situation when I first bought my 6.5 Creed and I did use Reloader 17 for awhile and it worked well. The next time I went to buy powder, I scored 8 pounds of H4350.

 

[Allen One1]

Well as happens so many times when you are moving one direction, you get pulled in another. Went to the reloading supply store and they had no RL-17 but they had H4350. So the load development will start with the H4350. That was easy wasn't it. But as stated earlier this has peaked my interest in internal ballistics. I am waiting to heard back from both Hornady and Hodgdon to see what information they may be willing to offer. I do think that understanding this at least at a moderate level will make me a better and safer reloader.

I still can't get over the level of advise on this board, very impressive.
Thank you,

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Aside from looking at burn rate what other factors need to be considered when choosing a rifle powder. For instance a reloading manual lists Varget and H4350 for the same cartridge and bullet weight. CFE223 is between these two in burn rate. Would it be safe to assume that this powder could be used in this application? Or are there other limiting factors that would keep you from working up a load with an unlisted powder?

The powder between the two on the burn rate chart is most probably safe to use but not without published data. Usually if you contact the powder manufacturer they will supply data if it's available.

it is never "safe to assume" when reloading. the reloading manuals include only those powders suited for a particular cartridge. using any other powder is looking for trouble. if you can't find a particular powder in any reloading manual, don't use it.

luck,

murf

It's not always the case that the powder is not safe or suitable. It's more likely the powder he is asking about is too new to have been included in the manual he looked in. CFE223 is a fairly new powder.

 

[murf]

how about when a manual doesn't list a powder but Hodgdon does?

hogdon publishes a manual every year, so ...

murf

 

[murf]

The powder between the two on the burn rate chart is most probably safe to use but not without published data. Usually if you contact the powder manufacturer they will supply data if it's available.


It's not always the case that the powder is not safe or suitable. It's more likely the powder he is asking about is too new to have been included in the manual he looked in. CFE223 is a fairly new powder.

yes, introduced in january 2012. it shows up in only one of my manuals (hogdon 2016 annual). still, that is no excuse to assume a specific load due to closeness to another powder in a burn rate chart. better to wait for pressure tested data from a reputable companys manual. imo, of course.

murf

 

[ArchAngelCD]

yes, introduced in january 2012. it shows up in only one of my manuals (hogdon 2016 annual). still, that is no excuse to assume a specific load due to closeness to another powder in a burn rate chart. better to wait for pressure tested data from a reputable companys manual. imo, of course.

murf

Not everyone is willing to spend $10 a year for a magazine and I never said to use a powder that wasn't "tested."

I clearly suggested he not load a powder without published data and that he should contact Hodgdon for load data. It's all right there in Post #17.

 

[murf]

Not everyone is willing to spend $10 a year for a magazine and I never said to use a powder that wasn't "tested."

I clearly suggested he not load a powder without published data and that he should contact Hodgdon for load data. It's all right there in Post #17.

from a reputable company. pulling data off the internet from bubba's reloading forum is not something i would recommend. assuming anything in this situation is also something i would never recommend. it is easy to assume.

nothing personal. most of my post was directed to the op.

murf

 

[ArchAngelCD]

from a reputable company. pulling data off the internet from bubba's reloading forum is not something i would recommend. assuming anything in this situation is also something i would never recommend. it is easy to assume.

nothing personal. most of my post was directed to the op.

murf

Who the heck said anything about bubba or forums? I said published data and those words may not be clear to you but most people who see published data don't think of bubba. I'm not sure why you are acting this way but I'm not a wrong on this one. Stop trying to change what I'm saying.

 

[murf]

Who the heck said anything about bubba or forums? I said published data and those words may not be clear to you but most people who see published data don't think of bubba. I'm not sure why you are acting this way but I'm not a wrong on this one. Stop trying to change what I'm saying.

hogdon publishes their data online, also. i was just cautioning against trusting any and all data online.

i get the hogdon annual manual mostly for the excellent articles found in the front of said manual. so, the eleven dollars is well spent, imo. the data i can get online. again, nothing personal.

murf

 

[FROGO207]

I am right there with ATL Dave in post 13. There are a slew of things that determine what my "best" for load propellant will end up being. More than 1/2 case fill (to readily show an overcharge and eliminate position sensitivity) and ease of metering are my top two. Then on to standard deviation and accuracy. They usually go hand in hand. OP as you get to be more experienced in reloading, things will fall in place and you will develop your own style of what works best for you when deciding where to start when choosing a new combo of components. IMHO it is not something one can just read about and do the same as your reloading experience will be totally different than mine or for that matter anyone elses. I do prescribe that asking what others are doing with a particular load/caliber and choosing the results while keeping within safe data is a great starting point. Everyones firearm, components (lots of propellant, bullet), and techniques are different so it is almost impossible to get the exact same results in the end. When I started out there was no internet to go with and now it is so much easier to get a collective answer that is usually a fairly good start.

 

[Allen One1]

Received some information from Hodgdon today on using CFE223 in 6.5 Creedmoor. They stated that it is fine for bullet weights of 95 to 107 grains but that the expansion rate was to high for use with the 120 grain bullet. At 120 grain you should expect pressure spikes.

Information from Hornady was limited and basically stated that they were recommending RL-17 with the 140 grain bullet.