"propreitary" powders... :o

[Kevin Thomas]

Eventually . . . you may. 7828 was widely used in the industry loadings for many years before it was finally announced and released to the public. Stop and think about the ramifications of someone taking your approach to breaking down a factory round, mesuring the unknown (7828) powder, and assuming it to be the slowest burning powder in the IMR line, which at that time would have been 4831. You now have a situation arrived at via your assumptions that will produce a dangerous overload. No problem once the powder was on the market (in this particular example), but what about those years when it wasn't?

Those are the sort of gaps that I'm concerned about.

 

[T3-OleMan]

Kevin and Dan,

Great points.

"SuperPerformance" and Law Suit City.

1). Do you think that they had 47 different blends for all the different Cal. And weights or just 1 powder that is in my 25 boxes of Hornady 338WM 185 GMX ammo and in the 9 one lb bottles of same lot that I purchased. Some day I will work up a reload for these fireformed cases and everything I will be using will be from them except the primer.

2). What primer would you guess that I will find matches the one Hornady used in my ammo?

Any one else like to add a primer guess.........I'm hoping it is the GM215Ms cause I gots dem, and a few of all the others.

 

[rscott5028]

Kevin and Dan,

Great points.

"SuperPerformance" and Law Suit City.

1). Do you think that they had 47 different blends for all the different Cal. And weights or just 1 powder that is in my 25 boxes of Hornady 338WM 185 GMX ammo and in the 9 one lb bottles of same lot that I purchased. Some day I will work up a reload for these fireformed cases and everything I will be using will be from them except the primer.

2). What primer would you guess that I will find matches the one Hornady used in my ammo?

Any one else like to add a primer guess.........I'm hoping it is the GM215Ms cause I gots dem, and a few of all the others.

It's a bad idea to speculate about such things.

If you do a proper load workup with the brass, bullet, primer, and powder of your choice starting with published load data, you'll almost certainly end up with better results in your rifle than the original factory loads.

-- richard

 

[green 788]

Kevin... you are accusing me of faulty logic, and assuming I would do something like open up a factory shell and hastily draw a conclusion as to what powder that is and then simply put that much of the suspected powder into my handload without ever consulting a loading manual. If I really were to do something like that, then you're right--eventually I'd blow something up!

But this is not what I've communicated at all.

It goes like this:

1. Open up a factory shell. By example, I once checked a Remington Core-lokt .243 with 100 grain bullets... I found 41 grains of powder in there.

2. Determine what that powder "might be." This should be done not only by appearance, but also smell and same volume weight comparisons. If you're still not 100 percent sure, burn a pinch in an ash tray and smell it...

3. In this example, I was pretty convinced that Remington was using IMR 4350 (and they were), I checked to see what my loading manuals showed as starting and max loads for IMR 4350 with 100 grain bullets in the .243 win cartridge.

4. Noting that at least a couple sources indicated that 41 grains would not be over max, I worked up from 38 grains until I got to the 41 grain point with the IMR 4350. I had no pressure signs, and the factory load performance was duplicated (which in this case wasn't anything spectacular, of course)...


So there is no danger whatsoever in doing things this way. As I said in my original post, ammo makers have every reason to tell you they're using "proprietary" powders, and virtually no reason to ever admit that they're generally (generally) not...

Dan

 

[Kevin Thomas]

You're seriously telling me that your "powder identification" technique includes "smelling it" and burning a pinch in an ash tray? Did you not understand what I explained about all IMR powders (and no doubt the lines of several other makers as well) being chemically identical? In trying to identify a specifc powder, you can (and often will) have trouble in a lab environment using gas chromatography, closed bomb testing and other methods far beyond the scope of the average handloader. And yet you can "smell" the difference.

You're right; that's not faulty logic. It's sheer idiocy. You are a sterling example of why reloading data or methods obtained via the internet can be such a dicey proposition.

 

[Boss Hoss]

Kevin---I have been around the industry a long time as well and one of my friends you may have known at Olin, David Towbridge a process engineer in the powder manufacturing part of the business. Got to know him from a SHOT Show in Dallas back in the 80's. Please do not waste any more time attempting to debate with the OP on this issue. He is going to get hurt or someone else if they try and indentify propellants. The way I met David (he is retired now) was in a discussion to try and identify the powder Winchester put into the .45 Win Mag. At that time I was give a through explanation of how the propellant process is developed each time that a batch of ammunition is run if the propellant is unique to let's say that cartridge and bullet weight.

There are so many things that have to be accounted for in the process---just one example, performance in extreme temperatures both hot and cold. A canister grade powder is made to a specific burn specification to perform in a variety of applications. A powder blended or manufactured in a specific lot for a specific ammunition run the variable of the products requirement are known. In the aforementioned example the powder was a flake and looked like a cross between blue dot and green dot but was not a mix as I had thought lol. In the case of the .45 win mag it was a 230gn load and when sold it had to perform in the entire range of potential shooting conditions by the end item user.

How many times have you been told when you were at the other job that "my pet load is now making the bolt hard to open"? When shooting competition with your buddy we would have to use different ammo in the early relays when the temps were in the low 50's or upper 40's than the later afternoon relays when the temps got to the 80's… The point is that factory ammo has much stricter performance criteria because of unknowns specific to use and the propellant is tailored to meet that specific performance criteria which may or may not be available in a canister propellant.

For those reading this thread the OP is way out there and his comments completely unsupported by actual industry practice. His faulted logic will end up getting someone hurt or their equipment damaged so please understand his arguments have no merit or basis in fact.

 

[Broz]

Kevin and Boss, Thank you for your contributions here. The content of this thread had me sweating like an old stick of dynamite. I wanted to respond but didn't feel I had enough background on the subject to qualify. Somewhere out there I feel you guys have saved someone some grief.

Thanks!

Jeff

 

[Boss Hoss]

Jeff---this thread does not border on but is Sheer Lunacy! If I was the owner of this site I would pull this thread and advise the OP that this is not something that will be permitted. Doing as the OP suggests is a sure course to disaster --- not if but when..

 

[Dr. Vette]

Jeff---this thread does not border on but is Sheer Lunacy! If I was the owner of this site I would pull this thread and advise the OP that this is not something that will be permitted. Doing as the OP suggests is a sure course to disaster --- not if but when..

Boss,

If nothing else the thread has been highly educational, especially the rebuttals and comments. I know that I've learned more about powders and their specifics in a couple of days than in a few years of reading about reloading. As a result I think it's worth keeping for that value alone since there are probably others who feel the same.

 

[green 788]

Why can't anyone respond to reason here??

This is AMAZING!

So I'll post what I've already written again, perhaps in the vain hope that it'll get through this time...



It goes like this:

1. Open up a factory shell. By example, I once checked a Remington Core-lokt .243 with 100 grain bullets... I found 41 grains of powder in there.

2. Determine what that powder "might be." This should be done not only by appearance, but also smell and same volume weight comparisons. If you're still not 100 percent sure, burn a pinch in an ash tray and smell it...

3. In this example, I was pretty convinced that Remington was using IMR 4350 (and they were), I checked to see what my loading manuals showed as starting and max loads for IMR 4350 with 100 grain bullets in the .243 win cartridge.

4. Noting that at least a couple sources indicated that 41 grains would not be over max, I worked up from 38 grains until I got to the 41 grain point with the IMR 4350. I had no pressure signs, and the factory load performance was duplicated (which in this case wasn't anything spectacular, of course)...


Now. I'll ask again: What is dangerous about this process? How on God's green earth is this going to hurt anyone?

I have to respectfully say that I feel like I'm trying to reason with a hoard of liberal Democrats!

Use some logic for cryin' out loud! I have not advocated at any time guessing what powder a factory shell is using and putting and equal dose of that into a cartridge and firing it. Is no one getting this?

Perhaps we have an example of "piling on" which happens often in forum threads, where those who reply are not actually reading what has been said, but rather skimming and assuming... (?)

 

[Buttermilk]

I personally don't see how you can absolutely determine the type of powder by "smelling" of it. Ain't no way to make a determination of the powder's exact identification by doing this.

Only way to know the exact powder used in a box of factory ammunition is if the manufacturer discloses that information. Too many of the powders available in canister form are way too close in appearance and composition to try to identify powder by the means you suggest.

Regarding the "Superformance" powders, Hornady has 40+ blends of this powder. One of which Hodgdon chose to market as a canister powder.

Regards,
Rog

Why can't anyone respond to reason here??

This is AMAZING!

So I'll post what I've already written again, perhaps in the vain hope that it'll get through this time...



It goes like this:

1. Open up a factory shell. By example, I once checked a Remington Core-lokt .243 with 100 grain bullets... I found 41 grains of powder in there.

2. Determine what that powder "might be." This should be done not only by appearance, but also smell and same volume weight comparisons. If you're still not 100 percent sure, burn a pinch in an ash tray and smell it...

3. In this example, I was pretty convinced that Remington was using IMR 4350 (and they were), I checked to see what my loading manuals showed as starting and max loads for IMR 4350 with 100 grain bullets in the .243 win cartridge.

4. Noting that at least a couple sources indicated that 41 grains would not be over max, I worked up from 38 grains until I got to the 41 grain point with the IMR 4350. I had no pressure signs, and the factory load performance was duplicated (which in this case wasn't anything spectacular, of course)...


Now. I'll ask again: What is dangerous about this process? How on God's green earth is this going to hurt anyone?

I have to respectfully say that I feel like I'm trying to reason with a hoard of liberal Democrats!

Use some logic for cryin' out loud! I have not advocated at any time guessing what powder a factory shell is using and putting and equal dose of that into a cartridge and firing it. Is no one getting this?

Perhaps we have an example of "piling on" which happens often in forum threads, where those who reply are not actually reading what has been said, but rather skimming and assuming... (?)

 

[rscott5028]

[...]2. Determine what that powder "might be." This should be done not only by appearance, but also smell and same volume weight comparisons. If you're still not 100 percent sure, burn a pinch in an ash tray and smell it...[...]

Step 2 implies that you can be 100% sure, which is absolutely incorrect and misleading.

So, why bother with the meaningless nonsense?

The mfg usually states what bullet is used and it's easy enough to measure OAL, MV, and accuracy in your rifle.

Just do a proper load workup instead.

Ditto for duplicating someone else's pet load even when they tell you the recipe.

Take it with a grain of salt, and do a proper load workup.

-- richard

 

[green 788]

You are getting closer to what I'm trying to convey...

Let me take the blame for not being specific enough then.

But even if we mis-identify what that factory powder "might be," so long as we are using our loading manuals and safe load development practices, we are not going to get in any trouble at all, we can agree there, I'm sure.

In many, many cases we find that the factory powder wasn't anything all that esoteric after all. I found, some years back, that Federal was loading their 168 grain .308 match ammo with IMR 4064. Later, Federal did admit that they were using 4064, but this is when they switched to RL15, the same powder the military is using in their long range .308 loads (M118LR).

No one can state unequivocally that ammo makers never use special powders... Kevin correctly points out that with new cartridges, specific powders may be necessary. And we know that ammo makers get "off lots" of powder at blow-out prices and load up blasting fodder with that stuff, and make lots of money.

But those are exceptions, I would say. I still contend that factory ammo is in the vast majority of cases put together using what we would call canister grade powders.

By the way... I do develop loads, for myself and many others... I designed the OCW system more than a dozen years ago to help reloaders find the best possible load recipes, with the least amount of component waste. The link to my OCW site page is in my signature line...

Dan

 

[Joe King]

Kevin and Boss, Thank you for your contributions here. The content of this thread had me sweating like an old stick of dynamite. I wanted to respond but didn't feel I had enough background on the subject to qualify. Somewhere out there I feel you guys have saved someone some grief.

Thanks!

Jeff

My sentiments exactly