It is the same powder but cut differently. I am not sure what you are not sure about.
Replacement for Retumbo - 28 Nosler
- Thread starter LongProng
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
What I mean is that I don't necessarily agree that it behaves 100 percent the same with equal charges. Case fill affects things, it has to. Surface area during ignition affects things, it has to, there's no other instance in chemistry or physics where these things don't matter at all. I've used both 7828 and 7828ssc. They are indeed very similar and a safe load with one would never be a primer popper with another, but they're not the exact same thing in my experience and in the anecdotal reports of others. Perhaps I shouldn't have worded things so ambiguously.
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
Not to say there's anything wrong with 7828 ssc or the new 7977, which is notably different, for starters being a double base, but I didn't think there was anything wrong with the original, I always thought of it as a kind of "old reliable" when others were proving hard to work with. I suppose they wouldn't discontinue something for which there was great demand though. I'm just really surprised that it's waned in popularity to the point of it being unprofitable to manufacture
The same means the powder is the same, as in the same burn rate. You are speaking of the exact same behavior you will get form lot to lot in the EXACT same powder. No two lots are the same period. Example, I just developed a load for my 6.5 PRC with H1000 and the 156 Berger with 58.3 grains at 2985 then ran out of powder(Yes rookie mistake. I always start with a fresh 8lb keg but did not pay attention this time.) The new lot requires 57.1 to equal velocity and accuracy. The fact is they are the same powder just cut differently. No different than H4831 and H4831SC. Again regardless of the powder lot to lot consistency can always have an effect. I seriously doubt Hodgdon said to take the same load from one and expect the exact same results with the other.
I personally do not know anyone who choses the uncut versions over the shorts.
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
Now you do
I've never used a measure, so I don't care about metering. I do it by hand. I understand it is the exact same powder just cut shorter. But the physical dimensions will have an influence on the burn characteristics. A really ridiculous extreme example: logs and sawdust are the exact same thing, one's just cut shorter, but they sure don't burn the same way. I know ssc works in its place, I've done that. But there are some differences in behaviour I've observed that I maintain go beyond what could rightly be attributed to lot to lot variance (I know about that too, rl-22 gave me a real "surprise" when I was new to this). One reason someone might prefer the original is load density compared to ssc. You can fit more of the super short cut into a given volume, which is often a good thing, but if a full case load of 7828 is giving the best velocity, consistency, etc, then it might not be replicable with the ssc powder as it won't fill the case quite as full with equal charge weights. I always observe best es and sd numbers when the powder can't shake around. This is getting nit picky and academic perhaps but I'm just saying there are real considerations here. I've listened to your perspective and understand it, I hope this is reciprocated and not dismissed. Congrats on the 156 berger load. Sounds like a best of both worlds low recoil long range hammer.
Now you do
I understand it is the exact same powder just cut shorter. But the physical dimensions will have an influence on the burn characteristics. A really ridiculous extreme example: logs and sawdust are the exact same thing, one's just cut shorter, but they sure don't burn the same way. I know ssc works in its place, I've done that. But there are some differences in behaviour I've observed that I maintain go beyond what could rightly be attributed to lot to lot variance (I know about that too, rl-22 gave me a real "surprise" when I was new to this). One reason someone might prefer the original is load density compared to ssc. You can fit more of the super short cut into a given volume, which is often a good thing, but if a full case load of 7828 is giving the best velocity, consistency, etc, then it might not be replicable with the ssc powder as it won't fill the case quite as full with equal charge weights. I always observe best es and sd numbers when the powder can't shake around. This is getting nit picky and academic perhaps but I'm just saying there are real considerations here. I've listened to your perspective and understand it, I hope this is reciprocated and not dismissed. Congrats on the 156 berger load. Sounds like a best of both worlds low recoil long range hammer.
Your logs and sawdust example is a perfect example. Like I said I seriously doubt Hodgdon said grain for grain replacement. As I already stated you can't even do that for lot to lot of identical powders. That does not change the fact that it is the same powder.
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
Yes as I've said I know that it's the same powder but with different sized granules. I'm going to try and upload hodgdons reply though. They didn't explicitly say "grain for grain" but basically. They said load data for the two is interchangeable, which is what I found a bit objectionable.
Attachments
Load data is a rather large window. I would back that statement up 100%. The load data is interchangeable. That does not be start at max. It means start at the starting load and work up. The regular version and the SC or in your case SSC will work within the listed windows.
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
I see what your mean, of course we don't start at max. At this point I'm not sure what we're arguing about (or if this even constitutes arguing). We both know it's the same powder, same chemical formulation, cut to different size. You've acknowledged that this does affect some things, I've acknowledged that if we're not swapping max loads from one powder to the next (including the same powder from a different lot) there shouldn't be any trouble. perhaps I'm just obstinate and old fashioned (at the age of 27) but I've used both, I prefer the original 7828, I'm unhappy about the decision to discontinue it, I certainly hope that this isn't the beginning of the end for some of the other, arguably replaceable, classic powders like the original 4064, 4350, and 4831, both hodgdon and IMR varieties. I wanted to let the readers on the forum know about it and suspect I will certainly not be alone in finding this turn of events regrettable regardless of the availability of comparable products.
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
yep, glad to hear it, same page.
Flatbow
Well-Known Member
I am with Calvin on the fact that I use the original 7828 do to the fact that it fills the case more than the ssc.
Now I am just trying to decide if I should buy up all the 7828 I can find or try to developed new load with 7977 or 8133 since they are Enderon powders and supose to be more temp table.
Thanks for the confirmation on the discontinuation of 7828.
Now I am just trying to decide if I should buy up all the 7828 I can find or try to developed new load with 7977 or 8133 since they are Enderon powders and supose to be more temp table.
Thanks for the confirmation on the discontinuation of 7828.
Rhett Crider
Well-Known Member
Graf's has N565 and N560 now. Won't last. N565 same burn rate as 7828ssc.
Won't last.
Rhett
Won't last.
Rhett
