Powder comment

[Dan in MI]

I often see people say XYZ powder from 1940x, 1950x, etc is different than current XYZ. I say no it's not. EVER. Now hear me out before you go to the barn for your pitchforks.

1st - Technically it is kind of right. WITHIN a certain range. Whatever the +/- spec is for every lot ever made.

2. Now to the meat of it. XYZ powder company made a load manual in 19xx that said zz grains of XYZ for a .388 SuperBlast with yy grain bullet. Today they have no idea if a customer is using a current manual, old manual, or somewhere in between. Or, is just using his favorite load from way back then. If they made XYZ different enough that it wasn't safe following normal loading practices (the old 10% reduction disclaimer) then lawyers would have a field day if anything went wrong. They just can't make it different for liability reasons. Yes, the newer manuals keep getting lower and lower. That may be better testing, or it may be lawyering up, but it can't be that much different.

3. It may have a different formula, but it will be in the same burn rate +/- as it always had, within range as stated, or they are setting themselves up to go to court.

If it is different enough that the old data is somehow completely unsafe they would have to rename it to prevent any accidental misuse.

 

[Mobuck]

Data is collected based on several factors that can (and do) change over time. Bullet design/construction makes a difference. Chamber dimensions make a difference (and those can/do change from time to time). Back in the 'old days' of crushers and manual measuring devices, the condition of the test bore could make a difference in things like max pressure. Powder specs can change slightly over yars(decades) of production.

 

[kmoore]

I tend to agree with you. I still go by H4350 data when loading that vs IMR 4350 data. I may not need too but I do. We don't have all the reasons why 2 current manuals have slightly different loads listed.

 

[BBarn]

I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree with all of your conclusions. Powder manufacturers always say not to exceed the data published in their current manual. If I use a current product from a manufacturer in a way that exceeds their current recommendations, I suspect I would be judged as having done this at my own peril. I may not blow up my gun anytime soon by exceeding the latest published data, but that doesn't mean what I'm doing is safe just because a product's name hasn't changed in 60 years.

 

[beentheredone]

Powder manufacturers don't publish warnings about powders for no reason. The risks may be -- probably are -- small in many cases. But to assume that in every case is to live in a fool's paradise.

 

[Mobuck]

"Canister" powder is produced to specific specifications (within tolerances). Military and commercial loading powders are more 'general' in nature. In theory, canister powder is the same from one batch to the next (within tolerances) so that the recreational loader can buy one can at a time and load safely. The 'big boys' powder is in XXXXX# lots and the load is adjusted to meet cartridge performance parameters.
I've loaded a lot of ammo using 'pull down' and 'commercial grade' powder but this requires far more caution and testing than just buying a 1# can from the local gun shop.

 

[peachhead]

Some powder is different today than it used to be. The formulation is different.

 

[contender]

In talking with a couple of the powder manufacturers over the years about this, I learned that the main reason manuals have "reduced" the max loads is because they have better testing methods of pressures.
The powder formulas haven't changed enough,, IN GENERAL,, except to try & make the same powder a bit better. Such as making Unique powder burn cleaner.
But they do test & try loads using new pressure testing, (more accurate, and also capable of gauging peak pressures,) before putting it on the market.

Yes,, each "lot" of powder can be slightly different,, but in general, it'll be very close to the original formula.
But I think the big discussion here is how a powder performs. The burn rate, the peak pressure, the normal loadings, and the maximum SAFE loading charges to accommodate all types of guns.
If you buy a modern made firearm, and load according to the manual, w/o exceeding the current info, all will be fine.
But if you take an old manual, use a modern produced powder, and fire it up in a very old or "weaker" firearm, you may easily exceed the safe limits.
Did the powder change,,,? Maybe, maybe not.
Did the gun change? No.
Did the method of testing change? Yes.
Was it discovered that older data may be unsafe? Possibly.

But the OP is discussing the idea that they have never changed the powders. In this,, I say,, "yes & no." Some powders have changed,, yet still carry the same ID. (And that comes from talking to a few powder companies directly.) Others haven't changed enough to notice,, and they too carry the same ID.

In short; "It depends!"

So, as always,, it's the best practice to use CURRENT loading data with listed information. Exceeding a load that may not be considered excessive in an older manual is never a good idea. Too many variables.

 

[gramps]

Thread drift: changing the OAL of a cartridge increases pressure. Increased pressure means more FPS. Rather than increase powder, why not change the OAL?
gramps

 

[Dan in MI]

But the OP is discussing the idea that they have never changed the powders. In this,, I say,, "yes & no." Some powders have changed,, yet still carry the same ID. (And that comes from talking to a few powder companies directly.) Others haven't changed enough to notice,, and they too carry the same ID.

In short; "It depends!"

So, as always,, it's the best practice to use CURRENT loading data with listed information. Exceeding a load that may not be considered excessive in an older manual is never a good idea. Too many variables.

That is the meat of it. Yes, the formulation may change a little, but the burn rate/pressure curve doesn't.

 

[Skeet 028]

The supposition the OP made is mostly true. Original BE us within specs (+/-) from the original powder when developed. However many powders have been reformulated...I remember using DuPont 700X and they changed it slightly so I could no longer use it in some shot shell loads.Hercules reformulated RD,GD and Unique to burn cleaner and also changed their data...but probably due to better testing than earlier. Remember they also changed loading data on Blue Dot to not use in cold weather in 41 mag...although most people no longer use it in 41 at all. I still use old powder and the old data because there IS NO current data for them.Still the powder co still keeps the powders within those (+/-) parameters...or they discontinue the powder...much of the new data is because of MUCH better testing...but there are a few lawyers working in the sidelines!

 

[Laserbait]

Another thing to consider is that they have much better pressure testing/reading equipment now than they used to. Loads that were previously thought to be "fine" with copper crushers, may show pressure spikes with the new piezoelectric pressure readers.

 

[bigbillyboy]

I agree .

Another thing to consider is that they have much better pressure testing/reading equipment now than they used to. Loads that were previously thought to be "fine" with copper crushers, may show pressure spikes with the new piezoelectric pressure readers.

 

[protoolman]

I agree with the OP. For the most part the powder formula and parameters don't change. I have heard of powders looking different and coming from a new source before but even then it was/ should be? Held to the same parameters. There would be no safe reason for a company ever to speed up a burn rate with years of published data out there that might be used.