f> H335 powder for Mini 14 .223 loads? - Page 2 - Ruger Forum

Ruger Forum

H335 powder for Mini 14 .223 loads?

This is a discussion on H335 powder for Mini 14 .223 loads? within the Reloading forums, part of the Firearm Forum category; Firescout, Have you done the math? With your price of $184 for Varget, it would cost 8.7 cents per round. With H335 at $158, it ...


Go Back   Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Reloading

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes

Old April 26th, 2017, 05:49 PM   #16
Retired Moderator & Gunsmith
 
Iowegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CB, IA
Posts: 11,972
Iowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to beholdIowegan is a splendid one to behold

Awards Showcase

Firescout, Have you done the math? With your price of $184 for Varget, it would cost 8.7 cents per round. With H335 at $158, it would cost 7.5 cents per round. Do you really have to pinch pennies that much and deal with sub-standard performance?



Iowegan is offline  
Advertisements
Old April 26th, 2017, 07:58 PM   #17
"The Real Deal"
 
Tacky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Back woods of North Carolina
Posts: 4,734
Tacky is a jewel in the roughTacky is a jewel in the roughTacky is a jewel in the roughTacky is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowegan View Post
Tacky, Reloading manuals don't always consider all the attributes of different powders .... they are more concerned about chamber pressures being within SAAMI specs and velocities being in the "normal" range for a specific cartridge. Temperature extremes, cycle rate, metering, and velocity spreads are just a few of the attributes that are NOT considered in most reloading manuals.

Magnum primers were specifically designed for large capacity cases that use a huge powder charge. A couple examples are 300 Win Mag, 7mm Mag, 300 H&H Mag, etc where powder charges in excess of 70 grains are common. Slow burning rifle powder, especially magnum rifle powders, burn almost like a fuse where one granule ignites the next granule and that granule ignite the next granule, etc. This is called a "serial burn" and if the series is interrupted .... such as an air gap between granules, the fire literally goes out, leaving unburned powder in the bore and erratic velocities. So, in order to get all the "hard to ignite" granules burned before the bullet exits the muzzle, it takes a magnum primer flash that creates a longer flash duration and a higher flash temperature. Consider this .... when a rifle powder charge is ignited by a primer, the initial pressure is enough to push the bullet out of the cartridge and literally blow much of the unburned powder down the bore. To keep chamber pressure under control, retardant is added to the powder, which compounds the problem. You now have "hard to ignite" powder granules blown down the bore and away from the normal primer flash . If they don't get ignited, velocity will drop and will vary considerably. When all powder burns like it should, velocities are higher and much more uniform.

Magnum primers can have some strange results with some powders. They can cause a double peak in pressure or oddly enough, a lower velocity. Why? Magnum primers will increase the burn rate with all smokeless gun powders .... no exceptions. If a powder burns up too fast, it will NOT continue to propel the bullet as a powder that keeps burning until the bullet exits the muzzle. Powders that were not formulated for magnum primers do not have as much retardant added so they often produce a lower muzzle velocity with magnum primers than they do with standard primers ... strange but true. So to answer your question, the "strange results issue" is why some loads are listed with magnum primers whereas the same powder in a different manual is listed with standard primers. A good example of this is W-748 ... a ball powder that is NOT considered a magnum powder but is often listed with magnum primers.

A huge amount of powder burn information was learned when the shooting industry went to piezo pressure testing in the early 1990's (versus the older crusher method). Turns out, multiple piezo electronic pressure sensors on a rifle barrel can be coupled to a computer and will chart the pressure from the moment the primer flashes until the bullet exits the muzzle. This is how the shooting industry discovered double pressure peaks and found out how far the bullet had to travel before the powder totally burned up. Of course the results of piezo testing has been applied to the manufacture of newer powders, making them formulated better for specific applications. In the past is was mostly a process of elimination and experimentation with some luck thrown in.

Powder manufacturers continue to make many of the older powders, even though they don't function as well as newer powders. This is because many shooters found a powder that seemed to work OK 40~50 years ago and don't want to change. We see all sorts of customer flack when any of the old powders get discontinued so of course customer demand drives the market. I think its a matter of time before the powder manufacturers eliminate the older powders and replace them with newer powders with more favorable attributes. Many of the old numbered IMR powders ... such as IMR 4895 are still very popular but don't have temperature compensation and meter poorly. I highly suspect these powders will be replaced in the not to distant future .... in fact many IMR powders have already been discontinued.

The negative thing about many of the newer powders is .... even though the newer powders perform better, they are pretty useless without sufficient load data. In years past, there was a 10 year cycle between new reloading manuals. Now it seems like a new manual comes out every two years to accommodate the new powders and even that may not be often enough to keep up with the rapidly changing developments in reloading components.
Awesome information, very informative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowegan View Post
Do you really have to pinch pennies that much and deal with sub-standard performance?
I wondered the same thing? I mean I really do not figure the price into the equation as much as I do accuracy I am after. So I put a price on my accuracy if that makes since.
Once upon a time I looked at bullseye for pistol, the reason as you stated amount of rounds I could load. Well after trying it, then seeing how easy it is to double charge I banned it from my reloading bench. The risk was not worth the benefit. I went it in with a friend and bought 8lbs of w231, he got 4lbs, I got 4 lbs, that will last me forever loading 3 5 or 7 grains for my pistols.

I say get 1lb to try, if it works for you, and you get an awesome load then purchase the 8lb, it can be justified easier that way. Everybody cringes when they see the sticker shock price tag on an 8lb can, no matter if your planning to buy it or not. But to get the accuracy I am after I pony up the cash.

Last edited by Tacky; April 26th, 2017 at 08:01 PM.
Tacky is offline  
Old April 26th, 2017, 09:44 PM   #18
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N. Calif
Posts: 2,580
firescout will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowegan View Post
Firescout, Have you done the math? With your price of $184 for Varget, it would cost 8.7 cents per round. With H335 at $158, it would cost 7.5 cents per round. Do you really have to pinch pennies that much and deal with sub-standard performance?
Earlier this evening, I 'did the math' for per-round powder cost for 8 lbs Benchmark vs H335 (Powder Valley prices) @ 25 gr per round. Benchmark: $0.0807/ea, H335: $0.0707/ea.

I think I'll stick with Benchmark, as it has been providing very good performance with the 52-55 gr bullets in my Mini 14.

Thanks to all for your input and info.
firescout is offline  
 
Old May 26th, 2017, 11:21 AM   #19
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N. Calif
Posts: 2,580
firescout will become famous soon enough
I just ordered another 8# of Hodgdon Benchmark. Though the velocities are a bit lower than the slower powders, the temperature stability and standard SR primer loading recommendation meets my needs. I find it to be extremely consistent, too.
firescout is offline  
Old May 26th, 2017, 11:38 AM   #20
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Missouri
Posts: 401
Mark204 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by firescout View Post
I just ordered another 8# of Hodgdon Benchmark. Though the velocities are a bit lower than the slower powders, the temperature stability and standard SR primer loading recommendation meets my needs. I find it to be extremely consistent, too.
Firerscout..........I think velocity is overrated, most of my most accurate loads in various bolt guns are in the mid to low end of the charge range. Velocity doesn't always equate to accuracy.

I have yet to have a PD, coyote or deer complain that my bullet was going to slow, lol.

The temp stability is a big plus if you shoot all year like I do.


Here Kitty Kitty
Mark204 is offline  
Reply

  Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Reloading

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Ruger Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SR9c cast loads, which powder? Hexadecimus Reloading 8 December 22nd, 2013 02:55 AM
Accuracy Loads for Mini-14 .223 Rem./NATO 5.56 GunBlue Ruger Semi-Auto 17 November 18th, 2012 02:34 PM
Best value in powder for .44 mag practice loads? 429421Cowboy Reloading 25 March 30th, 2011 07:05 PM
Black powder loads for 357 15AcreWoods Black Powder 19 February 15th, 2011 07:01 PM
Fast powder for light loads showmebob Reloading 5 September 14th, 2009 03:47 PM

Top Gun Sites Top Sites List
Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2006 - 2017 Ruger Forum. All rights reserved.
Ruger Forum is a Ruger Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent Sturm Ruger & Company Inc. of Southport, CT.