The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 13, 2007, 02:06 PM   #1
ShootingNut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,470
All Powders Created Equal

Or, do some manufacturers have more recalls than others?
So far, I have only used Hodgdon Titegroup and Accurate #5, but as I am considering Alliant's Unique or Bullseye for .45 ACP I was wondering about quality control in the industry.
ShootingNut is offline  
Old December 13, 2007, 04:36 PM   #2
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Most of the recalls I have seen involve the wrong powder in the container.
The powder itself is fine, just mislabeled.
brickeyee is offline  
Old December 13, 2007, 07:04 PM   #3
ShootingNut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,470
bricke

That makes sense, never thought about that possibility.
Still, makes you wonder how that could happen, unless they have to hire some real "nimrods".
Seriously, I thought it was a problem with the powder burning as designed.
Thanks!
SN
ShootingNut is offline  
Old December 13, 2007, 08:37 PM   #4
Ozzieman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 5,027
Unique or Bullseye

Are very good powders but for 45acp I have found that 231 works better.
It works though a powder measure a little easier and is one of the cleanest burning powders that I have found for 9 or 45 ACP.
Ozzieman is offline  
Old December 14, 2007, 06:56 AM   #5
ShootingNut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,470
Ozzie

Thanks, I'll check 231 out. Without looking, I can't tell you who makes that one, but I'll find it!

Just found it on Hodgdon, a Winchester powder. I don't know what you powder up with, I use the Lee Pro Powder on my Classic Turret, with either their discs or auto charge bar. As far as you know, this powder will feed through my set up O.K.?
I understand from other posts, that some powders don't do well in smaller grain charges.
Thanks again!

Last edited by ShootingNut; December 14, 2007 at 07:10 AM. Reason: Add something
ShootingNut is offline  
Old December 14, 2007, 07:21 AM   #6
314EPW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2007
Posts: 108
feeding

Win 231 feeds real good through lee setup! I use #49 disc for 45 acp which equal 5.2 grains.
Ed
314EPW is offline  
Old December 14, 2007, 09:24 AM   #7
ShootingNut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,470
Ed

Thanks! Good to know, what grain bullet are you pushing with the 5.2 charge?
ShootingNut is offline  
Old December 14, 2007, 11:23 AM   #8
Mal H
Staff
 
Join Date: March 20, 1999
Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia
Posts: 14,557
Quote:
I was wondering about quality control in the industry.
QC in the powder industry is generally excellent. The recalls are extremely rare and are well publicized in the shooting/reloading world. Don't let that be of any concern in your powder choice from a reputable powder manufacturer.

On the other hand, powders do vary a bit from lot to lot of the same name powder. That is inevitable in almost any large quantity manufacturing process and powders are no different. When you change lots of the same powder, it is always wise to back off a little for the first few loads to be sure all is well. Some say you should back off 10% and start working up again. That's not a bad idea with the smaller loads, but that might be excessive with larger capacity loads. For example, 10% of a 4 grain Bullseye load is only .4 grains, but 10% of a 45 grain 30-06 load is 4.5 grains which is too much of a download. So a gradient of backing-off is appropriate when changing powder lots.

As for powders to investigate for your 45 ACP loads, I've been using Hodgdon's Universal Clays for years with great success. Similar burn rate to W231, but a bit cleaner I've found. Even so W231 is a very good choice also. Bullseye is a little too fast burning for me in a moderately high capacity round like the 45 ACP - too much room for errors.
Mal H is offline  
Old December 14, 2007, 11:27 AM   #9
ShootingNut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,470
Mal

Thanks, for your experience and insight!
ShootingNut is offline  
Old December 14, 2007, 12:27 PM   #10
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
"On the other hand, powders do vary a bit from lot to lot of the same name powder. "

The canister grqades are held tighter then 'non-canister' grade powders.
Commercial (and mil) ammunition is almost always loaded woth non-canister grade to save money.
Sometimes you can even purchase bulk powder that is either non-canister or a batch that failed the canister grade tests.
Accurate Data Powders, and various lots of Winchester are available this way sometimes.
brickeyee is offline  
Old December 14, 2007, 02:44 PM   #11
314EPW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2007
Posts: 108
What grain Bullet?

200 gr. lswc
Ed
314EPW is offline  
Old December 14, 2007, 03:03 PM   #12
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,133
Quote:
On the other hand, powders do vary a bit from lot to lot of the same name powder. That is inevitable in almost any large quantity manufacturing process and powders are no different. When you change lots of the same powder, it is always wise to back off a little for the first few loads to be sure all is well. Some say you should back off 10% and start working up again. That's not a bad idea with the smaller loads, but that might be excessive with larger capacity loads. For example, 10% of a 4 grain Bullseye load is only .4 grains, but 10% of a 45 grain 30-06 load is 4.5 grains which is too much of a download. So a gradient of backing-off is appropriate when changing powder lots.
Good advice. And there are some other considerations. Outsourcing for one. Accurate Arms would change vendors virtually every different powder buy. Now what I heard, from someone in the powder industry, that a 10% lot variance is about as good as it gets. So all Powder labels blend fast lots with slow lots and issue that in a can to the public. AA said their standard was 5% consistency for powder released to the public. That is your new can of AA2520 should perform (probably pressure curve peak and area) no more than 5% different than your 10 year old can of AA2520.

The trouble came was that the 10 year old can of AA2520 was made in Zombia, and the new can was made in Vampirevestia. Maybe in their test equipment the stuff was within 5% but in my rifles, each and every lot of AA was a totally new critter. Blew primers and some lots had too much glass in the powder! Ruined barrels it did. Heard from a National Champion whose Palma barrel was washed out in 150 rounds !

Some of the best AA2495 that I ever shot came from China. Wish I had bought more than 32 pounds of the stuff, all gone. Boo Hoo.

I never had that problem with Hercules powders, a can of Unique/2400/bullseye from the 60’s operates the same as a can from the 90’s. I will bet that a can of Bullseye from 1910 acts the same as one from 1990. However, can’t say for the “new” cleaner burning Alliant powders, they changed that stuff enough that I have had to reduce my charges.

What I think the difference was, Hercules must have made their stuff in house for a long time and that made for a very consistent powder.

So if you want to avoid a bunch of testing, buy a bunch of powder of the same lot number.
Slamfire is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09811 seconds with 9 queries