The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 22, 2013, 09:00 PM   #1
kwm1971
Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2012
Posts: 31
powder substitution - Burn Rate?

I am looking into reloading some 9mm & .40sw ammo. No specific bullet sizes yet. Titegroup is my favorite powder. I have found that Titegroup & accurate #2 have the same burn rate(9). Can I use the titegroup with the #2 recipes?
kwm1971 is offline  
Old September 22, 2013, 09:09 PM   #2
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 2,287
No. Don't you have a manual?
buck460XVR is offline  
Old September 22, 2013, 09:19 PM   #3
kwm1971
Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2012
Posts: 31
yes i have a the lee & hornady books. I have tite group & dont want to buy other powders unless absolutely necessary.
kwm1971 is offline  
Old September 22, 2013, 09:26 PM   #4
PhantomI
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2013
Posts: 13
Go to wwpowder.com. There you will find loading data for all hodgdon powders.
Tite Group loads will be listed. Good Luck.
PhantomI is offline  
Old September 22, 2013, 09:53 PM   #5
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,313
NEVER NEVER NEVER use loading data from one powder to load for a powder that looks close on the burn rate charts.

I it is a recipe for disaster.

Those burn rate charts are relative. Powder five may be close to powder six, but there may be a huge difference between it and powder four on the chart.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old September 22, 2013, 10:57 PM   #6
mmb713
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 314
All of Hodgdon's data is available for free online. Why would you risk disaster when you can get the correct data you need as easily as posting on this forum?

http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp
mmb713 is offline  
Old September 22, 2013, 10:59 PM   #7
serf 'rett
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2009
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,387
^What Mike said.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part does not necessarily constitute an emergency on my part.
serf 'rett is offline  
Old September 22, 2013, 11:36 PM   #8
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,979
I don't want to question anyone's data, but I strongly suggest you buy a manual or print out the appropriate company info if you can't afford one, and NOT ask for loading data on the internet.

You have no way of knowing the level of expertise of the person responding, and if you don't have the data in front of you, you could make a mistake. "Gee, Jim gave me a good answer on that load, 39 grains." Yep, but Jim said 29 grains.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old September 23, 2013, 01:55 AM   #9
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,153
powder substitution - Burn Rate?

Powder manufacturers warn against this very inclination. Burn rates are only applicable under one set of test conditions, and test conditions or calculations differ from the actual real world conditions. Different case capacity, seating depth, bullet weight or max pressure may change a powders behavior.

The burn rate is an average relative ranking. Two powders with the same rate may behave very differently at different charge weights.
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old September 24, 2013, 10:23 AM   #10
kwm1971
Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2012
Posts: 31
*** Thanks for ALL input ***

** Found the HODGDON Reloading data online **
kwm1971 is offline  
Old September 24, 2013, 12:24 PM   #11
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
There is a ton of official data available online. You just have to know where to look.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old September 24, 2013, 12:28 PM   #12
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,167
Titegroup is I believe a bit more energetic than AA#2 even though they are both very fast powders (I use both a lot). They have similar burn rates, but as others have said there is plenty of free load data available at both www.hodgdon.com and http://www.accuratepowder.com/ to ever consider substituting one for the other.
spacecoast is offline  
Old September 24, 2013, 08:06 PM   #13
Nick_C_S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2013
Location: Taxifornia
Posts: 2,359
Tightgroup, AA2, and Red Dot, are all generally considered to have the same burn rate.

BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEIR LOAD AMOUNTS ARE INTERCHANGEABLE.

When switching powders, new recipes must be made, and any load data from the "old" powder must be disregarded. They may have the same burn rate, but they are still "apples n oranges," so to speak.
__________________
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, it's because your tactics suck." -- Allen West, quoting Marine 1st Sgt Jim Reinfinger
Nick_C_S is offline  
Old September 25, 2013, 07:32 AM   #14
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,270
I have eight separate and distinct burn rate charts.
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old September 25, 2013, 06:03 PM   #15
Nick_C_S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2013
Location: Taxifornia
Posts: 2,359
Quote:
I have eight separate and distinct burn rate charts.
I too have seen conflicting information. The burn rate chart I like the most is the one from Accurate Arms (also available on Ramshot's site too).

http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-con...burn_rates.pdf

I think powder burn rates is an inexact science. I'm not an expert in the field by any means, but it just seems to be a bit like nailing jello to a wall. There's just so many variables that effect burn rate, that it can't really be clearly defined (I believe).

Using Red Dot and AA2 as an example: Supposedly, they have the same burn rate (and I am not challenging that notion here), but I find Red Dot to be very persnickity and it acts like it wants to spike real easily - I quit using it. Whereas, AA2 seems very forgiving (by "fast powder" standards), and to me, it acts like a slower powder (on the order of Green Dot, say).
__________________
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, it's because your tactics suck." -- Allen West, quoting Marine 1st Sgt Jim Reinfinger
Nick_C_S is offline  
Old September 25, 2013, 07:05 PM   #16
jamaica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2006
Location: Northern Utah
Posts: 520
Powder burn rate charts are OK to give you an idea of relative burn rates. Period. They are not substitution charts. Always find a load from the Powder or Bullet manufacturer. Online or from a published manual.
jamaica is offline  
Old September 26, 2013, 03:09 PM   #17
57K
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2013
Location: Heart of Texas
Posts: 788
The chart I use most is Hodgdon's. Burn rates are established by the "Closed Bomb" test. All powders are tested in the same size vessel, so they very often change in burn rate specific to the cartridge you're loading. You don't want to load TiteGroup with any other data than that for TiteGroup and it can be touchy and pressure spike when Max. Charges are used.

TiteGroup is listed at 14 while AA#2 is at 25. Definitely not a good choice as far as any chargeweight or pressure comparisons. AA#2 is very similar in burn rate to ZIP and W231. In any case, it's a more forgiving powder.
57K is offline  
Old September 26, 2013, 05:52 PM   #18
Nick_C_S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2013
Location: Taxifornia
Posts: 2,359
Quote:
57K said: "The chart I use most is Hodgdon's."
I find that ironic. Considering I go by Ramshot's burn rate data.

That seems like a role reversal to me
__________________
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, it's because your tactics suck." -- Allen West, quoting Marine 1st Sgt Jim Reinfinger
Nick_C_S is offline  
Old September 27, 2013, 04:03 PM   #19
57K
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2013
Location: Heart of Texas
Posts: 788
Nick, Ramshot's newest burn rate chart has powders rated by groups rather than in numerical order as their last chart did and Hodgdon does. There were also some powders misplaced on the previous Ramshot chart including one of their own, True Blue. Lapua's latest chart also rates by groups where their previous one was by numerical order. Not that it's evil or anything, I just prefer to see powders listed in numerical order.
57K is offline  
Old September 27, 2013, 04:15 PM   #20
Nick_C_S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2013
Location: Taxifornia
Posts: 2,359
And I prefer the way AA/Ramshot groups them. For instance, AA2, Tightgroup, & Red Dot are grouped together - i.e., they're the same speed, for all intents and purposes. And of course, 231/HP-38; 540/HS-6; & 571/HS-7 are they're the same powder - so they're grouped together.

The fault I find with a numerical listing, is that #20 might be only a little faster than #21 (or even the same powder), but #21 may be a lot faster than #22 - if that makes sense. It's often a non-linear scale, so to speak. But when they're layed out numerically, it kind of leaves the incorrect implication that it is. Hope that made sense.

This is not to say that a numerical listing is not invaluable. I just like the way your beloved Ramshot lays it out.
__________________
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, it's because your tactics suck." -- Allen West, quoting Marine 1st Sgt Jim Reinfinger

Last edited by Nick_C_S; September 27, 2013 at 04:59 PM. Reason: Data correction
Nick_C_S is offline  
Old September 27, 2013, 04:30 PM   #21
Nick_C_S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2013
Location: Taxifornia
Posts: 2,359
It had been a while since I looked at Hodgdon's burn rate chart. So I thought I'd take this occasion to have a peek at it again.

Now I remember why I stopped looking at it. Based on years of personal experience, coupled with other data that I've seen, I see some "curiosities" with Hodgdon's chart:

It's got Red Dot (#8) faster than Bullseye (#13). No way; not a chance.

It's got Green Dot (#17) faster than AA2 (#25). No way; not a chance.

It's got HP-38/231 (#'s 28 & 29) slower than AA2 (#25). No way. Not a chance.

Yeah, I remember now. That's why I stopped using this chart.
__________________
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, it's because your tactics suck." -- Allen West, quoting Marine 1st Sgt Jim Reinfinger
Nick_C_S is offline  
Old September 27, 2013, 04:49 PM   #22
sourdough44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: WI
Posts: 611
With the 40 I'd go to a slower powder than TG or #2. I use H. Universal, works just fine in the 40.
sourdough44 is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 06:20 PM   #23
57K
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2013
Location: Heart of Texas
Posts: 788
Quote:
It had been a while since I looked at Hodgdon's burn rate chart. So I thought I'd take this occasion to have a peek at it again.

Now I remember why I stopped looking at it. Based on years of personal experience, coupled with other data that I've seen, I see some "curiosities" with Hodgdon's chart:

It's got Red Dot (#8) faster than Bullseye (#13). No way; not a chance.

It's got Green Dot (#17) faster than AA2 (#25). No way; not a chance.

It's got HP-38/231 (#'s 28 & 29) slower than AA2 (#25). No way. Not a chance.

Yeah, I remember now. That's why I stopped using this chart.
That's cute, Nick. Kinda like if John can beat up Bob and Bob can beat up Sam, then Sam can beat up neither Bob nor John! LOL.

The fact is that the powders are rated numerically based on the elapsed time required for an equal amount of powder to burn in a vessel of a specific size, i.e. "Closed Bomb". Not by their burn rates in specific cartridges or all cartridges would have to be tested, then averaged to find a cumulative burn rate for comparison. Not that I wouldn't like to see that done, but I think the powder makers are unlikely to devote the time and money to do it.

I'm gonna have to refer you to your own statements. On one hand you say that AA#2 is similar in burn rate to TiteGroup and Red Dot. Then you get pretty ambiguous with your statement that Green Dot can't be faster than AA#2 which in turn can't be faster than HP38/W231. AA#2 is not even close to being as fast burning as TiteGroup and Red Dot, and if it were, could it be slower than W231? You see, on some days, Sam might be able to beat up both Bob and John, or not! I don't believe in stereotyping whether it be people, gunpowder burn rates or even John, Bob and Sam.
57K is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 06:52 PM   #24
Nick_C_S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2013
Location: Taxifornia
Posts: 2,359
Okay, how many people followed that? Lol.

Actually, you make a good point. I think my analogy of it being like nailing jello to a wall kinda worked too. For me personally - based on my experience - when I looked at the Ramshot/AA burn rate chart, that was the one that made me go "yep, this is all correct" without hesitation.

Powders definitely behave differently in different cartridges. Not to start another tangent: But I think 231 acts "faster" in 38 or 357 cartridges; and behaves slower in 45 cartridges. Example: I get pressure spikes right out the the gate with 125g/357 <-- you'd think the rather light 125g bullet would offer some forgiveness, but no. But 231 behaves itself nicely in 3/4-power 230g 45 ACP rounds <-- you'd think that heavy slug would make it "spikey;" but it doesn't seem to. In fact, my chrono says it's an extremely consistent round.

To me, powder burn rate charts only exist to give one a ballpark starting point for their loads. Or to look for an alternative powder that my perform roughly the same, or intentionally slightly different. That sort of thing. And they perform that task sufficiently - in spite of the seeming contradictions.
__________________
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, it's because your tactics suck." -- Allen West, quoting Marine 1st Sgt Jim Reinfinger
Nick_C_S is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 07:25 PM   #25
57K
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2013
Location: Heart of Texas
Posts: 788
What's hard to follow?

The point is that Burn Rate charts are nothing but a guide for general consideration to begin with. Since we know the parameters in how they're placed, I don't have a problem with them being placed exactly how they burned in the closed bomb test by actual elapsed time of burn. Of course there are variables and their true order can change from one cartridge to another. I just don't see lumping a group different powders into a single burn rate category as helpful. That's what I mean by stereotyping powders.
57K is offline  
Reply

Tags
burn rate , powder selection

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 10:45 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 0.12887 seconds with 9 queries