Where to get "ADI" powders?

[SL1]

I finally bought a copy of Quickload, and am comparing powders for one of my applications. One powder keeps coming up as most efficient and highest velocity within my limiting parameters, but I had not heard of it before.

The powder is "ADI AR 2207." Anybody know if that powder is available on this side of the Atlantic, and, if so, from whom?

SL1

[wxl]

ADI is manufactured in Australia (I lived there for over 13 years and used quite a few of their powders)

They make many of the"USA powders especially Hodgdon, example Hodgdon Clays is their AS30, International Clays AS50, Universal is AS70, etc

Below is copied from their website

"Many of the most popular powders sold under the Hodgdon brand in the USA (including Varget and H4350) are made by ADI Ltd. in Australia. Some load manuals list ADI data, but not Hodgdon data, or vice-versa, so we’ve compiled this list of equivalent powders. If you can’t find a recommended load for a particular Hodgdon powder in your caliber, download the latest ADI Smokeless Powders Handloaders Guide, a 2.8 megabyte Acrobat file.

Here’s a list of ADI to Hodgdon Powder equivalents:

AS30N=Clays
AP50N = (No Hodgdon)
AS50N = International
AP70N = Universal
AP100 = (No Hodgdon)
AR2205 = H4227
AR2207 = H4198
AR2219 = H322
Bench Mark1 = (No Hodgdon)
Bench Mark2 = BenchMark AR2206 = (No Hodgdon)
AR2206H = H4895
AR2208 = Varget
AR2209 = H4350
AR2213 = (Discontinued)
AR2213SC = H4831
AR2217 = H1000
AR2225 = Retumbo
AR2218 = H50BMG "

[SL1]

Thank you, WXL.

Interesting reponse! You would never get the idea that ADI's AR 2207 and Hodgdon's H4198 are the same powder from looking at a Quickload output.

Copied below is a section of a quickload output that compares powders for a 30 Herrett loaded with a Hornady 130 gr SP loaded to 45,000 psi with a COL of 2.32".

Powder type Filling/Loading Charge Vel. Prop.Burnt P max P muzz B_Time
Ratio % Grains fps % psi psi ms
--------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
ADI AR 2207 97.9 27.4 2315 98.5 45000 8637 0.836
Vihtavuori N120 100.0 27.3 2282 99.3 44571 8102 0.839
Alliant Reloder- 7 96.3 27.9 2271 95.3 45000 8433 0.847
Hodgdon H4227 91.3 25.0 2258 98.2 45000 7923 0.834
IMR 4198 100.0 26.8 2253 95.2 43235 8239 0.841
Nitrochemie A/S 0200 82.4 24.7 2248 98.8 45000 7871 0.851
Accurate 5744 84.4 23.6 2248 95.9 45000 8145 0.838
Accurate 1680 85.5 27.5 2247 91.8 45000 8241 0.840
Accurate 2200 96.5 29.3 2245 87.3 45000 8365 0.839
Kazan Sunar 308W 100.0 29.3 2241 93.4 44111 8248 0.851
Lovex-S0531 91.8 24.6 2240 99.7 45000 7611 0.847
IMR 4227 90.0 24.7 2234 97.5 45000 7751 0.837
Hodgdon H4198 96.7 27.2 2220 89.9 45000 7925 0.839

I took some pains to edit this table so that the colums lined up, but this site's software then strips all spaces out of tables, no matter what I do. [The site owners should fix that.] As I hope you can see from the table, ADI's AR 2207 does NOT look that much like Hodgdon's H4198. The charge weights and pressures are about the same, but the % of the powder burned, the muzzle velocity and the muzzle pressure are substantially different.

I tried to upload the burning graphs for each powder, but the bitmap files are too big, and this site does not seem to like any of my other methods. So, just take my word for it that the ADI powder has a peak pressure at a significantly later time but then keeps pressure higher by burning more of the powder before the bullet exits the muzzle.

Maybe Hodgdon buys ADI's "seconds" lots?! I would rather have the performance listed for the ADI powder than the Hodgdon powder.

I know that somebody will write a response that says "all lots of powder differ and this is just one of those differences." But, I also know that all lots of powder are tested by the manufacturer, and, if there are two customers using different names and publishing separate data, then I would not be surprised to learn that the manufacturer tends to ship lots of powder that look like each customer's last lot, when there is that opportunity.

Another example of that, I suspect, is Hodgdon's H110 and Wincherster's 296. They are also supposed to be the "same powder", but the loading data was different for decades, with H110 using slightly more powder for slightly higher velocity with supposedly the same pressure UNTIL Hodgdon took-over Winchester powders. NOW Hodgdon has reduced its H110 data to match the old W296 data.

So, anyway, I guess I'm not going to get any ADI powder, so I'll consider the other options.

SL!

[WESHOOT2]

Suggest considering Quik-Load as hypothetical extrapolation; develop loads in actual gun.

[SL1]

Weeshoot2,

Obviously, I am going to work-up the actual loads in my actual gun.

The entire purpose of Quickload is to be able to do some comparisons WITHOUT having to buy all the powders and chronograph all the possible loads.

That said, Quickload uses powder burning characteristic data provide by the powder testers. If the data was the same for these two powders, then Quickload would give the same answers.

The interesting thing is that, if these two powders are the "same" then there are 13 powders that have the same performance within the range of the lot-to-lot variations of this one powder! (see table). That means (for same max pressure) projected lot-to-lot velocity variations of 100 fps in a 2200 fps cartridge, probably for all of these powders?!

Worse, I would think that the differences seen in burning characteristics between these two powders would have accuracy implications, too.

SO, besides having to work-up safe loads when changing powder LOTS, are we really talking about having one lot of one powder being more accurate in one gun, but having the reverse of the accuracy advantage with different lots of the same two powders in the same gun? That would REALLY make buyin gpowder when loading for accuracy a crap-shoot!

SL1

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by SL1

I took some pains to edit this table so that the colums lined up, but this site's software then strips all spaces out of tables, no matter what I do. [The site owners should fix that.]

Use tabs instead of spaces, reduce the size of the font (if needed) and use [code][/code] instead of [quote][/quote] to fix it.

Powder type Filling/Loading Charge Vel. Prop.Burnt P max P muzz B_Time
			%	Grains	fps	%	psi	psi	ms
_____________________________________________________________________________

ADI AR 2207		97.9	27.4	2315	98.5	45000	8637	0.836
Vihtavuori N120		100.0	27.3	2282	99.3	44571	8102	0.839
Alliant RL#7		96.3	27.9	2271	95.3	45000	8433	0.847
Hodgdon H4227		91.3	25.0	2258	98.2	45000	7923	0.834
IMR 4198		100.0	26.8	2253	95.2	43235	8239	0.841
Nitrochemie A/S 0200	82.4	24.7	2248	98.8	45000	7871	0.851
Accurate 5744		84.4	23.6	2248	95.9	45000	8145	0.838
Accurate 1680		85.5	27.5	2247	91.8	45000	8241	0.840
Accurate 2200		96.5	29.3	2245	87.3	45000	8365	0.839
Kazan Sunar308W		100.0	29.3	2241	93.4	44111	8248	0.851
Lovex-S0531		91.8	24.6	2240	99.7	45000	7611	0.847
IMR 4227		90.0	24.7	2234	97.5	45000	7751	0.837
Hodgdon H4198		96.7	27.2	2220	89.9	45000	7925	0.839

HTH.

[WESHOOT2]

Exactly.

Hence those two phrases: "...in MY gun..." and "...but NOT always..."
And the difference between 'theory', 'hypothesis', and 'fact'.

After all that QuickLoad-ing one still has absolutely NO idea how a given load will actually perform in any given gun.

My matching pairs of KGP-141s and EAA 9x19 Witnesses (with three barrels total) remind me of this regularly.
And my 5" Kart and BarSto 1911 barrels.

I hate that crap; I really prefer finding the 'perfect' load so I can go shootin'.

Next I'm testing a divining rod...

[T. O'Heir]

"...able to do some comparisons WITHOUT having to buy all the powders..." That's what loading manuals and powder burn rate charts are for. Burn rates are fairly equal between powder lots, but velocities in manuals vary according to the powder lot and what kind of firearm used the day of the testing. They're averages anyway.

[SL1]

T. O'Heir wrote:

Burn rates are fairly equal between powder lots ...

Well, Quickload does a standard calculation that is:

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge of ...

So, I would not really count on lot-to-lot vatiations being small if Quickload chose +/- 10%. The effects on pressure and velocity are BIG at that range.

SL1

[WESHOOT2]

SAAMI says "+/- 3%" for the powders we buy off the shelf.

[SL1]

So, if the U.S. powder vendors stick to the SAAMI limit of +/- 3% in canister powder burning rates, then a handloader could get a lot that is 3% high, followed by a lot that is 3% low, or vise-versa, for a 6% difference. And, the bullet manufacturers' data may also be developed with a lot that is 6% different from what you just bought.

But, that is not really where I started this thread. If you look at the table, the charge weights for the same pressure with AR 2207 and H4198 differ by only 0.7%, yet the burning characteristics are different enough that the velocities differ by 4.3% and the percent powder burned differs by 8.6% (of 100% burned).

So, what is it that is really varying by +/- 3% in the SAAMI spec: charge weight, pressure, some burning rate parameter such as "Ba" in the Quickload formula?

Also, could that be the reason that different vendors sell "the same" powder by different names? Maybe because the lots differed by more than 3%?

SL1

[Unclenick]

Several items need to be cleared up here. First, powder manufacturers test and blend cannister powders for a nominal burning rate as under standard conditions. The test sample is a standard quantity sample that is burned in a caloric bomb held at a standard test pressure during the burn, and gives a result in liters of powder burned per second. The rate is not tested at any other pressure. All the other powder characteristics you see listed in QuickLOAD's data, plus the case volume information and bullet and bore cross-sectional area information, are needed tell QuickLOAD's calculator how to adjust the burn at other pressures. The concern by powder manufacturers is that established loads of their powders not raise pressure excessively. That varies with more than just burn rate, but burn rate seems to be the best general predictor. It doesn't predict pressure well-enough for certain extremes, like overbore chamberings or exceptionally small cartridges.

An example of that last point is that Hodgdon's Extreme series of powders made by ADI to have good burning rate immunity to temperature change. Varget in the .308 does exactly that, showing remarkable consistency under temperature variations. Many shooters also use Varget in .223, but have observed Varget's temperature immunity doesn't seem to hold up in the .223. Apparently the little bullets just get out too quickly for the pressure/temperature stabilizing relationships designed into the powder to still apply well. So, the rules for pressure in the littler chambering will be a bit different, especially at temperature extremes. I would not be surprised to see it prove more sensitive to lot variation, too, for that reason. I would not be surprised if something blended to withing 3% in the standard burning rate test was out 10% at some other temperature and pressure condition. Indeed, you can probably bet it will be.

BTW, obviously, the burn rate standardizing blending is not done for non-cannister grade powders, like H110 aka 296. For that matter, with IMR made in Canada, Hodgon Extreme powders made in Australia, Vihtavuori in Finland, and still others packing powders from plants in other countries, I have no idea what percentage of powders sold in this country observe the SAAMI burn rate blending standard even where it does apply to your results?

The main point I am trying to get to is that burning rate order for powders can change when they are not at the one standard test pressure or in the standard chamberings they are expected to be used in. This occasionally results in a powder you think should be better in a particular application not actually proving to be so. It also results in more lot-to-lot and condition dependent pressure variation in some chamberings than in others. From a safety standpoint, the bottom line, as always, is to back down to starting loads and work up when changing powder lots.

Also keep in mind that while burning rate is the most significant ranking characteristic, the progressivity and energy density and all the other characteristics can vary lot-to-lot, too. VihtaVuori Oy's 2nd edition manual, figure 2.8 is an interesting chart of different burning characteristics for different grain shapes. Additives and surface treatments alter that, too. I don't know if their current manual still has it, but the whole first portion of the 2nd edition was a pretty good education in powder basics. It is eye-opening, too, to see just how differently powders can burn.

It's not clear to me how much the manufacturers test the non-burn rate characteristics? I once tried, when QuickLOAD was new and had a smaller database, to get that information directly from Hodgdon for a Hodgdon powder that was not then the database. I was told, a bit gruffly and defensively, that such information was "proprietary", and that, besides, it costs about $50K to have a lab run all those tests, so they don't do if for all their powders. Of course, Hodgdon doesn't make their own powder. I know VihtaVuori keeps a full calorimetry lab (a photo is in the manual), and perhaps ADI does, too? The Hodgdon tech I was speaking to was astonished when I told him QuickLOAD already had characteristics for most of their powders, and he seemed irritated and taken aback that someone had got this "proprietary" information and wanted to know how that was possible? I pointed out all they needed was a calorimetry lab. I tried to explain to him, having several patents myself, I had been thoroughly familiarized with the legal aspects of intellectual property rights, and that proprietary information had no legal standing other than you could sue someone for violating a contractual agreement not to reveal it. It isn't like a copyright or a patent or a registered trademark, but is strictly dependent on the company's ability to keep something secret. That, in turn, is only as good as your ability to ensure someone examining the finished product can't deduce the proprietary elements. A secret process can be kept proprietary only if the finished product contains inadequate clues as to how it was made. But if you think you can keep the size of the gears in a transmission secret, you can forget it because people have measuring tools and can take things apart. You keep rights to measurable things by patenting them, and rights to invisible things by keeping them secret. Coca Cola and Heinz Ketchup have been kept their formulations and processes secret for many decades because they can't be simply measured after eerything is combined, mixed up and cooked up, and, unlike a patent, successfully kept secrets don't become public domain after 20 years.

I'm drifting a bit afield, here. QuickLOAD's author, Hartmut Broemel, has his own calorimetry laboratory. He personally has to pay for the powder and find the time it takes to run the standard tests on his samples. The data, therefore, is mostly taken from a single lot. The most recent powder database has a couple of changes over the version currently on sale (he gave me a beta version when I found a bug for him), so he does get to retesting with new samples occasionally, but in the main you cannot know how typicial any one of the database samples he measured was? You can see the difference in the ADI results above. Run some others you know are actually the same powder, like H110 and 296. You'll get a 10% peak pressure difference for a given load because that's how different the two samples were when Mr. Broemel measured them. It gives you a sense of the variation.

A couple of points on using the program that I've learned over time:

First, be sure to replace the default case water capacity in the chambering selected with the actual case water capacity measured in the brand of case you use and fireformed in your gun's chamber. Peak pressure depends on the volume the powder is burning in and that will be affected by the volume your gun's chamber lets the case expand to. This can make a good bit of difference in the results. I've seen over 80 fps muzzle velocity change, to give you a sense of it. If you are unsure how to make the case capacity measurement, go to my file drop site. I have an Excel file with instructions and calculators for making the water capacity measurement posted there. I have tested the Excel file in Open Office's spreadsheet program, Calc, to make sure it works there, too. If you don't have Excel, the Open Office Suite may be downloaded free from openoffice.org. My public file repository is at drop.io/Unclenick.

Second, use the bore cross-sectional area calculator. This is less important than case capacity. It typically makes only a few feet per second difference but is affecting bore friction.

Third, QuickLOAD's background information suggests you add 7% to straight wall case capacity to get more accurate predictions from the calculators, which were actually developed around bottleneck rifle cartridges. I find this is reasonable for the 30,000 psi and up cartridges, but that for the older lower pressure cartridges it is not usually necessary.

QuickLOAD does not work well with lever guns shooting high pressure loads, like the .307 Winchester. The lever actions stretch too much, having their locking lugs way at the back of the bolt. QuickLOAD will predict higher pressures and velocities than these guns see because their cases stretch so much that they kick the lever slightly and you can't completely close the lever on them again. 2 to 4 grains extra water capacity is not an unusual change due to that stretching in these guns.

I have noticed a number of the bullets in the QuickLOAD database have had their dimensions taken from photos or drawings that may have been slightly stretched on one axis or the other where they were published. If you have a particular bullet you use a lot, measure it carefully and enter it into the database. For example, over time I found two distinct sets of dimensions for the Sierra 175 grain .308 MatchKing bullet, which I use frequently. I wound up altering the database to give it correct dimensions as I had measured them on an optical comparator. You can edit the databases in Notepad if you want to correct them without making a new entry. However, if you want to carry over your corrections to new version installations, you are better off to make a whole new bullet company file under your name so you can save it in a backup disk and import it to any the new or upgrade installation all at once.

Finally, if you have a chronometer with good absolute accuracy, like the old Oehler 35 or the CED Millennium with the IR sky screen option, or the PVM-21, then you can use readings from it to make slight adjustments to the powder
burning rate factor to tweak the powder performance to match your lot, then save it under it name and lot number. Chris Long has a paper on adjusting to correct for actual performance by tweaking both the burn rate and the bullet weight by not more than a grain to get exact correspondence. I prefer to tweak the burning rate and the bore cross-section area where it works, but you can experiment on your own. Long's paper can be found here.

When you start QuickLOAD a disclaimer comes up. There is a Page Down button that takes you to a very basic explanation of the program operating principles. I recommend you read both as both contain some information that will help you understand what the program can and cannot do.