Powder Burn Rate Chart

firewrench044 · April 11, 2016, 10:40 PM

Where can I find an up to date, accurate - Powder Burn Rate Chart ?

BigJimP · April 12, 2016, 12:04 AM

Google it.....???

Clark · April 12, 2016, 12:15 AM

I have always thought that burn rate changes with pressure. That change is different for different powders.

When I put more Power Pistol or LIL'GUN or 800X in a cartridge, it may just make a bigger and bigger fireball at the muzzle.

But AA#5, which is slower than Power Pistol, acts peaky, and gets huge increases in pressure with small increases in powder, like it suddenly got a lot faster.

For this reason, I think that one dimensional powder burn rate charts are not that accurate.

Marco Califo · April 12, 2016, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Powder Burn Rate Chart

They can be interesting to look at,
but that is the only thing you can do with them.
It is much more useful to find your cartridge's load data and then see which powders have published loads. Those are powders, and loads, you can use.

The powder manufacturers publish burn rate charts on their products page.
After you gather more than one, then you will notice they do NOT always agree. As to this powder being faster than the other, someone else's chart will be the other way around. And you cannot prove either is wrong: it is completely useless.

You can look up pretty much all published loads here:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=435562

http://www.accuratepowder.com/products/burn-rates/
http://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/Burn%20Ra...02015-2016.pdf

**Unclenick** · April 12, 2016, 09:16 AM

I think that's because they are compiled by guessing from load data, which isn't all that consistent from one source to the next. Burn rates are tested under a standard set of conditions, and since different cartridges are loaded to different pressures, those standard conditions usually don't apply exactly. Burn rate testing isn't cheap, and I doubt the powder makers actually pay to have their competition's products tested to compare to their own even at the standard conditions. So the only ranking you can be sure is correct is for each powder maker's own powders. Since Hodgdon now distributes their brand, Winchester, and IMR powders, it probably has the order right for those brands, as they specify it when they order the powder.

The was an experiment in the 1995 Precision Shooting Reloading Guide in which a 308 with 180 grain bullets was loaded to fixed velocities with IMR 4895 and IMR 4064. At low velocity (2200 fps, IIRC) it took less 4064 than 4895, suggesting 4064 was the faster powder. At 2400 fps the charge weight was the same. At 2550 fps it took more 4064 than 4895, suggesting it was now the slower powder at the pressures that produce that velocity.

The reality is just that 4064, at rifle pressures, affects pressure less per additional grain than 4895 does. 4895's burn rate is affected by difference in peak pressure more. So, how do you rank them on a table?

I think it is generally more useful to look at what cartridges and bullet weight combination a powder is typically used in. The are burn rate charts like Western's and this one are more practical from that standpoint, as each horizontal row has powders that can generally be used in the same cartridges.

condor bravo · April 12, 2016, 11:14 AM

No two are exactly the same but for practical purposes, rather than exact, one is as good as the next.

mikld · April 12, 2016, 11:18 AM

I've got charts in my reloading manuals, bookmarked on my compiuter and a couple printed from different powder manufacturers. Interesting to look at, but pretty vague. I don't know how the powders are tested and under what conditions (as mentioned above, I believe pressure changes burn characteristics). And they just give a list of powders in order, without noting how much powder xxx is faster/slowerthan the next in line, powder yyy. For "rough" comparisons, I glance at a chart, but to determining a specific powder's place, I do more research...

Clark · April 12, 2016, 12:14 PM

I was looking at a long line of different blenders in the store.

Some have "chop" as faster than "whirl".
Some have "whirl" as faster than "chop".

Mauser69 · April 12, 2016, 01:37 PM

There are lots of burn-rate comparison charts available, Many directly from the powder manufacturer's themselves (see Hodgdon's and Western Powder's web sites for just two of them).

They are all simply a rough comparison to give you an idea of how a particular powder MIGHT perform compared to others. You must NEVER substitute one powder for another simply based on where they sit on a comparison chart. Use the information on which powders may have similar burn rates to lead you to REAL load data for those powders in reliable source materials (published books, manufacturer's web sites, etc., NEVER internet postings!!).

Nick_C_S · April 12, 2016, 02:17 PM

Quote:

No two are exactly the same but for practical purposes, rather than exact, one is as good as the next.

. . . ^^ Well stated. ^^

Ask 100 different reliable sources to produce a burn rate chart, and you're going to get 100 different burn rate charts.

I'm just going to add my opinion real quick here:

I'm not a fan of burn rate charts that simply number the propellants from 1 to Whatever. That format implies linearity; and it's not that simple. Propellants #21 and #22 may be very close in burn rate: while #23 is much slower; and #24 is nearly the same as #23, etc. If that makes sense. But to simply number them gives the mental image of burn rates from powder to powder being a fairly straight line moving downward on a graph. They're not.

For that reason, I am a big fan of Accurate/Ramshot's burn rate chart. It's two-dimensional; and propellants that are very close, fall on the same line horizontally. For instance, AA#2, Red Dot, and TiteGroup all fall on the same horizontal row - implying that they are the same (or nearly the same) in burn rate. And it just so happens that in my personal experience, the above-mentioned example holds true.

Which brings me to the second reason why I like the Accurate/Ramshot chart: It's seems pretty darn correct, based on my personal experience.

Worc · April 12, 2016, 09:51 PM

I have one in my reloading book I made up. I only use it as a ruff guide line when looking for a new powder to try. I'll pick one out that is closer to powders I currently use and then research that powder further.

Mauser69 · April 12, 2016, 11:34 PM

Quote:

For that reason, I am a big fan of Accurate/Ramshot's burn rate chart. It's two-dimensional; and propellants that are very close, fall on the same line horizontally. For instance, AA#2, Red Dot, and TiteGroup all fall on the same horizontal row - implying that they are the same (or nearly the same) in burn rate. And it just so happens that in my personal experience, the above-mentioned example holds true.

Nick, I mostly agree with you, but the problem is that too many newbies take that kind of comparison chart to mean that the powders on the same row are equal and can be interchanged. As we all know, this is NOT correct. So the best advice is to tell them that burn rate charts are nothing more than an approximation.

Marco Califo · April 13, 2016, 12:17 AM

Page 23-24 of the Accurate 2016 Reloading Guide http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-con...1-2016_Web.pdf are a Matrix of Rifle calibers as rows, and Accurate powders (including Ramshot) as the columns. If the powder is used in that caliber, then there is an X in that row and column. So you can very quickly see which powders are good for a caliber and which calibers a certain powder can be used in. This chart, in the middle of the load data, is what reloaders (especially new) should use when considering powders they can use.

The Hodgdon/IMR/Winchester reloading center http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/ gives the same information, but in a different format. You select a caliber, and bullet weight, . . click Update . . and the list of powders and their data for that bullet weight appear.

745SW · April 13, 2016, 12:58 AM

As stated already burn rate charts are useful to give an idea of a powders rate compared to others, it is not published load data. Kinda the same logic as to why Speer does not give pressure readings for specific loads. Synthesizing/extrapolating data is done from other data such as for plated bullets. Hard data does not exist for plated and appears the makers of plated do not have the resources or desire to develop their own data.

FrankenMauser · April 13, 2016, 11:20 AM

While I agree with much of the above discussion about how "useless" most burn rate charts can be, I still use them quite frequently; and have the latest Hodgdon and Lapua charts on the wall behind the computer I'm using at the moment. They're nice to stare at while I contemplate potential loads - especially for wildcat cartridges or applications of unusual components.
And, it looks like I'll be adding the Western Powders chart, since they changed format.

I find the 'multi-column array' style charts (such as Lapua, Western Powders, and Unclenick's link) to be more useful/helpful than 'classic' style charts (like Hodgdon's) where everything is ranked linearly.

Lapua chart (2011).

firewrench044 · April 13, 2016, 12:54 PM

Thank you all

I have several burn rate charts from a variety of sources, and many conflict
with each other ( one says IMR4350 is faster than IMR4895 )

What I was hoping for was a more accurate up to date chart with the
newer powders

I have been looking on the internet, here and other forums

The chart I use the most was Sierra's but it is outdated, I called them
about a newer chart and a newer loading manual, they said they had
no plans for a new manual or updating the chart, "they were to busy
with other things"

At this point I will continue consulting several charts and make the
same educated guess, trial and error I have been using

Nick_C_S · April 13, 2016, 01:57 PM

Quote:

the problem is that too many newbies take that kind of comparison chart to mean that the powders on the same row are equal and can be interchanged.

. . . ^^ Good point. Thanks.^^

FrankenMauser · April 15, 2016, 01:49 AM

Quote:

The chart I use the most was Sierra's but it is outdated, I called them
about a newer chart and a newer loading manual, they said they had
no plans for a new manual or updating the chart, "they were to busy
with other things"

Sierra has had that attitude for quite a while.
Back in September 2011, Matt Reams and I had few discussions. On the subject of a new reloading manual, or at least publishing some updates that can be inserted into the existing manual, the response was: 'We have no plans for a new manual. We'll be posting updates to our website and blog from now on. People can put print-outs in their Sierra manuals if they want to.'

RC20 · April 15, 2016, 11:07 AM

I think that the bottom line is they are a ball park reference and then use reloading manuals or lit sheets for actual reload.

Some like R17 still do not appear in assessment but did make the charts.

As noted, some are listed higher in one and some are lower but they are in the same area giving you a rough idea of where they stand,

April 11, 2016, 10:40 PM	#1
firewrench044 Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2007 Location: Fort Pierce, Florida Posts: 381	Powder Burn Rate Chart Where can I find an up to date, accurate - Powder Burn Rate Chart ?

April 12, 2016, 12:15 AM	#3
Clark Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 1999 Location: WA, the ever blue state Posts: 4,678	I have always thought that burn rate changes with pressure. That change is different for different powders. When I put more Power Pistol or LIL'GUN or 800X in a cartridge, it may just make a bigger and bigger fireball at the muzzle. But AA#5, which is slower than Power Pistol, acts peaky, and gets huge increases in pressure with small increases in powder, like it suddenly got a lot faster. For this reason, I think that one dimensional powder burn rate charts are not that accurate. __________________ The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books." "Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist. Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?

April 12, 2016, 11:14 AM	#6
condor bravo Senior Member Join Date: August 23, 2014 Location: Nevada/Ariz/CA Posts: 1,753	No two are exactly the same but for practical purposes, rather than exact, one is as good as the next. __________________ Ouch, the dreaded "M-1 thumb", you just know it will happen eventually, so why not do it now and get it over with??

April 12, 2016, 11:18 AM	#7
mikld Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2009 Location: Southern Oregon! Posts: 2,891	I've got charts in my reloading manuals, bookmarked on my compiuter and a couple printed from different powder manufacturers. Interesting to look at, but pretty vague. I don't know how the powders are tested and under what conditions (as mentioned above, I believe pressure changes burn characteristics). And they just give a list of powders in order, without noting how much powder xxx is faster/slowerthan the next in line, powder yyy. For "rough" comparisons, I glance at a chart, but to determining a specific powder's place, I do more research... __________________ My Anchor is holding fast! I've learned how to stand on my own two knees...

April 12, 2016, 12:14 PM	#8
Clark Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 1999 Location: WA, the ever blue state Posts: 4,678	I was looking at a long line of different blenders in the store. Some have "chop" as faster than "whirl". Some have "whirl" as faster than "chop". __________________ The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books." "Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist. Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?

April 12, 2016, 12:04 AM	#2
BigJimP Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2005 Posts: 13,195	Google it.....???

April 12, 2016, 09:16 AM	#5
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	I think that's because they are compiled by guessing from load data, which isn't all that consistent from one source to the next. Burn rates are tested under a standard set of conditions, and since different cartridges are loaded to different pressures, those standard conditions usually don't apply exactly. Burn rate testing isn't cheap, and I doubt the powder makers actually pay to have their competition's products tested to compare to their own even at the standard conditions. So the only ranking you can be sure is correct is for each powder maker's own powders. Since Hodgdon now distributes their brand, Winchester, and IMR powders, it probably has the order right for those brands, as they specify it when they order the powder. The was an experiment in the 1995 Precision Shooting Reloading Guide in which a 308 with 180 grain bullets was loaded to fixed velocities with IMR 4895 and IMR 4064. At low velocity (2200 fps, IIRC) it took less 4064 than 4895, suggesting 4064 was the faster powder. At 2400 fps the charge weight was the same. At 2550 fps it took more 4064 than 4895, suggesting it was now the slower powder at the pressures that produce that velocity. The reality is just that 4064, at rifle pressures, affects pressure less per additional grain than 4895 does. 4895's burn rate is affected by difference in peak pressure more. So, how do you rank them on a table? I think it is generally more useful to look at what cartridges and bullet weight combination a powder is typically used in. The are burn rate charts like Western's and this one are more practical from that standpoint, as each horizontal row has powders that can generally be used in the same cartridges. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

April 12, 2016, 01:37 PM	#9
Mauser69 Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2014 Location: New Mexico Posts: 204	NONE are accurate There are lots of burn-rate comparison charts available, Many directly from the powder manufacturer's themselves (see Hodgdon's and Western Powder's web sites for just two of them). They are all simply a rough comparison to give you an idea of how a particular powder MIGHT perform compared to others. You must NEVER substitute one powder for another simply based on where they sit on a comparison chart. Use the information on which powders may have similar burn rates to lead you to REAL load data for those powders in reliable source materials (published books, manufacturer's web sites, etc., NEVER internet postings!!). __________________ NRA Family Life members, TSRA Life member, USAF vet and American Legion member.

April 12, 2016, 09:51 PM	#11
Worc Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2013 Location: Michigan Posts: 641	I have one in my reloading book I made up. I only use it as a ruff guide line when looking for a new powder to try. I'll pick one out that is closer to powders I currently use and then research that powder further.

April 13, 2016, 12:17 AM	#13
Marco Califo Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2011 Location: LA (Greater Los Angeles Area) Posts: 2,598	Page 23-24 of the Accurate 2016 Reloading Guide http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-con...1-2016_Web.pdf are a Matrix of Rifle calibers as rows, and Accurate powders (including Ramshot) as the columns. If the powder is used in that caliber, then there is an X in that row and column. So you can very quickly see which powders are good for a caliber and which calibers a certain powder can be used in. This chart, in the middle of the load data, is what reloaders (especially new) should use when considering powders they can use. The Hodgdon/IMR/Winchester reloading center http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/ gives the same information, but in a different format. You select a caliber, and bullet weight, . . click Update . . and the list of powders and their data for that bullet weight appear. __________________ ............

April 13, 2016, 12:58 AM	#14
745SW Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2011 Location: California Posts: 776	As stated already burn rate charts are useful to give an idea of a powders rate compared to others, it is not published load data. Kinda the same logic as to why Speer does not give pressure readings for specific loads. Synthesizing/extrapolating data is done from other data such as for plated bullets. Hard data does not exist for plated and appears the makers of plated do not have the resources or desire to develop their own data.

April 13, 2016, 11:20 AM	#15
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,424	While I agree with much of the above discussion about how "useless" most burn rate charts can be, I still use them quite frequently; and have the latest Hodgdon and Lapua charts on the wall behind the computer I'm using at the moment. They're nice to stare at while I contemplate potential loads - especially for wildcat cartridges or applications of unusual components. And, it looks like I'll be adding the Western Powders chart, since they changed format. I find the 'multi-column array' style charts (such as Lapua, Western Powders, and Unclenick's link) to be more useful/helpful than 'classic' style charts (like Hodgdon's) where everything is ranked linearly. Lapua chart (2011). __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

April 13, 2016, 12:54 PM	#16
firewrench044 Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2007 Location: Fort Pierce, Florida Posts: 381	Thank you all I have several burn rate charts from a variety of sources, and many conflict with each other ( one says IMR4350 is faster than IMR4895 ) What I was hoping for was a more accurate up to date chart with the newer powders I have been looking on the internet, here and other forums The chart I use the most was Sierra's but it is outdated, I called them about a newer chart and a newer loading manual, they said they had no plans for a new manual or updating the chart, "they were to busy with other things" At this point I will continue consulting several charts and make the same educated guess, trial and error I have been using

April 15, 2016, 11:07 AM	#19
RC20 Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 7,014	I think that the bottom line is they are a ball park reference and then use reloading manuals or lit sheets for actual reload. Some like R17 still do not appear in assessment but did make the charts. As noted, some are listed higher in one and some are lower but they are in the same area giving you a rough idea of where they stand,