Clean burning AR15 powder?

leebo · October 17, 2007, 10:04 AM

I've been using Reloader 15, AA2230 and TAC, and I see lots of preference for H335. How clean burning is it?? Is it close to or the same as WC844? This is for volume loading, so good powder metering is a plus.

TATER · October 17, 2007, 10:21 AM

Hard to beat WW_748

UGH · October 17, 2007, 11:38 AM

I use 2230 and h335. both seem to be about the same.

straight-shooter · October 17, 2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

I use 2230 and h335. both seem to be about the same.

+1

I've had good results with both of these. H335 is now my standard powder of choice. Powder metering is excellent and consistant.

totalloser · October 20, 2007, 12:32 AM

Totally 748. SUPER accurate. Less muzzle flash and cuts throat erosion by 300% according to the military. That's why they use it in their loads. Clean burn. Love the stuff. Lil more spendy, tho.

Linear Thinker · October 20, 2007, 09:06 AM

I mainly use AA2230 for lighter bullets in 223, 2520 for heavier. Neither is clean-burning, but both make accurate loads. Both meter consistently.

I tried Vihta N140 for heavy bullets, it was very clean burning, but my rifle did not like the loads. I gave up before experimenting with COL, powder charge, different primers etc.
LT

castnblast · October 20, 2007, 11:25 AM

I don't have an A/R...but, I'm assuming 223? Try benchmark. It's a fast burn, and excellent metering. It meters as good as H380 (balltype) but is a true extruded powder. It is very clean burning.

Scorch · October 20, 2007, 12:25 PM

WW-748/BLC-2, H335, Imr 3031.

**Unclenick** · October 20, 2007, 03:14 PM

748 burns at a lower temperature than most powders, which reduces heat stress crack formation in the throat, but in .223 I find it wants a heavier bullet to really shine. The 77 grain Sierra MK, for example.

Some years ago I was running 2520 in my M1A and discovered I could cut group size 40% by deburring flashholes in the cases it was filling. I never saw any difference in stick powder performance from this process, though. The ball powders meter best, but are harder to light up consistently, which is why the deburring helped.

By the way, to get a sense of metering, I pulled bullets on a number of match rounds once, including Federal Gold Medal .308 and Winchester Supreme. From the charge weights and powder appearance, the Federal had something very close to IMR4895 in it, while Winchester was pretty clearly using a non-cannister version of 748. The Federal charge weights ran +/- 0.2 grains, E.S., which is about as good as I've seen a stick powder meter. The Winchester was +/- 0.05 grains, E.S., the tightest commercial charge weight distribution I've ever seen. By comparison, some old M118 (pre-M118 LR, still with the solid nose bullet) ran +/- 0.8 grains E.S., in the rounds I pulled. No question the ball powders meter well.

**Unclenick** · October 20, 2007, 03:17 PM

748 burns at a lower temperature than most powders, which reduces heat stress crack formation in the throat, but in .223 I find it wants a heavier bullet to really shine. The 77 grain Sierra MK, for example.

Some years ago I was running 2520 in my M1A and discovered I could cut group size 40 by deburring flashholes in the cases it was filling. I never saw any difference in stick powder performance from this process, though. The ball powders meter best, but are harder to light up.

By the way, to get a sense of metering, I pulled bullets on a number of match rounds once, including Federal Gold Medal .308 and Winchester Supreme. From the charge weights and powder appearance, the Federal had something very close to IMR4895 in it, while Winchester was pretty clearly using a non-cannister version of 748. The Federal charge weights ran +/- 0.2 grains, E.S., which is about as good as I've seen a stick powder meter. The Winchester was +/- 0.05 grains, E.S., the tightest commercial charge weight distribution I've ever seen. By comparison, some old M118 (pre-M118 LR, still with the solid nose bullet) ran +/- 0.5 grains E.S., in the rounds I pulled, and some Lake City M2 Ball (.30-06) ran +/- 0.8 grains, and that despite its being a ball powder.

swmike · October 20, 2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by totalloser

Totally 748. SUPER accurate. Less muzzle flash and cuts throat erosion by 300% according to the military. That's why they use it in their loads. Clean burn. Love the stuff. Lil more spendy, tho.

?????

According to the TM, M-855 is loaded with WC844 which is the same as H-335. I find my loads with 748 to be slower than H-335 which is more than clean enough for my rifle.

Trapper L · October 20, 2007, 03:55 PM

The original loading of 5.56 ball ammo was with IMR4475. It changed when DuPont couldn't make enough of it and then they used the WC846 made by Olin. The cycle rated increased on the M16 but the rates were not exactly what the military was looking for. They loaded ammo for awhile using IMR8206 but there was the issue with muzzle flash and throat erosion for extended service rifles. They are now using WC 845 which is about the same burning rate as BL-C but it has a low burn temp, low muzzle flash, and has a detergent that is ideal for keeping the gas system clean on the M16. FWIW, TAC also has a similiar detergent. All of the above powders are good in the 223 and 5.56. The WC844 is slower than H335, WC846 is faster than AA2460 and faster than 748. The WC 845 is in between so they all are fairly close together in burn rate. If any of you decide to buy bulk military powder, stay away from powders marked with the initial T such as WC 844T. It burns at a much high temp to ignite tracer bullets and shorten barrel life. Also, WC-845 is not to be confused with WCR-845 which is for armor piercing ammo. And powder marked SMP 745 is not for any of the above but for the newer 6.8 ammo. Got a score card- you'll need one if you want to keep up.

totalloser · October 22, 2007, 12:53 AM

Winchester advertises the use of 748 in current military 5.56 loads. Just looked in my Natchez catalog. I believe it was for ss109. They say "low flame temperature" I'm not savvy enough to know what that means. I understand "fast and slow". Main reason I got it was so I could load .308 with the same jugs.

Mach II Sailor · October 22, 2007, 08:42 AM

""deburring flashholes""

this is one of the most neglected phases in reloading.

when i get more time i want to post the results of my "experimentation" with the interior deburring of flashholes

Dallas Jack · October 22, 2007, 01:17 PM

I've only used H335 for .223 so I do not know how it compares with others.
Dallas Jack

October 17, 2007, 10:04 AM	#1
leebo Junior Member Join Date: October 17, 2007 Posts: 2	Clean burning AR15 powder? I've been using Reloader 15, AA2230 and TAC, and I see lots of preference for H335. How clean burning is it?? Is it close to or the same as WC844? This is for volume loading, so good powder metering is a plus.

October 17, 2007, 11:38 AM	#3
UGH Senior Member Join Date: October 3, 2007 Posts: 156	I use 2230 and h335. both seem to be about the same. __________________ If you liberals keep gettin' your way - we're all gonna hear one big loud flush. The sound of the U.S. of A. goin' straight down the toilet.- Archie Bunker............. Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. George Washington

October 20, 2007, 11:25 AM	#7
castnblast Senior Member Join Date: July 2, 2006 Location: Corpus Christi TX Posts: 1,148	I don't have an A/R...but, I'm assuming 223? Try benchmark. It's a fast burn, and excellent metering. It meters as good as H380 (balltype) but is a true extruded powder. It is very clean burning. __________________ VEGETARIAN...old indian word for bad hunter

October 20, 2007, 12:25 PM	#8
Scorch Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2006 Location: Washington state Posts: 15,248	WW-748/BLC-2, H335, Imr 3031. __________________ Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs. But what do I know? Summit Arms Services

October 20, 2007, 03:14 PM	#9
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	748 burns at a lower temperature than most powders, which reduces heat stress crack formation in the throat, but in .223 I find it wants a heavier bullet to really shine. The 77 grain Sierra MK, for example. Some years ago I was running 2520 in my M1A and discovered I could cut group size 40% by deburring flashholes in the cases it was filling. I never saw any difference in stick powder performance from this process, though. The ball powders meter best, but are harder to light up consistently, which is why the deburring helped. By the way, to get a sense of metering, I pulled bullets on a number of match rounds once, including Federal Gold Medal .308 and Winchester Supreme. From the charge weights and powder appearance, the Federal had something very close to IMR4895 in it, while Winchester was pretty clearly using a non-cannister version of 748. The Federal charge weights ran +/- 0.2 grains, E.S., which is about as good as I've seen a stick powder meter. The Winchester was +/- 0.05 grains, E.S., the tightest commercial charge weight distribution I've ever seen. By comparison, some old M118 (pre-M118 LR, still with the solid nose bullet) ran +/- 0.8 grains E.S., in the rounds I pulled. No question the ball powders meter well. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

October 17, 2007, 10:21 AM	#2
TATER Senior Member Join Date: November 19, 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 963	Hard to beat WW_748

October 20, 2007, 12:32 AM	#5
totalloser Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2007 Location: Fort Bragg, CA Posts: 679	Totally 748. SUPER accurate. Less muzzle flash and cuts throat erosion by 300% according to the military. That's why they use it in their loads. Clean burn. Love the stuff. Lil more spendy, tho.

October 20, 2007, 09:06 AM	#6
Linear Thinker Senior Member Join Date: February 10, 2007 Location: Blue State, NE US Posts: 202	I mainly use AA2230 for lighter bullets in 223, 2520 for heavier. Neither is clean-burning, but both make accurate loads. Both meter consistently. I tried Vihta N140 for heavy bullets, it was very clean burning, but my rifle did not like the loads. I gave up before experimenting with COL, powder charge, different primers etc. LT

October 20, 2007, 03:17 PM	#10
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	748 burns at a lower temperature than most powders, which reduces heat stress crack formation in the throat, but in .223 I find it wants a heavier bullet to really shine. The 77 grain Sierra MK, for example. Some years ago I was running 2520 in my M1A and discovered I could cut group size 40 by deburring flashholes in the cases it was filling. I never saw any difference in stick powder performance from this process, though. The ball powders meter best, but are harder to light up. By the way, to get a sense of metering, I pulled bullets on a number of match rounds once, including Federal Gold Medal .308 and Winchester Supreme. From the charge weights and powder appearance, the Federal had something very close to IMR4895 in it, while Winchester was pretty clearly using a non-cannister version of 748. The Federal charge weights ran +/- 0.2 grains, E.S., which is about as good as I've seen a stick powder meter. The Winchester was +/- 0.05 grains, E.S., the tightest commercial charge weight distribution I've ever seen. By comparison, some old M118 (pre-M118 LR, still with the solid nose bullet) ran +/- 0.5 grains E.S., in the rounds I pulled, and some Lake City M2 Ball (.30-06) ran +/- 0.8 grains, and that despite its being a ball powder. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

October 20, 2007, 03:55 PM	#12
Trapper L Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 804	The original loading of 5.56 ball ammo was with IMR4475. It changed when DuPont couldn't make enough of it and then they used the WC846 made by Olin. The cycle rated increased on the M16 but the rates were not exactly what the military was looking for. They loaded ammo for awhile using IMR8206 but there was the issue with muzzle flash and throat erosion for extended service rifles. They are now using WC 845 which is about the same burning rate as BL-C but it has a low burn temp, low muzzle flash, and has a detergent that is ideal for keeping the gas system clean on the M16. FWIW, TAC also has a similiar detergent. All of the above powders are good in the 223 and 5.56. The WC844 is slower than H335, WC846 is faster than AA2460 and faster than 748. The WC 845 is in between so they all are fairly close together in burn rate. If any of you decide to buy bulk military powder, stay away from powders marked with the initial T such as WC 844T. It burns at a much high temp to ignite tracer bullets and shorten barrel life. Also, WC-845 is not to be confused with WCR-845 which is for armor piercing ammo. And powder marked SMP 745 is not for any of the above but for the newer 6.8 ammo. Got a score card- you'll need one if you want to keep up.

October 22, 2007, 12:53 AM	#13
totalloser Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2007 Location: Fort Bragg, CA Posts: 679	Winchester advertises the use of 748 in current military 5.56 loads. Just looked in my Natchez catalog. I believe it was for ss109. They say "low flame temperature" I'm not savvy enough to know what that means. I understand "fast and slow". Main reason I got it was so I could load .308 with the same jugs.

October 22, 2007, 08:42 AM	#14
Mach II Sailor Junior member Join Date: March 22, 2007 Posts: 480	""deburring flashholes"" this is one of the most neglected phases in reloading. when i get more time i want to post the results of my "experimentation" with the interior deburring of flashholes

October 22, 2007, 01:17 PM	#15
Dallas Jack Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2005 Location: Dallas Posts: 386	I've only used H335 for .223 so I do not know how it compares with others. Dallas Jack