charcoal-colored slide

[cdoc42]

I changed powder from Clays to HP-38 in my Kimber .45 ACP and although I had no problem with accuracy or function, the muzzle and 1/3rd of the front end of the slide look like it was dipped in charcoal. Is HP-38 that dirty?

[Unclenick]

Yes. It is cleaner at higher pressures, where it burns more completely.

[cdoc42]

I am not at the maximum charge. Would there be any benefit to using a magnum large pistol primer instead of increasing the charge?

[Unclenick]

Maybe. You can try. But a more certain approach (but hard on brass life) is to seat the bullets out until chambered rounds stop with the bullet against the throat when the back of the rim is just flush with the back end of the barrel extension (aka, headspacing on the bullet). This prevents the case mouth from reaching it's intended headspace stop in the chamber, leaving you free to apply a strong roll crimp to it. A lot of old time bull's-eye shooter's did this to maximize accuracy. It helps get the powder started burning faster and more completely and consistently. But it also means you will have to start experiencing mouth splits after smaller numbers of reloads than you are used to getting, the same as with revolver ammo. Indeed, in order to get a roll crimp shoulder the right size for the short 45 Auto case these days, you will likely have to buy a crimp or seating/crimp die intended for 45 Auto Rim.

[cdoc42]

I can't seat the bullets out, in fact, I had to continue seating them deeper to avoid them not chambering. They are 230gr hollow points seated at 1.230" and at that depth, no problems.

How about a different powder? Faster or slower? I have a list of 149 powders and I numbered them from fastest to slowest. Clays is 10/149 and HP-38 is 29/149. I have CFE-Pistol but it is not on the list of 149.

[Unclenick]

What did you base the numbering on?

[cdoc42]

The entire list had 149 powders, starting with the "fastest" to "slowest" so I just numbered them from 1 to 149 and label all my inventory of powders accordingly. I recognize this is a relative, not an absolute, comparison, but I find it useful when I choose one or another among the 40 in my inventory.

It's the third time I've done this as new lists have newer powders. For example, in a past list, H380 was 87/106 and H414 was 90/106. In the newer list, H380 is 107/149 and H414 is 112/149, so I can tell that H414 is still "slower" than H380.

Some time ago I read that H414 was "close to" H4350, but by my rating list H414 is 112/149 and H4350 is 117/149, so I have a more clear view of what "closer" means.

I looked for an alternative to H4350 for the 6.5 Creedmoor, and in my inventory, I also have Hybrid V100 - which is 121/149 - "slightly slower" - but maybe better than moving much "slower" with H4831sc (128/149).

[Aguila Blanca]

But what did you base your numbering on?

[RickB]

Clays is one of the cleanest-burning powders I've used, and anything else will leave more residue on/in the gun.
I've burned pounds of 231/HP38, Zip, N320, WST, and probably a couple of others for "major power" .45, and for cost, cleanliness, and consistency (my three Cs), Clays is the clear winner.

[cdoc42]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

But what did you base your numbering on?

I don't know how to make it more clear. There is a list of 149 powders starting with the first being the "fastest." The last is the "slowest," all on a relative basis. The basis for my list is the 149 powders. So, e.g., H380 is the 107th of the 149 powders and H414 is #112, so on a relative basis, H414 is "slower" than H380.

When the occasion arises that I see a newer list that includes powders I do not have on the old list, I revise my entire inventory so at a glance, without looking anything up, I can tell which of the 40 that I have are fast or slow compared to each other.

I just looked at the 50th Edition of Lyman's Reloading handbook. The very last page is "Appendix D, Relative Burn Rate Chart." It only lists 127 powders and I haven't bothered to see which 22 I have that it does not list. But in that list, they are also numbered from #1 (fastest) to #127 (slowest). So H380 is #93 and H414 is #100, which tells me what my list does- H380 is relatively faster than H414. That is ALL it tells me, but I might use that comparison if I wanted a slower powder of those two that I have in my inventory that might predict a higher velocity, and I would then research H414 rather than H380.

[cdoc42]

Thanks for the info, RickB. I have been using Clays since I obtained the .45 ACP but I was interested in an alternate in case I can't get Clays someday.


Unclenick and Aquila, let me use RickB's list that he offered. I'll use the Lyman list because it is right in front of me. If I am interested in burn rate of his list relative to each other, from the Lyman book it would look like this, fastest to slowest:

N320 (#17/127) - WST #19 - HP38 #20 - 231 #21 and Zip #22. So I WAS using HP38 and I wanted to switch for some reason, I might consider N320 because it is fastest on this list or Zip because it's slowest. I wouldn't first check out WST or 231 because they are already very close to the HP 38 that I was using.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

I don't know how to make it more clear. There is a list of 149 powders starting with the first being the "fastest." The last is the "slowest," all on a relative basis.

Yes, I got that.

What's the source of the list?

Originally Posted by cdoc42

I wouldn't first check out WST or 231 because they are already very close to the HP 38 that I was using.

Actually, Winchester 231 is identical to Hodgdon HP-38. They are the same powder.

[cdoc42]

Aguila, I can't tell you what the source was - I didn't save it after I labeled all the bottles, but it was probably a previous Lyman handbook or maybe an article in one of the gun mags. I am a packrat but every now and then I decide to toss things only to find I should not have done it, so I go back to saving again. I had a tool in one of the cabinets that I couldn't identify, and it was one of those times, so I tossed it. About 1-2 years later I'm searching for the wrench I needed to remove the choke from my Contender .410/.45 Colt and it dawned on me that was what I threw away.

I have a note on the wall that W760 is the same as H414 now. Didn't Hodgdon get control of IMR a while back, but at the time said they would continue the formulas so IMR 4831 and H-4831 would still be the original formulas? Did they also get Winchester but the powders are the same but only the names were retained? I understand that 296 and H110 are the same powder now. It's getting awfully confusing.

[Unclenick]

The main limitation of relative burn rate charts is they are based on ranking the peak pressures that result from charging the same cartridge with the same primer and bullet with the same weight of each powder sampled. This is done in a special very high pressure gun so the fast powders don't blow anything up. The problem is that powder characteristics change with the conditions they burn in and those are affected by the choice of cartridge and bullet. Thus, when one chart is developed based on, say, 40-grains of powder and a 147-grain bullet in a 308 Winchester case and another is based on 38.5 grains of powder under a 140-grain bullet in a 6.5x55, the ranking order will change. This is why you see the orders differ a bit from one company's relative burn rate table to the next. I have, for example, seen Bullseye ranked anywhere from number 3 to number 15 on different charts.

[FITASC]

https://imrpowder.com/wp-content/upl...nratecolor.pdf

That's a PDF of burn rates, most likely similar to the one the OP mentioned.

[cdoc42]

Thanks, FITASC, that is probably the list from which I obtained my numbers; I recall the color scheme, and mine had 149 rather than 148 powders.

I compared my inventory list with the one you posted and there are differences, but really not significant changes. My 5 powders in Numbers 101 through 110 are the same as my 149 list. From 111 through 128 my 8 powders were one number higher, e.g., H4350 is 116, on my list, it is 117. But that is NOT an exchange - all of mine are in the same position relatively speaking. For example, on the new list RE19 is 123 and IMR 4831 is 124. On my list they are 123 and 124, so no change in "burn rate" with respect to each other.

But any newbies on this forum should understand, that this is only a gross reference. If I'm looking for a powder for my .270 for example, and in
the Lyman 50th handbook I see RE22 provides a higher velocity and lower pressure than H4831, the list will reveal RE22 is slower, which simply might do nothing more than explain it.