Powder rates

[yomomma]

Its all good...no ibtl needed

Its the weekend, I have beer and lead, everything is right as rain.

asl long as no one starts with yo momma jokes it will be peaceful.



IBTL?

 

[yomomma]

Oops, stupid phone, double tap.

 

[roberti11]

Would anyone know if there's a source that gives the different burn rates of different powders.
It would even be good to see what powders are Fast/Med/Slow.

Thanks Ron

Here is another Burn rate chart

http://www.lapua.com/upload/reloading/reloadingburningratechart2011.pdf

 

[mkrnel]

Take your pick!

 

[CyaN1de]

Take your pick!

Oooooooooooo....I'll take the rainbowy one.

 

[hend238]

...

 

[hend238]

As for reading I find the opposite. More people are incredibly worried about things mentioned in manuals that really don't matter. People worry about their OAL being the tiniest bit off from the manual when in reality they should probably just be seating to the cannalure. Several times I've seen people post pics of loaded ammo where the cannalure is 1/4" above the case mouth because that's the OAL the manual told them to use. Others think that if you seat the bullet .010" further in than the manual says the pressure will spike instantly to 300% and blow up the rifle.

There is nothing wrong with seating a bullet to a depth that puts the cannelure 1/4" above the case mouth as long as the bullet is seated sufficiently to be properly supported. If you're not crimping, there is no need to properly position the cannelure. Either seat to mag length or what provides the best accuracy, if one cares about such things that is. I have some old manuals that state better accuracy may be achieved with a longer recommended OAL. I don't see that blurb in the new manuals I have, just maximum OAL and probably is why new re-loaders are so obsessed with it. Most people know that accuracy is typically better when the bullet is seated closer to the lands than farther away and is why you see such pics of loaded ammo as you pointed out.

People do blend different powders to achieve different burn rates. How they know what the heck is going on is beyond me. Trial and error I guess. Perhaps an educated guess? Hopefully the error isn't too great though.

 

[ARH77]

Interesting how the burn rate orders change from source to source. I primarily run either IMR 4064 or Varget, and not all of the charts agree on the burn rate relative to each other.

 

[Jmiverson]

Interesting how the burn rate orders change from source to source. I primarily run either IMR 4064 or Varget, and not all of the charts agree on the burn rate relative to each other.

This may be caused by lot-to-lot inconsistencies. I know I've seen Varget act different that was bought a few years apart. Not lots, but enough to mix up charts when the powders are so close to begin with?

IMHO, its best to pick a powder using a relative burn chart and go from there. I also think it's best to use bullet manufacturer load data, they do more testing than the powder makers. Never interchange powder load data.