Fast powders, Slow powders?

[Grawfr]

I've been reloading my .357mag (w/158gr projectiles) using Hodgdon's H110 to this point, and I was talking to another member of my shooting club who was saying he's been using HP-38/Win231 for his reloads with good results.

Which got me wondering: I always assumed that for a long barrel, the rule of thumb was to use as slow a powder (meaning burn rate) as I could find load data for, to maximize the bullet's muzzle velocity while minimizing the peak chamber pressure at detonation.

So my question is: is there an advantage in using a fast burning powder in a long barrel rifle? I was thinking that using only 6gr of a fast powder in a .357mag case, with the low load density it implies, would not be a good thing compared to 16gr of H110...

Anyone has information to share?

 

[Shooter ----/]

Load density seems to play a role in accuracy but maybe only shows up from full rested positions? I have found that some powders only seem to work well with high load densities.

For my pistol reloads, I chose my powder based on economy of loading ie fast burn. Lowest amount of powder used to achieve positive cycling, a clean burn and accuracy as best as I can hold.

Not really sure if that helps you much. Just based on my experience.

 

[Ganderite]

Barrel length has nothing to do with choice of powder.

A slow powder allows you to load more of it, which means more energy and higher velocity.

If you don't want high velocity, you can load a faster powder, like 231. The pressure will peak and drop quickly, so the powder still burns at the correct high pressure, but produces less velocity.

To answer your question about the advantages of a faster powder: What is the purpose of the cartridge? If it is hunting or long range steel silhouette targets, you want high velocity. H110 or 296 are perfect for that.

If it is for plinking or paper punching, you want maximum accuracy and reduced recoil, and maybe reduced cost. For that, a fast powder like Titegroup or 231 and cast lead bullets is the solution.

You cannot download H110 to achieve medium velocity. It will burn erratically unless pressure is kept high.

Nomenclature. Those 158 gr lumps are called "bullets", not "projectiles". They become projectiles only when fired.

And your powder does not "detonate". It burns. If it detonated, all the molecules would convert to gas instantly and your revolver would be missing a cylinder and strap. A kernel of powder burs like a log, from the outside in.

 

[Seagull]

Excellent Ganderite.
I use both those powders for 357 and 44 mag. Hp38 for light loads like 38 spl/ 44 spl, and H110 for the Magnums. I also Aliant 2400 for the magnums and for some unknown reason I like it a bit better than H110.

 

[Spawn-Inc]

I use h110/w296, lil'gun, 2400, and AA 1680 for magnum loads. I use w231/Hp-38, tight group, bullseye and many more for light or plinking loads. As ganderite said its all about what the purpose of the ammunition is intended for that will determine what burn rate used.

 

[Grawfr]

Thanks everyone!

Ganderite, you confuse me a bit: both long range steel silhouette and paper punching (I normally shoot at 100m) require accuracy, no? In either cases, why wouldn't I want to maximize the projectile's velocity and the cartridge's load density for a uniform burn? Why would a slower projectile with lots of void in the case be more accurate?

I can see using fast powders for economy, absolutely (1/3rd the charge weight after all), but only for short range shooting (cowboy action, plinking using a revolver, that sort of thing).

Also: are lead projectiles that much more accurate than jacketed ones? I am not in position to cast my own, but I suppose I could order some if needed. You got me started looking into that subject but I can't find a compelling case for shooting lead vs jacketed in my Henry.

Seeing as I'm interested in accuracy before anything else, I guess I should stick with the slower burning powders.

 

[Ganderite]

"... in my Henry."

I think we all assumed you were shooting a revolver. I mentioned "revolver in my response.

If you are shooting a rifle, then more velocity that a fast powder will yield is called for if you are shooting beyond 50 yards.

For max velocity, your H110 is just fine.

For high velocity, but not max, 2400 is excellent. It burns well at less than max pressure.

And please call bullets "bullets".

I don't have a 357 rifle, so have not compared jacketed vs plated vs cast bullets. High velocity might require jacketed bullets.

 

[camster]

I have been reading a lot about burn rates, and load densities too. I found this read to be enlightening:
www.accuracy-tech.com/powder-burn-rates-pressure-and-accuracy

Some graphs to represent the topic at hand in there. I wasn't loading for pistol, but I would guess it's applicable if you're loading pistol rounds in a rifle. My curiosity stemmed from load density in 6.5x55...big case (bigger than .303 or .308) to fill, but not often filled because of pressure limitations in my 'surps.

 

[kg]

Thanks everyone!
I can see using fast powders for economy, absolutely (1/3rd the charge weight after all), but only for short range shooting (cowboy action, plinking using a revolver, that sort of thing).

Also: are lead projectiles that much more accurate than jacketed ones? I am not in position to cast my own, but I suppose I could order some if needed. You got me started looking into that subject but I can't find a compelling case for shooting lead vs jacketed in my Henry.

Seeing as I'm interested in accuracy before anything else, I guess I should stick with the slower burning powders.

You got the principles there.
Fast powders will (usually) be as accurate at lower speeds/pressures and wont reach the full ballistic potential of the caliber; they are also more temperamental as pressures increase.
Most powder makers have stopped showing fast powders at maximum pressure in magnum calibers (which was done for commercial purpose imo), now that Cowboy shooting is so popular.
Commercial Lead (and plated) bullets are unlikely to be more accurate, but they will save you money. There's no need for Jacketed ones in "that sort of things" .
Try a box of cast ones up to 1000fps or so (pistol data) with a fast power; make sure that they are not undersized for your bore (at least, chamber throats is better) and see how it goes.

 

[Grawfr]

"... in my Henry."

I think we all assumed you were shooting a revolver. I mentioned "revolver in my response.

If you are shooting a rifle, then more velocity that a fast powder will yield is called for if you are shooting beyond 50 yards.

For max velocity, your H110 is just fine.

For high velocity, but not max, 2400 is excellent. It burns well at less than max pressure.

And please call bullets "bullets".

I don't have a 357 rifle, so have not compared jacketed vs plated vs cast bullets. High velocity might require jackets bullets.

Oh... I thought I was clear in the OP:

So my question is: is there an advantage in using a fast burning powder in a long barrel rifle?

But don't worry about it, what you wrote is still good stuff for me to know, I'm grateful you took the time to answer.

Hodgdon's and some Winchester/IMR powders are easiest to get where I am, but I'll look into alternatives like the Alliant 2400.

I've been wondering about using even slower powders than the H110, but my problem is finding actual recipes (load data) that use them. I don't have a chamber pressure measurement tool to make sure I don't blow up my firearms (and sundry other useful parts like my face or right hand), so I'm very, very wary of experimenting. I suppose I could always start with ridiculously low charges (barely above squib level) and work up by increments, using a chrono to see when I get close to commercial ammo's velocities, but that only brings me to the "equivalent to factory ammo" level, which is not the point of the experiment... I'd like to exceed factory ammo velocities while keeping the peak chamber pressure acceptable, but I don't see how I can attain that goal safely without building a real ballistic lab with all the equipment expenses that come with that.

I've got a similar issue with my 9mm carbine too (a Cx4), I'd like to try using slower powders than what the usual load data calls for in that calibre (since I'm shooting shiny metal bits out of a 19-3/4" barrel), but it's hard to find trustworthy information. And there's not a lot of space in a 9mm case for a lower density powder, either.

Anyways, thanks again for the information, it's appreciated!

 

[Grawfr]

I have been reading a lot about burn rates, and load densities too. I found this read to be enlightening:
www.accuracy-tech.com/powder-burn-rates-pressure-and-accuracy

Some graphs to represent the topic at hand in there. I wasn't loading for pistol, but I would guess it's applicable if you're loading pistol rounds in a rifle. My curiosity stemmed from load density in 6.5x55...big case (bigger than .303 or .308) to fill, but not often filled because of pressure limitations in my 'surps.

You got the principles there.
Fast powders will (usually) be as accurate at lower speeds/pressures and wont reach the full ballistic potential of the caliber; they are also more temperamental as pressures increase.
Most powder makers have stopped showing fast powders at maximum pressure in magnum calibers (which was done for commercial purpose imo), now that Cowboy shooting is so popular.
Commercial Lead (and plated) bullets are unlikely to be more accurate, but they will save you money. There's no need for Jacketed ones in "that sort of things" .
Try a box of cast ones up to 1000fps or so (pistol data) with a fast power; make sure that they are not undersized for your bore (at least, chamber throats is better) and see how it goes.

Thanks you two! I'll look into that link, and research those cast bullets. Cheap is good, for sure, it's just that I'm trying to improve my shooting technique and I'm at the point where I'm trying to minimize errors that could originate with the equipment (rifle/ammo) so I can try to diagnose errors caused by yours truly.

Of course, given that I'm doing this with a lever action carbine shooting bullets that have the BC of a brick (thrown sideways), one could say that I'm not really helping myself, but it's a fun challenge all the same. There's something that just feels RIGHT to me in a lever-action .357mag. It doesn't have the earth-shattering KABOOM of the 45-70, but it's not the "pew-pew" of the .22LR either. Right between the .44mag and .38spl, a happy middle ground where everything seems possible!

Next year I'm planning to get into bolt action shooting, see "how many bullets can dance on the head of a tack" if I can manage it. Which calibre to pick will be the subject of an entire winter's research effort, to be sure.

 

[Lionel]

Cast boolits might be more accurate in your gun. Or not. Too many variables to consider: alloy hardness, bore condition, chamber and neck sizes, and powder rates.

The one thing that is a strong plus for shooting cast, is price. I can shoot cast for a fraction of the cost of jacketed. Unless my gun absolutely won't shoot cast worth a darn, then I shoot cast in it. Then with the money saved shooting cast, I get better at shooting, and save the jacketed for when it really counts.

I'm not sure on the cost of shooting 357 storebought vs shooting reloads, but the cost breakdown of shooting cast reloads vs jacketed reloads can be rewarding. There can be a steep purchasing curve to get into it initially. Then, you're off to the races with cast boolits.

As for the different powders and loads that you can use in your rifle, aren't there different load data pages in the manuals for rifle loads and pistol loads? I would look into whichever velocity I'm looking for, and check on which powders are in that range. I stay away from the exotic or specialty powders and go with the mainstream powders that I have or are easy to get and then I load up some rounds and do some shooting to see how it goes.

 

[Grawfr]

At this time, the cost breakdown for me is roughly like this for .357 mag. Please remember that those costs have quite a bit of margin into them, depending on bulk purchases, source and how long ago I stocked up.

Cost of 100 rounds of Win white box (crappy ammo, but nice brass): ~$40/50 rds or $0.80 per round. Say I'm going to shoot that brass five times (not counting the initial firing), that brass will have cost me $0.16 per use for each round. I also have some once-fired Federal and CCI brass that was a bit cheaper (~$0.14/round), just haven't started using them yet. Or I could buy Hornady unfired brass at $110/200, comes to $0.11 per use. No idea on the quality of Fed/CCI/Hdy brass yet, and of course if I use them more or less than five times, the value could change by a lot.

H110 powder: $45/lbs, that's 7000gr or about 450 loads @ 16gr (plus some wastage). $45/450 = $0.10 per use.

CCI 550 primer: $45/1000, or $0.05 per use.

Bullet: I started with CamPro 158gr FCP TC, and found their accuracy to be... less than ideal. They were a nice $0.13/bullet, though. I switched to Hornady XTP 158gr JHP, but those are costing me $35/100, or $0.35 per bullet.

Case-----$0.16
Primer---$0.05
Powder--$0.10
Bullet----$0.35
TOTAL--$0.66

The biggest part of the costs is indeed the bullet... My "reference" commercial ammo is Federal American Eagle 158gr JSP, comes at about $38/50 or $0.76 per round. I'm not saving a lot, as you can see... but I'm sure enjoying myself playing with loads, muhahahahaa!!!! If I could convince myself to accept the Campro stuff for plinking, the cost per round would come down to $0.44, which is not bad.

I definitely should start looking into cast bullets, it's just that I cannot cast them myself due to where I live at the moment. So I have to buy them.


(EDIT: Lionel, I missed your point about powders, sorry. Aye, I look at both the handgun and rifle data, but I go with the rifle data only, thinking that the max pressure data will be more closely matched to my rifle because of the long barrel they used for testing).

(EDIT 2: Found the Missouri Bullet Company's page on cast bullets... interesting. $35-43US per 500, that comes to about $0.09-$0.12 per bullet, not counting taxes and shipping. I definitely have to start ordering! )

 

[H4831]

OP, we have one professional on reloading, on CGN, Ganderite.
He spent a career in research and development at a major ammunition factory.
He gave you all the information you wanted, but it seems you ignored him.

 

[Grawfr]

OP, we have one professional on reloading, on CGN, Ganderite.
He spent a career in research and development at a major ammunition factory.
He gave you all the information you wanted, but it seems you ignored him.

H4831, I would suggest you do not pet the holy cows so hard, you're going to cause them some back pains.

Ganderite initially gave me accurate information thinking I was reloading for handguns, despite the OP question of "is there an advantage in using a fast burning powder in a long barrel rifle?". No problem, it happens. He corrected his aim, I haven't ignored a single word he said, and do appreciate his subsequent input. See post #10.

However I also asked about accuracy in lead vs jacketed bullets, to which he offered no substantive opinion. Fair enough, both Kg and Lionel opined that there's really no telling whether a cast bullet will work better or not than a jacketed one for my rifle, but they'd be cheaper to shoot anyways. So that's what we've been talking about.

Would you like to contribute to this thread with something substantive about either powder burn rates or lead vs jacketed bullet accuracy? I won't mind.

 

[rommelrommel]

Finding the best bullet in terms of accuracy vs cost is just going to take testing. Outside of some known crappy bullets and certain guns that are known to not shoot certain bullets well...

Since you're shooting fairly stout loads, possibly at 2000+ fps given what you've said, you're going to likely need to shoot a hard cast, possibly gas checked bullet. You could shoot bullet barn lead bullets for about what you paid for campros.

 

[H4831]

H4831, I would suggest you do not pet the holy cows so hard, you're going to cause them some back pains.

Ganderite initially gave me accurate information thinking I was reloading for handguns, despite the OP question of "is there an advantage in using a fast burning powder in a long barrel rifle?". No problem, it happens. He corrected his aim, I haven't ignored a single word he said, and do appreciate his subsequent input. See post #10.

However I also asked about accuracy in lead vs jacketed bullets, to which he offered no substantive opinion. Fair enough, both Kg and Lionel opined that there's really no telling whether a cast bullet will work better or not than a jacketed one for my rifle, but they'd be cheaper to shoot anyways. So that's what we've been talking about.

Would you like to contribute to this thread with something substantive about either powder burn rates or lead vs jacketed bullet accuracy? I won't mind.

OK, I will contribute. I don't think there ever is a case where a cast bullet is more accurate than a good jacketed bullet, under the same conditions.

 

[Grawfr]

Finding the best bullet in terms of accuracy vs cost is just going to take testing. Outside of some known crappy bullets and certain guns that are known to not shoot certain bullets well...

Since you're shooting fairly stout loads, possibly at 2000+ fps given what you've said, you're going to likely need to shoot a hard cast, possibly gas checked bullet. You could shoot bullet barn lead bullets for about what you paid for campros.

Hard cast and gas checks? Thanks, I'll look in to that for sure.

I wish I knew the velocity of my loads right now... I definitely think a Magnetospeed is going to be in my Christmas sock this winter!

OK, I will contribute. I don't think there ever is a case where a cast bullet is more accurate than a good jacketed bullet, under the same conditions.

Damn... there goes the savings on bullets, then.

Well thanks, I do appreciate your opinion! You won't mind if I try a little anyways, I hope? It's not that I want to prove you wrong, you're very, very likely to be right, generally speaking... it's just that it would be really nice if I could find one inexpensive bullet (cast or not, for that matter) that provided acceptable accuracy. The golden unicorn, what! I've managed to get 2,0-2,5 MOA consistently (measuring 9/10 shots) out of my Henry @100m, and it would be really nice to be able to improve on that.

 

[H4831]

I didn't say that cast bullets were not accurate, just that if push comes to shove, a good jacketed bullet would be more accurate.
There has been some mighty fine accuracy coming from good cast bullets, so don't let me discourage you from using cast.
And if you are still talking 357 rifle, then with less than full velocity, can be a very accurate load, while for full power, its probably a toss up between 296/110 and 2400.
With the 44 magnum Marlin rifle, I still couldn't state positively which was more accurate, gas check or flat base. I have poured quite a lot of linotype alloy, but I don't think the real hard cast is as accurate as old wheel weight alloy, because the hard linotype doesn't seem to expand to fill the rifling properly.
Barnes bullets are excellent and when you're thinking of cost, remember they come all sized and lubricated, ready to load. Getting your own equipment to load is pretty costly, as a lubricator/sizer is not inexpensive, nor is a melting pot.

 

[Grawfr]

Thanks! I'll definitely look into Barnes bullets, then!

It's not simply the equipment costs... I'm an apartment dweller at the moment. A lead smelting operation might raise a couple eyebrows and poison the cat.