What’s in a Name? Like 3031, 4831, etc.

Ganderite

Ganderite

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.7%
355   1   0
Location
Farm south of North Bay
What’s in a Name? Like 3031, 4831, etc.

Every firearms course instructor at one time or another has to explain what the various cartridge names mean. What does 45-70 mean? What is a .30-06? Is a 308 bigger than a 303?

Which got me to thinking that maybe you might like to know where those powder name numbers came from and what they mean. Why is 3031 called “3031”? And whatever happened to “3032?”

When you got to work in a propellant/explosive R & D facility you are issued a note book. Each project is noted. A project is defined in general terms by someone way up the food chain, such as “Reduce the temperature sensitivity of propellant X”. Various research engineers would decide to test various approaches to the problem and to run a set of experiments on each idea.
Each idea and test is assigned a project number. The project numbers started at experiment #1, and now the company might be up in the hundreds of thousands. Or the company might use a year number and a project number starting at #1 each year, like project 08-3478.
Your notebook would list the objective, the materials and facilities required, the theory and test protocol. A supervisor would sign off that you had it right. After the test the supervisor would review the findings and conclusion and decide if the results were valid.

I used to do that kind of work. It was very common to find that test X produced a better result, but the boss had to decide if the results were “statistically valid”. That is, if the test was to be repeated a number of times, would the results always show an improvement? In a lab, results had to be repeatable to be of much interest. The fact that you did something and it got a good result, in itself, does not mean much.
IMR powder 3031 got its name from the project number assigned to develop the rifle powder. From the project numbers, we can see that 4198 came long before they developed 4831.

For military catalog purposes, these nomenclatures work just fine. But for reloaders, a naming system that shows the relative speed of the powders is far superior. Alliant, for example, buys powders with a jumble of numerical names that mean nothing, and renames them into a series of numerical names in order of burning speed. Bofors RP28 is renamed ReLoader 15. At a glance one can see that RL7 is faster than RL15, which is faster than RL19, etc.

Vitavourhi has done much the same with their powder identification system.
 
GANDERITE said:
Every firearms course instructor at one time or another has to explain what the various cartridge names mean. What does 45-70 mean? What is a .30-06? Is a 308 bigger than a 303?

Which got me to thinking that maybe you might like to know where those powder name numbers came from and what they mean. Why is 3031 called “3031”? And whatever happened to “3032?”

When you got to work in a propellant/explosive R & D facility you are issued a note book. Each project is noted. A project is defined in general terms by someone way up the food chain, such as “Reduce the temperature sensitivity of propellant X”. Various research engineers would decide to test various approaches to the problem and to run a set of experiments on each idea.
Each idea and test is assigned a project number. The project numbers started at experiment #1, and now the company might be up in the hundreds of thousands. Or the company might use a year number and a project number starting at #1 each year, like project 08-3478.
Your notebook would list the objective, the materials and facilities required, the theory and test protocol. A supervisor would sign off that you had it right. After the test the supervisor would review the findings and conclusion and decide if the results were valid.

I used to do that kind of work. It was very common to find that test X produced a better result, but the boss had to decide if the results were “statistically valid”. That is, if the test was to be repeated a number of times, would the results always show an improvement? In a lab, results had to be repeatable to be of much interest. The fact that you did something and it got a good result, in itself, does not mean much.
IMR powder 3031 got its name from the project number assigned to develop the rifle powder. From the project numbers, we can see that 4198 came long before they developed 4831.

For military catalog purposes, these nomenclatures work just fine. But for reloaders, a naming system that shows the relative speed of the powders is far superior. Alliant, for example, buys powders with a jumble of numerical names that mean nothing, and renames them into a series of numerical names in order of burning speed. Bofors RP28 is renamed ReLoader 15. At a glance one can see that RL7 is faster than RL15, which is faster than RL19, etc.

Vitavourhi has done much the same with their powder identification system.
Click to expand...

I don't see any benefit, what actual advantage does the proposed naming convention present?
 
ALOT for those that reload a whack of cartridges and use many different powders. We get to learn the lingo cause we are immersed in it but it very confusing to a novice.

How do Benchmark, Varget, Retumbo compare? Of course, you refer to reload manuals but there are subtleties you pick up only after years of experience.

If there was a universal rating system, it would make comparative study alot easier and faster. The burn rate charts aren't all that great because formuations of powders change over the years. Now if these charts were updated regularly, not bad.

4831 is a prime example. At one point, there was only ONE powder. The most I am aware of are three variations (corp. lables) but the actual burn rate moves this trio around within this group.

Even from lot to lot the variations can be significant.

It is however nice to know the roots of many of the names given to powders. In the Hodgdon manual, H380 came to be because Mr. Hodgdon found that 38grs of this mystery military pull down worked amazingly well in his 22/250.

Sometimes, a number is just a number.

Jerry
 
Quote: "I don't see any benefit, what actual advantage does the proposed naming convention present?"

There is no "proposal". Some companies use names that are just random names, whereas Alliant and Vihtavouri use a sequence of numbers for rifle powders that list the pwders, fastest to slowest. e.g N135, N140, N150, N160, N165, N170.

A reloader can easily see that the next slowest powder to N140 is N150.

Whereas the user of 4895 or Benchmark would have to consult a list to see what powder is the next slowest.

Not a big deal, just an observation.
 
Mr. Ganderite, I have the greatest of respect for you and your professional wisdom on the powders you worked with.
However, I wonder about you placing H4831 as being so named from adding up different experiments. I have always been of the impression that Hodgdon bought ship loads of war surplus powder and packaged it for hand loaders.
At the time we were told that H4831 was the powder used in 20mm cannon. There was certainly no way that Hodgdon could have done anything to the powder, and still sell it for the ridiculous low price they did. Fifteen, or a little more, years after the war, we still bought H4831 in Canada (BC), for about 35 cents a pound, in 50 pound kegs.
Also, H4831 came on the market without the usual loading charts for it. H4831 started out known as, "4350 data powder." This was because it was a cheap substitute for 4350 and the same amount of H4831 could be safely used in place of 4350.
It took Jack O'Connor to first publish that 60 grains of it in a 270, with 130 grain bullet, worked great, best load yet for the 270! After the loading charts showed the loading of 60 grains of H4831 in the 270, with 130 grain bullet, Jack remarked in one of his columns, as Shooting Editor of the prestigious Outdoor Life Magazine, that Hodgdon, and others, had simply taken his, Jack O'Connors, word for it! Of course, by this time many thousands of reloaders was using Jack's load, so what was left for Hodgdon to do, except adopt it?
 
There are only a handful of factories in the world that make component powders. Everything we use has its root in what the military uses if not directly from military contracts - pulldowns, overruns.

IMR and H 4895 WERE the same powder at one point. Mr. H just repackaged pulldown or bought directly from the factory when he got large enough.

Now, 'name brands' buy globally from various factories and repackage under their banner. Alliant had huge problems a while back when what they tested was different from what they repackaged. Get me a hammer....

That is why burn rates change all the time. Today, one company is calling something from Czech XYZ. Next time it is from Sweden. Close but not the same.

Sometimes the factories change the formula completely and really throw things for a loop. The orig batch of Varget could do things that present lots simply can't do.

Some powders like Re17 use new chemical technology and doesn't really fit into the powder norms. Likely from the same tech that has gone into the light magnum ammo.

There is some stuff loaded in factory ammo that is supposed to remove copper as it burns (?????). If true, that would be a huge bonus for all the MG's in the field.

And so it goes.

Jerry
 
Um, isn't that kinda like knowing 3 guys named Mike and wondering why they don't all look the same ?? It's just a name most of the time.
I dated a stripper that we called "spot", she had a dot on the end of her nose. It didn't matter what we named her she was still cute, laff.

M.
 
Mr. H4831. Your story about H4831. Hodgdon was selling military surplus Dupont 4831. Don't know if it was a cannon powder. The cannon powder I load today is much, much slower than 4831.

When Dupont went to sell cannister lots of powder, they named their powder IMR4831. The number came from the project number that came to be the original powder.

When Hodgdon ran out of surplus 4831, they commissioned a powder manufacturer to make a similar powder for them. As I recall, it was made for them by Nobel in Scotland.

I am now relying on either a foggy memory or urban myth. I think they specified that the newly made powder match the charactieristics of the surplus powder (powder that was old) rather than duplicate the IMR version, which was what the old Hodgdon once was.

Because 4895, 4350 and 4831 were traditional, staple powders, other manufacturers brought out their version of duplicate powders. I have not tried the other powders. I had connections to the factory that produced the IMR powders. IMR was made by Expro in Valleyfield, Quebec. I have not talked to them for a few years and have no idea what the latest deal will mean to IMR.


The shooting industry owes a big "thank you" to Hodgdon. Without all that cheap surplus powder I don't think the reloading hobby would have caught on.

factories make powders the same way your wife cooks - with a recipe. Each batch comes out a little different. Batches that meet a fairly strict set of characteristics is sold as the cannister powder you buy. Some companies and some powders are better than others at keeping a given powder consistent.


The other batches are sold to commercial loaders. They do a little testing to get the load for the velocity they want. The powder manufacturer supplies data sheets for each batch, so the ammo company has an idea of what they have. For shot shells, these variations are handy because the shell has to be full when done if it is to crimp properly. They may know they want to load Red Dot, but they will probably four different speeds of Red Dot to choose from.
 
Quote: "So how did DuPont IMR 4895 and Hodgdon 4895 come up with an identical number...and oddly enough, going by handload.com, in some cases the max load is higher with Du Pont, other times the Hodgdon max charge is greater."

Every gun is different. This includes the pressure guns used to test ammo, although the pressure barrels are more similar than the rifles sold for the same caliber.

Therefore, different people, using different lots of a similar powder made by different manufactures, testing in different pressure barrels will come up with different results.

If the results were the same I would be very suspicious.

I have tested hundreds of thousands of rounds in pressure guns. Tests involved experimental and production ammo. I get the impression that many (most?) reloaders have either not read the preamble to their loading manuals or have failed to understand what was written.

The published "Max" was the max for the rifle and ammo they tested. It is a guide, not a load you can use. You have to develop a load for your rifle.

There is no free lunch. With certain exceptions, velocity comes from pressure. So, if you reach the maximum velocity shown in the book (assuming a similar length barrel) then you have also reached maximum pressure. It is unlikely your rifle will show any sign of pressure at maximum pressure. Most rifles I have tested with proof rounds (75,000 psi) don't show any signs of pressure.

For these reasons, the chronograph is important tool to determine maximum pressure. If you do get a sign of pressure, you are probably well over the limit.

Exceptions to the "high velocity = high pressure". As a joke, I included 20 rounds of Hornady Light Magnum 308 in a batch of ammo I sent to the pressure lab for testing. These guys know there is no free lunch re pressure and velocity, and were concerned about the results.

They pulled a couple of rounds to weigh the bullets, to make sure they really were 180 gr, and not 150 gr. They phoned me. I asked if they had weighed the powder charge. "No." "OK", I said, "Weigh the powder and call me back."

An hour later they called me back, even more concerned. Not only did their pressure gun/chronograph not make sense, but now they doubted their powder scales. There was 60 grains of powder in the case. (Any one who loads 308 knows you can't put 60 grains of powder under an 180gr bullet.)

A bottleneck case is a straight walled case at one stage of its development. When cordite strips were put in the 303 case, they were inserted when the case was a straight wall, and then the charged case was bumped to give it its final taper and the neck.

Hornady make their Light Magnum the same way. The case is filled with a big charge of very slow ball powder when it is a straight wall case. Then the case is supported in a die and the ball powder is heavily compressed. Then the case is formed to a bottleneck. Don't try this at home....

There are many variables in a powder, and opportunities to make "improvements". Adding nitro glycerin adds energy, but make the powder hotter (barrel erosion) and more temperature sensitive. Most powders have a coating of DNT (Di Nitro Toluene - not to be confused with TNT, which would really add some energy!). The DNT slows the initial burn, to try to control the pressure spike. It is also tumbled to rub off the sharp corners and to dust it with graphite. Without the graphite, the powder would be affected by static electricity so badly it would not pour or load.

We ran a production test once with Moly as the powder lube instead of graphite. Rob McLennan shot a lot of it in his bench rifles.

But I digress. Where was I?
 
You are right about Scotland. They also have another Country making powder for them as well, can't remember right now, but it is in the Hogdon book, I will look it up.
 
Mr. Ganderite, when I made the statement about the original H4831 powder as coming from WW2 20mm cannon shells, I was going strictly from memory, going back about 60 years.
After you doubting it was used for that, I did some researching, and discovered my memory is OK! Here is what I got from Guns Magazine, Oct. 2000.
----------------------------
Sadly, the days of cheap powder -- surplus or otherwise -- are long gone, but Hodgdon's 4831 is alive and well and quite suitable for cartridges like the 6mm, .260 Rem. and .280 Rem. The original H-4831 was a surplus powder recovered from World War II 20mm cannon shells. Hodgdon now has 4831 manufactured in Australia and there are actually two powders with the name
-------------------------------

I don't want to start any type of controversy, especially with someone who has been there. However, I don't want to leave, with the impression that what I say from memory, is a story not to be believed.
 
GANDERITE said:
Quote: "I don't see any benefit, what actual advantage does the proposed naming convention present?"

There is no "proposal". Some companies use names that are just random names, whereas Alliant and Vihtavouri use a sequence of numbers for rifle powders that list the pwders, fastest to slowest. e.g N135, N140, N150, N160, N165, N170.

A reloader can easily see that the next slowest powder to N140 is N150.

Whereas the user of 4895 or Benchmark would have to consult a list to see what powder is the next slowest.

Not a big deal, just an observation.
Click to expand...

Yes, not a big deal. I guess I would be mildly peeved if the powders were renamed because i already know most of the relative burn rates for the different powders i use and don't feel any need to spend time re-learning new names if it came to that.

I have reloaded rifle, pistol and shotgun for about 30 years, and never had an actual reloading problem relating to misidentifying the relative burn rates of powders that i can remember.
 
H4831 said:
Mr. Ganderite, when I made the statement about the original H4831 powder as coming from WW2 20mm cannon shells, I was going strictly from memory, going back about 60 years.
After you doubting it was used for that, I did some researching, and discovered my memory is OK! Here is what I got from Guns Magazine, Oct. 2000.
----------------------------
Sadly, the days of cheap powder -- surplus or otherwise -- are long gone, but Hodgdon's 4831 is alive and well and quite suitable for cartridges like the 6mm, .260 Rem. and .280 Rem. The original H-4831 was a surplus powder recovered from World War II 20mm cannon shells. Hodgdon now has 4831 manufactured in Australia and there are actually two powders with the name
-------------------------------

I don't want to start any type of controversy, especially with someone who has been there. However, I don't want to leave, with the impression that what I say from memory, is a story not to be believed.
Click to expand...

.. and thats why they call him Mr. 4831!

In fact that cannon shell story is a well known bit of reloading lore.
 
I am familiar with the story that 4831 came from 20mm shells.

I have a personal quirk. Unless I have personally broken down 20 mm shells and found 4831 then I don't accept that as "fact".

If God almighty came down and said to me that 4831 came from 20mm shells, I would say "Yes, I believe that you believe that 4831 came from 20 mm shells."

You come across as a guy who has been around for awhile. I am sure you have noted that there is a plethora of half truths and urban myths and half assed theories on shooting topics. I suspect the same is true in other areas, such as car tuning.

In the early years I got burned a number of times by not understanding the difference between facts and firmly held beliefs.

Every time I hear or read something, I catalog it as someone's belief. The fact that someone believes it does not make it a fact. If I know the person, my respect for that person might raise it to something that is probably true.

For the last 50 yearsI have heard that 4831 came from 20 mm shells. I believe that it is probably true. I have not broken down any WWII shells to confirm it.

As it happens, I do use modern powders made for 20 mm shells, and note that the powder is much, much slower. This may very well be because of developments in modern powders. But is creates a little niggling doubt in my mind that maybe H4831 did not come from 20 mm shells. This doubt cannot be satisfied unless I personally pull down some shells and find 4831, or unless I read an old official document that lists powders and their applications. I have the modern documents from at least two powder manufactures (Olin and Expro) that list all their military powders and the applications.

Some things I post here are opinions, based on my experience. Some of the things I post here are intended to be facts. My standard for facts is much higher. Not only must facts be based on observation, but must be based on statistically valid test results.

I was blessed with a first job, after the military, of ammo and explosive R & D with CIL. I was a "gun nut" when hired, having come from a family of hunting and competitive shooting. My boss had to explain to me that much of what I believed was either half true or BS. The first day on the job, he took me into our library and handed me "The Bullet's Flight” by Mann. (Laugh. That book is now on my shelf, two feet from where I type.) The most important thing I learned there was that just because ammo A shot better than ammo B did not make it so. Every test has a range of results. Unless the worst results possible of test A was better than the best possible results of test B, the results were not considered "statistically valid".

In the real world, we try something, get a good result, and stick with it. And tell others. In the world I grew up in, that test means nothing.

For example. We were developing plastic shot shells and plastic wad columns in shot shells. The question was "Do plastic shells foul barrels worse than paper shells shooting fiber wads?"

How would you test that? Probably fire a box or two of both and compare.

My colleague and I had to shoot several pallets of 12 ga in a pump gun. Ammo was delivered via front end loader. We shot full time, about 2 shots per second, non-stop for 3 work days. The gun was shot with one guy pulling the trigger while the other dropped a shell into the loading port. We traded plaices from time to time. The range was a 40 yard concrete tunnel in the lab basement. (Just consider the recoil and noise issues.)

To keep it interesting, the shooter shot from the hip, aiming at empty shells, steering them down range, through a goal. I am not a very good trap shooter, but I am pretty good shooting from the hip...

After a few thousand rounds the gun barrel was carefully cleaned and the barrel fouling was weighed.

Then the front end loader arrived with conventional ammo to test...

How anal is an ammo lab? Well, every shot is photographed as the bullet/wad column exits the muzzle, and velocity chronographed. How carefully is the ammo made? Did you know a 12 ga shell with 71/2 shot has 365 pellets? We loaded each round with a gizmo that dispensed exactly the same number of pellets in each shell.

I moved onto other endeavors, but retained a personal interest in internal and external ballistics. I kept contacts with firearm manufactures and propellant manufactures and found I could communicate on their terms, but share experience from the real world.

For example. Powder manufacturers are chemists and engineers. They are not shooters. I was talking to a manufacturer about a powder I liked but lamented that it did not meter well. After a few minutes it became clear he did not understand "meter". So I talked about my powder thrower.
"Thrower?"

"Show me your loading room." I said. They had a 2x4 wooden block with some holes drilled in it for a loading block. They had a fancy balance beam scales and a teaspoon for dispensing powder. They had no idea of neck tension being a variable, nor did they recognize that primers were a variable.

Gun nutz on this forum have forgotten more about loading ammo than the PhD research director knew about loading ammo. He was a powder manufacturer - not a powder user. On my next visit I brought them a RCBS powder thrower, some plastic loading blocks, a little mechanical powder trickler and my old power scales. The ammo tech felt like it was Christmas.

I was trying to convince them that it would be a good idea to cut the kernnals of some powders shorter. They made a few thousand poinds of three types of their powers fro me to test. I gave most of it away to shooters and potential buyers, including the US military. All loved it, but they decided it would not be wiorth changing. Sigh...

Fast forward 40 years of shooting. I retired from gainful work in 1987. I am still the technical director of a small company making special ammunition for military and police applications. I would say more but they would have to kill me.

Bullets are bought by the ton (about 40,000 to the ton, I think). Powder is bought 1300 pounds at a time, direct from the powder manufacturer, not from the company that names, labels and promotes the powders. 1300 pounds because that I all my pick up will hold. It bulks out.

My house includes a 200 yard range used to test ammo, hone shooting skills, and generally have fun. The firing point is heated for the winter and air conditioned for the summer. The air conditioning is not for comfort. It controls the world class mosquitoes we breed.

We fill garbage cans with fired cases. We wear out several barrels a year. We keep good records.

I am retired and amuse myself pursuing my own shooting intersts. I am pleased to share whatever info I have that might be of interest. Just ask.

But my hunting experience is amateurish and anecdotal. I have never shot competitive bench rest.
 
I started out posting a while back, by this: "Mr. Ganderite, I have the greatest of respect for you and your professional wisdom on the powders you worked with".

Now I will have to add a lot more to that!
 
How Bruce Hodgdon got started in the buisness...

In case anyone was interested, Bruce Hodgdon found out that huge stocks of powder were burned by the government after being declared surplus after WW1 because of the lack of market for them, and he figured the same would be true after the hostilities ended in 1945.
Even though he had no place to store gunpowder, and did not know if enough shooters would gamble to purchase unknown types of propellent, Bruce cut goverment red tape and he soon owned 50,000 pounds of government surplus 4895.
An old boxcar moved to a rented farm pasture soon served as the first magazine, the first one inch ad in the "American rifleman", and Bruce was in buisness! The first 150lb. kegs of powder sold for $30.00 plus freight!!:eek: We now pay $30.00 a pound!
This is just some of the info in one of my old Hodgdon powder manuals! I get a kick out of how most of us tend to worry about our storage of powders, is the basement too damp, or is the garage too hot etc. Bruce stored thousands of pounds out in an old box car! Oh and as far as the H4831 in 20mm shells story goes, I have no idea!:D
 
What is it ?

Mr. Ganderite,,, I have a question.
Say you have a factory round that you find works extremely well in your rifle/firearm. How do you find out what the components are ?
I recognize the case, I know what the bullet is, I can measure the o.a.l. and the weight of the powder is easy to check,,,, but,,,, how do I find out what type of powder is in the case,,, for sure,,,, not just , well it looks like this or that. ???

I have a specific round i'd like to duplicate with in reason, buying alot of the factory ones is cost prohibitive for matches.

I've asked around and got peoples ideas (some thought it was accurate powder, no one knows for sure)

Thanks

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom