Why are some powders not listed?

[huntincowboy]

So I have been getting going again on some reloading, and getting the next batch of lead ready to be cast and it had me thinking- why do companies like Hodgdon who have published data for loads not test (or maybe they have tested and just don't publish it) using powders that independent testers have found suitable?

One such instance that I can think of is Ruger only 45 Colt loads. Hodgdon publishes data for these loads with H110 but they don't publish anything for HS-6, yet Taffin has tested these loads using a pressure setup and has found them to be quite suitable and accurate. If Hodgdon didn't publish Ruger only data, I could see it being for legal reasons, but they do publish it. Just got me thinking because another instance I can think of is Varget and 45-70. Data goes to a certain bullet weight and then ends even though magazine articles have been written using pressure setups an reported excellent results with Varget in applications differing from published data (beyond max bullet weight). I'm sure there are several other instances of this that I have not discovered.

I know at a certain point it becomes more practical to use some powders for reasons like load density and erratic pressure behavior in certain situations, but in the two cases I know, they have been found to produce quite desirable results. I would love to have a load manual that listed information for loads using every powder that is safe to load a given cartridge and bullet weight with. Even if a certain powder didn't produce the velocity that other powders can, I could imagine it would allow for consolidation of powders. If nothing else it would be a wealth of information that would provide interesting insight.

[Tatume]

Hodgdon does list HS-6 data in the 454 Casull, but does not list data for HS-6 in 45 Colt. I surmise that Hodgdon doesn't agree with Taffin that HS-6 is suitable for "Ruger only" 45 Colt use. It could also be that Hodgdon just hasn't gotten around to testing HS-6 in 45 Colt.

[fredj338]

There are so many bullet, powder, caliber combos, they just aren't going to run them all. The Speer #14 will show one powder for say 115gr & 147gr 9mm but not 124gr? There is a lot of personal choice going on with the guys doing testing for the data manuals.

[MtGun44]

Too many possibilities to test. They make choices. One example that
is irritating to me is no TAC data from Western Powders for 7x57, even though
it is excellent in .308, which has similar case volume to bullet size ratio, so
TAC should be really good. No hint tho. And I have a lot of TAC and like it.

Bill

[cold1]

I guess for the same reasons they dont publish some previous loads in newer manuals. Lyman #44 has most cast listings as Unique, 2400, IMR4227. The #49 I have doesnt list 2400 or IMR4227 for alot of cast loads that the older edition does. Thanks you Castpics for the copy of the older manual!

[JohnH]

In all this, some powders are simply not suitable for higher pressure use, and some powders will climb out of the pressure range before the desired velocities can be obtained. Another way of saying it, it's easier to get good performance out of a lesser charge of slower powder than to get equal performance out of a faster powder. Your example of the 45 Colt for Ruger or Contender is a little strange for this discussion as well. The loads in this range are likely not going to be making more than 24,000 psi where the 44 Magnum is allowed a max pressure in the 36,000 psi range. This means a faster powder has an even greater handicap on it's peak pressure/velocity curve. Ballisticians don't think like us. They think in terms of maximum efficiency. We tend to think in terms of "how can I use what I have on hand or can find" or "X powder is my favorite (for whatever reasons) I'd like to use it" A ballisticians recommendations are going to reflect the options which are most ballistically balanced. And as others have mentioned, they don't have the time or have not yet got "a round tuit".

[DeadWoodDan]

I've wondered the same, as I have 2lbs H-6 on my shelf and wanting to experiment with it and 41magnum. I found reputable data published for the 44magnum and this powder, but not for the .41

I've actually thought about contacting Hodgdon and seeing what they say for this combo. I agree with JohnH and would follow his thinking, in my case the two calibers are similar enough, I just don't like treading in unfamiliar waters.

[mozeppa]

i do know this...

that sierra,nosler,speer and hornady don't publish a great deal of load info for us lead slingers...that is unless they actually
"make" the lead slugs for the loads listed. (for the most part)

the Richard Lee book does list quite a lot of non j-word loads as does Lyman.
Lyman has a book dedicated to lead only and RCBS has a small book that is really old that has some data in it.

[JohnH]

Going back and looking over burn rate charts, then looking over older Lyman books, it don't make sense this powder is not listed for heavy 45 Colt loads. Its slower than Unique, which show up everywhere in the data, and quite slower than Red Dot and Titegroup which also so up in tested data. Hodgdon shows a max charge of 9.5 grains of Titegroup making 29,000 psi (Wow!) and 1124 fps and Lyman shows similar date with Red Dot. HS6 is not a new powder. Call Hodgdon, can't believe there is not working data for this powder in this application. Burn rate charts don't tell us everything, but they tell us enough to know that the powder ought to work.

[TXGunNut]

Another vote for contacting Hodgdon, they have probably tested it but for whatever reason they chose not to publish the results.

[bangerjim]

That is your job. Start at the low end and work up.

A guideline (and only a guideline) is the standard burn rate chart. Use with caution, but it is a starting point.

Supposedly the powder makers are working 24/7/365 ballstothewalls to make powder for us poor guys reloading stuff. If you can ever believe that! And they have no time for load testing!!!!!!

I do it all the time. Your mileage may vary. Be safe. Start small. Work up. Watch for pressure signs.

banger

[RogerDat]

Any time the formula changes it would require a retesting to include it in published data. I called Hodgdon about load data for a heavy 303 British cast boolit. They said that they test from most popular or intended use and as they get around to it they test for less popular uses.

In some cases they don't test simply because the burn characteristics from tested boolit indicate powder will be marginal or a poor choice beyond a certain weight or caliber. Or the caliber/weight is not common enough to ever perk to the top of the list of things to test. Think about it, if you have already tested and provided load data for 5 or 6 of your powders for use in a caliber across several weights you have met the general market need for loading that caliber. Testing a bunch more is a cost without much market benefit.

They provided a "rule of thumb" that if one took 60% of the max charge from a bullet of equal or greater weight in the same caliber it would be a good and safe starting point for a cast bullet of equal or lesser weight. In my case .6 x published max load for 212 gr. was a good starting load for a 200 gr. cast boolit of same caliber.