SR #80 vs SR-4759

[4570guy]

Hatcher's Notebook states that SR #80 was replaced by IMR SR-4759. I have a recently purchased copy of Sharpes Handloading Handbook and he has a ton of data in there for SR #80. Does anyone know the relative burn rates between SR80 and SR-4759? Were the powders similar in bulk density? How applicable would any of that old SR80 data be using modern SR-4759? (I know, I know -- be wary of using data from old load manuals...) I'm curious though...

Does anyone still have or use the old SR80 powder?

[45 2.1]

Hatcher's Notebook states that SR #80 was replaced by IMR SR-4759. I have a recently purchased copy of Sharpes Handloading Handbook and he has a ton of data in there for SR #80. Does anyone know the relative burn rates between SR80 and SR-4759? Were the powders similar in bulk density? How applicable would any of that old SR80 data be using modern SR-4759? (I know, I know -- be wary of using data from old load manuals...) I'm curious though...

Does anyone still have or use the old SR80 powder?

From what i've read, SR80 was a bit hotter burning and had a little sharper pressure rise than it replacement SR4759. Starting loads and carefull workup would probably be appropriate here. There is a lot of SR4759 data out there, usually in the older Lyman manuals.

[Bent Ramrod]

I wouldn't use any SR-80 data for SR-4759. SR-80 was a pseudo-"Bulk" smokeless powder. It resembles the old Dupont Bulk Shotgun powder: looks like the stuff you pour around anthills to wipe out the colony--a yellowish granular material with lots of variation in the particle sizes. It may be slightly more dense than Bulk Shotgun, but it isn't much more. Reportedly it couldn't be loaded bulk-for-bulk with black powder.

SR-80 was alleged to have a twitchy "balance point," i.e., over a certain pressure, the pressure went up extremely quickly while the velocity gained very little. Most powders do this, of course, but #80 was supposed to be particularly bad in this respect. Elmer Keith blew up at least one revolver pushing #80 too far, and switched to #2400 as soon as it came out for his heavy loads.

Another thing #80 shared with other bulk powders was that it would absorb and desorb atmospheric moisture and burn faster or slower in proportion. Vibration, such as carrying a box of reloads in a car for a long time, could cause the powder to crumble into finer particles, also raising the burning rate and pressure.

I still have about half a can of SR-80 and sometimes use it to load old cartridges. The odor of the stuff as it burns is best described as a combination of burned sugar and burned urine. But, oddly, not all that unpleasant. Like dry wines, Limburger cheese and cigars; an acquired taste. Or smell.

SR-4759 is a dense powder that has had treatment to make it slightly less dense to bulk it up and make it easier to ignite. But the moisture absorbance, friability and utility as a pistol powder are gone.

[4570guy]

Thanks! I have the current Lyman manual and as you said, there is a good bit of 4759 data in it. I asked the question more out of curiousity than anything else. Its interesting looking through the Sharpe book. I'd wager he has more load data in there (especially on the Krag and the '06) than any other manual I've come across.

[Bent Ramrod]

4570Guy,

The Sharpe book is a valuable reference even if the reloader only loads a .204 Ruger with Mag-Tech powder and Wolf primers. Even though the actual loading data itself may only be a historical curiosity, the depth of explanation of the tools, components, procedures and manufacturing processes is worth the money any time. Actually, the historical curiosity stuff is pretty interesting too.

[xtimberman]

In the old literature, some of those Dupont #80 loads look really interesting - until you sort through all of the caveats that the old gunpowder was saddled with.

I recall Elmer writing in later years that he believed that all remaining stocks of #80 should be destroyed asap when discovered!

...burned sugar and urine. mmmm!

xtm

[4570guy]

When I wrote the original post in this thread, I hadn't yet leafed through the entire book. The supplemental section (written in 1957 I think) answers my original question and includes a number of loadings with 4759. As Ramrod stated, the book is extremely interesting as a handloading reference. There's information in there that I've seen nowhere else.

[Bret4207]

Every handloading "crank" (to use the old term) should have Sharpes, Matterns and Naramores books. Thrown in Elmers, both the "Pactical Dope" books and CS Landis's books and you have the whole spectrum of loading and it's history.

[Baron von Trollwhack]

I have the edition with the additional data appendix. Until recently IMR listed SR4759 in their full page size loading pamphlets, so it would be easy to compare loading levels, especially since the IMR data has the pressures listed too. BvT

[Bent Ramrod]

xtimberman,

The smell is really exotic, all right. No other powder, modern or otherwise, smells anything like it. The only thing even vaguely similar is Eley Tenex .22's, and they're not even close.

SR-80 is OK in the light loads recommended for it that I've tried, but I've never tried to push it the way Elmer Keith did. It was definitely not a true bulk powder; 17 grains in a .44-40 shell leaves plenty of air space and is about as much as I would want to use in a rifle.

I've also screened and used weighed charges of DuPont Bulk Shotgun Smokeless in rifles. Even at loads well below those recommended in Roberts and Waters' book it gives a lot of pressure for pretty low velocity. In a shotgun, it looks like a horrendous amount of powder, but it works fine bulk-for-bulk with black powder in that application only. Never had a chance to try Schuetzen or Dupont #1; the one can I found that was reasonably priced turned out to be full of Pyrodex RS.

One major gap in the lineup of reloading components today is a real bulk-for-bulk smokeless powder that would give safe pressures in at least all straight and tapered cases. Trail Boss is at least a step in the right direction, but I haven't found any particular accuracy from it in the few cartridges I've tried it in that couldn't be more easily gained from other powders less expensively. Also, you can't just scoop any shell full, cap it with a boolit and shoot. That's what true "bulk" meant in the old days.

[Bret4207]

I wish they'd bring back something like a "bulk" powder. It would be a help in many applications.

[brshooter]

Vihtavuoti N-120 has a burn rate just a hair faster than SR-4759. Rumors have that N-120 will no longer be available in the us, don't know how true it is.

[w30wcf]

Well........there is SR80 "more dense" and there is SR80 "less dense". I say that because I have had the pleasure of working with 5 different lots of SR80 and found that some are more dense than others.

It was one of the powders used in factory ammunition for many of the low pressure factory cartridges.... .22 W.C.F., .32-20, .32-40, .38-40, .38-55, .44-40, etc. Elmer was trying to make it do something that it wasn't designed for.

It is considered to be a gelentanized powder and thus pretty impervious to moisture which was not true of the old DuPont No. 1 & No. 2 bulk smokeless powders.

I currently use what I have in the .22 W.C.F., .44-40 and .30-30 SR (Short Range) cartridges. It produces accuracy as good as any other powders I have tried in those applications. 14 grs. in the least dense lot of SR80 that I have, is a capacity load in the .44-40 and produces very good groups @ 1,290 f.p.s.

17 grs. of 4759 is the equivalent to 14 grs. of SR80 in my .44-40. That is with the lots of powder I have and doesn't necessarily mean that the % difference would be the same with different lots and/or different cartridges.

Regarding the smell, Frank Marshall ("Speaking Frankly" column - CBA) said it was the "perfume" powder. I would describe the smell as "barnyard". Since it was around from 1913 to 1939, no doubt, tons of it were used by the factories and reloaders.

Historic SR80.....a vintage powder from the past........
(SR - Sporting Rifle)

w30wcf

[w30wcf]

Bent Ramrod,

Fortunately, I have had a chance to work a little bit with DuPont No.1 bulk smokeless and Schutzen, which according to Sharpe is DuPont No. 1 recolored.

The little amount of DuPont No. 1 I have is from a powder can collector. The can contained abuut 400 grs. which he was happy to get rid of and I was happy to get. I also have retrieved some from vintage W.R.A. CO. cartridges that had no case cannelure, contained nickel covered bullets and had the "W" on the primer.

The Schuetzen powder came from another powder can collector. He was going to dump the powder but I happily paid him for the 1/2 lb. it contained.

They are definitely hydroscopic. The can of Schuetzen powder indicated “In order to get the extraordinary ballistic results so much prized in this powder, it is necessary to use materials slightly more sensitive to moisture than ordinary .Therefore, if lack of velocity is shown to be due to the absorption of moisture, the strength of the powder may be restored by drying, which can be done by spreading the powder out in a thin layer in a warm dry place. If it then seems to be too strong, use a little less powder.”

As an example of the different ballistic strength between (a.) a 100 gr. test sample and (b.) another 100 gr. test sample that was dried which then weighed 96 grs., a loss of 4% by weight, please see below:

.22 W.C.F. 5.0 grs
(a.) 970 f.p.s.
(b.) 1,555 f.p.s.

.44-40 17.0 grs.
(a.) 1,075 f.p.s.
(b.) 1,530 f.p.s.

No wonder the factories abandoned the bulk smokeless powders in b.p. cartridges in the early 1900’s for ‘Sharpshooter”, a dense smokeless powder. SR80 was also used although in lesser amounts.

It’s all interesting.

w30wcf

[Bent Ramrod]

w30cf,

Truly there were giants in the earth in those days. Either that or everybody figured black powder was a passing fad. I read somewhere a recommendation to store your powder in a cigar humidor (no explanation given) and it took years and lots of poring over old magazine articles to find out why.

My total SR-80 experience is two half cans, which I blended together. I've tried it in the .44-40, .32-35, .32 Special, .32-20 and .32 Long. I tried 4759 in the .44-40 and didn't get past 15.5 grains; accuracy was nonexistent and lots of unburned powder. The 17.0 gr SR-80 load was quite accurate. That's the problem: if it turns out to be the most accurate powder for a given load while I look at the last few ounces dwindling away.

I didn't know it was gelatinized; it doesn't seem like the granules are that hard. After decades of living in dry climates I haven't had any direct experience with the hygroscopicity of the stuff; just read about it from time to time.

Mostly it's recommended not to mess with old powders but I kind of like seeing how it was in the old days, sometimes. But a modern bulk powder without the problems of the old-time stuff would, I think, be a seller.

[w30wcf]

Bent Ramrod,

I too like to step back in time to see how it was in the old days. I agree that a good bulk powder, impervious to moisture, with a burning rate of, say, 4227 (Dupont No. 2) or 4198 (DuPont No.1) would be fantastic!

w30wcf

[BerdanIII]

I just did a bunch of shooting with J-word bullets in the 7.62x54mmR using Sharpe's data for SR80 and substituting SR4759. Basically, with lighter bullets of 150 grains or so, equal charge weights of SR4759 produced much higher velocities than the SR80 figures in Sharpe's book. As bullet weight went up to 220 grains, the velocities began to come down into line with the SR80 numbers. I used Sharpe's seating depths and the same type bullets he listed wherever possible: 150-gr. M2, 170-gr. RNSP, 180-gr. .30-'06 and 220-gr. RNSP. I also tossed in 150-gr RNSP's, M80 Ball, 147-gr LPS, and 174-gr. BTFMJ's (Hornady).

[Savvy Jack]

Another great oldie I never saw.

Yeap, it was said that Dupont #2 had the same burn rate as IMR4227 and Sharpshooter/SR80 had the same burn rate as 2400, ironically both "Magnum" powders.

[samari46]

I use my dwindling supply of IMR 4759 in the 7.62x54r cartridge. 20.0 grains in old Hansen Cartridge company cases. At the time (over 25 years or do) You had two choices for boxer primer ammo or cases in this caliber. Norma was expensive even back then so Hansen was the only other choice. I use the Lyman 314299 210 grs or so in a 1935 Finn model 27. Frank

[SvenLindquist]

I wish they'd bring back something like a "bulk" powder. It would be a help in many applications.

This is as close as there is:

https://www.midwayusa.com/Product/21...okeless-powder