Small grey spherical mystery powder.

[TES]

So I was given 32 pounds of a small dark grey spherical powder pulled down from factory Winchester or Federal shot gun shells. It is hotter than universal....any guesses ?

[Skipper]

If it's from factory pull-downs, it's probably a noncannister powder. No way to tell what it is; you will just have to figure out the burn rate.

[rsrocket1]

Fertilizer!
Otherwise 5 grains in a 45ACP under a 230g lead bullet or 5g under a 120-150g lead bullet in a 38 special shot out of a 357 magnum or lever rifle or 10 grains in a .308 or 30-06 and you're good to go.

You won't be able to determine it's maximum pressure unless you have a piezo measuring device because you will most likely blow up a gun or at least stress it excessively before you see typical "rifle" pressure signs (flattened/pierced/blown primers or extractor marks).

It would have been good to measure the powder as it was pulled from the shells, then you could have reverse engineered the equivalent load by payload weight, hull and wad and at least gotten a better ballpark burn rate.

[NuJudge]

Do you know what gauge the shotshells were? Do you know if they were all the same load/same lot number? Were they field or target loads?

There is a softcover publication from Wolfe Publishing called "Propellant Profiles" that might help some, but as noted above, Commercial ammo is loaded with non-standardized lots of powder.

I'm cheap but I would spread or burn that stuff.

[BD]

Three things would help. First, a picture of the shells it came from, (military? commercial?). Second a picture of the container it came in. Third, measure five grains and spread it in a single granule thick "disk" on a plain white piece of paper with a dime next to it for reference, and take a close up picture so a person could see the granules. From your description it sounds like it could be a non-canister lot of Clays, (or HPC-18, the non canister 231 used by the military). But in the picture it looks more like WC-297, (slightly flattened little spheres), but that would be slower than Universal.

If you have 32 pounds of it, it would be well worth the time to find a safe use for it.

[BD]

The other question is where you are in the world, US? West? central? South? Northeast? If you're near me, (hardly anyone lives near me), I have a fair library of canister and non canister to compare it to. Probably there is someone not too far away from you who could help you in that way.

[fecmech]

With 32 lbs of it I would certainly determine it's approx burn rate and use it.

[Hamish]

Just about like clockwork, every year, we get a thread where someone comes up with a quantity of powder that they can't identify, asking for help. And a few folks start hollering "Fertilizer!", but really, the thing of it is, if you treat it like the fastest powder on the chart, start with a starting charge, (personally, as said, I would use a pistol) and pay attention to the possibility of a squib load,,,,,,,,.

Test it up, work it up, shoot it up.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Just about like clockwork, every year, we get a thread where someone comes up with a quantity of powder that they can't identify, asking for help. And a few folks start hollering "Fertilizer!", but really, the thing of it is, if you treat it like the fastest powder on the chart, start with a starting charge, (personally, as said, I would use a pistol) and pay attention to the possibility of a squib load,,,,,,,,.

Test it up, work it up, shoot it up.

I'd agree with the above. The use of an unknown powder needs extreme care, and you have to ask yourself why somebody tore down that many shotgun cartridges. But 32lb is 32lb., and you should be able to do something with it if it really is a shotgun powder and you proceed with extreme care. It isn'oot like it is a rifle powder, where a small load in a large case may give rise to a dangerous wave pressure. By far the most common causes of failure in modern shotguns are structural impairment and bore obstructions, neither of which apply.

I have "The NRA Gunsmithing Guide Updated", which is an excellent book, although not all that much updated by 1980s standards. But it includes an article on pistolsmithing by the gunsmith to a US military pistol team, which mostly consists of advice not to do any pistolsmithing. He also says is is an important skill to be able to recognize the different powders by appearance. I think this is dangerous advice, and a much more important skill is the ability to keep them labeled.

If you are set on destroying it, though, you could dampen it with a solvent (probably alcohol, though you might need to add some ether or a little of a powder or celluloid which alcohol does dissolve. Then you can make a rocket of the kind you can't buy any more, by compressing it into a strong cardboard tube with a tapered mandrel to make a tapered hole. You
would have to let it dry thoroughly, use a long fuse and set it off in a location where nothing can go wrong. But I think it would work.

[William Yanda]

" But I think it would work."
Is that another way of saying; "It looks good from my house"?
Ducking and running
Bill

[Maven]

"...but really, the thing of it is, if you treat it like the fastest powder on the chart, start with a starting charge, (personally, as said, I would use a pistol) and pay attention to the possibility of a squib load. Test it up, work it up, shoot it up." ...Hamish

That's exactly how I'd proceed. (Been there, done that.)

[Ballistics in Scotland]

" But I think it would work."
Is that another way of saying; "It looks good from my house"?
Ducking and running
Bill

All right, for those who require clarification, use a long fuse and don't watch it burning from close up.

[runfiverun]

compare it to known powders from a known source.
i.e start at bulls-eye and chrono the two side by side [grain for grain], then move to red-dot then to green-dot, unique etc.
use something light and safe [2.7grs of b-eye under a 125-140gr boolit in a 357 revolver] until you see a close-nuff comparison [3.2grs of each gives you 780-800-fps type stuff] to then start working loads with the new powder.
what this does is determine a burn rate and make the unknown a more known entity to you.
you should then be able to use the powder you have in some pedestrian type loads until it's gone.

[biffj]

Compare it to known powders? Since you can only compare appearance and not all that well how does that help? So many powders look similar yet they have vastly different characteristics. Is it really that important to risk blowing something up to use up a powder that could be a mix of who knows how many different types? Are we really so cheap that we need to use up unknowns as well? I like to save a few bucks like the next guy but if I don't know what it is it gets tossed. No amount of savings is worth damaging a toy or myself. I like the idea of dissolving in acetone and making rocket engines. At least a long fuse and distance from the possible damage is more appealing.

Frank

[runfiverun]

because powder produces gas volume when burned, it also has to produce pressure to push the boolit down the barrel.
if you take 2 similar powders from 2 canister grade cans and compare them side by side [red-dot and 700-x for example] you will get similar results at the chrono-graph.

the only way to determine the approximate speed of this powder is to compare it to a known entity.
start at the low end [fast powder speed] and work down the burn rate until you have a comparable load.
then use that known to make a more educated guess as to how you should proceed.

this ain't difficult don't make it that way.
it's pretty close to how the factory's choose their loads when the next box car of powder rolls in.

[bdicki]

because powder produces gas volume when burned, it also has to produce pressure to push the boolit down the barrel.
if you take 2 similar powders from 2 canister grade cans and compare them side by side [red-dot and 700-x for example] you will get similar results at the chrono-graph.

the only way to determine the approximate speed of this powder is to compare it to a known entity.
start at the low end [fast powder speed] and work down the burn rate until you have a comparable load.
then use that known to make a more educated guess as to how you should proceed.

this ain't difficult don't make it that way.
it's pretty close to how the factory's choose their loads when the next box car of powder rolls in.

I agree, that close to $500 worth of fertilizer.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Compare it to known powders? Since you can only compare appearance and not all that well how does that help? So many powders look similar yet they have vastly different characteristics. Is it really that important to risk blowing something up to use up a powder that could be a mix of who knows how many different types? Are we really so cheap that we need to use up unknowns as well? I like to save a few bucks like the next guy but if I don't know what it is it gets tossed. No amount of savings is worth damaging a toy or myself. I like the idea of dissolving in acetone and making rocket engines. At least a long fuse and distance from the possible damage is more appealing.

Frank

Not dissolving, but slight moistening and compressing into a slightly porous mass. Acetone might or mightn't do it, but a mixture including this or alcohol with ether surely would. If you mixed it into a liquid slurry and it was double base, you might get beads of nitroglycerin, which is seriously antisocial stuff.

A microscope or strong lens would be useful for a close look. Many powders include different sizes or shapes of grains, but not very different, or there would be a danger of separating out in transit. There may also be taggant grains, designed to remain unburnt to identify it for forensic purposes. But the grains should be rather alike.

[runfiverun]

since it's a flake powder and not a ball powder and you mention shot-shells I'd go with federal.
[I'd even go out on a limb and say the burn rate is gonna be close to red-dot or green-dot, federal used to use commercial PB in their gold medal trap shells]

[funnyjim014]

32lbs of powder of any kind is not lawn food. If its clean and smells ok its wourth the time to determine a close enough burn rate. If i was to try, i would get a 357revand load a standard 38 148 whatever under 2.8 to3gr anc see whathappens

[Elkins45]

As others have said, if you start by assuming it is the fastest powder known and work from there you can figure out a "close enough" approximate burn rate by comparing weight to weight with known powders.

look at it this way: if you don't already own a chronograph this gives you a perfect excuse to buy one.