Data 2200 powder

[fatelk]

I picked up a couple jugs of Accurate Data 2200 powder a while back, and have been trying to work up a .223 load with it.

My understanding is that this powder, the old Data powder as opposed to the newer canister 2200, was a surplus powder. Anyone out there ever notice faster or slower lots with it?

Working up a load, I'm using both a Rem 700 in .223 with a 24" barrel, and an AR 5.56 with a 16" barrel. I'm using 55fmj bullets. My chronograph seems to be accurate, as I've tested it with factory rounds that clock pretty much where I expected. The jugs were sealed, look and smell fine.

The issue I'm having is it appears to be slower than expected. I'm going off the data on the jug label, and data for the newer 2200 (close to the same), but the measured velocity is significantly less, by at least 200 fps for the listed maximum. I even went over the listed maximum charge by a fair amount with absolutely no signs of excess pressure, even in the tight .223 chamber.

I'm not terribly concerned about velocity, and accuracy seems good at this point, but this is a significant discrepancy from what I expected. Anyone else experience this sort of thing? If it's a normal variation with surplus powder I'll just continue my load development.

[TCLouis]

Do you have this loading data?

http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-con.../04/DP2200.pdf

I found velocities were pretty close, but never chronographed loads in the 222 or 223.
Seemed to give me weird results in 7mm TCU, but not in the 6.5

Mine is all OLD original batch of 2200.

30 Herrett the velocity was spot on with the manual listing at the upper end.

[Pardini]

It's been many years, but as I recall from my use of a small portion of an eight pounder velocities were well short of what the data indicated they should be.

I've got a page or two of data somewhere in my files that was included with the powder when I brought it from Widners. Ill dig it out, if your interested.

[fatelk]

Yes, I have some of that data, but that sheet has more calibers listed. Thank you. I haven't tinkered with it any more yet, but will when I get time.

It's been many years, but as I recall from my use of a small portion of an eight pounder velocities were well short of what the data indicated they should be.

Thank you, interesting to see that it's not just me. Honestly it really seems to behave like a slower burning powder. I went above max in a 223 chamber and velocity was rising, and no sign of pressure issues.

My previous experience with surplus powders is that some lots burn quite different from others, and I'm wondering if I got a slow lot. I'm tempted to keep carefully working up a load, maybe in a couple other calibers as well for comparison sake, and see where it takes me. I'm not too concerned about maximum velocity, just want to understand what I have and find a good load.

I would never do load development beyond published data with canister grade powder, so I was wondering if anyone else had seen burning-speed variations with this powder before. I even called Accurate but they weren't much help beyond saying that there could be more variation in the old surplus 2200 than the new commercial 2200.

[Artful]

Yeah, I've seen surplus powders not match what previously listed data said it should do - I've seen it go both ways - slower and faster. Being your chronographing and watching for pressure signs (are you measuring the base of case expansion as well as looking at the primers) I'd watch for the plateau in speed and increasing pressure signs and not be too concerned about the data info you have found.

[fatelk]

No I haven't checked for case head expansion yet. I've never done that before at all actually, wasn't sure precisely how.

I just found a good description from Hodgdon, think I'll give it a try: http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/relo...-rifle-reloads

The only problem was that I didn't have any virgin brass, so I pulled down a box of cheap FC fmj ammo I had. I'm looking forward to carefully and scientifically trying it out the next time I get a chance. Thank you for the suggestion.

[gutpile]

I used lots of it making m193 clone never chronyed it. But shot way better than LC military ammo. Used it for 300m I was loading just below listed max in the listed data

[Lloyd Smale]

Ive used a lot of 2200. It was all the same powder. When AA sold it it was back when they bought huge lots of suplus powder and repackaged it in nicer containers. For many years that's all AA sold. Like you found its a bit slower then 2230. In my testing it gives slightly better velocity deviations too but then 2230 is far from bad at this. it was a powder that all the bench rest shooters swooned over back in the day. I still have one last jug of it and I just load it using 2230 data and don't worry about getting the absolute last fps out of it. Wish I could find a time machine to go back and buy a bunch more. While Ive got the machine id like to go back and buy another case or two of pr200 too.

[fatelk]

It sure appears that this stuff is very different than modern commercial 2200.

I finally got a chance to get out to the range for some more testing. I loaded some .223 55fmj and some .308 147fmj, chronographed them, and even had a series of progressively heavier loads in some virgin brass that I had carefully measured with a Mitutoyo micrometer. I marked the brass and listed measurements in my notebook.

Based on all this, I would say that the lot I have is definitely slower than 2230 or even 2460, more like TAC. My measurements of case head expansion showed maybe .0003" expansion on my heaviest load, whereas the info I found on the Hodgdon site says that 4 to 5 ten-thousandths is about max pressure in a .223 Rem, so I think I'm on the right track. My chronograph data for the .308 jives with the thought that it's pretty close to TAC. Yes, I know it's not actually TAC and I can't make any assumptions past my specific tests; I'll be careful. I've played with surplus powders before and I know the precautions to working up loads that aren't in the book.

I'll play with it a little more. I haven't even started accuracy testing yet. I'm actually glad it's slower than originally thought. Thanks for the help everyone.

[Hossfly]

Got some 2200 about 4 years ago that was at least 10+ years old at the time from old reloader in town. Worked up load for .223 thru Thompson, just chrono. And watching for pressure signs, for this particular gun got to 24 gr. With best accuracy at 3250 FPS. At 25gr. And a little faster speed started getting larger groups. Backed off to 24 and have stayed there ever since. Very good results
With that old powder. Even had lumps in the old powder, had to dry out some and mixed well to get back to good flow consistency, works well. He had about 50# at one time but less than 20 now,
Would love to find a keg like that I’d buy it in a min. Bullet was 55 FMJ for plinking and lead tip for hunting 1-9 twist 20” bbl. Thompson Oncore.heavy fluted. Never showed any signs of high pressure.

[Lloyd Smale]

could be. My experience with it comes from back in the 80s when AA first resold it. I bought a bunch of it surplus years ago and those two powders were the same. From my loading notes they fell somewhere between aa2230 and varget. real close to 748 ww or wc846.

It sure appears that this stuff is very different than modern commercial 2200.

I finally got a chance to get out to the range for some more testing. I loaded some .223 55fmj and some .308 147fmj, chronographed them, and even had a series of progressively heavier loads in some virgin brass that I had carefully measured with a Mitutoyo micrometer. I marked the brass and listed measurements in my notebook.

Based on all this, I would say that the lot I have is definitely slower than 2230 or even 2460, more like TAC. My measurements of case head expansion showed maybe .0003" expansion on my heaviest load, whereas the info I found on the Hodgdon site says that 4 to 5 ten-thousandths is about max pressure in a .223 Rem, so I think I'm on the right track. My chronograph data for the .308 jives with the thought that it's pretty close to TAC. Yes, I know it's not actually TAC and I can't make any assumptions past my specific tests; I'll be careful. I've played with surplus powders before and I know the precautions to working up loads that aren't in the book.

I'll play with it a little more. I haven't even started accuracy testing yet. I'm actually glad it's slower than originally thought. Thanks for the help everyone.

[Buckshot]

.............My data comes from a page printed off Jan of 2001. Don't know how to scan pages in so I'll just quote some:

30/30 Win, 170 SPR Max Chg 25.5 grs, 1993 fps, 38.1 K PSI
7.62x39 150 SPR Max Chg 26.3 grs, 2131 fps, 48.8 CUP
35 Rem 200 SRA Max chg 35.0 2126 fps, 31.0 K PSI
45-70 405gr LFN Max chg 48.0 1849 fps, 25,700 CUP

I have personally used the 7.62x39 and 35 Rem data in 2 SR Mausers converted to these cartridges along with the bullet weights listed without any issue whatsoever, and these were listed as Max. Use personal due diligence. Pay attention and start with a lighters slug and reduce the (Maximum) load 10% to start.

..............Buckshot

[Hardcast416taylor]

I`m sitting on a full 8 lb. jug and another 8 lb. jug 3/4 full. I used it with the data sheet that came with it back then. When 2230 came around that is all I used after that. Don`t know why I`ve never gone back to using the 2200 powder.Robert

[ipopum]

I used 2200 to shoot a bunch of Prairie dogs back a few years ago. I think I went thru 2 jugs . It always worked well for me . Shot all weight of bullets with it. I would have to look at my records to find what loads I used.

[mattw]

Digging up an old thread here... This weekend I broke out the 2200 Data and did my first set of loads in 221 Fireball with the Sierra 1400. I am not sure why I never tried this combo, but it is really good. Daughter shot some 100 yard ragged one holes with it. I used it a lot in 223 and 222 Mag and it was stellar in both.

I am about out of this powder, still have quite a bit of 2230C and 2230S. They were also very good 222 Mag and 223 powders.

[Shiloh]

Haven't seen the 2200 data powder in decades. where did you stumble across it??

Shiloh

[mattw]

I purchased 30 pounds more or less, years ago from a commercial reloader that I worked with on weekends. I wish I could get more, it has been a cheap workhorse for me over the years.

[borg]

At one time Data was selling it for $32.00 an 8 lb jug,, bought 80 lbs of it. It has been a good, cheep powder for the AR 223,, in fact that what I still use for my deer and Hog hunting

[Lloyd Smale]

you must be thinking of exterminator. Tac is slower then 2230 which is slower then 2200. Tack is even a Bit slower then 335. Unless you got some odd ball rejected batch that was to slow.

It sure appears that this stuff is very different than modern commercial 2200.

I finally got a chance to get out to the range for some more testing. I loaded some .223 55fmj and some .308 147fmj, chronographed them, and even had a series of progressively heavier loads in some virgin brass that I had carefully measured with a Mitutoyo micrometer. I marked the brass and listed measurements in my notebook.

Based on all this, I would say that the lot I have is definitely slower than 2230 or even 2460, more like TAC. My measurements of case head expansion showed maybe .0003" expansion on my heaviest load, whereas the info I found on the Hodgdon site says that 4 to 5 ten-thousandths is about max pressure in a .223 Rem, so I think I'm on the right track. My chronograph data for the .308 jives with the thought that it's pretty close to TAC. Yes, I know it's not actually TAC and I can't make any assumptions past my specific tests; I'll be careful. I've played with surplus powders before and I know the precautions to working up loads that aren't in the book.

I'll play with it a little more. I haven't even started accuracy testing yet. I'm actually glad it's slower than originally thought. Thanks for the help everyone.

[cwlongshot]

Whats old is new again...

I guess Im a new comer to this powder. I never realized it was around a while.

Last year when I was working up loads for a couple
25/45 Sharps. It seemed any one who had been down this road was recommending AA2200. I have used up a few pounds of 2230 but did not have 2200. I found some a shop in VT. It was a like a magic powder. Groups shrank and velocities jumped yet pressure signs stayed hidden. I was able to reach nearly 2900 with a 110g FTX (20”Bbl) along with 3/8” 100 yard clover leafs.

I have since tried it the Grendel and 223/556. It shoots well but hasnt been night and day as it was with that 25 Sharps.
I have enjoyed this with a number of calibers and stopped. Meaning I found THE powder for that caliber/firearm.

748 - 30/30
H335 - 7/08
4831 - 270
4350 - 30/06
H380 - 22/250
RL7 - 375 Win
AA2200 - 25/45

I doubt Ill load a different powder in the above calibers.

CW