"Clean" burning powders

[Land Owner]

As a hand loader, and sensitive to the crud and corruption that is deposited on and in my guns through high volume over various powders, I sought to consider "cleaner" burning powders (and hopefully one or two single powders) for all the following calibers: 380ACP; 38 Spc; 357 Mag; 45 ACP; and 45 Colt with the Colt being sensitive to leading (I have got to slug that bore and its cylinders).

I have migrated from Unique, which I am discovering, here, is considered by most (Sticky at the top) to be a mighty fine mid-range powder for many/most mid-range weight boolits, to Hodgdon Clays and IMR 700X.

At the time I was experiencing a lot of unburned Unique in my chambers and barrels under jacketed bullets prior to purchasing a good bit of these two "shotgun" powders for use in my handguns. Now I am not so sure that I did such a good thing.

I am "off the chart" for cast boolits, extrapolating charge ranges from jacketed and Cowboy loads. I am poised to reload, am at the edge, but have not taken that plunge to put manufacturer's recommendations (there are not any) aside.

I was hoping to "mine" this site for data. I may be going about it all wrong. I am 10 pages deep and have not located much 700X and Hodgdon Clays data, which may be instructive in itself.

Where do we go when we're effectively "off the page" and the Mfg's have not published for the moulds, even the Lyman 4th Ed. is not instructive for these powders and the boolit weights I have cast. Dang there are a lot of variables...

[excess650]

Clays and 700x are similar in burning rate to Bullseye. Solo 1000 is another clean burner about the same burn rate.

Universal Clays and SR-4756 both burn cleanly and are closer in burn rate to Unique than the aforementioned powders.

I shot a couple 12# kegs of 700x through a couple 45 autos after deciding Bullseye and WW231 were dirtier than I cared for.

Your powders seem OK to me with the exception of 357, and it will be fine there for light to midrange type loads.

Hogdon't burn rate chart will give you relative positions of 144 powders, and is available on the 'net.

[Land Owner]

Good of you to say. I am poised to use either powder on 150 gr. x 0.358" dia. WC's from a Lyman 358-91 mould without any specific support from Mfg's.

Is an SST Ruger SP101 357 Mag "as stout as" (within caliber) its older Brother the 45 Colt BlackHawk? Mfg's always provide cautionary higher-pressure loads for the BlackHawk. I have seen nothing similar for the SP101 or other Ruger handguns.

Here's the set up:
I want to shoot 700X or Clays from my 357 Mag H&R Handi-rifle, a chamber I believe to be "stouter" in a relative way to the SP101, but not exclude firing common rounds through the SP.

I want to shoot the noted Lyman WC's, in 38 Spc cases, positioning bullet seating such that COL is less than the maximum 357 Mag and more than maximum 38 Spc. (pretty easy to do).

I think a 700X min. load is 3.0 gr. and a max. is 4.2 gr., which are derived from the Hornady 7th Ed. for 357 Mag. x 140 gr. Cowboy cast WC boolits and Clays from Hodgdon's on-line manual for Cowboy 357 Mag. x 158 gr. lead SWC's of 3.2 gr. min. and 4.6 gr. max.

Am I steering into shallow waters?

[Rocky Raab]

Burn rate charts are fine for very general comparison, but never try to extrapolate load data from one.

"Dirty" powders are generally operating below their optimum pressure range. Either upping the charge a bit or switching to a faster powder usually solves the issue of unburnt kernels and soot. It is not a good idea to try to clean up dirty powders by switching to a hotter primer. That can lead to unpredictable results, not all of them good.

Some powders are cleaner because of newer chemistry. Solo 1000, Clays, Accurate No.2, Ramshot Zip, and TiteGroup are some that fit in that description.

Edit to add: and another powder is rapidly becoming my "clean" favorite: American Select.

[thegreatdane]

One vote for Titegroup.

[swheeler]

LO; just a quick look in IMR Handloaders guide shows lead bullet loads for every cartridge you list using 700X, except 380 acp.

[Char-Gar]

I don't get it. Seems like in the past few years, shooters have become powder fouling adverse. I have been at this for a very long time and I clean my guns and wash my hands. I use whatever powder does the best job and pay no mind to whether is is dirty, clean or cleaner.

[Land Owner]

Rocky Raab provides a realistic answer to the "clean" vs. "dirty" issue that makes sense. I have not been on this site over the years in which you been posting. Please don't crucify me for asking.

[Char-Gar]

Land Owner.. Nobody is going to crucify you for asking, just get ready for some answer you may not want. That is the way things work around here.

In your best interest, I would caution you against "mining this site for data". There are many, many folks who will accommodate you with that request. But, you have no way to evaluate that data. Some folks know what they are doing and others talk a good game, but are as dumb as a box of rocks. I have seen data posted on this and other sites that is down right dangerous.

If, you are indeed "off the page", I would suggest you get back on the page, until you can make your way into the unknown without having to place your trust in folks who you do not know. That could be a bad mistake.

[Rocky Raab]

LO, if you wish to, you may PM me at any time. I answer any and all questions - and especially from somebody in Mims. That guy still have his own private "Rocket Garden" there on the east side of Hwy 1?

[thegreatdane]

Well said chargar

[Land Owner]

That guy still have his own private "Rocket Garden" there on the east side of Hwy 1?
The place I am thinking is just south of NASA Causeway (SR 405)...and north of the Orlando Utility Commission power plant. Not any longer. It has been about 5 years or a little more. He cleaned it up, packed up his restored Sherman Tank too to places unknown. Lotta cleanup changes when the land values shot up in the early 1990's. Now the Boom is Bust and soon, with the Space Center layoffs a reality, the possibility of returning to the Ghost Town days of post-Apollo and pre-Shuttle are looming large.

chargar, I read a lot of posts here, more than 1,500 today. I do not know if what I have proposed has been tried by others or if I am steering into shallow water. So I asked. Many of my questions remain unanswered, even if incorrectly, which I would hope would get some push back for the more experienced casters.

There are a lot of folks here that work "off the page" due to no known reference. The "standard" reply appears to be to load to a bullet that is close (above in wt.) and back off a percentage from published data. I note that you are a straight shooter, advocate keeping all of your fingers, toes, arms, and face intact, and find pause with those that drift. Good advice to stay within the published data to take advantage of the Mfg's margins of safety (MS). What is the purpose anyway of experimenting with one's personal safety? I am not ready to change the way God made me.

By extrapolation from cast bullets above and below in the data I have on hand, I appear to be within the MS, but have not seen the data specifically for the bullet that I wish to load. swheeler says to locate the IMR Handloaders guide and I will do that. I do not believe I am truly "off the page", just unverified.

[bhn22]

I don't get it. Seems like in the past few years, shooters have become powder fouling adverse. I have been at this for a very long time and I clean my guns and wash my hands. I use whatever powder does the best job and pay no mind to whether is is dirty, clean or cleaner.

I agree. Unique is one of my favorites. I clean my guns regularly, and at least wipe them down after every session. I've found Titegroup to be dirtier than Unique with cast bullets, but still use both. One other issue you'll always have is that bullet lube smokes too, and can be quite dirty.

[Catshooter]

Land,

Welcome to the site.

I too prefer clean vs. dirty, even though I'm an old fart not unlike Chargr.

You might give Universal Clays a shot. I have found that balistically it is very similar to Unique, it works very well in a wide variaty of cartridges. I've used it from 9mm to .45-70. Unlike Unique, it is very clean.

I have found it to be a very forgiving powder, to me it seems to have a gentle pressure curve that has to go quite a ways before it gets violent. I once didn't see a cloth that was sitting just underneath the charge pan of my powder scale and thus accidently loaded some 9mm with 7.8 grains of it. The 115 JHP left the barrel of my Glock 19 at over 1700 fps. The reading on the chronograph confused me the first time, I though perhaps it was a mistake so I fired another round. Same reading. When I picked up the two empty cases neither had primers in their pockets, they'd both fell out! I believed the chrono then! Way overloaded.

Good luck.


Cat

[Land Owner]

Thanks Catshooter. One could infer certain "irregularities" from a handle like that. Not to worry. I once purchased bumper stickers that read "I love Cats...Dead Cats" and "Cats...God's Little Speed Bumps". But maybe I am off base...hehe.

For comparison, what would have been the "normal" for your 9mm?

[35remington]

I've had a few zinged at me by Chargar for a few things; and yeah, we still do disagree about topics.

Posts like this get a lot of response.

But the point's well taken; try everything, not just the clean burning stuff, because it really doesn't matter that much compared to a load that is more accurate or has something else to recommend it.

Ballistic consistency is a quality not limited to the "clean burners"as I can list several old standards that will beat them.

A lot of the "clean burners" haven't made the short list of accurate powders yet.

I presume the Clays and 700X dispense well from your measure? The lighter charge weights appropriate for 380 and 38 Special are not dispensed accurately from some measures according to the claims of many. The Lee Pro Auto Disks are not reliable below somewhere around 3.5 grains weight, which would eliminate Clays from many loads, for sure. Above that weight, as in significantly above, the Lee disks do really well.

Many criticize 700X especially because the flakes are said to be curled slightly. This buggers up repeatable metering, many say.

As far as loading nonstandard cast bullets and the lack of data, best advice for pistol cartridges is to compare bullet seating depth first and foremost when looking at loads. Also bearing surface and length. This is unfortunately not easy to determine from data sometimes. And start low with fast powders like 700X and Clays. Clays is a bare tick faster than Red Dot but for some reason Hodgdon seems unenthusiastic about recommending anything above sorta midrange loads with it in many cartridges. 700X is a bit more versatile.

For specialized, accurate loads in the rifles/carbines a different or slower powder may well provide better accuracy than either of these choices can make possible. In fact, I'd put pretty heavy coin on that. Those two powders might be cleaner burning but they are a limiting choice in many ways.

In the clean burning horserace, the VV powder shooters have declared themselves the winners and Clays and 700X are has-beens by comparison. Probably to justify paying 10 bucks more per pound for them.

They seem to be quite happy.

[Land Owner]

A lot of the "clean burners" haven't made the short list of accurate powders yet.
Now that is a profound statement and I didn't make it clear that I am on the quest for an accurate powder.

I also didn't know that
"Dirty" powders are generally operating below their optimum pressure range. Either upping the charge a bit or switching to a faster powder usually solves the issue of unburnt kernels and soot.

So, I have several opportunities with the powders and components on hand.

I have the RCBS powder measures with both large and small charging hoppers. The small hopper dispense very well for Ball, Flake, and granular powders in charges as small as 2.0 grains.

[GH1]

I load for .380 and .357 using AA# 2 and 9, respectively. I find them to be very clean burning. Accurate has data for the .45 ACP using #2, but not for the Colt. They do have loads listed for all of your guns using AA#5, but you're not going to get full power out of your .357 with it. For that you'll need #9.
What I like about #9, along with it's clean burning, is for the .357 is it doesn't require a magnum primer. I have a very small area in which to reload so if I can save space by stocking fewer components I'm going to do it.
GH1

[excess650]

Good of you to say. I am poised to use either powder on 150 gr. x 0.358" dia. WC's from a Lyman 358-91 mould without any specific support from Mfg's.

Is an SST Ruger SP101 357 Mag "as stout as" (within caliber) its older Brother the 45 Colt BlackHawk? Mfg's always provide cautionary higher-pressure loads for the BlackHawk. I have seen nothing similar for the SP101 or other Ruger handguns.

***In that its chambered 357mag is testament itself. Its a strong, albeit smallish, revolver. As long as you're staying within 357mag limits, it should be fine. 357mag pressures are higher than the "extra pressure" loads generally listed for the 45 Colt Blackhawks***

Here's the set up:
I want to shoot 700X or Clays from my 357 Mag H&R Handi-rifle, a chamber I believe to be "stouter" in a relative way to the SP101, but not exclude firing common rounds through the SP.

I want to shoot the noted Lyman WC's, in 38 Spc cases, positioning bullet seating such that COL is less than the maximum 357 Mag and more than maximum 38 Spc. (pretty easy to do).

I think a 700X min. load is 3.0 gr. and a max. is 4.2 gr., which are derived from the Hornady 7th Ed. for 357 Mag. x 140 gr. Cowboy cast WC boolits and Clays from Hodgdon's on-line manual for Cowboy 357 Mag. x 158 gr. lead SWC's of 3.2 gr. min. and 4.6 gr. max.

Am I steering into shallow waters?

***no, your 140gr 700x data would be safe in a 38spl with 358495 141gr WC seated conventionally. The Clays data is close to Lyman's 38spl +P 35311 with 4.5gr Bullseye at 18,200cup.

Lyman 47th lists the 141gr 358495 wc in 357 cases over 4.8-6.8 Bullseye. The latter load is 40K cup.

Your alterative seating of the WC effectively increases powder capcity, so powder charge can be increased slightly to achieve the same pressure as with the same projectile seated more deeply. Speer used that same approach with WCs in the 38 S&W case.

If you're going to load beyond +P pressures in 38spl cases, you should mark them somehow so as to not inadvertently fire them from a weaker 38spl.

IMO, "shallow waters" would be trying to load 357 data in 38spl cases even with the same OAL as 357mag. The 38spl cases might be a weak link.***

[Land Owner]

I had not cross-referenced that about 357 Mag pressure being higher than the 45 Colt Ruger BlackHawk loadings. I will look for that. Thanks!

I started loading this morning within the 38 Spc range of 3.9 gr. of IMR 700X, made 17 rounds, a nice prime number, increased powder to 4.3 grains, made 17, and then 4.7 grains and made another 17.

Maybe this afternoon the 357 Mag Handi-rifle will get heated up.

[excess650]

It looks like you could easily seat that WC out and use a taper crimp on the center driving band. This would still allow 2 lube grooves to be in the cases and not prone to attracting grit and dirt. Check near the muzzle and see if you're carrying enough lube so as to prevent leading in that Handi Rifle.

[35remington]

"......I didn't make it clear that I am on the quest for an accurate powder."

If you are on the quest for an accurate powder, I suppose the point was that you've also got to try those that aren't supposedly as "clean burning." It's usually a matter of relatively small degree and miniscule differences in aggravation after shooting. One isn't seriously more difficult to bear than another, cleanup wise.

If you're not on the quest for an accurately shooting powder, many would reasonably ask, "Why the heck not?" Why arbitrarily rule on cleanliness as the most relevant criteria absent those many other more important things? It's best to select a powder based on multiple important criteria rather than placing heavy importance on a insignificant side benefit.

Which is what prompted Chargar (and later, me) to post. It's sort of like buying food not for how it tastes, but rather how quickly one cleans up the dirty dish after the meal.

We old curmudgeons wonder how such things gained such importance.

I suppose the other thing that prompted the posting was that most of the preferred powders cast bullet rifle shooters use on this website are far, far "dirtier" than Unique ever was in a pistol, and this inconveniences us not a bit, because the accuracy is excellent, and that is unarguably the most important thing to a shooter. So the "clean powder only" statement raises a red flag on a site devoted to cast bullets.

This is advanced as a sort of explanation, by the way. Especially in reference to the "crabby" replies. Please don't take this as crabby, but rather just a guy making a point that you may not care about and will therefore ignore. It's hard to preach to the newly converted.

Look up some of those "dirty burners" especially in the rifle/carbine applications.

In reading your posts, I get the sense that you have a lot of handloading prudence in respect to developing properly safe loads, so I do not have fears for your ability to produce workable combinations based on your powder choices. It can be done, just as you've quite rightly suspected. But if you do have a wide range of other powder choices on hand, I'd encourage you to try all of them.

With plainbase lead bullets, I'd sure give that Handirifle a try with 2400, 4227 and similar. No matter how "dirty" they are......and they're a lot dirtier than Unique.

[Char-Gar]

"......I didn't make it clear that I am on the quest for an accurate powder."

I assumed that. I don't think folks come here looking for an inaccurate powder. IMHO accuracy is the goal and how much powder trash is generated in the process is not relevant.

One my favorite powders for cast bullet loads in rifles in WC872. This slow burning ball machine gun powder, leaves lots of fouling in the barrel and often copious amount of unburned powder. But the bullets play follow the leader very well, and for me that is paramount. To hit what you are shooting at is the name of the game. Everything else is a side issue, if an issue at all. It is important to keep a singular eye on the goal. Too many folks get lost in the weeds of minutia at the expense of the goal.

I have a mixed mind about this "off the page" issue. One one hand, I frequently go where the books have not, so I understand the urge to do so. On the other had, many folks try and do so without the necessary experience to chart a safe course. It is not wise to depend on anonymous internet posters to do your navigating for you. You have no idea who can chart a safe course, and who is a total unsafe idiot. Depending on internet folks to warn you away from dangerous waters, may be a form of foolishness all of it's own. If you choose to do that make certain you have fresh batteries in your BS detector.

One of the first lessons in life is to know the difference between your friends and you enemies. Your friends will tell you the truth and what you need to hear, even thought you might consider it "crabby" or out of line with the intent of your question. Those who are not looking out after your interest, will peruse their own and throw BS at the wall and hope some of it sticks..well sticks to you anyway.

There is nothing I post on this board, that puts a nickle in my pocket, a star in my celestial crown, nor massages my ego. It is all for you, crabby or not.

[Land Owner]

I've been hand loading for 20-plus years but casting bullets for 2-minus days (10-weeks to get equipment together to cast some lead 50/50 WW ingots). Some of my 358-91 cast WC's look poor, did not fill out the grooves completely in the cold mould pours, have rounded bases, and I had thought to recast all of them, about 500, but have been encouraged to just shoot the "average and above" of them, about 300.

My first try to pan lube was a mess. There is gummy wax/lube from the bottom of the base to the top of the WC. The Win. 30-30 case (0.405" less twice the thickness) isn't a close tolerance to the 0.358" bullet. There is a lot of excess lube. That almost got me to throw in the towel and recast all of them.

Even wiping most of the top and bottom lube off by hand, the seating die gums up every 20 rounds. I am trying to get through this rough spot.

Yesterday, I picked up another 50#'s of WW's! Add that to 50#'s of the over 600#'s of lead shielding I have and I can make another 100#'s of 50/50 ingots.

For now, perfection and accuracy are not the immediate goal. I have made some cast bullets, pan lubed them, and now loaded some (of the nicer ones). I am finding pit falls to the left and right. Stuff happens. I am not discouraged.

Do you guys remember the first time, when everything was impossible? Kind of like puberty and getting to first base with a date.

[Char-Gar]

I started casting in the late 50's with a plumbers gasoline fired furnace and a single cavity Lyman mold filled by a dipper. I had an old timer show me how to join the dipper and the mold at a 90 degree angle and then tip the mold down and the dipper up in what he called "force casting". The furnace got the cast iron pot to glow red in short order, so the alloy was plenty hot. This resulted in a good bullet first time out.

I started with a Lyman 45 machine and skipped the pan lube stage. It was about 7 years before I had my first real bottom draw furnace. It was a 10 lb. Lyman. I thought I had died and gone to heaven. It made life so much easier, although I doubt the bullets were any better.

For the most part I was working by myself with only a Lyman cast bullet handbook as a guide. So, I didn't get any feedback and didn't know what was possible and not possible. In spite of it all, I got some good results. I started with the 45 ACP and the first rifle round was the 25-20.

We judged alloy hardness by smacking one ingot with another. If it went "thud" it was pistol alloy. If it had a ring to it, it was rifle alloy.

I would opine that today's beginning casters have too much information and expectations that exceed reality. The whole process of casting bullets isn't really all that hard. If a fellow would just shut off the damn computer, buy the new Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, his life would be far simpler. Providing of course, he read it and did what it said. At least, that is my thinking on the matter.

[btroj]

I think the whole "clean thing" started with shot gunners. They don't seen to like powder fouling in their barrels.
I don't see any real world difference between clean and dirty powders in my rifles when using cast. I really like 2400 with cast in most rifle cartridges. It can leave unburied powder in the barrel. So what. It pushes out easily and never seems to cause a problem.

I see powder "cleanliness" as more of a marketing ploy than anything. My lube leaves more goo than any powder ever will. I just find an accurate load and go with it. How clean the powder is, or isn't, is never even considered.

Much ado about nothing.

Brad

[Land Owner]

...expectations that exceed reality...

I do not understand. Is this from your posting experience? Are they looking for instant accuracy? That is to be worked for and earned. Rarely does it occur on the first shot. You are lucky if it does.

Information should not, imo, be overlooked. You are more than correct to caution that not all are friends with "fact" or "accuracy" in their posted data. It is a caveat emptor society (let the buyer beware).

You can not foresee how your information, based on 60-plus years of valuable experience, is going to operate in my guns, through my barrels, after the immeasurable minor variations that I unintentionally apply, which are different than your own. No one can anticipate the results. It is always an experiment, within reasonable bounds.

[peerlesscowboy]

As a Trapshooter and shotgun shell reloader I'm surprised to hear anyone describe 700X as "clean burning" :veryconfu

[btroj]

I think Chargar is speaking of people who come here asking how to get jacketed accuracy at 2700 fps with a hollow point that will stay together for good penetration on elephant. Oh yeah, I want to use LLA and refuse to pay for gas checks.

That is not reasonable for any caster but a noon asking that question obviously has no idea what he is talking about.

Get valid info from a valid source when you are starting put.a Lyman manual is a darn good starting point. Read it, understand it, follow it. Then go cast, load, shoot. ALOT. Learn thru observation. See what works and what doesn't. Start low and work up. What changes as the powder charge increases?

Learning at the range can not be replaced by the Net. Period.

Brad

[Char-Gar]

Land Owner... Let me try and sharpen that up a bit. New casters come to this board and perhaps others and listen to the chit-chat, wisdom and BS. They take away from that expectations that may not prove to be reality based. There is a learning curve and often folks get frustrated and come back to seek advise. What they get is a mish-mash of experience and opinions often flavored with wishful thinking.

In a nutshell, new casters often can't distinguish between the BS and the true stuff. That produces expectations that are no reality based. "Back in the day", we didn't have all of that flood of information and disinformation. We just plodded along casting and shooting.

I would like to give a hearty amen to the statement of Brad. "Learning at the range can not be replaced by the Net. Period". That says it better and shorter than I can say it. Hang out at the range and you will know for yourself what works and does not work. Hang around the computer and you are at the mercy of strangers who may or may know know what they are talking about. This does not mean there is no value to this and other boards for indeed there is. However, without the experience to evaluate what is said, you are in a world of frustration and confusion.

[excess650]

As a Trapshooter and shotgun shell reloader I'm surprised to hear anyone describe 700X as "clean burning" :veryconfu

My father shot trap and skeet in the late '60s through the '70s and used 700x as a cleaner burning alternative to less costly Red Dot. I shot 700x in my 45acp rather than Bullseye or WW231 because it was cleaner.

The newer "clean burning" and "reduced recoil" powders seemed to show up in the late '80s and early '90s.

[USSR]

I think the whole "clean thing" started with shot gunners.

Yep, at least for me it did. Used to use Red Dot for trap and skeet. My local gun shop guy suggested I try Solo 1000. I did, and never looked back. Cleaner and recoils less. I'm using it now for .45 Colt loads. IMHO, it's a great powder for that application, as it is a bulky powder and light loads nearly come half way up the case.

Don

[btroj]

The clean burning thing is great in a shotgun.but you are not running a lube down the shot gun every shot. I believe that much of the clean burning argument with cast is moot. The lube leaves a fair amount of crud in the barrel, depending upon what lube you use.
I just don't see changing powders just to get "cleaner" burning. To get velocity, accuracy, something tangible yes, clean? No.

Brad

[peerlesscowboy]

My father shot trap and skeet in the late '60s through the '70s and used 700x as a cleaner burning alternative to less costly Red Dot. I shot 700x in my 45acp rather than Bullseye or WW231 because it was cleaner.

The newer "clean burning" and "reduced recoil" powders seemed to show up in the late '80s and early '90s.
I suppose it's all relative? I burn a lot of 700X in my 1 oz singles loads, it's a good powder but leaves a lot of residue in the barrel. IME, Clays & Intl Clays burn much cleaner. Not a biggie unless I suppose you're shooting a gas operated auto and worried about clogging up the gas system.
Anyway, getting back to cast bullet shooting..........Unique is one of my all time favorite powders for "just packin' around" revolver loads and mild "punkin' roller" rifle loads, can't say I've ever noticed undue amount of unburnt powder with it? I guess it's all a matter of perception [smilie=1:

[35remington]

That, and the fact that pistol loads likely are running several thousand psi higher than shotgun loads, which is the single biggest factor in "clean burning."

[NoDakJak]

I began handloading in 1962 and casting about ten years later. My experiences and opinions are a virtual mirror of what Charger has stated.
PB is possibly the most under rated powder utilized in the cast boolit field. It measures extremely well and is possibly the cleanest burning pwder that i have ever used. The burn rate is somewhat similar to Unique and has replaced it in most of my pistol loads. I have began experimenting with it in cast rifle loads and results are most promising. There was quite a bit of published data on this powder about twenty five years ago but the new ball powders aced it out in popularity. I suspect that was because of madison Avenue advsertising. PB was at that time and remains a great powder for the astute handloader. Neil

[felix]

I agree, PB should be used a lot more often. ... felix

[gnoahhh]

I'll side with guys who consider clean burning to be superfluous. I personally don't care about what remains behind in the barrel after a shot is fired. It's going to get blown out by the next shot anyway, and as such is not cumulative. What you see in the barrel after a shooting session is that which was deposited by the last shot. Since one is (probably) going to clean the gun at that point it doesn't require any more effort or time to clean a "dirty" bore than a "clean" one. As long as a load is accurate I could care less if it burns "clean".

Also, count me in as a believer in PB. Great for low pressure loads in vintage shotguns, reduced loads in rifles and a surprising number of pistol loads.

[targetshootr]

For pistol calibers I have loaded, Clays seems to burn cleanest followed by Universal. Universal burns at nearly the identical rate as Unique except your gun doesn't feel greasy after using it. Dirt is no big deal but grease is unacceptable.

[SciFiJim]

PB is possibly the most under rated powder utilized in the cast boolit field.

I agree, PB should be used a lot more often

OK, I checked the burn rate chart and couldn't make it out. What is "PB"?

[Jack Stanley]

OK, I checked the burn rate chart and couldn't make it out. What is "PB"?

A Dupont powder . I think the PB means porous base .

Jack

[SciFiJim]

OK, I found it. It's an IMR powder. I never noticed it before. I learned something today.

[Rocky Raab]

PB is the sole remaining example of what was once a line of powders using the then-new porous base technology. Porous powder kernels allowed the technicians to use different additives than merely coatings. That was envisioned as a superior way to tailor ignition, rise rates and burn duration. Other even better methods were soon developed, and the porous line slowly dwindled to just one: PB.

The fact that it is still made attests to its usefulness. It is one of those powders that gets zero attention, but quietly goes about its business with no marketing glitz. Other unassuming powders include 4320, 4756, 7625, and Herco.

[megafatcat]

At the range picking up empties I have noticed Win 9mm brass that was so clean that it looked new on the inside. What powder are they using?

[Mavrick]

Because I had a bunch left over from my trapshooting, I used 700x in my .45ACP and my .41Mag, steel-shooting revolver. (ya don't need magnum loads for THAT, and light stuff is prolly better) I used 700x 'cause it was cleaner than the Red Dot that I wanted to use.
If you want an exercise in frustration, try to get an older gas-operated auto to work with doubles in trap. It'll work just fine, but you'll have to keep an "eye out" during the course of a Grand. That's a lot of shooting at one time.
The switch to revolver rapid-fire games brought similar problems, many of which were solved by the same means. I continued to use 700x, eventho' I like RD. I just need to clean the action more with RD.
I've used a bit of Pearl, as it's advertised to be clean. It also "bulks up" a little better than BE, so tends to give slightly better SDs. Both are very good in the large case I use, even with standard primers.
In a .45ACP, 700x, Pearl, and Clays work great for bulk-shooting, ie steel, as a lot of ammo goes downrange in a short period of time, and it doesn't take long to "gum up the works." I use lead for everything, so lube also becomes important, in this regard.
I shoot trap and steel to shoot more in a short period of time. I just like to shoot!! Competition gives me a method to score skills. Am I good? NO!! But I sure have fun.
All my loading is done on a single-stage press, too. It keeps me away from the TV.
I hope you have as much fun as I do...
Gene

[CATS]

Great info on PB. I was gifted a couple cans of PB and hadn't started any load work with it yet.

For wheel guns, a light/heavy crimp will have some impact on how clean some powders will burn.

CATS

[KYCaster]

I see the same thing in this thread I've run into in every discussion of "clean burning powder".

Are you talking about powders that don't leave any unburned flakes?? Do you mean powders that leave a minimum of ash and combustion residue?? Two very different things.

With a few notable exceptions, most powders will burn completely when used within their appropriate pressure range, but still leave lots of ash and crud to gum up the works.

For example, my S&W 625-8 with fairly generous chamber dimensions. Unique works very well for a wide range of bullet weights and velocities, but doesn't build pressure fast enough to completely expand the brass to seal the chambers. The result is hard extraction and difficult reloading due to combustion residue build up in the chambers after very few rounds. Change to Universal and I can go a hundred or so rounds till I have a problem because it leaves so much less ash than Unique with nearly identical pressure and velocity.

Same deal with an AR. Surplus WC846 should work great...right? After all that's where it came from...pulled down 5.56 ammo.....and its(was) really cheap....but after 50 or so rounds I'd get malfunctions. Scrub the bolt, carrier and chamber,oil liberally and I'm back in business. Well, that will work, but switch to Ramshot X-terminator and I can run 300+ rounds without a hiccup.

Bullseye and Clays is another example. Both will work fine for light loads in a variety of cartridges, but at the end of the day, your gun, your hands, your sand bags....everything will be much cleaner when using Clays.

Oh, get a couple of unburned flakes of AA#5 under your ejector star and see how long it takes to get your wheel gun back in action...normally not a problem with Unique, but can be with Universal.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Some of these effects are very subtle and some are dramatic. Some are not even worth considering for your application and your experience may be completely different than mine, but please do me a favor and tell me what you mean when you mention "clean burning".

Have fun...
Jerry

[Mavrick]

I think we're looking at two, different things.
A noob will look down the barrel and see a couple/few unburned/semiburned flakes and say it's dirty. That stuff gets blown out on the next shot.
I believe what we're talking about, especially competitors that put a lot downrange in a short period, is a light powder that sinksd into every pore and hole of the gun. With a revolver, it will build up in the cylinder/barrel gap and cylinder axis. It'll cause a drag and slow the process down...could even to the point of affecting scores. It'll also get into the trigger works.
In an auto pistol, it'll get in through the action, and mix with lubes and slow the "works." It'll also accelerate wear.
If you're not going to be shooting a lot, such as hunting, or a little plinkin', it won't matter much, 'cause you'll be cleaning the gun before long. If you don't get into the small parts, it'll stack up over the years. We've all bought or handled a gun that was so bunged up it almost wouldn't shoot, but when we got in and cleaned it, it worked just dandy.
The initial problems with the ARs was a very dirty powder, and the gas system that focused the residue into the action. That's the reason I would never own an auto rifle that didn't have a piston system, if my butt would be 'on the line.'
I was a small arms repairman from '65 thru '68 and cried for so many guys, some friends, that found a problem at the wrong time. Many guys would clean/reclean their weapon at every break. That powder is no longer being used, so the problem is lessened. Also the humidity is different in the latest rendition of conflict. That's also the reason for the a1, the little 'jack handle' on the side.
Any conflict I get into now would be of very short duration.
The residue seems to be caused by the retardant, as new componants seem to cause less in the newer powders, if it's important, such as military ammo.
Scott Powders advertised cleaner powders because of better nitocelluose, cotton instead of wood, and therefor better for trap or skeet shooters. That technology is easily applied to pistols. Scott powders seem cleaner in my .45 and .40s. Many times I believe there is an increase in flash, but I don't compete at night, so there is little matter.Have fun,
Gene