Substitute powder question

[Yooper003]

Can someone tell me why when two different powders are right next to each other on the burn rate chart, that one will be recommended for a certain cartridge & the other not. In theses times with powder impossible to get I am looking for substitutes. I realize that pressure to weight ratio will be different but by taking other cartridges that show use of both powders & figuring the % difference & applying this couldn’t I come up with a reasonable starting load. Right now I am looking at 38/55 loads, H110 & 5744 are right next to each other on the chart. Accurate #9 is also right there also. I can’t find either of these listed for 38/55.

[Electrod47]

There is a technical reason. Every loading manual known to man always has a disclaimer concerning Burn Rate charts. It generally says do not use burn charts for comparing different powders to replace one another. I know it seems it should be easier.

[littlejack]

Different powders (even ones next to each other in burn rate) have different burning characteristics; i.e. pressures created by the powder, bullet weight, volume of the cartridge case, amount of crimp, back pressure from projectile, amount of case fill per type of powder, etc. That's just a few examples of what will change burn rate of your powders.
Remember:
The only thing absolute in reloading is, nothing is absolute.

[rancher1913]

just because they are next to each other on a chart does not mean they are remotely close to each other in real life.

[jim147]

Burn rate does not equal pressure, volume, loss of eyes etc. it gets much worse on the fast end but there is a reason we work up loads.

[Ford SD]

Can someone tell me why when two different powders are right next to each other on the burn rate chart, that one will be recommended for a certain cartridge & the other not. In theses times with powder impossible to get I am looking for substitutes. I realize that pressure to weight ratio will be different but by taking other cartridges that show use of both powders & figuring the % difference & applying this couldn’t I come up with a reasonable starting load. Right now I am looking at 38/55 loads, H110 & 5744 are right next to each other on the chart. Accurate #9 is also right there also. I can’t find either of these listed for 38/55.

Not a expert on this but

I Know w296 can not be reduced and has to .... Has to be used as published or very bad things can happen

W296 is mainly used in small cases and 5744 is used in larger cases

5744 can be used reduced ... can be used with a darcron filler and used all the way up to 100% fill

Imr 4895 is almost the same as H4895 ... but is not the same

But H4895 can be reduced to 60% load density and is marketed as one of the extreme powders .... less variance with temp changes

[Yooper003]

I hear what all of you are telling me, but,just looking in a loading manual for loading 150 gr. Bullets in a 308 I see 26 different kinds of powder listed. This doesn’t count loads with red dot & unique. Kind of makes me think there should be loads for more than 4 or 5 powders for the 38/55

[littlejack]

Here again. That's like comparing apples to donuts. Different shape case ( bottle neck vs straight wall), different operating pressures, different projectile size, and bore size. Yes other powders may be used, but the ones tested and recommended performed best.

[RickinTN]

H110 is unsafe if reduced by more than a small percentage. 5744 should be a good powder in the 38/55. Contact the manufacturer for data. Red dot, Unique, and others are also good powders for the 38/55 but won't deliver top velocities. They do deliver the "Fun" factor very well.
Good Luck,
Rick

[farmbif]

4198 and rx7 are the go-to powders for 38-55 and 375 win. if you got some 1680 there is a good chance if you email western powders they will send you some load data for what you want to load. I'm no ballistics expert and trust my eyes fingers and firearms to proven published data.

[uscra112]

A copy of Quickload will be far more helpful than trying to interpolate burn rate charts. Their powder database is based on actual testing they do themselves. I've been using it for years now to work out powder choices and loads for long-obsolete cartridges for which there is no handbook data and never will be.

Only time QL was significantly off was an instance where their case capacity data for the 19th century 40-65 blackpowder round had been taken from an original balloon-head case, while we had modern solid-head cases.

!!! Really fast powders like Red Dot in the 38-55 case will produce SIGNIFICANTLY higher peak pressure per unit velocity than more suitable powders. Use only for low velocity loads. This is the kind of thing Quickload will teach you.

Fastest powders I would use in a case that size are Blue Dot and 2400, except for real quiet "cat-sneeze" loads.

5744 does not work very well at reduced pressures. Leaves a lot of partially burned kernels behind.

You might be surprised how well Lil'Gun will work for moderate loads.

8208XBR is only marginally faster than 4198.

[40-82 hiker]

5744 should be a good powder in the 38/55. Contact the manufacturer for data.
Rick

I agree.

5744 would be a good powder for this cartridge. I shoot a lot of it, and it is greatly misunderstood. Its burning characteristic, over a very wide pressure range, means it will leave some not completely burned grains at lower pressures. However, that is part of its characteristic, and does not mean it is not a good powder. I get very consistent results with this powder without any filler. I use 5744 in 45-70 and 40-65, and used to use it in 40-82.

I just googled "38-55" Winchester 5744 load" and found useful information. The advice to contact Accurate for load data not listed in their load chart is a great idea and might work, but I notice now that Accurate is part of the Hodgdon Powder Co. I would still try it. Years ago the Western Powder ballastician in Montana was very helpful, talking with me a number of times on the phone about their 5744 when I first starting using 5744 around 2011/2012.

I agree with the others commenting about burn rate charts. They are useless beyond certain points. Pressure curves from powder to powder can be very different. Powders next to each other can have maximum pressures that are far too different to guess how they could be used. Use ONLY published/tried and true load data.

I really like 5744 myself, and would have no qualms about using it for your needs. However, with most powders being unobtanium these days, I would use whichever of the advised powders listed you can find. Your choice might not be the best, but at least you're shooting.

As a parting shot, the fact that H110 and Accurate 5744 are next to each other on the chart is about the scariest thing I can imagine. Their pressure curves, and thus their useful characteristics, are so far apart as to stretch imagination. H110 has a VERY narrow load range before blowing things apart in BOTH directions (load density up and down). On the other hand, 5744 has about as wide of load range as one can imagine. But, next to each other? Wow!

[uscra112]

I've never used H110, don't ever expect I will. But where does this notion that its' pressure-time curve is so different from 5744 come from? And that it will "blow things apart" if not loaded to some particular density.??

[40-82 hiker]

Just stating that H110 has a narrow range with consequences, and 5744 has a very wide range of useful pressures. I like both, but they are drastically different to be next to each other on burn charts. Go figure...

Your mileage apparently differs.

[uscra112]

But why do you think so? What's the data that supports your assertion?

[40-82 hiker]

Okay, I'm just looking at the general characteristics of both powders. H110 has issues with detonation if you go below a certain point, and pressures that climb drastically if above a certain point. Known characteristics.

5744 does not have detonation issues in nearly any application in which I use it. Also, while I use it in original BP cartridge rifles, it can be used in more modern loads in much higher pressures. I rely on Western Powder ballisticians for this information. I wish I could remember their names. One gentleman was from South Africa (?) and left Western as he was tired of the cold Winters, and then his replacement.

It's late, and I'm done for the night. Please call Accurate for more info on 5744, but talk to the guys that test/research it. Yes, 5744 is fast, but again what is being said by myself and others, is that these two could not be any farther apart in their uses and pressures curves, but are listed next to each other. YMMV.

[uscra112]

Smokeless powder does not - CANNOT - detonate. Its' chemistry is utterly incapable of it, no matter who says otherwise. This is an pernicious urban myth that needs to be put to rest, but like herpes, it just keeps coming back.

The two are close to each other because their bomb tests produce nearly the same data. The data that Quickload got from their testing places H110 slightly slower than 5744.

A verifiable difference is that 5744 ignites easily when loaded at low densities in large cases, while (allegedly) the deterrent on H110 makes harder to get it going. If there's any reason to choose 5744 over H110, for reduced loads, that would be it. Downside of 5744 is that it does not burn consistently until it gets up to around 20,000 psi., as SDs from my Chrony bore witness. I burned several pounds of it years ago when I first started shooting cast, so that's first hand info. I no longer use it, because my interests have migrated to smaller cartridges at milder pressures. Still have some around, but if I ever go back to the big military cases, Varget will answer better.

[Yooper003]

Here again. That's like comparing apples to donuts. Different shape case ( bottle neck vs straight wall), different operating pressures, different projectile size, and bore size. Yes other powders may be used, but the ones tested and recommended performed best. I guess I am not making myself clear.I am not comparing 38/55 to 308 .I am just saying if there are 25 to 30 powders for 1 cartridge there should be many more powers that I can find listed for another less popular one. Also. I am aware of the data on H110, I use it in 44 mag & 357 mag. But,I found loading data on H110 in 357 maximum,though a little shorter than 38/55 not that much different. I had just enough RL 7 to load 10 loads & it was great but can’t find any more.just looking for other powers that I might find that will work.

[littlejack]

I guess I didn't make my explanations understandable. Sorry.
Endever to persevere.

[uscra112]

There are, but the .38-55 not being as popular a cartridge as the .308, the powder makers don't bother doing the testing necessary to add loads to their handbooks, paper or online.

The .357 Max and the .38-55 are quite different. The Max has a case capacity of 33 grains water, the .38-55 is 52 grains.

FWIW the modern Schuetzen guys, who are shooting plain base bullets at speeds in the 1400 fps range, use #9, 4100, 4227, and sometimes 1680. #9 is faster, and better suited to smaller cartridges like the .25-20 Stevens, but for a while was the preferred powder for the .32-40. 4227 is now filling that role again. 4100 and Ramshot Enforcer are the same powder under different names. 1680 is almost identical in speed to RL-7. Playing with the Quickload model, it emerges that Benchmark, being just a bit slower than 4198, might be worth a try for loads in the 1850 fps range, and/or heavier bullets. 4198 of course was once the canonical powder for cast bullet hunting loads in the .38-55 and its' sibling the .30-30, assuming strong actions. Those loads would overstrain the old Ballard and Stevens 44 actions that I play with now.

https://www.neconos.com/quickload-ballistic-prediction-software/

It's up to $150 now, but once you learn to use it you'll never look at powder-makers burn charts again.

[Yooper003]

The Benchmark load sounds interesting, I do have a little bit to try. It was out of stock also, along with 322,1680,4895 & 3031. I couldn’t seem to find an accurate load with 4198. As I stated earlier, I got the best groups with RL 7 but can’t find that anywhere. I was spoiled and only buying powder by the pound locally, playing with many different loads in 8 different cartridges. The 38/55 I am playing with now is an Encore with a MGM barrel.

[uscra112]

So you're wanting to load up to hunting velocity? What's your bullet weight and what's the seating depth?

[Krag 1901]

Look at the burn rate chart on the Western Powders site. It doesn't give a 1-X listing but groups the powders by mfg and characteristics. Much more info IMHO.

[uscra112]

Burn rate charts are very, very limited. They do not, (cannot) for example, tell you the progressivity rate for a powder, nor do they tell you the total heat liberated per unit weight. There is a parameter in the Quickload model that relates to how much the burn rate is affected by pressure. Interior ballistics is not simple. It can't be reduced to a one-dimensional ranking in a burn-rate chart.

[Yooper003]

So you're wanting to load up to hunting velocity? What's your bullet weight and what's the seating depth?

I have 2 molds.both are listed as .379. The Lee is 250 gr. The NOE 235 gr. I powder coat both boolits. I have WW cases & starline. Can load .379 in starline, .377 in WW cases the Lee boolit loa 2.500 the NOE 2.430.

[uscra112]

Overall length doesn't help unless I know the length of the bullet. What counts for the model is how much of the bullet is inside the case.

[Yooper003]

Overall length doesn't help unless I know the length of the bullet. What counts for the model is how much of the bullet is inside the case.
Just measured cases.WW cases are 2.081 & Starline cases 2.078 Lee boolit extends .500 into case ,NOE .452 . Lee weights 250 gr. NOE 235 gr.

[uscra112]

OK.

For the NOE 235 grain seated .452 deep, the model says that 34.0 grains of Benchmark gets you 1810 fps from a 20" barrel, peak pressure 28552 psi.

For the LEE 250 grain seated .500 deep, the model says 33.0 grains gets you 1766 fps at peak pressure 29581 psi.

Quickload cites the European MAP spec for max pressure, which is 34000 psi., so you have some headroom there.

FWIW 25.0 grains of 5744 puts you in the same ballpark.

Somebody mentioned using Dacron fiber filler for reduced loads. DON'T. The stuff melts instead of burning up, and getting that residue out of your cases and your gun is a royal PITA. Ask me how I know. I bought a cubic foot of KAPOK fiber years ago, which is far better. Since then I've migrated away from using filler at all, so I've got enough to share and then some.

[Yooper003]

Thank you very much uscra112, that gives me another option to play with. Good to know about the 5744 load also. Ihsve been loading 5744 but in the 21 to 23 gr. Range. That program certainty is great. But, I am a 83 old that does not own a computer who relies on someone like you for help. Again thank you very much!

[RogerDat]

This is a page from ADI who is the original manufacturer of many powders sold under other brand names. It shows equivalency between powders that ADI makes (+/- 5%) simply put ADI makes it and different companies put their own brand on it. Very useful for finding an equivalent powder by a different manufacturer.

http://www.adi-powders.com.au/powder-equivalents/

For example I saw Reloder 7 mentioned ADI makes (and sells it) as AR2207

Here are a list of what other powders are sold from the same source. with possibly minor differences in additives or coatings.
H4198
Reloader 7
IMR4198
W680
Tu 2000
N200 - Norma
N130 - Vihtavuori

I also find their load data to be a useful source. One has to then use the equivalency chart to locate a powder sold here because the load data list the ADI name for it but they sometimes have loads I have found difficult to find. 303 Enfield 220 grain bullet was one that I recall. Guess those Aussies shoot a bit of everything through the Enfield so lots of loads.

http://www.adi-powders.com.au/rifle/

[uscra112]

You're welcome Yooper003. Wish we were closer; I could root out some RL-7 from the powder store for you. It was my choice for the 200 grain hunting load for my .35 Remington, but at 76 with some age-related handicaps I haven't any hope of carrying that Marlin into the woods again.