Same powder, different name

[scattershot]

Red Dot/Promo

[turtlezx]

yes by weight not volume

[Lloyd Smale]

Whoa! Not on my planet! WC820 - I bought 24# of this from Jeff Bartlett some time back. It was for loading 30 Carbine and was alleged to be a non-canister version of H110, which makes perfect sense. It is slightly slower than lots of cannister grade W296, and takes a half or a grain more in 44 mag to get an equivalent velocity of W296, which is an H110 twin (made in the same process line and interchangeable.)

While #9 is similar in burn rate, I would not call Wc820 and AA#9 twins by any stretch.

well ive burned a good 10 kegs of it and have 4 more. it is aa9 and the only explination is you got a keg of 297 because that is the surplus that wouls give you those results. AA started as a company that repackaged big lots of surplus like bartlett but bigger. back then when they came out with aa9 they said it was surplus 820.take a look at it it is even different looking then 110 and looks identical to aa9. now there was a fast lot of 820 (i had a couple kegs) it was fairly close to 2400. it wasnt really surplus. more of a mistake when making that the government rejected it but it was sold as surplus. but there was never a slower batch that would show the results you are getting. ive ran thousands of loads over chronographs with the same charge of both in everything from the 41 mag to the 475 and 500 linebaughs and probably a good half of what i used was in 44mags. aint my first rodeo

[Lloyd Smale]

Red Dot/Promo

yup, redot without the red dots

[MostlyLeverGuns]

The folks working on AI are probably not particularly understanding of many, many technical concepts. There are multiple powders with the same number that are not identical and there are multiple powders that are 'identical' that have varying names and numbers. Then there is the difference by lot number of the same powder, though very small, but still different. Could be a while before some AI platforms figure it out. Asking EXACTLY the right question is critical to AI.

[Kosh75287]

I've burned over 5 pounds of AA#5, and ZERO Alliant Power Pistol, but I'd be VERY apprehensive about using load data for one powder to load the other. For one thing, it is probable that the two data sets were developed in different labs, which introduces variability from the outset.
Alliant lists 6.4/Power Pistol/124 gr. Speer GDHP as a maximum recommended load for 9mmP, standard pressure. No pressure figure was cited, and the c.o.a.l. used was 1.12". Velocity was 1157 f/s from a 4" barrel. Accurate/Hodgdon/Whomever lists 6.0/AA#5/124 gr. Speer GDHP as their maximum recommended load, and lists the chamber pressure as 35,000 p./s.i. They list their velocity as 1067 f/s. The c.o.a.l. is 1.105". A comparison of the two propellants in .357 Magnum, using 125 gr. JHPs (not the same brand), the difference in loading data is less apparent.
In a high(er)-pressure pistol cartridge with small case capacity like the 9mmP, it MIGHT be argued that the difference in max loads is explainable (in part) by the different seating depths of the same projectile. I think a more cogent explanation is that the two propellants have burn rates that are different enough that their loading data are not generally interchangeable.
I also agree that Red Dot and Promo are LARGELY interchangeable, though I have not used either in maximum performance loads. I asked one of the folks at Alliant about it, who cautioned that Red Dot had a specific density spec, while Promo did not. In the course of loading 10s of 1000s of pistol/revolver rounds using Promo powder, with Red Dot data, I have never noticed even a slight difference in performance, much less a troublesome one. This includes the use of Promo in place of Red Dot, in reduced-velocity cast bullet rifle rounds.

[firefly1957]

I still have one of the old steel cans of WW-296 from the 1970's and at the time it was darker and different burn rate then H-110 I could put 2-3 more grains of H-110 in a .357 case before I had the same pressure signs as ww 296 with same bullets . Hecules powder names are the same in alliant but the powders are not the same look I wonder if they actually load the same ?

Here is a list I saved of powders that are currently the same .
Powders that are the same

Herter's 164 = Nobel 64
Power Pistol = Bullseye 84
HS-6 = W540= True Blue
Enforcer = AA#9 =H108 = WC820
H110 = W296
RL-15 = varget
H4831SC = ~ AA3100
W231 = HP38 = Ramshot Zip
W540 = HS6 =True Blue HS-6 = W540= True Blue--HS6=W540, but NOT True Blue
W571 = HS7
W760 = H414
WAP = Ramshot Silhouette
WC680 =AA1680 = H116
W820 = H108
Win 296 = H110
Win 785 = H450
WC 844 = H335
WC 846 = BLC(2)
452AA = Trap 100

[Kestrel4k]

Excellent listing, firefly; what few equivalents I know are confirmed w/ your list.
I could say that you're far beyond "AI", but that would be in the category of 'faint praise', lol.
Occasionally I need to refer to older reloading manuals that have 'outdated' data w/ older powder nomenclature.

[firefly1957]

Excellent listing, firefly; what few equivalents I know are confirmed w/ your list.
I could say that you're far beyond "AI", but that would be in the category of 'faint praise', lol.
Occasionally I need to refer to older reloading manuals that have 'outdated' data w/ older powder nomenclature.

Don't praise me I saved the list from this very forum but did store it for recovery at such times ! I have long had WW 680 on the shelf with little loading data now I can work up loads off of AA -1680 if needed . I originally bought the powder for .44 Magnum there was a load in a old magazine (1980's) caught my attention . The load was for a 240 grain cast bullet cast of zinc so it weighed 170 grains and was doing 2400 f/s from a 6 1/2" Model 29 . I lost the load information and have never cast with zinc I did use some in my 10" 30-30 contender under 110 grain bullets . Today I use AA-1680 in a 357-44 B&D in a custom 27" barrels with a Hornady 140 FTX bullet .

[MostlyLeverGuns]

RL15 and Varget are NOT the same, similar to IMR4064, Accurate 4064, just close though all work well in the .308 Win. MY RL15 is just a tick slower than MY Varget, yours may vary. WC846 has significant lot to lot variations, BL-C2 lots are more consistent, but WC846 is mostly very close to BL-C2, same comment for WC844 and H335. My H414 and Win 760 are very close, both well over 20 years old. Age and lot number can cause considerable discrepancies. Recent HP38 and 231 are the same, HP38 from 1985 may be 'JUST A LITTLE' different than 231 made in 1997. Moderate loads might be fine but top loads should be backed off a couple grains and worked back up when powder lots change. My BL-C2 is much faster than 'published' book loads in the many manuals have. I have 3100, H4831, and IMR 4831 - all vary a couple grains in my 300 Mag with the same case, bullet, and primer. Said before, the may be the same, UNTIL THEY ARE NOT.

[firefly1957]

RL15 and Varget are NOT the same, similar to IMR4064, Accurate 4064, just close though all work well in the .308 Win. MY RL15 is just a tick slower than MY Varget, yours may vary. WC846 has significant lot to lot variations, BL-C2 lots are more consistent, but WC846 is mostly very close to BL-C2, same comment for WC844 and H335. My H414 and Win 760 are very close, both well over 20 years old. Age and lot number can cause considerable discrepancies. Recent HP38 and 231 are the same, HP38 from 1985 may be 'JUST A LITTLE' different than 231 made in 1997. Moderate loads might be fine but top loads should be backed off a couple grains and worked back up when powder lots change. My BL-C2 is much faster than 'published' book loads in the many manuals have. I have 3100, H4831, and IMR 4831 - all vary a couple grains in my 300 Mag with the same case, bullet, and primer. Said before, the may be the same, UNTIL THEY ARE NOT.

In my post I did mention this was current list older information is not the same I know that from having older powders . I think what happened is some companies either merged or consolidated manufacture to one place . Alliant seems to have made many changes from Hercules I would question older reloading books and work up slowly!

[rintinglen]

Prior to ~2006, HP38 and WW231 WERE different.

HP 38 was 231 that did not meet spec. When a lot of 231 was tested and found to be outside the normal 5% range allowed for lot-to-lot variance, Hodgdon would buy it and market it as HP 38.

Cerca 2006, Hodgdon entered into an exclusive agreement to market Winchester powders and the Saint Marks Powder factory began making larger lots and Hodgdon just filled both sets of bottles with the same powder and stuck different labels on them.

[atfsux]

W231 = HP38 = Ramshot Zip

Well that explains a lot.

I have been using HP38 and W231 (either or, interchangeably) for years as my primary powder for 9mm, .45acp, .38spl. and .40S&W,...until the powder shortage during the pandemic that is. About the only similar burn rate powder I was able to get my hands on (and at a cheaper price, I might add) was Ramshot's ZIP. So I converted over for the duration until HP38/W231 was available again. I did find it curious that the load data I found was so very similar to that of W231/HP38, but it never dawned on me that it could possibly also be the same powder.

Between the unopened 4 lbs. jug of ZIP I still have and the five 1 lb. cans of HP38 I recently scored at a yard sale, I guess I'm pretty much stocked up for a while.

[trapper9260]

RL15 and Varget are NOT the same, similar to IMR4064, Accurate 4064, just close though all work well in the .308 Win. MY RL15 is just a tick slower than MY Varget, yours may vary. WC846 has significant lot to lot variations, BL-C2 lots are more consistent, but WC846 is mostly very close to BL-C2, same comment for WC844 and H335. My H414 and Win 760 are very close, both well over 20 years old. Age and lot number can cause considerable discrepancies. Recent HP38 and 231 are the same, HP38 from 1985 may be 'JUST A LITTLE' different than 231 made in 1997. Moderate loads might be fine but top loads should be backed off a couple grains and worked back up when powder lots change. My BL-C2 is much faster than 'published' book loads in the many manuals have. I have 3100, H4831, and IMR 4831 - all vary a couple grains in my 300 Mag with the same case, bullet, and primer. Said before, the may be the same, UNTIL THEY ARE NOT.

I know that Varget and IMR 4064 are close because I use it in place of Varget. The charge weight are close ,like was stated start low and work your way up. But in the end the amount are close .

[BadgerShooter]

Accurate 2520 - Shooters World Match Rifle

[Messy bear]

Please be careful guys! Current number 9 is NOT the same as enforcer/ 820 / h108.
It was back many years ago but not now. It is considerably faster. Mine is virtually identical to 2400.
You are correct that when number 9 was repackaged, it was 820 surplus. But that’s along time ago. Bottles have to be orange and black to be old enough. As was pointed out, there was a slow lot of 820. I only had it once long ago. The first I had. The 277 and 320 lots of 820 are for most purposes identical.
Number 9 has had 3 different speeds and has remained the same for quite awhile now. But currently it shares no place with any other ball powder. Hope this helps

[Messy bear]

well ive burned a good 10 kegs of it and have 4 more. it is aa9 and the only explination is you got a keg of 297 because that is the surplus that wouls give you those results. AA started as a company that repackaged big lots of surplus like bartlett but bigger. back then when they came out with aa9 they said it was surplus 820.take a look at it it is even different looking then 110 and looks identical to aa9. now there was a fast lot of 820 (i had a couple kegs) it was fairly close to 2400. it wasnt really surplus. more of a mistake when making that the government rejected it but it was sold as surplus. but there was never a slower batch that would show the results you are getting. ive ran thousands of loads over chronographs with the same charge of both in everything from the 41 mag to the 475 and 500 linebaughs and probably a good half of what i used was in 44mags. aint my first rodeo

You guys are both right- there WAS a slow lot of 820. Not common and only saw it very early in this 820 game. Majority of it was produced around 1970. I have the two most common lots-
277 and 320. This off of the 150 lb kegs that Olin batched for the government. Even gave us the data sheet that had all the contract info on it. Those WERE the source.

[MtGun44]

Chat AI is a crock, never trust it. It lies without batting an eye.

Hard fact, from a member of the Hodgdon family, a friend, H110 is the exact same powder as W296. Bought from the same maker, two companies, two names....now
ONE company, two names, same powder.
W231 and HP38, same powder, two names.
HS-6 is W540
HS-7 is W571

These are/were all powders made by St. Marks in Fla, sold to Win and Hodgdon, who marketed them under different names. Any "variations" seen is the same as lot to lot
variations between lots of H110, for example.
All this came directly from a friend with the last name Hodgdon.

H4895 and IMR4895 are NOT the same powder they are SIMILAR powders, different makers. Cannot interchange data.
Same for H4831 and IMR4831, different powders, different makers, similar names.

[dale2242]

My lot of WC820 says to use AA9 data.
I have and that has worked out well.
My lot of WC844 says to use H335 data.
That has worked out well, also.

[Delkal]

Chat AI is a crock, never trust it. It lies without batting an eye.

Hard fact, from a member of the Hodgdon family, a friend, H110 is the exact same powder as W296. Bought from the same maker, two companies, two names....now
ONE company, two names, same powder.

There have been reports of bottles of H110 / W296 that have the same lot number.