Or, they could just pay more attention to what they are doing...
!!! new Hodgedon powder new load data Update 1/21 !!!!!
- Thread starter deepsix++
- Start date
Or, they could just pay more attention to what they are doing...
I’m sorry. I thought when people call themselves dumb and others affirm their self inflicted label, that is not an insult but just simple agreement.
Last edited:
I really don’t want to insult anyone with this, but how about “proof reading“ your powder container’s and not having this label issue dramatization about a powder that isn’t even available for most of us yet.
People are free not to buy this powder on the account of their displeasure with the label.
Getting back to the subject at hand….
IMR7977 -
have not tried Sta-Bal, thought it was really overhyped. However, our son is using some and is well pleased with the SD’s and ES’s. I have been super pleased with Superformance, in my 6.5’s but it is not advertised as temperature stabile or copper eliminating. My 25-06 always had copper fouling issues, shot good, performance on game was good, but when I went to 7977, its a changed rifle. Possibly the best hunting grade rifle I have ever owned.
So, if a Sta-Bil powder with similar burn rate to 7977 comes along, I’ll be giving it a try. As is, I have enough 7977 on hand to last me ten years shooting 20 or so practice rounds before each hunting season and maybe four or five shots on game. (Be 84 years of age in ten years, think I’ll sstill be hunting….You Bet I Will!)
IMR7977 -
have not tried Sta-Bal, thought it was really overhyped. However, our son is using some and is well pleased with the SD’s and ES’s. I have been super pleased with Superformance, in my 6.5’s but it is not advertised as temperature stabile or copper eliminating. My 25-06 always had copper fouling issues, shot good, performance on game was good, but when I went to 7977, its a changed rifle. Possibly the best hunting grade rifle I have ever owned.
So, if a Sta-Bil powder with similar burn rate to 7977 comes along, I’ll be giving it a try. As is, I have enough 7977 on hand to last me ten years shooting 20 or so practice rounds before each hunting season and maybe four or five shots on game. (Be 84 years of age in ten years, think I’ll sstill be hunting….You Bet I Will!)
Then it's their problem, not mine.
If they can't be bothered to read the identifying label, or they are in a big hurry then maybe they shouldn't be reloading anyway...
I have over 30 different powders on hand (probably more) and I don't mix them up.
They are kept in the cabinet L-R with their brand and burn rate, in that order.
One powder on the bench at a time. Never two.
It's real easy.
I did. If people can’t differentiate CFE 223 from CFE Pistol or CFE Black then they aren’t going to differentiate between 4895 or 4756 or whatever is on the label. The same crap happens with Universal/International/Clays. Some people are just not fit.
You have to Read! Though now discontinued SR4759 and current IMR4350 have label covers that had color that was extremely close. The numbers are plainly visible but the powder kernels are very similar in shape. Gotta be careful in the loading room.
Without care, sometimes the Big Bang, isn’t exactly the BIG BANG that was wanted.
Without care, sometimes the Big Bang, isn’t exactly the BIG BANG that was wanted.
Hey bud, I have a pound of that unopened that I got because it's supposed to be like varget but I never used it.
It is 100% not temp stable and probably the worse I’ve ever used. Worked up a load in 40 degree weather that shot 150 fps faster in the 70’s. I didn’t notice it originally as I was just using it for 30-06 hunting loads that were only ever shot in the winter but once I started loading it in rifles I shot year round I bailed on it.
My plan is to replace it with StaBall 6.5 but we haven’t been shooting the 30-06 much lately.
I wonder if the new Staball HD might be a functional replacement for RL26, or if it will be too slow. RL26 gives excellent velocities in a lot of larger cartridges, but is so hard to find, I basically never use it beyond the few lbs I was able to buy several years ago. A readily available throwable RL26 substitute would probably do really well.
Midsouth just emailed an ad for the new Hodgdon 2023 manual, shows the two new powders on the cover.
No updates for the online Hodgdon reloading section yet.
No updates for the online Hodgdon reloading section yet.
I ordered a 2023 manual when I saw your post and got it today, it has loads for the new Staball powders in it. Staball Match looks decent, similar velocity-wise to Varget, doesn't keep up with LVR and CFE in the ARC though, which is a bummer. Staball HD on the other hand looks like an interesting option if it will group, good velocities in cartridges like the 6.5 PRC and 7mm mags and PRC.
New 2023 burn rate chart is out as well:
Fewer of the "english as a second language" foreigners like yourself for one thing, who think they're smarter than everyone else but constantly prove they are not.
Go home.
Inattention in this hobby is quite often self-correcting, often with dire results.
Curious about this as well. I lucked up and have a good deal of RL26 cause a friend dumped several pounds. But the stuff has been impossible to find
looks slower than H1000 and that is already about 100FPS slower than RL26 in my PRCs.
Top velocities in the manual for STB HD are fairly close to H1000 in the 6.5mm, 7mm and 300 PRCs, with HD opening up a bit more gap in the heavy weights with 6.5 and 300. Across a variety of cases/loads, it seems like the most similar existing performer would be Retumbo.
I am going to make a prediction that like the first Staball powder, the others will have a trade-off of some velocity for temp stability. For the situations where they work, they'll give stick powder velocities but just meter better.
That's not necessarily a knock on these powders though, despite my lack of success with Staball 6.5; better metering is a wonderful thing. I'm glad we're seeing these advancements.
That's not necessarily a knock on these powders though, despite my lack of success with Staball 6.5; better metering is a wonderful thing. I'm glad we're seeing these advancements.
New/current 2023 powder burn rate, etc. chart download selection page from Hodgdon. Click on selections to download the proper data as a pdf file.
I buy my powders directly through Hodgdon. My current basic propellants are H-110, W748, W760, and Ramshot LRT.
Speer Homepage, includes load data for 6.5 Grendel. I did considerable load testing for 6.5 Grendel Using this data. You can get into pressure issues with AR's before seeing indisputable signs on the fired brass. This is due to extractor mods needed to fit it into an AR Bolt. The cartridge is especially sensitive to dwell time and heavy bullets. My 24" AR barrel snapped its extractor off without any signs except sooting of the case shoulder. A JP Improved Grendel extractor resturned the firearm to service, but I now reserve that gun for 90gr bullets only. The 20" appears fine, but it's early. I have a spare 20" barrel onhand if needed.
Greg
I buy my powders directly through Hodgdon. My current basic propellants are H-110, W748, W760, and Ramshot LRT.
Speer Homepage, includes load data for 6.5 Grendel. I did considerable load testing for 6.5 Grendel Using this data. You can get into pressure issues with AR's before seeing indisputable signs on the fired brass. This is due to extractor mods needed to fit it into an AR Bolt. The cartridge is especially sensitive to dwell time and heavy bullets. My 24" AR barrel snapped its extractor off without any signs except sooting of the case shoulder. A JP Improved Grendel extractor resturned the firearm to service, but I now reserve that gun for 90gr bullets only. The 20" appears fine, but it's early. I have a spare 20" barrel onhand if needed.
Greg
Last edited:
Getting back to the subject at hand….
IMR7977 -
have not tried Sta-Bal, thought it was really overhyped. However, our son is using some and is well pleased with the SD’s and ES’s. I have been super pleased with Superformance, in my 6.5’s but it is not advertised as temperature stabile or copper eliminating. My 25-06 always had copper fouling issues, shot good, performance on game was good, but when I went to 7977, its a changed rifle. Possibly the best hunting grade rifle I have ever owned.
So, if a Sta-Bil powder with similar burn rate to 7977 comes along, I’ll be giving it a try. As is, I have enough 7977 on hand to last me ten years shooting 20 or so practice rounds before each hunting season and maybe four or five shots on game. (Be 84 years of age in ten years, think I’ll sstill be hunting….You Bet I Will!)
Remember, Hodgdon has never been upright in their advertising of products, nor could their crusher testing accurately describe the things they bought from surplus. That's why for a long time they said Superformance was dangerous in the Creedmoor, progressive powders can't be accurately recorded by crushers; since the burning curve shifts with pressures.
748, 760/414/2700 have always had copper fouling reducers them, that's precisely why everyone howled about them being "dirty".
They didn't have the Bismuth compounds of the newer generation of CFE products, but always had the tin compounds. Anyone curious about that "American military tech", as Hodgy advertised it. Would do well to re-read Hatcher's Notebook, and remember the French discovered it around 1900. General Dynamics simply played around with some Bismuth compounds to avoid the well known pitfalls of using too much Tin.
As far as the "sensitivity" bit, that's 99.7% application dependent; and it's actually the primers issue; not the powder. Lots of good work with pressure testing was done by Dr. Denton Bramwell, years ago on this subject.
If someone ever claims to 'know' what their pressures are, or if a powder is "sensitive" in any given application; but they can't show you any actual traces.....
If someone told you they never used a chronograph, but they knew precisely what their velocities were; because they prayed really sincerely and had a staring contest with components. When you got done laughing and stood back up, you'd know how full of chit they were. Same goes for any claim of knowing what a powder is actually doing in any given cartridge. Also remember that burning rates aren't anything remotely like constant, and are mostly estimated anyway.
Norma stated they use the 308 case, a 147gr ball projectile; and a 30-40 something grain charge for their standard cartridge for burning rate testing.... Does anyone in their right mind, actually believe they loaded it with that much bullseye; to see how relatively 'quick' it is?!!?
Cheers
Attachments
Yeah, I had the same hopes and disappointment for the ARC when I saw the new data. Maybe it would still work well in lighter bullets, but honestly LVR outruns it bigly on the end as well.
Staball HD on the other hand looks like it might be a stud in some of the more overbore cartridges.
Guys understand that this is all book data written with lawyer clauses. Their 22gt data looks anemic as hell, and my rifles don't show psi until 200fps over what velocities Hodgdon states. Just wait till its available and try it for yourself.
Looking at heavier bullets in 7mm PRC, 7mm RM, and 300 PRC, HD seems to give as much or more velocity than any other Hodgdon supplied temp stable-ish powders. Looks like it's very slow though, they don't have a whole lot of loads for 300 WM, and none for 300 WSM. Not the be all end all, but looks like a strong addition for the very over-bore magnums.
Remember, Hodgdon has never been upright in their advertising of products, nor could their crusher testing accurately describe the things they bought from surplus. That's why for a long time they said Superformance was dangerous in the Creedmoor, progressive powders can't be accurately recorded by crushers; since the burning curve shifts with pressures.
748, 760/414/2700 have always had copper fouling reducers them, that's precisely why everyone howled about them being "dirty".
They didn't have the Bismuth compounds of the newer generation of CFE products, but always had the tin compounds. Anyone curious about that "American military tech", as Hodgy advertised it. Would do well to re-read Hatcher's Notebook, and remember the French discovered it around 1900. General Dynamics simply played around with some Bismuth compounds to avoid the well known pitfalls of using too much Tin.
As far as the "sensitivity" bit, that's 99.7% application dependent; and it's actually the primers issue; not the powder. Lots of good work with pressure testing was done by Dr. Denton Bramwell, years ago on this subject.
If someone ever claims to 'know' what their pressures are, or if a powder is "sensitive" in any given application; but they can't show you any actual traces.....
If someone told you they never used a chronograph, but they knew precisely what their velocities were; because they prayed really sincerely and had a staring contest with components. When you got done laughing and stood back up, you'd know how full of chit they were. Same goes for any claim of knowing what a powder is actually doing in any given cartridge. Also remember that burning rates aren't anything remotely like constant, and are mostly estimated anyway.
Norma stated they use the 308 case, a 147gr ball projectile; and a 30-40 something grain charge for their standard cartridge for burning rate testing.... Does anyone in their right mind, actually believe they loaded it with that much bullseye; to see how relatively 'quick' it is?!!?
Cheers
I actually have one of Denton Bramwell's rifles in my collection.
Remember, Hodgdon has never been upright in their advertising of products, nor could their crusher testing accurately describe the things they bought from surplus. That's why for a long time they said Superformance was dangerous in the Creedmoor, progressive powders can't be accurately recorded by crushers; since the burning curve shifts with pressures.
748, 760/414/2700 have always had copper fouling reducers them, that's precisely why everyone howled about them being "dirty".
They didn't have the Bismuth compounds of the newer generation of CFE products, but always had the tin compounds. Anyone curious about that "American military tech", as Hodgy advertised it. Would do well to re-read Hatcher's Notebook, and remember the French discovered it around 1900. General Dynamics simply played around with some Bismuth compounds to avoid the well known pitfalls of using too much Tin.
As far as the "sensitivity" bit, that's 99.7% application dependent; and it's actually the primers issue; not the powder. Lots of good work with pressure testing was done by Dr. Denton Bramwell, years ago on this subject.
If someone ever claims to 'know' what their pressures are, or if a powder is "sensitive" in any given application; but they can't show you any actual traces.....
If someone told you they never used a chronograph, but they knew precisely what their velocities were; because they prayed really sincerely and had a staring contest with components. When you got done laughing and stood back up, you'd know how full of chit they were. Same goes for any claim of knowing what a powder is actually doing in any given cartridge. Also remember that burning rates aren't anything remotely like constant, and are mostly estimated anyway.
Norma stated they use the 308 case, a 147gr ball projectile; and a 30-40 something grain charge for their standard cartridge for burning rate testing.... Does anyone in their right mind, actually believe they loaded it with that much bullseye; to see how relatively 'quick' it is?!!?
Cheers
More people need to understand the truths you've said here. Unfortunately it seems very few do, even right here on this forum.
The only minor quibble I have with your comments is that we can tell if a powder is sensitive to temperature in a specific load, simply by using a chronograph; don't need pressure traces for that. We can also see if it's sensitive to minor changes in other variables like powder charge and seating depth, by the same method. We don't know what the pressure is, as you said, but since pressure correlates to velocity closer than anything else (for a given load, not talking about changing components) we can make some estimations about whether pressure and velocity are changing, and how sensitive a load is to variations.
No idea, I still have a half pound or so of RL26 sitting around from the last time I was able to buy it, probably 7 years ago. If the HD was close to comparable and available to buy, that would count for something. From Hodgdon's data, it does seem like HD probably won't have as much application outside of the big magnums as RL26 does.
I got an email back from Hogdon today and they said it would be available next week on there website
got myself a couple pounds , I'll post my 300WM load findings in couple weeks , I'll do a ladder test in .2gn increments and a one load to see what SD is like and how well it groups .
Similar threads
