"propreitary" powders... :o

[green 788]

reprised from my PR site...

When ammo makers tout "proprietary" powders, they're really just hoping to discourage you from trying to duplicate their recipes. Here are a few reasons they tell you that their powders are blended and "proprietary."

1. First and foremost, they don't want you to try to develop an identical load, using information they have admitted to you, and then have you blow your rifle up and say "Federal said they were using XYZ powder and I weighed some and used the same charge and... BOOM." Lawsuit city, they fear.

2. Secondly, if you can duplicate their loads, you will be less inclined to buy more of their factory ammo.

3. Thirdly, factory ammo is often running at the very high end of SAMMI specs, and they would rather you not know how hot they're loading the ammo. By knowing the powder, you can simply pull a bullet and weigh the charge and say (in many cases) "Shazam! I can't believe they're using that much 748 in that 150 grain 30-06 load!" Winchester doesn't want Remington's .243 100 grain load to go faster then theirs, and Federal doesn't want to lose out to Win or Rem either... so they stoke up the loads as much as they feel they can get away with...

So they have many reasons to tell you their powders are unique (or "not" Unique, as it were...)... ...and they have no reasons at all to ever tell you they're using canister grade powders.

When an ammo maker actually does use "proprietary" powder, understand that as "off lot, purchased by the rail car at a bargain." They might then use this "off lot" of powder to develop some loads and sell them... but the rule is, their powder lots will be very much like what you buy in the stores. It never behooves a powder manufacturer to mess up a powder lot just so they can sell it at a discount. They go to great pains to make these powder lots come out just right.

There is no economic sense in having a powder company make a special powder for the sole purpose of producing factory ammo, when there are literally dozens of commercially available powders that will do the same job. Hornady, for a while, produced some ammo that was purported to achieve higher velocities at safer levels with a "poured in" powder compound... this was largely a gimmick, and to my knowledge they're no longer making ammo this way; there was no sense in it, other powders could do the same thing the Hornady stuff did, at a reduced cost.

When you do see powders being blended at Federal or Remington or Winchester... what they're likely doing is they are taking two batches of the same powder type (i.e. RL15), and making it one batch with the same burn rate. W748 might vary a bit from lot to lot (it usually does), so they'll blend two large batches together so the whole batch will have the same burn rate. You can do this at home, with two pounds of powder of the same type, to get a uniform burn rate for the entire 2 pound lot.

But blending a certain percentage of one type of powder with a certain percentage of another just doesn't make good sense, and you really could never be totally certain the percentages of each powder in the blend were accurate. It's not like blending liquid, where the whole drink stays the same... solids will move about a bit... you'll have 39% of powder A in one shell, and 37% in the next.

Think about where all the raisins go in your box of Raisin Bran. Yes, there might be "two scoops" in there, but they tend to hide at the bottom of the box.


Dan

 

[Kevin Thomas]

Wow. Really, REALLY bad advice here.

Sorry Dan, but you are seriously misinformed here.

 

[green 788]

It's just common sense... I got the info from a Hornady tech years ago, and it's totally plausible.

You cannot safely blend different powders, we know that. The specific concentrations will not stay intact.

Off lots... yes, and I mentioned that. Ammo makers use them. Look at the AA "data" powder that showed up in jugs a few years back... an off lot of 2230, they called it 2230-c... Accurate sold what they could to ammo makers, and sold the rest to the public at around 60 dollars for 5 pounds.

But all "proprietary" means is they've either bought an off lot of powder or they have blended two different lots of the same powder, which will not be terribly unlike cannister grade stuff.

Where is the logic in getting a powder maker to come up with some sort of "magic" stuff? It wouldn't be cost effective... just not good business.

Just hoping to dispel the myth about "proprietary" powders, because that's really what it is--a myth.

 

[Kevin Thomas]

Again, you are seriously misinformed. If you actually got this from a Hornady tech, I suspect that you didn't understand what he was telling you.

When we speak of a proprietary blend, that doens't mean that two or more powders were mixed together; it means that the powder was designed, formulated and manufactured to meet some specific criteria that the purchaser wants in the final product. Happens (literally) every day, for just about every cartridge you could imagine. Jusgt depends on what's needed in the final loading, and what specs are important to the customer.

And yes, loading operations (both private concerns and government operations like Lake City) do use cannister grade propellents. They also use non-cannister grade powders. Point is, you never know which is which, and very few of them will disclose this information.

 

[green 788]

Where is the wisdom in having a powder manufacturer formulate a special powder?

The Hornady tech told me they were using canniser grade 748 in some .243 win shells (the 58 VMAX's)... I acted surprised, having been raised on the notion that their powders were specially formulated... and he again confirmed that 748 was the powder they used. I pulled some ammo down and sure enough, that what it looked like...

Working up from a known safe powder level, using cannister 748 and published load data, I duplicated the performance of the factory load.

The Swedish Mauser M41 load used a Norma powder made by Bofors, NC1220... a military powder that eventually became RL22. The charge in the M41 "prickskytte" load was 46.3 grains... the bullet was a 143 grain projectile, not the commonly believed 139 grain weight. By working up to 46.3 grains of RL22 from safe levels (drawn from published data) and using the 142 grain Matchkings in the 6.5x55 cartridge... I matched the M41 velocity and exceeded its accuracy... with 46.3 grains of powder, as I suspected would be the case. The M96's sights were right on for the trajectory (which was my reasoning to begin with)...


This has been a passion of mine for years, figuring out what the big ammo makers are really doing... you know, what makes that particular load recipe really work. I have honestly yet to find a round from Winchester, Federal, or Remington that eluded just a modicum of common sense and sleuthing... then careful development of the suspected load to see if velocity, accuracy and POI matched.

I will say that I've not done this with any Lapua ammo... so you may have me there, though I would tend to think that Lapua is simply doing what the other big ammo makers are doing and telling everyone--even to include their marketing reps--that their stuff can't be safely duplicated because they use "proprietary" powders.

We agree the big ammo makers use cannister and non-cannister grade powders... I'm simply saying that the non-cannister grade powders are just "off lot" batches bought at a bargain--not something they've had specially developed.

Hodgdon is marketing a powder that Hornady presumably requested and uses in some of their factory loads called "SuperPerformance." This would have almost been an exception to what I've said--if Hodgdon hadn't gone on and put the powder on the market to reloaders, which is what you'd expect them to do, so as not to miss that market potential...

 

[Kevin Thomas]

The wisdom? It's about tailoring specific loads to specific chores. Be it better accuracy, reduced flash, lower (or higher) port pressure, or a couple dozen other things, alter the nature of the powder for that specifc task can often be the edge in getting a contract over your competitors. It's not something anyone in this industry takes lightly, I can assure you.

As to proprietary blends, yes, when you're buying several hundred (or thousands) of pounds of powder, most makers are more than willing to work with the customer to ensure that the powder gives the best results in what they're after. Nothing magical here, just good customer service on the part of the powder makers. I've seen most of the major manufacturers do this sort of thing, and all are very willing to work with the end user.

As for what Lapua "tells their reps", I've been to Finland and Germany several times and seen our operations first hand, to include powder production and loading. I've also worked with some of our domestic powder makers here in the states and seen how they do their business. Aside from Lapua, I've also worked for Berger and Sierra, and been closely involved with several ammunition development programs for Lake City in the nearly 30 years I've been in this industry. I'm telling you flat out, and as politely as I possibly can, you're wrong here. You're dealing with some dangerous misinformation, some erroneous assumptions and some very questionable "logic."

You get yourself hurt, that's on you. But spreading this kind of BS is going to wind up with your getting some newbie hurt. That's unacceptable.

 

[rscott5028]

I have no idea what prompted the OP. But, nearly all commercial powders are a "proprietary" formulation regardless of whether they're used to load factory ammo, or sold in 1 lbs jugs.

Otherwise, small companies would pop up everywhere selling their own flavor of h4831sc, Varget, n550, etc... under their own name/flavor, but with identical performance claims.

Protecting intellectual property is how companies stay in business and make money. And, the powder companies are as eager to use clever marketing as any of the ammo makers. Although, I have to say that Hornady has taken it to new levels in recent years with "Superformance" and "Zombie" propaganda.

As for the part about most factory ammo "often running at the very high end of SAMMI specs," I have to say that my experience is the opposite due to "Lawsuit city" as was stated elsewhere.

I do suspect though that there might be more leighway and faster time to market with loaded factory ammo since the mfg isn't required to publish load data that goofballs might misuse/abuse.

-- richard

 

[Kevin Thomas]

Richard,

Good info and spot on. Appreciate your chiming in here.

 

[green 788]

The proprietary powder notion requires a certain chain of events to actually occur in the powder industry...

We would have to believe that, say, Federal called up, say, Hodgdon... and said something like:

"We've got a plan to come up with a big game load for the 30-06, but we're really wanting to get as much velocity off a 180 grain bullet as we can. We're going to use Nosler's partition bullet... and we would really like for it to go at least 2700 fps from a 22" barrel... we have worked with some other powders that are available to us, but we just can't quite get anything to give us that much speed."

<<on the other end of the phone line...>>

Hodgdon engineer goes "hmmmm..." and asks himself: What can we do to come up with a powder for Federal? He says "We need to get a team working on this right away. Send us a check for 20,000 dollars as a deposit on that extra 50 fps you're looking for, and we'll let you know what we come up with. By the way, how much of that powder are you going to want?"

<<Federal guy...>> "We'll, we'll probably need at least 2000 pounds of it, maybe 3000 pounds if this ammo sells really well."

<<Hodgdon guy...>> "Okay, sounds great. We should be able to get this stuff to you for somewhere around 25 to 30 dollars a pound... you know we've got to get the stuff developed, blended, and of course re-tool our manufacturing extruders to admit this stuff. And there is testing, of course... so maybe a little more than 75 grand for the 3000 pounds. How's that sound to ya?"

<<Federal guy...>> "sounds... okay... I... guess... but I better check with the boss first."

<<Federal guy...>> WHAM!! (gets his knuckles wrapped by his boss for having such a fool idea)...

<<Federal guy's boss...>> "Okay... run this by me one more time... tell it to me like I'm six years old... Why in the #&!! don't you just use some of our "proprietary" 4350 and be happy with 2650 fps?? We can sell that for 30 dollars a box... this stuff you've concocted is going to have to bring 45 dollars a box for even a modest profit!"

just sayin'...

 

[green 788]

Kevin... I missed your last post...

I don't see how what I've written could be dangerous.

Wouldn't someone have to do something really foolish like load up an untested charge based on hearsay? How does what I've said advocate doing that in any way?

What would the scenario be that would explain why what I've said is dangerous to anyone?

If you make a good case, I'll retract... seriously, I will... even though I do believe I'm right about what I've said.

Dan

 

[rscott5028]

green,

From your last post, it's obvious you meant no misuse/abuse/harm.

But, statements like...

"By knowing the powder, you can simply pull a bullet and weigh the charge and say (in many cases) "Shazam!"

...could easily be misconstrued as if it's ok to pull factory bullets, look at the granules with a magnifying glass, and start loading ammo without proper precautions.

Most guys here probably know better.

-- richard

 

[green 788]

I think it's fair to say that anyone who would do what you suggest will probably give himself the darwin award some other way anyway...

People here do know better, of course... which is why you and I would both give them the benefit of the doubt, never suspecting they'd pull apart a factory cartridge and guess what the powder was, load that charge without even consulting a loading manual and go fire it...

So I think our discussion is safe to have... I hope we can agree on that.

 

[Kevin Thomas]

To begin with, the very notion that one can possibly identify powders by sight, or by other comparative physical dimensions, is dangerous. People try it all the time, often with out hurting themselves. Others aren't so lucky.

Do you understand the fact that powders can be altered significantly in ways that cannot be seen? Deterrant coatings, perforations and some other tricks can alter a powder from progressive, digresive or neutral burning into something entirely different, all with no noticable exterior differences. We're talking about burn rates here, not the physical composition. In the case of say, IMR powders, they're all virtually the same chemical composition. IMR4227 has exactly the same amount of energy as does IMR7828. 4895 has the same amount of energy as does 4831, or the original 4227 or 7828 I mentioned. It's the difference in burn rate that makes the powder suitable or unsuitable for any given cartridge, bullet weight or velocity in a particular application. Powder geometry, deterrent coatings and thickness of application is the only real difference here. Given that almost any cartridge will use a fairly wide range of powders, it comes down to matching those which are best suited to the task. As I've said, some of the others, chemically identical and often very similar in appearance may be completely unsuited. Making these sort of assumptions are dangerous, no two ways about it.

After your last post, I was frankly willing to walk away and write you off completely. You were being sarcastic, but you actually got it pretty close to being correct in how powder makers work with ammunition firms. How do you think new powders get developed? In precisely the manner you described. For decades, IMR4831 was the slowest burning powder that IMR produced. Then along came such numbers as the 7mm STW and some others that could actually use a slower burning powder than what was on the market. Ammo company calls IMR, explains the goals, and the powder maker goes to work on it. It's not a complete reformulation, but a simple altering of an existing product. You can repeat this scenario with just about every powder maker, and the entire range of ammunition loaders. We evolve this way in small steps, over time, bit by bit. There have been very (VERY) few real innovations in the field of smokeless propellants since Vielle invented tha **** stuff over a century ago. Today, those same small steps are what deliver the new powders that we see on the market, verey often the result of exactly the sort of conversation between maker and loader that you described.

This is a complex topic, and truly deserves more time and clarity than it's getting here. Suffice it to say that yes, you've been making some very dangerous assumptions. You may have been fortunate so far, but there's a time when everyone has a "bad day." I don't want to see you, or anyone who happens to follow this thread wind up getting hurt. Simple as that.

 

[green 788]

How can I have a "bad day" if I go by published load data, following a hypothesis I arrived at by dismantling a factory cartridge?

Why should we assume any competent reloader would do anything less?

If we're going to take that much credit away from the average hand loader, we may as well not trust him with published data either, since we're assuming he'll ignore it... right?

I do concede that new cartridges which can make use of slower powders will spawn the production of said powders, but those powders will quickly show up on the shelves in canister form, won't they? Winchester came out with WMR, a slow ball powder that they used in their WSM cartridges... they immediate put that powder on the market... when they couldn't get enough of the powder made to keep up with the demand for their factory shells, they pulled WMR from public availability and then offered "WXR", and extruded version which was pretty much just RL22 re-boxed.

So I do concede and agree that powder makers may gin something up to meet the criteria of an ammo maker for a new cartridge, but if that cartridge is a success, the powder makers are not going to miss the opportunity to sell that same formula to the public... and we do see that all the time, right?

Dan