Q for the longtooth researcher or reloader.....

Discussion in 'Reloading' started by goodgrouper, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. goodgrouper

    goodgrouper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,705
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Heard a tidbit today about some mil-surplus H4831 that I've been using recently that is from the 1940's. Supposedly, this era of powder has a significantly higher flame temperature than current or modern H4831 powder.

    Lacking a temperature gauging device for burning gases, I was wondering if any of the old-time reloaders here have ever heard or experienced this and could fill me in? Anyone ever work or know someone who worked for Du-pont or Hodgdon back in the day? This would have been in the '40's, '50's, or '60's.

    ANy help would be greatly appreciated.
     
  2. 4ked Horn

    4ked Horn Writers Guild

    Messages:
    1,519
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Tried calling Hodgdon yet?
     

  3. Festus

    Festus Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    213
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    GG,
    I agree with 4ked Horn, give Hodgdon a call. Bruce is gone of course but his boys would probably know if there is validity to this. My teeth are getting lengthy but I wasn't around in the forties /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
    Good Luck, Festus
     
  4. goodgrouper

    goodgrouper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,705
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Got a hold of Hodgdon today and talked to their lab guy. He was fairly honery and gruff with quick answers and told me that today's H4831 is faster burning than that of bygone eras. Of course, I have not seen this to be the case at all! My lot of old h4831 burns similiar to todays H4350! If I was to switch reloading data for the new powder, my gun would tinkle all over the ground!

    All in all, Hodgdon was not much help. The guys who would know the answer probably retired 20 years ago. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
     
  5. 41mag

    41mag Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    752
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Hey GG,

    Just out of curiosity here.

    You mention in the first post, you heard it burned "hotter", then after talking to the fellow at Hodgdon, he said that the newer stuff burns "quicker".

    Would "quicker" necessarily mean, or equate to "hotter"?

    Could the coating on today's powders actually let it burn at a faster rate or more controlled rate, than the older stuff, but still maintain a lower temp?

    Just got me to thinking about it and thought I would ask.
     
  6. goodgrouper

    goodgrouper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,705
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    [ QUOTE ]
    You mention in the first post, you heard it burned "hotter", then after talking to the fellow at Hodgdon, he said that the newer stuff burns "quicker".

    Would "quicker" necessarily mean, or equate to "hotter"?


    [/ QUOTE ]


    That's a good question. Sometimes the word "hotter" is substituted for the word "quicker" but the two (at least in this case) are not related. The flame temperature of a powder is related to the chemical composition of the powder like if it is double based or single and how much nitroglycerin it contains and the "quickness" of the powder relates to the shape and size of the kernels and what deterrent coatings are applied.

    For instance, a very quick powder that is a ball powder, such as H110, might still have a lower flame temperature than a slow powder like RL25 which is double based.



    [ QUOTE ]
    Could the coating on today's powders actually let it burn at a faster rate or more controlled rate, than the older stuff, but still maintain a lower temp?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yes. This could be true. HOwever, I disagree that the newer stuff is "quicker" burning because pressures are much more mild with it when identical charges are used. The old stuff has a quickness similiar to H4350 in my experiments.