Some more powders that are heat stable

I saw this Video On these IMR powders and found some load data on Hodgdon's Load data that may help.



J E CUSTOM


Yep, I posted some of them on the Hodgdon thread too ...

IMR ENDURON 4166 = VARGET.JPG
IMR ENDURON 4451 = H4350.JPG
IMR ENDURON 4955 = H4831.JPG
IMR ENDURON 7977 = H1000.JPG
IMR ENDURON 8133 = RETUMBO.JPG
 
I just tried 7977 in 300 WM with 168 Amax and 212 ELDX. Everything I tried printed 2.5" or greater. Same bullets with AA4350 shooting bug holes. RL23 shooting just outside MOA.

7977 does not have same burn rate as H1000. It's faster. I had to drop two grains under H1000 listed data due to sticky bolt syndrome.
 
Doing some load development on a new 6.5 CM, and had found a couple of sub .500 moa recipes, with H4350. Then I can't find any more H 4350. I did some work ups with IMR 4451 and IMR 4350. I got a few recipes of IMR 4451 in the .500-700 ranges, but nothing below that. I was able to get a load with IMR 4350 below .350, on two ranges, on different days, and about 50 degrees apart. I've tried the IMR 4451 a few times, and the accuracy in two of my rifles has been good, but not great.

Try Accurate 4350? It's not terrible with temp sensitivity.
 
I just tried 7977 in 300 WM with 168 Amax and 212 ELDX. Everything I tried printed 2.5" or greater. Same bullets with AA4350 shooting bug holes. RL23 shooting just outside MOA.

7977 does not have same burn rate as H1000. It's faster. I had to drop two grains under H1000 listed data due to sticky bolt syndrome.

It says 7977 performs comparably to H1000 but charge weights are materially different....
 
I wish powders would list a average FPS change per degree Fahrenheit. It would help with choosing powder.
Not sure about that, lot of untruths in advertising. Just who would hold companies to an industry standard? One minor detail between 2 tests skew results. Look at advertised BC's of bullets.
That precision rifle blog test, proved Varget was not the flagship of Hodgdon's extreme series, where 90% of other tests favor Varget as the least temp sensitive. And right after that test, there were more than one that put the favor in IMR 4451 over H4350.
What I am saying is, if you want a fair test, need to do your own, only you can control the variables that you consider important.
That said, there are more and more stable offerings coming out, and if that is important, then we all win. But I will always be skeptical of claims.
 
So I've got to share this with everyone. It's a bit long so hang in there. I too was looking for some sort of temp stability numbers to no avail and then I stumbled into something. If any of you have played around with Hornady online 4DOF ballistic calculator, which I'm sure many of you have, then you would know there's a section for inputting ammunition. What's interesting is there's an option to "Adjust Velocity for Temperature Sensitivity". Just a little toggle option but by turning it on you can then select from a list of powders. Of course it's still a limited list but there are many of the most popular listed. Here's where it gets cool though. Below the powder selection box is another toggle option to "Use Custom". This is in place for those who have done their own testing and have a specific FPS/degree number. By toggling this on and off you can see what number Hornady defaults to from their data. At least I'll assume it's their data but if not it's likely from the powder companies or some reputable source. Either way, it's a good starting point for you if you need to know temp stability numbers.
 
I've used the 4166,4451, and 8133 in various calibers and the most consistent behavior among this line of powders is they ALL leave behind a ALOT of powder fouling. They claim to reduce copper fouling and if I really try, I can say there might be a slight reduction but nothing significant.
The good part is that I've found very accurate, repeatable loads with all of them and decent velocity to boot. The best performer is the 8133 in my 7RM using 160 AB's. All three that I've used have been pretty sensitive about finding a node, meaning the ES is pretty wild until you find a node and then they seem to settle in like many of the Hodgden extreme powders. Getting single digit ES with the 8133 in my 7RM and 3150fps average (long throat chamber).
 
8133 has had very good results in overbore calibers. The downfall is velocity. If your insistent on shooting your bullets as fast as humanly possible, this powder isn't for you. Excellent replacement for Retumbo or N570 but will not produce the same velocities. In some ways it's stability makes it better than Retumbo. You can go critical with Retumbo in one grain where 8133 seems to gradually show pressure as you increase your charge.
Doublez,
Your post was reason enough for me to go back and review my loading/shooting notes on the limited experience i had with 8133. My extremely small sample of data appears to support your notion about 8133 gradually building pressure. And as it turns out, it was not that far behind Retumbo in velocity. It appears that I can get similar velocity to Retumbo by using 2 more grains of 8133. In other words in 70 grs Retumbo gets me 2900 FPS, 72 grs of 8133 gets me there too. All i did was a powder ladder with it in my 7mm RM with the 180 ELD looking for the top end. I think I ran out of room in the case for more powder before I hit pressure. If my gun had a longer throat it may be ideal. I am now thinking i need to revisit it, shoot some groups, and see what I come up with. Thanks for the input
 
I ran a temperature sensitivity test on 8133 last winter / spring in my 28 Nosler, covering from 3degF to 57degF with 80.9gr and Berger 180 Hybrids. Gun & ammo at ambient prior to each shooting; 3 shots per test using Magnetospeed; 10 minutes between shots for cold bore conditions as closely as possible. Average change was 0.55 fps/degree, with a very linear trend plot.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top