Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Powder lot number?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="goodgrouper" data-source="post: 137635" data-attributes="member: 2852"><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> +6 averaged with -6 = 0 </p><p>In other words it is impossible for the mix to exceed the + or - 6% standard deviation. </p><p> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p></p><p>No. It is not an average. That is the possible error under the worst conditions. You could of course have anything in between. That is the point: You don't know what you're ending up with. If one type of powder was on the 6% fast side, and another kind of powder was on the fast side by 6%, then I think he was trying to point out that the error of the control would be as high as 12%. Obviously if you average +6% and -6% you end up with zero but this scenario would be very unlikely statistically speaking with a mix.</p><p></p><p></p><p> [ QUOTE ]</p><p> The guy you spoke to at Hodgdon would never tell you to mix powders even if he thought it was ok because of liability issues, so I put almost no stock in what they told you. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p></p><p>I disagree. I asked the companies official stand on it and he gave it to me. But then when speaking about other things on the subject, I could tell he believed in this suggestion because of personal experience or knowledge. And he is an engineer who makes the stuff for a living so I put trust in his word. After all, looking at this from a common sense point of view, not mixing powders also just makes plain old sense.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, he did say that mixing powders in a perfect 50-50 mix that has proven to be safe still wouldn't be consistent each time you had to get new lots and the practice would be self-defeating. So in effect, if it was proven to be safe (which it could be he admitted) it still wouldn't be beneficial for consistency. He could easily say that it would be fine to mix this way and Hodgdon would double their sales in this manner but he didn't. He was still against it. I thought it was pretty unbiased.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> [ QUOTE ]</p><p> Lastly, I believe temperature, elevation, humidity, and most of all wind are bigger variables to contend with than mixing 2 lots of the same powder. </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p></p><p>Yeah, but without concrete data on the particular burn rate of your lot of powder, how can any of the other things you mentioned be determined. They would all be founded on a bad control. In other words, they wouldn't matter because your powder wouldn't be consistent enough to determine anything beyond it.</p><p></p><p></p><p> [ QUOTE ]</p><p> I also noticed that you mentioned in other posts that you use reloader powders. Isn't that one of the most temp sensitive powders? </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. I haven't seen it to be any worse than any other powders. Just the other day I rechecked my lot of RL22 in my 338 thunder and it was shooting within about 3 fps (if memory serves) of what it was shooting back in October and there was a 40 degree temp change. Once you find the optimum charge weight, it seems to be fairly consistent.</p><p></p><p>What I have said in the past is that Alliant powders VARY a bunch from lot to lot. I have had lots of RL22 that shot more like RL25 and vice versa. Hodgdon seems to be better in this regard in my experience.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="goodgrouper, post: 137635, member: 2852"] [ QUOTE ] +6 averaged with -6 = 0 In other words it is impossible for the mix to exceed the + or - 6% standard deviation. [/ QUOTE ] No. It is not an average. That is the possible error under the worst conditions. You could of course have anything in between. That is the point: You don't know what you're ending up with. If one type of powder was on the 6% fast side, and another kind of powder was on the fast side by 6%, then I think he was trying to point out that the error of the control would be as high as 12%. Obviously if you average +6% and -6% you end up with zero but this scenario would be very unlikely statistically speaking with a mix. [ QUOTE ] The guy you spoke to at Hodgdon would never tell you to mix powders even if he thought it was ok because of liability issues, so I put almost no stock in what they told you. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. I asked the companies official stand on it and he gave it to me. But then when speaking about other things on the subject, I could tell he believed in this suggestion because of personal experience or knowledge. And he is an engineer who makes the stuff for a living so I put trust in his word. After all, looking at this from a common sense point of view, not mixing powders also just makes plain old sense. Furthermore, he did say that mixing powders in a perfect 50-50 mix that has proven to be safe still wouldn't be consistent each time you had to get new lots and the practice would be self-defeating. So in effect, if it was proven to be safe (which it could be he admitted) it still wouldn't be beneficial for consistency. He could easily say that it would be fine to mix this way and Hodgdon would double their sales in this manner but he didn't. He was still against it. I thought it was pretty unbiased. [ QUOTE ] Lastly, I believe temperature, elevation, humidity, and most of all wind are bigger variables to contend with than mixing 2 lots of the same powder. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, but without concrete data on the particular burn rate of your lot of powder, how can any of the other things you mentioned be determined. They would all be founded on a bad control. In other words, they wouldn't matter because your powder wouldn't be consistent enough to determine anything beyond it. [ QUOTE ] I also noticed that you mentioned in other posts that you use reloader powders. Isn't that one of the most temp sensitive powders? [/ QUOTE ] Nope. I haven't seen it to be any worse than any other powders. Just the other day I rechecked my lot of RL22 in my 338 thunder and it was shooting within about 3 fps (if memory serves) of what it was shooting back in October and there was a 40 degree temp change. Once you find the optimum charge weight, it seems to be fairly consistent. What I have said in the past is that Alliant powders VARY a bunch from lot to lot. I have had lots of RL22 that shot more like RL25 and vice versa. Hodgdon seems to be better in this regard in my experience. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Powder lot number?
Top