Slower Burning Powders ranked numerically by burn rate

[Veteran]

I do not use burn rate charts. I use updated manuals to determine the better powders to try.

That works, but if you get GRT or Quickload, you can get it to spit out every powder that will work w a given bullet, a given barrel length, and what velocity you will get for every powder and every bullet and at what chamber pressure.

Manuals try to do the same but cant adjust for your barrel length, or in some cases your specific bullet, say hammers for example cause their taper changes performance by weight only.

Get the models if you need or want even more info or options.
But manuals are good too.

 

[Veteran]

I notice that RL-26 is slower than H-1000 on the BA factor chart and is faster on the colored chart.
Can we find out what the BA factor is for Stayball HD?

Well, I have been travelling and finally had a chance to upload my April 2023 QL update disk
to answer this......

Disappointment! The QL update did not yet contain Staball HD in
the powder database.......Im going to complain......shoulda been there. So, no answer for now other than using the charts to get a feel for relative position to other powders......

 

[asd9055]

Well, I have been travelling and finally had a chance to upload my April 2023 QL update disk
to answer this......

Disappointment! The QL update did not yet contain Staball HD in
the powder database.......Im going to complain......shoulda been there. So, no answer for now other than using the charts to get a feel for relative position to other powders......

I only buy updates when I need to. Since I don't have any new powders, won't be getting one till next year.

 

[Veteran]

I only buy updates when I need to. Since I don't have any new powders, won't be getting one till next year.

Yeah this my second update.

It said there were changes in particular to Vhitavuori powders like N565 N568.

 

[Pdvdh]

Your spreadsheet shows only one significant decimal point (0.3) for IMR8133 and N568. All the other BA values have 3 significant numbers to the right of the decimal point.

Does the BA of 0.3 in your original posted spreadsheet imply a BA of 0.300?

 

[Veteran]

Your spreadsheet shows only one significant decimal point (0.3) for IMR8133 and N568. All the other BA values have 3 significant numbers to the right of the decimal point.

Does the BA of 0.3 in your original posted spreadsheet imply a BA of 0.300?

Yes... with 3 decimal points behind the yes....

 

[Veteran]

Well, I have been travelling and finally had a chance to upload my April 2023 QL update disk
to answer this......

Disappointment! The QL update did not yet contain Staball HD in
the powder database.......Im going to complain......shoulda been there. So, no answer for now other than using the charts to get a feel for relative position to other powders......

Well, in curiousity, I took QL and I took the published load data from Winchester for 300 WM for the 200 Gr AB Nosler and I looked at the Burn rate chart which shows Staball HD in between Retumbo and IMR 8133 on Burn rate and I input a 24 inch bbl, COL of 3.34, for the 200 gr bullet, .308 caliber, and 80.5 grains, max load published for this set up and I tried to match the pressure of 59,200 and the MV of 2845 published by Winchester for Staball HD by varying Ba (burn rate). What I'm sorta concluding is that it appears that Staball HD is closer to Retumbo than to IMR8133 on Ba factor.

That means Ba is likely to be in the .32 to .33 range whenever QL finally gets around to publishing it. The comparison isn't perfect because I don't have the whole burn curve and I don't have the exact granular make-up and case fill rate precisely matching. But, It also maybe gives me some insight into something else. Hodgdons is trying with Winchester to come up with a temperature insensitive substitute for RETUMBO cause they are worried about future supply from ADI in Australia. That's a little bit of an intuitive leap, but it could well be so! Seems logical to me.........

 

[Old Rooster]

Thanks for that Veteran

 

[EM_556]

As some of you may know from prior posts, I like to rank powder burn rates by number
rankings numerically. I hate the charts.

Here's some of the rifle powders that are slower burning.

They are ranked by BA factor.

Lower Burn Rates
RL 22		0.386​
ACC 4350		0.381​
IMR 7828		0.3841​
RL25		0.384​
N560		0.371​
H1000		0.366​
Ramshot Mag	0.345​
RL26		0.3397​
Acc Magpro	0.3342​
Retumbo		0.337​
N565		0.3109​
IMR8133		0.3​
N568		0.3​
Ramshot LRT	0.285​
N570		0.277​
RL33		0.267​
US 869		0.2735​
RL 50		0.217​

Thanks for sharing this!

 

[Seabeeken]

Burn rate charts are relative things and so is the Ba. I have to adjust the Ba for the same powder in different cartridges. For instance, the Ba for N-110 works well in my 454 but isnt even close (200 fps off) in my 22 hornet. This is why I save my adjusted powder models for my cartridge rifle bullet combinations

 

[Veteran]

Yes, Ba is not an absolute value and varies by lot, by temp, and by cartridge results. But when you rank only at a benchmark reference in a relative since its very good. Any powder will vary by the things listed above, but all in the same direction.

 

[K.E.C.]

Howdy, Mr. Veteran
I'm seeing people using Leverevolution for a some rifle applications. Would you have the burn rate equivalent. Thanks David

 

[Veteran]

Howdy, Mr. Veteran
I'm seeing people using Leverevolution for a some rifle applications. Would you have the burn rate equivalent. Thanks David

Ba factor for Lever Revolution is 0.4890

 

[Muddyboots]

@Veteran you can post up Excel spreadsheet as 7-Zip compression file.