Some more powders that are heat stable
- Thread starter J E Custom
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Bustaquail
Member
I wish powders would list a average FPS change per degree Fahrenheit. It would help with choosing powder.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
Great Minds think alike . 
J E CUSTOM
J E CUSTOM
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
imartin posted it.
Powder Temp Stability: Hodgdon Extreme vs. IMR Enduron
The goal of this field test was to quantify the temperature stability of the popular Hodgdon H4350 a...
J E CUSTOM
DoneNOut
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
DoneNOut
Well-Known Member
Try Accurate 4350? It's not terrible with temp sensitivity.
Buxndiverdux
Well-Known Member
It says 7977 performs comparably to H1000 but charge weights are materially different....
milo-2
Well-Known Member
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.
DRock
Well-Known Member
RL16 is very temperature stable and seems to work well wherever H4350 works. I seem to get better velocity with the RL16 also in 6.5CM. This powder has been easier to find than Hodgdon lately.
7mmTikkaShooter
Well-Known Member
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.
DoneNOut
Well-Known Member
Yup. Just reporting confirmation from the field. I've read numerous posts about using H1000 data in absence of 7977.
crazyhorse
Well-Known Member
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).
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).
imartin
Well-Known Member
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.
