Greetings AR Colleagues,

I know this has been discussed in past threads and a search of the Reloading Forum brought out some interesting ideas, but I’d like to hear your thoughts and comments on the feasibility that there are some powder formulations that seem to demonstrate high levels of accuracy in a gamut of cartridges. What got me thinking on this topic was remembering an older article by Barnsess in Handloader (apologies don’t remember the reference details but could find it in my collection with some research) talking about powders that just seems to have a high frequency of accurate loads associated with them. He cited his cursory review of a few of the loading manuals and showed that some of the powders seem to show up more than others.

I looked at my own reloading records for nearly 20 cartridges from 22-250 to 416 Rigby over 35 years and saw a similar pattern but perhaps it is biased buy the fact that I tend to buy the powder that works when I buy new stocks and this is really too small of a sample size to make solid conclusions from.

Capitalizing on these thoughts by Barsness and over the course of a few weeks (with a bit of free time on my hands, though you might say after reading this that I need to get out on the range more!) I decided to run a “data analysis (apologies, scientist by training) on all of the current reloading manuals in my possession. This was also triggered by a recent purchase of Lyman #49 where they and other manuals refer to “most accurate load tested” in their data compilation.

My process was a simple one as follows: I took all the current manuals in my possession that denote accurate loads by some manner (most accurate load, most accurate powder, recommended powder, lowest standard deviation etc) and went through each for every cartridge they list and recorded the “hits” against a list of all the current powders available. For reference I used this list which is very comprehensive:


Powder Burn Rate Chart


For example if Reloader 19 was listed under the 270 Winchester 130 grain bullet loads in a given manual as “most accurate” it got a hit.

In the end I captured this data by powder for every cartridge listed in the following manuals: Barnes #4, Lyman #49, Nosler #6, Sierra #5 and Swift #1 which are the ones in my collection (I have nearly all of them except Vihtavuori) and which denote accurate loads/powders.

Pulling all this data together into Excel and running a sorting and graphing analysis yielded the following results where the left column is the powder and the right (Total) is the total number of hits combined from all the manuals above for that given powder when signified as associated with an accurate load, sorry for the formatting-

Powder,
Name,
Number ----Total
IMR-4350 ---174
IMR-4064 ---102
Reloder 19 ---98
Reloder 15 ---87
Reloder 22 ---86
Varget ---85
IMR-4831 ---77
H-4831 ---74
IMR-4895 ---67
H-4350 ---63
IMR-7828 ---48
IMR-4198 ---39
H-1000 ---34
3031 ---30
IMR-4320 ---30
Reloder 25 ---28
H-335 ---28
H-322 ---27
3100 ---26
H-4895 ---26
N160 ---26
H-380 ---25
N140 ---24
N150 ---24
H-414 ---23
N135 ---22
N165 ---22
W-748 ---20
Reloder 7 ---19
H-450 ---19
N550 ---17
4350 ---15
Magpro ---15
IMR-4227 ---15
W-760 ---14
Benchmark 1 ---13
Retumbo ---13
Big Game ---12
2015 ---11
2495 ---11
50BMG ---11
BL-C(2) ---11
H-4227 ---11
H-110 ---10
N133 ---10
Competition ---9
X-Terminator ---9
N130 ---9
XMR-3100 ---8
H-4198 ---8
Enforcer ---8
TAC ---8
N560 ---8
2230 ---7
2700 ---7
XMR-2015 ---7
N170 ---7
8700 ---6
N110 ---6
N540 ---6
2460 ---5
2520 ---5
H-870 ---5
1680 ---4
XMR-4064 ---4
2400 ---4
Lil'gun ---4
Hunter ---4
4064 ---3
Magnum ---3
Unique ---2
N120 ---2
XMP-5744 ---1
No. 7 ---1
No. 9 ---1
Blue Dot ---1
Reloder 10x ---1
SR-4756 ---1
W-296 ---1
WXR ---1

Total” Hits” 1808

You can see that IMR4350 scores significantly higher (~10% of total) in the number of times it is used to build accurate loads by the manufacturers compared to some of the other powders. You can also see that there are a handful of powders (say the first 11) that together account for over 50% of the total denoted by the manuals.

Now I know what you’re thinking that the reasons for these results could have many factors behind them. Let me list a few that I have thought of:

Every rifle, cartridge and load is unique to itself and there are no such things as universally accurate loads.

The companies doing the testing and data compilation tend to only use certain brands or types in their testing (i.e. powder selection is not random; they get the powders for free?)

This analysis don’t mean squat, there are too many variables!

And certainly many more explanations or reasons….


My apologies for being long winded but for me with any new cartridge I undertake to reload, I’m going to hedge my bets and chose one of the top powders as appropriate. If you are so inclined for such exercises, I have the full spreadsheets of raw data (by powder, by manual etc) just PM me and I’ll send you a copy.

Thanks for listening and I’d be interested in your opinions,

Paul

quote:

Universally accurate” powders-do they exist? Some analysis to consider

You worry to much.

Is there a Universally accurate” powders-do they exist?

No.

There are some powders that are better than others but there is no one powder that does it all.

That’s why there are so many different powders available today. Differences of opinions and powder choices.

You just asked a question that well produce a lot of answers. Some well be good, some not so good.

No such animal exists, but if it did it would be called IMR 4895 1/2

quote:

Originally posted by buckshot:
No such animal exists, but if it did it would be called IMR 4895 1/2

As others have said, "no such animal exists" HOWEVER from experiences gathered over 33 years of reloading, I remember times in the past when I was known to make a statement such as, "IMR3031 is the most versatile powder I've ever seen." That was true up until the advent of Hodgdon VARGET which to me is somewhat of a do it all powder from the 20's up through the 30 caliber Short magnums(all varieties!) Do I use it in everything in between? NO! Do I use it in a bunch of stuff? YES!Could it be made to suffice in pretty much whatever you were loading(rifle cartridges only) in that group? Probably. Other choices which fit quite nicely in that group of cartridges are definitely, IMR 4350, Reloader 19, H4831sc, Winchester 748 and 760. So a "do all" powder hasn't been invented yet but there are a host of powders that will cover a large segment of needs. Just my thoughts and ruminations. Charlie (GHD)

Paul,it is interesting results,something to think about when looking for that next load your trying for.Example,i'm using h4350 in a load i'm not quite satisfied with so imr4350 is my next bet,which i intented to try anyhow.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Reed:
...with a bit of free time on my hands, though you might say after reading this that I need to get out on the range more!) I decided to run a “data analysis (apologies, scientist by training) on all of the current reloading manuals in my possession. ...

Hey Paul, That is an excellent start on a Data Analysis Project. Snow on the ground causes me to do stuff like that too.

I've only read a small bit of Barsness' writing and decided that he reports what he sees, but has a lot to learn. I can think of a couple of instances where his conclusion was so wrong that he would have been laughed off this Board. I don't receive anything with his writing in it, so he may have learned a bit since I last bothered to read any of it. Certainly not in this situation though.

It was interesting to me that not a single Powder Manufacturer lists a Most Accurate Load (as Tested), nor does Speer or Hornady. Since those of us who have Reloaded multiple rifles chambered for the same Cartridges realize there are no Universal Magic Loads, it seems the Manuals you mentioned as Listing them are "misleading" their readers. It is a bad reflection on the Editors and Authors of those Manuals, because many Rookie Reloaders will buy "only" the Magic Powders and never realize the full accuracy potential of their firearms. Pitiful!

People who believe there are such things as Universal Magic Loads have as much to learn as Barsness.

I do believe there are powders that tend to produce more that their fair share of accurate loads. I would not necessarily say universal, because different guns often prefer different loads. But they are the powders that you start with when developing a load because experience has taught you there is a better than average chance of them working in that particular loading.

IMR-4064 is one of them. It is useable in a very wide variety of chamberings, and while it may not always be the best, it is usually one of the better ones in most of the rifles I have tested, and I can develop a usable load with it in many cases. If I could only have one powder on my bench 4064 would be it.

I would have to agree with several of the powders in your "top ten" list as being go-to powders to begin testing with.

As an interesting note, W-760 and H-414 are exactly the same powder, just different lots. If you add their results together it totals 37, which bumps them up to number 13 on the list... There are other duplicates also.

Just my opinion though, many are bound to disagree.

If you look at the case capacities of the rounds listed a large majority of them will use a case nearly full of IMR4350 for standard ballistics.
If IMR is used for loading & testing more it will probably be found to have more accurate loads too.

Thanks for the responses; it is interesting to hear other opinions. A few additional thoughts and points from my side.

I was not implying that my “analysis” (and I use that term loosely) indicates that ONE powder could be universally accurate in ALL cartridges, but more that a certain formulation of a powder seems to show up more frequently in so called accurate loads than others as defined by the loading manuals. We all know you would not probably use IMR4350 in a 22 Hornet for example, but you might consider using it in a family of similar case capacity cartridges such as 270, 30-06 or perhaps the family of magnums. I agree that you have to use a powder that is appropriate as generally based on the manufacturer recommendations, but for example if you just purchased a new 300 Winchester and never reloaded for it you might start with IMR 4350 and your favorite bullet.

On the other hand my opinion is not fully formed on the idea of “universally accurate loads”. I tend to think that they may exist to some extent, but other factors can sway accuracy if not accommodated for. From everything I have seen and read for example (including this board) some Federal match ammunition combinations shoot very well in all rifles…of course more accurately in a match rifle than in a hunting rifle but still generally is an “accurate load”.

Of course there is a level of trust of the loading manuals involved here and that we assume that in the many thousands of rounds that they may shoot in their testing they have a method for determining what it means to be “accurate or recommended powder” etc. I do have that trust and even in a few conversations with their technical services reps have heard them talk about “accurate cartridges” like the 308 for example and certain combinations that shoot well in any rifle. In many of those cases the same powder is involved in the load.

A lot of this is academic discussion for sure and I was not trying to imply any hard factual data from it but I did find it interesting that it might be used as a guide especially with new reloading efforts. I am a seasoned reloader with lots of experience and enjoy the technical aspects of the sport especially, but also enjoy the experimental aspects and challenges of finding the “holy grail load”. This might be useful as one more step on that pilgrimage

Thanks
Paul

Paul,

I probably agree with your concept quite a bit more than what my earlier post implied. Perhaps my response was aimed more at the naysayers than the proponents.

Besides just powders, I think there are specific loads that have a much higher than normal probability of working in a particular chambering than a random one off of some chart. The .308 is a good example, where a 168 SMK pushed by near max charges of IMR 4064, IMR 4895, or Varget will more likely than not shoot very well in most rifles. Not nescessarily, but probably.

In all honesty, it seems we have pretty similiar thinking on the subject.

those manuals list the
potentially most accurate lods based on lowest deviations, and smallest extreme spreads.
change primers and the whole scenario may change.

would we have the perfect powder?maybe if we could get our hands on that pixie dust that some hornaday loads.MMMMMMM Good Luck