I know that H-414 and W760 are the same powder, just different lots. Is there a H version of W748? Just curious.

W748 is very similar to H335.

quote:

Originally posted by Sagebrush Burns:
W748 is very similar to H335.

And H335 is also somewhat similar to surplus WC844.

Is w748 a ball powder like h335?

quote:

Is w748 a ball powder like h335?

Yes. W748 is a ball powder. Great in .223s...

Groove on this...

http://www.adi-limited.com/han...uide/equivalents.asp

quote:

Originally posted by Sagebrush Burns:
W748 is very similar to H335.

They are not that close on a burn rate chart or in most loading data. W748 is quite a bit slower. If you are looking for a ball powder substitute, BLC-2 is very close as is AA2460 or AA2520.

Add N135 to the "very similar to W748" list.

WARNING h335 is NOT EVEN CLOSE
DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER IT

Gentlmen, I reload pounds of powder in bigbores, every year ... there is NO repeat NO relationship between these two powders..

for the record, h335 is my goto powder... for lots of reasons .. and 748 aint even CLOSE

even on hodgedon burnrate chart, h335 is a 66, and 748 is a 82 ...

in loading, varget and blc2 are closer

Theres LESS difference in 748 and 760... 82 vs 87 than h335

Posts like this KILL people

http://www.hodgdon.com/burn-rate.html

Thanks for the replies guys. The more I think about it though, I think that 748 is one of the Winchester powders that does not have a H eqivalent. W760 and H414 are the same powder, just packaged in different lots under different names. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) the same is true for H110 and W296. I was thinking there was one for W748 as well, but the more I study burn rate charts and reloading data I think there is not. I do appreciate the input though.

AR2219 (ADI)
H322 (Hodgdon)
TU3000 (Vectan)
X-Terminator (Ramshot)
2230 (Accurate)
RIF-1 (Nobel)
748 (Winchester)
Reloader 10X (Alliant)
BLC-2 (Hodgdon)
AR2206 (ADI)
2460 (Accurate)
H335 (Hodgdon)
TAC (Ramshot)
H4895 (Hodgdon)
2495 XMR (Accurate)
AR2206H (ADI)
PCL 507 (PB Clermont)

Whoops! Alot of misinformation is floating around here.

WW-748 is the same "spec" powder as military WC-846, which is also the same "spec" as Hodgdon Bl-C2. All of these powders will behave similarly, but will vary from one another just as different lots of the same powder will vary.

H-335 is the same spec powder as WC-844, and the same type of (usually) minimal variation between the two powders can be expected.

And yes, your original premise that H-414 and WW-760 are the same spec powder is correct.

BTW, "burning rate" charts are great for parlor games. The other great thing about them is that they will fit in any trash can.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Whoops! Alot of misinformation is floating around here.

Yep ..
some of it being that h335 is wc844 .. its NOT . never was, and 844 is faster and hotter .. at least the 16# of it ** burnts is ..

846 is CLOSER to 760 .. but its also "not"

quote:

BTW, "burning rate" charts are great for parlor games. The other great thing about them is that they will fit in any trash can.

Thats for sure. I have 6 different charts on my reloading room wall. Still trying to figure out which is best

Thanks Stonecreek, that is the information I was looking for. You nailed it.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Yep ..
some of it being that h335 is wc844 .. its NOT . never was, and 844 is faster and hotter .. at least the 16# of it ** burnts is ..

846 is CLOSER to 760 .. but its also "not"

It is certainly possible that you have experience with a "slow" lot of H335 and a "fast" lot of WC844. However, in the lots of each that I have used they are interchagable, with the WC844 producing very slightly lower velocities/pressures. The fact remains that they are "specked" the same out of the St. Marks plant, the main difference being the flash suppressants in each powder.

While it is true that "846 is closer to 760", it is only true in the sense that the spec powder labeled variously as WC-846, BL-C2, and WW 748 is "closer" to WW-760 than is WC-844 simply because it is slower than WC-844. It is not the same spec powder as WW-760 -- it is the same spec as WW-748.

All of that said, "cannister grade" powders are selected from lots which come within a certain percentage of matching the standard for that particular powder designation. Other lots of the same spec powder which vary from that standard, either slower or faster, are used to by the ammunition factories where they adjust their load to match the burning characteristics of each lot. You can always expect non-cannister powders (i.e., "surplus") powders not to match their cannister "twins" exactly in burning rates.

quote:

Originally posted by JD Miller:

quote:

BTW, "burning rate" charts are great for parlor games. The other great thing about them is that they will fit in any trash can.

Thats for sure. I have 6 different charts on my reloading room wall. Still trying to figure out which is best

One of the problems with burning rate charts is that they do not take into account the cartridge, case size, and pressure range the powder is being used in.

The best example I know is the psycotic way that H335 and BL-C2 are listed on various charts, with each alternatively listed as slower or faster than the other, sometimes being even two or more steps apart. Generally speaking, H335 is the faster, but this only shows up when case capacity gets up in the range of 50 grains or so. In the .223, both are pretty close, and with some bullet weights and at some pressures, the usually slower BL-C2 actually generates faster velocities/higher pressures with the same or less powder. But if you'll look at what happens when you put them in something like a .416 Remington Magnum, H335 reaches maximum pressures at several grains below that of BL-C2. You have to remember that H335 (WC844) was developed originally as a military powder for use in the 5.56 Nato (.223 Rem), while BL-C2 (WC-846) was developed for the 7.62 Nato (.308 Win). While they are both very similar ball powders produced at the same plant, their chemical composition and combustion retardants vary in some ways that creat these seemingly odd differences.

So, bottom line is, burning rate charts cannot possibly be fully accurate and can only serve as a rough guide to a powder's relative burning rate.

Try this on for burn rate charts

http://www.chuckhawks.com/powder_burn_rate.htm

Stonecreek's posts agree dead-nuts bang-on with my own information collected from various sources over the years, and experiences. I believe he knows exactly what he is talking about on this subject.

in charges from 60 to 115gr, h335 is faster than blc2, win748, h414, rel 15, wc846... and wc844 is faster in these cases... though being above 85% load density does seem to make h335 more effecient, in terms of fps per grain

i have been mistaken --
my experience with
wc844 has been slightly faster than h335
wc846 is close to blc2, for starting loads
wc852 has been the slowest

I was confusing my results with 846 and 852 -- sorry for any confussion, and thanks StoneCreek for being patient
j