linstrum!!!!!!
The idea at the beging of this thread wasn't to swap receipes but to determine the nature of the beast. There was no intent to publish loading data but to gather information and see what we have. It wasn't to PONTIFICATE but to participate by generating information for anaysis. The reason this thread was started is because some saw the three blind men identifying the elephant from the part of the animal each felt. I think all who have joined in this info exchange now realize that IMR7383 is unlike any of the powders each thought similar.

meanwhile back at the ranch-------- More firing line information.

Maven, these firing line results are intended to compliment you 8mm 50gr. of 7383results.


The first 7 specimens were 8mm Turk bullets,turk casesand primers and 7383 powder light crimp.Home made Mauser scout rifle.

1. 41gr 7383 super mild, really sooty, smokey, a fair amount of unburned powder, and bad seal producing some gas in the face. 1" 3 shot repeatability.

2. 41.9gr 7383 near same result.3shot 1 1/2" group 2" higher and a little left. The residue powder is not completely tubuler; it is cracked and has small pieces missing.

3. 42.9gr. less soot, smoke and no gas in face. There is still unburned powder.1" 3 shot group1 1/2" higher at 10:30.

4. 43.7gr 7383 less soot and smoke, no gas, mild unburned powder,2" 3 shot group 2" higher at 10:30

5. 44.7 7383, soot on neck only,UBP, light smoke. 2" 3shot group. 1/2" 10:30.

6. 45.6gr 7383 less soot, smoke and UBP1" group. Hit point of aim.
( From 41gr. 7383 to 45.6gr. 7383 the point of impact changed 8" to the left and 10" up )
7. 42.9 gr. 7383 with a really heavy crimp. Same result as 42.9 gr. 7383 with lighter crimp. tight group 3/4".

8. 185 gr. pspw/c 46.5gr 7383 Turk primer and case.Heavy crimp.Necks a little sooty, all powder seemed to burn, first two touch 3rd an inch out. no pressure signs.

9. 125gr. psp 46.5gr. 7383, dirty neck and a fair amount of smoke and UBP. 1 1/4" 10 shot group.

The 46.5gr. load was the selected upper limit to preclude any compression of powder. No real conclusions yet---- still studying and hope you are doing the same.

Are there ant suggestions based on our findings what direction to take???? roger

Linstrum, Don't worry about me adding "just a little bit more" 7383 to my loads. As I said earlier, I'm getting m.o.a. or better accuracy from 3 different rifle calibers and all I'm doing is punching paper. Besides, I can't get more than 43gr. (too hot; had pressure signs) of it in my .243Win. cases or more than 50gr. in my 8mm Mau. 7383 is nice to have around when I wish to use jacketed bullets and don't want to pay for IMR 4064 (8mm Mau.) or IMR 4350 (.243Win & .30-06). As 99% of my shooting is with cast bullets at mid-range velocities, 7383 isn't the best choice. Other milsurps (WC 860, IMR 5010, even WC 820 in charges to approximate 13gr. of Red Dot or 16gr. of 2400) are better suited to that. And just think, when I purchase my next jug of "7383," I'll have to approach it with a healthy amount of skepticism if not caution. ...Maven

bartsche, could it possibly be a case of that "old wives tale" of "Secondary Explosion Effect?" I suspect "a little under 52 grains" of the stuff would constitute a significant underload, if you are convinced you could use a case full of it with no problems arising! A case full would be at least 60 grains or so....

Paul, going over my 243 data the mass of powder used and the resulting velocity would lead you to believe there indeed was a similarity between 7383 and 4350.What differece there is in peek pressure if any is the illusive culprit.I know from results in other cartridges that this similarity does not hold true accross the board.It really would be advantageous to unveil 7383s true nature and determine where it can safely be used. I/m sure it has a broad useable nitch but it is yet to be determined. Kinda reminds me of the three blind men feeling different parts of the elephant and discribing what the whole animal looks like. We need to co-join all the information from this fraternity to determine what we have here at $24.00/7lbs. Thanks for sharing, Paul. roger

Roger, One of the posters on the old Shooters' Talk Cast Bullet Bd., "Buckshot," warned that in his experience, 7383 could be a bit "peaky" (abrupt rises in pressure). We may be able to minimize the chance of that occurring by using some common sense. To wit, try say 10 (20 would be better) loads of 7383 at the minimum load of IMR 4350 for the cartridge/bullet wt. combo. you're using vs. 10 (or 20) of the same combo., but using minimum loads of H 380, all fired over a chronograph and all using the same OAL and standard, not magnum, LR primer brand. This would give us a better picture of what IMR 7383 is or is capable of and whether various lots of it are in effect different powders. ...Maven

All I've used in the .30-06 and .22-250 loads I mentioned was as much as I could shake into the case and seat a bullet on top of. The case volume determined the load. No pressure problems encountered with those bullet weights, but I quickly learned only to fill the cases to the base of the neck with boattail bullets, having ruined a few cases. The bulk density of this powder is low, which is why the gallon jugs that usually hold 8 lbs of powder only come with 7 lbs in them. It's difficult to cram enough into these cases to even get to a minimum 4350 charge. The velocities are far lower than equivalent weights of the 4064 or 4320 Hi-Tech compared it to, and just about the same as the equivalent weight loads of 4350 I was able to find. I believe there is something unique about the coating on this powder. I've noted a strong ammonia odor in the gas blown out the muzzle, which is not present in the gas left in the bore or the case (except in those .45-70 loads, which burned only a fraction of each grain.) What that suggests is that the ammonia comes from the surface layers, which produce the first gas that gets displaced toward the muzzle by the gas coming from the inner core of the powder that's still burning in the case. I've wondered whether nitroguanidine is found in the coating, and have been told that DuPont did experiment with some small arms powders containing it in the 1950s-early '60s period when 7383 was made. I've not been able to find any manufacturer's specifications for this powder, and before the Hodgdon buyout IMR answered an inquiry from someone on another board by stating that 7383 wasn't recommended for any handloading use. Big help there.



And eldeguello, 52 grains of 7383 will fill a Remington .30-06 right to the base of the neck.



The most I've ever been able to work into Federal .30-06 cases, with lots of shaking, is 56 grains right up to the mouth. Similarly, I've been able to get as much as 37 grains in fired, neck sized Remington and Winchester .22-250 filled right to the mouth, but simply submerging a case and shaking it a bit fills it with about 35.5 grains. That's my standard load. This method of powder measuring may strike some as unconventional, but it's the same volumetric method used by all commercial powder measures. As with a powder measure, the technique used will greatly affect the results. Consistency is important. For non-case-filling loads, measuring directly with the case obviously won't work.

52grains was a heavily commpressed load,eldeguello. roger
paul, your outline for tehe experiment is a good one. roger

Tested some IMR-7383 today in my 270 Winchester Model 700. I am using a 135 grain cast bullet. I started with a starting load listed for AA-4064, which is 43 grains. Fifty-one grains of IMR-7383 fills the case to the base of the cast bullet. The 43.0-grain charge of IMR-7383 equates to a loading density of approximately 81.3%. I tested this load only at 50 yards because I was uncertain it would be on the paper at any distance! I shot over a Chrony and the average velocity of the 43.0 grains of IMR-7383 averaged 2461 fps with an amazing E.S. of only 7 fps! Accuracy at 50 yards was < 0.5 inch with several groups having all 3 slugs touching! Ain�t sure how it will perform at 100 yards yet. I then tried 43.0 grains of XMR-4350 powder over the Chrony. The average velocity was 2280 fps with an extreme spread of nearly 60 fps. Accuracy was not good. The loading density of the XMR-4350 was only 72.6% The difference in velocity between equal weights of IMR-7383 and XMR-4350 was 181 fps faster for the IMR-7383. Again this puts my lot of IMR-7383 closer to H-380 than any of the 4350 powders. This application in the 270 Winchester may even put it a bit CLOSER to AA-4064 than H-380. That would certainly put 52.0 grains of the stuff used with a 150 grain bullet, as mentioned by bartsche in his 1st post, at 5-6 grains over maximum�depending on reloading manual! I would certainly be leery of using any 4350 data with my lot of IMR-7383�Period!

This is the fastest that I have shot any cast bullets with any accuracy. One hundred yards will tell the tale. The loading density and burning rate of this powder may not make it a good choice for cast bullets, although I was getting fairly acceptable accuracy with my T/C in the 30-30 Winchester cartridge. I really don�t know how much farther the starting load could be reduced in the 270 Winchester. I am not really a believer in the S.E.E. phenomenon, but one hears so much about it, that one begins to wonder!!! I have never seen the dark side of the moon either, but I feel certain it is there�at least according to Pink Floyd�

IMR-7383 appears to be not such a �user-friendly-and-easy-to-deal-with� surplus powder. I am certain that extreme caution is indicated with this 7-pounds-for-$24-stuff. Good-luck�BCB

Sounds like you've stumbled across a mighty good load, BCB!

Nice test, Brad.I particularly enjoy your clear style of reporting.

Finding like or similar powders to 7383 may be beneficial but as "yet" this may be missleading. There is evidence now that the charicteristic enrgy release of powders( burning rate if you will) as we are accustomed to in our thinking may be totally inaccurate when applied to 7383. There seems to be a dynamicly greater increase in Energy as the pressure and temperature approach and pass through some critical point.
To illustrate: at X gr. it has the Energy Release appearance of H-380, at X+1gr. it looks more like 4198 and at X+2gr. It starts to look like Blue Dot, but instead of having a safe 23gr. in the case you got 52gr.

Thank you very much for your active participation in this project and cool positive approach in testing and sharing. roger

Sorry to be so late responding. I haven't been at TCCI or living it its vicinity for the last 13 years (since I moved from Scottsdale to Oregon). So, I no longer have any contact info for either Eric Lufty or for TCCI. I am pretty sure TCCI (Thuderbird Cartridge Company, Inc.) doesn't exist any more. If Eric still lives in the Phoenix, AZ area, I would think he might be in the phone book, but maybe not. Anyone on here from the Phoenix area? They might be able to find out for us how to contact either or TCCI.

Guess I'll go post a thread on Eric and see if I can find out....

Alberta Canuck

"]Roger, that sounds to me like you're restating what linstrum just said. "

Actually, John, it was something ,Roger said early on in this thread. I'm use to people ignoring what I say in real life. Why not here???? Now back to doing something. Some where I heard that talk was cheap it takes money to buy Whiskey. Now where did I hear that? roger

Sure. Let's go shoot!

"What overload problems? My .45-70 problem was no mystery."

It was Puncher's Uberti 45/70 that was destroyed with 7383 roger

I won't post the actual charge that I was using when I ruined my Sharps repro, but I will say that I was shooting a Rapine 500 gr. bore riding round nose with too much 7383.

From what I've researched and gathered from reading other posts, it seems the charge/pressure curve on this powder rises very slowly and then goes up like a rocket when it hits max. case capacity.

I hadn't heard about that, Puncher, sorry.

Don't see how that could've been an overload of straight 7383 blowing a .45-70; you weren't using a duplex charge, were you?

Unless perhaps it was a heavily compressed load with a lot of crushed powder?

"From what I've researched and gathered from reading other posts, it seems the charge/pressure curve on this powder rises very slowly and then goes up like a rocket when it hits max. case capacity."

I haven't analyzed all the info and data I've received and generated but the rapid acceleration of the burning rate once this stuff hits a critical temperature and pressure is as far as the evidence indicates A FACT. A full case even compressed doesn't always seem to create that jack rabbit pressure jump. Maven's 8mm 50 grain load appears to be indigative of my last remark??? more to come roger

Ric,
You ask if it's possible that I wound up w/ a compressed/crushed load of 7383. Yes, that's very possible.

Another thing that concerns me about using 7383 is the possibility of some unknowing person trying to use it in reduced amounts. As quirky as this stuff is, it has the personality to refuse to light at all or go to the opposite end of the spectrum and become the prime candidate for SEE syndrome.

Puncher, I've used 7383 as an experiment in my 7.5 x 55mm with 35gr. and 38gr. loads for cast bullet shooting and experienced no problems at all: Accuracy was excellent with the Lee C309-180R; case necks were clean; and resizing required no more effort than with other powders. Having said this, I must also confess that 7383 isn't my first choice for cast bullets in the Swiss or other cartridges. ...Maven

One thing in particular that concerns me is people trying to work up loads using data from similar powders. We know that 7383 is a slow powder, but this stuff has some very unusual characteristics. This is why I feel it is paramount that a handloader be familiar with the procedure of working up a load with a "blind" or unknown powder. All kinds of bad things can result from using cross ref. data, especially using milsurp powders.
How do we know that 7383 is not a perfect candidate to generate SEE syndrome? We do know, so far, that it has the potential to spike under certain conditions. I tremble to think what kind of pressure this stuff could generate under the wrong circumstances.
Maven, it comforts me to know that handloaders like yourself, Ricochet(sp?) and a few others know how to find the results you're looking for without risking blowing the chamber and going home with the bolt sticking out of your skull. Thanks for your input and feedback.

Puncher, I agree with you 100% with respect to cross-referencing data for milsurp powders. I once relied on the data sheet provided with a milsurp called "Surplus .30-06" that River Valley Ordnance once sold. I soon found out it was faster than they said and once I did, I immediately stopped and upon returning home pulled the bullets and telephoned RVO. They agreed, told me my lot # was "hotter" and sent me a revised data sheet. I wish to say that I wouldn't mess with milsurp powders at all unless I had a chronograph and used it to give me some idea of velocity. The condition of the primer and how easily the cases can be extracted give me some indication of pressure. As I've said before I'm not looking for max. velocity with either jacketed or cast bullets so this approach works rather well for me. ...Maven

I'll get back to you on it, Roger.

All, With respect to Not Ricochet's observation of a pronounced ammoniacal odor when firing 7383, I found virtually the same thing yesterday, but with IMR 4064 in my 8mm Mauser. As the wind was in my face, I got the full benefit of the burned powder gases! Btw, I wrote to Roger last night (9/7/04) that I managed, with difficulty, to get 50gr. of IMR 7383 in my 8mm. Mau. [neck sized] brass: Winchester & Norma were the most capacious; Federal and Remington the least. Ordinarily I'd use 48 or 49gr. IMR 4064 with 150gr. SP's and have room to spare in the cases. Not so with 7383. Since it appears to be slower than 4064, I don't think I'm going to get much over 2,200fps from it. ...Maven

bartsch: I would be very interested in your findings regarding IMR 7383 please email me a copy if you would to eschultheis@juno.com. Thanks: 8mmshooter

It sounds like a good idea. Can you contact the fellow at TCCI or tell me how to get a hold of him . roger

Hi, all: Before this gets put to bed it would be nice if someone sat down and summed up all the input that has been given here to summarize it all up. Without doing that, this is just another long thread from which people will pick and choose what they want without being able to see the whole point and over-all picture, which is that the various non-canister grade powders labeled as IMR7383 ARE DANGEROUS WHEN PUSHED and must be evaluated with much more care and caution than any other powder there is!

Roger, I made the comment about the dangers of comparing notes and swapping load recipes because it is human nature to do that regardless of what your stated intent is, just like the park bench with the �wet paint� sign on it is always covered with fingerprints in the wet paint! People always make assumptions, test limits, and push things because it is our very nature to do so, and the PSYCHOLOGY of shooting is a vastly un-unappreciated aspect of what we do that should be given top attention but never, never, never is! Somebody had to say what I did where it was noticeable about the data not being �okay loads� to go out and use, and I did, and I am not going to apologize for it.

One aspect that is constantly being ignored here is that the IMR7383 being sold is NOT PULLDOWN! Pulldown powder has been tested and ACCEPTED because it works okay within the performance guidelines established for the cartridge it was pulled from. This stuff is EITHER never-loaded powder and therefore has never been tested, OR it was tested and found to be unacceptable. Either of those scenarios are reason for great caution! H.P. White Laboratories did run some tests on three lots of IMR7383 but only tested .308, .30-06, and .223 Remington. The loads tested were ALL nearly full cases with United States military projectiles. No other calibers were tested.

Another aspect of the IMR7383 out there that is being totally ignored here on this thread is its bulk density value, which is the only good way we have to identify how many versions of this powder there are. That is a very, very important bit of information that will help us understand what is going on out there. I am the only one who has listed the bulk density of a particular lot of this powder, and I told how it is done. It is not good enough to list how much fits in a certain cartridge because that is like somebody listing how much IMR7383 fills his left boot. That is fine except I don�t know what the volume of that left boot is, and so it is the same with various manufacturing lots of brass. I used the 3.1 cubic centimeter powder dipper Lee provides with many of their die kits, which is one of the more common dippers in use and the reason why I chose it. The powder is shaken down until no more will fit in it then the top struck level with a straight edge. My lot of powder weighs 38.3 grains per 3.1 cubic centimeter dipper or 12.355 grains per cubic centimeter. It is very important to tap and shake the powder down to maximum density, do not use the running scoop method they recommend for making loads. Also, do the density test several times to find the heaviest value, not the average! Throw out any values that are greatly different from the others as they are most likely in error.

Another important thing is the readers of this thread should go back and read it from the beginning, which I can see is not happening. Roger has gathered a mountain of data here, which cannot be digested piecemeal or in five minutes. Hence my opening statement.

The readers of this thread should not lose sight of the fact that its purpose is NOT to find a good easy shootin� clean burnin� load. Rather it is to help you understand that this is a real chameleon and to keep you from blowing up your gun and getting hurt!

Bye.

Let there be light.
I want to thank all of you who have contributed information, data, and advise. your participation is helpfull.

I now will start to assimilate all this stuff, study it for some time and try to issue a meaningful report hopefully within the next month.As Linstrum said there is a lot of material that has to be comprehensively put together.

I think if amoung you there were some that would take the same path as I the result would be much better than if I were the only one. If you want to discuss any of this my E- Mail address is bartsche@sbcglobal.net If individuals want to talk on the phone I'd be willing to E-Mail my private number. roger nice thread guys.

(Also posted @ Cast Boolit)





As suggested by Linstrum, I checked the density of my lot (RAD78L 47985) using a Lee 3.1 cc dipper. For 20 test dips (!), the heaviest weight was 36.8 grains or 11.871 grain/cc. The average of the 20 test dips was 36.51 grains or 11.779 grains/cc. That equates to a difference of 0.093 grains/cc from average to heaviest. I ain�t going to worry about that if I used the Lee dippers to measure the powder charge for my reloads�with this powder, I DON�T�I weigh every charge. At least that is what I am doing during the initial testing of this powder since it has been declared �a bit tricky� in burn rate. This I have proven to myself also.



I have used it in the 30-30 Winchester, the 7-30 Waters, and limited, in the 270 Winchester. All were done with cast bullets. In the 30-30 using a 311041 (170 grainer) it was right at 4064 burn rate. In the 7-30 Waters using a 287346 (135 grainer) it was slower than 4064 and a bit faster than H-380. And in the 270 using a 280642 (150 grainer) it was a tad faster than 4064. In a previous post, I indicated that it was closer to 4064 data using a 135 grainer. More testing showed it might be faster than 4064 using a 150 grainer. That sort of scared me so I won�t be using it in the 270 Winchester anymore. Too much �air space� in that case to suit me, although I am not an absolute believer in the S.E.E.



I have 10 different surplus powers that I use for cast bullets and jacketed bullets in handguns and rifle cartridges. They all work very well, in that, the burn rate follows through (stays the same) when used in different cartridges Two very good examples are WC-820 (Lot # 47320) has a burn rate a tad slower than AA#9 when used in the 357 Magnum, the 44 Magnum and the 445 Super Magnum. That is with all weights of bullets that I shoot from these cartridges. WC-844 (Lot # 726) is a tad slower than H-335 and that holds true in the .223 Remington, the 30-30 Winchester, the 7-30 Waters, and limited in the 270 Winchester. The burn rates appear to remain consistent with these and other surplus powders I use. NOT SO WITH THE IMR-7383. This has been stated and confirmed many times throughout these threads.



I will probably continue to use it, but mostly with cast bullets in the 30-30 Winchester and the 7-30 Waters. It has proved very accurate in the Waters. Although the price of the powder is very inviting, the uncertainty of how it will burn in different cartridges just might outweigh the price advantage. Too many factors�BCB

I got an avg. of 36.33 grains.

There were no lot #s on any of four jugs bought at the same time. Using this technique may well be adequate for what differences we may expect to see between lots. I can not say however that from one person to another using it we can expect better than 5% repeatablity; maybe more maybe less. What "EVIDENCE" do we have that there are real differences in lots? I'm not sure that taking the original intent of this thread into account that the lot differences plays a big part.

If different lots can be identified maybe one of you high tech guys can run some bomb calorimeter tests. That could prove to be rewarding. roger

For those folks who feel IMR 7383 puts their hardware at unnecessary risk of detonating or SEEing or blowing primers, or if you feel that the ammonia smell upon burning indicates their particular lot may have degraded chemcially and become unstable, I will extend an offer to purchase your 7383 from you (at a discount which will offset your shipping costs) in order to properly dispose of the degraded material to keep it from damaging either us or our sport. I can offer this because I have access to an authorized nitrocellulose disposal facility here in Fayetteville, NC. that will take small disposal lots from concerned sportsmen. You will have to pay to ship the powder to me here in Fayetteville NC, which will cost you some shipping money to do "properly" and which I will offset depending on how far you have to ship it. I also understand that degraded powders used to be sprinkled on lawns in the historical past of our sport and supposedly served as a slow fertilizer, but I cannot attest to this use nor to the effects of the constituants of this particular powder would have on the grass or on ground water table. Some things are best done properly, especially in this day and age of liablilty. Certainly, putting the stuff in your trash can to wind up in the local municipal land fill would not be a recomended thing either. You can contact me at Oldfeller@access4less.net if you are interested in proper & legal disposal of your dubious lot of IMR 7383 military surplus powder.

Oldfeller

These are not intended to be smart-ass comments, so please don't take them as such...

1. I know Eric Lufty at TCCI used to have binders with all kinds of tech data about all of the surplus powders he ever handled, and many he didn't handle. I'm pretty sure he picked much of that data up from the powder manufacturers, among others. Is it possible some good-hearted powder pro could get the working characteristics data from the manufacturer...such as intended working pressure range, ignition temp, burning time/pressure graph (curve) in whatever bomb tests were done, any of that?

2. Maybe $24 per pound is telling us plain and clear that 7383 has such a narrow range of application that it is simply not worth more on the open market?

Alberta Canuck

Thanks for the offer, oldfeller. I'm not interested in disposing of my 7383, though. Since I'm the one who brought up the ammonia smell on burning, let me point out that this IS NOT A SIGN OF DETERIORATING POWDER! Deteriorating nitrocellulose powders emit oxides of nitrogen that have a sharp, acrid, acidic odor, but it is not ammoniacal. And the noxious fumes of deteriorating powder are released from standing powder, not as a result of combustion. Powder under observation and testing for deterioration in storage is kept in glass containers so it can be visually inspected for reddish-brown fumes of nitrogen dioxide, which is a sure sign that powder has become dangerously unstable, and in sufficiently large bulk amounts to retain the heat produced by decomposition, it can self-ignite. Red-fuming powder should be immediately disposed of safely, and should not be shipped anywhere! (I'd spread it out on paper and ignite it remotely or with sufficient delay to reach a safe distance from it.)

Linstrum has test data provided by the vendor showing that the three different lots of 7383 identified in their testing was new powder. I didn't know that; I'd assumed it was pulldown because Hi-Tech was also selling cases and projectiles from demilled .50 Spotter T48A2 cartridges ast the same time I bought my 7383 from them.

The point is well taken that new, unloaded powder was likely rejected for a reason, probably because of not meeting burning rate specs. That's why we have several different burning rates of WC852 floating around. It was supposed to be loaded at the same charge weight as IMR 4895 with identical ballistics in the Cal. .30 M2 round, but some of the "new" surplus stuff was rejected because it was too slow, with reports of burning even slower than H4831 from some.

I'm disappointed that Hi-Tech didn't provide any lot numbers with this stuff. We may well be comparing apples, oranges and grapes.

Having just re-read all the testing that has been done by the list members and recognizing that although you may feel your powder has not deteriorated significantly you must admit it still shows the classical signs of pressure instability when loaded to normal full case density in several regular military bottleneck rifle case configurations. This certainly shows a potential risk of use.

The fact the material was rejected by the military and subsequent testing by senior list members has indeed deemed it to be considered perhaps potentially dangerous must be considered.

Really, the only responsible thing to do is to email me and work out the shipping arrangements so I can get it over to the authorized disposal site that is attached over to the south side of Fort Bragg. Then you can rest easy that the potentially dangerous, undefined, not-lot-identifed but thought to be rejected powder has been laid to rest properly (in a manner that isn't going to come back to haunt either your pocketbook or, more importantly your concience, later).

I just count myself lucky to have the Bragg facility near at hand so I can offer to collect the shipments and cart it on over to be disposed of properly. I just wish I could help with more than just the shipping, as some guys have a lot of the stuff they likely need to get rid of before it deteriorates even more and becomes even more unstable and potentially dangerous.

Oldfeller (Oldfeller@access4less.net)

[""The fact the material was rejected by the military""

Where is this coming from? Is there some evidence that this is United States Military rejected powder? Can it be just unused surplus? Is this some form of Guru conjecture or can someone authenticate the rejection and cause? Is someone saying here that our Government has dumped some dangerous material into the open market place? Wow roger

Bartsche,
That's just Oldfeller with his dry humor. He's harmless, you just have to know him. He wouldn't anymore dispose of surplus powder than I would.

Hey guys,
I have been reading through this tread about a powder that is clearly finicky and quite possibly dangerous in a lot of configurations.

Why on Goods green earth do you risk you guns, health and your sanity with this junk?? It clearly cannot be because you save money since so many of you spend at least three times the number of shoots just to find a safe load.

And even though you must pay 110$ for an 8# keg of Hogdon or others what is the point of using the surplus stuff? Powder is only so much of the coast of reloading. On my end of the pond powder is less than 30% of the total cost of each round. Would it not be a whole lot easier to buy something you could trust, get reliable loading data and actually enjoy going to the range without worrying about blowing up your gun???

Clearly I don't see the point of saving 60$ pr 8# of powder when it deperdise safety. Should amount to 7c a round......... Not worth risking my guns or health that is for sure.....

But hey I'm Norwegian so what do I know

You make a lot of sense.I went to the web site you had on your posting and I have a question. Do you really dress like the guy ( Les mer) in the add? roger

No I don't have those colors on my shooting coat and trousers, but yes for competition I do use shooting clothes. And actually "les mer" is norwegian for wanna read more, It's a link to a bigger article



By the way the guy in the picture is Swedish Olympic,World Champion and World Cup winner Jonas Edman.He shoots 50m Prone



If you are interested in shooting clothes you can visit the manufacturers website at www.monard.com



Also represented in the United States.I tried getting David Tubb as the US rep but unfortunately it did not happen.



Really nice stuff tough, if you're into that sort of equipment.