Rank beginner question, I've been wondering if there is a definite slant towards which powders can perform well over a relatively wide range of charges for a particular bullet and case.

For example, H4895 is well-known for mild/light/youth loads, and it is a single-base extruded powder, and towards the fast end for typical American bottleneck cartridges.

Which of those factors (single- vs double-base, extruded vs ball, fast vs slow) would be the primary cause of load flexibility?

thx

The 4895 powders are towards the slow end of the "relative" burn rate, not the faster. They do work well in a variety/multitude of applications.

I think one is better off just having a powder that works best in each caliber he owns, too many variables in trying to come up with a factual answer to your question.., the masses would never agree on your choice no matter who you are..Load flexibility is nothing but a coined term for a useless endeavor..

The answer is, It Depends. On the type of cartridge. Straight walled cartridges can make use of powders over a larger burning range than can bottlenecked cartridges can. They develop pressure very differently.
Yes, best to forget about this, since you are a newbie, and concentrate on the basics of working up good loads that do what you want them to.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:

Yes, best to forget about this, since you are a newbie, and concentrate on the basics of working up good loads that do what you want them to.

+1

Extruded powders in general work better over a wider range of pressure because they ignite more easily.
Reduced loads of ball/spherical propellants can give hang fires and no fires plus terrific concussion and huge fireballs (when it burns at the muzzle).

Single-base powders (nitrocellulose, usually in stick form) tend to act in a somewhat linear fashion, while double-based (nitrocellulose with nitroglycerine, and often spherical) tend a bit more to act differently according to the size of the case and loading density. So, "over a wider range of loading densities" I would give the edge to single-base powders. That is not to say that a double-base powder might not be more optimal in certain cartridges with certain bullets.

However, I hope your question is largely academic. I know of no practical application of this knowledge outside of a ballistics laboratory.

By the way, I agree with your characterization of 4895 as being "towards the fast end for typical American bottleneck cartridges" if you consider those cartridges to be the "full size" and magnum cartridges. If counting pistol and shotgun powders then there are certainly many more that are faster than slower, but in the context of your description you are correct.

I got tired of having a shelf full of various can's of powders.

Decided 4895 worked well enough for everything i loaded for. From .223 to .375 H&H.

Sure, there's "better" powder for each cartridge.
but: if you want to cut down on trying to keep track of them all and use one or two. I don't think you can go wrong with 4895 for rifles.
It's a very good high average that works in most cartridges. That's the way I see it.

And RedDot and H110 for handguns. Again: there's "better" for each one. My way is just a way to keep things simple and less hassle.

Then I got involved in the small cased .17's and needed something else. AA1680. Just need to be mighty careful with small cases as just .1gr increase Will blow a gun up. BTDT and the only time I ever have.

Keeping the variety down to just 2-4 powders allows buying in bulk.
George

A bit on the fast side for my applications these days, but Unique used to claim to be the most useful all-round powder. Did that relate to a tolerance to different load densities?