Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Reloading' started by crockett, Dec 20, 2016.
Very Cool - both the data and the microscope photo example.
Does the software support measurement?
Not the software, but the supplied base has a scale and a 5mm grid on it which makes it pretty easy to determine kernel size in the photos later on.
This is just incredible and very informative!
I have read where HP-38 and Win 231 were the same powder, just relabeled. The database would say otherwise. They are close, but not exactly the same with a few different ingredients. Any insight from anybody?
AFAIK they used to be slightly different and right next to each other in the burn rate list but since 2012 they are made in the same factory. Most database entries are older and show prior 2012 data.
Maybe I should start my own and current database.
When working up 10mm loads I photographed each powder as I went along, 45 in total. Not the highest resolution, but the images might be of some use to someone.
Benchrst: Thanks, great pictures.
Sorry I missed your post way back when. W231 and HP38 have always been the same powder. I think way back when they might have tested slightly different as they were shipped from the manufacturer to their distribution co's (win and hodgdon) in different non-cannister lots. Since Hodgdon has taken over both "brands" they are identical in every way. There is a youtube video of Bruce Hodgdon being interviewed where he confirms this fact. If you go to Hodgdon's web site, their latest revision of load data for both powders list identical loads for all loads they have listed.
That was my understanding also, that they were identical. Imagine my surprise when there were formulas with different ingredients.
Lots of online filing errors, all around the world, that get sighted as facts.
When Hodgdon himself says they are the same, I kind of believe him. When they did their new database online and harmonized all the loads (that differed even on their own site), it cleared it up for me.
I think the powder has always come from St. Marks and its predecessor Wood River Creek plants.
Well, having worked in a lab before, the answer could be as simple as a rat taking a dump in one of the samples.
BTW, the same confusion exists between W296 and H110, same exact powder, yet you will have old timers swear up and down they are absolutely different. Confirmation bias is strong in the force...
HS 6 and HS 7 also had their Winchester equivalents, the only
difference was said to be the lot #s.
Link to an 'exact same, comparable' powder project at The High Road.
Thanks much, excellent list.
I don't know where the info in the link comes from, but in at least one case, it is highly suspect to me. It lists HS-6 and 540 as identical ( same exact powder ). Crockett's reference in post # 1 shows 5 components in HS-6 and 9 components in 540 with vastly different GC scans. It may be close, but they are definitely not the "same exact powder". Somebodies data is wrong.
Per Hodgdon's site:
In God We Trust;
all others bring data.