Armory Sponsor
Posted: 8/5/2014 1:16:51 PM EDT
|
I just got into reloading and was going through breaking down costs and had a question.
All this is just hypothetical when it comes to power charge. Say the weapons is a 16" mid length chambered for 5.56 NATO. Bullet is a 55 gr FMJ with a target velocity of 3,000 fps. So lets just say I use H335 and I need 25 gr of powder. That is 280 rounds per pound of powder. Then I tried H332 and found it needed 23 gr of powder. That is 304 rounds per pound of powder. Then say I took H4198 or IMR 4198 and they only needed 21 gr of powder. That is 333 rounds per pound of powder. Going from this data it would take 19% less powder using H4198 vs H335. Ok... strictly speaking to powder efficiency and not whether your weapon cycles, accuracy or anything else it would appear that H4198 is "the best" in terms of efficiency. Has anybody run any numbers on the most efficient powders? Is it simply the powder with the fastest burn rate? |
| I side more towards rounds per pound. I use H335/WC84 because I got it cheap, ~$100 per 8lb keg. In 45ACP I use Bullseye at 4-4.3 gr per load, Tight Group is less powder per round but I didn't like it as much. In 308, I use what works best as it is a lower volume round, same with 444 Marlin. |
|
Quoted:
I just got into reloading and was going through breaking down costs and had a question. All this is just hypothetical when it comes to power charge. Say the weapons is a 16" mid length chambered for 5.56 NATO. Bullet is a 55 gr FMJ with a target velocity of 3,000 fps. So lets just say I use H335 and I need 25 gr of powder. That is 280 rounds per pound of powder. Then I tried H332 and found it needed 23 gr of powder. That is 304 rounds per pound of powder. Then say I took H4198 or IMR 4198 and they only needed 21 gr of powder. That is 333 rounds per pound of powder. Going from this data it would take 19% less powder using H4198 vs H335. Ok... strictly speaking to powder efficiency and not whether your weapon cycles, accuracy or anything else it would appear that H4198 is "the best" in terms of efficiency. Has anybody run any numbers on the most efficient powders? Is it simply the powder with the fastest burn rate? I use 2230 22.5grs. Powder requirements vary with bullet and well, powder. If you keep breaking down cost using different powders , you'll drive yourself crazy [er]. The other poster does it per round, like i do. Being new to reloading your cost per will be higher then someone who has been in the game longer. My casting buddy, he's still using powder he purchased 30+ year ago. He also had a reloading business. Load, shot have fun. |
|
H335 is $19.40 per pound at Powder Valley. At 280 rounds per pound, that works out to be $0.0693 per round.
IMR 4895 is $21.40 per pound at Powder Valley. At 333 rounds per pound, that works out to be $0.0643 per round. By choosing IMR 4895 over H335 you are saving $0.005 per round. That's HALF A PENNY! If you loaded 1,000 rounds that's a savings of $5, which is enough money to load an additional 29 rounds of ammunition at current best market prices on components (.17 per round). By choosing to use IMR 4895 over H335 you are increasing the amount you can load for the same cost by 2.9%. Personally, I think the bigger consideration is whether or not it's worth putting up with loading 4895 with its huge charge weight variance through a powder measure instead of just loading H335 which is pretty much THE powder to load the 55gr bullets at a velocity around 3,000 fps. The ball powder aspect alone is worth giving up the 2.9% |
|
Alliant 1200-r for 55gr or less. Been happy with 22gr or so for cheap plinking. Bought my first couple pounds last year at Cabelas when nothing else available.
Reasons I went back for more: 1. Dispenses great 2. Easy to find 3. Cheap in comparison (Recobs and grafs had it for 140ish/8) 4. great results with Horn SPs |
|
Trade offs yes.. Just pick a spherical that is efficient.
Quoted:
Forget efficiency. What you want to think about is spherical powder, for ease of reloading. Quoted:
Quoted:
I just got into reloading... Has anybody run any numbers on the most efficient powders? Forget efficiency. What you want to think about is spherical powder, for ease of reloading. |
|
In a given cartridge a faster burning powder will use less of that powder. Myself, I have found over the years that powder charges that fill the case (slower burning powders) close to full or compressed charges are more accurate. My goals are: 100% reliable function, accuracy, repeat ability of a known good load, cartridge appearance, then cost. Just depends on what is important to you. When you handload, it puts you in charge of the priority's. With fast powder, be careful with the charge weight. It's possible to get enough powder in a case to cause a serious pressure issue. (kaboom) Then you have the issue with the physical powder shape and the effect it has on measuring through a PM. (powder measure) Ball powders measure very well, flake and short extruded measure good, and extruded (looks like a log) not very well. The H and IMR 4198 are both extruded powders. From the powders you listed H-335 is very popular. It's a ball powder (measures exact with good technique) gives good accuracy, and fills the case. I would only use those others in 223 if they were all I could find. My choice before H-335 if every powder were available, would be Tac and CFE 223 for 223. Good luck
|
|
Quoted:
Alliant 1200-r for 55gr or less. Been happy with 22gr or so for cheap plinking. Bought my first couple pounds last year at Cabelas when nothing else available. Reasons I went back for more: 1. Dispenses great 2. Easy to find 3. Cheap in comparison (Recobs and grafs had it for 140ish/8) 4. great results with Horn SPs +1 I haven't loaded a ton of cartridges with this powder yet but I just started using it and it seems like a great powder for 55 gr. plinking loads. It's quite economical and easy to find. It also meters pretty much exact through a Dillon powder measure. Doing work ups, it cycled 5 AR15's with all charge weights I tested between 20.6 gr. and 23.0 gr. Using a 21.8 gr. charge I settled on, you would be looking at $0.0564 CPR, which will save you about $13 per 1k compared to your theoretical H335 load. I don't have enough experience with it yet to comment on temperature sensitivity or accuracy comparisons with other powders but so far it looks very promising for lightweight bullets. |
|
Quoted: Does anyone know where to get WC844 these days? Or even WC846? I've used WC846 in 5.56 / 223 and it loads like H414 and shoots at really consistent velocities. Thanks The tacked "where to find" thread at the top of the page. Mentioned right here http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_42/387784_ATTENTION___READ_THIS________New_Members__Don_t_Blow_This_Off_____.html Or this thread gets locked. |
|
If you just want the gun to go, "BANG", then load powders that are fast for the cartridge and bullet. Best accuracy will occur with fills as close to 100% as possible. Your rifle might not be sufficiently accurate to measure the difference.
There's also the possibility of overcharging the case, and basic practices such as looking into each case to confirm the right fill height work, but it's a step that can't be skipped. It's probably a great idea to check when loading long gunpowders such an IMR 4198 (which I consider to be my last choice for all cartridges due to its terrible behavior from a drum measure). The cost savings for loading 280 or 310 cases from a pound of gunpowder is the last detail I'd consider; that's one cent per round differences. Also, check the actual weight of those "1 pound" canisters, they are often 14 ounces for Hodgon products. |
|
Quoted:
If you just want the gun to go, "BANG", then load powders that are fast for the cartridge and bullet. Best accuracy will occur with fills as close to 100% as possible. Your rifle might not be sufficiently accurate to measure the difference. There's also the possibility of overcharging the case, and basic practices such as looking into each case to confirm the right fill height work, but it's a step that can't be skipped. It's probably a great idea to check when loading long gunpowders such an IMR 4198 (which I consider to be my last choice for all cartridges due to its terrible behavior from a drum measure). The cost savings for loading 280 or 310 cases from a pound of gunpowder is the last detail I'd consider. Also, check the actual weight of those "1 pound" canisters, they are often 14 ounces for Hodgon products. Interesting learned quite bit right here. I use allot h 4198 for my subs for cast bullets 230gr,245gr, 180 grainers. Is as smooth as sandpaper not exactly the best measuring in hornady or redding measures. I expect nothing more than plinking accuracy |
Armory Sponsor