Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:20:24 PM EDT
| I read in different places on the net that BL-C(2) and Win 748 may be the same powder as they are owned by the same company and they seem to be very close in terms of the burn rate. So to ease my mind I sent an e-mail to hodgdon in an effort to get a real answer. They replied " BL-C (2) and Win 748 are not and have never been the same powder". |
|
Quoted:
I read in different places on the net that BL-C(2) and Win 748 may be the same powder as they are owned by the same company and they seem to be very close in terms of the burn rate. So to ease my mind I sent an e-mail to hodgdon in an effort to get a real answer. They replied " BL-C (2) and Win 748 are not and have never been the same powder". They are correct. WW-748 and BL-C(2) are NOT the same thing. BL-C(2) was developed out of WC-846 H-335 was developed out of WC-844 BL-C(2) is not bad to develop M-80 loads. H-335 is not bad to develop M-193 loads. I think that TAC is a better choice then either of the above powders. |
|
But, having said all that............you do know the story of the development of rifle powder for the M16 right?
http://www.thegunzone.com/556prop.html Read the last paragraph very carefully. Perhaps, that is where the confusion started? Aloha, Mark |
|
Quoted:
WC-844 was developed from one end of the burn rate and pressure curve specifcation range for WC-846, so WC-846 and WC-844 are both subsets of the original WC-846 specification.
Quoted:
I read in different places on the net that BL-C(2) and Win 748 may be the same powder as they are owned by the same company and they seem to be very close in terms of the burn rate. So to ease my mind I sent an e-mail to hodgdon in an effort to get a real answer. They replied " BL-C (2) and Win 748 are not and have never been the same powder". They are correct. WW-748 and BL-C(2) are NOT the same thing. BL-C(2) was developed out of WC-846 H-335 was developed out of WC-844 BL-C(2) is not bad to develop M-80 loads. H-335 is not bad to develop M-193 loads. I think that TAC is a better choice then either of the above powders. During the manufacturing process of ball powder, individual production batches will tested and then blended to get the desired specifications for a given powder type. Both BL-C(2) and H335 work well in the .223 with 55 grain FMJ's but you get a slight velocity advantage with H335 at the same peak chamber pressure. The difference is maybe 50 fps and is really only an issue if you are truly trying to get M193 velocities. In order of burn rate fastest to slowest 748 BL-C(2) H335 TAC |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
WC-844 was developed from one end of the burn rate and pressure curve specifcation range for WC-846, so WC-846 and WC-844 are both subsets of the original WC-846 specification.
Quoted:
I read in different places on the net that BL-C(2) and Win 748 may be the same powder as they are owned by the same company and they seem to be very close in terms of the burn rate. So to ease my mind I sent an e-mail to hodgdon in an effort to get a real answer. They replied " BL-C (2) and Win 748 are not and have never been the same powder". They are correct. WW-748 and BL-C(2) are NOT the same thing. BL-C(2) was developed out of WC-846 H-335 was developed out of WC-844 BL-C(2) is not bad to develop M-80 loads. H-335 is not bad to develop M-193 loads. I think that TAC is a better choice then either of the above powders. During the manufacturing process of ball powder, individual production batches will tested and then blended to get the desired specifications for a given powder type. Both BL-C(2) and H335 work well in the .223 with 55 grain FMJ's but you get a slight velocity advantage with H335 at the same peak chamber pressure. The difference is maybe 50 fps and is really only an issue if you are truly trying to get M193 velocities. In order of burn rate fastest to slowest: 748 BL-C(2) H335 TAC I thought that BL-C(2) was slower than H335....? |
|
Quoted: You are correct, blc2 is slower than H335.Quoted: Quoted: WC-844 was developed from one end of the burn rate and pressure curve specifcation range for WC-846, so WC-846 and WC-844 are both subsets of the original WC-846 specification.Quoted: I read in different places on the net that BL-C(2) and Win 748 may be the same powder as they are owned by the same company and they seem to be very close in terms of the burn rate. So to ease my mind I sent an e-mail to hodgdon in an effort to get a real answer. They replied " BL-C (2) and Win 748 are not and have never been the same powder". They are correct. WW-748 and BL-C(2) are NOT the same thing. BL-C(2) was developed out of WC-846 H-335 was developed out of WC-844 BL-C(2) is not bad to develop M-80 loads. H-335 is not bad to develop M-193 loads. I think that TAC is a better choice then either of the above powders. During the manufacturing process of ball powder, individual production batches will tested and then blended to get the desired specifications for a given powder type. Both BL-C(2) and H335 work well in the .223 with 55 grain FMJ's but you get a slight velocity advantage with H335 at the same peak chamber pressure. The difference is maybe 50 fps and is really only an issue if you are truly trying to get M193 velocities. In order of burn rate fastest to slowest: 748 BL-C(2) H335 TAC I thought that BL-C(2) was slower than H335....? |
|
It's right as originally posted ie. fastest to slowest = 748, BL-C(2), H335, TAC.
H322 is faster than 748. The above mentioned powders are however close enough that the order could vary on charts from different sources as some charts don't get real picky about exact order. As stated H335/WC 844 and BL-C(2)/WC 846 are derivatives of the same original WC 846 specification so the burn rates are very close. |
|
As stated above, BLC2 != 748 ...
Interestingly, though, WW296 and H110 is the same powder... and I think Winchester 231 and one of the Hodgdon pistol powders are the same (can't recall which). I just go by what the manuals have. IIRC, the reason we see a few tenths of a grain of difference in some reloading manuals between H110 and WW296 for a given round is just lot-to-lot differences that are present with any gunpowder. Even knowing this, I stick to the manual, but do keep it in the back of my mind that I can buy 296 and it should work fine in my H110 loads, and vice-versa. I do a quick work up for changing lots anyway. |
Armory Sponsor