Powder Equivalences

[South Pender]

Apologies if this is too basic a question, but I've just purchased QuickLOAD and have a bunch of questions!

I've seen it stated that (a) Norma MRP is identical to Re22 and (b) Norma MRP-2 is identical to Re25. When the term "identical" is used here does this mean that Norma shipped a quantity of MRP to Alliant who then re-labelled it Re22 (and similarly for MRP-2 and Re25)? Or does it mean that the two powders are very similar, but not actually identical?

I ask because I've run QuickLOAD on each pair of powders (MRP and Re22 and MRP-2 and Re25) and found that the results, although close, are not identical with respect to velocities and pressures.

Edit: After researching this a little, I guess a better way of expressing it than Norma shipping powder to Alliant would be the powder maker (a European company) shipping the very same powder to Norma (then labelled MRP) as to Alliant (and labelled Re22).

 

[Murray Brook]

I have used a good deal of Norma MRP and RL-22 in several different cartridges. While they are similar I have found them to certainly not be the same powder with a different name. Most times I could use 1-2 grs more MRP than RL-22 and found accuracy and velocity was better with MRP. I would say similar as in IMR4831/H4831 not WW760/H414. I also found lot to lot consistently better with MRP than RL-22. JMO

 

[antelopedundee]

Or perhaps they mean equivalent to in the sense that a generic drug is equivalent to a name brand. If they were exactly the same then performance and load data should reflect that. More than likely they are just similar to each other.

 

[JimPag]

Apologies if this is too basic a question, but I've just purchased QuickLOAD and have a bunch of questions!

I've seen it stated that (a) Norma MRP is identical to Re22 and (b) Norma MRP-2 is identical to Re25. When the term "identical" is used here does this mean that Norma shipped a quantity of MRP to Alliant who then re-labelled it Re22 (and similarly for MRP-2 and Re25)? Or does it mean that the two powders are very similar, but not actually identical?

I ask because I've run QuickLOAD on each pair of powders (MRP and Re22 and MRP-2 and Re25) and found that the results, although close, are not identical with respect to velocities and pressures.

Edit: After researching this a little, I guess a better way of expressing it than Norma shipping powder to Alliant would be the powder maker (a European company) shipping the very same powder to Norma (then labelled MRP) as to Alliant (and labelled Re22).

That's like years ago when I was talking to a tech at Hodgdon. We were talking about Win760 and H414. He told me that it was the exact same powder.

 

[Homerange]

Good chart here from ADI that make some of Hodgdon's powder:
http://www.adi-powders.com.au/powder-equivalents/

 

[46and2]

Just a thought, would QL parameters/values for these powders' variance be within the lot-to-lot variance for a given powder?

The same with personal testing differences between the two powders?

 

[rammac]

Most people speak with very little personal knowledge, more often they simply repeat something somebody else said, especially if it makes things more comfortable to them.

Most often people say that one powder is the same as some other powder because they've either read or heard somebody else say it, rarely do they know for a fact that one powder is the same as another. Additionally, all powders vary from lot to lot, so there will always be variations between any two samples, unless they come from the same container. If you read that link that Homerange posted you'll see that ADI says;

This table shows only approximate equivalent values within about 5%. Actual burning rates can vary depending on the calibre, firearm, loading components and practices, as well as from powder lot to lot.

So if each of two powders, that are supposed to be the same, had their burn rates vary by 5% then the worst case is that they will have a possibility of having 10% variance in their performance (one powder varying 5% lower than standard and the other varying by 5% higher than standard). So it's easy to see that QuickLoad, even with the most accurate data, will show a slight variance between two supposedly identical powders.

If you want to see the differences between the powders in QuickLoad pay attention to the Heat of Explosion, Ratio of Specific Heats, Burn rate (Ba value), Pro or Degressivity Factor, and Progressive Burning Limit numbers. You can also go to the menu items;

Data: Add, Change, Load, Save

Propellant Data

Change data records in active file​

You will see a graph that represents the burn characteristics of the powder that you've chosen.

 

[South Pender]

Just a thought, would QL parameters/values for these powders' variance be within the lot-to-lot variance for a given powder?

The same with personal testing differences between the two powders?

Yes, the MRP/Re22 values I got could, I think, be within lot-to-lot variance for either powder.

Good chart here from ADI that make some of Hodgdon's powder:
http://www.adi-powders.com.au/powder-equivalents/

That's a very useful chart, Homerange. I guess it shows equivalent burning rates; however, powders with very similar burning rates could differ in other ways, couldn't they?

Does anyone know where Alliant Re26 would appear in that chart? I'm interested in working up loads for my 270 Win., and I've seen some very promising reports--vis-a-vis velocity--about Re26 in the 270.

 

[SSL]

That's like years ago when I was talking to a tech at Hodgdon. We were talking about Win760 and H414. He told me that it was the exact same powder.

Add to that AA2700. All three are reputed to be the same powder.

 

[kiwijohn]

If you go to this page on the ADI website it tells you categorically what powders they make for Hogdon.
Scroll to the bottom of the page it is the last FAQ. That should clear it up a bit... being in genuine black and white from the maker.
And yes of course H may make some of their own as well.

http://www.adi-powders.com.au/faq/#f21b4c284d0d2d9af

 

[South Pender]

If you go to this page on the ADI website it tells you categorically what powders they make for Hogdon.
Scroll to the bottom of the page it is the last FAQ. That should clear it up a bit... being in genuine black and white from the maker.
And yes of course H may make some of their own as well.

http://www.adi-powders.com.au/faq/#f21b4c284d0d2d9af

That's helpful. I read somewhere that the only powders now being made in the US are the Winchester powders.

 

[Burnt Powder]

Add to that AA2700. All three are reputed to be the same powder.

2700 is far different than 760 and 414. I’ve used all three in the same applications. They don’t even look the same, not that 760 and 414 look exactly the same lot to lot, but the two different lots of 2700 I’ve used looked exactly the same, performed the same and is definitely not 760/414.

 

[kiwijohn]

That's helpful. I read somewhere that the only powders now being made in the US are the Winchester powders.

What about Saint Marks? They rebadge some (fromlooking at their web site). I guess that could include Winchesters powders too LOL you never know who makes what for whom these days!

 

[Homerange]

That's a very useful chart, Homerange. I guess it shows equivalent burning rates; however, powders with very similar burning rates could differ in other ways, couldn't they?

Well unless experienced we don't substitute powders willy nilly and if we are to follow safe practice by starting load development 10% down from max loads and further factoring in ADI's 5% burn rate tolerance it becomes clear this chart is at best a good guide only so for a crystal clear recommendation we then head off to the powders manufacturers website for their official loading data.
Other factors like powder density vs bulk vs % case fill might also show a nearly equivalent powder is unsuitable for ones requirements let alone how it might meter.

Now I have a Chargemaster metering is no longer an issue however studies and experience has shown a high case fill % is beneficial to low ES sores which is where I focus my efforts yet with the short barreled rifles I like to use in our tight hunting conditions finding slightly faster powders than recommended for a given projectile weight that are better burnt and with less muzzle blast is a task.
I guess it's the price you pay for using short tubed rifles.
YMMV

 

[SSL]

2700 is far different than 760 and 414. I’ve used all three in the same applications. They don’t even look the same, not that 760 and 414 look exactly the same lot to lot, but the two different lots of 2700 I’ve used looked exactly the same, performed the same and is definitely not 760/414.

As I said it is 'reputed' to be the same. An article in Handloader Magazine about the AA line of powders said that H414, WW760 and AA2700 were the same powder. I have seen this mentioned before also. I use a lot of AA2700 with .243 and 75-grain bullets as well as .30-06 150 and 165-grain bullets. My best loads with each run quite close to 790 an H414 in charge weight/velocity, however I only use AA loading data rather than blindly using data for the other two. Merely an observation.

 

[MagnumManiac]

Hodgdon do not, have not or ever will MAKE powder of ANY sort. They simply buy it and re-label it.
Their business started by buying bulk surplus military powders and re-packaging it for sale...nothing has changed other than the labels and packaging.
There are quite a few powders that are exactly the same and named differently by several brands, this is just how it is today.

Cheers.

 

[46and2]

Correct.

 

[kiwijohn]

Hodgdon do not, have not or ever will MAKE powder of ANY sort. They simply buy it and re-label it.
Their business started by buying bulk surplus military powders and re-packaging it for sale...nothing has changed other than the labels and packaging.
There are quite a few powders that are exactly the same and named differently by several brands, this is just how it is today.

Cheers.

OK THANKS FOR THAT

 

[jonbearman]

If you start low and work up I doubt you will have an issue.