Burn rate chart

[itchyTF]

Hadn’t seen this one before. Just thought I’d pass it on.

https://www.theballisticassistant.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Powder-Relative-Burn-Rate-7-5-2021-Viewing.pdf

 

[SteveOak]

That will keep ya busy.

 

[SeabeeKen]

Used that one for a number of years. covers a lot of old military powders under their civilian #s

 

[deadidarren]

Wow there are some very big errors in that one just like all the rest

 

[Webster]

Hadn’t seen this one before. Just thought I’d pass it on.

https://www.theballisticassistant.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Powder-Relative-Burn-Rate-7-5-2021-Viewing.pdf

Never used a burn rate chart. I look in the reloading manuals and see which 3-5 powders give the highest FPS. I assume they are the most efficient for my varmint rifle. If you shoot serious competition, you should already know what powders the top shooters use in your caliber.

 

[shoot4fun]

While I keep a burn rate chart handy (always the latest version), I do not rely on it.
Over the years I find burn rate comparisons to have a back seat to pressure curve.
In talking with some trusted sources at a couple of powder companies I learned while two powders may be next to each other on the BRC they may very well have far different pressure producing characteristics.
Also, I have known a couple of "whiz kids" that felt they could "extrapolate" loads using a BRC and a reloading manual. A very dangerous endeavor.

 

[Tommie]

Wow there are some very big errors in that one just like all the rest

Agreed. None of the charts seem to agree. For example this one shows H4340 being slower than IMR4831. I don’t completely trust any burn rate chart. But this one is interesting and includes many powders not usually found on other charts.

 

[SVT_Tactical]

Another version - but again only for reference, testing proved for me a few contradicting placements.

 

[T.Rhodes]

I've always wondered if the burn rates of these powders are linear...I doubt it. Doing a search, I find gun powder burn rates are expressed in millimeters per second (mm/s). This is the distance a combustion wave travels through the powder per second. This is news to me.

It would be interesting to see numbers attached to the powders to get a sense of the actual differences between powders.

 

[bozo699]

Never used a burn rate chart. I look in the reloading manuals and see which 3-5 powders give the highest FPS. I assume they are the most efficient for my varmint rifle. If you shoot serious competition, you should already know what powders the top shooters use in your caliber.

Some of us aren’t as smart as you, I don’t use a brc as gospel but I occasionally reference them.
Thanks for sharing itchy

 

[Webster]

While I keep a burn rate chart handy (always the latest version), I do not rely on it.
Over the years I find burn rate comparisons to have a back seat to pressure curve.
In talking with some trusted sources at a couple of powder companies I learned while two powders may be next to each other on the BRC they may very well have far different pressure producing characteristics.
Also, I have known a couple of "whiz kids" that felt they could "extrapolate" loads using a BRC and a reloading manual. A very dangerous endeavor.

You have to keep in mind that burn rates are not determined with a rifle cartridge. They are determined by putting the same weight of a type of powder in a closed cylinder with guages on it. The cylinder is the same dimensions and volume for every powder test and has no relationship to any cartridge case volume or shape or bullet wt. All powders are tested the same no matter what they will be used for.

I believe burn rate for any powder changes based on how it's confined during burning. Cartridge volume behind the bullet as it moves forward and how fast the bullet moves forward changing the rate of volume expansion.

Always wondered why guys measure case volume. As soon as the bullet moves forward it's the same as making the case volume bigger. The increase in the space the powder is burning in is much bigger than the tiny variation in case volume.

Shoot small. Have fun. Get those varmints.

 

[Webster]

I've always wondered if the burn rates of these powders are linear...I doubt it. Doing a search, I find gun powder burn rates are expressed in millimeters per second (mm/s). This is the distance a combustion wave travels through the powder per second. This is news to me.

It would be interesting to see numbers attached to the powders to get a sense of the actual differences between powders.

I don't think they can measure the speed of a combustion wave. I read a good article on the process once, I'll see if I can find it. There is an igniter put in the test cylinder and they measure and record presure VS time with a high speed oscilliscope. The also measure peak temp. Will post if i can find the article.

 

[T.Rhodes]

I don't think they can measure the speed of a combustion wave. I read a good article on the process once, I'll see if I can find it. There is an igniter put in the test cylinder and they measure and record presure VS time with a high speed oscilliscope. The also measure peak temp. Will post if i van find the article.

I just did a quick internet search and that's what I got. We all know they can't put it on the internet if it's not true. LOL.

Would like to read more about this - please post if you can find it.

 

[shoot4fun]

Let's look at the 243 Winchester as an example.
Once upon a time long ago I used WW748 for all my hunting ammo. It worked vey well in my 308 and even better in my 7MM08.
When I happened to find a nice Remington 788 Carbine in .243 of course I wanted by good friend WW748 along for the ride. Turns out there was no data anywhere. I called Winchester powder tech line and the guy said very confidently that he had it, didn't know why I couldn't find it and would happily supply me with the knowledge I needed. That's when he changed his mind. As it turned out, even though the 7MM08 and 243 were very close and almost every powder that worked in on did in the other, WW748 went only had .5 grain spread between starting and max loads. Hodgdon shows Staball Match and WW748 side by side and both are ball powders. So, if one went by a BRC then one could surmise they are both suitable for 243.
But while pressure velocity and pressure data for Staball Match is a wide range there is still no data for WW748.
Now, I do not use GRT or QL but I would be interested in what someone with a through knowledge of the data required for valid output could see where those tools take this comparison.