H414 and Win 760
- Thread starter bsekf
- Start date
WDYes, just different production lots with the minor performance differences you'll likely find between two different lots of W760 or H414. QuickLOAD produces identical results with this pair. H. BL-C(2) and W748 also appear to be in the same situation, although QuickLOAD gives slightly different results for them.
Laurie,
BL-C(2) and 748 are indeed different powders, albeit very, very similar. Spot on about the lot to lot variations in re H414 and 760, though.
I sugested the book Misfire to you sometime back, and you sounded as though you enjoyed it. Have you by any chance read The Gun by C.J. Chivers? An outstanding history of the development of the AK-47, totally unlike anything I've ever read previously. Starting with the Gatling, to the Maxim, and on through the entire series of select fire individual weapons, he approaches the history of the AK from a cultural and sociological perspective very different than the typical tech-spec sheet aspects. Very good read, and I strongly recommend it if you should run across a copy!
BL-C(2) and 748 are indeed different powders, albeit very, very similar. Spot on about the lot to lot variations in re H414 and 760, though.
I sugested the book Misfire to you sometime back, and you sounded as though you enjoyed it. Have you by any chance read The Gun by C.J. Chivers? An outstanding history of the development of the AK-47, totally unlike anything I've ever read previously. Starting with the Gatling, to the Maxim, and on through the entire series of select fire individual weapons, he approaches the history of the AK from a cultural and sociological perspective very different than the typical tech-spec sheet aspects. Very good read, and I strongly recommend it if you should run across a copy!
H335 and 748....???
G.
G.
bigedp51
This is the second time I have answered your question.
Google is a wonderful tool for getting information.
Winchester set up the St Marks powder manufacturing facility in 1969.
760 and H414 are made at St Marks facility in Florida, and are the very same powder under different names.
When Winchester lost the contract to produce ammunition at Lake City Army Ammunition Depot they sold St Marks to General Dynamics weapons division.
When I got married my wife had a Plymouth Duster and I had a Dodge Dart, both cars had a 225 slant six engines, and both were made in the same assembly plant. BUT I changed the jets in my carburetor and my Dart had a slightly faster burn rate.
Google is a wonderful tool for getting information.
Winchester set up the St Marks powder manufacturing facility in 1969.
760 and H414 are made at St Marks facility in Florida, and are the very same powder under different names.
When Winchester lost the contract to produce ammunition at Lake City Army Ammunition Depot they sold St Marks to General Dynamics weapons division.
When I got married my wife had a Plymouth Duster and I had a Dodge Dart, both cars had a 225 slant six engines, and both were made in the same assembly plant. BUT I changed the jets in my carburetor and my Dart had a slightly faster burn rate.
Well I don't know the history of these two powders. But I only notice that the published reloading data changed when Hodgdon started marketing Winchester powders. I would say this was about 2 or 3 years ago. The bottom line is be careful if you have older lots of H414 and W760.
I can a test to this. Prior to 2005 H414 and W760 were two different powders. I use both (now I only buy H414). A 2008, powder burning rate chart I got off the internet shows the powders in this order: W760, H380, IMR4007, IMR4350 and H414. Most of the powder burning rate chart I have (7) show W760 as being fasted than H414 and being next to each other or separated by Scott Brigadier 4351.
For those of you old enough, the best powder for the .30-'06 was H205 (I suspect is the new Superformance powder or closely related). Sometime in the late 70's or early 80's H205 seemed to disappear. Many of us went to H414 for bullets at or under 150gr and W760 for bullets over 150gr. As a matter of fact H414 would give the highest muzzle velocities (MV) for 150gr .308 bullets in an '06. I remember something like 3000fps were being regularly confirmed by shooting sports writers.
My Sierra manual, copy write 1985 shows for a .308 Winchester, 150gr bullet: 51.7gr of H414 with a MV of 2800 and 51.8gr of W760 with a MV of 2900. Very close reloading density but the extra 100fps shows a differing pressure curve. My Speer manual, copy write 1979 shows for a .30-'06 Springfield, 180gr bullet 54.0gr of H414 with a MV of 2575 and 53.0gr of W760 with a MV of 2590. 1 grain of powder is not close for reloading density and for 1 grain less of powder from the W760 you will get an extra 15fps at the muzzle. Again this shows that the W760 is producing a different pressure curve. Therefore the two powders were differant.
It is my never-to-be-humble opinion that prior to Hodgdon started to market Winchester powders, H414 and W760 were different powders. Again BE CAREFULL!!!
I can a test to this. Prior to 2005 H414 and W760 were two different powders. I use both (now I only buy H414). A 2008, powder burning rate chart I got off the internet shows the powders in this order: W760, H380, IMR4007, IMR4350 and H414. Most of the powder burning rate chart I have (7) show W760 as being fasted than H414 and being next to each other or separated by Scott Brigadier 4351.
For those of you old enough, the best powder for the .30-'06 was H205 (I suspect is the new Superformance powder or closely related). Sometime in the late 70's or early 80's H205 seemed to disappear. Many of us went to H414 for bullets at or under 150gr and W760 for bullets over 150gr. As a matter of fact H414 would give the highest muzzle velocities (MV) for 150gr .308 bullets in an '06. I remember something like 3000fps were being regularly confirmed by shooting sports writers.
My Sierra manual, copy write 1985 shows for a .308 Winchester, 150gr bullet: 51.7gr of H414 with a MV of 2800 and 51.8gr of W760 with a MV of 2900. Very close reloading density but the extra 100fps shows a differing pressure curve. My Speer manual, copy write 1979 shows for a .30-'06 Springfield, 180gr bullet 54.0gr of H414 with a MV of 2575 and 53.0gr of W760 with a MV of 2590. 1 grain of powder is not close for reloading density and for 1 grain less of powder from the W760 you will get an extra 15fps at the muzzle. Again this shows that the W760 is producing a different pressure curve. Therefore the two powders were differant.
It is my never-to-be-humble opinion that prior to Hodgdon started to market Winchester powders, H414 and W760 were different powders. Again BE CAREFULL!!!
Well I usually try to tread a bit lightly around stuff like this, not wanting to step on other firms toes, but since Bigedp51 has already put it out there, yes, he's absolutley correct in his posting. W-W 760 comes into the Hodgdon operation in Herrington, KS, and is repackaged in bottles and jugs labeled H414. They have a few others as well, but the info he posted explains it all pretty well. Been there many times and have watched their repackaging operation. Good operation and great folks out there, but it's St. Marks that does the actual production. The difference between the info in various reloading manuals is a very clear insight into just what sort of differences exist from lot to lot (with any powder, not just Hodgdon/St. Marks). Something to bear in mind next timwe some newbe thinks it's perfectly fine to go straight to the top load listed in a manual without working up to it slowly.
KevinThomas said:
Mr. Thomas, you have pretty well proven by your own visits to the Herrington, KS facility that H414 is W760. That would also explain why in the past, H414 behaved as a faster burning powder.
dmoran posted this:
dmoran said:
Again I agree that H414 and W760 are the same powders today. My question is, “When did any powder manufacturer or distributor ever take two different powders, drop one and repackage the other as the dropped product?â€
This is the dumbest move I have heard of. Trust me... this one will come back to bit all of us in hind end. Some one is going to have an old lot of H414 and use today’s reloading data. That someone is going to get hurt. If this is also true of W748 and BLC2, the anti gun people are going to have a field day with this.
God help us!!! Our own industry is going mad.
Speer reloading manual, 1979, page 133 for 225 Winchester 70gr Semi-Spizer: W760 36gr, MV 3162fps and H414 34gr, MV 3092.
Load from a Disk, last updated in 2010 for .243 Winchester, 24â€bbl, 95gr Berger VLD: H414 41.2gr, 3079 MV, 85.0% load density, 47482cup and W760 41.2gr, 3034 MV, 85.0% load density, 46202cup.
The two powders were different and H414 was faster than W760. “Facts are a stick thing.â€
That's more common than you might think. For instance, H4831 started life as a surplus DuPont manufactured large calibre machine gun or small calibre cannon propellant after WW2. Due to long storage, it became slower burning than newly made IMR-4831 and the pair were (rightly) treated as being different enough to make it dubious to do a straight substitution of I-4831 with H4831's maximum loads. IMR-4895 was sold in vast quantities often in large paper sacks at the same period, marked with the manufacturer's lot number. The difference between lots was I've read far greater than would ever be acceptable today, the faster burning lots best used with IMR-3031 data.
Anyway, back to H4831. The surplus stuff eventually ran out and Hodgdon commissioned ICI Nobel Limited in Ayrshire, Scotland to make a substitute and that was sold under the Hodgdon label for many years. It is most unlikley it was an exact copy of the wartime surplus product, especially given the noted variances between lots of the latter and the storage age and conditions issue. Then ICI Nobel closed down and production went to ADI in Australia which still makes all Hodgdon stick powders. I doubt again if the 'new' H4831 and its 'sc' short-cut version are identical to its Scottish predecessor in terms of energy, burning rate, or load data. ADI has moved on too, is a division of a multi-national conglomerate now and has upgraded its production processes and products regularly over the years.
IMR powders are still made and sold as such (by its new owners Hodgdon), but have not been made by the old DuPont factory in the USA for many years, production having moved to Canada. Are today's IMR powders identical to the 3031, 4064 etc of years back? Unlikley?
The short answer is that in a fast moving global business world, everything changes regularly, and handloaders must never assume they can use data provided years ago for a powder that bears the same name. I don't find anything particularly odd or worrying about that. I own thirty or forty handloading manuals going back to the 1960s, but still check a new combination out on the propellant manufacturer's website and through QuickLOAD. Anyway, other factors such as bullet jacket hardness, bullet diameter, case capacity, barrel dimensions, etc etc, when taken in aggregate will usually have a considerably greater effect on pressures produced than relatively minor differences between powder lots and between old and new H414 for instance. That's why people say start low, work up and stop / back off when you get peak velocities and the first pressure signs.
Laurie said:
I love to reading your posts. You are very knowledgeable. But I think you just made my point. H4831 has changed little since it was a surplus machine gun powder from DuPont in Maryland. I inferred from your writings that the original lots of DuPont machine gun powder (Aka H4831) during WWII were the new retail IMR-4831 powder from after WWIII; being named after the Hodgdon brand of H4831. But as you wrote the two powders were treated differently. Why? Today, Hodgdon owns IMR powders or is licensed to produce them. Are we to see IMR-4831 become the same as H4831. And if not why not? They both started out as the same powder: yes?
I think the answer is clear. H4831, IMR4895, IMR3031 and the whole IMR line are still ostensibly the same powders with the same basic burning rates to be applied to same bullet/cartridge classes. I don't see in your writings that because a company and factory location has come and gone, it meant that a powder or class thereof went from one burning rate to another with no public warning or outreach. To make my point clearer none of the above powders have been discontinued and some other product relabeled as them. Especially your examples of H4831 and IMR4895.
Yes, it is common for a company and factory location to come and go. It is common for a product not related to general public to be labeled something different. However, as far as I know, never has any company within the shooting arms industry taken a product and discontinued it, then with no warning take another product and repackage it as the old, discontinued product. That's crazy!
Here is an example: AR2209 is the same as H4350. Both products are manufactured by ADI. H4350 is marketed in the USA and AR2209 is marketed elsewhere. The difference is packaging. What do you think would happen if Hodgdon dropped IMR4350 as a product and started repackaging the H4350 as IMR4350? And why not, H4350 and IMR4350 are as close a match in burning rate as W760 and H414 were.
I just went through several of my old reloading books and compared them to Hodgdon's Reloading Center data. No problem, the reloading data for IMR powers is for the most part the same. It's just the bullets that have changed. Example: Hodgdon shows for a .30-'06, 180gr bullet and IMR4064 powder 48.7gr. My manuals: Speer (1979) 48.5gr; Sierra (1985) 48.8gr and Hornady (1978) 48.9. Load from a Disk shows from the same IMR 4064 powder, the same 180gr Sierra GK and same max pressure of 48,200cup: 48.2gr powder and 82.4% load density.
“Are today's IMR powders identical to the 3031, 4064 etc of years back?†Yep!
I second your last paragraph!
jsn
Gold $$ Contributor
Hodgdon started printing annual reloading data in magazine formats some years ago, the earliest I have is 2004. They bought IMR and took over Win powder marketing in about this time frame. The 2007 annual I think was the first to show H414/W760 data as exactly the same for a number of cartridges, then in 2008 they were all converted to the new data. The same holds for H110/W296 and W231/HP38 I believe.
It may confuse people to this day as different reloading books will have different data for the same powder/bullet combos, but this is to be expected as the testing guns and barrels are different.
As has been discussed in many forum threads and here again, there are lot variations, different production facilities being used over the years, etc.
It may confuse people to this day as different reloading books will have different data for the same powder/bullet combos, but this is to be expected as the testing guns and barrels are different.
As has been discussed in many forum threads and here again, there are lot variations, different production facilities being used over the years, etc.
Another point that's being overlooked here is the fact that the means of measuring pressures has changed over the years. This factor alone has caused some tremendous changes in data that's made it into printed references. Comparing loading data from a manual of fifty, twenty, or even ten years ago with the "same" components today is (or can be) very misleading. The switch from the old CUP to PSI, as well as the various forms of newer transducers has opened up some very disconcerting questions in re the older data. This, probably more than any other single factor, is why so many reloading manuals have shown a downward trend where maximum loads are concerned.
I just looked over the Hodgdon Burning Rate Chart. It looks like Hodgdon is going to replace most if not all the Winchester rifle powders with their's. And they have replace two of the three Pistol powders. I never heard of Winchester AutoComp. Looks like they haven't messed with any of the Shootgun powders. But that could come soon as well. Hodgdon and Winchester Shotgun spherical powders: Titewad, Titegroup, HS6, and Longshot; Waalite, WST, Super HandiCap and WSF respectively.
I looked over old reloading data for H110/W296 and W231/HP38. H110/W296 are very close in burning rate. many loads are within a 10th of a grain with maybe 10fps separating them. I would say favoring the W296 as being a tad bit faster. H110/W296 were two differant powders.
I looked over the Data center and found W748 data missing. I did find it in the 308 Winchester section but the data is half missing for W748.
So here is what we know. H110/W296, W231/HP38 and H414/W760 are all the same powders now. It looks like BLC2/W748 and SUPERFORMANCE/Supreme 780 will be merged at a later date.
I looked over old reloading data for H110/W296 and W231/HP38. H110/W296 are very close in burning rate. many loads are within a 10th of a grain with maybe 10fps separating them. I would say favoring the W296 as being a tad bit faster. H110/W296 were two differant powders.
I looked over the Data center and found W748 data missing. I did find it in the 308 Winchester section but the data is half missing for W748.
So here is what we know. H110/W296, W231/HP38 and H414/W760 are all the same powders now. It looks like BLC2/W748 and SUPERFORMANCE/Supreme 780 will be merged at a later date.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.