OK... lots of questions.
TimS makes a good point about using the private message feature. I try to answer when I can, with info that I can share, and I will not check in for a while sometimes.
Regarding burn speed, I say go with what you perceive. I characterize burn speed differently than some other folks, and in fact, there is no industry standard definition of burn speed. Many look at the charge weight to get a certain velocity, and they may infer pressure by the various methods. We measure pressure and velocity together, so my main way of characterizing burn speed is how much velocity is developed at a given pressure. Charge weight is in the mix, but that is more a measure of energy efficiency of the propellant in that system rather than burn speed. Our newest powders perfect examples of the efficiency thing. So, they generate velocity at lower charge weights than previous designs. Does that make them faster burning? Maybe/maybe not depending on the pressure needed to generate that velocity.
Honestly, I don't like discussing burn speed and burn speed charts, as that is a rabbit hole I don't have time to go down.
The bottom line is, use your judgement in the applications you are working. If you perceive Reloder 25 is slower than 26, rock on and be safe. In some applications 22 is slower than 23, and vice versa in others. Those two are actually really close P/V wise, depending on lot to lot variations, but the Reloder 23 is the newer more efficient design so charge weights are lower. It is different. The same is true with 25/26.
Regarding Quickload inputs for the powders we don't have the thermochemical/burn rate data for, I need to stay away from that. I feel certain some of you smart people could tweak an existing propellant in the file to mimic another powder, but I wouldn't do that myself. I think Quickload is a very good simulation program, but would remind all that it is governed by the GIGO rule like any other program.
Thank you all for buying our powders.
Shoot well,
Paul
