just pondering or maybe rambling

[ole95]

just setting around looking at load data and comparing different powders with certain bullets weights, and I noticed something interesting. I've read, been told and over heard that IMR and Hogden powders are now the same, and can be interchanged. I never bought that 100% yes maybe interchanged but result could be different. In my load developing I have always like to try to finds the fastest burn rate powder that will give me the Velocity and Accuracy that I'm looking for.
I do this mainly for 3 reasons 1. that's my MO 2. use less powder 3. I firmly believe felt recoil is less. To me I have been rewarded with the end result using this approach. I know some use the I wont my case as close to full as I can approach with good result and some happy with I had a bunch of that powder approach
or that guy on the internet said it was a good load. Hey if it works for you and don't hurt me go for it.
with all that rambling over here is something interesting and may add a new variable in my formula.
my example using the Hogdon on line reloading data
223 with 55 gr. bullet starting loads
18.8 gr. IMR 4198 = mv of 2599 with a pressure 41600 psi
19 gr. H 4198 = mv of 2400 with a pressure 34800 CUP
so you can use .2 gr. less and get 199 fps more using IMR Not sure why one is listed standard PSI and the other uses the CUP method
but bring me to my point
Now 'm I not taking about Max psi to keep from blowing up your gun. But the affects of psi on not only accuracy but felt recoil
with most using reduced loads for our game I figure max psi is not some thing that becomes a problem
Question when starting cold turkey on load development for new cartage is psi listed in the manual anything you look at when picking a starting powder.
perfect timing I'm finish rambling and supper is ready

[high standard 40]

The same company owns Hodgdon, IMR, and Winchester powders, but the powders are not the same and data can't be used interchangeably. There are some exceptions: H110/296---H414/760---HP38/231. These three Hodgdon powders are identical to the corresponding three Winchester powders. Additionally, HS6 is the same as the discontinued Winchester 540 and HS7 is the same as the discontinued 571. H4198 and IMR4198 don't interchange and the same can be said of H4895 and IMR4895.
Personally, I never worried about how much or how little powder it took to get an accurate load. In regards to felt recoil, powder charge weight is calculated along with bullet weight to achieve ejecta weight. For a given muzzle velocity, the lighter the ejecta, the less recoil will be felt.

[ole95]

Charlie you missed my question that was mixed in with all the bs
Do you look at psi of a powder when picking a starting
Powder for a new load ? Do you think psi of a powder
Is anyway a factor to accuracy or recoil or would lead you to try that powder 1st
Just interested if anybody does figure NOT

[high standard 40]

When looking for a new load I look at all the published data I can find from as many sources as possible. I usually have an idea of what velocity range I would like to load to and consider all powders that will keep me close to that velocity range without approaching a published maximum load level. So I guess I do consider pressure levels, any prudent loader should. But I don't much consider it as a requisite to accuracy. I consider what is listed in the data as an "accuracy" load but this is not always an absolute. Each gun is an individual. So I guess my answer is that I don't consider chamber pressure as a factor for an accuracy load except as it applies to safe loading practices. I have observed some very accurate loads that had horrible standard deviation numbers on my chronograph.

[jmoore]

Do you look at psi of a powder when picking a starting
Powder for a new load ? Do you think psi of a powder
Is anyway a factor to accuracy or recoil or would lead you to try that powder 1st
Just interested if anybody does figure NOT

I can see where having minimized recoil would be important with King tube sights or rifle scopes when shooting from your usual flop postion.

But having just completed my rookie year in BB, I haven't much practical experience yet.

For rifles shooting jacketed bullets, I've always tried to cross reference the Sierra, Nosler and Lyman manulas to see if there's any consensus as to the most accurate load for a particular bullet weight. With preference to the Sierra manual if possible. Seems their recommendation usually falls just short of a max load and rarely to the low end of the weight spectrum.

I do know that with revolver loads in the standing classes, there can be quite a bit of velocity variation with low density loads. !!!! Take that back, there can be ridiculous variations, even with factory ammo!!! (Some may recall the over two foot elevation changes at 100 yards with a .45 Colt load depending on whether the powder was forward or aft at a late 2015 Field Pistol match. Load was rather accurate if the powder position was constant. )

[ole95]

Jmoore that's the thing I like about the King tube by changing the aperture you can change the eye relieve. Remember these were designed to be shot creedmore . Matter of fact I was told they would not work shooting prone
But by making my own apertures I been able to use it prone with recoil not being a factor
Really the only gun recoil was a problem was BB production which was my worst gun to shoot but after reducing recoil
My scores were a lot better. Any time I can get a gun to shoot just as good or better with less recoil I''m all about it

[i26963]

No
MC

[high standard 40]

No
MC

That right there is a brief and concise answer.

[ole95]

I figure he call Robert and he told him to say no so I can count that as 2 NO 's
So Got 2 NO's and 2 3 paragraphs that = 2 NO's

[i26963]

I figure he call Robert and he told him to say no so I can count that as 2 NO 's
So Got 2 NO's and 2 3 paragraphs that = 2 NO's

I was trying to put it in simple terms for you, Richard!
Actually, I agree with you on some of your observations. the pressure listings don't mean much to me, as they are in test barrels, and to me, don't have much relevance.
I also use faster burning powders than most, mainly to reduce muzzle blast, and in some respects, recoil. I find that muzzle blast is more tiring to me than
When Steve Riddle was alive, we both were the first to have MOA's in 6 BR for production guns. Steve and I tested extensively, and he always seems to settle on near maximum loads. He used a case full of Varget, and the muzzle blast was huge! Very accurate, but not pleasant to shoot. I settled on Vihta vouri N-130, which is a fast burning powder. I got almost the same velocity, with much less blast. Very accurate, too.
I like low recoiling, quiet loads , and there is no substitute for scoped testing of the loads. The manuals are good to get a starting point for development. Steve, Robert, and I would take a loading press and dies to do our testing, and test all day long.
I have pretty much settled on my loads and have used my Prod., Revolver, and UL loads for probably the last 7 years. They seem to shoot well, and more importantly, they are consistent.
Richard, I am glad to see you have recovered from that upstate SC team beating your Alabama Tide! I was worried about you there for a While!