Numbers (names) of powder

Status
Not open for further replies.

CptnAwesome

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
642
Location
Alabama
Just curious about the the numbers given to to different types of powder. Like 4831, 7828, 4350. Can you tell anything about the burn rate, etc. of powders by the numbers it's given? Or were they just assigned random numbers when created?
 
I'm not sure if it was originally planned this way but it seems the higher the number the slower the powder.

One thing about turn rare charts, they will tell you which powders are faster or slower but not HOW MUCH faster or slower. The charts are relative and a powder that is faster in one cartridge can be slower in another. It's just a general guide.
 
I don't know where they come up with them but they are definitely not correlated to fast vs slow.

The classic Imr rifle powders in order are,

4227
4198
3031
4895
4064
4320
4350
4831

Also a note on burn rate charts, the big thing they also leave out is energy density. Some powders have a lot of nitroglycerin in them and pack a lot more energy per grain than others so just because a powder close on a burn chart than another does not mean you can surmise a safe load based on load data from another powder
 
Some that are in order are accurate 2, 5, 7, and 9 pistol powders, and aliant reloader 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25,
 
I've used burn rate charts for some research. When I got my Garand I discovered that powders in a certain range were acceptable for use in the Garands, so with a burn rate chart I was able to determine which powders I had on hand were safe to use. I often use one to place a certain powder in an approximate "window" as compared to other powders. But I do realize that the charts are not linear, that the difference between powders isn't considered, just that in their tests one powder burns faster, or slower than another, not how much faster or slower though...

I use my published reloading manuals for 98% of my load data and a burn rate chart is just general information I find can be helpful. All knowledge is good...
 
The human mind wants to order and organize the world and inevitably, whatever the model, plan, perception, or logic, there is no underlining order.

Gestalt psychology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology#Pr.C3.A4gnanz

The fundamental principle of gestalt perception is the law of prägnanz which says that we tend to order our experience in a manner that is regular, orderly, symmetrical, and simple.

Order has to be imposed from above, and no one is going to impose order on the firearms industry. What could be organized into orderly, symmetrical and simple categories fail, because the firearms industry is interest solely in maximizing profit, not in esoteric ideas of logic, organization, or cooperation for the benefit of the group. The names used for powders come out of a chaotic process, there is no pattern other than the name was chosen for a reason, but we don't know that reason, and we cannot discern it by examining or organizing the names.

There are some real bone head names out there. Accurate Arms calls its copy of IMR 4895 as AA2495. They would have done much better to name it AA4895 as they did naming their IMR4350 copy, as AA4350. Accurate Arms 2495 is blended to give an identical pressure curve for IMR 4895, so you would think that someone looking for IMR 4895 would see a bottle of AA4895 and might impulsively grab it, to see how it would do compared to the IMR version. I am sure millions have done the same with H4895, which was military IMR 4895 until the surplus ran out. But no, they named it AA2495 and confuse everyone, because the number difference is so great, that unless you knew it was a copy, you would not assume it was a copy.

Names are typically decided by the Advertising Department and this can very frustrating for someone trying to impose order and logic on an industry. Benard Levine wrote a book on knives Levine's Guide to Knives and Their Values and Mr Levine created an excellent system of names for different knife patterns. I read a post of his, and I could tell he was a bit miffed, because he used the name "serpentine" for a common type of handle configuration, and what do you know, instead of using Benard's system, knife companies are calling this pattern "sow belly". Which will in time totally put Mr Benard's system of organization on the ash heap of history.
 
I consider myself pretty good with numbers. When I go to find powder, if I don't write down what I am looking for, invariably, I will be completely confounded.

I enjoy and tend to purchase Ramshot powders. They have a name that usually corresponds to the most general use and a picture of what would be the intended genre.
When I peruse the shelves and look to my wallet for the list, I find it sweat soaked and illegible. Ramshot makes it pretty easy for me. I don't have a huge number of rounds 'under my belt', but I am not dissatisfied with what I have used from them.

Though I know I should be more versed in powder terminology by now.


Edited for punctuation. It should be easier to read now.
 
Last edited:
There are some real bone head names out there. Accurate Arms calls its copy of IMR 4895 as AA2495. They would have done much better to name it AA4895 as they did naming their IMR4350 copy, as AA4350. Accurate Arms 2495 is blended to give an identical pressure curve for IMR 4895, so you would think that someone looking for IMR 4895 would see a bottle of AA4895 and might impulsively grab it, to see how it would do compared to the IMR version. I am sure millions have done the same with H4895, which was military IMR 4895 until the surplus ran out. But no, they named it AA2495 and confuse everyone, because the number difference is so great, that unless you knew it was a copy, you would not assume it was a copy.

And then we come to the 4831's. IMR and H are significantly different in burn rate. Why they gave them the same number baffles me. If you were to assume those 2 powders are copies you would be sadly mistaken.
 
Power names....#
I really like AA#2 but I was talking to a friend at lunch the other day and said I needed some #2 and the people at the table next to me looked at me like I was nuts.
Couldn't we have called it #3?:)

(I was almost tempted to add #2 flows through my measure well to see what kind of look that got me:evil:)
 
I've been known to take a photo of powders available at my local shop so I can look them up for usefulness in anything I own, simply because the names mean zip.
 
Yes I know, what I'm saying is that hodgdon didn't invent it, it was a Winchester powder he renamed.
Most powders that are sold are not "invented" by the company distributing them. They go to the factory with what they want the powder do and they come up with an answer. (I said most times)
 
Energy density has nothing to do with how fast a powder burns.
"...IMR and H are significantly different in burn rate..." Not before Ramshot, Alliant and Vihtavuori were added to the list. IMR4831 is #123. 'H' is #127. Not exactly significantly different.
However, like Slamfire says, powder names are mostly marketing. You can't tell anything about a powder by its name any more than you can by looking at it. Still a thing one really shouldn't try to figure out. Like why cartridge names are what they are, it can give you brain damage.
 
ArchangelCD wrote:
I'm not sure if it was originally planned this way but it seems the higher the number the slower the powder.

In general that it the way it seems except that DuPont threw a ringer in there years ago with IMR-3031 which is slower than either IMR-4227 or IMR-4198 (and IMR-4227 is faster than IMR-4198), so as a general guideline, yes, so long as we always make it clear that there are exceptions to every rule.
 
I think that I heard this one on this site. When .303 British cartridges used cordite powder, they corroded the rifle barrel. So the US developed 303-1 powder that was non-cordite, and did not have the corrosive effect. So IMR 3031 was developed after or during WWI.
 
Not before Ramshot, Alliant and Vihtavuori were added to the list. IMR4831 is #123. 'H' is #127. Not exactly significantly different.

They are significantly different, at least in my experience working up 180 gr. 30-06 loads. Chronographed 56.5 IMR4831 velocities were almost identical to 60.0 H4831 velocities. Unfortunately, Hodgdon's pressure values aren't compatible between the two powders, psi vs. cup, so they can't easily be compared. But I suspect substituting IMR4831 data for H4831 would get you into an overpressure situation considering near max loads.

As many have stated, burn rate charts are a qualitative ranking, and other characteristics may affect powder performance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top