Hogdon cornering the market ?

IMR 4320 has been made obsolete and is no longer part of the IMR line. ADI AR2208 (Varget in the U.S.) was originally developed to compete with IMR4064, specifically, but has even less sensitivity to charge weight in most .308 Loads.
Click to expand...

Thats too bad. I have used the Jack O'Conner suggested 51-53grs of 4320 for 30-06 loads for years and found it to be good in my two 30-06 rifles.
 
I'm just hoping Ramshot TAC is more available in my area now. And Hodgdon are listening....DO NOT mess with A1680 you leave that wonderful powder alone.
 
Most powders today are really only manufactured in two places anyway. No reason for panic.
Click to expand...
That is a very broad statement that is, well, incorrect.

Hodgdon's primary suppliers are General Dynamics (Canada), General Dynamics (Florida), and Thales (Australia). That would be three.
Secondary suppliers are Bofors, Nitrochemie, and at least one more that I'm forgetting. That's another three.

Accurate and Ramshot primarily sourced their powders from Explosia and Nitrochemie. (That's another, and we haven't even gotten into the com-blocs.)

And what is the plant that just reopened in the US?

DO NOT mess with A1680 you leave that wonderful powder alone.
Click to expand...
1680 is repackaged under at least 5 other labels. It is a popular Explosia powder. Even if "Accurate 1680" goes away, it will still be available under another name.
 
Marco,

Looking at Hodgdon's 2009 relative burn rate chart, 4320 and RE12 are right next to each other and between 4895 and 4064. On the 2015-2016 burn rate chart, it is slower and between Varget and 748. They've removed it from the current chart.
 
That's the beauty of the various burn rate charts; relative burn rates are all over the map.

Don
 
They are, but that's because the relative "burn rate" is actually a broad representation that includes the effects of the actual burn rate, the shape of the burning curve, and the total energy content of the powder on pressure. These factors all rolled into one by comparing peak pressures developed by loading the developer's choice of charge weight for all the powders in the chart developer's choice of cartridge using his choice of bullet. Norma's 2013 manual describes it in some detail, pointing out that if one chart or portion of the chart is developed with, say, a 308 Winchester using a 147-grain bullet, but another developer uses a 7×57 with a different bullet and charge charge weight, the order of the different powders listed will not be the same because they will be running at different pressures and with different effort to get the bullet moving. What surprised me here is that both charts came from Hodgdon, whom I assumed would use the same cartridge and bullet, but apparently not.
 
I must have downloaded a half dozen different burn rate charts, and I have issues with all of them. I give one out to all my metallic cartridge reloading students while explaining that all they do is give you an idea as to what an alternative powder might be, assuming you can find load data for your cartridge.

Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top