ES13Raven Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) To me, it seems like every powder has some kind of drawback: Some don't meter well. Others are expensive etc. So maybe we can come up with some categories for rating powders strengths & weaknesses, that we can share opinions with each other. A simple rating of 1-5 in each category, with 1 being the best possible. Rate them vs powders with similar uses: TiteGroup Cost = 1 Availability = 3 Smoke = 4 Heat = 4 Metering = 1 Efficiency = 1 Temperature Sensitivity = 3 Cleanliness = 5 N320 Cost = 5 Availability = 4 Smoke = 2 Heat = 1 Metering = 1 Efficiency = 2 Temperature Sensitivity = 2 Cleanliness = 2 What other categories would be good? Cost Least expensive of comparable powders Cheaper than most comparable powders Priced middle of the road More expensive than most comparable powders Most expensive of comparable powders Availability Can always find this powder Can find it most of the time Can find it somewhat regularly Sometimes hard to find Very hard to find Smoke No noticeable smoke with this powder Very little smoke Average smoke Can be pretty smokey with lead bullets A lot of smoke Heat Runs "cool" for a powder Light heat Average heat Runs hotter than comparable powders Parts get very hot using this powder Metering The most consistent powder drops in all powder measures More consistent drops than comparable powders Average metering Can only get consistent drops with certain powder measures / techniques Most difficult to get consistent drops Efficiency Takes very few grains to get desired velocity A little goes a long way Average amount of grains to get desired velocity Takes more grains than comparable powders to get desired velocity Takes the most grains than comparable powders to get desired velocity Temperature Sensitivity The most stable across temperatures compared to similar powders More stable across temperatures than comparable powders Average stability across temperatures Velocity fluctuates across temperatures more than comparable powders Reverse temperature sensitivity - velocity is higher when temperatures are lower Cleanliness One of the cleanest burning powders Cleaner burning than comparable powders Average cleanliness More dirty than comparable powders One of the most dirty burning powders Edited December 30, 2015 by ES13Raven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 By your scale above, TG is only 1 step away from N320....TG 14 / N320 15....which is all subjective. I find the good properties of N320 far outweigh the good properties of TG. You need to add in Cleanliness, safety (as in double charge safety), versatility, and probably others. But, being subjective, every person will score every powder differently than everyone else...thereby making any such scale almost impossible to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hi-Power Jack Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Going to vary by caliber and bullet weight ... For me, smoke and heat would lower the rating, quite a bit .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beastly Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Temperature sensitivity. Burn rate (generally faster = better for our purposes) Volume - nice to be able to easily detect double charges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Price means very little. Do the math. So called expensive powder costs less than a penny more per round than cheap powder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_striker Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) Price means very little. Do the math. So called expensive powder costs less than a penny more per round than cheap powder. I hear this argument often. Sure, the per round cost isn't significant. Over the course of a year shooting 30k-50k rounds, it starts to add up. I'll gladly save $200-$300 per year purely from powder selection. That's another 2-3k bullets I can buy. Edited December 30, 2015 by d_striker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ES13Raven Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 Temperature sensitivity. Burn rate (generally faster = better for our purposes) Volume - nice to be able to easily detect double charges I meant to put temperature sensitivity in there, but I forgot. Thanks. I don't think we can rate the burn rate in a 1-5 scale. How would we rate volume with a 1 being "best"? In some situations it would be best to have the powder take up a lot of volume, other situations a shooter may want less volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ES13Raven Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 By your scale above, TG is only 1 step away from N320....TG 14 / N320 15....which is all subjective. I find the good properties of N320 far outweigh the good properties of TG. You need to add in Cleanliness, safety (as in double charge safety), versatility, and probably others. But, being subjective, every person will score every powder differently than everyone else...thereby making any such scale almost impossible to use. The scale is not meant to be cumulative, though I suppose you could do that. My idea was to have a somewhat standard scale of qualities we look for in a powder. When shooters talk about powder now, it is pretty much subjective. I have read multiple accounts of how Clays meters well and how it meters poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miranda Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 It would be a good idea to consider all the factors and add them up to a number .... and then divide by the number of factors. so added to 15 and divided by 8 is a little less than 2. low numbers being gooder... I have to add an opinion. I dislike heat from a powder. The hotter the powder seems, the less likely I will use it. so I would weight the heat factor by at least doubling it and then tg (from grumpy's post ... ) would score 18 divided by the same 8 factors to get a bit over 2 ... .... this is fun. miranda miranda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjohn Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I think that cost and availability should use a reverse scale as both are seen as negatives and if you total the numbers (so that the higher numbers win) you are rewarding a powder that cost more and is hard to find, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDA Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I think that cost and availability should use a reverse scale as both are seen as negatives and if you total the numbers (so that the higher numbers win) you are rewarding a powder that cost more and is hard to find, Look at it again, he is penalizing higher cost and lack of availability, not rewarding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjohn Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I stated IF THE NUMBERS WERE TOTALED OR SUMMED as was suggested by an earlier post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom S. Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 I applaud your efforts. Some powders change characteristics though, like burning dirty if under loaded but burning clean at hot loads. Maybe a footnote is needed for those with that characteristic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDA Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I stated IF THE NUMBERS WERE TOTALED OR SUMMED as was suggested by an earlier post. Well, you'd have to flip the scale for all of the parameters, not just the cost and availability. The OP suggested originally that the lower number is better (whether totaled or summed or individually). If you want it "so that the higher numbers win" you'd have to flip the ratings for everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ES13Raven Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 I don't think totaling the numbers is a good idea. I think it would invite too many comparisons between dissimilar powders.Maybe a 1-5 star ranking would be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDA Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I don't think totaling the numbers is a good idea. I think it would invite too many comparisons between dissimilar powders. Maybe a 1-5 star ranking would be better. Totaling, weighted totaling/scoring, 1-5 star ranking, it is all the same in the end, you create a score to which powders can be compared (whether similar or dissimilar). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miranda Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 interesting... is there any real evaluation criterion? a center? as a proposed answer to the above I would think the most accurate powder. In terms of using real numbers to evaluate, burn/pressure rates may be the most useful. then could follow temperature. At some point the evaluation will have to be sorted by type of use/caliber/rifle/shotgun/pistol. I have not had a powder that failed to get bullets down range so perhaps this may be a discussion about what powders are suitable to a given task and then considerations for 'best' given voice. as an example I have read that n330 is the most accurate powder for 9mm. that may well be absolute truth, 'cause I have not been able to buy any. The next best is hp-38, which I can call out does seem good. so my overall evaluation is 5 stars for hp-38 and 0 stars for n330. (I am not actively seeking n330.) or as part of the rating system we may want to use availability or expense per round as a weighted factor. ... think of 25 cents of powder per 9mm round AS unavailable... all this is to state that I think we may want to start with intended use first and then evaluate the powders. after all, for a large rifle round, 25 cents of powder may well be cheap... miranda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now