I'll check Gibson's in Kerrville tomorrow. Let you know.
HP38 is the same powder IIRC
they are identical
hope that helps.
HP38 is the same powder IIRC
they are identical
hope that helps.
Correct!
Hornady 9th Edition, .45 ACP, 200 gr, 900 FPS:
Close, but not same. I personally wouldn't be willing to intermingle the charge values.
What's your definition of "....intermingle the charge values.". The reality of it is one can buy "X" powder in 1992 and reload with it and buy a new can of the same powder in 2014 and they will be slightly different from each other. Each to his own train of thought regarding loading decisions and techniques. That said, I just don't believe it would ever be an issue to use either as they are the same (but definitely not mix them). I go by whatever manual I am using and if it isn't what I'm looking for regarding bullet type, weight, powder charge, COAL, etc., I just find another manual that will. I don't make up or substitute.
Burn Rate Chart is a relative chart. Powder X is faster than Powder Y which is faster than Powder Z. Thus, #1 is X, #2 is Y, and #3 is Z. The closer to #1, the faster the burn. The farther up the chart, closer to #3 (or whatever the highest number on the chart is), the slower the burn. The closer the powders are to each other on the chart, the more they behave similarly.
Why would one chart have hp38 listed as faster, and another chart have 231 listed as faster?
Why would one chart have hp38 listed as faster, and another chart have 231 listed as faster?
I understand that, but you gave different burn rates for three loads. How can the relative burn rate change with the load? The burn rate chart is not a relative chart. It doesn't change unless a powder is added or deleted. From fastest to slowest is all it is rating. You gave three different burn rates for three different loads and I just don't know where you got them. The burn rate is the burn rate compared to the other powders and it does not change unless one is added or deleted. I'm not challenging you, I honestly don't understand.
I understand that ................ really I do. I just assumed you used a "single" burn chart to make your example earlier. I should never assume anything. :greed: