Does anyone have current parameters they could post or PM please? I only have old ones where 2209 and H4350 were different.
Printable View
Does anyone have current parameters they could post or PM please? I only have old ones where 2209 and H4350 were different.
This what you are after?
Attachment 53944
Thanks Timmay. Below is what I have for v3.3 and I knew it was before the transition to 2209. 100ft/sec discrepancy from today now fully accounted for !
Attachment 53949
Quickloads's data for 2209 is still different from H4350, at least in V3.6
Attachment 53967
Strange that they should still be different though maybe the differences are now limited to batch variation ?
I've pondered on this a bit and it must be batch variation as the powder is "the same". The basis of Quickload is actual testing of the powders and the output data always "offers" consideration of a -+ 10% range. Reading how the long range target shooters in the US do things - they invariably test each powder lot.
Thanks @zimmer, and much appreciated. Parameters unchanged from v3.6.
Referring back to the 6.5x47 pressure signs thread, I felt there was cause for concern because for H4350 the burn rate had to be backed off quite a bit from nominal to get a velocity match to my drop figures. I was casting around looking for a reason why the velocity - and presumably pressure - was low for what according to Quickload should have been charges bordering on excessive; maybe the pressures weren't low, and the Barnard/Lapua combination hiding this well, and for some unexpected reason the velocity not being developed.
Only yesterday I thought I'd try plugging 2209 into the simulation :slow:, and the prediction was that I'd struggle with fitting enough 2209 into the case to get excessive pressures - the parameters for the two powders are that different.
It's going to be a short-lived issue anyway. I'm just about out of H4350 (only purchased when 2209 was stocked out) and moving onto a keg of the real thing, so I'll soon find out how close they behave to each other in the real world.
My understanding from reading Hogdgon literature is that ADI powder that will be packed as Hogdgon is held to tighter a tolerance than ADI packed versions, I did a lot of load development with 2208 and Varget
in my 6mmBR's for shooting F class,
The difference between the two was not significant but was measurable Varget had lower ES and SD average velocity was close around 25 fps faster with Varget
For practical use at 1000 yrds there was not enough difference between them to matter the atmospheric conditions wind and light changes were more of a problem
plus driver error,
Just buy as much of the same batch as you can, some of the well healed F class shooters buy enough of their favourite powder to outlast their new barrel same with bullets.
Resurrection of an oldish thread...
These variations between AR2209 and H4350 from version to version are somewhat frustrating, so I emailed Helmut the QL owner and he told me to always use the latest version of the Hodgdon powder, because those are the ones he tests. He does not test the ADI branded powder.
Looking at the history of variations between AR2209 and H4350, either there's quite a lot of variation between powder lots or Helmut's tests are not consistent, one or the other.
Anyway, I have accepted that I need to tune AR2209 as it models much lower velocities that I actually get for a given charge in my .243 and 6.5 Creedmoor.
I have always used the Hodgdon equivalents as I got better results tahn with the ADI powders.
Good to hear from the the owner that he tests the new batches
The last lot of H4350 I tried was an identical match velocity and SD wise to a fairly recent AR2209 lot. I've experienced some surprising variation in batches of ADI powders in the past.
Same. Especially 2209Quote:
Originally Posted by 10-Ring
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
