IMR 4350, H4350.. are they interchangeable?

[charlie b]

I am still waiting for Hodgdon to just cut out 75% of their powders. There is so much overlap it's dumb. From a cost standpoint they could save millions from the cost of maintaining separate batches and products.

I've looked for the article on blc2 and varget but cannot find it. I did find a couple of Bramwell's reports, including the one on the effect of powder and barrel temp on cartridges. FWIW, I shoot a lot of Varget in my .308 and .223

[darkker]

I am still waiting for Hodgdon to just cut out 75% of their powders. There is so much overlap it's dumb. From a cost standpoint they could save millions from the cost of maintaining separate batches and products.

I believe that article was printed in an episode of Varmint Hunter, but that may be mistaken. Brain is a little tired at the moment. 😉

Hodgdon trimming down their offerings would be silly. You need to think like a corporation, not a person.

When you bake cookies, does every single one of them come out identically in size, thickness, and chip count? Of course not, but they are all chocolate chip from a single recipe and batch.
846 is the recipe, but Hodgdon sells it under several names. That's called market fragmentation, and it's immensely profitable. Especially when they won't list a ANY of the nominal base variation standards, for anything they sell. If you think you like powder X, and were told it's different than powder Y; it has to be true... Right?

It's also no coincidence that until the recent purchase of Western's ballistic facility, the lion share of their in-house testing was still with copper crushers....
I know I'm not the only one who talks to Hodgdon regularly, and pressure tests.
For years, Hodgdon claimed Superformance was "Dangerous and inappropriate in the 6.5 Creedmoor". Until they stopped praying over chicken bones, and began real pressure testing. Low and behold outta know where, it actually does work splendidly in that application. Just like the man who created the powder said it did, and those of us who share pressure testing said. 😆

Cheers

[charlie b]

I figured that mag is where it was published. Just can't find a reference to it anywhere.

Yep, why not convince everyone they need to buy and test out a new powder, instead of just buying some more of the same. Also, they might entice someone to change from, eg, RL15 to a 'new' Varget and gain some market share. Or label it CFEBlack so every BO reloader out there 'needs' to change powders. Same with CFE223.

I was referring more to the current case, where Hodgdon controls over half (3/4?) the powder market in the US. They can thin the herd and not bother their bottom line. Heck, a lot of the original Hxxxx powders were simply competitors to the Dupont IMRxxxx lineup for government contracts anyway.

Now days, if they make a new powder, say CFE6.5CM, then they are more likely killing off sales of one of their other powders. That makes no sense to me. But, having worked in large corporations, the company decisions are rarely based in logic or even profits.

[darkker]

CFE223 is a variant from 846. About 20+ years ago Federal Dynamics began producing test lots for the military "green" who project. Many of us were buying surplus lots of SMP842, until Hodgdon began buying it all at surplus auction. Magically they invented "CFE223".
There reality funny part is how effective the marketing is; which fires into the point, promise.

So for decades the masses disliked how "dirty" 414 and 748 is. That loose "dirty" fouling is due to the room compounds, which are copper cleaners. Originally discovered and used in powder by the French around 1900, and readily read about in some detail in Hatcher's Notebook. So when GD began looking for some additional things without some of the problems of just adding more Tin, they conjured some bismuth compounds. That is 100% private industry and investment. But Hodgdon's marketing told us it's "New, US military tech".:rolleyes:

Suddenly "dirty" powder is in vogue....
The point being, is you can sell your own branded powder, and not pay royalties. It's even betterer then selling two of the same powder, but giving someone else a cut.

That's what is corporately known as a "win-win".


Cheers

[darkker]

Are you saying that old Bruce was selling stuff that should have been labeled ( floor sweepings )? lol

Sorry, missed this originally. Yes, that's exactly how he started.
He bought a few leaky boxcars full of cardboard drums of powder that didn't make grade for what ever set of reasons. He began giving them names and selling them. When the original surplus 846 ran out and he moved into newer surplus, he noted that the original dank 846 hidden in the Florida swamps didn't act like newer good production. A real novel idea, I know...

Anyhow, that's when the world "lost" Bl-c, and magically gained Bl-c(2). In either case, it's still surplused or rejected WC846.

Everyone supposes or maybe one time heard, and thus believes that the canister grades of powder are held to a very tight tolerance(I've heard no more than 5% different).

If that were true, why don't they list the nominal variances for the things they sell? Why don't they proudly state something like "richest standards in the industry of X% between lots? Went are there ALWAYS massive lot recalls every stinking time they do a major supplier change? Why were they desperately holding on to crushers for so long? Why does everyone on the planet, print "Drop loads 10% when switching lots"?

The people whom resell surplus products under branded names, buy waste product most of the time and simply mix for a burning rate range, again based upon supplied As-built specs, or fixed volume bomb testing. The load data is then calculated and published.

Cheers

[yobuck]

Sorry, missed this originally. Yes, that's exactly how he started.


The people whom resell surplus products under branded names, buy waste product most of the time and simply mix for a burning rate range, again based upon supplied As-built specs, or fixed volume bomb testing. The load data is then calculated and published.

Cheers
Back in the day, it was called (duplexing).
Does the name Homer Powley ring any bells?

[wbm]

Powley? Homer Powley? YES! Girl I knew in second grade.