Whats up with hodgdon?

[Ridge_Runner]

The post on the 264/140 AccuBond/Retumbo got me doing a bit of research. I read the post and thought, I'm shooting 62.7 gr of Retumbo behind a 140 in my 6.5 Gibbs, that 63.5 must be min. for a 264 wm, nope hodgedons web site says its a max load, so I pull out hodgdon #17, no retumbo, so I check the web page for a max load of H-1000, listed at 58.5 gr, hodgdon 17 gives a book max of 68, and a starting load of 63, has the powder changed that much or is hodgdon just backing the loads off for liability reasons?
so now the max load is 4.5 gr under the starting loads for the same bullet and powder from the year when the #17 manual came out, what happened to the rule of never starting under min. load with slower powders because of extreme pressures?
RR

 

[SJB358]

No idea RR, but the 264WM doesn't jive well with Hodgdon data for me. I like H powders a bunch, but I had to use Quickload to get reasonable starts and stops. If I used H's, I would be at around 2800 or so and might as well be shooting a 260 Rem. Scotty

 

[gerry]

You are right for the 264 WM 63.5 gr of Retumbo is max for a 140 gr Partition not sure why there is such a variation maybe they have a new pressure testing barrel there now The previous data was quite old and bullets and powders have likely evolved too. Before they came out with the new data I worked up to their old max with 129 gr Hornadys and H 4831 SC while accuracy was outstanding the load left ejector marks on the case so it was obviously too hot. Considering how "lawsuit happy" some people are you can't blame them for being more cautious these days.

 

[Ridge_Runner]

Odd, the website exactly matches the #17 for the 7mm Rem mag w/140 including H-1000, H4831,H4350, and H414, but in the 264 win mag all the hodgdon powder charges are way down, along with IMR7828, while IMR 4831 and IMR 4350 are a grain higher online. so it shouldn't difference in the powder or the 7RM would be lower also.
doesn't make sence.
RR

 

[JD338]

Ridge,

Different powder lots, better measuring instruments, etc are the normal reasons we get but it does seem really odd.
It might be worth an email to Hodgdon for an explanation.

JD338

 

[Mountain Goat]

FYI: I've never used the Hodgdon data as a primary source for my loads. There are so many other good manuals and bullet manufacturer's data available that I've never seen the need.

It all started for me around 1995 when they (Hodgdon) came out wit the small supplemental load book that had the "new" Varget data included. Those numbers were crazy fast, more so in the 7-08, so I had to get some. As it turns out, the Varget data was shot out of a 26" barrel comparted to the 17.5" barrel for the other powders. This completely turned me off of Hodgdon data, and find other sources very useful.

It's funny, to this day, I try Hodgdon powders for just about all cartridges which I load for, but seldom end with a Hodgdon powder as my final load. Benchmark in the 223 certainly the one exception that comes to mind.

 

[Greg Nolan]

Same same with Varget in my 7mm-08. Never got 2900 fps as advertised but Varget is a great powder for a lot of loads I use. Hodgdon's loads are anemic on some calibers but then that's true of all powder manufactor's load manuals. I havn't started building loads for my 264 yet cause I'm concentrating on my hunting loads for October. Thanks for the heads up :wink:
Greg

 

[Ridge_Runner]

just want to clarify, the manual I've been looking at is not the #17 but the #27, I also have #26 but it seems to match #27 from what I've saw, don't have a date in the 27 but the 26 was copywrighted 1992.
RR

 

[Antelope_Sniper]

Ridge Runner, something strange IS going on with the H powders, and not in just the 0.264.

Hodgdons powdera are made by ADI. As an example AR2213SC IS H4631SC, Yet most of the load Manuals show you can use more AR2213sc then H4861SC. Even quickload claims you can use more AR2213sc then H4831sc.

I remember the first time I read the Nosler #6, I reviewed alot of the H4831 data. I concluded that either Nosler had a bad lot of powder, or someone in the ballistics room had a card for some Medical Mary Jane.

New better test? I don't buy it. If that was the case the ADI numbers would be lower as well, and they are not.

 

[gerry]

Just thought of something didn't Hodgdon powders go through a change a few years back when they made them temperature stable? Could be one more factor in this whole thing.

 

[Ridge_Runner]

Just thought of something didn't Hodgdon powders go through a change a few years back when they made them temperature stable? Could be one more factor in this whole thing.

I don't think they did anything to make them tempature stable, IMO its was just a marketing ploy when Ramshot and RE series of powders started becoming more popular, H just took they're single based powders (which by makeup are more temp stable than double base) and put the tagname extreme powders on them.
RR

 

[JD338]

Just thought of something didn't Hodgdon powders go through a change a few years back when they made them temperature stable? Could be one more factor in this whole thing.

I don't think they did anything to make them tempature stable, IMO its was just a marketing ploy when Ramshot and RE series of powders started becoming more popular, H just took they're single based powders (which by makeup are more temp stable than double base) and put the tagname extreme powders on them.
RR

Ridge,

I agree, Extream powders is a marketing ploy as all powders are temp sensitive. Some are just more stable than others....

Did you email Hodgdon?

JD338

 

[Ridge_Runner]

not yet, trying to put my thought to words, which I'm not good at.
RR

 

[Guy Miner]

Dang. I don't know what's up with Hodgdon.

Using their data for the .308 Win, I shot my way to "Long Range High Master" in NRA prone competition. That's shooting in temps from well below freezing to over 100 degrees.

Using their data for the 7mm Rem mag, I made a one shot kill on a large 6x6 Wyoming bull at nearly 10,000' in the Wind Rivers.

Using their data, my .25-06 is generating nearly 3200 fps with 115 gr bullets and 3340 fps with 100 gr bullets and has taken a half -dozen mule deer in the past few years, from 30 - 400 yards, all one-shot drops.

Using their powder, my .45/70 Marlin was moving 425 gr bullets at 1950 fps. Suspiciously close to some really powerful big bore cartridges. With good accuracy too!

Using their powder & data my son took a fine bear with a .30-06 and Nosler bullets...

Using their data, I'm seeing 4,000 fps with excellent accuracy from my little .204 Ruger.

I dunno what to say. Something's up with Hodgdon for sure! Success I'd say...

Guy

 

[Woodycreek]

+1 with Guy. Benchmark, Varget, H4198, and Retumbo are my go to powders.

 

[Woodycreek]

Dang. I don't know what's up with Hodgdon.

Using their data for the .308 Win, I shot my way to "Long Range High Master" in NRA prone competition. That's shooting in temps from well below freezing to over 100 degrees.

Using their data for the 7mm Rem mag, I made a one shot kill on a large 6x6 Wyoming bull at nearly 10,000' in the Wind Rivers.

Using their data, my .25-06 is generating nearly 3200 fps with 115 gr bullets and 3340 fps with 100 gr bullets and has taken a half -dozen mule deer in the past few years, from 30 - 400 yards, all one-shot drops.

Using their powder, my .45/70 Marlin was moving 425 gr bullets at 1950 fps. Suspiciously close to some really powerful big bore cartridges. With good accuracy too!

Using their powder & data my son took a fine bear with a .30-06 and Nosler bullets...

Using their data, I'm seeing 4,000 fps with excellent accuracy from my little .204 Ruger.

I dunno what to say. Something's up with Hodgdon for sure! Success I'd say...

Guy

+1. All of my go to powders are H powders. Benchmark, Varget, H4198, and Retumbo. No complaints here at all.

 

[Guest]

I don't have complaints about Hodgdon powders, and I use them a lot. But I can shed some light on why some of their data is a little less enthusiastic than other. I spoke with their techs at length about some of the new powders coming out, and what they might do in my 270Wby and 8x57. Now, to be sure, these are not mainstream chamberings, and that's the gist of their data issues. The three techs I spoke with all stated they did not have test barrels in either of these chamberings and likely would not be buying new ones - because demand was low. So they take the most recent "tested" data (in many cases from more than a decade ago). What I believe they're doing, to hedge their liability bets, is reducing that data significantly in an effort to guarantee safety. I'd have a much easier time buying into the whole "newer, better, more accurate testing methods" line if they weren't publishing data for new cartridges with similar case capacities and pressure specs, that was leaps and bounds above the data for these rounds, and if there weren't data from numerous other sources that I've verified have test barrels and have done recent testing, that contradict the Hodgdon data.

Your mileage may vary on this, but that's the scoop as I've been able to discover it.