8208 and sieves...

H

HovisKM

NRA Life Member
Well, I finally got close to being done sieving my lots of 8208 and I thought I would post what I seen here. Mainly because the process really opened my eyes to a few things.

1. I have shot over 40 pounds of 8208 and never sieved it. Never again. I found small metal flakes, small plastic particals, some very huge grains, wire, something like crayon and lots of very fine grains and dust. I have been shooting this straight out of the jug and it makes me cringe to think of some of the crap that's been blown down my barrel.

2. There were four (two very dominate) sizes of grains in the jugs (did two different lot numbers). There were some that were HUGE and some that looked more like flake or ball powder. The rest either set on the Sieve 25 or Sieve 30. Both lots seemed to have about the same amount of trash and percentage of sizes.

Sieving is about as much fun as watching paint dry but after doing the first 8 lbs...I knew I had to go through it all.

The primary reason for this post you might ask??? Well, I high recommend doing this, it's a pain but one worth going through.

I want to give a big special thanks to Butch Lambert for all his help in this adventure.

Hovis
 
Kevin

I have often wondered if using a sieve on all powders might be a worthwhile adventure. I can certainly see the worth in what you have done.

Ever looked at 133. No two "kernals" are the same size. Short ones, long ones, and ones in between. Some aren't even shaped the same.

If we had a way to seive the stuff so that all of the kernals were uniform in size, would it make any difference in keeping the Rifle in tune??

Probably couldn't hurt.

It might be intersting to see if a load made up of all '"long kernals" would have a different tune than one made up entirely of "short kernals".

As if we didn't have enough to do already:D.........jackie
 
Jackie,

From what I have read and heard concerning 8208 is that the mid size kernals shoot the best. I have set here and been wondering about V133 because like you said, I have seen the differences also. I do have around 48 or so lbs of 133 here so I could try it out and see. It doesn't quite take an hour to do 8 lbs real well. I thought about doing some of it and other available powders just to see if there is any crap in it also...doubt it but I wonder.

If anyone is interested. I'm gonna chronograph the different lots and kernal sizes and can post it. I can do this with the lot of 133 also if anyone is interested.

Hovis
 
Jackie,
You can pack a lot more 133 in the case easier after sifting. I'm speaking about the small kernels. I have not tried it with 133.
Butch
 
ok when you get done seiving, how about renting me your seives ?

i have about 48 lbs of 8208... in four lots...ouch.

or i can shoot it as is.....4198 and slow powders(h1000) are next on my list of shooting powders.

mike in co
 
HovisKM said:
Well, I finally got close to being done sieving my lots of 8208 and I thought I would post what I seen here. Mainly because the process really opened my eyes to a few things.

1. I have shot over 40 pounds of 8208 and never sieved it. Never again. I found small metal flakes, small plastic particals, some very huge grains, wire, something like crayon and lots of very fine grains and dust. I have been shooting this straight out of the jug and it makes me cringe to think of some of the crap that's been blown down my barrel.

2. There were four (two very dominate) sizes of grains in the jugs (did two different lot numbers). There were some that were HUGE and some that looked more like flake or ball powder. The rest either set on the Sieve 25 or Sieve 30. Both lots seemed to have about the same amount of trash and percentage of sizes.

Sieving is about as much fun as watching paint dry but after doing the first 8 lbs...I knew I had to go through it all.

The primary reason for this post you might ask??? Well, I high recommend doing this, it's a pain but one worth going through.

I want to give a big special thanks to Butch Lambert for all his help in this adventure.

Hovis
Click to expand...

Thank you Hovis. Very interesting report. Threads like this are what makes this site interesting.

Tell me, any special kind of sieve or just your basic kitchen variety?
 
Just remember that with stick powder, the size of the grain is a factor in its burn rate.

That means if you take all the "small" grains, you'll run higher velocities & pressures with the same charge weight. Opposite with the "large" grains.

I've always wondered if, say, Reloader 22 doesn't get it's burn rate by having all those different sizes of grains. I sure remember when it got about 10% faster & a few people ruined cases using their "old" charge. Yeah, I know Rel-22 has a lot larger grains & has nitroglycerin; the principle's the same . . .
 
Not quite as good, but I did some 8208 using a fine screened
strainer made for the kitchen. I had my choice of a coarse
screen and fine, so I got the latter. I also had kernels nearly
2 1/2 times larger and what could could have been little asphalt
rings, well actually 1/2 moons.
I also did some 322 and found chunks of well graphited wood.
I wonder about 133. VV130 seems very uniform as does 135. It also
seems odd that 133 is the only powder out of numerical sequence.
What I mean there is all of them end in zero or 5. Maybe 133
is actually 130 and 135 blended-- Crazy thought AYE
 
Last edited:
Charles E said:
Just remember that with stick powder, the size of the grain is a factor in its burn rate.

That means if you take all the "small" grains, you'll run higher velocities & pressures with the same charge weight. Opposite with the "large" grains.

I've always wondered if, say, Reloader 22 doesn't get it's burn rate by having all those different sizes of grains. I sure remember when it got about 10% faster & a few people ruined cases using their "old" charge. Yeah, I know Rel-22 has a lot larger grains & has nitroglycerin; the principle's the same . . .
Click to expand...
I agree with Charles. The size of the grain can determine the burn rate. I can see using the sieve to remove the foreign material, but I would not want to separate the grains by size
 
David

Considering the variations in the grain sizes in 133, it might mimic sorting brass. Out of a 8 pound can, you might end up with 8 different piles, depending on how close the sieves were.

Since 133 is not known to be contaminated with the sort of stuff that the 8208 is, this sounds like a exercise in futility.

But, I am looking forward to seeing Kevin's results.........jackie
 
I'm not saying don't sort, just be careful.

There was an old Benchrest List, some time before Wilbur's BR Central. As I remember there were some guys sorting Winchester 748 Ball powder, and getting very good results. As I remember, some tried it with stick powder, will less consistent results. Finally, As I remember, a couple of people noted they had to change their load with the different sorts, both in terms of accuracy, and esp. pressure.

I *think* Dave Tooley was on that old list, and Jim Borden, and likely Wilbur; maybe one of them remembers.

But in any case, if you sort & try the small power grains, back off the load a touch to start with.
 
Sieves-FYI

I have 12" round sieves down to the #200(which is 200 clear openings per inch). I never counted them, but that is what the supplier says they are. Do an internet search using "aggregate testing sieves" for more info.

We use #200, #100, #50, #30, #16, #8, and #4, in our vibrating shaker to do gradations of aggregate. I'm thinkin if a guy put powder in my shaker for a while, it would break the powder down--not a good thing.

I used my sieves to custom make sand and blend a couple of sizes together for my bags because i did not like the texture of the store bought sand.

Later
Dave
 
Last edited:
Charles

If I remember, about 10 years ago, there was a article in the now defunct Shooters News, about sifting powder. The Author was pretty exstensive, but I can't remember what the general consensus was concerning the results.......jackie
 
Darrell Loker got me on the sifting. I believe he has a lot of tunnel time with sifted powder. Darrell is an excellent shooter and has been on at least 1 World Championship team.
Butch
 
In the sifting process the powder or whaterver is shaken back and forth on the screens. This process most likely will wear away some of the retardant coating on the individual grains of powder. How much shaking would it take? Who knows. Also remember burn rate is also controled to some degree by grain size. And who is to say that shaking the powder back and forth on the screens would not maybe break down or wear down some of the grains. I am sure that with most pull down powder screening would be of some help in getting the birds, bugs, wood chips and whatever out. But with something like 133 I would approach the screened results with some caution. You just might end up with some 120, 130 and 135. I too would be interested in the results. I have found a mix of H322 and Benchmark makes for a pretty nice powder for the 6ppc. Just not sure I can get the individual charges to be the same mix as the cannister. As it will shoot real good then have a group that makes you think you have a complete different load. Could of course just be the driver. I have settled on a mix of 70% H322 and 30% Benchmark by weight. Seems to shoot pretty close weight wise to 133. These two powders are so close in size and color it is almost impossible to tell that you have a mix. Not that I recommend mixing powders as I don't.
Donald
 
Donald,

H322 and Benchmark are the exact same powder except Benchmark has more retardant added.

There are three screens sizes in the set Butch sent me. They are #20, #25 and #30. There is an art form to this sifting. You don't want to put very much on the screens at a time because as kernals will start plugging the holes and won't allow the finer ones to fall through.

As far as keeping the kernal sizes seperated. In the report/article that Jackie referred to (I still have the mag but don't have it handy), it basically found that the mid size kernals shot the best. The two lots of 8208 that I sifted, 80% of the kernals were the same size and the ones that were smaller, I would really say was insignificant but I did not blend them back together because I wanted to test the difference. I probably won't get around to testing this week as I have ten concrete bench tops to pour and need to get on it. The main reason, besides testing, I kept the kernals seperate, is I like to play around with the 22pp-100 short and the last time I shot it, I filled the case to the top with one lot of 8208 (and I do mean to the top) and was getting 3440 fps at 30 degrees outside. This load finished 2nd in LV100 and 3rd in HV100 at St. Louis in Feb 2009 in temps from 16 to 38 degrees. I'm thinking that the smaller kernals will get the load density down a little until I don't have to crunch the powder to get the bullet in. If it doesn't work, I'll just blend it back in. Also I have a blend of Scott H322 and 8208 I'm gonna try.

I do want to state again, the main reason I started this was to get the large (some VERY large) kernals, the small kernals, the dust and crap out of the powder and at the very least, I belived this sifting has really helped the powder out.

Hovis
 
VV133 isn't perfectly clean. I found this stuck in my powder measure a couple years ago. The measure started to act very erratic, so I tore it apart and this was stuck just above the drop tube. Looks like a piece of extruded powder that didn't get cut into pieces.

Joe Hynes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top