8208brx fails a test..but only one..will you retest ?

M

mike in co

Guest
ok guys , today i was able to run some of the new 8208 thru my harrells.
first, i do not use my harrells as much as some of you, so i did a few practice throws then ran 15 throws and recorded each.
the 15 ran 28.0 plus or minus .05 EXCEPT for a plus 0.08 and a minus 0.1, so the REAL NUMBERS are 28.0 plus .08/minus .10.
the measure is set at 50.00

so , in my opinion, this new powder fails where the original passes( it easily does plus or minus .05).

in my opinion, the problem is in the size of the kernel.
the oem is aprox 0.026 dia x 0.033 l
the new is aprox 0.0285 dia x 0.038 l
It is aprox 15% bigger kernel.

this small difference contributes to how it flows thru the measure.
in my opinon, ONE of the significant reasons oem 8208 works so well is it meters better than anything else we have used.

so , i have qualified my findings...my limited use of the harrells.
IF you have the new powder, have a harrells AND have a scale capable of 0.02/0.03 gr resolution...please post your results.

merry christmas....

please note when jackie shot this with scaled charges..it just plain smoked!!

mike in co
 
Mike

I have found that the new powder will do +-.1 on a regular basis, checking with my Denver Instruments Scale.

I was comparing it to N133, which out of my Hensler, will sometimes throw charges as much as .4 off. I did not realize this untill I started seriously checking charges.

I have resigned myself to weighing charges anyway, so I am not going to frett over the ability to throw charges within the nearest "tenth"........jackie
 
8208 fails a Test

Mike what model harrells are you using"
There are several. I know the big one is definately different on the clicks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gerry said:
Mikw what model harrells are you using"
There are several. I know the big one is definately different on the clicks
Click to expand...

the one i bought from....on the site here a few years ago.
it is aluminum..not green anodized,
0 to 260 in graduations
so not the small ones, nor the cheaper one..either the br or the prmium ?
powder bottles( 1 lb wide mouth) screw on.

mike in co
 
8208 fails a Test

Good post Mike'
I'll check mine out . It's the br model i had for several years.
 
I know that a large differential while running the measure would be a great concern, but I think the overall factor in producing the new 8208 was it's ability to mimick the stability to keep the rifle in tune during a wide spectrum of temperature range's. I have 2 harrells and original 8208 and I periodically check my measure's and my operation of them by weighing charges, and I would agree that I occassionally see a .05 differnce in charge weights on my harrell with the green anodized body but not on the other, it is consistently,01-.02. It will be interesting to try some of the new 8208XBR. So would the larger kernel's really be a failing grade for 8208XBR. Only if I had to continue using V-133 forever!
 
8208 fails a Test

It's way finer then N133
I bet it meters better then that powder.
I have tried throwing some of the new 8208
I have it set for 31 grs. I didn't bother to weigh each one though.
My first group,s throwing were pretty good.
That is with the test lot.
I still have to try wht i have in the 8 Lb jugs.
the test lot looked pretty good on set up.
 
Bob Kingsbury said:
Maybe you should check and see how close your measure will throw
ball powder
Click to expand...

once apon a dream i tried some but at the very low end of the measure...it just would not work at all.

i have some wc-820 which is so fine it leaks from some measures.....me thinks it would do well....but it is not a br match powder( it IS a 44 mag match powder tho...thrown)


some of my charges get beam'd, some get scaled and some are just plain thrown.
it all depends on what i'm looking for.......
working up a load for a finn 28-30 in 7.62x54r is beam'd;
my match loads for a finn m-39 with cast bullets is scale'd;
45acp in a dillon 550....thrown by the machine.

br is all scale'd


mike in co
 
Steelhead1 said:
So would the larger kernel's really be a failing grade for 8208XBR.
Click to expand...

not on paper.....

but not having the consistancy of "throw" is not a good thing....it is a major( in my opinion) reason of why the oem 8208 does so well...most br shooters throw.


mike in co
 
Mike

I was at my shop a few hours ago, and I broke open a bottle of the originol 167-8208, and yes, the kernals are smaller, and more uniform, than the new XBR.

I agree as well, one of the successes of 8208 probably lies in the fact that meters much more consistantly than 133. In an inviroment where thrown charges is the norm, that would be a big advantage, that is, if you could arrive at a competitive tune...........jackie
 
jackie schmidt said:
I was at my shop a few hours ago, and I broke open a bottle of the originol 167-8208, and yes, the kernals are smaller, and more uniform, than the new XBR.

I agree as well, one of the successes of 8208 probably lies in the fact that meters much more consistantly than 133. In an inviroment where thrown charges is the norm, that would be a big advantage, that is, if you could arrive at a competitive tune...........jackie
Click to expand...


or in my case..if i just had a 'REAL' rifle....
and could shoot.....
and

lol
the saga of the ar based br guns continues

mike in co
 
Test weights from a .02 capable balance

Mike, I have some interesting data for you...:)

cale
 
mike in co said:
see snow in ok has it benefits...i think....

mike in co
Click to expand...



My results... Yes Mike, I did leave the last 5 drops in of Dupont IMR8208 lot 18167 even though it is a small sample. Reason, cause my electronic scale VERY rarely drifts .02 or .03... But it did .01 and I wanted to re-zero and run 5 throws to see how they compared to the previous 10 throws.


No VV N133 in this test.... I'm out...:cool:.. Getting an order in soon. Will post tests with it ASAP.

Word file so all can open it.

cale
 

Attachments

  • Weight of thrown charges.rtf
    1.6 KB · Views: 361
thanks for the post.
if you take the time to read his results, he has basically got the same info.
oem 8208 is a excellent thrown powder...and basically twice the consistancy of what we use on the line, thrown.

lab scales work,, beams just support feel good about my thrown charge.

this is just part of the process...but something to consider as groups get smaller and the competition tougher.

mike in co
 
Consistency tests

I just got 2 kegs of 8208xbr lot.81021094773 and my tests through my Hensler showed the xbr to be within a tenth and 'dead on' more often then the 07 133 I have. 4 out of 10 throws were of by a tenth with the 133 and 3 out of 10 were off by a tenth with the xbr. This new powder was also about 2 grains heavier through my measure than my 07 133, where it would throw 29.6 gn of 133 on the same setting it would throw 31.6 gn of the xbr
 
JonathanK said:
I just got 2 kegs of 8208xbr lot.81021094773 and my tests through my Hensler showed the xbr to be within a tenth and 'dead on' more often then the 07 133 I have. 4 out of 10 throws were of by a tenth with the 133 and 3 out of 10 were off by a tenth with the xbr. This new powder was also about 2 grains heavier through my measure than my 07 133, where it would throw 29.6 gn of 133 on the same setting it would throw 31.6 gn of the xbr
Click to expand...

a tenth does not cut it. if your scale cannot resolve to .02/.03 or less...it just does not make it in this test.

3 out of 10 is a 30% error......

read the original request..."if and only if your scale " can resolve low enough to tell the diff. a +/- 0.1 does not work.

thanks for your input.
mike in co
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top