IMR8208xbr test

[RLHBUSL]

I'm really disappointed. I was expecting a new manufactured powder.

How do you - based on the speculation and conjecture of a few people - jump to the conclusion that the 8208xbr powder is not "a new manufactured powder"?

One person, who I trust, who has been shooting the powder for over a year and who should know, says - and I quote - "it's new."

And, even if it is not "a new manufactured powder" - which I don't believe is true - why would you be disappointed? Everyone who has shot the "new 8208" has nothing but good things to say about it. Who cares if it is new or old. I'd sure like to have a couple hundred pounds of that old T32.

 

[Pete Wass]

As I recall Steve

Pete,

It would be nice to know the number for that powder someone in Australia gave you. There is only one powder that I can think of that is not imported by Hodgdon that would suit the ppc and that powder would be to fast. The main powders used by us here in benchrest from ADI are Benchmark 1, AR2219(H322) & Benchmark 2(Benchmark). That is the order of burning rate for these powders. Benchmark 2 would be the only one you will get 31gns in a ppc that wont blow your head off.


All these powders are identical in looks and the density is so close you wouldn't know the difference. It would be good if someone over there that has access to IMR8208 could do a test side by side with Benchmark and check velocity and density. Benchmark 1 is too fast.

Steve

the 22-- numbers come to mind. I guess if it works and they are seeing fit to import it that is a good thing. I guess it doesn't matter what it is called here as long as it gives us something we don't have now. If it is the other Benchmark it is a shame they have been missing out all this time, eh? The truth is none of talking here know for sure what it is.

 

[Bob Kingsbury]

Jackie

In an old book by Earl Naramore published by stackpole,,powder is
explained pretty well. He was the Honcho at Frankfort arsenal, I believe.
He explains how powder is made porus. Looking at different powder,
it can be seen that some have a hole thru each kernal and some don't
appear that way.The old 322 made in scotland had this hole, but that
which is made in austrailia appears not to have this on the same level.
The bulk density of those two are different and that is one reason why.
He explains that the porosity allows heat to migrate in the kernal at a much faster rate. The web of the powder is the thinest part and burns thru
quicker. Taking a tightly rolled newpaper its easy to see that it will burn
slower than one rolled loosely. Further on, he tells how in the basic mix,
sugar is sometimes added, which is later washed out once solidified. All this
to create that porosity. The size of the grains and whether they are angle
cut or straight cut weighs in. Coatings allow powder to burn in the absence
of oxygen. I guess thats a must. Some coatings do this and some that.
Grafhite is to minimise static electricity in handling. Probably not the best
for us, but what choice do we have. Buy it and try it , its all different in some way.

 

[goodgrouper]

How do you - based on the speculation and conjecture of a few people - jump to the conclusion that the 8208xbr powder is not "a new manufactured powder"?

One person, who I trust, who has been shooting the powder for over a year and who should know, says - and I quote - "it's new."

.

Yes. It is new. Some people just have selective reading problems.

Again, from the flyer that Hodgdon has produced, this new powder was formulated within the last year with the help of Lou M. to duplicate "older" powders. In the process of trying to duplicate, they created something even better that was more stable and worked better than what they had hoped for. Therefore, it is not, by their own account, a rehashed, older powder. It is new and it looks different to me than anything previously produced.

 

[paulie]

Donald

I have an order in for the new powder. But on the other hand I suspect that it is just a slightly modified Benchmark. The loads published are so darn close to BM that I think it is the same, maybe with a bit more retardent added. If you haven't, try some Benchmark, work up as always, but at about 30.4 grains it SHOOTS. At least in my guns. And also at a bit less, there is a lower node at about 28.6 grains. Don't know the velocity, just that it shoots one hole'ers.

Donald

What bullet are you using?
paulie

 

[Gerry]

IMR 8208xbr

I tried a test lot today.
We used both the new and the old 8208.
The point of impact was identical. Clean up was about the same but a slight edge going to the new powder.
We shot in 12 o'clock winds switching to 1 o'clock at 5 to 15mph winds . steading out at times.
If we shot fast enough the powder really shot extreamly well, even better at 100 then the older lots.
My frend bob shot pretty good groups at 200 I shot mine at 100 .
I had two seperate groups that shot extreamly well with the 65 gr pills Bob shot the 68 gr pills at 200. They were what you would expect from 8208.
We really didn't get a chance to fine tune today. We still have to run them over the screens to check velocity. We saw no vertical in the groups. and a few times we had 3 in one hole with no spread.
This is just tthe first tad of testing but it looks like a winner to me.
I'm going to double my order .

 

[Pete Wass]

As it turns out

I misunderstood my Ausie friend. He did not tell me the powder existed there. I am sorry I misunderstood him. I, pretty much, don't trust big companies which leads to me being suspicious of them most of the time. I do regret the misunderstanding however.

 

[Donald]

What bullet are you using?
paulie

65 grain Gentner BT, 65 grain Bruno BT and a friends custom 62 grain FB. Whatever works in whatever barrel at the time. Probably the 65Gentner about 75% of the time

Donald

 

[LBRUNO]

hot loads

Hay goodgrouper to answer your question the higher i went in velocity the worse my barrel performed.


Lester

 

[jackie schmidt]

Lester

That is good news. Many times, the only way we can make 133 shoot is to shoot it at what can best be described as "case wrecking pressure". It would be nice to have a powder, that is readilly available, that did not require this........jackie

 

[hecksf]

Yes. It is new. Some people just have selective reading problems.

Again, from the flyer that Hodgdon has produced, this new powder was formulated within the last year with the help of Lou M. to duplicate "older" powders. In the process of trying to duplicate, they created something even better that was more stable and worked better than what they had hoped for. Therefore, it is not, by their own account, a rehashed, older powder. It is new and it looks different to me than anything previously produced.

Well I read the part that said "currently loaded in premium factory sniper type ammunition "

To me that is like saying "we invented it yesterday but have been using it successfully since last week."

 

[mike in co]

Well I read the part that said "currently loaded in premium factory sniper type ammunition "

To me that is like saying "we invented it yesterday but have been using it successfully since last week."

me thinks( always an iffy proposition)...that this has been in work for over a year. i do not know when the first batch came out, but it was way back...as lou said something about initial testing some time ago. so it is possible that the maker tried other uses than the br format...and sent it off to the government down under for testing as it was working well.......we are way out on the consumer end of things...almost always the last to get the product...even when we (lou) were the instigators.

mike in co

 

[goodgrouper]

Got my hands on the "golden bottle" this morning and had to go test in the 6ppc this afternoon. I was hoping for freezing weather but to my surprise, it was a balmy 48 degrees (around 40 with windchill) at the canyon range when I arrived. The winds were the typical 4 o'clock to 6 o'clock switchy fishtails with varying velocities. Mirage was present but could be picked through.

I had preloaded a load ladder starting at 30.0 grains and working up to 31.5 grains in .3 increments with XBR. Bruno 68 OO bt off the lands and Fed205 primers used for all. Then for control, I loaded up a ladder with N133 starting at 52.5 clicks going up to 54.5 clicks in .3 grain increments using same bullets and primers.

Barrel was a Bartlein 22", .237, 4 groove, 13.5" twist. Chrono was an Oehler 35 set on 4' rod 10' from the muzzle.

N133 was 1999 lot and XBR was lot #4736.

brass was gozillion-times-fired Lapua 220 russian brass with .258" bushing used on all.


ALL THREE SHOT GROUPS
30.0 grains XBR
es 16
av 3169
sd 8
group= .142"

30.3 grains
es 10
av 3209
sd 5
group= .197

30.6 grains
es 30
av 3249
sd 15
group=.123"

30.9 grains
es 11
av 3302
sd 5
group=.167"

31.2 grains
es 40
av 3333
sd 21
group=.184"

31.5 grains
es 22
av 3363
sd 11
group=.164"

AGG=.1628" for six groups with three shots each

VVn133 was not chronographed (because this was an XBR test) but the five group, 3 shot AGG for it was .1650". And yes, I'm aware three shot groups don't really count as an agg so don't jump down my throat over it. I didn't have enough bullets on hand to do a five shot agg. Sorry.


observations during experiment:

With a 5" drop tube, anything over 30.5 grains of XBR was so full that it began to impede the seating process and made bullets "stick out" another .0015".

No pressure signs were seen even at 31.5 grains.

If Bruno's is selling 8# jugs of N133 at $171.71 and 8# jugs of XBR at $142.95, and you use 28.5 grains of N133 and 30.5 grains of XBR per shot, then N133 costs you 9 cents per shot and XBR costs you 8 cents per shot. So if the price of XBR stays there at $142.95, it is cheaper to shoot but not by much despite the fact that you have to use more per load.

The barrel cleaned easier with less carbon with XBR than N133.

Both powders are accurate in 6ppc.
Both powders lose equivalent velocities with reductions in temperature.

Questions/Answers:

Is XBR temp insensitive? No. My tests in Phoenix in 70-75 degree weather show similar velocity loss to 49 degree weather that N133 does.

Is XBR going to let everyone pre-load and quit lugging all the loading gear to the matches? No.

Is XBR accurate? Yes.

Is XBR slower burning than N133, Benchmark, and H322? Definitely yes.

Is XBR rebottled Benchmark? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Is XBR worth a try? Absolutely.

Is XBR easier to keep in tune than N133? Maybe.

Is XBR worth pushing your mother out of the way to buy? No.

Is XBR going to set the benchrest world on it's ear? Probably not. It is just another powder (tool) to use and it won't shoot better than your ability to play the wind!


Now for the pics:

The XBR groups:

The N133 groups:

A kernel size comparison of the four popular obtainable benchrest powders:

a closeup of benchmark

a closeup of H322:

a closeup of N133:

a closeup of XBR:

and a comparison of XBR (on the right) and Benchmark (on the left). Notice they're not the same! The XBR kernels are actually a bit bigger!

 

[Donald]

Goodgrouper
I have to admit that I sometimes have to take some of your postings with a grain of salt, you did very good on this one. Congratulations, even if they were only 3 shot groups. I just wish you could have recorded velocity readings on the 133 shots. Due to wet, cold, icy, snowy weather in Oklahoma this winter I have not had a chance to test my XBR powder. However most all of last year I shot Benchmark. I finally gave up on 133. I just could not stay on top of the tune. I can remember during practice sessions just before a match having a load that shot great. Then about 1 hour later that load would not group at all. Hair pulling time. Then I found out the Larry Scharnhorst shot Benchmark all of 2008, I think, and won a lot of wood with it. I switched to BM. I found it very forgiving. However the higher you loaded it, in my case, the shorter or closer the node became. It seemed to shoot best, at least in my barrels down around 27.5 to 28.5 grains, which is not all that fast. I can't remember the velocities right now but they were in the 3100 to 3200 fps range. And had a .6 grain window. So now we find that XBR is a tad slower than Benchmark. Makes me wonder as I could get enough BM in a case to get some pretty high pressures. Not case wrecking ones, but still higher than I like to shoot. So here we are with a powder very similar to Benchmark but apparently a bit slower. ?????? Well as soon as the weather cooperates I will get to do some testing, but it better shoot very good as I shot some very good groups with BMark. And don't look for my name in any winners list as I am at best a midpack shooter. My 74 year old eys just don't see as well as they used to and I still can't run a string in 15 seconds.

Donald

 

[Boyd Allen]

Looking at the pressure signs, would you think that having slightly more case capacity would be an advantage with this powder? I know that it is all about accuracy, and that the 6PPC is the king of the hill, but based on what I have read (Thanks to all who have shared.) the thought occurred.

 

[goodgrouper]

Donald,

If you run a search, you might be able to find some of the numerous posts I've made about N133 chrono sessions and their resulting velocities with varying lots. I also made a post or thread about Jerry Shaeffer's H322 velocity/temp graphs printed in PS magazine in which I ran the graph with N133. If you can't find them, I can look at my graph I keep in my loading box and tell you that at 49 degrees, 28.2 grains of N133 Lot#1999 will go around 3210 fps. And it will gain about 25-35 fps per .3 grain increment up to 29.7 grains where it will spike pretty severely. Other lots of N133 are not quite as hot as 1999 and spike in a slightly different place.

 

[goodgrouper]

Looking at the pressure signs, would you think that having slightly more case capacity would be an advantage with this powder? I know that it is all about accuracy, and that the 6PPC is the king of the hill, but based on what I have read (Thanks to all who have shared.) the thought occurred.

I agree. This powder would probably hum in a 6br with 70 and 75 grain bullets. Maybe I'll dig out the old standard 6br and give it a whirl.

 

[goodgrouper]

Another thing I noticed with this test is how easily you can see where N133 was out of tune. Down on the bottom end and then again at the upper end. XBR never shot quite as small as N133 but it never got as big either. It was harder to see where it went out of tune and that might be a good thing.

 

[macflyboy]

Good work

Nice work Goodgrouper, after shooting many groups with both 133 and 8208 XBR I have came to the same conclusions, of course, mine are completely unscientific. I like the fact that you have backed up my theories with hard data. Thanks for the hard work.


Marty

 

[goodgrouper]

Nice work Goodgrouper, after shooting many groups with both 133 and 8208 XBR I have came to the same conclusions, of course, mine are completely unscientific. I like the fact that you have backed up my theories with hard data. Thanks for the hard work.


Marty

Thank you Marty. See ya at the Cactus. Bringing your brother with you?