H335

[oli700]

Hey reloaders, I am about to venture into H335 for my AR. I religiously load IMR 3031 for that but the shortage has me broadening my horizons.
Looking forward to metering it, I just finished some CFE223 and it metered like water and he H335 looks to be the same.

They will just be training , plinking fun rounds and was just wondering how people like it, things to watch for using it, basically the good and bad, I know it will foul a lot quicker than 3031 but I can deal with that right now…..seems data is kind of all over the place for it……thinking about starting with 24gr with 55gr fmj bt

My components
55 gr soft point flat base and FMJ boat tail, both cannelured
Mixed stamp 223 brass, trimmed to .750
CCI 400 primers
Putting a slight crimp on

18 inch barrel, NATO chamber, 1:8 twist, rifle gas is what they will be going through

Read More

 

[Classic]

24 gr of H335 is what I used with a 2.225 OAL. I use Lee dies and I make sure I can see a crimp mark in the brass.
The only difference in our loads is I use CCI 41's

The trim is 1.75 right? You can take it all the way to 1.75999 but I send my brass to Sagewa for reprocessing the second they go past 1.755 and as part of the process he trims them right about 1.740-1.745 incredibly reasonably!

 

[ron]

H335 is an excellent powder for the 223. For better accuracy try the Sierra 52 grain Match King.

 

[oli700]

The trim is 1.75 right?

LOL, yes 1.750. I see some recourses recommend a mag primer, other say 400....I just ran out of 450's.....haven't used the military 41's yet. I understand they are magnum strength with a slightly harder cup ?.....I have done thousands with the softer cup and haven't had a slam fire ....yet but have seen the dimple

H335 is an excellent powder for the 223. For better accuracy try the Sierra 52 grain Match King.

I have never shot anything lighter than a 55 grain….in your experience would you say 335 likes to send the lighter bullets ?.....it sure is in about all the grain offering in my data, seems pretty versatile

Thank you guys for your input, much appreciated

 

[Otter]

I got better accuracy with magnum primers with H335. I found the closer I got to maximum load the cleaner it burned, but it was still the dirtiest powder I think I ever used. I doubt you can find it, but H322 burned cleaner and metered almost as good as H335. N133 is the cleanest burning powder I've ever used in a .223. It meters well, but it is more expensive and hard to find right now just like everything else.

Funny you say you use IMR 3031. That is some old school powder! I used it with great results in a .22-250 and it also worked great in my .223s. But the stuff meters like crap because it has such big kernels. Do you weigh each charge? I can't imagine using a throw to measure with.

 

[Darkker]

H335 & Bl-c(2) are the same thing. WC846 has a spec of 1% max CaCO. Under extended endurance testing (no cleaning) it had the potential to cause gas tube blockages on the m16. To keep which goes where separate enough to grab a juicy Gubment contract, Olin decided if the CaCO stayed under .25% they would call it WC844.
Once the surplus reseller you know as Hodgdon, started buying odds/ends/rejects and blending to a "canister grade" (homogenized all lots to one); you have "different" powders. WC844 is known as 335, and 846 you know as Bl-c(2); or with a cleaning agent added, Win 748.... That set of Tin/Bismuth compounds in CFE223 that is "new"and magic for copper cleaning, was discovered by the French around 1900. Has already been in (perhaps different levels) Win 760/H414 & Win 748 as far back as my MSDS go.
CFE223 btw was developed over 10 years ago, it is Hodgdon's canister version of General Dynamics SMP842.
All of these mentioned powders are ball powders made by defense giant General Dynamics, in St. Marks Florida; in the former Olin plant.

For those who meter: do your VMD calc for your jug of powder, then stop checking weights. Volume and weight are not the same thing. The entire premise of volume (why the manufacturers do it, and build it this way) is to take advantage of the geometry of extruded powder. Extruded powder's burning rate is controlled by geometry of the kernel, cutting them doesn't significantly change the burning rate, with respect to the shifted bulk density (amount of energy). Due to this, your pressures will ALWAYS be more consistent with volume, rather than weight.
With ball powder however, burning rate is controlled by coatings and not geometry. Consistency of ball size, may dictate that weight will be more consistent. At least in theory, again because case volume will also affect burning rate; having a consistent volume of powder in the case is better than a consistent weight in the case.

Just remember the blending of lots, to make a canister grade product .... There is a reason they have the warning about dropping 10% when switching lots.

 

[oli700]

Funny you say you use IMR 3031. That is some old school powder! I used it with great results in a .22-250 and it also worked great in my .223s. But the stuff meters like crap because it has such big kernels. Do you weigh each charge? I can't imagine using a throw to measure with.

it meters like crap but actually , maybe its the thrower cutting constantly but weigh every 3 charges and its usually right in there.....sorry for quoting myself not trying to be lazy, just in a hurry.....this is why I use it and it is the best

The AR-15 was originally designed around IMR-3031 powder. This was the propellant originally used by Bob Hutton, the guy who invented the .223. He was a friend of Eugene Stoner and that's how he got involved designing the round.
The IMR-3031 burn rate was used to calculate the mass of the bolt and carrier together with the mass of the buffer.

Original .223 ammo was loaded with IMR-4475 which was a mass-production version of IMR-3031. And when used with IMR-4475, the AR-15 was superbly reliable. In July 1962, the AR-15 was tested in Vietnam and 80,000 rounds were fired. Over the course of firing 80,000 rounds there were no parts breakages.

The rifle was perfect until a change was made in the AR-15's propellant. The powder was changed from IMR-4475 to a ball powder, WC-846. Now this ball powder ruined the rifle. WC-846 contained calcium carbonate which caused fouling in the AR-15's gas-tube. Even worse, this ball powder burned at a slower rate.

Using a slower burning powder in the AR-15 created the following problems:

1. A higher residual chamber pressure. This created a tendency for the fired cartridge to stick in the chamber;

2. The higher residual pressure causes higher bolt velocity. The bolt wants to unlock right NOW and when combined with a sticky case, the extractor can yank the rim right off the cartridge case.
3. Higher bolt velocity also leads to increased wear and parts started to break.

It was originally stated that the AR 15 wouldn't need maintenance to keep firing but I don't see how anything could be maintenance free if it's made to shoot bullets, no matter how clean the powder burned

The Filthy 14 had a lot of rounds put through it by just keeping it , BCG , wet with oil

I reload all my AR rounds with 3031 till the powder shortage, now I have loaded 500 round with CFE 223 and shot a couple hundred just the other day and it seems real nice, I also ran across H335 , I haven't ever used H335 but beggars cant be choosy as I am down to 3 pounds of 3031....sad

 

[oli700]

H335 & Bl-c(2) are the same thing. WC846 has a spec of 1% max CaCO. Under extended endurance testing (no cleaning) it had the potential to cause gas tube blockages on the m16. To keep which goes where separate enough to grab a juicy Gubment contract, Olin decided if the CaCO stayed under .25% they would call it WC844.
Once the surplus reseller you know as Hodgdon, started buying odds/ends/rejects and blending to a "canister grade" (homogenized all lots to one); you have "different" powders. WC844 is known as 335, and 846 you know as Bl-c(2); or with a cleaning agent added, Win 748.... That set of Tin/Bismuth compounds in CFE223 that is "new"and magic for copper cleaning, was discovered by the French around 1900. Has already been in (perhaps different levels) Win 760/H414 & Win 748 as far back as my MSDS go.
CFE223 btw was developed over 10 years ago, it is Hodgdon's canister version of General Dynamics SMP842.
All of these mentioned powders are ball powders made by defense giant General Dynamics, in St. Marks Florida; in the former Olin plant.

For those who meter: do your VMD calc for your jug of powder, then stop checking weights. Volume and weight are not the same thing. The entire premise of volume (why the manufacturers do it, and build it this way) is to take advantage of the geometry of extruded powder. Extruded powder's burning rate is controlled by geometry of the kernel, cutting them doesn't significantly change the burning rate, with respect to the shifted bulk density (amount of energy). Due to this, your pressures will ALWAYS be more consistent with volume, rather than weight.
With ball powder however, burning rate is controlled by coatings and not geometry. Consistency of ball size, may dictate that weight will be more consistent. At least in theory, again because case volume will also affect burning rate; having a consistent volume of powder in the case is better than a consistent weight in the case.

Just remember the blending of lots, to make a canister grade product .... There is a reason they have the warning about dropping 10% when switching lots.

I am filing this in my memory, thanks for that diamond !

 

[jluck]

H335 & Bl-c(2) are the same thing. .

I did not know this! I have H335 load data for my particular cartridge and just passed up two pounds of the BL-C2 yesterday.

 

[Otter]

If BL-C(2) is the same thing as H335, why do they have different load recommendations in my Speer manual??? In almost all cases the max spread is 1 grain to 1.5 grain difference.

If you decide to treat them as the same powder, I would be very careful in how to work up your loads.

 

[bballer182]

BL-C(2) and H335 are not the same. H335 is extremely close in composition to the military canister/pulldown powder known as WC844 designed for M855 and M193. BL-C(2) is what's known as WC846 designed for 7.62 NATO.

 

[jluck]

If BL-C(2) is the same thing as H335, why do they have different load recommendations in my Speer manual??? In almost all cases the max spread is 1 grain to 1.5 grain difference.

If you decide to treat them as the same powder, I would be very careful in how to work up your loads.

BL-C(2) and H335 are not the same. H335 is extremely close in composition to the military canister/pulldown powder known as WC844 designed for M855 and M193. BL-C(2) is what's known as WC846 designed for 7.62 NATO.

I had already planned on proceeding with caution other than just going off one internet opinion.

 

[usagi]

BL-C(2) and H335 are not the same. close, but not same.

BL-C(2) is a clone of WC846, and H335 is a clone of WC844.

powders which ARE the same:
H110 = W296
HP38 = W231
H414 = W760

 

[HappyRoman]

I have and use Accurate 2200, Accurate 2230, Ramshot X-terminator and Ramshot Tac. All seem to meeter will in the Dillions and shot very similiar.. Just my .o2C

 

[Darkker]

I know one is from 844, the other from 846.... I already stated that in my post, didn't you read it all?
Yes they are (on the non-canister side) the same, again, as I already stated; the difference is in the allowable amount of calcium carb, an acid fighter from manufacturing processing. Olin's original patent for WC846 circa 1940, had a maximum limit of 1% CaCO. When the very same powder has it's maximum lowered to 0.25%, due to the potential for clogging, they called that WC844. Otherwise they are the same.

As to the question about the whopping 1.5 grain difference. Again, read what I already wrote. EVERYONE who sells powder to the reloader (Hodgdon, Western, etc) tells you to drop 10% when switching lots. That is because of several things. When a surplus reseller "blends" all the odds and ends they bought to a relatively consistent spec, they don't always get the same components to sort. Also, what is the Spec of the powder? What is the spec of the parent powder? Why was it surplussed to begin with? If it was built on contract, what is the parent powder spec?
Hodgdon WILL NOT give you the spec "their" powders are built to, but folks like western will. MOST powders have a nominal burning rate variance of 5%. So if your lot was in-spec, but slow; the next lot was still in-spec, but fast... -5 to +5 .... equals 10, thus the "drop 10%" warnings.

For another example of this, Win 760=H414=Accurate 2700. They are precisely identical in every absolute possible way. GD builds that powder in Florida, the only difference is who's label goes on the bottle. Yet your data will not show identical charges, why? The nominal BR variation to the powder. Does your data list what lot numbers of powder they used, or if they shot the data, or had it passed to them? Just normal manufacturing variation.

If you would like another read about the 846/844 line, this is a very nice resource:
The Gun Zone -- The Great 5.56mm Propellant Controversy

 

[SinisterSouthpaw]

If things ever get back to "normal" as far as component availability is concerned you might want to experiment with the heavier bullets your 1/8 twist barrel was built to shoot. I have found that not only does CFE223 meter well but it is the best powder I have ever shot as far as accuracy and ease of tuning goes in both my 5.56/.223 rifles. When a bit higher pressures are involved, such as I get when loading 70gr. even down to 62 gr. bullets CFE really does well for me. Second choice would be N-135 with H-335 a distant third. As long as you are going to spin them at 1/8 you might as well use the bullets that get the most benefit from the rpm.

 

[oli700]

I ended up settling on 25 grains under Hornady 55 grain FMJ BT cannelured, crimped with a COAL of 2.21" . Grouped, cycled, ejected good, they felt stout with no signs of overpressure.

 

[Spitpatch]

"Due to this, your pressures will ALWAYS be more consistent with volume, rather than weight."

I sincerely hope that with the usage of an absolute, you knew that you invited challenge.

I will preface all my response with the happy discovery that consistent volume measurements in small-grain or ball powders have been proven by myself (to myself) to be at least as consistent in velocity and deviation as weighed charges. Benchrest shooters rely almost exclusively on metered charges of fine-grained powder as well and their experience with mine support the statement above, aside from the absolute. Another arena of support is when loading blackpowder cartridges: volume is the cornerstone of powder measurement, not weight.

The absolute finds contradiction in my experience with long-grained powder loaded in large capacity cases (.30-06 and greater). When I made my happy volume discovery with my .221 Fireball rifle, I very soon tested the same procedure with my .25-06, my .270, and a .264 Magnum, amongst others. Weighed charges in these cases with the long-stick powders generally preferred by these cartridges ALWAYS produced noticeably more consistent velocities and deviations, than even the most meticulous charges measured by volume.

As for H335 in the .223, that is my workhorse powder, dirty as it is (I am considering trying CFE, but I clean guns regularly, and H335 keeps cropping up for sale, and so I keep buying it: not seeing any CFE223 regularly). 25.0 grains (thrown, not weighed) of H335 behind a 55grain Nosler Ballistic Tip, Federal Benchrest primer, no crimp (even when loaded for the AR). Works first time, every time in all guns, Prairie Dogs to Pronghorns.

 

[Darkker]

25.0 grains (thrown, not weighed) of H335.

Hey Spit, glad to have a challenge

You point out a good.... Point, but I think you are missing some pieces of the puzzle.
You are correct in that, when anything is taken to it's logical extreme, problems arise.
If one were to find an extremely long extruded powder, and didn't take care to arrange the sticks(so to speak), then voids in the case arise. That will cause you loading issues., although in my 264 & 270 I've never seen that. None-the-less, the concern is valid. Although I don't horse around with multiple powders much anymore, in the past 15 years I haven't crossed paths with a particularly troublesome (in the point you raise) powder.
Where I think you are slightly off-track in this however, is from your quote, and powders of choice.
1) powder. While I personally load ball powders by volume as well, my statement doesn't apply. The inverse relationship of BD/BR only applies to extruded powder. Ball powders don't use geometry to control burn rates, their coatings do that task. So if the BD/Coating content were off kilter, loading ball powder by volume can lead to much higher/lower pressures than anticipated.
2) units.
If you are talking volume, there is no Grains; That is a unit of weight. If you are using a volumetric device to accomplish a weight, you aren't loading by volume.
Volume units are CC's, ml, etc. This is the portion that trips most people up. The only company I know that readily offers the VMD of powders is Western. Personally I think you should do your own VMD calc per powder lot, but that's just me. The only "connection" with true volume, and weight; is for a frame of reference only. So for those of us who use powders not resold by Western, only Gr is given. Doing your VMD calc against a weight gives you a CC frame of reference to begin loading. But should not (again, with extruded powder) be check weighed, as you are loading a volume; not weight. Think of making cookies. No recipe calls for 1/4 pound of chocolate chips, the ask for a cup or two. Even though the cups won't ever weigh the same.

I understand what you are talking about with the 335 family of powder being "dirty", especially at lower pressures. But if that bothers you, DO NOT buy CFE. I like those american made ball powders for a few reasons, but in reference to the fouling you speak of: they are a very loose soot type fouling, as opposed to many extruded powders and their fouling. They also don't have the ability to cause "hard carbon" fouling, that the Thales "extreme" powders sold by Hodgdon do. Hard carbon is a BEAR to get loosened and rid of. CFE's fouling is a bit looser and MUCH blacker and pronounced, than 335.

Not sure how close you are, but Ranch & Home(kennewick) usually has CFE on the shelf. I have about 12# left, soGonna need more before the summer gets here.

 

[Spitpatch]

If you are talking volume, there is no Grains; That is a unit of weight. If you are using a volumetric device to accomplish a weight, you aren't loading by volume.

Absolutely correct. And I will further admit that even my blackpowder cartridge loading is by this accurate definition not done by volume (specifically). I engage in the common practice of checking what is thrown from the measure against the scale. My blackpowder cartridge loading perhaps comes closest to true volumetric measuring in that I am not particularly concerned about the specific numerical weight of the charge, but rather its occupancy (and compression beneath the projectile) in the case. My verification (occasionally during the charging process) against a scale is only to indicate extreme anomalies that might suggest a glitch or mistake. The numerical assignment of a grain weight is done in order that I may approach duplication at a later date (along with the fact that few if any load tables and books are written in cc's or ml's).

We find another area of comfortable agreement in trying to narrow down the number of horses in the powder stable. I get real leery about new powders that are "the cat's meow". Too frequently, they don't have much longevity on the market. I stick with the stalwarts, with VERY occasional experimentation. I want my favorite powder to be available ten years from now.