16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 04 Mar 2019 Posts: 1837 Location: Central ND

3drahthaars,

Forgiving powder? What does that mean?

Powder is powder, you select the right powder for the job. Some are a bit more versatile than others, but forgiving?

Joined: 21 May 2015 Posts: 128

MSM,

Forgiving means that 1-2 gr does not affect the pressure as much on some published loads as some other powders.

Forgiving...

Joined: 04 Mar 2019 Posts: 1837 Location: Central ND

Got it, now it makes sense.

Joined: 04 Mar 2019 Posts: 1837 Location: Central ND

I got a chance to shoot the load that I tried in the RGL hull at some 5 stand. Typical Winchester ball powder, leaves a bit of ash in the barrel but nothing terrible. I really like the powder and it can be used for both 1 and 1 1/8 oz. loads, just the way 800-X could be used.

Not sure everyone will like this load for targets, especially in a light break action shotgun. You will like it for hunting.

I have had to shoot 7/8 oz. loads in my 16 for targets for over a year now, it's good to have a nice 1 oz. load again.

As I was shooting tonight, I had a couple of the 7/8 oz. loads in my vest pocket from last week. When I fired them, it was like that was cute I wonder what they'll be like when they grow up.

Yes I do like 1 oz. loads for targets!!

Joined: 04 Mar 2019 Posts: 1837 Location: Central ND

Another thought. Winchester 572 is a very elastic powder with many uses in many gauges. Hodgdon has data for 12, 16, 20 and 28.

IMO we haven't had a powder this good in a long time. Seems to be filling the slot of a combination of SR7625/800-X. A bit slower like 800-X and meters and is very useful in the lighter loads like SR7625.

There isn't much not to like.

Mark , how would you compare 572 and WSF . WSF a little faster and 572 kinda like herco/unique ?

Joined: 04 Mar 2019 Posts: 1837 Location: Central ND

I never have worked all that much with Herco, so I won't comment on it.

572 is slower than Unique and Universal, so it makes for a better 1 1/8 oz. powder. Kinda why I mentioned SR7625 and 800-X. WSF always seemed one step slower than Unique and Universal. At one time I used a lot of it when Winchester CF hulls were being made. But it was never slow enough for 1 1/8 oz. 16 gauge loads. When Winchester stopped making the CF hull and powder migration started being a problem I gave up using WSF.

Back to 572. It acts a lot like 800-X, but it meters better.

Joined: 04 Mar 2019 Posts: 1837 Location: Central ND

In addition if you look at the latest burn rate charts, Winchester 572 is right next to Blue Dot. Sure doesn't act like Blue Dot......thank goodness. One Blue Dot is enough.

This 572 stuff is very versatile. It just made life with the 16 gauge a whole lot nicer and it's a powder you can actually buy.

Here is an up to date burn rate chart:

https://loaddata.com/Article/BurnRateCharts/Powder-Burn-Rate-Chart-NEW/159

Guest

572 looks like a winner for the 28 gauge, too.

Member Joined: 30 Nov 2011 Posts: 1696 Location: Minnesota

I've always liked Universal for a do it all powder using it for 16,20,and 28 ga plus pistol loads like 38 spl,10mm,45Colt. Dont know how 572 is regarded in pistol apps but if it is OK then it could be an alternative to Universal as a do it all. It does seem to take maybe a grain more of 572 vs Universal and 572 does seem a little more expensive.

Joined: 04 Mar 2019 Posts: 1837 Location: Central ND

All powders seem expensive now. In 2019 I paid $131.00 for an 8 lber. of 700-X. Earlier in 2022 I paid $185 for the same 8 lb. container, from the same company.

Joined: 21 May 2015 Posts: 128

MSM2019,

Interesting about burn rates...

Sherman Bell's data in DGJ indicated that Blue Dot and blackpowder had similar pressure / time curves and therefore concluded that smokeless powder could be used in Damascus guns.

It is interesting that 572 was also in several fiber wad recipes in Shooting Times that approximated black powder in pressure and velocity.

I've just bought another can of 572, because it really does fit the bill for 1200fps/ less than or equal to 8kpsi loads that pattern well and are on par with the loads my older guns were designed around.

Joined: 04 Mar 2019 Posts: 1837 Location: Central ND

I am thinking that Winchester 572 is about the most versatile powder to come along in quite a few years.

I really like it, to the point of going to it almost exclusively for the 16 gauge. Not sure it is the right powder for 7/8 oz. loads, but for 1 oz. and above it can get the job done.

Member Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 592 Location: Minnesota

I've transitioned to 572 for both lead and bismuth 1oz 16ga fiber loads. I had Tom test a number of loads back when it was new to the market.

Guest

Over the last week or so I've been putting some loads together to get tested. On one of the 572 loads I took the Hodgdon data for a 1 oz. Cheddite hull, SG16, CCI 209M & Cheddite 209, and I used 20.0 gr. of 572. Hodgdon lists it on a 2 3/4" hull, but knowing there will be a stack height issue I loaded them in 2 1/2" hulls. I fired a few over my chronograph and they averaged 1230 fps with either primer.

I have an older gun with a stock I do not want to crack, so I'm going to keep the velocity at 1200 fps or less. So I'm thinking of testing it at either 19.0 or 19.5 gr. and seeing how they come out.

I'm also going to put together another 572 load using the Federal hull and Fed. 209A primer with the same 1200 fps (+-10 fps) as the goal.

Hope I'm not wrong about the stack height, because the 2 1/2" hull crimped well, but the stack height seems just a tad high.

Has anyone got these 1 oz. Hodgdon 572 loads to work out in a 2 3/4" hull?