New IMR powders

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Mgderf

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    17,877
    113
    Lafayette
    I see IMR has released some new powders.
    Three of them look like they might be trying to bite into the Alliance market share.
    They have the names, Red, Green, and Blue.

    I can see someone inexperienced assuming these to be Red Dot, Green Dot, and Blue Dot.
    I can't seem to find a burn rate chart with the new listings included.
    The IMR descriptions seem to mimic the Alliance descriptions.

    Does anyone know any more about these new powders?
    Are they supposed to substitute for the "Dot" powders?

    I'm just curious.
    Seems like a lot of room for confusion.
     

    Leo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 3, 2011
    9,733
    113
    Lafayette, IN
    I have noticed the "parallel" trend in powders also. I have also seen many different powders come out that ask "why". It is not like they are filling a market void, and they are often competing against established powders in their own company line. I would never assume the same data applies across different brands.

    The powders that I really like, and have used for decades have been in short supply for a long time. Varget, WW231, AA#9 and International Clays. To even make it worse, International Clays(when you can find it) has been reformulated. Alliant introduced powders over the last 20 years that I tried, learned to work with, and then they were not available. IMR discontinued my previously favorite shotgun powder and also a very good 20 gauge and pistol powder. I am past enjoying powder experimentation.

    They even quit making Mercury Marquis Sedans.

    Crap, I am sounding like an old man, who does not want change with no benefit. Darn whippersnappers........
     

    Mgderf

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    17,877
    113
    Lafayette
    I'm not assuming any similarities, besides the names, but I do see where someone might.
    I'm new enough to reloading that I triple-check every move I make.

    I can see the value of similar powders from different companies. When one manufacturer runs behind, possibly the other is not.
    It could help with supply availability for handloaders.
    Still, I'd like to see where these powders stack up on the burn rate chart.

    Speaking of burn rates, why is there no set numbers to burn rates?
    One powder says it is slow burning. O.K. That's like saying the number 1 setting on an electric stove is "low", but says nothing about how hot it is.

    Is there no other comparison from powder to powder other than this one is the slowest, then this one next.

    There is a rating for the speed that fuses burn.
    Why is there no number value set to powder burn rates?
     

    AmmoManAaron

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Feb 20, 2015
    3,334
    83
    I-get-around
    I see IMR has released some new powders.
    Three of them look like they might be trying to bite into the Alliance market share.
    They have the names, Red, Green, and Blue.

    I can see someone inexperienced assuming these to be Red Dot, Green Dot, and Blue Dot.
    I can't seem to find a burn rate chart with the new listings included.
    The IMR descriptions seem to mimic the Alliance descriptions.

    Does anyone know any more about these new powders?
    Are they supposed to substitute for the "Dot" powders?

    I'm just curious.
    Seems like a lot of room for confusion.

    I don't know if I would consider them drop-in replacements in all applications, but they are definitely supposed to be very similar to each other and have similar applications and loading characteristics. I've looked at Red and Red Dot in 12ga 1 1/8 oz trap loads recently and they are basically the same.
    In addition to the three you mentioned:
    Target is similar to Bullseye
    Unequal is similar to Unique

    This can be viewed as Hodgdon's revenge on Alliant for Alliant brining out ClayDot a few years ago which mimics Clays.

    Or it can be viewed in terms of unfulfilled market demand.
    Years ago Hodgdon couldn't get enough Clays to the market, so Alliant brought out ClayDot. FWIW, Hodgdon still can't get enough Clays to the market, but I see ClayDot on the shelves.
    Alliant hasn't been able to get enough Red Dot, Green Dot, or Blue Dot to the market for years now, so Hodgdon has stepped in to fill the void. I see Alliant Red Dot occasionally, but I'm seeing all three of the new Hodgdon powders.
    I have seen very little Bullseye, Target, Unique, or Unequal, so both brands are missing the mark on those.

    Unequal makes me the most uneasy, Unique has a long and proven track record of use in special applications (reduced loads and cast bullet loads in old calibers) and I don't know if Unequal is going to measure up safely.

    Now, something that would make me happy is to see Alliant strike back by bringing out powders to mimic PB and SR 4759 (discontinued Hodgdon powders that are sorely missed by old time reloaders and cast bullet shooters).
     

    Mgderf

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    17,877
    113
    Lafayette
    Thanks for the info. Aaron.
    I thought that might be the case.
    As long as there is good published data, I'm glad to see the additions.
    Might make locating some powder a bit easier in the future, even if it's not exactly what you were looking for.
     

    4651feeder

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Oct 21, 2016
    1,186
    63
    East of NWI
    While picking up an 8# Jug of Green Dot last weekend the supplier (an ardent shotgunner) mentioned he had IMR Green @ $3 less and that it loaded for shotgun essentially the same as Green Dot. If IMR plans to give Alliant a run with these clones; they're gonna have to do better than $3 IMHO.
     

    AmmoManAaron

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Feb 20, 2015
    3,334
    83
    I-get-around
    IMR discontinued my previously favorite shotgun powder and also a very good 20 gauge and pistol powder. I am past enjoying powder experimentation.

    who does not want change with no benefit.

    Just curious, which powders?

    And I agree about the change with no benefit. Some of the new powders I've tried are NOT as good as the old ones they "replaced" in the product lines. In my applications, PB, SR 7625, and SR 4756 are superior to Longshot, plus there is far more data available for those old powders. Longshot really burned up my Win. AA hulls (one loading absolutely fried the hull mouths and even partway down the sides) and it also put a lot of partially burnt powder granules in the air and in the gun. It was flashy at the muzzle, but I expected that.

    I'm not assuming any similarities, besides the names, but I do see where someone might.

    ^Agreed^

    I can see the value of similar powders from different companies. When one manufacturer runs behind, possibly the other is not.
    It could help with supply availability for handloaders.

    ^Agreed^

    Still, I'd like to see where these powders stack up on the burn rate chart.
    Speaking of burn rates, why is there no set numbers to burn rates?
    One powder says it is slow burning. O.K. That's like saying the number 1 setting on an electric stove is "low", but says nothing about how hot it is.
    Is there no other comparison from powder to powder other than this one is the slowest, then this one next.
    There is a rating for the speed that fuses burn.
    Why is there no number value set to powder burn rates?

    Smokeless powder behaves differently than the stuff used in fuses (black powder in traditional fuses or HE compositions in det cord). In general, smokeless has different burn rates in different applications, but some powders are much more variable than others. Look at several burn rate charts and you will see that certain powders get moved around a lot depending on who is generating the chart. Trail Boss and e3 are two that come immediately to mind.
     

    Mgderf

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    17,877
    113
    Lafayette
    Just curious, which powders?

    And I agree about the change with no benefit. Some of the new powders I've tried are NOT as good as the old ones they "replaced" in the product lines. In my applications, PB, SR 7625, and SR 4756 are superior to Longshot, plus there is far more data available for those old powders. Longshot really burned up my Win. AA hulls (one loading absolutely fried the hull mouths and even partway down the sides) and it also put a lot of partially burnt powder granules in the air and in the gun. It was flashy at the muzzle, but I expected that.



    Smokeless powder behaves differently than the stuff used in fuses (black powder in traditional fuses or HE compositions in det cord). In general, smokeless has different burn rates in different applications, but some powders are much more variable than others. Look at several burn rate charts and you will see that certain powders get moved around a lot depending on who is generating the chart. Trail Boss and e3 are two that come immediately to mind.

    I just think the "fastest to slowest" rating seems woefully inadequate.
    Seems like there should be a more accurate measure.
     

    Leo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 3, 2011
    9,733
    113
    Lafayette, IN
    I just think the "fastest to slowest" rating seems woefully inadequate.
    Seems like there should be a more accurate measure.

    Especially since they often disagree. If you look at several charts, you will see powders moved around on the list. I guess it depends on their test equipment, conditions, and the lot numbers of the actual test powder. Even as precise things are these days, and as consistent as canister grade powders actually are, there is some notable variance. A lot like the reloading manuals for velocity. Some may be tested in a 6 inch revolver, some on an 8 inch, some in a test rig with no cylinder gap, some in a semi auto, etc. That is part of the reason I avoid loading to the highest number I can find, too many variables. I back down a little to build in some safety margin. I figure if the cartridge is not powerful enough backed slightly down, I needed to bring a bigger gun.
     
    Last edited:

    Leo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 3, 2011
    9,733
    113
    Lafayette, IN
    AmmoManArron. I used a lot of PB and like 7625 in middle power pistol loads. I seldom load my heavy power hunting shells, so I never tried 4756. I liked 3031 for the .45-70, and cast bullet 30-30, and they still show it on the list, but I have not seen any in a while.
     

    Mgderf

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    17,877
    113
    Lafayette
    Especially since they often disagree. If you look at several charts, you will see powders moved around on the list. I guess it depends on their test equipment, conditions, and the lot numbers of the actual test powder. Even as precise things are these days, and as consistent as canister grade powders actually are, there is some notable variance. A lot like the reloading manuals for velocity. Some may be tested in a 6 inch revolver, some on an 8 inch, some in a test rig with no cylinder gap, some in a semi auto, etc. That is part of the reason I avoid loading to the highest number I can find, too many variables.

    I think I understand the variances, and I can see that this would hamper the process.
    Still, different powders create different pressures under differing circumstances too, but someone has figured out how to measure it, be it in P.S.I. or C.U.P. (which most do not understand).

    Still seems like there should be a better unit of measurement, though I'm not the brainiac to figure that out.
     

    Leo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 3, 2011
    9,733
    113
    Lafayette, IN
    Still seems like there should be a better unit of measurement, though I'm not the brainiac to figure that out.


    Agreed........I mean to the first part, no judgement made on the brainiac part. :):

    Now if we can figure out the billing from my last heart surgery, THAT takes a brainiac.........



    We have still come a long way since testing ballistics was a swinging gong pulling a rope, and you measured how many inches of rope got moved.
     

    AmmoManAaron

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Feb 20, 2015
    3,334
    83
    I-get-around
    AmmoManArron. I used a lot of PB and like 7625 in middle power pistol loads. I seldom load my heavy power hunting shells, so I never tried 4756. I liked 3031 for the .45-70, and cast bullet 30-30, and they still show it on the list, but I have not seen any in a while.

    Cool, the same powders I like and wish hadn't been discontinued. I use PB and 7625 for 12ga lead shot loads (heavy trap, handicap, and field) and 4756 for buckshot in both 12ga and 10ga. I used a little bit of PB in 45 Colt until it was discontinued - now save it for shotshells exclusively, which is a shame because I liked how it performed in 45 Colt. I've heard 4756 is good for making major in 38 Super without insane pressures, but by the time I got into this powder it was discontinued. The buckshot recipes for 4756 are nice and simple and there's a good variety of 12ga buckshot data in my old Lyman manuals. It was also THE powder for 10ga buckshot. When I run out, the 10ga buckshot loads will end up being either Blue Dot (which takes a lot more powder) or 800x (seems to have less hull selection).

    I like 3031 for the rifle uses you listed, plus with 6.5 Jap and 6.5 Carcano using relatively light jacketed bullets. I think Traildust Surplus in Bloomington has 3031, but I haven't seen it around in very many other places. I use a lot of 4064 for heavier military rifle calibers and some 4320 for 7mm Mauser. 4895 for Garand loads when I find it cheaper than 4064, but I prefer the accuracy of 4064.
     

    rvb

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 14, 2009
    6,396
    63
    IN (a refugee from MD)
    I used 4756 for my .38super open gun. I'm on my last big jug, so going to have to work up a new load. Thinking about shooting some open this season and I've got enough loaded, I think, for this year. Might need something else for next year, though....

    as for the burn rates, there are even more variables than things like lot numbers and fixtures... some powders change burn rate with pressure, some either increase or decrease with temperature, etc. There's enough variation that even the lists could be out of order depending on your application. This could be why the lists don't all match. They should be considered a general guide, not an exact science. To put #s to it would be flat misleading, unless they included a lot of additional information, e.g. charted across temperature, mean chamber pressures, etc etc....

    -rvb
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom