Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Right next to the pot that needs stirring.
    Age
    45
    Posts
    2,157

    Default So, S321 or S335. Is their consensus?

    I have searched and read far and wide on Gunsite and other places. Also have asked a few re-loaders to their opinion. To keep conversation and frustration (not with our friends here, with availability of propellant) going, I want to get better clarity on the following:

    1. When loading discussions regarding the .223 is made a lot of times out of the blue a whole different answer than the norm is coming out and then it is realized that some shooters have not read thoroughly and are sharing info on .223 from a hunting rifle (20 - 24" barrel), but the discussion was on AR rifles with normally 16 - 18" barrels. That is confusing. Like in one thread on AR reloading a post pop up about "From my Howa." No Howa AR's I know about? (No question here, I am stating a fact.)
    2. Either S321 and/or S335 might not be available when needed. (Another fact.)

    Questions to commence:

    3. With heavier bullets (70 + grain in .223 Caliber) a slower powder should be better (S335 better than S321) all else being equal?
    4. Hunting rifles with fast enough twist to accurately use heavy .223 (.224?) bullets is not commonly in use.
    5. The faster twists are from AR's (normally) but AR's have the shorter barrels also. In a short barrel (think of a pistol here, 3-6 inches) faster powders get better results, or even the only way to get some velocity from a small case and short barrel.
    6. How can it thus be feasible that S335 can be (as some reloaders have described to me) the better propellant from an AR than S321 for heavier bullets? The ones I ask do not use chronographs or have not measured, they just comment on accuracy.
    7. Am I correct to assume with example 75 gr bullets from a 16" barrel with 1:7 or 1:8 twist that with S321 better velocity and propellant use should be noted than with S335?
    8. Is S335 "used up" in the shorter barrels or is it not clean burning.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vereeniging
    Age
    70
    Posts
    5,782

    Default Re: So, S321 or S335. Is their consensus?

    S335 is slightly faster burnig than S321. The smaller particles of S321 ensure that the small case does not easily become over full. Being slower burning S321 gives slightly higher node speeds and is better with the heavier bullets. S321 can also be dispensed from a powder measure that allows quick reloading. S321 is still available, but S335 is totally unobtanum till possibly mid 2020.

  3. #3
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Right next to the pot that needs stirring.
    Age
    45
    Posts
    2,157

    Default Re: So, S321 or S335. Is their consensus?

    Thanks driepootx. You have answered a lot of questions for me in that one sentence. "Smaller particles of S321..." That I did not give a thought. And that then most probably why S321 should be burning "cleaner".

  4. #4
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cape Town
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,668

    Default Re: So, S321 or S335. Is their consensus?

    Quote Originally Posted by driepootx View Post
    S335 is slightly faster burnig than S321.
    I've see this statement made a few times recently and have been surprised because I always thought S321 was Somchem's fastest burning rifle powder. (I'll leave S265 out of the discussion because it is mostly a pistol powder with the ability to also function in 22 Hornet rifles).

    Anyway, I went back and checked my information and sure enough, my memory wasn't deceiving me. My 2004 copy of the printed Somchem manual shows S321 to be faster burning than S335.

    So I googled a bit further and the first 2 links I clicked on give contradictory results:

    Peregrine website burn rate list seems to say S321 is faster: http://peregrinebullets.co.za/gun-powder-info/
    This one from GSC seems to say that S335 is faster: http://gsgroup.co.za/burnrates.html

    Can anyone explain the differences?

    Are the powders so close in burning rate that the difference can't be reliably & consistently measured?

    Is it just batch to batch variation?

    Are there different methods of measuring that would give slightly different results?

    Does the powder behave differently in cases that differ in size, shape, or volume? (for example one powder might burn faster in a 223 case and the other powder faster in a .303Br case)

    Any thoughts or definitive answers out there?

  5. #5
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Right next to the pot that needs stirring.
    Age
    45
    Posts
    2,157

    Default Re: So, S321 or S335. Is their consensus?

    BBCT, you are asking very relevant questions. As in my OP, I also had the assumption (knowledge I had to be corrected it seems), that S335 was the slower of the 2. After Driepootx reply I also read up on it and it seems to me the burning rates are very close. What is also confusing is that on the Somchem tin, the S335 is described as Medium Burning Extruded Propellant and S321 is described as Fast Burning Spherical. But there are tables etc that indicate S335 to be the faster burning of the 2. So what I concluded for myself is that S335 is medium burning, but medium for Extruded. And S321 is fast burning, but fast for Spherical. But compared to each other it might be that S335 is faster?

    To conclude, I am now learning something new and believe am not the only one. And, also stand to be corrected if not on the right track.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •