AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/23/2008 8:07:33 AM EDT
|
Hi All, I've read that when IMR stopped making IMR 4475 that WC 846 was substituted, caused problems, and then was re-designated WC844 after being somewhat reformulated (for more appropriate pressures and Calcium Carbonate buildup issues). My question is looking at the current IMR catalog, would IMR 3031 have been a viable substitute? Seems like you can get 3233fps out of a 55 gr bullet with IMR 3031 @52.5ksi. Or did they try it and have accuracy issues? Or did the military want a "single source" powder for all automatic weapons? Or is 3250fps a "magic number" the military was trying to keep? Mike Doerner |
|
I have been using IMR 3031 for quite a while now, it's a very accurate powder. I think they may have shied away from it for manufacturing purposes. To get those muzzle velocities with IMR 3031, it's a compressed load. It's also a cylinder powder, which tends to be more difficult to measure accurately. |
Ok, I know the flash-supressant was reduced from 2% or so to .5%, but what was done ot the AR other than ruitine PM that now allows it to use non IMR powder? |
|
I don't have proof but........ Could the switch, away from stick powders to ball powders be somewhat due to, the mfn process? Easier to produce, cheaper, more consistant lot to lot, measures better through the small neck using high speed equipment? And, whatever else you can think of? Just a thought.  Aloha, Mark |
AR Sponsor