WW 572

  • 847 Views
  • Last Post 07 January 2017
Scearcy posted this 25 December 2016

Winchester is representing WW 572 as a very versatile powder and they have been quoted (on the internet) as saying it would be a replacement for 4756.  Has anyone tried 572 yet?

replacement-for-4756?

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
RicinYakima posted this 25 December 2016

The data that is published makes it very close for 38 and 44 specials. However, I waiting for someone to give me real life experience also.

Attached Files

SierraHunter posted this 25 December 2016

Everyone split the cost of a keg and send it to me for evaluating. 😈

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 26 December 2016

 I'm too cheap to buy a pound and try it myself! Really good try though Sierra!

Attached Files

frnkeore posted this 26 December 2016

It seems to me that 572 is the same as #7 (H type).

Anyone else remember that?

Frank

Attached Files

Scearcy posted this 26 December 2016

I will soon need to run another batch of 38 special before spring so I may try a pound for that and use the left overs to experiment with.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 26 December 2016

My only concern is that it is a “ball” powder. Which means it has the same chemical composition as all ball powders, so burning rate is controlled by ball size and chemical coatings. Now, so is WW231 but it is untreated and flattened so it makes a good pistol powder. The problem is that it could be like AA#7 or #9 that requires a higher pressure to burn consistently than I load my 38's and 44's. We shall see how it turns out.

Attached Files

Eutectic posted this 06 January 2017

When 572 came out I hoped it was going to be close to discontinued 571 which was a great powder for heavy bullet 45 ACP and other small case maximum loads. Sadly this is not true, 572 is much faster than 571. I wonder where Winchester gets their numbers?

My experience with slow ball powders confirms Ricin's observations, they work best in a full or almost full case and at maximum loads. I would expect 572 to work well in 9mm Luger or 40 S&W, higher pressure. almost 100% load density. 572 might go bang in 38 and 44 Special, but I would look closely at the velocity standard deviation and accuracy. Winchester may have a new trick but I will stick with Herco and VV 3n37 until Searcy gets test results on 572.

 

Attached Files

Scearcy posted this 07 January 2017

It was 18 below zero yesterday!  At the moment I am not casting bullets (unheated garage) or testing loads (outdoor range).  Alas I am not the man I used to be.  I hope I am getting smarter.  A related thought though - I am going shopping for a snubbie today.  I can test new oads in a new gun.  It  just doesn't seem safe any more.

Attached Files

Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close