That appears to be randy Wakeman writing that article for the Chuck Hawks page.
I would need to write twice as much as Wakeman to explain the several ways he's wrong, and then 5 times as much to explain burn rate as thoroughly as I can, which still isn't all that thorough, and I really want to avoid that. Let me say two things about Wakeman's article:
- His premise is that burn rate charts are worthless. His conclusion restates that burn rate charts are worthless. Not one iota of his argument talks about burn rate charts or their organization. His argument is about the limitations of relative quickness, which makes his article completely off topic in relation to his premise.
- AND even for what his article does do in terms of support, it does it poorly. The fact that ballisticians use relative quickness rather than burn rate is irrelevant. It is incredibly common for industry experts to use terms that are different than the terms used for public consumption. Pointing out that the ballisticians don't use the term burn rate so that he can suggest that burn rate is meaningless is either dishonest or stupid.
Basically, Wakeman clearly doesn't think burn rate charts are of much use, and he has good cause for that, but the argument he makes is a whole lot of smoke.
The truth is that a universal burn rate chart is inherently flawed. You can take a particular bullet in a particular caliber of a particular diameter made of a particular material and of a particular weight and load it to a particular OAL, then load it with all the powders appropriate for that caliber, run tests at an ambient temp of 80F, and rank those powders in order by burn rate. The tests should be as repeatable as the gear used to run the tests are precise.
The problem is that different powders respond differently to different variables, so different variable sets will produce different burn rate orders. It's not going to be dramatic. Power Pistol is going to be slower than Bullseye with all variable sets. But two powders that are closer together, like 3N37 and N340, those might flip flop going from one bullet weight to another, or one caliber to another.
That all means that when you are looking at a universal burn rate chart, that chart might not be 100% true for any variable set, much less all variable sets. Someone somewhere placed those powders on order based on typical orders or averages or whatever. I don't think anyone can say for sure, but one thing we can say for sure is that no two powder manufacturers use the same method. It's clearly as much art as it is science.
But that doesn't mean that burn rate charts are meaningless. Given a caliber, a bullet weight, and desired velocity range, the powders best for that application are going to group together by burn rate.
HP-38 and the powders right around it on a burn rate chart are more useful for driving 124gr bullets to velocities between 1050 and 1080 feet/sec for 9mm "minor power factor" USPSA and IDPA competitions than AA7 is. And AA7 and the powders right around it on a burn rate chart are better for driving a 115gr bullet to 1200-1250 feet/sec for 50 yard bullseye competition. And Varget and the powders right around it on the burn rate chart are worthless for both applications.
That's what burn rate and burn rate charts are good for. I know Powder X is great for Application A, so if I want to know what other powders might be good for application A, I can look on a burn rate chart for the powders right around Powder X. That's pretty much it.
So what would I recommend for you?
If you wanted to shoot 9mm Luger at 50 yards at a 1-inch circular target, where time and thus recoil are not significant concerns, I would recommend a 115gr bullet at 1200+ feet/sec and Power Pistol. And if not Power Pistol, something of a similarly slow burn rate.
If you wanted to shoot 9mm Luger competitively at ranges from 7 - 35 yards, at 6x12-inch targets, where how much time it takes you to shoot is calculated into your score, so recoil is a factor to consider, I would recommend a 124/125gr bullet from 1050-1080 ft/s with HP-38 or any other powder close to that on a burn rate chart -- things like Bullseye, N320, Titegroup, American Select, Ramshot Zip, Red Dot, Prima V, WST, etc., etc..
AND if you wanted to develop a general target load you could shoot at a wide variety of distances and carry over into action shooting, go with the action shooting load option #2 above out of the gate, and focus on accuracy in load development.
Also, because burn rate charts are useful in terms of powders grouped together, burn rate charts that group powders in tiers are more useful than charts that rank them 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.... The ones that rank in numerical order can be misleading. If you're going to look at one for anything, it's better to look at one like this:
http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/burn_rates.pdf
