Western Powder Accurate LT-32 Vs. Military Surplus T-32 Powder

When I was growing up, you would occasionally hear someone ask, “Where were you hiding when the brains were handed out?” The jab suggested you were a slow learner and quite unaware of something interesting they already knew about. Well, I apparently was “hiding” when Western Powder introduced Accurate LT-32 rifle propellant because it’s taken me nearly 10 years to learn about it.

Western’s objective was to duplicate a military surplus propellant that Walt Berger introduced to the benchrest circuit in the 1980s. That powder was IMR 8208, and it was made in the 1960s. Berger relabeled it T-32 and, for a modest price, shared 8-pound kegs of it with shooters. T-32 quickly became the “holy grail” for loading 6mm PPC because shooting tiny groups was almost a guaranteed result. Of course, that ended when the limited supply of T-32 (née IMR 8208) ran out.

Sometime around 2008, PPC guru Lou Murdica asked Hodgdon to develop a “substitute” T-32. A short while later, Hodgdon imported an ADI propellant called IMR 8208XBR. From the start, Hodgdon emphasized the new propellant actually exhibited a slightly slower burn rate than T-32. Typically, up to 2.0 grains more of IMR 8208XBR were needed to achieve similar velocities.

Despite the exemplary performance of IMR 8208XBR, Murdica wanted a powder that was a closer duplicate of the original T-32 surplus powder. Western eventually contracted with General Dynamics Ordnance and the Tactical Systems IMR facility in Canada to develop an extruded, single-base propellant just like the original IMR 8208/T-32 surplus powder. Because both monikers were already taken, the new powder was introduced as Accurate LT-32.

As most readers know, last year Hodgdon acquired Accurate powders and is now distributing them. I had a small quantity of the original T-32 still in my cache, so I decided to compare its performance with the current LT-32 in the .223 Remington cartridge. I used a CZ-USA Model 527 rifle with a 21.9-inch barrel to obtain the shooting results listed in the accompanying chart.

From a visual standpoint, the only physical difference is that LT-32 looks to be a bit lighter shade of gray. Both it and T-32 are very small, extruded cylinders that easily meter through my RCBS and Redding powder measures. I threw and weighed several dozen charges of both and noted that about 80 percent were exactly on the money. Except for only a couple of times, the rest weighed within +/- 0.1 grain of the desired charge weight.

I was only slightly surprised to see that the same volume setting of both measures dispensed charge weights that differed only about 0.2/0.3 a grain for the two propellants. In my experience, that’s within the “noise” level one might expect between different lots of the same propellant. Bottom line, my observations indicate T-32 and LT-32 are essentially physically interchangeable.

According to everything I read about LT-32, it’s best suited for handloading .223 Remington with bullets weighing from 40 grains to mid-60 grains and even heavier depending on the rifle’s twist rate. In addition to .223 Remington and 6mm PPC rounds, LT-32 is recommended for loading .17 Hornet, .17 Remington Fireball, .204 Ruger, .222 Remington, 6mm BR, and 6.5 Grendel. It’s also suitable for .20 VarTarg and 6x45mm wildcats.

I prepared three boxes of test loads, and the first recipe fired was 22.5 grains of LT-32 behind a Sierra 52-grain GameKing HPBT bullet in new Remington brass primed with Winchester Small Rifle primers.

I fired two, five-shot groups and recorded an average velocity of 2,940 fps. The standard deviation (S.D.) was 16 fps, and groups measured just over a half-inch.

I then fired 10 identical rounds that were charged with the same charge of T-32 propellant. The average velocity was 2,941 fps with an S.D. of 21 fps, and an accuracy average of 0.75 inch. I bumped the charge weight up a half-grain, loaded 10 more rounds, and fired them. The average velocities jumped nearly 100 fps but with just 4 fps difference. This time, however, the T-32 groups were smaller.

During another session at the range, I fired handloads with the same charge (22.5 grains) but substituted Hornady 50-grain V-Max bullets. The first round from each 10-shot string measured 3,074 fps, and the average velocities differed by only 2 fps. As you can see in the chart, these two loads were uncannily similar.

My observations of LT-32 are that it is bulky enough to achieve over 90 percent case density without excessive pressures; it’s relatively temperature stable; and it can deliver excellent accuracy.

Popular convention might suggest the “L” in LT-32 stands for “Like.” But because it actually looks and performs almost the same as the original T-32, maybe it should have been labeled JLT-32, for “Just Like” T-32.

---