Winchester
Winchester 572
A dual-purpose shotshell and handgun powder. Winchester designed its burn rate around a specific heavy 12-gauge field load, and also points to clay target and field loads in 20 and 28 gauge and field loads in 16 gauge. It additionally covers a broad span of handgun cartridges from the smallest pocket rounds up to 45 ACP.
A dual-purpose ball powder built around a specific heavy 12 gauge field load, and it does that job well, plus clay and field work in 20 and 28 gauge. On the handgun side its span is unusually wide, from .25 ACP up to .45 ACP, because the medium burn rate suits both tiny cases and big slow ones. It is competent and unexciting; nobody switches to it chasing accuracy, they use it because one jug covers the shotgun bench and the pistol bench.
- heavy 12 gauge field loads
- 28 gauge clay loads
- .45 ACP
- 20 gauge field loads
Who has Winchester 572 today
Checked October 10In stock at 3 stores — lowest in hand $45.87/lb (8 lb at Lohman Arms)
| Store | Size | Shelf | In hand /lb | Stock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lohman ArmsHazmat charged, amount not published | 8 lb | $335.54 | $45.87 est. | In stock ↗ |
| Graf & Sons$23.50 hazmat per package | 8 lb | $347.99 | $48.18 | In stock ↗ |
| Lohman ArmsHazmat charged, amount not published | 4 lb | $174.27 | $51.43 est. | In stock ↗ |
| Hodgdon (direct)Terms not published | 4 lb | $190.99 | $55.61 est. | In stock ↗ |
| Graf & Sons$23.50 hazmat per package | 4 lb | $189.99 | $56.86 | In stock ↗ |
| Lohman ArmsHazmat charged, amount not published | 1 lb | $45.24 | $76.68 est. | In stock ↗ |
| Hodgdon (direct)Terms not published | 1 lb | $50.99 | $82.43 est. | In stock ↗ |
| Graf & Sons$23.50 hazmat per package | 1 lb | $46.99 | $84.44 | In stock ↗ |
| Bruno Shooters Supply$26.95 hazmat + $19.95 ship | 8 lb | $314.99 | $45.24 | Out |
| Hodgdon (direct)Terms not published | 8 lb | $370.99 | $50.30 est. | Out |
| Bruno Shooters Supply$26.95 hazmat + $19.95 ship | 4 lb | $163.99 | $52.72 | Out |
“In hand” is the shelf price plus that store’s hazmat fee and shipping, spread over one container. Stock is checked once a day — confirm on the store’s page before ordering. Compare all powders →
Official Winchester load data →
Specifications
| Manufacturer | Winchester |
|---|---|
| Product family | Winchester |
| Status | Currently produced |
| Application | shotshell, pistol |
| Grain form | spherical |
| Lee VMD (bulk density) | 0.0823 cc per grain · 0.79 g/cc |
| Composition | double-base |
| Temperature stable | Not marketed as temperature-stable |
| Burn-rate position | 55 of 198 (fastest = 1) — what this means |
| Typical cartridges | 12 Gauge, 16 Gauge, 20 Gauge, 28 Gauge, 45 ACP, 25 ACP |
Grain shape
Spherical ball: degressive burn, energy early, and metering that stays consistent whether you are throwing through a shotshell bushing or a pistol measure. That dual-measure reliability is really why the dual-purpose powders are all ball powders.
Why geometry decides burn rate more than chemistry does: Shape Is the Product.
Winchester canister propellants are spherical BALL POWDER products made in the USA; the round kernels meter precisely through volumetric powder measures. Not listed as temperature stable.
Burn rate
Medium shotshell and handgun speed, slower than AutoComp and faster than Winchester 296.
Chart agreement: consistent across the three charts that list it Ranked by: Hodgdon, Vihtavuori, Wolfe/LoadData.
Powders charted near it — neighbours on the chart are not substitutes, and adjacency tells you nothing about what charge either one takes:
- Vihtavuori 3N37 (position 52)
- Vihtavuori N350 (position 53)
- Vihtavuori 3N38 (position 54)
- Shooters World Major Pistol (position 56)
- Alliant Blue Dot (position 57)
- Accurate No. 7 (position 58)
Sources
The specifications above come from Winchester's own published documentation, linked below. The two “RCM's read” sections are ours, not theirs — our assessment of what this powder is like to load, drawn from its published characteristics and from what handloaders consistently report. No manufacturer endorses them and no source below backs them. If you think we have one wrong, tell us — we would rather fix it.