"Canister" and "non-Canister" Powders

I was researching the shelf life of an animal use drug and ran across this analogy using varing burn rates in powder lots. It seemed quite out-of-place but appropriately used. Makes me wonder about the background of the author of the article too.

There have been several comments regarding the varying strength of nonhuman specific, or veterinary medicines. That is a valid comment, and is one reason for the insanely inflated price of the same medicines from the same manufacturer for human-intended medicines as opposed to those sold for veterinary purposes. In large manufacturing endeavors, it is quite common for different batches or "lots" of almost anything of complex structure to have varying strength from an established "standard." Ammunition reloaders are quite familiar with this concept as it relates to smokeless powder. For example, on a standard burning rate chart where Bullseye is "1" and H-4831 is "100," then IRM 4985 is rated as a "50." When any particular batch or lot tests at "48" or "52," it is sold in bulk to factory ammunition manufacturers, who simply adjust the grain weight of the powder charge for that particular lot of ammunition. Those lots which come in very close to "50" are packaged and sold to individuals for reloading (at significant price increases), and thus the distinction between "canister" and "non-canister" smokeless powders.

waksupi,

The jist of the article was about using veterinary grade pharmaceuticals for human use, especially in extended emergency conditions. The point, well made, was, the USP labeling of veterinary medications makes them on par with those manufactured for human use. Vet meds do not always have the same guaranteed dosage per unit and have to be administered accordingly. Thus the powder analogy. The standardization of dosage per unit for human use greatly influences the cost of a med. Other factors were discussed but this is the main point.