The new version of H4831 falls far short of the original. I used to get full velocities for 270, 7mm mag with loading manual max loads before running into pressure problems. Now the pressure problems appear a full 100 fps below what RL22 will produce, and not necessarily better accuracy either!

I've just finished load testing for my Rem 721 300 H&H. The Hodgden reloading data shows a starting load of 67 gr for the 200 grain bullet with a max of 72 gr, I'm using Hornady 190. I topped out at 66 grains max before too much pressure giving only 2780 fps. I can load 66 grains of RL 22 for 2900 fps.

In my rifle, the published max load would be dangerous. Hodgden needs to update some of the old data they are publishing.

I find that I can't load up to the same level with the new powder as with the old - have to reduce by several grains.

Mostly, this is a lament for the old H4831 - in its day it was a great powder. Today's version doesn't measure up.

I don't think H4831 has been changed. I wonder if you got your hands on a jug from a lot # that wasn't quite right? I looked the 200 grain bullet and H4831 on Hodgdon's on-line data base and they still list 72 grains as max load in the 300H&H. The powder makers do tell us to start at the bottom and work up every time a new lot # canister is opened, but I never have.

It has changed, depending on when you started with with it, it's not even the same color!

PWR

Remember that a lot of Hodgdens powder as you purchase it is now made in Australia by ADI with rifle powder labelled AR......

AR2209 is sold in the USA as H4350
AR2213SC is sold as H4831SC (short cut)
AR2217 sold as H1000.

In using AR powder in various loads I have found that the maximums listed by ADI are conservative and are a close match to the equivalent old H powders I have used.

Reloading data for AR powders and all the others produced by ADI is available as an excellent downloadable catalogue from their website.

For the 300H&H and AR2213SC (H4831SC) the minimum is listed as 67.0grs and the maximum as 72.0grs.

Remember also that there has been a transition over the years with powder listed as H4831. Some H4831 was made in Scotland and marketed around the World as H4831 and many found that this seemed a little faster than the the old original war surplus H4831 that Hodgden brought to the market.

H4831 is now on at least its third iteration. The new King is H4350.

Eight years ago the load for a 7mm Rem Mag with a 160 grain Nosler Partition was 66.0 grains of H4831. That year it suddenly changed to 60 grains. I ran down to all the powder outlets in Boise. I was not the only one.

Various store personnel had scooped us all.

I live by and with VihtaVuori N-165 now. Hell, I can even spell VihtaVuori.

Lawndart, have you tried VV N560 in comparison?

I have used a lot of VV N160 in my 280 Ackl Imp and then I tried N165 and that had some promise too. But the real eye opener was N560 and 160 gr Accubonds! I was able to exceed the Nosler book velocity (I got 3050 fps) and then backed off 0,5 grs.

Foot note: The original 4831 was a military surplus powder and this gave great results in the 270 Win, 7mm Rem mag etc. I find the AR 2209 (H 4350) a great powder but I have given up on the AR 2213Sc (H 4831 SC).

I may be older than some of you guys, but there are several different powders called 4831.

Back when I was a kid I used the original Surplus 4831 in my 264 Win Mag. Then a buddy, with a BIG drum of it gave me a bunch, I took it home in a grocery story paper bag.

Later it became called H4831, and as time went buy different companies made it [well they called it H 4831] and burning rate was not consistant between them... [This does not even include IMR 4831].

When ever you look at any 4831 data or H4831 data you must be careful as you may not know what Generation of 4831 data is is.

Some where around here I think I still have some original WWII 4831, as well as some new
H4831 and some IMR 4831.

They not not anywhere near the same powder...

Many people think IMR 7828 is pretty close to the burning rate of the Original 4831...

quote:

Many people think IMR 7828 is pretty close to the burning rate of the Original 4831...

Good point. IMR 7828 is just a tad slower than original surplus 4831, but as my supply of the good old 1940's vintage 4831 dwindles, I'm finding more and more cartridge/bullet combinations that I traditionally loaded with Surplus 4831 work well with IMR-7828 Short Cut. It usually requires about 1-2% more 7828 to achieve the same velocity parameters.

Original Surplus 4831: Peace Be With You and God Rest Your Soul. We miss you (especially your dollar-a-pound price!)

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Many people think IMR 7828 is pretty close to the burning rate of the Original 4831...

Good point. IMR 7828 is just a tad slower than original surplus 4831, but as my supply of the good old 1940's vintage 4831 dwindles, I'm finding more and more cartridge/bullet combinations that I traditionally loaded with Surplus 4831 work well with IMR-7828 Short Cut. It usually requires about 1-2% more 7828 to achieve the same velocity parameters.

Original Surplus 4831: Peace Be With You and God Rest Your Soul. We miss you (especially your dollar-a-pound price!)

Wasn't the original IMR?

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Many people think IMR 7828 is pretty close to the burning rate of the Original 4831...

Good point. IMR 7828 is just a tad slower than original surplus 4831, but as my supply of the good old 1940's vintage 4831 dwindles, I'm finding more and more cartridge/bullet combinations that I traditionally loaded with Surplus 4831 work well with IMR-7828 Short Cut. It usually requires about 1-2% more 7828 to achieve the same velocity parameters.

Original Surplus 4831: Peace Be With You and God Rest Your Soul. We miss you (especially your dollar-a-pound price!)

Stonecreek,
Some years ago I had a new 26 inch 300 Win Mag barrel with a long throat installed on my old Remington. The long throat was in order to seat the 180 Partition out to have an OAL of 3.6 inches and be able to burn more powder. I had quite a project as no load book covers this combination. I had decided that 7828 was the first powder to try and got started.

I was using a micrometer and measuring across the belt to watch the pressure as it came on. As I progressed it became clear to me that 7828 was indeed very simular to old 4831. There was no surprises with pressure suddenly spiking up as with some ball powder. I am very comfortable using either powder.

If anyone is old enough besides me to remember that when the old 4831 did run out and was replaced Hodgon advertised that with the new powder just use the same data. Well any way my trusty 25/06 was out of ammo and I was invited to a big prarie dog hunt and that was like tomorrow, no time for testing. So that night I made up some ammo and went hunting. The first shot when I opened the bolt the primer fell out of the much expanded pocket and that was end of the hunt for me. I still have the brass as a reminder to NOT BE AN IDIOT!!!

In defence of new H4831 I use it in my new 25/06 and get very good speed and accracy. I just started trying it in a new 7mm and it is performing very well.

After saying all of this I still wish that we had the original 4831.

Regards, Keith

I can remember when 4831 from Hodgdon came in brown paper lunch bags. I know a guy that has two of the full bags that he hides away like they were religious artifacts. At one time when Seirra was outside LA (60's)they sold all their 2nds for 50 cents/lb. $5 bought a lot of 52gr .224 HP's

quote:

Originally posted by Fat_Albert:
I can remember when 4831 from Hodgdon came in brown paper lunch bags. I know a guy that has two of the full bags that he hides away like they were religious artifacts. At one time when Seirra was outside LA (60's)they sold all their 2nds for 50 cents/lb. $5 bought a lot of 52gr .224 HP's

Wasn't that repackaged IMR?

I have found several different powders that produce quite different velocity than they used to.

I verified this with (2) chronographs. The testing was with the same rifles, at the same temperature and altitude.

Before loading a large quantity of ammo, I verify the velocity that each new can of powder will produce.

steve4102: I think it is true that the surplus 4831 was one of the IMR series powders. That is NOT to say that it was the equivalent of the current canister IMR 4831. Surplus 4831 was not a rifle powder at all, but rather was used in the 20mm shell.

I'm not sure where the 4831 designation came from. When it was first marketed by Bruce Hodgdon it was sold as "4350 Data" powder -- meaning that reloaders were advised to use IMR 4350 data. This of course was safe, but reloaders soon discovered that the "data powder" was somewhat slower than canister IMR 4350. Eventually, it was designated 4831 (possibly its assigned designation all along) and Hodgdon began labeling and selling it as that. Since it was packaged by Hodgdon, everyone simply called it "H-4831".

As supplies of the surplus powder began to dwindle, both Hodgdon and DuPont (then the maker of the IMR series) introduced replacements with the same number. Hodgdon contracted with Nobel in Scotland for theirs, while DuPont made their own.

The DuPont product was at first claimed to be identical to the surplus powder, but it soon became apparent that it was considerably faster -- almost as fast as IMR 4350. DuPont stuck to the "identical" claim for a while, even saying that the older stuff had just lost some of its punch which was why it acted slower. Eventually, they just let the issue fade away as data sources began to publish data specifically for IMR 4831.

On the other hand, Hodgdon made no effort to duplicate the powder chemically, but rather asked Nobel to duplicate its speed. They did a better job of this than did DuPont, but as others have pointed out, the "old" H and the "new" H did not always behave exactly the same. Eventually, Hodgdon began sourcing its powders from Australian Defense Industries, and the current version of H-4831 is chemically different still, but of a similar burning rate.

Nah.. H-4831 is still strong. I can still get 3100 fps out of a 22" barrel with 130gr bullets in a .270 Win.. Rx-22 couldn't even get close to that in this rifle before coming up to pressure.

It's interesting to note that ADI AR-2213 and H4831 are the same powder, made in the same factory, but for some reason, on average in an .06 sized case, ADI data suggests you can use 3/4 to a gain more of the 2213 the Hodgdons suggests of the H4831. I've loaded both, and can't tell the difference.

This makes me wonder if there was just a bad batch of H4831 out there, or if the Lawyers are screwing things up again.

quote:

Originally posted by Antelope Sniper:
It's interesting to note that ADI AR-2213 and H4831 are the same powder, made in the same factory, but for some reason, on average in an .06 sized case, ADI data suggests you can use 3/4 to a gain more of the 2213 the Hodgdons suggests of the H4831. I've loaded both, and can't tell the difference.

This makes me wonder if there was just a bad batch of H4831 out there, or if the Lawyers are screwing things up again.

Every data source uses its own (1) gun or barrel, (2) cases, (3) primers, (4) LOA, (5) method of measuring or estimating pressure. It isn't in any way unusual for published data with the same powder to vary by a great deal more than 3/4 grain, so it is not surprising that ADI and Hodgdon have different figures. There is nothing gospel about any one data source.

Stoney, I hear what you are saying....but even Quick load reflects this difference. Per quickload, that's based on infomation provided to them by the respective manufactures, or in this case the resepctive labelers.....same powder, different labels, different data provided. Data provided by ADI reflects my experience, Data provided by Hodgdons seems off.

Quickload is essentially a 21st Century version of Homer Powley's cardboard "slide rule" load computer from the 1960's. It is as good as the assumptions it makes about a given powder and can't adjust for lot-to-lot variations.

To better illustrate the vagaries of reloading data, if you'll consult various sources you'll find that many identical powders with different designations (H-414/WW760, BL-C2/WW748, and other pairings) sometimes actually show different data IN THE SAME MANUAL with the same gun and components. This is simply a result of lot-to-lot variations. I'm not sure why the manuals bother to list a difference, since the SAME difference could just as easily occur with two different lots of powder with the same designation.

The bottom line is that a given lot of powder behaves as it will, and there is no significance to minor variations in the data provided by different sources, even if those variations tend to be consistently in one direction or the other.

Stoney, if the differences were due to random lot variations, 50% of the time H4831 should appear "better" the ADI 2213, and the other 50% it should be the other way around. But that's not what I'm seeing. I'm consistantly seeing ADI 2213 showing better velocities then it's American sister. This indicated to me it's possible some human interaction is making these variations less then random....