On Hodgdon's site they say H4831 and H4831SC are ballistically the same but don't say if you can use the same data or not. I assume so but I'm not sure. Anyone with experience on this?

Yes they are the same powder and the load data is the same.

SC stands for "short cut" as the granules are about 1/2 the length as it's original version.

yes they are the same the"sc" are shorter kernals of powder to flow thru measures better.

No! They are not the same. They are designed to have the same burn rate but the volume fill of your cases will be about 4% less with the SC because of the smaller mesh of the powder. Internal case volume differences will have influence on your loads. The same applys to IMR-7828 and IMR7828SC.

Iceman, I had the same question.
I called Hodgdon in Kansas City, 913-362-9455, and was told they are not the same. Ask for Mike in tech service.

They are two different powders which are engineered to perform as identically as possible. There will undoubtedly be slight variations in them depending on the size of case and weight of bullet that is used. But they are similar enough that the fundamental loading data is the same for them.

Both are different from your old Surplus 4831, however, the same holds true that the fundamental data for H4831 (now having been made by three or four manufacuturers on as many continents) is usable.

That certainly contradicts what they said when they first brought the SC powder out.

Treat them like you changed lots of powder and go on down the road. I have shot a ton both with excellent results. Good shooting.

I prefer the sc as it meters better in my dispenser. I started over when I started using it.

quote:

Yes they are the same powder and the load data is the same.

quote:

No! They are not the same.

+1. They are as others has said TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT POWDERS that just happen to have the same burn rate when one has a long kernel size and the other a short kernel size.

4831SC cut to long kernel length would burn very differently from regular 4831 I would think. And if you took a safe load of regular long kernel 4831 and cut each kernel in half to the same length as SC I think you would have serious pressure issues!

There is another difference. SC is not graphite coated and I found that in my RCBS Uniflow it would "bridge". A lot! So much so that I gave up using it.

H4831™ & H4831SC™

It is probably safe to say more big game has been taken with H4831 than any other powder. Bruce Hodgdon was the first supplier to introduce this popular burning rate in 1950. Since that time it has become a favorite for cartridges like the 270 Winchester, 25-06 Remington, 280 Remington and 300 Winchester Magnum. As an Extreme Extruded propellant it shares the fine quality of insensitivity to hot/cold temperatures, as well as superb uniformity from lot to lot.
H4831SC - Ballistically, this Extreme Extruded powder is the exact copy of H4831. Physically, it has a shorter grain size, therefore, the designation SC or short cut. The shorter, more compact kernels allow the powder to flow through the powder measures more smoothly, helping to alleviate the constant cutting of granules. With the smoother flow characteristics comes more uniform charge weights, while the individual grains orient more compactly, creating better loading density. Available in 1 lb. & 8 lb. containers. Take the Extreme Tour.

Copied directly from the Hodgdons site. Make your own calls.

quote:

Copied directly from the Hodgdons site

They are different animals. By weight they burn at the same rate. But by volume don’t substitute one for the other. That would be an important note when setting up a progressive reloading system where there is no scale involved.

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:
They are different animals. By weight they burn at the same rate. But by volume don’t substitute one for the other. That would be an important note when setting up a progressive reloading system where there is no scale involved.

Why would this be a problem? You alwas use a scale to set your powder meshure.....

Ted Thorn,
Thats exactly what i was referring to that i read but as i said, It does not say it uses the exact same load data which is the part that is confuseing. I am under the understanding that smaller granules will fill the case to a lesser capacity than the same weight of the same powder with a longer granule. Am i correct in this theory? If so what would the difference in pressure be?

quote:

It does not say it uses the exact same load data which is the part that is confuseing.

Rest assured..they use the same load data.

Best if you email Hodgdon and ask them for yourself....I just looked all over their website and could not confirm the data.....I've been using the data as same for many years now....hasn't caused me any trouble at all.

They share the same loading data has anyone looked at the max loads that are on the label of H-4831sc and compared that data to what Hodgdon has published for H-4831? There the same reason Hodgdon doesn't list separte data for each powder.

IMR-7828 and IMR-7828 we made long before Hodgdon taken over that line and IMR had handle the difference with those two powders.

So if you are dumping powder direct from the measure to the case, your settings would be different for the two powders?? And if you were using a Lee dipper set, the dipper for a correct charge of 4831 would not apply to 4831SC???
But weight to weight, they are the same??

END OF STORY, Mike at Hodgdon says H4831 and H4831SC Use the exact same data. Guess it would have been easier to call first but it made for a good discussion which is why we are here in the first place.All the guys that said yes (Winner winner chicken dinner) (Stocdoc, I spoke with Mike at 11:00 am today and he told me they are the exact same and do use the exact same data, Seems there's a discrepency there.)

quote:

Originally posted by icemanls2:
I spoke with Mike at 11:00 am today and he told me they are the exact same and do use the exact same data,

You did the right thing.....I've read so many BS posts on reloading and firearms in general that it's sad.....everyone with a keyboard and an opinion is an expert!

Don't take everything you read as "gospel"....when it comes to very important stuff go to the people that know.....and you did just that!

Of course Hodgdon gave you the simple answer: They use the same data by weight. That's the whole reason they are engineered to match one-another and share indentifying number designations.

Chemically and physically they are different. The SSC series is engineered to meter better and provide greater loading density (get more powder into a given volume). So, strictly speaking, they are very different powders. When loaded by weight, they exhibit burning characteristics so similar that any differences are de minimus. If loaded by volume, they would be significantly different.

I understand they are (physically different)and i'm not trying to sound like a know it all here. There is a load i want to use H4831 for 30-06 in Speers 14th edition except they use H4831SC in the data. There are alot of very knowledgeable lads on here and i respect that, But isn't the best source of information the horses mouth? I was very clear in what i was asking Mike and he instructed me to use the EXACT same data. I suppose i can call and ask to speak with someone else at Hodgdon to see if i get the same answer.

quote:

There is a load i want to use H4831 for 30-06 in Speers 14th edition except they use H4831SC in the data.

Yes. If it say use, for example, 49 grains by weight of H4831SC then you should also use 49 grains by weight of H4831.

But - and here's the thing - if it says use a Lee Loader 2.7cc Powder Measure and throw the charge by volume then no it is not the direct equivalent. There will be a difference.

The bottom line is that if you were lunatic enough to take standard H4831 and chop every grain in half you would not be making H4831SC.

FWIW....all of Hodgdon's data is in grains.....none of it is in volume and use of Lee scoops should not be included....it's an archaic way of measuring anyway....

+1, all the manuals load data i use for smokeless powders are in grains.

I am looking at two canisters of H4831 this very second.

One is H4831 and the other is H4831SC

They each have load data on the lable....
It is the same data on both canisters to the letter!

quote:

...use of Lee scoops should not be included. It's an archaic way of measuring anyway...

You could measure out how many grains you get in the largest scooper (4.3 cc, I think) and weigh it. If nothing else, it will give you an idea as to how much it weighs per cubic centimeter. Measure two scoops for greater accuracy. Then you can develop a strategy as to which scoops you can use to get close to the load you want. For example, fill the 4.3 and dribble the powder over a .7 to get 3.6 in the bowl below (assuming 3.6 is not available). Slow, but a good way to kill a long evening on a cold night. Kind of takes you back to how those rabble-rousing Colonials did it...

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Cooley:

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:
They are different animals. By weight they burn at the same rate. But by volume don’t substitute one for the other. That would be an important note when setting up a progressive reloading system where there is no scale involved.

Why would this be a problem? You alwas use a scale to set your powder meshure.....

Most measurers drop charges by volume. We as reloaders adjust the volume to match the charge weight that we want. If someone assumes that H4831 and H4831 SC are totally interchangeable after setting up their measurer for one or the other and then switches to the other? I don’t think that person is going to be happy when he takes those loads to the range.

Another way to look at what Mike is saying, Google the weight of a "gallon" of water, milk & ice cream, all are a "gallon" but they have different weights

Abob, Is that a here's your sign? lol i got what he's saying. Same weight but different volume. But if we are only talking weight then 56 grains are 56 grains.

Okay, Icey, here's your problem: You want to use regular H4831 in a .30-06. You'll find the capacity of that case is about 60 grains of this powder, even compressing it to about the maximum acceptable level. However (and this is a big however), if you are using data developed with H4831SSC, then it may call for more powder (by weight) than you can get into the case with regular H4831. For instance, the "maximum" load listed in the Speer #14 manual you cite for a 180 grain bullet is 62 grains of H4831 SSC. If you want to duplicate that load with regular 4831 I very much doubt that you can do it -- that much just won't fit a .30-06 case and still allow you to seat the bullet.

So, while the data for the two powders is interchangable, there may be some instances where the weight of powder called for will only go into the case if the denser-packing SSC-version is used.

Now, if I remember your discussion from another thread, the H4831 you're actually talking about using is the original surplus 4831 manufactured during WW-II. It is a slightly different powder from EITHER of the two current H4831's, however, data by weight for the two current powders can be utilized, but always start at the lower end of recommendations -- all of these powders can and do vary slightly in the way they behave. This is particularly true the closer you get to "maximum" working pressures. Read the section of any manual on "working up loads" and abide by its admonitions.

Good post Stoney! I will call you correct on that and i have looked at the load in Speer #14 you are speaking of and knew that would not fly. I cannot fit that much powder into the case which is the main reason i chose a different load for a lighter bullet and less powder. I got your point.

Just for your reference:

I am speaking of the current H4831 I did a case capacity test.

I took a 7 Mag case and filled it full of long cut then weighed it......83.5 grns

Then I took the same case and filled it with SC then weighed it......84.5 grns

quote:

Then you can develop a strategy as to which scoops you can use to get close to the load you want. For example, fill the 4.3 and dribble the powder over a .7 to get 3.6 in the bowl below (assuming 3.6 is not available). Slow, but a good way to kill a long evening on a cold night. Kind of takes you back to how those rabble-rousing Colonials did it...

Err...that's the way I still do it here in England if I just want to load up twenty rounds in my rifle to test a new bullet.

My friend calls these Lee measures "Popeye's Pipes"! I do as HB says, dump it in the powder bowl of my RCBS 304, then use a Powder Trickler to get the two reference lines to match up.

Ted Thorn,
I suppose you can't get much simpler than that. Thanks for the info.

What you have to look at is comparing reloading data shot in the same rifle vs case volume.

I started shooting H-4831 in my 30-338mag and when H-4831sc came out I reworked up loads to what I was shooting with H-4831. I didn't see any difference other than load density. I've been looking for my chronographing data I got it somewhere.

If I cann't find it and weather clears enough I just got a new 30-338mag I'll use that rifle with those two powders. Just got the barrel broke in so I'll just add H-4831 to the work up loads.

I have wondered the same.
I prefer the H4831 for big volume cases - I use it in my 360 No.2 - simply because it leaves less empty space in the case so I don't need to goof with any fillers.
Of course when using the small stuff,like any general 30cal. sporting round,SC would be fine.
Any suspicion that Hodgdon will eventually discontinue the long grain version?