Gentlemen,
In the interest of increasing the close range impact of my 30-06, I recently picked up some 200 ABs and am planning to try some H 4831 or RE-22 in it (I have both). Here is the question-beyond the length/size of kernels, what is the difference between the standard H4831 and the SC version? In your experience, is there any difference in the burn rate due to greater collective surface area because of the greater numbers of kernels? Hodgdon's website burn rate table rates them as equal, but I wondered if you all had noticed a difference. Is it possible to get more of the SC in the case because of easier compaction with smaller kernels? Thanks for the input.
Good hunting,
Graham

The burn rates are identical and you can use loading data interchangeably for either one.

However, that being said, the smaller kernel size of the SC allows more powder to fit in a given case size. So, for acompressed loads of H4831 it won't be compressed for H4831SC. Likewise, if you do have a load that specifies H4831SC, you may not get enough H4831 in the case to duplicate the load if the case is full with H4831SC.

What weight is your AccuBonds? For the -06, I suspect H4350 might be a better choice unless you are planning some really heavy artillery rounds!

RobertD

i read where H-4831SC was so it would flow better in a powder thrower, for large cases

Loads are interchangeable but capacity in the '06 is another matter as mentioned. With H4831C it is possible to get 100% loading density with minimal compression using 190 and 200 gr bullets. It is difficult to get the same load in the '06 case with standard H4831. H4831SC also meters very well with accuacy through powder thowers. H4831 does not.

The only H4831 I use any more is the last of the "old" original 4831 I have. I only purchase H4831SC for use these days in the '06 and smaller case capacity cases like the 6.5x55 and .243/6mm.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by M70classic:
In your experience, is there any difference in the burn rate due to greater collective surface area because of the greater numbers of kernels?

No. I believe they changed the deterrent coating to make up for the increased surface area.

Thanks kindly, Gentlemen,
I will use up the H4831 that I have, and look for some of the SC stuff.

quote:

What weight is your AccuBonds? For the -06, I suspect H4350 might be a better choice unless you are planning some really heavy artillery rounds!

I am planning to load 200 gr. Accubonds as fast as I can accurately push them, not because I need the energy for the elk and moose I hunt, but because I want to impress the grizzly that might try to "steal the bacon," so to speak. I found some loads here on the forum that I am going to try to develop and see what happens.
My standard load is a 180 Partition in front of 55.5 IMR 4831 at 2730 fps. It groups at about .75" at 100. My goal is to get the 200 ABs close to that speed, and thus keep the trajectory and increase the energy. Mr. Atkinson will probably tell me to stick with my 180 NPTs, but this is just an experiment
Good hunting,
Graham

My RCBS ChargeMaster hates the H4831SC, and had a real problem dumping it accurately. I get variations of 0.2+ to 0.4+ with many being 0.2+ and quite a few being 0.3+. I don't have anywhere near as many problems with the regular H4831.

It's a quirk.

I recently tested the difference by loading identical loads of H4831 and H4831SC in my 270. My chrony showed that the SC version produced higher muzzle velocity by about 100 fps. Accuracy of the loads was comparable.

I've been using H4831SC ever since it hit the market, as I hated the old log style powder which made my life miserable time and again. H4831SC cured that. Hodgdon claims there is no difference in the original and the short cut versions, and I have seen no variations in the .270 and .30-06 ammo I load. I'll be cranking up some more heavy bullet .30-06 loads this spring with 4350 and 4831SC.

LLS

I stopped using the SC as it wasn't coated with graphite. This caused it to be difficult to use in my RCBS Uniflow. I've gone back now to the original length.

WFG, thanks for the info. Duely noted and filed. I read that someone got 62.5 gr. of the SC into a 30-06 case under a 200 gr. bullet and wondered if the same load was possible with the standard powder. I weigh every charge anyway, so difficulty in metering doesn't really pose an issue. The IMR powders that I use all the time are hard to meter, too.
Thanks for your information and interest.
Good hunting,
Graham

quote:

It groups at about .75" at 100. ....but this is just an experiment

Why fix it if it aint broke! But then again, why not experiment! Go for it!