i am getting ready to order powder for my 6.5/284 and wanted H 4831, my supplyer is out of that but does have H 4831sc. my question is what if any diffrence would it make if i were to use the 4831sc instead?

Makes no difference.....the loading data is the same....the powders are the same...only difference is the length of the "kernel"

See Hodgden's website where it says this!

thank you so much, i was hopeing that were the case. im on my way to order some!

That's weight for weight, not volume.

quote:

Makes no difference...the powders are the same...only difference is the length of the "kernel"

No they are not!

If you cut "regular" 4831 in half you would not make 4831SC. They are two different powders that happen to perform the same, weight for weight, when one is in "long grain" format and the other is in "short grain" format.

What you may experience is "bridging" when using 4831SC as it is not graphite coated.

In fact I was frustrated when I tried 4831SC for the first time as in my RCBS Uniflow it had too many "bridges" and "hang ups".

But weight for weight it makes no difference a weighed charge of 42 grains of "short grain" will perform the same as a weighed charge of 42 grains of "regular" 4831.

m the Hodgdon website:

quote:

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.

This tells me all a reloader needs to know!

Suffice it to say that they are two different powders which behave so much the same that their data (on a mass basis) are interchangable.

I've used a BUNCH of H4831SC and have never had bridging. That's because of clean living and because I live a charmed life.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
They are two different powders that happen to perform the same, weight for weight, when one is in "long grain" format and the other is in "short grain" format.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Suffice it to say that they are two different powders which behave so much the same that their data (on a mass basis) are interchangable.

Can either of you furnish a link to this data or are we just going to take your word for it?

Further, what's the point?

It seems like:

Suffice it to ask, why would Hodgdon use the term "an exact copy" if they meant "a different powder with the same performance"??

I think Stonecreek is correct. Read the description. Then read it again.
It does NOT say an "exact copy" of H4831. It says Ballistically, it is the exact copy of H4831. I take this to mean that it performs exactly like---not that it is the same exact powder.

Damn!! talk about splitting a hair and arguing about the thickness.
I'm with Rolltop. Who gives a shit. You put xx grs of SC in a cartridge and it does the same thing that the long stuff does, beyond that what does a reloader care??

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Who gives a shit. You put xx grs of SC in a cartridge and it does the same thing that the long stuff does, beyond that what does a reloader care??

Now you're talking.

Someone finally addressing the point of the original question.