I thought Hodgdon would have gone solely to the H4831SC by now, but the old long-cut version seems to be hanging in there in their product line.

So, I'm curious as to how many have not switched over to the short-cut? Why not?

RSY

I still use the "regular" version. I have never had metering problems and have been very happy with my loads. So-- "if it ain't broke, I am not fixing it".

I only use SC today.

quote:

Originally posted by RSY:
I thought Hodgdon would have gone solely to the H4831SC by now, but the old long-cut version seems to be hanging in there in their product line.

So, I'm curious as to how many have not switched over to the short-cut? Why not?

RSY

In our modern world we seem to forget why things were originally make one way and react solely on convenience and saving time.
We forget the longer log-like kernels were made that way to enhance the progressive burn in the first place. Ball powders started this "coating" burning control revolution and short cuts need coating control as well to replicate what in part can be done in configuration.
Except for varmint loads, I weigh larger rifle loads and for that reason I don't plan to even buy SC; even not using some faster burning rates because they have gone to a SC variety only.

BigRx

Some of my most accurate loads use H-4831. I weigh everything so the SC version offers no real benefit. At best, it would perform just as well.

I'm with Buckeye Shooter - it ain't broke, I'm not fixing it.

The last SC I got was extremely slow burning.
It's a good 50-100 fps slower than my RL 22.
I've seen others mention this in other chatrooms. Anyone else see a difference--maybe I just got a really slow lot.

Well, I'm about to switch from RL22 to H4831 for my .270 Win. You guys have convinced me to go with the original cut, at this point. Thanks for the responses.

RSY

I keep some of the Long Cut for my ultimate .416 Rigby load.

I try to use the SC in anything else I work up hence forth. It throws better from a measure and it trickles better from the trickler, just quicker to use even when weighing every charge.

They put extra retardants on it when making the SC to try to match the burn rate of LC.

My impression is that the SC is slightly slower than LC, but not much.

I recently bought 40 lbs. of the "old" H4831 for $10 per pound at a local gun show, so I'll be using it for the next year or so.

I tried a pound of the new stuff but, found it to perfrom just the same as the old. I just keep buying the old now because I have never really had any problems w/ it. I kind of like the big kernels when trickling anyhow.

Reloader

The SC is more compact than the LC. You can get more of the SC into a limited capacity case, by charge weight, but that is the only real advantage of SC.

quote:

Originally posted by hacksawtom:
I recently bought 40 lbs. of the "old" H4831 for $10 per pound at a local gun show, so I'll be using it for the next year or so.

You dah man! hacksawtom! Least wise when my college kids say this it means GOOD!

I will show this post to my wife to let here see it is totally normal to need a lot of powder!..........

BigRx

I use both of them;cannot see any difference,depends on availability,I prefer H-4831sc,easier to weigh...

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, there are several ways to control burn rates of powders...

One is kernel length, another kernel diameter, another both the size and number of perforations in a kernel, another is kernel shape, and then, of course there are burning deterrents, not to mention varying the actual chemical composition of the powder itself.

That's kind of the long way to reach my point I guess, but the fact is that short-cut 4831 is NOT 4831 in the purest sense. It is another powder entirely, though one with a very similar burn rate, which Hodgdon feels is close enough to the original that no one will be likely be hurt using this Australian powder with H-4831 data. Of course, it isn't even called 4831 in its country of origin or by its current manufacturer. That is just a label Hodgdon puts on it.

That does not mean it ignites the same as original 4831, or that it follows the same pressure curve as old-style, original 4831, espcecially at max pressure... The original 4831 is a powder which, incidentally, was physically identical to IMR-4350, but with about double the amount of burning deterrent as 4350.

Of course, the later H-4831 and IMR-4831 are not the same as the original stuff, either...in some cases being not only different physically/chemically, and not made by the same makers, but not even made in the same country!

Naturally, loaders should use the same precautions at Max loads as they would between any other two DIFFERENT powders.

Alberta Canuck

Alberta Canuck;I used both of them,not at max.,no need for that.Now let say I am a little confused,I thought that H-4831sc and H-4831 are the same original stuff,except that SC was cut smaller;are you are saying they are two different powders;max loads for one can be dangerous for the other one...

quote:

Originally posted by rejpelly:
Alberta Canuck;I used both of them,not at max.,no need for that.Now let say I am a little confused,I thought that H-4831sc and H-4831 are the same original stuff,except that SC was cut smaller;are you are saying they are two different powders;max loads for one can be dangerous for the other one...

rejpelly,

Alberta Canuck has it right. Unfortunatly a powder can't be just cut shorter with no other change or you end up with a faster burning powder! While they still may be fruit, they are no longer both apples!

If one was to look at very accurate "time pressure curves" IMHO one may see the short cuts in general terms tend to react a little more "spikey" at times, maybe even seeing a less smooth transition under certain applications. Usually a slightly slower burning rate is there in the short cut to "smooth out"
little abnormalities because of chemically adjusted configuration changes.
Every convenience sometimes has a cost. Alberta Canuck hit the nail on the head when he said you really have two different powders with a very similar burning rate.

This may not be bad but it is certainly different.

BigRx

quote:

Originally posted by rejpelly:
Alberta Canuck;I used both of them,not at max.,no need for that.Now let say I am a little confused,I thought that H-4831sc and H-4831 are the same original stuff,except that SC was cut smaller;are you are saying they are two different powders;max loads for one can be dangerous for the other one...

It was also my impression that they were the same basic powder, with SC having additional deterrent coatings to offset the increase in surface area for any given volume.

Of course, I've been wrong before.

RSY

It makes sense that Hodgdon might have been developing another powder and in final testing they found it was so close to H4831 that they said, "Hey let's call this H4831 SC."

Viagra was originally suposed to be a pill to prevent angina or CHF, a heart pill that had too many side effects!

Or they could have set out to make a shorter grained form of H4831 and coated it with deterrent to slow it down to approximate regular long cut H4831 Extreme.

I don't know, but the end product is the same for reloaders, whichever way it happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
It is another powder entirely, though one with a very similar burn rate, which Hodgdon feels is close enough to the original that no one will be likely be hurt using this Australian powder with H-4831 data.

Actually, they're both currently made in Australia.

RSY

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
It makes sense that Hodgdon might have been developing another powder and in final testing they found it was so close to H4831 that they said, "Hey let's call this H4831 SC."

Viagra was originally suposed to be a pill to prevent angina or CHF, a heart pill that had too many side effects!

Or they could have set out to make a shorter grained form of H4831 and coated it with deterrent to slow it down to approximate regular long cut H4831 Extreme.

I don't know, but the end product is the same for reloaders, whichever way it happened.

Ive been using both powders for 3 years with .30-378WBY and .338RUM(500 rounds).Hodgdon data lists max 104grs with 150grs bullet;I use 102.5grs with no pessure sign;at 103.5grs I have "difficult bolt lifting"(too hot),using both powders I have not seen any sign of high pressure,meaning that these two powders are very close;difference is meaningless(may be .1 or.2grs?).338 RUM Hodgdon data lists max 96.5grs with 200grs bullet,I use 95grs with no sign of pressure...