THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM FORUMS


Moderators: Mark
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Re: H4831 vs. H4831
 Login/Join
 
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted
It must depend on the cases being used...I have no trouble getting 62 grains of H-4831 in my cases, and 61.5 grains is the load I happen to use behind 130 gr. Hornady bullets in my pre-'64 M-70 FW.

In my experience, which covers more than 55 years of shooting & hunting, the original H-4831 is definitely slower than modern H-4831, IMR-4831, or 4831-SC. I say "is" because I still have almost 10 pounds of the original from the 190 lbs of it I have gotten and shot over the years. (One 100-lb'er, 1 50-lb'er, and 2 20-lb'ers).

Looks like it and I are gonna perhaps run out at about the same time <G>.
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
H4831 is slower burning than, and not interchangeable with, IMR4831, and according to Hodgdon is identical in burning rate with H4831SC, which is supposed to meter better (though apparently not in my powder measure).

What about "old" H4831, originally recovered by Hodgdon from WWII ammo? Is it slower than current H4831?

Jack O'Connor used 62 grains of 4831 in his 270 with 130 grain bullets, seemingly a steep load. Loading manuals from the 1960s listed 300 Weatherby loads that I am afraid to try with present-day H4831.

I think the old H4831 burned slower.
 
Posts: 1186 | Registered: 06 January 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Current H4831 and H4831SC data should NOT be used with WWII surplus 4831 propellant. If you have any and are curious about using it, I would contact hogdon powder co. and ask them directly.
 
Posts: 69 | Location: Havelock, NC USA | Registered: 17 September 2004Reply With Quote
<9.3x62>
posted
SC meters better, in fact I no longer bother with the standard H4831 at all. Yes, I think the older military surplus stuff was slower burning. It's actually interesting how much some powders have "evolved" over the years, in some cases faster and in some cases slower...

Anyway...
 
Reply With Quote
<eldeguello>
posted
Frankly, I still don't know how Jack got 62 grains of the "old" H4831 into a .270 case. I think it requires more than just a drop tube.....
 
Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of R-WEST
posted Hide Post
All due respect to Jack, but, I think his scale may have been off a grain or two
 
Posts: 1483 | Location: Windber, PA | Registered: 24 January 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of arky65
posted Hide Post
hey ray, if you want to part with some of that powder and the next time i'm in idaho.....never mind it'll never happen

arky65
 
Posts: 245 | Location: arkansas/louisiana | Registered: 31 March 2004Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Out of curiosity, I went out and weighed a full case of WWII H4831 in Win 270 brass and found a level full case, without doing anything special, weighs 62.2 gr. The same case of DuPont IMR 4831 weighs 60.8 gr. I could have weighed some IMR IMR 4831, but that wasn't the question. I could have also used a drop tube, but I don't own one.

I bet Jack would have loved the 4831SC!
 
Posts: 151 | Location: Texas | Registered: 18 November 2003Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia