I've read numerous reports recently that simply none of the new H-4831 is as slow burning as the old original stuff.

As a result, reportedly, loads need to be reduced, and the old velocities are no longer achieveable with the "new" versions as were possible with the original without risking too high pressures.

Unfortunately, I gave away my last 20 pounds of the original H-4831 when I moved from OR to AZ two+ years ago.

(For 50 years I had been using 84.0 grains of the original H-4831 behind 180 gr. Nosler Partitions, for 3,187 chrono'd fps 10-shot average from my 26" barreled .300 Wby.)

What would you guys suggest trying for similar results these days? I realize I'd have to work-up the load carefully...but which powders would you suggest might make similar results possible safely?

I prefer "stick" powders generally, but have also tried such things as spherical W-785 and TCCI 5050 in the distant past. I've never before needed to try any of the new ball powders made by Western in Montana, and their names and burn rates are completely foreign to me.

Now I am having to learn all over again.

Reloader 22

I also believe that the newer 4831's are faster. As RL-22 has already been mentioned I'd also suggest RL-25 as possibly a better alternative. It is slower than RL-22. I'm using RL-25 in my 300 Mashburn which is about like a 300 Weatherby without the freebore.

Why not just use 4831? Can't hurt and is as good as anything else. I am partial to the sc version.

IMR 7828 is about as close to Surplus 4831 as you can get on today's market -- both in terms of burning rate (about 2% slower, on average) and in terms of having the same fairly dependable linear behavior in pressure and velocity that IMR powders are known for. The short cut version is a pleasure to use through a powder measure as compared to the traditional sticks. IMR 7828 SSC is working beautifully for me in a .300 H&H and .25-06, applications where previously Surplus 4831 shined brightly.

The Reloader series, RL-22 and RL-25, are good powders and appropriate to the same uses as Surplus 4831, but they are famous for significant variations from lot to lot. As a matter of fact, RL-25 is strongly rumored to simply be a batch of powder intended to be RL-22 which simply turned out too slow for that label. When using either of these powders always buy enough of a single lot to last for a while. By the way, most of the RL series is made by Bofors and is the "same" as some Norma powders; but interchanging the same spec powders between RL and Norma involves the same (or perhaps greater) lot variation problems.

Normas powder has a tighter specification than RL.

I've taken a shine to Surplus Accurate DP 86 If you can still find it. roger

AA 3100 is close, but all my data books show your load is HOT. Just work back up, whatever you pick.

So really is the RL series just the rejected batches of Norma powders?

It may be in some lots.

The Norma powders of years ago, N-205, etc. varied extensively. We all know to reduce Our powder charge and carefully work back up when we change lots, don't we? U.S. made powders can also vary from lot to lot. Maybe not as much normally, but they do vary.

Yes, all powders tend to vary to some degree from lot to lot and batch to batch. Sometimes they vary so much that a batch of powder is too far from the adopted standard to sell as a canister powder, so it is sold in bulk to ammunition companies which are equipped to test it, make the appropriate adjustments, and load their ammunition with it. (This is one reason that it is virtually impossible to duplicate factory loads even if you know what the basic powder is since the powder won't be equivalent to the canister grade of the same powder.)

Powder "companies" (the distributors like Hodgdon or Western, not necessarily the manufacturers) adopt their own standards as to how closely in performance a given lot of powder must come to their "standard" in order for it to be labeled for retail sale. Apparently, Alliant does not hold Bofors to a particularly tight standard, thus the wider than usual variation in lots. The old Norma 205, also a Bofors powder, was infamous for wide lot variations, so perhaps there is something unique to Bofors powders which results in wider variations. Don't get me wrong -- the Bofors/Alliant/Norma powders are excellent powders. Its just that you have to monitor lot differences closely and expect to adjust your load more so than when changing lots of a powder like, say, IMR 4350.

Just to clarify a bit...I am not talking about lot-to-lot variation. The new stuff is not a different lot made by the same manufacturer, or even a different lot made in the same country or on the same continent. Composition, grain size, and deterrant additive specs all apparently vary from the specs of the original 4831.

The new stuff apparently varies as much or more from ANY other manufactured 4831 as the later "IMR 4831" of the 1970s varies from the original post-war surplus pull-down 20 m/m powder sold by Hodgdon first as "4350 data powder" then as as "4831". (The "H" designator wasn't added most of the time until after the "IMR" variation came on board commercially and there became a need to be able to tell the two apart.)

------------

And yes, my loads were not medium loads with the original stuff....they were full loads for sure. But they were not nearly as hot as some later developed loading software suggests they might be. I have been using the same brass in my .300 Wby for over 50 years now, for Lord only knows how many loadings each, and cannot recall having ever lost a single case due to primer-pocket expansion, case stretching, etc. I have lost some due to tall grass or boulder-strewn ridges, and some due to misplacement in my trip supplies, others due to the 16 job-related residence changes over those years ..even some which appeared to have magically grown legs in hunting camps and then apparently walked away. But none directly attributable to my listed load, all of which have been fired in the same rifle.

I do appreciate the suggestions of ReL 22 and ReL 24. I will try one or both of those. I have used a lot of ReL 15 and ReL 19 in other Cartridges, and liked them.

Does anyone have any idea what velocites are possible at 60,000 psi pressures using the current IMR 7828? (Stoney - Sorry I missed your post on 7828 until just now. I wondered if maybe that wasn't the case (pardon pun). Just like IMR 4831 is a bit faster than the H-4831, I'd not be surprised if current 7828 is enough faster from the WWII non-canistered version of 7828 to now be pretty close to the old H4831.)

Any suggestions of appropriate current "ball" powders?

One thing for sure Hodgdon uses a different deterent style on their stick powders. That's why they look a lighter color then the dark heavily graphited stick powders from IMR for example.

7828 is much much slower then H4831 Albert Canuck. One thing I don't like about it it's kernels have a "rough" finish and they are very grabby. It doesn't flow through a powder funnel as nice as other powders. 3100 by AA was very very close to H4831 and IMR 4831. I wish that they would bring it back again.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
One thing for sure Hodgdon uses a different deterent style on their stick powders. That's why they look a lighter color then the dark heavily graphited stick powders from IMR for example.

7828 is much much slower then H4831 Albert Canuck. One thing I don't like about it it's kernels have a "rough" finish and they are very grabby. It doesn't flow through a powder funnel as nice as other powders. 3100 by AA was very very close to H4831 and IMR 4831. I wish that they would bring it back again.

Some "authorities" in the propellant powder industry were reporting back when 3100 first came on the market that it WAS SOMETIMES NECESSARY for AA to have those jugs filled with 4831 as the bulk shipments of 3100 were not arriving in time to supply AA's retail market.

So, at that time they were cautioning folks to make sure whether their jug of 3100 was actually that (3100) or was 4831 before loading maximum charges. That is why I never ever bothered to buy or even borrow any 3100 to try.

The repackaging/resale companies have been a boon to us handloaders in many ways. But, it also appears in retrospect that in a few ways they have been a PITA. When we mainly had Dupont (IMR & SR) and one or two other actual manufacturers selling the smokeless stuff in North America, at least one had a pretty good idea what he was getting in response to his order.

Alberta: Lots of folks have forgotten (or never knew) that IMR 7828 was indeed in existence in a non-canister powder for quite some time prior to DuPont (succeeded by the IMR powder company) releasing it as a canister powder. I remember the pre-canister 7828 days when some of the gun writers, experimenting with wildcatted magnums of various descriptions, would mention using some "bootlegged" 7828 that they go hold of through hook or crook to really make their hosses go. It was apparently available to the ammunition companies for years before it was available to reloaders and was credited with making certain magnum factory loadings faster than reloaders could achieve with other, faster powders.

Your speculation that the pre-canister 7828, like the surplus 4831, was slower than its canister version may very well hold some water. In my experience, canister IMR 7828 is not all that slow, at least not nearly so slow as H570, H870, 5010, etc.; and with no disrespect meant toward SmokinJ, I find IMR 7828 to be much more similar to surplus 4831 than to any other powder. As I've said, in most applications it runs only about 2% slower -- meaning that if a load with surplus 4831 uses 50 grains for a given velocity, then IMR 7828 will require about 51 grains for a similar velocity. As you know, the burning characteristics of powders vary at bit with the size of the case, size of the bore, and weight of the bullet, so in some instances IMR 7828 might be as much as 5% slower than surplus 4831. I think that the problem in comparing the two is that so few people have any of the surplus 4831 left in their inventories that there are very few actual comparisons made. When someone compares IMR 7828 to one of the current "4831's", then they might well say "IMR 7828 is much slower than '4831'".

Bottom line: I've had outstanding performance from surplus 4831 for many years. Now that my supply of it is basically limited to what I can gather in a dust pan from the spills on the shelf, I've found IMR 7828 (SSC -- have never tried the "long cut" version) to be an excellent substitute providing similar performance in several applications.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Alberta: Lots of folks have forgotten (or never knew) that IMR 7828 was indeed in existence in a non-canister powder for quite some time prior to DuPont (succeeded by the IMR powder company) releasing it as a canister powder. I remember the pre-canister 7828 days when some of the gun writers, experimenting with wildcatted magnums of various descriptions, would mention using some "bootlegged" 7828 that they go hold of through hook or crook to really make their hosses go. It was apparently available to the ammunition companies for years before it was available to reloaders and was credited with making certain magnum factory loadings faster than reloaders could achieve with other, faster powders.

Your speculation that the pre-canister 7828, like the surplus 4831, was slower than its canister version may very well hold some water. In my experience, canister IMR 7828 is not all that slow, at least not nearly so slow as H570, H870, 5010, etc.; and with no disrespect meant toward SmokinJ, I find IMR 7828 to be much more similar to surplus 4831 than to any other powder. As I've said, in most applications it runs only about 2% slower -- meaning that if a load with surplus 4831 uses 50 grains for a given velocity, then IMR 7828 will require about 51 grains for a similar velocity. As you know, the burning characteristics of powders vary at bit with the size of the case, size of the bore, and weight of the bullet, so in some instances IMR 7828 might be as much as 5% slower than surplus 4831. I think that the problem in comparing the two is that so few people have any of the surplus 4831 left in their inventories that there are very few actual comparisons made. When someone compares IMR 7828 to one of the current "4831's", then they might well say "IMR 7828 is much slower than '4831'".

Bottom line: I've had outstanding performance from surplus 4831 for many years. Now that my supply of it is basically limited to what I can gather in a dust pan from the spills on the shelf, I've found IMR 7828 (SSC -- have never tried the "long cut" version) to be an excellent substitute providing similar performance in several applications.

No disrespect taken sir. On the burn charts they have 7828 listed about 8 places after 4831 and about 8 places in front of H870. Yeah there is no way 7828 is as slow as 5010. 5010 is the larger kernel stick powder I've seen and it also burns really dirty. The thing I didn't like about 7828 was it's rough texture kernels which don't flow well. I have a relatively new can of it. Far as use it's a decent powder. By the way burn rate doesn't mean much when you get powders into case. The different cases and bores change the way it behaves.

Stonecreek -

That's one of the reasons I love chatting with you and SmokinJ here in the electronic psuedo world of the internet. It ain't no campfire, but it is a good source of access to people such as you two, who actually have "been there" and learned to think through powders and how they work before the internet was provided to do all their thinking for them.

I believe you may be right. My last 20 pounds of the ORIGINAL 4831, and maybe 7 pounds of Hi-Vel#2, both of which I gave to my friend Darrell Holland along with maybe 200 other pounds of various powders before I moved here, were the last batchs of those 1950s vintage powders still in daily use that I was aware of in the Pacific NW.

Anyway, there is one way for sure to find out where the new 7828 fits in reference to the old 4831 in my .300 Wby.

I still have maybe 70-to-100 rounds of .300 Wby loaded with the original 4831 stuff. When I start loading .300 Wby cartridges again, I can use some of the same batch of bullets and the same cases and load the same 84 grain charge wight of 7828 that I used to use of 4831. Then I can chrno what comes out of the barrel over the same Oehler chronograph and sky-screens I have used since 1974.

That may be some months away, but when it happens I'll be interested to see what the results are. If I remember to, then I'll also post those results here....to kinda put another twig on our knowledge campfire.

Recently I've been shooting a lot of WC867. The dealers that sale it, along with WC872, list loading data using AA8700 or so for it. Like I mentioned in the above previous post the stuff sure doesn't act that slow when you actually start loading it in different cartridges. I judge the burn rates by how the powder actually burns and performs in the case. In that respect the H4831 that I have been using is much faster then the IMR7828 that I have. Things that make the powder burn faster then what the burn chart may have it listed as are heavy bullets and small caliber bottleneck cartridges like 6.5 Swede,243, 7x57 Mauser to a degree. The degree is when you get to the very small bottleneck cartridges like 223 for example. Also the of fillers and buffers will affect the slower powders burn rate.

Alberta and Smokin: One factor that I've overlooked in my comments is that I'm still working on my first 8-lb caddy of IMR 7828 SSC and it is entirely possible that I may have a "fast" lot. If this were the case it would account for my and Smokin's differing perceptions of the burning rate of this powder. Another possibility is that Smokin has only used the long version and I have only used the short cut version. While they are represented to have identical burning characteristics, if you believe this entirely, I have some swamp in Greenland I'd like to sell you. The regular cut may well be slightly slower than the short cut.

At any rate, the short cut is a pleasure to use and I never need to weigh charges -- just dump them out of my Redding powder measure and they will not vary more than perhaps .1 or maybe .15 grains or so. With the size of charges normally used with this powder, that variation is far too small to show up in any functional way.

Just moments ago I finished loading a few rounds with some of that "swept up" shirttail of surplus 4831. This would be a good time to build just a few loads with an identical weight of 7828 to see how they compare. I guess I'll quit the internet machine now and go do that.

Oh, just one more thing before I go back to the bench: Smokin, you mentioned WC 867, and that it seems to be faster than represented. I bought some of this a few months ago and have not yet loaded any. If it is somewhat faster than advertised, there are several uses that I might put it to. Do you have any guidance for me on where to begin with it?

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Oh, just one more thing before I go back to the bench: Smokin, you mentioned WC 867, and that it seems to be faster than represented. I bought some of this a few months ago and have not yet loaded any. If it is somewhat faster than advertised, there are several uses that I might put it to. Do you have any guidance for me on where to begin with it?

It's not faster enough to get into trouble, but then again it depends on the cartridge and bore size used in. In some instances it will burn very efficiently, then in others it leaves unburned kernel both in the case and barrel. I can affirmatively say this....WC867 and WC872 burn really really hot. This is expected of a ball powder, but this stuff is really hot. I remember rcregula was using a maximum load of WC872 in his 264 Win Mag and he fire cracked the bore!!!

Well, it usually takes me months to get around to doing something like this, but I happened to be messing with reloading today, the day is a nice day with little wind, and my range is on my property just a few hundred yards from my house. So I cooked up some of those 4831/7828 loads and compared them over the chronograph.

The caliber is .243 Win and the gun has a very "fast" barrel, so don't be alarmed at the velocities. For years I've shot the obsolete 100 grain Nosler Solid base bullets over a charge of 46 grains of surplus 4831 for 3100 honest FPS with no pressure signs (this same load chronographs 2,990 fps in a 20" Mannlicher). This was the batch I was loading at the moment, so after finishing the batch I simply substituted IMR 7828 SSC in the powder measure and loaded three rounds with the same volumetric measurment. In weight, the denser-packing 7828SC weighed 48.5 grains. I then adjusted the measure to load three rounds with the same weight of 7828SSC as the surplus 4831 -- 46 grains -- then went to the range.

I fired one round of the surplus 4831 over the chronograph and got exactly 3099 fps, verifying the load's historical velocity in this gun. Next, the three rounds of 46 gr of 7828SSC were fired and they averaged 2974 fps. Next, the three rounds of volumetrically identical 7828SSC with 48.5 grains were fired, averaging 3149 fps. Subjectively, I'd say that the heavier load offered a little bit of resistance when opening the bolt, so I'm going to say that it is a bit warm for sustained use.

The IMR series has always been pretty "linear" in its behavior, usually following the rule of thumb that an increase of X percent of powder typically produces a similar percentage increase in velocity, with an accompanying 2x percentage increase in pressure.

If you interpolate the IMR 7828SSC loads, you'll find that they follow this almost perfectly. For example, if 46 grains yields 2974 fps, then an increase of 2.5 grains, or 5.4% should increase velocity to 3135 fps, very close to the 3149 actually measured. In turn, if I had used about 47.5 grains, or a 3.26% increase, the velocity would have been very close to the 3100 generated by 46 grains of surplus 4831. So, in this instance, the IMR 7828 SSC is running between 3% and 3.5% slower than surplus 4831.

I'm sure that if you ran other tests with other calibers that it would vary some, but my previous guess of 2% to 5% slower seems to be pretty close to the figures generated by this test.

If anybody is able to do some similar comparisons, please post!

By the way, for those interested in the tech aspects, the temperature was about 82F; the chronograph is an Oehler 35, screen spacing 4 feet; rifle Sako L579 sporter with 23" barrel; all loads primed with CCI 200 in RP twice-fired brass. Forgot to mention, the three slower shots were about 1.5" lower on the target than the control shot, while the three faster shots grouped closely with the control shot.

Conducted another test today:

Caliber: .270 Win, Sako 24.4" bbl
Bullet: 130 gr Nosler Solid Base
Primer: CCI 250
Case: R-P Nickel, unfired

Using the data from the .243 test, I chose to increase the powder charge of 58.5 grains of surplus 4831 by approximately 3.5%, to 60.5 grains of IMR 7828 SSC.

Again, this rifle has a very "fast" barrel and won't come close to tolerating the usual charge of 60 grains of H4831. With 58.5 grains of surplus 4831 it clocks consistently at 3,200 fps. One shot of the regular 4831 load was fired to verify its previously chronographed velocity of approximately 3,200 fps.

Three shots with 60.5 grains of IMR 7828 SSC clocked the following: 3130, 3118, 3148, for an average of 3132, adjusted to 3140 muzzle velocity.

Comparing 3200 FPS for the 4831 and 3140 FPS for the 7828, it seems that in this application the 7828 would be more like 4% to 5% slower than surplus 4831.

It appears that the estimate of 2% to 5% slower is still a valid one. Considering that IMR 7828 SSC uses about 5% less space than surplus 4831, weight for weight, it should be no problem to closely duplicate most surplus 4831 loads without running out of case capacity.

Incidentally, the 200 yard group fired with the 7828 was displaced about two inches from the control shot, but it went into .81 MOA, very similar to the typical accuracy performance of 4831 in this rifle.

Sounds like you found another powder to use! Gee wish I still had my 243 to play around with and see what that 867 does in it. I'll bet I couldn't get enough in it to get the velocity I wanted, but I'm pretty sure it would burn decent.

Smokin: Have you loaded any calibers with both IMR 7828 and WC 867 so that you can make a direct comparison? If so, I might use that to find a starting place for trying my WC 867.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Smokin: Have you loaded any calibers with both IMR 7828 and WC 867 so that you can make a direct comparison? If so, I might use that to find a starting place for trying my WC 867.

Yes I have, but they have been cast bullet loads. That shouldn't really change things. The 867 is noticeably slower. If I had my choice if both performed identical I'd choose the 7828 because it burns cooler although 867 meters better. The 867 is around 8 steps slower then 7828 on the burn chart.

Have you tried RL22? I've used that too and it's faster then the two we're speaking about.

Another thing when using 100 percent loadings of slow powder, especially ball powder in my opinion, and in real bottled neck cases such as your 243...the powder then acts as a buffer trying to get through that bottleneck and thus helps it burn better if it is really too slow.

Except for the economy of the surplus 867 and 872 I think you're better off with what you are using. Like I said those two burn hot. Let me give you an example. I was shooting a cast load from a 6.5 Jap using about 30 some grains of 867. The barrel was 65 degrees and I shot the five in session and you could fry bacon on that barrel. Then I loaded them with an equivalent load of 4350. I again let the barrel cool to 65 degrees. I shot those five and I really could put the barrel on my cheek. I feel with the very high velocity cartridges, especially the overbore magnums, that with those two ball powders you would have throat erosion sooner then a stick powder.

Smokin: I've been using WC-872 in my .264 since at least 1994 (at least that's the oldest label I can find on any boxes of ammunition loaded with it.) It actually seems to heat the barrel less than other powders I previously used, but this is a very subjective judgement and I've never attempted to make a direct comparison. At any rate, my .264 is purely a hunting gun and rarely requires more than a single shot at the bench to verify the zero, then only a few shots during the entire hunting season. And there have been many seasons in the last 18 years that I have used some other gun and not fired the .264. So, I wouldn't be particularly sensitive to barrel heating in this gun and may simply not be aware of this phenomenon with WC-872.

I wonder if it is possible that there may be something about the cast bullets which creates heat when using jacket bullets would not? That seems backwards, but stranger phenomena occur.

I can assure you that the first inch of riflings in my old (47 years old) .264 is fire cracked to the point of looking like alligator skin, but that happened long before I started using WC 872. Regardless of the ugly bore, the gun invariably puts the first bullet out of a cold barrel exactly where it is supposed to and easily shoots 100-yard groups of no more than an inch.

Since the real subject of this thread is supposed to be surplus 4831, I'd just note that 4831 acts like a pistol powder in a .264 with heavy bullets. I did successfully work up some 120 grain loads with reasonably decent velocity using 4831, but to get anywhere close to optimal velocities with 130's and 140's it takes a considerably slower powder. For years I had some success shooting 140's with H570, a long-obsolete stick powder ("log" is more like it!) similar to H5010. H-870, a "spherical" powder as Hodgdon called it, was virtually identical in speed to H-570 but never gave me the accuracy of the H-570. I was delighted when I finally stumbled into WC-872 and was once again able to propel 140 Noslers at the velocity I thought they should go (about 3150 from a 24.4" barrel).

I can see 4831 action like a fast powder in your 264. That has the parameters I mentioned..overbore and small caliber bottleneck. I've been trying to tell people that for years how the case shape and bore diameter can make powders burn different then what the burn rate charts suggest they do.

Actually the case probably has less friction then jacketed particularly being they are lubed. Maybe since your 264 has a much larger volume then the smaller cases I've been shooting that it's not as noticeable.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I've read numerous reports recently that simply none of the new H-4831 is as slow burning as the old original stuff.

As a result, reportedly, loads need to be reduced, and the old velocities are no longer achieveable with the "new" versions as were possible with the original without risking too high pressures.

Unfortunately, I gave away my last 20 pounds of the original H-4831 when I moved from OR to AZ two+ years ago.

(For 50 years I had been using 84.0 grains of the original H-4831 behind 180 gr. Nosler Partitions, for 3,187 chrono'd fps 10-shot average from my 26" barreled .300 Wby.)

What would you guys suggest trying for similar results these days? I realize I'd have to work-up the load carefully...but which powders would you suggest might make similar results possible safely?

I prefer "stick" powders generally, but have also tried such things as spherical W-785 and TCCI 5050 in the distant past. I've never before needed to try any of the new ball powders made by Western in Montana, and their names and burn rates are completely foreign to me.

Now I am having to learn all over again.

I just use the same amount I've always used in my 270, the bullets just go a bit faster ...