The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Small Calibers H4831 vs H4831scGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| H4831 vs H4831sc | Login/Join |
One of Us |
What are the advantages of regular H4831sc over H4831?  | ||
|
One of Us |
Cary, The only thing I am aware of is that (SC) short cut meters better. I don't believe there is any difference in load data. On a separate note, I used to live just west of Elmore City, in Cox City. | |||
|
One of Us |
 and the density is greater with the short cut so one can actually get more of in a case. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill | |||
|
One of Us |
I've used both & seen no notable difference whatsoever in the results (chronograph).The SC does meter better(not so important nowadays....) & 60gr in a .270 is possible without a compressed load.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'd disagree! I found that in my RCBS Uniflow I got a lot of "hang ups" with the SC version. Apparently it is not graphite coated. I reverted to weighing charges using the Lee scoops. And did find that it "packs" better in the case, as was said, than the long grain version. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I asked because the load data that Berger sent me for my 6.5x284 shows H4831sc and I have a new jug of H4831. I was just wondering if it would be okay to use what I have. I'm new to reloading and I'm a little overly cautious!!!!! | |||
|
| One of Us |
This is correct.....H-4831-SC = H-4831 in load data! /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill | |||
|
One of Us |
Applaud the caution. That is how to become and old experienced handloader. Von Gruff. | |||
|
One of Us |
As stated above!!!! | |||
|
One of Us |
I must be misunderstanding something here. I too have read that the charge weights for H4831 and H4831SC are the same. That would mean that the SC is a slower powder, right? It is counterintuitive to think that smaller granulations of a particular powder wouldnt burn at a faster rate. Anyway, the H4831 is fairly popular in large capacity cartridges because it is rather bulky - no filler needed in my 360No.2. But, the SC version would most likely need a filler. Any idea of the volume differential between the two? | |||
|
| One of Us |
according to Hogdon, they are the same powder. And the formula for either can be used weight wise. The SC stuff does meter better, at least my findings, and as the little logs can nestle closer together, they takes up less room. Aim for the exit hole | |||
|
| One of Us |
Not sure what the actual density difference is, but I would guess it's actually pretty small. 100+ grains of the SC version is a loooooong way from needing a filler in my 416 Rigby case. | |||
|
| one of us |
i guess ill be the odd man out here and say that ive just had better accuracy overall in my guns using short cut. Not that that statement holds true a 100 percent of the time but more often then not. | |||
|
one of us |
Though velocities are the esentially the same, I too find SC a tad more accuarate. Certainly easier to meter in my thousand year old RCBS meter.  Aut vincere aut mori | |||
|
| one of us |
When using data established using the SSC version, if you use the standard version it will take up more room in the case. If the SSC data is for a slightly compressed load, then you may not find the use of the regular granulation practical (can't get it all in the case). Otherwise, simply treat the two powders as different lots of the same powder and work up from below as one would normally (at least advisedly) do. | |||
|
One of Us |
I called Hodgdon and they say the 2 are exactly the same too a T. The sc is just cut in half to meter better. The load data is identical. I'm guessing if anyone would know, i'm going to believe them! I was curious as well as not too long ago i wanted to use a load calling for the SC and i had about 10 lbs of the standard H. Hodgdon said use it, it's the same. I'm just curios as to why they would offer 2 of the same thing? Just make the sc or the H and be done with it and quit confusing people. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I worked up my pet load using the original H4831 and noticed little difference when switching to the SC. Captain Finlander | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have used both to load for 6.5x55 and have noticed any difference in performance. | |||
|
| one of us |
I don't have a chronometer, so haven't studied the matter closely, but did not see any difference in a 7mm magnum. TomP Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right. Carl Schurz (1829 - 1906) | |||
|
| One of Us |
Not neccessarily. Sc could be looked at as slower i suppose as it has to burn 2 Granules to make the same pressure as 1 granule of Standard H. So essentially they would burn the same. Correct? | |||
|
| One of Us |
The burn rate is determined by the rate from the outer cylindrical surface to the center, not from the end of the cylinder. If the sc is the same diameter as the 4831, no burn rate difference. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia