The Accurate Reloading Forums
H4831 vs H4831sc
07 January 2011, 03:57
Cary HowardH4831 vs H4831sc
What are the advantages of regular H4831sc over H4831?
07 January 2011, 04:36
Cliff LyleCary,
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.
07 January 2011, 04:41
vapodogquote:
Originally posted by Cliff Lyle:
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.
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
07 January 2011, 04:54
OddbodI'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.
07 January 2011, 06:05
enfieldsparesI'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.
07 January 2011, 06:33
Cary HowardI 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!!!!!
07 January 2011, 06:37
vapodogquote:
I don't believe there is any difference in load data.
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
07 January 2011, 22:17
Von Gruffquote:
Originally posted by Cary Howard:
I'm new to reloading and I'm a little overly cautious!!!!!
Applaud the caution. That is how to become and old experienced handloader.
Von Gruff.
08 January 2011, 04:17
TEANCUMquote:
Originally posted by Oddbod:
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.
As stated above!!!!
08 January 2011, 04:36
HuviusI 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?
08 January 2011, 05:30
wasbeemanaccording 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
08 January 2011, 07:22
mrjulian_1970quote:
Originally posted by Huvius:
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?
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.
08 January 2011, 17:44
Lloyd Smalei 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.
08 January 2011, 20:38
z1rquote:
Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
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.
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
11 January 2011, 22:04
StonecreekWhen 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.
05 February 2011, 08:31
icemanls2I 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.
05 February 2011, 19:53
Captain FinlanderI worked up my pet load using the original H4831 and noticed little difference when switching to the SC.
Captain Finlander
05 February 2011, 20:01
nashvilleI have used both to load for 6.5x55 and have noticed any difference in performance.
08 February 2011, 21:34
TomPquote:
Originally posted by Cary Howard:
What are the advantages of regular H4831sc over H4831?
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)
10 February 2011, 06:41
icemanls2quote:
Originally posted by mrjulian_1970:
quote:
Originally posted by Huvius:
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?
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.
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?
10 February 2011, 20:48
lucky guyquote:
Originally posted by Huvius:
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.
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.
