H4831 vs 4831 SC

S

Stats Shooter

New member
I use H4831 in .270 win, light .300 win mag bullets (150 gr or less), 30-06, and im going to try it in my new 6mm Ackley.

According to a hodgdon tech, the official position is that there is no difference between H4831 and 4831SC in burn rate.....that you can take your standard 4831 load and just sub it for SC. I like the standard 4831 in 270 and 300 wm, it fills ths case all the way up which i like, and gives very consistent velocities.

I will be using the SC version in 6mm AI to get a bit more in the case.

However, this thread isn't about when to use what...what I have noticed is that 4831 SC is a bit hotter than standard 4831. I realize there are lot variations and such, but in the instances I have tried 4831 SC, in loads I was near the max with standard 4831, I saw obvious pressure signs. It makes sense to me that the burn rates would be different. The size and shape of the powder is one way that burn rate is controlled by the manufacturer. My contention here is that they aren't perfectly interchangeable (in so much as all that remains is the typical lot to lot variations.) I think you can use the same suggested starting charge, but if you are switching from Regular 4831 to SC, you basically have to start over.

Does anyone have more data comparing the two?
 
not data. But Hodgdon would never, ever have said that you could substitute one for the other if it couldn't have been done safely.

Are you serious with this question? this company has everything to lose, nothing to gain, and if they declared in writing that there one powder was absolutely interchangeable with another without qualifications, they would be hung out and turned into jerky.

If there is any discernible difference, that difference will be so small as to be legally insignificant. In case you hadn't noticed, there are very few things in life that are legally insignificant.
 
My approach:
4831SC is much better through the powder measure. I see no reason to complicate life with regular 4831 I use 4831 SC exclusively.
So,yes,my loads were developed with 4831SC. Not only that,I buy in 8 lb jugs.
If I buy 2,I get the same lot.

Instead of worrying about it,I eliminate the variable.

There are handloaders who maintain a prudent "margin of error" in determining their personal max loads. Their margin may absorb using either powder.

There are handloaders who push the envelope.Published max is 53 gr,they load 56 gr. "It's never blown up yet".

Some of these guys buy their powder 1 lb at a time,...Lot? Whats a "Lot"? More than a little?
No,Lot number.

Its like this, A page of load data might include 3 or 4 different bullets of approximately the same weight. Same data.
But within that data,you might find a different personal max for your rifle between a partition and a ballistic tip.

Don't assume. Work up your load and verify when you change a component.

Yes,I can use the same data for both 4831's,regular and SC. That might not mean my rifle will find the same max within that data.

If I had developed a "hot" load with 4831 ,would I just directly load 4831SC ,same charge,and be on my way? No. You start over,work up,and verify.

But you can still use the same page of data.

I have not checked Hogdon's exact language on the subject. It does not matter.I take my own responsibility for my safety.

I like Hogdon. My #1 powder choice. Good outfit.

Its my face and fingers.

Observation: I load a 257 AI. I load it hot. I used to load it hotter. I use 4831SC. I have never had a lack of case capacity.
The 6mmAI and the 257 AI differ only in bore dia.

You are loading a smaller bore dia (expansion ratio?) and you are running out of case capacity?

My old load was outside book,I chrono'd 3150 with a 115 gr Ballistic Tip. I decided to back off before I had a problem,rather than after. I was not compressing powder .It just did not seem fair to the 25-06 and 257 Wby that I got that velocity.I now load to 3050.
That you are using SC for case capacity in a 6mm AI ? Makes me wonder.
 
Last edited:
not data. But Hodgdon would never, ever have said that you could substitute one for the other if it couldn't have been done safely.

Are you serious with this question? this company has everything to lose, nothing to gain, and if they declared in writing that there one powder was absolutely interchangeable with another without qualifications, they would be hung out and turned into jerky.
Click to expand...

Companies say things all the time that are partially true, or their employees aren't as savvy. I have had a representative tell me not to worry about lot number, just pour the new batch into the hopper and load as usual.
Obviously we all know lots can vary by as much a 10%...and usually do vary by some margin.
And there are so many powders available today, that I'm sure there are some whose difference in burn rate is as similar as the same powder from a different lot.

So, if it is sufficiently "close enough", perhaps it isn't unsafe, but certainly not perfectly interchangeable
 
My old load was outside book,I chrono'd 3150 with a 115 gr Ballistic Tip. I decided to back off before I had a problem,rather than after. I was not compressing powder .It just did not seem fair to the 25-06 and 257 Wby that I got that velocity.I now load to 3050.
That you are using SC for case capacity in a 6mm AI ? Makes me wonder
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder what exactly??? I have not even started the load workup. I am basing my volume estimates on case water overflow from fireformed brass and filling cases with powder and then pouring it out to see the difference in powder volume space.

H4831 takes up too much room, maybe I could get more in there with a drop tube. But SC leaves plenty of room.
But this thread wasn't about how much H4831 to use with a 108 gr ELD-M in 6mmAI. It was about burn rate differences in long vs short cut powder.

I could also mention 7828 and 7828 SSC
 
I used 8 pounds of H4831 in my .30-06 then switched to H4831SC. In that case, with 180 grain bullets, I saw no measurable difference. I have burned through well over 100 pounds of H4831SC and really like it in my .243s, 6.5s, .30s and .33s
 
Hodgdon manual doesn't have any loading data using H-4831sc so I would assume if using H-4831sc you would use H-4831 data and work up.

Hodgdon data for IMR-7828/IMR-7828ssc, they say you can use same data but due to different load density you may get increase velocity.

I shoot 243AI and my load density increase and same way with 280AI and I'm using IMR-7828ssc in both.

I have 2-30-338mag one I use H-4831 other H-4831sc. I like H-4831 as I shoot FB bullet vs some of the longer BT in other rifle.

Hodgdon has always commented on the better load density using H-4831sc.
 
The burn rate has nothing to do with the size or shape of the powder granules. The burn rate is determined by the chemicals in the powder. Hodgdon created the SC because it flows through throwers better with the “short cut.” granules. Otherwise, it's the same powder.
"...to get a bit more in the case..." That's not a reason to opt for one powder over another.
 
I started with H4831 years ago and switched to H4831SC for my 270. It’s a near max load. As far as accuracy, POI, and pressure signs, I have seen no measurable difference. It could be that the OP’s two powders have slightly different burn rates, which isn’t uncommon.
 
It could be that the OP’s two powders have slightly different burn rates, which isn’t uncommon.
Click to expand...

I agree this could be the case , it's why I posted the thread. Rather than my own testing in this, which would take a bunch of different lots of each, I just wanted to see if anyone else noticed a difference. If not, then it is easily explained by lot variations.

The burn rate has nothing to do with the size or shape of the powder granules
Click to expand...

This is just flat out false. The size and shape of the powder, the way it is packed I the case, and other deminsional variables absolutely make a difference with respect to burn rate.
 
Are you serious with this question? this company has everything to lose, nothing to gain, and if they declared in writing that there one powder was absolutely interchangeable with another without qualifications, they would be hung out and turned into jerky.

If there is any discernible difference, that difference will be so small as to be legally insignificant. In case you hadn't noticed, there are very few things in life that are legally insignificant.
Click to expand...

Often companies are so close to dotting I and crossing T that they loose sight of the fact that they are standing in the middle of the road and a Semi is about to run over them.

Not something to be discounted.

If I had a full load in H4831 (Book Max) if I was going to match it I would drop down a grain and then sneak up on it.

If I had gone a ways past book max I would take book max, back it off a grain from there and then sneak up on it.


Formally Mississippi: I do not but I would not start over completely so much as back off and resume.

Formally we were lucky to get straight 4831, now SC shows up, be kind of a coin flip if its here in the SC when I have to re-stock.
 
The SC is supposed to have the same burn rate as the full grain size version, but burn rates are targets tested in water pool chamber using a PETN ignitor or in a vivacity bomb and those just dosn't always behave like a gun. The Australian AR2213 and AR2213SC powders these are Down Under are held to ±3% burn rate, or a 6% span. They obviously aren't the same lot, so that may be the issue. However, it is also the case that the higher the powder bulk density is, the less easily the igniting flame front moves through it, so variation could due to that and it might be solved by changing primers for at least one of them.

Bryan Litz said in his experiments he could find one load combination that did better with Federal primers and another that liked CCI, and so on. He recommends keeping several primer types around, since they are cheap and don't break down like powder so you can try different ones with different powders. This might even be a case where using a magnum primer with one and a standard primer with the other works best.
 
Interesting comments here regarding the "difference" between H4831 and SC. I used H4831 in my 270 for some time, but, switched over to the sc version when I bought my 25-06. The sc version is all I load in my .270 now. The 25-06 went to a friend's son on his 18th birthday. I could never tell the difference in the powders, other than the sc metered better.
 
I think it depends on how hard you are pushing them.

Hunting wise I did not push to the max as it got me nothing.

Target shooting sometimes an accurate node is up there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top