Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Are H4831 and H4831sc interchangeable?

I'm getting set to load for my 450/400 and am going to be using 80gr of H4831; I've got a 8lb keg of H4831sc left over from another project, is it interchangeable with the standard H4831?

Yes.

Thanks, I like the sc version better as it meters nearly as well as ball powders. Stick powders bridge badly in my Hornady powder measure.

Yes.

Steve

Yes and No , when you get to max load the Standard 4831 will sometimes show more pressure in some cases than the SC version due to powder density

Interesting, what cartridges have you noticed this in? I'm loading for a single shot, but if there are pressure differences then it would show up when loading for double rifles. A task which, if I'm lucky, I'll have to deal with in a year or two

I ran some examples in QuickLoad as a check. Not that QuickLoad is perfect in every sense, but the maximums for H4831 and H3831SC were different.

IMO, it would be better to work up your loads again. Generally, benchrest shooters have to work up loads again just from different characteristics in different LOT #'s of powder.

I personally can't give you a example because i don't have the equipment to actually measure the pressures. The Ballistic Programs give different pressure for the same load between the two. I was referred to this sight concerning the 6.5-284 I'm getting ready to build. The powders they recommend are H4350 and H4831 Standard and SC and the people who shoot the 1000 yard matches say to work up depending on where you are using SC or Standard due the loading density of the different size granules.
http://www.6mmbr.com/sixfive284.html

QuickLoad is a very rough "what might happen." Please do not pay any attention to it for anything like this. In fact, it's stated very firmly in the directions (which very few people read, evidently) that QL is definitely no substitute for actual pressure-tested loading data.

Maybe there is some difference between the powders for 1000-yard target shooting, but not for any hunting application--except maybe between different lots of powder. What one will do the other will do, except SC will go through a powder measure much more easily and accurately.

No doubt... but in this instance, I see QL results as a red flag as to whether or not the two powders are interchangeable. In essence, if QL says no, then I'm not just going to throw one powder in the hopper in place of the other. I guess that's my personal opinion on it anyway.

For actual field condition when hunting i just don't believe there is any real difference in taking or killing a big game animal when the vel is 2800, 2900 or 3000 fps as long as you use a decent bullet and put it in the chest. Either version of 4831 will get it done using the same exact load. It would be hard to over load with either in the 06 case.

Bob Hodgdon told me face to face they were interchangeable. I think I'll trust Bob.

On the other hand you can't be too careful so I recommend ya da ya da....

I think that is a orange flag, not a red one and orange doesn't count
Hogdon Powder Company Say's that they are interchangeable and IMHO that trumps Quick Load

And anyone else!!

Volume and wgt are two different things when discussing powder. Personally I would not open a new bottle of a new lot of powder and just dump it in the hopper without a wgt check.

I`ve used both and see no difference other then that I`ve experianced with changing lots. Doesn`t mean I know there is no difference, just that I haven`t seen one.YMMV

Could you not be observing the inevitable lot-to-lot variation?

Thankfully, I don't have to live by what Hodgdon says, but by what I can do for myself.

[/quote]

Could you not be observing the inevitable lot-to-lot variation? [/quote]


That would be my only concern and precaution.

Yes it could be a lot to lot variation but long gr's verse short gr's still have their difference in load density. Where this actually make a pressure difference it would take pressure measuring equipment to really tell you. This might be a good project for Johnny B. and C. Sisk to follow up on for one of his excellent articles.

Perhaps Hodgdon has already done so