Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Differences between IMR & hodgdon powders 4350 and 4831

i know it's been covered before... i think that i even started one of the threads...
but i failed to save it and now need some help again...

most books will give suitable loads with either hodgdon or imr powders such as say, 4350, and occasionally will show info for both...
for instance, noslers 5th shows both imr and hodgdon 4350 for the 100 gr bullets in 25-06...
the h4350 loads are about 2.5 gr heavier, for both starting load and max load, than what is recommended for the imr 4350...

is there a rule of thumb for switching from one manufacturer's 4350 or 4831 to another's???

can a cautious loader cautiously use starting info for one and work loads up with the other?

most of the time i am not shy about getting on the phone with a bullet manufacturer and asking questions... 3 day weekends are vexing in that regard, though...


Best wishes to all on this Independence Day....

When H4350 was first introduced, it was pretty consistently a little slower than IMR4350. And that's the way my present jug of H4350 is.

Recently, however, I've noticed on the Hodgdon website that H4350 loads are often a little lighter than IMR4350 loads, implying H4350 is a little faster. This might be due to the latest manufacturing lot of H4350, but I don't know.

Actually, I just checked the Hodgdon website again, and it looks like H4350 is back to being slightly slower than IMR.

H4831 has always been slower than IMR4831, but exactly how much depends on the cartridge and bullet. Luckily, we do have Internet access to lots of up-to-the-minute load data these days.

ahh... hodgdon web site!!! thank you!!!

it gave me exactly what i needed... this time...
i find that i am often like Maine Rifle in wanting a load that they simply didn't publish, but i'm on my way for today

i can usually find my way around the internet, but i don't always think to look directly for the info that i need...

thanks for the tip Mule Deer...

Regards to you and yours....

i tend to load in marathon sessions, and today should finsh me up for the coming season, including a bit of prairie dog shooting coming up, but i am struggling with trying to consolidate and downsize my powder selections...

i'd guess that it's not just me, but i can not afford to keep a large variety of powders on the shelf...

thanks again...

Just a FWIW, I made a phone call to Hodgdon a few months ago and I asked if there had been any changes to H4350. The reason I asked was the because of the info I read here and the changes in the published load data last year. The guy I spoke to said "no". It's the same formulation.

So, ?????????

All powders are subject to lot-to-lot variations. From what I understand this is because of variations in atmospheric moisture.

With canister powders most manufacturers minimize the difference by blending different batches of powder, but it's virtually impossible to exactly match each lot with all previous lots. Usually the variations aren't much, though I've seen a difference of 3% between lots of some very popular powders.

Plus, sometimes the actual manufacturer changes. One powder distributor (not manufacturer) sold a certain mil-surp powder for years, but finally ran out. They contracted with another company to make the "same" powder. Well, the first lot wasn't too close. I bought some for use in the .223 and found it only took 26 grains to match the velocities of the 28-grain load I'd been using for years! That's close to an 8% difference. 28 grains caused leaky primers....

"It's the same formulation."

True, it might be the same formulation, but the deterant (sp? coating could be different, causing a slight difference in burning rate.

With something like this, the powder manufacturer could be telling the complete truth, but also being misleading.

1234567,

Read my post again.

Why would a powder manufacturer (in the case Aastralian Defense Industries) change the formulation, or deterrent coating, or ANYTHING in one of their most popular powders?

Mule Deer,

Have you heard of any manufacturers working on a tightly controlled humidity consistent manufacturing environment? Seems like this would greatly cut down on lot to lot variations. Might not be cost effective though...

John

The problem is that powder manufacturing plants are by necessity too large for that. They do the best they can, but....

Sounds like someone should build a powder factory in the Atacama Desert.

No moisture variation there.

Mule Deer, because of differences in raw materials from day to day manufacture, plus getting raw materials from a different manufacturer, if by chance one supplier were to go out of business. Just as there can be variations from lot to lot by the same manufacturer, attributed to moisture in the example you gave, there can also be variations from the supplier of certain raw materials.

I am guessing that the deterrent coating is a type of graphite. The thickness of this coating, even if the same formulation, can alter burning rate. Probably not much, and more than likely powder manufacturers do constant testing to remain on top of this, but I can understand anything man made varying slightly from day to day, or even year to year.

Two types of military surplus powder, 4895 and 4831, and perhaps others did vary quite a bit from lot to lot, because of moisture content, formulation, war time manufacture, or who knows?

every thing is going remarkably well...

i put together some trial loads this morning and then we went to a family 4th picnic...

we put paper up at the farm and checked our trial loads...

most accurate load was not the highest velocity, but completely acceptable given our supply situation...

got 180 more brass primed and ready for this load... i can prep my trial cases and laod all yet tonight for an additional 200 rounds ready to go...

been a very good day...

Firstly, something of Australian law:
It is illegal for Lawyers to advertise - eliminating ambulance chasers and the mentality that goes with it.

Secondly, they have consumer laws beyone anything in the US. It is illegal to lie, cheat, falsly imply, or in any way deceive the public/consumer. If a company did that, a consumer can file a free claim at the relevant government department and a case will be heard within 6 weeks that is binding and only able to be appealed in the higher courts at great expence. The Dept of Consumer affairs has authority to "deregister" a company and prevent it from trading, so companies do not change specs to the detriment and not tell anyone.

Thirdly, you have safety to consider. If you made a powder faster burning intentionally, it would cause high pressure scenarios that would generate litigation. Remember that these powders are used internationally, in all climates. If you made a powder slower, it hurts noone and you would use a little more to get the same pressures.

HISTORY:

H 4350 is AR 2209. When first released in the 80's, it was a about 5% faster than IMR 4350. When ADI got the contracts of supply to Hodgdon, it changed the burning rate to slightkly slower than IMR which hurt no-one and made the powder more flexible in a lot of magnums so it was an improved product in the market place.

Hodgdon told me that they hold ADI to 2% variation lot to lot. I have recorded up to 6% but that was 20 years ago and Quality Systems, for which I am expert, are very much improved over that time.

Hope this helps.

John

A G W - Yes it helps INDEED. I for one am very glad you participate here.

There is no substitute for first hand experience & knowledge.

Thanks Again

There seems to be some confusion on what I wrote and what I meant to say.

I'll try to explain it by using this example.

A soft drink manufacturer can change the brand or type of sweetener used in their line of soft drinks. Someone can call the chemists who mix the syrup and be told that the formulation is exactly the same. That is correct, but again, it isn't. The brand or type of sweetener is different, but as to whether or not this would affect the formulation or not, I can't answer.

The same thing can happen to gun powder, baking soda, soft drinks, coffee, steel, brass, or most anything else. It can even happen to the brand or type of sweetener from the same manufacturer, as referred to in the example about soft drinks.

I did not mean to say or even imply that a powder manufacturer was negelient or careless, or would delibertly market an unsafe product.

I have a can of IMR 4350 that I purchased over 30 years ago. If I were to purchase another can today, I would expect to be able to interchange the loading data with the 30 year old can. The formulation might or might not be different, for reasons stated above, because of newer technoligy, and possibly raw materials from different manufacturers, but I would expect the burning rate to be, if not the same, but close enough that the loading data for the two containers would be identical.

The above would apply only to canister powders, available to handloaders. I have read that the bulk powders supplied to ammunition manufacturers can vary a great deal from lot to lot. This variation could be caused by moisture content, or any number of reasons.

This is not a problem, because the manufacturers have test equipment not available to the average handloader, to ensure that the factory loads are safe.

Perhaps misleading is too strong a word. Maybe the chemist did not want to go into detail that they changed the supplier of nitric acid, and the powder manufacturer had to make slight formulation changes to offset the slightly different nitric acid or gun cotton, or other chemicals that go into gun powder. If these changes were even actually made, and I have no evidence that they were.

What I was implying in my original post is that anyone, bankers, finance companies, soft drink manufacturers, lawyers, chemists, steel manufacturers or anyone can tell the 100 percent truth, and still mislead the listener. Although the misleading might be completely harmless, it can be done.

I also doubt that I could call a powder manufacturer and ask who ever answered the phone if a can of Unique powder that I found with a date of 1912 on it is the same formulation as a can made today. I would probably be told yes, but whoever was doing the telling probably would have no idea, one way or another.

I hope this long, rambling post clairifies, to both you and Mule Deer, that I was not implying that any manufacturer would deliberately mislead someone to the point that it would be life threatening.

I also do not think the same thing can be said about drug companies.

Let me tell you about ADI.
In the 1980's, it was a run down obsolete manufacturing plant with only a couple of powders made for the handloading market. Australia was gearing up for an anti gun phase and everything was going to be hit.

The majority of components were imported with only Woodleigh making premium bullets at that time, Powders, primers and brass all imported with the exception of Bertram Brass which is limited in size and not high in profile.

With wars and political issues demonstrating Australia's isolation, it wasn't enough that we had friends in other countries, we needed some industry, particularly for powders, as there were at that time, only 4 ships licenced to carry gun/explosive powders in International waters. If an enemy knew which ships those were, it could cut off supply and make the country more helpless than a socialst with a blown out credit card.

The Australian Government made a conscious decision to refit the plant with state of the art equipment and expand the powders for market to ensure the viability of the facility.

The standard selected was IMR 4350 which was assigned a value of 100. All powder burning rates would be deterined as percentages either faster or slower buring that than.

AR 2209 was assigned to a powder that burned at 95% the rate of slowness assigned to IMR 4350 though that ws changed after the Hodgdon contract to make it a little slower.

There were slow powders created and sropped such as AR 2214 which I tried in the .338/378 as well as other released under various names. AR 2217 became H 1000. AR 2222 became Retumbo.

The commercial success of this plant is vital to Australian security so you are helping an ally that has stood beside the US since the civil war, and for that, you have my thanks, but......Aussies are super cirtical and call a "spade a shovel" by nature. If these powders were not as good as the are Aussies would not use them I promise.

One thing Australian Government is good at, is getting out of the way of business, so just as it did with its own version of Obamacare, I believe it sold off ADI to private investment.

John

I applaud your reducing the powder types etc.. it looks like you are trying a KISS approach which I heartily endorse and persue. Just a friendly shoulder tap- be careful in those marathon reload sessions. Stay frosty. -respectfully...