Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles H 4831 and H 4831 SC

H-4831 "Long" has been for the most part unobtainable in my neck of the woods for months now. However, I did come across 4 lbs of H-4831 SC in a neighboring state and snapped them up. I seem to recall folks saying they thought the SC burned a bit faster than the "Long" and loads worked up from scratch should be started a little lower with SC than "Long".
What is your experience?

You might find any given lot of one a trifle faster or slower than a given lot of the other. As far as I can tell they burn the same. However, the SC has a little higher density. The old long variety just nicely fills a 243 case with 100 grain bullets. The short variety may be a better match in some 30-06 applications.

For me, no discernable difference in everything from .243 to .348. But, 1) not trying to shoot the tiniest groups and 2) never load to where I would worry about pressure. Because of this, I've gone strictly to SC as it meters more easily. YMMV

Did not notice much difference in a couple of calibers.

7x57 160gr Nosler Part. over 48grs H4350 = 2650fps. H4350SC = 2660fps. A new batch of H4350SC increased to 2700fps.

257 Roberts 75gr V-Max over 42grs H4895 = 3320fps. H4895SC = 3325fps

My notes read the loads were all shot in a outside temperature range of 55 to 60 degrees.

Thanks Fellas,
Hodgdons manual say's that they are ballistically the same also.
The comments I recall surfaced not long after SC was introduced. The way I remember it was, the SC kernels had more surface area than the "long" and therefore burned a little faster and hotter.
I remember reading it somewhere, I just can't recall where.
It may have been just more grist for the rumor mill, or maybe, I'm confusing it with something else? But I wanted to ask here first.

There is a H-4895sc??

Doc

In spite of the above comments,

IME, in the 270 & 280 with known proven loads of the long cut version, I've had to cut back a couple of grains on top loads with the SC.

Just sayin................

MM

I would guess that's due to what Denton mentioned, the difference between lots of powder. Obviously, a certain can of H4831SC isn't going to be the same lot as a can of H4831 "Long"!

A couple of grains difference in cases the size of the .270/.280 is normal variation between lots.

No - my bad... I was comparing pre-Extreme to Extreme.

I've seen big changes with powder lots, particularly before IMR became part of the Hodgdon kingdom. I had one lot of I4350 act more like I4831. I always wondered if it was mislabelled.

Yeah, I think I had a can of the slow IMR 4350, right after they went to the plastic Hodgdon cans. In a couple of .30-06s, 57 grains with a 165 was getting something like 2650 fps, which is a couple of hundred fps slower than usual with that load. I haven't bought a can of IMR 4350 since then.

Back to the question, I haven't seen a noticebale difference between recent H4831 SC and H4831.

Me too......at least in a pair of 270's with top end loads.

And I tried two different lots--but still, it could be a difference in the lot(s) of powder.

Casey

Thanks Again Fellas
I expect a grain or two variance from lot to lot, I have only used H-4831 long in the past and like I said I just snapped up the SC because it was there and my other supplies are waning.
I thought that maybe someone else might have recalled what was written at the time it came out and either confirm or put away what I thought I remembered reading about the SC version. I generally start 5-10% below top loads depending on the cartridge and work up so, I wanted to check here first with your experiences and go from there.

I had the opposite problem last year - normally use SC in my 270WSM but could only find the "long cut". I didn't chrony it, just dropped down a couple of grains and worked back to the same load, and ended up there with the best accuracy.

I've used alot of H-4831 and H-4831sc in a 270wsm with 120gr tsx.
I've ran a bunch over the crony and shot groups in paper without beeing able to tell witch is witch.

Umm the bouncing cursor is awesome.

They have always worked the same for me. Pretty much any powder that has a short or supershort version has always given me the close to the same results as the long version. Still I have always been cautious when making a switch. YMMV