M14 Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Looking at these two powders data plates-Same powder weight yet why separate them that way? Help me out here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
975 Posts
There have been several versions of H4831 over the years. The first was a surplus powder. Later I think it was sourced from Scotland.. More recently it's been made in Australia then the short cut version came out, also from Australia. The Australian-made version is bit faster than the previous versions and the short cut version is suppose to be close to it or pretty much the same. Do not use old H-4831 for the newer Australian-made H-4831 or for H-4831SC. It's best to use recent load data with the newer versions.
 

·
Senior Chief, U. S. Navy, Ret
Joined
·
407 Posts
It was my understanding that the only difference between H4831 and H4831SC was the the latter was easier to meter in powder measures because of the shorter cut. Incidently, H4831SC is one of my favorite powders for reloading my .300 WSM.

From Hodgdon's website: H4831SC - Ballistically, this Extreme Extruded powder is the exact copy of H4831. Physically, it has a shorter grain size, therefore, the designation SC or short cut. The shorter, more compact kernels allow the powder to flow through the powder measures more smoothly, helping to alleviate the constant cutting of granules. With the smoother flow characteristics comes more uniform charge weights, while the individual grains orient more compactly, creating better loading density.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,090 Posts
I use it as well for the .348WCF, it's one of the few powders I have data for with that round. I was under the impression it was supposed to be interchangeable, the only difference is the granule size. I would probably see if Hodgdon says anything about data interchangeability on their website.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
975 Posts
I use it as well for the .348WCF, it's one of the few powders I have data for with that round. I was under the impression it was supposed to be interchangeable, the only difference is the granule size. I would probably see if Hodgdon says anything about data interchangeability on their website.
The load data for the Australian-made H-4831 and H-4831SC are interchangeable. They are both faster than the older (non-Australian) H-4831. I think they might different safety sheets for them though. Don't use older H-4831 load data as it's not for the Australian-made powder. Even then the short cut version seems to give slightly higher velocities but not a huge difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,090 Posts
The load data for the Australian-made H-4831 and H-4831SC are interchangeable. They are both faster than the older (non-Australian) H-4831. .
I'll have to check and see what I have... my one can is probably 20 years old...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
975 Posts
I don't have a powder meter, so which one is preferable?
Do you mean a powder measure? Do you have a powder scale? Lee powder dippers? I use the short cut version these days. It's a lot easier to funnel into a case with it. If buying new powder, it shouldn't make much difference. The non-short cut version may have been sitting around a lot longer. What cartridge are you loading?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Do you mean a powder measure? Do you have a powder scale? Lee powder dippers? I use the short cut version these days. It's a lot easier to funnel into a case with it. If buying new powder, it shouldn't make much difference. The non-short cut version may have been sitting around a lot longer. What cartridge are you loading?
Lee dippers and a powder scale. I weigh each charge before it goes into the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,090 Posts
I checked, both my cans are Aussie.

I would just get the SC version, it's easier to drop into the cases, you have less issues with powder bridging in the funnel and less issues with case volume (the SC version settles better, too.) I'm surprised they haven't just dropped the long version.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top