Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

4831 vs 4831sc

I know they are supposed to be the same, but I always wondered if shorter cut sticks would have slightly different burn rates or pressures due to possibly having more surface area to burn.
 
Hodgdon is absolutely full of crap. I would not pay attention to very many of their claims.

IF they say that one powder is equal to another, then it has the same energy density and burn rate within + or - 5%. In other words, IF they say that H4831 and H4831SC are interchangeable, then the variation between H4831 and H4831SC will be no worse than lot A of H4831 and lot B of H4831. You may test a bottle of each and find variation, but if you tested many different lots of each, you would find that they averaged out to be the same.

If you made ONE BATCH and cut it two different lengths, The shorter kernels would burn faster and thus you would have two different canister grades of powder and they could not be interchanged. Powder manufacturers cannot control the outcome of their efforts very well. Each batch of the same recipe comes out with a little different energy density and burn rate. They test it afterward, and if it falls within certain specifications they label it one thing, if falls within different specifications they label it something else, and if it falls outside of any canister grades, they sell it to an ammunition manufacturer who adjusts their loading using chronograph and pressure testing equipment. Sooooo, if the recipe that results is H4831 tests within the realm of H4831, then they can label it H4831, OR if it tests with the correct energy density, but burns too slow, then can simply cut it shorter to increase the burn rate, and then label H4831SC.

I would consider them to be essentially interchangeable. If you find them to be different then I would chalk it up to lot to lot variation. However, loads tend to give you the best results when they are near the mid to high end of book pressures and close to completely filling the case. It’s possible to have a great load with H4832SC and not be able to fit enough H4831, and it’s possible to have a great load with H4831, but with H4831SC you get poor SD/ES on your velocity.
 
The powders are coated with graphite which I believe retards the burn rate. The SCs are cut shorter BEFORE the graphite treatment to ensure that they both burn the same. As alluded to above there might be some small difference if one lot of SC is on the high end of the tolerance range and a lot of long cut is on the lower end of the tolerance range. I would expect that if they were to take a 50,000 pound lot of powder and leave half as long cut and the other half as SC that nobody could tell the difference.
 
ImBillT said:
wereHodgdon is absolutely full of crap. I would not pay attention to very many of their claims.

IF they say that one powder is equal to another, then it has the same energy density and burn rate within + or - 5%. In other words, IF they say that H4831 and H4831SC are interchangeable, then the variation between H4831 and H4831SC will be no worse than lot A of H4831 and lot B of H4831. You may test a bottle of each and find variation, but if you tested many different lots of each, you would find that they averaged out to be the same.

If you made ONE BATCH and cut it two different lengths, The shorter kernels would burn faster and thus you would have two different canister grades of powder and they could not be interchanged. Powder manufacturers cannot control the outcome of their efforts very well. Each batch of the same recipe comes out with a little different energy density and burn rate. They test it afterward, and if it falls within certain specifications they label it one thing, if falls within different specifications they label it something else, and if it falls outside of any canister grades, they sell it to an ammunition manufacturer who adjusts their loading using chronograph and pressure testing equipment. Sooooo, if the recipe that results is H4831 tests within the realm of H4831, then they can label it H4831, OR if it tests with the correct energy density, but burns too slow, then can simply cut it shorter to increase the burn rate, and then label H4831SC.

I would consider them to be essentially interchangeable. If you find them to be different then I would chalk it up to lot to lot variation. However, loads tend to give you the best results when they are near the mid to high end of book pressures and close to completely filling the case. It’s possible to have a great load with H4832SC and not be able to fit enough H4831, and it’s possible to have a great load with H4831, but with H4831SC you get poor SD/ES on your velocity.
Click to expand...
"Hodgdon is absolutely full of crap"? Now your a chemist? And in closing "I would consider them to be essentially the same"? Your all over the place. Where did you get your chemistry degree from?
 
antelopedundee said:
The powders are coated with graphite which I believe retards the burn rate. The SCs are cut shorter BEFORE the graphite treatment to ensure that they both burn the same. As alluded to above there might be some small difference if one lot of SC is on the high end of the tolerance range and a lot of long cut is on the lower end of the tolerance range. I would expect that if they were to take a 50,000 pound lot of powder and leave half as long cut and the other half as SC that nobody could tell the difference.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

If you split a single batch and cut some shorter, then covered it with enough more graphite to retard the burn rate back to that of the other half, you would have a different energy density. H4831SC likely started out a little slower, and the shorter cutting sped the burn rate enough.
 
Last edited:
Don Fischer said:
"Hodgdon is absolutely full of crap"? Now your a chemist? And in closing "I would consider them to be essentially the same"? Your all over the place. Where did you get your chemistry degree from?
Click to expand...
Hodgdon has, many many times, over the years completely changed powders, and put them in the same can with the same label as before the change. Many times. What they do is viable. They just make sure that whatever they do, it’s within plus or minus 5% of the specified burn ran and energy demsity

They even once told a benchrest shooter that if he supplied them enough 8208 that they could duplicate it for him, but he would have to foot the bill for most or all of the lot. They took his powder, and his money. The then shipped him a bunch of powder they had almost completed development of before he even contacted them about duplicating 8208. They labeled it 8208XBR and basically said “this isn’t what you asked us for, but this powder is better anyway”. They are sketchy.

After they bought IMR they replaced IMR4198 with H4198 and tumbled it in graphite so that it would still be grey like the IMR4198 that DuPont made...it ain’t the same stuff, but the label says “IMR4198”.

Ever wonder if we’re all drinking the new coke, but the label just says “classic”?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Djfan
Winchester Super X 4 shot for turkey?
Replies
15
Views
392
Knight.54
Knight.54
Y
Statistics for differentiating between groups?
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
1K
yakimanoob
Y
B
Case volume physics
Replies
6
Views
564
winmag
winmag
Justabirdwatcher
Hornady CX 120's (6.5 mm)
Replies
19
Views
2K
Redmt
Redmt
W
300WBY issues!!!
Replies
18
Views
597
Wind Gypsy
W
Yeti GOBOX Collection

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,126
Messages
1,947,951
Members
35,034
Latest member
Waspocrew

Share this page

Back
Top