Hodgdon H4831 compared to H4831SC
I reloaded quite a few rounds of 6.5 Carcano and 8x57mm yeserday using the Lee Dipper which called for H4831. I didn't realize that there was a difference between H4831 and H4831SC and used the SC. I'm getting no response from my e-mails to Lee or Hodgdon so far to my question concerning if the rounds I loaded using SC are safe. Can any of you experienced reloaders tell me if there is any danger in using the H4831SC instead of the H4831? I'd really appreciate your help on this.
Load info on rounds I loaded w/SC: 6.5 Carcano 100gr sp 38.7 grains of H4831SC, 6.5 Carcano 140gr SP 36 grains of H4831SC, 8x57mm 185gr sp
51.2 grains of H4831SC. All the above loads called for H4831.
Thanks
John
John in PA
jmknaut@juno.com
Load info on rounds I loaded w/SC: 6.5 Carcano 100gr sp 38.7 grains of H4831SC, 6.5 Carcano 140gr SP 36 grains of H4831SC, 8x57mm 185gr sp
51.2 grains of H4831SC. All the above loads called for H4831.
Thanks
John
John in PA
jmknaut@juno.com
0
-
I have a Hogdon Reloaders Manual.
SC stands for Short Cut.
It is a shorter grain then H4831. Made for a smoother flow threw a powder measure. Using a Lee dipper would give you more kernels per charge.
The charge chart for 8x57 shows 57 grs of H4831 for a 150 gr bullet (max Load) Start 10% under!
but H4831 SC is not listed.
I hate dippers always use a scale
Merry Christmas to ALL
Grumpy Old Man
I Refuse to be a Victim
Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of All Those that Threaten it0 -
Oddly, The Lee big red book lists the same charge for all bullets over 150 grains in the 8x57, Possibly because of limited case capacity. They list 57 grains of 4831 on a 225 grain jacketed bullet which you are under by 10% in powder weight and 18% in bullet weight; which would seem to be a comfortable safety margin even if the 4831sc is slightly more dense. In the Mauser I would shoot the loads, no question, But that is me. I may very well blow up your rifle and take off your head in the process.
The carcano however, I would pull the loads apart and find out what the actual charge weight is. Also the carcano uses .268 bullets, and Lee list .264, should keep the down some, But on this rifle I wouldn't take a chance, it doesn't have the inherent strength of the mauser.
I use 46 grains of Hogdon Varget in my 8mmx57 on the 185 bullets gives about 2650 fps in short barrels. There seem to be very little data available for the 185 bullet in this caliber.
I can find no volumetric comparisons between the 4831 and 4831sc though.
Hope this helps some,
rich
A man with a gun is a CITIZEN, a man without a gun is a subject.0 -
I've loaded both .280 and .270 rounds with H4831 and H4831SC. I did not change the amount at all (55 grains in the .280)with no noticable difference. I purchased the powder from the local shop and was told at the time that I should not change..
IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY RIGHTS - GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY (this includes politicians)0 -
According to the original write-ups when H4831SC was introduced there is no ballistic difference. I use them interchangeably and have noticed no difference. The SC was designed to meter better in powder measures when loading smaller cases. 0 -
Hey Fellas,
I'm going to do some serious soul searching in using the "new" data from Hogdon's ring binder load manual. Coincidentally, I was loading for my Marlin and Ruger#1 45-70's. Oh Baby, what a difference in the old data and the new.
For instance; "Old" 300 gr. Sierra - Max= 52 gr. H4198= Ruger & Marlin. (no pressure data)
"New" 300 gr. Sierra - Max= 60 gr. H4198 / Marlin at 40,000 cup.
Max= 63 gr. H4198 / Ruger #1 at 50,000 cup.
I started at 52 gr. in the Marlin(new powder) and worked up to 57.5 and had flattened primers and .0005 head expansion. This is about three grains too hot for me. I don't like pressure signs.
This is not good folks. I called Hodgon (not smart enough to get a name) and was told that "The old and new powders have the exact same burning rate and should load the same". "In putting together the old data manual pressure signs were watched for and MAX was found in that manner. The loads in the NEW data manual had the loads fired through a pressure barrel"(hence the pressure numbers).
I'm going to work up from wayyy below their NEW max with any cartridge I load. Be careful folks.
Bud0 -
Hi, Bud-
I was looking over posts that had slipped to the second page and ran across yours (above); most interesting and informative. I thought I'd bring it back from the dead to see if anyone else wanted to contribute or comment. I'll have to stick by my statement, but that is just based on my experience. I've used the SC powder in 7.65x54mm, .30-06, .308 Win., 6.5x55mm Swede--all bolt guns. In all cases I found no difference. It is interesting to note that your bad experience was in a lever action. These are known for a more "springy" lock-up than a bolt; and odd but true--guns can be highly individualistic in how they react to a specific load. Your Ruger #1, though, should lock up like a bank vault. You didn't specifically tell us about your experience with the Ruger and SC powder. I can't explain the new loading info--sounds a little hot to me.0 -
I think several posters missed the main point which is-does the 4831sc weigh the same as 4831 when measured by volume(which is what the dipper does). The biggest problem with dipping is lack of uniformity. Get yourself a scale and use it to check the dipper.
Mobuck0 -
mobuck is right the charge in grains is the same for each powder but in a dipper i wouldnt know if each powder would be the same in grains for the dipper volume you should check with a scale to be sure. the 4831sc is shorter sticks than the 4831 so a dipper of each might not weigh the same
doc0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
8 comments