Riddle me this - 4831 IMR vs. Hogdon

[Country Bumpkin]

Okay, I searched LRH with no results, but found this in the land of google.

https://www.shootersforum.com/handl...es/54415-imr-4831-vs-h4831.html#/topics/54415

The second post gives a "history" of the variance between the two. Basically IMR burns a tad faster because it's built off the original specs, Hogdon was spec'd after the at-then burn rates of old surplus powder of the same original design.

Just how close are we talking here? During load development my buddy had a smidge of IMR 4831 laying around and graciously gave it to me. In trying that out I think I discovered a great load for my 7 RM pushing 160 AB's. I don't want to buy a whole pound of it just to run some seating tests.... but then I found another buddy that offered up his 1/3 pound of H4831.

Am I wasting my time thinking that I'll get similar results? Is it really going to burn that much slower than the IMR?

 

[MagnumManiac]

H4831 DOES burn slower than IMR.
This I know to be true after using both side by side in a 300WM years ago.
There was a 4gr difference in max loads between the 2, and the IMR version was slower in velocity by 100fps in a 24" barrel.
The same was true between H4350 and IMR4350.
IMR powders are no longer available where I hale from, but Hodgdon powders are made here, so they're plentiful.

Cheers.

 

[Country Bumpkin]

Well hmmm.....

I thought I had things figured out and was headed in the right direction...

Now I'm back to more ladder tests.

Argh!

I LOVE shooting, but with family time taking precedence over shooting time, load development is a lengthy process that I'm trying to sprint through so I can spend shooting time PRACTICING and ringing steel.

Thanks for the information, not what I wanted to hear, but "in the name of precision", I needed to know it. My super cool rifle deserves a dedicated effort to ring the most out of the materials at hand.

 

[NDF]

Shoot a 7 RM also, my primary elk medicine, used a lot of the Hodgon with good results, I believe it yields less pressure than the imr also, H-1000 behind 168 gr vld's has put a lot of meat on the table as well, let your rifle decide and get after it, good luck

 

[Calvin45]

Yeah their burn rate isn't the exact same but it's not so different that you couldn't use STARTING load data from one and use it with the other. Starting being the operative word here.

 

[Dosh]

The IMR is temp sensitive, the Hodgdon is their Extreme which is insensitive to temps.

 

[johnnyk]

I have always used and kept IMR4831 on hand. I recently found a 8lb jug at half price ($100) and it followed me home
I had a Win70 HVB in .243Win that absolutely loved it and 85gn GK's. I'm talking 1.5-2" groups at 500yds with this powder/bullet.
I also used it in a Sendero 7mm Rem Mag with 150-160gn class bullets. I used RL22 forever, and on a whim tried IMR4831, it shot the 150gn BT's consistently in to sub .5" MOA at 100yds.
I've tried H4831 in various cartridges over the years and have never been impressed with it. I think 6.5-284 Norma was the last time I tried it and IMO the IMR version is faster and more accurate.

 

[Lefty7mmstw]

To muddy the water even further... DO NOT expect the sc version to be exactly the same as regular h4831... similar enough for the same data, but not the same and may well behave differently in some loads... I've tried both 7828 sc and h4831 sc. The h4831 sc peaked out at slower vel's the few times I've tried it... I 7828 sc was bought by a buddy who got it from a lgs that was out of regular. "They said it was the same" he told me as the group from his 300 roy puked all over the paper when the regular 7828 was way below moa.. We'll use the sc in his 270; it won't care...

 

[Lefty7mmstw]

The IMR is temp sensitive, the Hodgdon is their Extreme which is insensitive to temps.

too bad the primer ( a few other things too) doesn't know this... I've seen the extreme powders vary plenty... You've gotta chrono to prove; I essentially put zero weight on the extreme advertising in my powder choices. I do, however tend to shy away from any ball/ spherical choices if a stick is available.

 

[Calvin45]

To muddy the water even further... DO NOT expect the sc version to be exactly the same as regular h4831... similar enough for the same data, but not the same and may well behave differently in some loads... I've tried both 7828 sc and h4831 sc. The h4831 sc peaked out at slower vel's the few times I've tried it... I 7828 sc was bought by a buddy who got it from a lgs that was out of regular. "They said it was the same" he told me as the group from his 300 roy puked all over the paper when the regular 7828 was way below moa.. We'll use the sc in his 270; it won't care...

Will his 270 not care because it's not as accurate with anything or because he, like me, finds that for some intangible reason the 270 is unbelievably tolerant of just about every powder and projectile he feeds it? Least picky cartridge I've worked with. My rifle is not a tack driver in the true sense of that word with anything but there's just about nothing it won't work with

 

[Country Bumpkin]

You Fellers are making my bench to-do list exceedingly longer than I wanted it to be.

 

[Lefty7mmstw]

Will his 270 not care because it's not as accurate with anything or because he, like me, finds that for some intangible reason the 270 is unbelievably tolerant of just about every powder and projectile he feeds it? Least picky cartridge I've worked with. My rifle is not a tack driver in the true sense of that word with anything but there's just about nothing it won't work with

I'm not saying that the rifle will not or can not be made to shoot with about any powder that is remotely the right burn speed. You need to know what you are getting into though and if there was a question as to whether the 4831's are similar enough to treat as one powder, it needs to be pointed out the sc versions need their own load work up too.

 

[Kansaswoodguy]

H4831SC was probably my most accurate powder in my 6.5 Creedmoor just didn't give me the speed I wanted for 1000+yd. shooting

 

[Country Bumpkin]

What gives, see below. Data from Barnes vs Data from Hogdon.

Hogdon starts me out at 67.2 gr H1000, Barnes lists 67.7 as max. I started loading up a ladder test using Hogdon data but once I started seating bullets, the lowest charge at 67 was compressed.

What gives? I'm not experienced enough to be comfortable with trying these out, so now I'm going to pull all of them, but it's got me scratching my head wondering if I use Barnes data starting at 61.0, if I'll be leaving a lot of velocity on the table.

Help please....