How h4831 vs h4831sc can Save You Time, Stress, and Money.
How h4831 vs h4831sc can Save You Time, Stress, and Money.
Blog Article
I gave up on it and went to other powder in the event the new powder was acquiring additional strain and was slower compared to the old things. I don't remember if I even tried using standard h4831 or not; I am imagining not.
H4831 will perform in the Swift but not genuine effectively. You'll under no circumstances receive the pressures you may need for consistency Using the .223. 760, or H414 might be much better but for some rationale I ain't the largest lover of most ball powders.
It really is most likely that no even further dialogue is needed, through which situation we suggest beginning a whole new thread. If even so you're feeling your response is necessary it is possible to nevertheless do this.
243, and some of the loads I have started off with consist of, you guessed it, H-4831sc. This time I am gonna shoot the IMR7828 loads first, followed by the W780 loads just so there will not be any surprises in the event the H-4831sc loads present a shotgun sample! Who is familiar with, I just may discover a use for it In fact.
INgunner54 said: It's been a bit, but I did get some 4831 SC to test. Uncovered a node and shot some groups.
I have utilized H4831 and H4831SC in my 260 Rem without any difference. The only thing would be the shorter Reduce gives you a little bit more Room. Great luck!gun)
If there isn't any load data it truly is because this powder is not really ideal for this cartridge. Normally a person won't uncover just one powder to fit all cartridges, as well as the relatives of cartridges with The actual powder (4831SC) you are inquiring about won't do the job.
and you should spend money on some new load data textbooks. powder composition and chemistry can does adjust through the years. 4831 powder of a long time ago isn't same as what is now available. that is definitely why someone seriously interested in reloading securely may have probably the most present-day load data textbooks to consult with.
I've identified the exact opposite to become accurate in my gun. H4831SC was the slowest powder with 180 g Accubonds. RL22 was a much faster and Similarly correct powder in my 300 Get Mag.
Ballistically, this Intense Extruded powder is the exact duplicate of H4831. Bodily, it has a shorter grain size, hence, the designation SC or shorter Slash. The shorter, additional compact kernels allow the powder to move from the powder actions more efficiently, helping to ease the consistent cutting of granules.
Regardless of the similarity in nomenclature, they're completely distinct powders, with IMR 4831 becoming considerably more rapidly compared to Hodgdon variants. Really don't deal with h4831 vs h4831sc them as exactly the same powder, since they most absolutely aren't.
This really is an Intense extruded propellant and features heightened insensitivity to cold and warm temperatures.
I am aware the H4831SC provides a greater load density But I do think I have enough place in my situation for the traditional H4831.
I sawed just one in half to view how thick the jackets were, and so they were being effortlessly two times as thick to be a 50-grain hollow position was. Ditto with the 64-grain Electricity Issue, as these bullets are constructed for deer, not prairie puppies or woodchucks. You now know h4831 vs h4831sc everything I learn about the 22-250 and sluggish-burning powders, and I do not know just about anything whatsoever regarding the 223. I doubt that you are going to get any where with that cartridge h4831sc and 4831, but let's know how it goes.