Considering that there doesn't seem like any "Formal" Load Data available for this Load, can some of you provide a starting point with this combination and factors to consider when working this Load up?
Ballistically, Hodgdon H4831 SC Powder is the precise duplicate of H4831. Physically, it's a shorter grain measurement, thus, the designation SC or small Reduce. The shorter, extra compact kernels allow the powder to flow from the powder measures far more effortlessly, helping to relieve the continuous reducing of granules.
The most obvious cause is a rough/ruff bore. No amount of copper fouling lessening brokers within the powder is going to accurate this.
I have experienced several rifles that fouled really undesirable. Obtaining the many copper out was a true PIA till I discovered Wipe-Out foaming bore cleaner.
some cartridges are inclined copper foul in excess of Some others nevertheless, despite how sleek the end is about the bore and demand cleaning on the copper fouling a lot more usually.
WARNING: This solution can expose you to guide, which is known to your Condition of California to cause most cancers and birth defects or other reproductive damage. To find out more drop by – .
NBTs or Hornady VMax, but have a minimal source of Varget, in addition to a great deal much more obtainable H4831SC. I shoot 55 gr. loads Virtually solely, due to the fact that is certainly what the rifles shoot the very best.
and you might want to spend money on some new load data publications. powder composition and chemistry can does change over time. 4831 powder of a long time back just isn't identical as what is currently available. that may be why someone serious about reloading safely and securely may have quite possibly the most recent load data books to seek advice from.
dioni.a.312 claimed: In my experience the only true variance would be that the shortcut meters much better by means of reloading devices. When It can be loaded theres no purposeful change. I have read which the shortcut may have a tiny bit quicker burn up charge but it seems insignificant. Click on to increase...
Why would I mention this? h4831 vs h4831sc Just what exactly is my point? I'm unsure that there is a serious valid place apart from what is preferred with most hasn't been popular with me in any way in these instances. Do I just have a powder jinx or anything? Simply to show you how nuts I actually am, tomorrow I am vary testing a friends new .
This really is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please contemplate making a new thread.
Sure, You h4831 vs h4831sc should utilize exactly the same load data for H4831 vs H4831SC, even so the SC Variation may assist you to get a little far more in predicaments in which you are maxing out case volume With all the common powder just before achieving force boundaries.
While IMR 4831 and H4831SC are distinct powders, you can find that in many scenarios, where one of them h4831 vs h4831sc is listed another will probably be likewise. Also, you will discover there is a reasonably consistent relationship between them with reference to outlined loads.
If I have a pound or two of the powder and receive a lot more of the exact same, only a distinct large amount quantity, I will combine all of them up so that I have a homogeneous batch of powder with which to work.