IMR vs H type powder?
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Western Nebraska
Posts: 3,393
RE: IMR vs H type powder?
Nope. Even though they are owned by Hodgdon, IMR powders do have different burn rates. Go to http://www.hodgdon.com for more information.
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: IMR vs H type powder?
And that bears repeating.....NO.....don't interchange the numbers and data!!! Only use IMR data for IMR powders and H- data for H- powders!!!!
#9
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 16
RE: IMR vs H type powder?
Definately NO!! I even use H4350 and i also Use the IMR4350. I get exact same performance with the IMR and use less Grains. Groups and everything Are the same with both powders, But the Amount used is different.
I Use 40g Of H4350
And 38g of IMR4350
I NEVER Interchange Info. I start with the min recomended charge, and work up. For hunting rounds(i sight in a month before), I will hot load a grain or 2 past Max.
Enough of the rant, The answer to the question is still NO!!
Harry
I Use 40g Of H4350
And 38g of IMR4350
I NEVER Interchange Info. I start with the min recomended charge, and work up. For hunting rounds(i sight in a month before), I will hot load a grain or 2 past Max.
Enough of the rant, The answer to the question is still NO!!
Harry
#10
RE: IMR vs H type powder?
That's a big NEGATIVE. Never interchange powders, use only the powder the data calls for. I, for one, am surprised that the different powder makers use the same nuber designations for their respective powders, even though they are very different. Seems like a liability issue to me in out sue happy country.
I like the current trend toward naming powders instead of numbering them (i.e. Varget, Big Game, etc...), or at least going with simple sequential numbering systems based on relative burn rate (i.e. RL-19, RL-22, N-110 & N-120, etc...).
If there is any rhyme or reason to Hodgdon, AA, or IMR's numbering system, I'd sure like to know what it is.
Mike
I like the current trend toward naming powders instead of numbering them (i.e. Varget, Big Game, etc...), or at least going with simple sequential numbering systems based on relative burn rate (i.e. RL-19, RL-22, N-110 & N-120, etc...).
If there is any rhyme or reason to Hodgdon, AA, or IMR's numbering system, I'd sure like to know what it is.
Mike