RE: H 4350 and IMR 4350
 

The fact that two powders are similar to each other is a darn poor excuse to treat them the same.....Simply stated while there's many powders of similar burning characteristics (and there's lot of evidence to suggest that one powder is identical to another) they must not be treated as the same unless one knows for a fact that they are.
A good example is the almost general knowlege that H414 is the same as Win 760.....when I read a public announcement from either winchester or Hodgdons that this is true then I'll use the data as the same.

What's at stake here is your face and eyes and maybe more. Is it worth it that someone on the internet says that you can use the data the same?

RE: H 4350 and IMR 4350
 

If you do like your supposed too and work up your load from 10% down, this is a moot point. And alot of drama added in. Look at your data in your manuals.

RE: H 4350 and IMR 4350
 

While the reloading data may in fact be similar for these powders (and it is possible that they are identical powders)....(BTW the new H4350 is a different color now) The time honored practice of starting with reduced loads is a practice meant to erase such differences as chamber variations,different bullet drags (often a 150 grain bullet is reloaded with the same data as any other 150 grain bullet of the same caliber) potential case variations, different miniscule bore diameters, and a variety of such things that make each rifle an individual.....two seemingly identical rifles will not always shoot the same bullets, loads, or groups at all! The practice of starting with reduced loads is definitely not for compensating for the substitution of powders.
Let me repeat this.....unless you know for a certainty that the powders are identical find the data for the one you are using and start low and work up.

RE: H 4350 and IMR 4350
 

Vapo, you sure your a reloader or an actor on a lifetime movie?

RE: H 4350 and IMR 4350
 

Are we to take the same attitude toward H-4831 and IMR-4831? How about others of similar numbering?....this is the first suggestion ever that one can, simply by starting low and work up, ignore the different labels on a can of powder. Does it apply to AA powders as well?
Once we start this BS it leaves the door open to anything we want.
I stick with what I said...

RE: H 4350 and IMR 4350
 

No, you want to know why? I haven't looked up any data just yet. If I find in any of my Swift, Barnes, Speer, Nosler Sierra handbooks that they are within 1 gr of each other in Max loads and very simular data and velocities are simular, then I will go one step further. I wouldn't mind then using a "different" bullet not called out with the loads compared.

For example if a Speer Grand Slam has very simular data, and so does a Barnes with both H4831 and IMR 4831, and notice very simular burn rates, but the Nosler manual only has 50gr of H4831 called out for a 165gr Accubond but no IMR data, then I wouldn't mind starting out with a starting load of 45gr of IMR4831 and slowly working my way up, watching velocity. I have not compared the two or researched it like I have the 4350 powders, so therefore, I cannot make that recommendation.

How many times has any of us on this page took the Hodgdon data with a say "hornady InterloK" and put that to a Sierra gameking. There are a few bullets that you got to be careful with. The TBBC is one, the Barnes, and failsafes are another. Thats the reason Vapo, that Nosler notes to be very careful with the failsafes. They might list 96gr max H1000 for 300RUM with 180gr bullet, but you cannot put that forth for all bullets. The variations are too huge with different barrels, different shank charateristics.

For years, there was very little to no official data for the TBBC. If we took your advise, and never thought things thru, nobody would have been shooting them.

A reloader has to research such things. Look thru all manuals available, look at other peoples results, take it all in account, and work the load up.

RE: H 4350 and IMR 4350
 

ok, so why they name both powders the same? why didnt whomever come up with the latter one name it H4351 or H4360? to avoid confusion?

RE: H 4350 and IMR 4350
 

Somebody did! Scot powders made a 4351 and it was quite different. But they are out of business now.

RE: H 4350 and IMR 4350
 

oh!! so....the people that used common sense are out of buisness?:D

RE: H 4350 and IMR 4350
 

hey....no one ever said the firearms industry has to make sense.....Newbies can become swarmed over just understanding cartridge nomenclature...some named in millimeters and then the numbers aren't numerically correct...some named for caliber and powder charge, some named for date, some named for their designer.....

We can be careful to follow a set of rules to correct this best we can.....just another reason to treat all powders as different until you know for a fact that they are not.....I also wouldn't be too sure if I'd believe the internet on this either.....

If one goes to Hodgdon's website and reviews the burning rate for these powders he notices that IMR and H-4831 and not side by side implying that there's a difference in burn rate....other powders like IMR and H-4350 are together which implies that they are at least not too different and might be identical.....how good is your memory???

The more interesting thing is that Hodgdon now owns the IMR powder company and one would hope they would kill the IMR powders that are duplicates of their own brand.....any bets?????.....