August 4, 2006, 08:34 PM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2006
Posts: 7
|
H4350 vs. IMR4350
Hope this doesn't sound too stupid, I am new at this. Is H4350 and IMR4350 interchangeable? I currently use IMR4350 for my 30.06 and saw a recipe using H4350 for a .22-.250 and was wondering if I can use the same powder for both loads.
Thanks in advance MCG |
August 4, 2006, 08:35 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2001
Location: west texas
Posts: 772
|
No, they are NOT interchangeable.
|
August 4, 2006, 10:18 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 13, 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,687
|
According to LoadYourOwn.com, IMR4350 is listed immediately above H4350 in the Burn Rate chart, so I would think they are pretty close. But you should still not assume that means they are interchangeable.
Hodgdon's reloading manual lists H4350 for 50-70gr bullets in .22-250. They do not list a load for any bullets using IMR4350. For the .22-250 My Speer book lists IMR4350 with 55gr using 36-40gr of powder and a 70gr bullet using 34-38gr. The Hornady book, with a 50gr bullet and H4350, uses 39-42gr and with a 70 gr bullet, 34-36gr The IMR Handloader's Guide lists the maximum load for IMR4350 with a 55gr bullet to be 39.5gr. It is virtually impossible to determine, from various manuals, if they are close to each other. You need to work up a load as you would with any new powder - start at 10% below max and work your way up. Do not assume 35gr of H4350 and 35gr of IMR4350 are the same. When I started reloading I used IMR4895 in my .270 - much too fast-burning and I locked the bolt up. Needed a rubber mallet to free it up. Started to pay attention to burn rates, moved to slower burning powders, got higher velocity and never locked another bolt. |
August 5, 2006, 06:31 PM | #4 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2006
Posts: 7
|
Thanks for the help. I'm moving slowly on this stuff and building up my reference library will take some time. I appreciate the information.
|
August 5, 2006, 07:27 PM | #5 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 25, 2005
Posts: 1,372
|
No they are not at ALL!!!
H-4350 is alot slower burning than IMR-4350 |
August 6, 2006, 10:14 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 13, 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,687
|
"H-4350 is alot slower burning than IMR-4350"
What's the reference you use to come to that conclusion? What is meant by "a lot slower burning?" Is it in the same area as H1000 - IMR 7828? As I understand it, the burning rate charts are only approximate and can change often, depending on the manufacture of different lots of the same powder. |
August 6, 2006, 12:03 PM | #7 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 25, 2005
Posts: 1,372
|
Quick Load, and personal experience.
|
August 6, 2006, 01:42 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 21, 2004
Location: Western Penn.
Posts: 387
|
It's always been my understanding that the Hogdon powders are very close to their numerical IMR counterparts. Not direct/exact replacement, but usable. Go to Hogdon's web page and you can find load data for both -06 and .22-250 . One of the biggest gains from the H-4350 is that the smaller excruded pellets flow better through most powder measures, IMO.....
__________________
For those who've never fought for it, the price of freedom shall never be known... |
August 6, 2006, 07:26 PM | #9 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 25, 2005
Posts: 1,372
|
If you use IMR in lieu of H-4350 in a near max load, you'll end-up with a stuck case.
|
August 7, 2006, 02:53 PM | #10 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2006
Posts: 7
|
Thanks again to all for your help. MCG
|
January 6, 2011, 06:34 PM | #11 |
Member
Join Date: October 27, 2010
Posts: 29
|
IMR 4350
I bought a pound of IMR4350, intending to use it for .300 Savage & 8 X 57 Mauser. The Hodgen data page lists 44 gr w/ 180 gr cast bullet.... but doesn't show any loading for 8mm Mauser... I will use it for the .300 Savage only, but am curious as to why I can't use it for the 8mm Mauser.... Thanks
|
January 6, 2011, 07:53 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 3, 2010
Location: SW. Florida
Posts: 135
|
xzqzq, IMR4350 will work great in 8mm Mauser. Both my Hornady and my Speer Loading Manuals specify it in their loading tables, but neither lists a 180 gr. bullet. Both have loads for 170 and 200 grain bullets though. 55gr's Max. for 170's and 53gr's Max. for 200's. I think you can safely interpolate for the 180's if that is what you are using.
ETA: I'd use 54.3gr's Max. in a 180, maybe 54.5 if I was feeling lucky. ETA2: The two 4350's are definitely not the same and cannot be interchanged.
__________________
Fear is a reaction................Courage is a decision! Last edited by Snakedriver; January 6, 2011 at 08:02 PM. |
January 6, 2011, 09:03 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,894
|
8mmx57(JS) Mauser: 56,500psi cartridge in modern bolt actions
From Sierra(5th): 1-10/23" 175 SP (#2410) OAL=3.100" IMR4350: MIN 48.8gr/2200fps (Quickload says 2,350fps/34,400psi) MAX 53.9gr/2500fps (Quickload says 2,600fps/46,100psi (102% fill ratio)) If I substitute H4350 in Quickload: MIN 48.8gr/2,340fps/34,100psi MAX 53.9gr/2,593fps/45,800psi (104% fill ratio) The data would suggest that for these load combinations, H4350 & IMR4350 are ostensibly equivalent ******************* I should point out that Nosler does list a 180gr Ballistic Tip and their load max's out at 52 grains IMR4350 Nosler lists this as 105% fill ratio, but does not specify an OAL. Quickload, however, estimates that 52gr IMR4350 --> 105% --> 3.080" OAL for that bullet --> 2,570fps/48,000psi Last edited by mehavey; January 6, 2011 at 09:24 PM. |
January 6, 2011, 09:12 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2008
Location: north platte nebraska
Posts: 344
|
Steve's reloading data.
MCG, you should look up Steve's reloading data on WWW. Steve has alot of loads listed with every powder you would ever want to use.
|
January 6, 2011, 09:23 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,894
|
Birdshot,... somehow I think we're talking back to the future here other than Mr Snakedriver.
But it was an interesting exercise. |
|
|