IMR rifle powders / Hodgdon rifle powders

[Sevens]

Here's a dilemma I'm facing... any hints?

Hodgdon offers both traditional IMR numbered rifle powders and Hodgdon branded H-powders that are similar but not the same.

Obviously, I know that I can get load data for Hodgdon powders from Hodgdon. Problem is, I've got two brand new manuals on my bench that I'm fully enjoying... but I'm not getting a heckuva lot of use out of the load data because I've been using Hodgdon powders and both of these guides (Nosler 6 and Lyman 49th) push a lot of IMR powders and only few H-numbered rifle powders in comparison.

Is there any rule of thumb that others use or recommend when looking at published data for IMR, but using H-numbered powders?

And perhaps the more obvious question... since Hodgdon markets both powders (thus competing against themselves), why do they continue to keep both of them? Is it because the IMR brand seems to be more popular but yet they don't want their name power to be reduced by slimming their line of powders and getting rid of all the H-numbered powders that correspond to the same IMR numbered powders?

While some powders are known to be the same thing with different names (W296/H110 is the most obvious one), we know that H4350 and IMR-4350 are not the same powder and do not have the same burning rate. Given that Hodgdon markets them both, this seems like a lot of unnecessary repetition. Now I'm all for having choices, but it makes it tough when you bring home two brand new manuals chock full of goodies only to find that you can't use much of the rifle data because you keep a bunch of Hodgdon powders in your cache.

Does anyone else care or is it just me?!

[Unclenick]

IMR (Canadian made rifle powders) and Hodgdon (Australian made rifle powders) are both kept alive because they are not exact equivalents, don't use exact same charge weights to achieve the same pressures and velocities and don't have the same temperature or ignition sensitivities. As a result, like with there being a whole pile of different 150 grain .30 caliber bullets available in the world, some guns do better with one than with the other, and lots of reloaders have established their best loads with one or the other and don't want to change. Hence, there is a market for both, just as there is for the similar Accurate and Alliant and Vihtavuori powders (though the numbering doesn't match in those cases). Originally these were intended to tend to compete by being close to one another in burning rate, but nobody ever pretended your rifle would not like one better than the other or that they could predict which one would that be?

No simple calculation can convert you form one to another because burning rates will change order at different pressures. You have to work up your loads with each powder separately. I recommend you use Hodgdon's online reloading data center to get more loads for the H prefix powders.

[mrawesome22]

The Hodgdon powders have a coating that is suppose to make them less sensitive to temperature variations. They are generally shorter grained as well. It just depends on what you want. If you want more case fill with the same powder, go with the IMR. If you need shorter grains to get the powder in there without compressing it, go with the Hodgdon. I like it.

[Mike Irwin]

"Is there any rule of thumb that others use or recommend when looking at published data for IMR, but using H-numbered powders?"

Yes.

The rule of thumb is that you DO NOT try to interpolate loading data for one powder using printed information for the other.

You might get lucky, or you might wreck your gun.

No way of telling for sure which will happen.

Feeling lucky?


The reason for the seemingly unnecessary repetition is that Hodgdon only relatively recently became the distributor of IMR-type powders. Before that, they were bringing out their H powders to compete with the IMR powders.

[uncyboo]

Feeling lucky?

"well, are ya, Punk?"
























Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Jim243]

Seven, no mohills from mountains now, just go to Hodgdon's website and they will give you all the load data you will ever need on IMR powders or Winchester's for that matter. Or all three side by side. They handle all three.

Jim

[sundog]

Yes, there is a rule of thumb -- find the powder that works BEST, and then be sure you have a adequate supply of the same lot number and bullets. It makes no difference what label is on it.

[Sarge]

Sevens- they are all good powders in any iteration you named. Pick what is available locally, find the sweet spot for whatever you're loading, and rest assured you are using top-notch powder regardless if the numbers have a H, W or IMR as a prefix.

[Sevens]

Thanks for the posts, folks. I fully realize that I should never just wing it with load data.

It's not that one is better than the other. My situation is that I have a bunch of Hodgdon powders, but all the manuals I own give load data for IMR powders.

That's a PI my A and I don't know what heck kind of solution I thought I would get, but I'm basically looking to Hodgdon for all my load data and probably transitioning to IMR powders as the H-powders get used up.

Afterall, Hodgdon gives data for the IMR powders, too, so I'm really not gaining anything by staying with the H-numbered powders.

[FrankenMauser]

Afterall, Hodgdon gives data for the IMR powders, too, so I'm really not gaining anything by staying with the H-numbered powders.

That depends how you look at it.

Ease of reloading, and keeping a narrower range of components on hand might be nice.
But... In several cartridges, I get more velocity from H4895 than I do from IMR 4895 (while retaining accuracy, and staying at safe pressures).

I also have the opposite problem you have -- When I want to use IMR powder, I can only find AA and Hodgdon listings....

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by Frankenmauser

In several cartridges, I get more velocity from H4895 than I do from IMR 4895 (while retaining accuracy, and staying at safe pressures).

And I've had just the opposite occur. Given the original intended competitive nature of the offerings, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see their burning rates shift ranking from one lot to the next or with minor composition changes over time.

[bobelk99]

IMR and H are both likely to be around, at least through the current generation of shooters.

I have done a little rifle reloading in the larger calibers for accuracy.

sometimes H works better. Sometimes IMR works better. I had two instances that the exact same amount of both powders gave equal accuracy results.
In one case IMR was higher velocity. In the other H was faster.

Trial and error, but go by the book please.

[Sevens]

This seems like a good place to mention that Hodgdon deserves a big "thumbs up" for their reloading data center. While most other powder distributors/manufacturers at least link to a .pdf of their printed guide, and Alliant gives that abomination they call a reloading data center (it's lame), Hodgdon has put together quite a resource and it's flexible, too, and allows you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

It's a very good resource and I keep it close at hand as a good reference.

[FrankenMauser]

This seems like a good place to mention that Hodgdon deserves a big "thumbs up" for their reloading data center. While most other powder distributors/manufacturers at least link to a .pdf of their printed guide, and Alliant gives that abomination they call a reloading data center (it's lame), Hodgdon has put together quite a resource and it's flexible, too, and allows you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

It's a very good resource and I keep it close at hand as a good reference.

I check for updates when I have the time and motivation, but I used the "email" feature to compile lists of data. I have a 3-ring binder with my other manuals, listing the Hodgdon online data in my own format (I plugged the information into a spreadsheet program, and -amazingly- it automatically recognized the exact format; which allowed me to adjust to what I wanted).

And, Alliant... I couldn't agree more. "Load 4.2gr of XXX on XXX bullet". You actually had to SEARCH in the past, to find out it was a max load. Some complaints from reloaders got them to put that statement on a couple other pages, now. The free "Reloading Guide" (the one they mail out) is much better, but 75% shotshell based.

[TXGunNut]

I care, Sevens! I've been a bit aggravated recently searching for an IMR version when I had the H version on the shelf. (4350) They are quite similar but at the same time have distinct differences. I felt I needed to try both since each has a loyal following.
I learned to reload when you could walk into a gun shop (Nix in Lewisville) and find almost any powder available at that time. Other area small gun shops often had 20 or more varieties. Along come mail order houses and big box sporting goods stores and the Mom & Pop gunshops went away because we wanted to save a buck or shop in a big, exciting store. Now we have haz-mat fees that erase any savings we once realized from mail order houses and the buyers at the big stores have no idea why they should stock more than 8-10 powders because all the numbers and names are so similar. Add that to the "shortages" and it's hard to be loyal to a powder or try a new one.
Interesting point about the Lyman manual. Hadn't noticed it until you pointed it out. Times they are a-changing, indeed.