The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 1, 2024, 11:11 PM   #1
1972RedNeck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 8, 2015
Posts: 192
Old vs New IMR 4350

I recently got a copy of Ackley's "Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders". Has some loads for 375 Weatherby using IMR 4350, which I happen to have a lot of from several years back when it was all I could find (still can't find much of any 4350 in my LGSs).

Is today's IMR4350 the same as the IMR4350 from the 1950s? I will obviously start low and work up - I just want to make sure it's close enough to start with...
1972RedNeck is offline  
Old April 2, 2024, 04:47 AM   #2
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,755
Boy that's a tough one. Even if it were very similar I'd be concerned about how well it aged--you're talking about one of the more cavernous cases that loads near 100 grs of powder. If it were me, I'd just buy some new H4350 (yes, I know it's not exactly the same as IMR 4350) which is one of my top go-to powders for across-the-board outstanding performance in a multitude of cartridges. I'd also be careful about the low end of your loads just as much as the high end in a big case.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!

Last edited by stagpanther; April 2, 2024 at 04:52 AM.
stagpanther is offline  
Old April 2, 2024, 06:17 AM   #3
LeverGunFan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 407
Be skeptical of the data in P.O. Ackley's books, it is generally considered to be very hot. As far as I know, he didn't have access to pressure testing equipment to verify if those loads were within maximum pressure limits. Personally, I'd stick to published data that includes measured pressure, such as in the Lyman manuals.
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition
LeverGunFan is offline  
Old April 2, 2024, 08:17 AM   #4
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,188
I've been using top of the scale loads of IMR 4350 in my 30-06's since the 90's. If there's any difference between old and new it's miniscule.
Hawg is offline  
Old April 2, 2024, 12:47 PM   #5
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,057
Stagpanther,

I don't think the OP is saying his IMR4350 is from the '50s, but he is rather just asking if load data from then is applicable.


1972RedNeck,

I know the manufacturing location and processes have both changed since the '50s. I expect they try to keep the burning properties close enough for most legacy loads to work, but you want to instead use data from Hodgdon's website (which has your cartridge and loads with 4350) because they control the specs the powder is ordered to and, as you say, start low and work up.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Old April 2, 2024, 05:10 PM   #6
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,804
If I were using recently manufactured powder, I'd use current load data instead of data from the 1950's if that data is different. Do that and you'll be fine. If you have a load that you like from the 1950's I'd not use it with current manufactured powder until I dropped down and worked back up.

I'd say chances are good that it will be fine, but I'd proceed with caution.
__________________
"If you're still doing things the same way you were doing them 10 years ago, you're doing it wrong"

Winston Churchill
jmr40 is offline  
Old April 2, 2024, 07:05 PM   #7
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,755
Quote:
Stagpanther,

I don't think the OP is saying his IMR4350 is from the '50s, but he is rather just asking if load data from then is applicable.
Got it--my bad--like you say I'd go to Hodgdon's site and use their data.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old April 2, 2024, 08:41 PM   #8
1972RedNeck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 8, 2015
Posts: 192
Quote:
I know the manufacturing location and processes have both changed since the '50s. I expect they try to keep the burning properties close enough for most legacy loads to work, but you want to instead use data from Hodgdon's website (which has your cartridge and loads with 4350) because they control the specs the powder is ordered to and, as you say, start low and work up.
I would love to, but Hodgdon does not list a single load for the 375 Weatherby with IMR 4350. They have one load for 375 H&H with IMR 4350.
1972RedNeck is offline  
Old April 2, 2024, 08:42 PM   #9
1972RedNeck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 8, 2015
Posts: 192
Quote:
If I were using recently manufactured powder, I'd use current load data instead of data from the 1950's if that data is different.
The problem is, current load data isn’t exactly plentiful…
1972RedNeck is offline  
Old April 2, 2024, 08:51 PM   #10
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,188
Load data has changed from the 50's. Maximum load data now is weaker than earlier data.
Hawg is offline  
Old April 2, 2024, 09:14 PM   #11
Blindstitch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 2,691
Best you can do is collect all the load data available and compare. Some of the books are crazy hot and others are cold having a decent amount of grains between them. I load my 3006 hot with imr4350 and it pretty much matches the winchester load for weight and speed.

Sounds like it's going to be trial and error.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member
Blindstitch is offline  
Old April 3, 2024, 08:37 AM   #12
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,755
Quote:
I would love to, but Hodgdon does not list a single load for the 375 Weatherby with IMR 4350. They have one load for 375 H&H with IMR 4350.
Which is why I recommended H4350--which they do list (they also market IMR 4350, maybe that tells you something). You'd probably be OK with IMR 4350 (I've used them interchangeably with the knowledge they are not identical on smaller cartridges) but considering it's a large magnum I wouldn't swear on that for the big Weatherbys.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old April 3, 2024, 09:14 AM   #13
Rimfire5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 922
H4350 is temperature insensitive with about 8 fps change from 0 to 125 def F. (0.064 per deg. F which is pretty linear).
IMR4350 is temperature sensitive with about 155 fps change from 0 to 125 deg F. (1.24 fps per deg. F).
Most US load tables are based upon 59 deg. F. European tables are based upon 70 deg F. which complicates your choices a bit more.
Both are good powders, but the more you know about them, the better you can plan you reloads.
In my 6.5mm CMs, H4350 performs more accurately (0.322 for 273 5-round groups compared to 0.362 for 71 5-round groups).
As you can see, once I gathered statistically significant data, I shoot what is the most accurate.

If you live in a place with big temperature swings during the day, you have to pay attention to the temperature when you are loading a temperature sensitive powder, especially if you like to load near Pmax.
Rimfire5 is offline  
Old April 3, 2024, 10:06 AM   #14
GeauxTide
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2009
Location: Helena, AL
Posts: 4,423
I have both of Ackley's books and have 3 generations of Hornady Handbooks. As stated, get modern loading data.
__________________
Reloading For: 223R, 243W, 6.5 GR, 6.5 CM, 260R, 6.5-06, 280R, 7mmRM, 300HAM'R, 308W, 30-06, 338-06, 9mm, 357M, 41M, 44SPL, 44M, 45 ACP, 45 Colt, 450BM.
GeauxTide is offline  
Old April 3, 2024, 11:48 AM   #15
LeverGunFan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 407
The OP has lots of IMR 4350 powder and a Weatherby 375, but not much data for the combination of the two.

The P.O. Ackley books just list "4350" powder, which I recall was military surplus, not sure if that equates to the IMR 4350 or H4350 powders we have today.

The Hornady Handbook 7th and 9th editions have data for the 375 Weatherby with IMR 4350, for 270 and 300 grain bullets. I suspect that other editions of the Hornady Handbook have data for the 375 Weatherby also. Surprisingly it's not much different than P.O. Ackley's data. Unfortunately Hornady doesn't publish pressure data in their handbooks.

Quickload does support the 375 Weatherby and could be used to check the existing limited data for this combination, if all the program inputs are known.
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition
LeverGunFan is offline  
Old April 3, 2024, 01:08 PM   #16
1972RedNeck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 8, 2015
Posts: 192
Quote:
The P.O. Ackley books just list "4350" powder, which I recall was military surplus, not sure if that equates to the IMR 4350 or H4350 powders we have today.
In the section where he talks about powders used, Ackley says it is IMR 4350. And in other calibers, the 4350 load data is nearly identical to modern IMR 4350 load data.
1972RedNeck is offline  
Old April 4, 2024, 03:15 PM   #17
georgehwbush
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2023
Location: down town USA
Posts: 118
( Unfortunately Hornady doesn't publish pressure data in their handbooks.)

none of my nosler-7 hornady 19 21 23 books have a listing for the 357WbM but all have pressure data for other loads.
strange.
__________________
If you are not sure where your bullet will stop, then don't send it!
georgehwbush is offline  
Old April 4, 2024, 10:07 PM   #18
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 6,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1972RedNeck View Post
I recently got a copy of Ackley's "Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders". Has some loads for 375 Weatherby using IMR 4350, which I happen to have a lot of from several years back when it was all I could find (still can't find much of any 4350 in my LGSs).

Is today's IMR4350 the same as the IMR4350 from the 1950s? I will obviously start low and work up - I just want to make sure it's close enough to start with...
Ackley Data should be close if rifle is a WBY rifle with freebore.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old April 5, 2024, 08:33 AM   #19
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,057
CAUTION: The following post (or a page linked to) includes or discusses loading data not covered by currently published sources of tested data for this cartridge (QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool data is not professionally tested). USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1972RedNeck
I would love to, but Hodgdon does not list a single load for the 375 Weatherby with IMR 4350. They have one load for 375 H&H with IMR 4350.
My bad. They have H4350 listed. It's not the same, but it's very close on peak pressure for a given charge weight in this chambering. In GRT (for which both powders, but especially the H version, have received a fair amount of Pressure Trace feedback), with the 270-grain Speer bullet, multiplying the H4350 charge by 0.994 gives you a pressure matching IMR4350 load.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Old April 5, 2024, 01:45 PM   #20
1972RedNeck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 8, 2015
Posts: 192
Quote:
In GRT (for which both powders, but especially the H version, have received a fair amount of Pressure Trace feedback), with the 270-grain Speer bullet, multiplying the H4350 charge by 0.994 gives you a pressure matching IMR4350 load.
Thank you. I will add this into my safety checks for this cartridge.
1972RedNeck is offline  
Old April 5, 2024, 03:49 PM   #21
Paul B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,800
I don't know just how much help this might be but, when Ackley did his book, IMR 4350 was made by DuPont using nitrocellulose made with cotton linters here in the USA. DuPont later sold their powder manufacturing business to a company using the name IMR. IMR decided making nitrocellulose with cotton linters was too expensive and went to using wood, basically sawdust. It works just as well but it is my believe that it causer IMR 4350 to be a hair faster burning. You might not even notice it until approaching max loads.

One of my rifles is a .375 Chatfield-Taylor, also known as the .375 Taylor or .375/338 Win. Mag. Wildcat. I worked up a load for the270 and 300 gr. bullets using Ackely's data with the DuPont and IMR versions and reached Ackley's load level with both types with no apparent change in pressure other than a slight velocity loss with the current type of 4350.

Velocity was slightly higher than the .375 H&H and accuracy was superb. Velocity had very small extreme spreads. Recoil in my rifle which only weighs 7.5 pounds is rather substantial. I designed it that way for a steep mountain hunt in dark timer. That hunt never took place due to a falling uot with the outfitter. Still haave the rifle.

If I were working up a load for the .375 Wby and had only Ackley's data to work with, I'd drop back from his max by about 2.0 to 2.5 gr. and work back up a half grain at a time.
__________________
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
Paul B. is offline  
Old April 5, 2024, 04:55 PM   #22
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,057
Yes, the wood has resins in it, and they tend to make for less clean-burning nitrocellulose, so carbon fouling goes up, and the oxygen balance gets a little more negative, so energy conversion per unit weight drops a little. Lots of folks fall in love with Vihtavuori powders, despite their cost, just because they still make their own nitrocellulose from cotton, and it makes for cleaner-burning powders.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Old April 5, 2024, 05:46 PM   #23
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,755
Quote:
Yes, the wood has resins in it, and they tend to make for less clean-burning nitrocellulose, so carbon fouling goes up, and the oxygen balance gets a little more negative, so energy conversion per unit weight drops a little. Lots of folks fall in love with Vihtavuori powders, despite their cost, just because they still make their own nitrocellulose from cotton, and it makes for cleaner-burning powders.
I work a lot with conservation grade papers in printmaking--I have no idea if there is any relationship or not to the smokeless powder world--but paper made with pure cotton lignin is acid-free over time; whereas paper made with wood cellulose is highly prone to acidification unless buffered with other chemicals.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09379 seconds with 10 queries