H4831sc in a .243
- Thread starter Killzone
- Start date
With that grain bullet in .243, H-4350 or Reloader 19 works well.
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
I use about 44 grains (regular h4831) in a Ruger bolt gun. Start few grains lower...the partitions might generate more pressure than what I tried (Sierra Gamekinks or Power points).
I find the .243 starts grouping as the loads get hotter.
I find the .243 starts grouping as the loads get hotter.
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
Hodgdon has 42 gr of H4831 as a max load for 100gr. bullets.....I guess I should of blown up sometime last year. Bruce would of blown long before that. 
IIRC, my max load for the 6mm Remington was around 49 grains of H4831 with the 100 Partition. The 243 is usually good for about 3 grains less. I do know that I was using 43.5 grains of IMR4350 in a 243 with the 100. Always approach from below safely, each rifle is a law unto itself. Additionally, some lots of the old surplus H4831 were a bit slower than others. The manuals seem a bit "soft" in this chambering lately. Be safe! Eagleye.
Hi. H4831sc is the same thing as H4831. Only difference is the length of the granules to make metering better. Haven't ever used it myself. IMR4350 works well with heavy bullets.
44.0 is 2 full grains over max for a 100 grain bullet according to Hodgdon's site. Mind you, an old 23rd Edition Hodgdon manual I have does give 44.0 as the starting load for a 90 or 100 grain bullet. I've found some glaring errors on their site for other cartridges, as well. E-Mailed 'em about it and got no response.
44.0 is 2 full grains over max for a 100 grain bullet according to Hodgdon's site. Mind you, an old 23rd Edition Hodgdon manual I have does give 44.0 as the starting load for a 90 or 100 grain bullet. I've found some glaring errors on their site for other cartridges, as well. E-Mailed 'em about it and got no response.
I tend to lean in the favour of the older manuals. It seems that before we had computers that checked our grammar and spelling, so that we could ignore it, it was more impt to compile and proof-read the text to ensure that it was correct before the type was set. Today, no one really cares, as is referenced by the glaring errors made in sentence structure, grammar, spelling by billion-dollar ad agencies, books printed with gross spelling errors, magazine articles that are barely readable due to such glaring mistakes. That's the reason i stick tho the older data. It is more reliable and the lawyers haven't gotten to it yet. People still had a little common sense.
