Given how close they are on the burn rate chart, what would be your thoughts on subbing one for the other? I can't get the IMR4350 locally for love nor money, but I can get the H4350. They are one on top of the other on my burn rate chart, and my instinct is that they'd be similar enough to interchange. I'm reloading for a 6.5 X 55 Swede and in the process of load development for hunting season. I have the Lyman reloading manual and since (according to the manual) the IMR is only slightly faster than the Hodgdon, would it not be safe to use the IMR data maybe up a grain for the Hodgdon? I don't load to max in any calibre, so 1-1/2 to 2 grains under max listed should still have me safe. Any experienced input would be most appreciated.
IMR 4350 vs. H4350 question
- Thread starter LawrenceN
- Start date
- Location
- Newmarket,Ontario
I don't know what bullet you are developing a load for but I put the data in the Hodgson site for both IMR4350 and H4350 and a 160gr bullet,it came out with the same load on each powder for the Swede.
I prefer H4350 as its not temp sensitve - Hornady uses it in all there 6.5 factory loads too - RJ
Just a word of warning that not all H and IMR powders are as close.
Also two powders being close to each other on the burn rate chart doesn't tell you anything about how similar they really are; just that there isn't a common powder between the two.
H and IMR 4198 are also quite close, as are H and IMR 4895, but H and IMR 4831 are not nearly as close so swapping the two for the same data can be dangerous. Using the two 4831's in a .300WM I used to load for, the loads that produced the same velocity in the same rifle with the same components were a full 3gr apart.
Comparing data between the two from the same source and for the same bullet weight+construction is a good way to check.
Also two powders being close to each other on the burn rate chart doesn't tell you anything about how similar they really are; just that there isn't a common powder between the two.
H and IMR 4198 are also quite close, as are H and IMR 4895, but H and IMR 4831 are not nearly as close so swapping the two for the same data can be dangerous. Using the two 4831's in a .300WM I used to load for, the loads that produced the same velocity in the same rifle with the same components were a full 3gr apart.
Comparing data between the two from the same source and for the same bullet weight+construction is a good way to check.
Does anyone know who stocks IMR4350 and/or H4350? I've only been reloading for a few months now but this powder almost seems mythical for me. Actually, I should check that - generally when I'm browsing stock I'm usually taking a pass to look for IMR4350, and less so, H4350. That said, haven't seen either yet...
Another alternative is IMR-4451, it's burn rate fall's right in between IMR-4350 & H-4350. I have been using it in my target rifle (.260rem with 140gr pill's & have had great result's)...
- Location
- Alberta, North America
Same here - same results in 270 and 30-06
Sales of Pdent
Member
- Location
- Edmonton, Alberta
We have H4350, but no Imr. Give us a call on Monday for our fill powder list, you'll likely be surprised with some of the goodies we've recently gotten in.
Subbing one for the other is fine but not using the same data. Difference is basically squat, but the 'H' takes about 1 grain less powder for very similar velocities and pressures. Some max loads have identical pressures. Makes you wonder why Hodgdon keeps 'em both in the line up.
As long as you work up the load from a starting load, while watching for pressure signs, using the same data should not cause any issues.
