Powder substitutions or comparables?

0

0neshot

Member
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
PEI
Considering the component challenges we are all facing in the drought brought on by our kin to the south, I propose a few questions or topics for discussion. I have had some discussions with folks about the interchangeable nature of the Hodgdon and IMR powders of the same number designation, and to some extent Aliant powders. The consensus is that IMR being owned by Hodgdon these powders are the same only packaged different. Examples given being H4198 to IMR4198 and H4350 to IMR4350, there are others but these numbers being what is in my hoarded stock pile. If you reference Hodgdon's current burn rate chart they are usually next to one and other respectively. The quandary comes from the reloading manuals saying that these specific powders aren't interchangeable for load recipes. For the general community would anyone like to share their personal experiences interchanging these numbers in their recipes? I am quite sure with the shortage, new recipes are being formulated using burn rate charts to find suitable substitutes for favourite loads with new and exciting results. Example being IMR4451 for IMR4350 or H414 being on the extreme side... Any tips or experiences anyone would like to post would be helpful to many, to keep things safe and productive in the tough times. Hand loaders are tinkerers at heart, and we can't help but wonder "what if?". Experience and wisdom from the old dogs could help us all keep our hands and fingers.

It goes without saying that all and any posts in this thread are discussion only and not to be taken as "gospel" and no liability should be imparted by what you read on the net.
 
Last edited:
I recently found 8 pounds of Alliant RL 17, which is advertised as have a similar burn rate to 4350,
after a few trips to the range with my 300 WSM, I found that the exact same charge of IMR 4350 which I was previously using,
was also the magic number for RL 17.

63.2 grains of either, behind a 180 grain bullet, will put the holes in the same place on paper in my rifle.
The only difference was the RL 17 was producing slightly higher velocities according to my crony,
which is consistent with Alliant's claims.
(3000 fps vs 3050 fps) with a 180 grain bullet.

The only issue is both powders are hard to find., but now I can save my stash IMR4350 for my 30-06's.

Supposedly, Winchester 760 is the same as H414, and Varget is very close to IMR 4064.
But, as others will tell you, always start low and work up.

And ultimately, what works in one rifle may not work in another.
 
Last edited:
I use a lot of powders, and about half of them are non-canister powders. I have to develop a load for each of them.

IMR vs H4350 might be a bit different. But the difference between two lot numbers can be significant. And the jug you have had open fro the last year will be different than a new, fresh jug.

But the big difference is your rifle vs the one used to make the loading manual.

So don't sweat it. Start low, make 10 of each in 0.3 or 0.5 increments and load up. Test for accuracy/velocity and be prepared to see pressure signs and to stop. Bring the hot ones home and pull the bullets.


For the last three years I have been using an unknown non-canister pistol powder. It is around Unique in speed and meters very well. I got 32 pounds of it at a good price and proceeded to work out loads for each pistol caliber. I really like it, but have no idea what it is, so can't get any more.
 
IMR powders are made at the General Dynamics plant in Quebec. Hodgdon powders are made at different plants all over the place (several are made by ADI in Australia but they also have domestic US production). Some powders with the same numbers are very close (like 4198 and 4895) and I've swapped load data from one to the other from starting loads. Other powders are actually quite different in burn rate (4831 for example) and the data usually shows that. Alliant powders likewise are made by different plants. Some is made by Bofors in Sweden and others are made by ADI in Australia like some Hodgdon powders. Some Alliant powders are also made at one of the US military ammunition facilities that ADK Orbital/Vista Outdoors (Alliant parent company) has contracts for military ammunition at. I've never heard of an Alliant powder that is the same as a Hodgdon powder but it wouldn't surprise me.

Sometimes two powders are exactly the same and just packaged differently but as far as I know that's never the case with H and IMR powders (at least not the rifle powders). I know ADI does sell a number of powders that are the same as Hodgdon powders (AR2207 and H4198 for example). Some powders are even made by different plants but sold as the same. I've heard multiple times that Australian Varget is VERY different from US/Canadian Varget; much more than can be explained as lot-to-lot variations like Ganderite mentioned.

ADI has a powder equivalency chart here: http://www.adi-powders.com.au/handloaders/equivalents.asp
Keep in mind though that these are estimates, I wouldn't just go swapping powders for load data without taking a very close look at published loads for the same powders in different cartridges.
 
Varget and IMR 4064 are similar? I have both and none of the loads in any of the books that I have for the calibers I have are even close.

not dissing you at all, I am just trying to understand as I am new.
 
JR Hartman said:
Varget and IMR 4064 are similar? I have both and none of the loads in any of the books that I have for the calibers I have are even close.

not dissing you at all, I am just trying to understand as I am new.
Click to expand...
You're hardly dissing me, you're dissing the chart ;)
The chart says they are estimates meant to be within about 5% of each other. It's not saying load data can be interchanged between powders considered equivalents but just that their burn rate is roughly within 5%.

The same powder can react differently in different cartridges as well. I looked up Varget and IMR4064 data on the Hodgdon data site for a 168gr bullet in a .308 Win and the start load is 0.5gr apart and the max load is only 0.1gr apart. That's pretty damn close.
Perhaps in different cartridges or bullet weights the difference would be larger. There can also be huge differences for the same loads in different manuals. There are dozens of major variables that could be different between the two labs that developed the loads which can account for this.

It also says Unique and SR-7625 are similar but I can assure you my bottles of those two aren't interchangeable (but is that a lot-inconsistency or an actual difference in burn rate? I don't know.)

At the end of the day, you can find load data for pretty much any conventional cartridge/bullet/powder combination with components available to us Canadians (remember to load for bullet construction and weight, not specific brand). Unless you buy some odd-ball surplus powder like Ganderite does, you can just look up load data for your powder.

The situations where I personally swapped IMR and H powders was with the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook. This book has a lot of reduced loads for cast bullets that use powders in rifle cartridges you wont see many other places. Lots of fast small rifle cartridge powders as well as shotgun and pistol powders in big cases like 45-70, 300WM, etc. For whatever reason they only seem to have done load development with IMR powders, not H, but since from my personal experience I know 4198 and 4895 are fairly close between the two I just swap from the starting loads and work up as normal. Starting loads are usually quite a bit below max pressure so there is a large margin of error and even if there isn't, all decent quality modern firearms are quite overbuilt so can survive a few rounds a little over max (enough to tell you to stop, pull the bullets, and reduce the charge). Cast loads are significantly below normal pressures (sometimes 1/2 or 1/3 max pressure) so there is a huge margin for error. Worst-case scenario I push the cast bullets too fast and get some leading that I need to scrub out of the bore. A Secondary Explosive Effect or SEE has only ever been replicated in a lab with slow magnum rifle powders which I don't use for any reduced loads so that isn't really a concern.
 
Last edited:
JR Hartman said:
Varget and IMR 4064 are similar? I have both and none of the loads in any of the books that I have for the calibers I have are even close.

not dissing you at all, I am just trying to understand as I am new.
Click to expand...

WHAT????
Just look at the figures from Hodgdon on line, for a 308 Winchester with 165 grain bullet, with 4064 and Varget compared.

Vargot Start 42, max 46 grains, velocity 2773, pressure 50,500 CUP
4064 " 42 " 46.3 " " 2767 " 59,700 PSI.

The only difference between the two powders shown is that Varget is in CUP, while 4064 is shown in PSI.
We do not know which powder produces the most powder, because there is no direct scale between the two methods of measuring pressure.

So how close do you expect two powders to be?
Do you really think you could determine which powder you were using, judging by performance?
 
JR Hartman said:
well, from the .223 data in the Lee manual, they are not close. I don't load .308, hence, I have never looked closely at those numbers.
Click to expand...

Here are the figures from Hodgdon on line.
4064--223-- - 55 gr bullet--25.1 grs. powder---3149 vel. @ 51,700 psi.
Varget " " " " --23. " " ----2945 " @ 44,800 "

Don't you think that 2 more grains of Varget would bring both the velocity and the pressure up to near identical with the figures for 4064?
I call those two powders very close to the same.
 
well, I had no idea you could extrapolate up and down. Like I said, very new to this.

those numbers are quite different to me, 200 fps speeds and nearly 7000 psi difference, but again, new. :) thanks.
 
Varget and 4064 are similar in speed and can be used interchangeably. That actual loads will be different, but if you run out of one, use the other.

But how can anyone say 4198 and 4895 are close? !!! "but since from my personal experience I know 4198 and 4895 are fairly close" They are so far apart they have different applications.

Oh. I get it you mean IMR 4198 is close to H 4198. Yes, I agree. But scary grammar there.
 
You can extrapolate up and down but, any experimentation should be done at reduced volumes 10% is the norm. Loads are worked up from there. I always start 5%-10% lower than min cause I am usually working with powder and bullet combinations that either aren't in my books or I am substituting a powder that is close in properties to the books recipe. You can never be too safe when reloading in my opinion.
 
There are a number of powders that overlap one another in application and in the various loading charts.

But, it is good practice to always start a bit lower and work up carefully to be sure that you do not get an unpleasant surprise.

For example, in middle of the burning range extruded powders we have: Varget, IMR and H 4895, IMR 4064, IMR 4007, IMR 4320, Vihtavuori N140 & N540, Norma 202, & 203B,
Alliant Reloder 15 [not a comprehensive list, btw]...then a goodly number of sphericals that are in the same range. I can understand a neophyte reloader being a bit confused.

Regards, Dave.
 
Yes, I just neglected to state the common sense rule to increase the powder at no more than a grain at a time.
I once bought four pounds of Herter's #100 powder. To this day I have never seen a single loading chart on any of Herter's powder. There was just their advertising that stated it was their slowest burning powder. I have about half of one can left over, but I reloaded the other 3 1/2 pounds, making full power loads for three different calibres. I found it to be just a hair faster than IMR4350. In the 30-06 it was about as good as any other powder.
 
Ganderite said:
But how can anyone say 4198 and 4895 are close? !!! "but since from my personal experience I know 4198 and 4895 are fairly close" They are so far apart they have different applications.

Oh. I get it you mean IMR 4198 is close to H 4198. Yes, I agree. But scary grammar there.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, yes, I should have worded that differently perhaps. Not terribly precise on the meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom