.270 win. & IMR 4831
- Thread starter Jar Head
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #2
longwinters
Handloader
- Oct 10, 2004
- 1,476
- 1
Been there and done that 
Long
Long
Raul and Jar Head ,
I believe Jack O'Connor used H4831, not IMR 4831.
That's important — H 4831 burns slower than IMR 4831, and under no circumstances should you substitute grain per grain IMR 4831 for H 4831, especially when you're talking maximum loads (and O'Connor's loads 61/130 and 59/150 were beyond the maximums you'll find in most reloading manuals).
Brian
I believe Jack O'Connor used H4831, not IMR 4831.
That's important — H 4831 burns slower than IMR 4831, and under no circumstances should you substitute grain per grain IMR 4831 for H 4831, especially when you're talking maximum loads (and O'Connor's loads 61/130 and 59/150 were beyond the maximums you'll find in most reloading manuals).
Brian
Brian
in those days only du pont made 4831
if you see an old lyman reloading manual you can see that 4831 was a du pont powder adn was what Jcak used for his 270 .
loads for almost every caliber are a lot less today than older reoading manuals.
for example Remington loads his 7 mm Rem mag in the 60's with 70. gs for 150 gs bullet and 68 gs for 175 gs bullet .
this powder was 7828 which is the powder that du pont developed for the 7 mm mag .
if you see actual reloading manual you can see that these charges are out the limit for today , and in those days were factory loads.!!
in those days only du pont made 4831
if you see an old lyman reloading manual you can see that 4831 was a du pont powder adn was what Jcak used for his 270 .
loads for almost every caliber are a lot less today than older reoading manuals.
for example Remington loads his 7 mm Rem mag in the 60's with 70. gs for 150 gs bullet and 68 gs for 175 gs bullet .
this powder was 7828 which is the powder that du pont developed for the 7 mm mag .
if you see actual reloading manual you can see that these charges are out the limit for today , and in those days were factory loads.!!
- Nov 4, 2004
- 25,063
- 8,130
It known today as liability and the legal department.
JD338
JD338
I've used H-4831 with 150 nosler's and speer's for over 20 years. 57.5 grs. with either bullet. I get about 2800 f.p.s. I've only shot deer with that load, but it really knocks 'em flat. I recently switched to R-L 22. I get just over 2900 f.p.s. with those bullets, and it groups just as well.
Raul,
I think you're right about DuPont being the original manufacturer of 4831.
And wasn't that the propellant used in 20 mm cannon rounds? I seem to recall that Hodgdon picked up a ton of the stuff post WW-II and began repackaging it for sale to reloaders. When it ran out, they began to manufacture their own species of 4831, which turned out to be a little slower than the original DuPont batch.
Having said that, I'm looking at Ken Waters "Pet Loads" and page 96 contains a letter from O'Connor where he refers only to "No. 4831" (62 grs with a 130), but elsewhere on the page there is a single reference to "Hodgdon's No. 4831" with no mention in the article of IMR 4831. Thereafter, you see several references to "No. 4831", which I presume is Hodgdons. (It's as if IMR 4831 doesn't exist until you go to the next article, and find it in a table, with max loads of it 1.5 - 2 grs below H 4831.)
While I've gone as high as 61 grs of H 4831 with 130 gr. bullets in my 270 (a pre-64 M-70 Win Featherweight), that load loosens my primer pockets really quickly (like in one firing). So I stay at about 59.5 of H 4831. My comfort level would not allow me to go more than 58 grs of IMR 4831 with a 130 gr bullet, which accords pretty well with a table in Waters book and a variety of reloading manuals.
FWIW, I'm finding that my rifle loves 49.5 gr IMR 4320 with just about any 130 gr bullet. I get roughly 2925 fps out of that with a 22" barrel, and it is a tack driver.
Best regards,
Brian
I think you're right about DuPont being the original manufacturer of 4831.
And wasn't that the propellant used in 20 mm cannon rounds? I seem to recall that Hodgdon picked up a ton of the stuff post WW-II and began repackaging it for sale to reloaders. When it ran out, they began to manufacture their own species of 4831, which turned out to be a little slower than the original DuPont batch.
Having said that, I'm looking at Ken Waters "Pet Loads" and page 96 contains a letter from O'Connor where he refers only to "No. 4831" (62 grs with a 130), but elsewhere on the page there is a single reference to "Hodgdon's No. 4831" with no mention in the article of IMR 4831. Thereafter, you see several references to "No. 4831", which I presume is Hodgdons. (It's as if IMR 4831 doesn't exist until you go to the next article, and find it in a table, with max loads of it 1.5 - 2 grs below H 4831.)
While I've gone as high as 61 grs of H 4831 with 130 gr. bullets in my 270 (a pre-64 M-70 Win Featherweight), that load loosens my primer pockets really quickly (like in one firing). So I stay at about 59.5 of H 4831. My comfort level would not allow me to go more than 58 grs of IMR 4831 with a 130 gr bullet, which accords pretty well with a table in Waters book and a variety of reloading manuals.
FWIW, I'm finding that my rifle loves 49.5 gr IMR 4320 with just about any 130 gr bullet. I get roughly 2925 fps out of that with a 22" barrel, and it is a tack driver.
Best regards,
Brian
I couldn't shake my curiosity about when IMR 4831 was introduced to the public, and it turns out it wasn't until 1973 (thanks to Mike Daly at Hodgdon for the answer -- Hodgdon markets not only their propellants, but also Pyrodex, Triple Seven, IMR and Winchester Smokeless Powders).
I would have bet IMR 4831 had been around much longer than '73, but there you have it.
In any event, references to (unspecified) "4831" in manuals published prior to 1973 must be the slower burning H 4831, not the faster burning IMR 4831.
Be forewarned.
I would have bet IMR 4831 had been around much longer than '73, but there you have it.
In any event, references to (unspecified) "4831" in manuals published prior to 1973 must be the slower burning H 4831, not the faster burning IMR 4831.
Be forewarned.
raul":fzhuabgb said:
Raul, these loads far exceed any currently published data for IMR-4831 with the listed weight bullets. I believe it would be quite risky to suggest that someone use these loads. I have used H-4831 for many years in the .270, and it is more similar to the old surplus 4831 in burn rate than the IMR powder that is sold to the public. In fact in my rifle, with Remington brass the max load of H-4831 with 130 Nos. BT's is 59.5 g.
