Thread: The Importance of Using the Right Data

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

What you write re proof powders / loads may very well be correct, but I hazard it is a guess. How do we know what powders and loads are used ? Perhaps common powders are used. It would be useful to me if pressure was always quoted in load data so that I knew how close to 65,000 I was. Certainly some load data does quote pressure. I thought O'Conner used IMR4831 not H, anyway I dont really like 2213, just used it as an example.

Greetings Moa Hunter,
IMR4831 was not offered to the public until the early 1970's. The original powder, although made by Dupont, was clearly slower and some comparative tests have shown this. Originally called just 4831 the H prefix was added when IMR4831 appeared. O'Connor developed his loads. In a letter to Ken Waters in the mid 1960,s O'Connor referred to the powder as No4831, clearly the Hodgdon offering. The Hodgdon/ ADI quotes pressure either in CUP or PSI for almost all their load data, one reason why I prefer it.
Regards Grandpamac.

Originally Posted by Padox

What's the difference between 2213 and 2213sc found a tin of ar2213

Greetings Padox,
AR2213 is a little faster than AR2213SC/ H4831SC and a little slower than IMR4831. It was manufactured from about 1986 and discontinued about 2000 but the last powder was likely made earlier than that. You will likely struggle to find much data for it and none of it will be recent. There was some data in the ADI November 2000 Handloaders Guide including some that is extra hot to dangerous. Lawn fertilizer perhaps?
Regards Grandpamac.

Greetings All,
The weather today is all warm and horrible in Hawkes Bay and the white flag was run up on splitting firewood early on. I thought it might be interesting to look at the variations in load data for H4831/ AR2213SC to see if it had become faster, slower or stayed the same over the 70 plus years it had been available. Yes tragic I know but that is how my mind works. I drew on data form O'Connor, John Barsness, Ken Waters, Terry Wieland and the Hodgdon on line data. To stop sending everyone who has not flicked to another thread to sleep I'll keep it brief.
The original post war surplus No 4831 and the new manufacture H4831 about 1972 to 1995 is pretty close in speed and performance. John Barsness chronographed loads for WW2 surplus No 4831 in 2015 which agreed with those from the 1960's.The later H4831, H4831SC and AR2213SC manufactured by ADI is slightly slower. One of O'Connor's loads, 60 grains of No 4831 with 130 grain partition in Win case, chronographed and pressure tested by Remington produced 51,200 CUP in the 1960's. Current Hodgdon data for 60 grains of ADI H4831 with 130 grain Hornady Spire point produced 51,000 CUP in the mid 1990,s. Velocity was a little less with the latter. IMR4831 is a lot faster.
It is interesting that a powder that is 70 plus years old and on it's third manufacturer has changed so little. A lot of the newer powders have not done as well.
Regards Grandpamac.

Those loads you have listed for the 264 with 129gr Hogdon data are piss weak. I have used nick Harvey’s data and worked up to safe maximums in my rifle.

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Greetings Moa Hunter,
IMR4831 was not offered to the public until the early 1970's. The original powder, although made by Dupont, was clearly slower and some comparative tests have shown this. Originally called just 4831 the H prefix was added when IMR4831 appeared. O'Connor developed his loads. In a letter to Ken Waters in the mid 1960,s O'Connor referred to the powder as No4831, clearly the Hodgdon offering. The Hodgdon/ ADI quotes pressure either in CUP or PSI for almost all their load data, one reason why I prefer it.
Regards Grandpamac.

What I meant in my former post about 'a guess' was regarding the powders used for proofing. Personally my guess is that the powder used for proof loads would be similar in burn rate to the powders that are expected to be used by ammo manufacturers and potentially reloaders in that cartridge. Thankyou for the info on powders, any info that helps keep us safe is welcome. I have some of the older early 90's 2213 and wondered why my results dont match other peoples results - now I know.

@NRT are you just trying to be obnoxious? with your who fucken cares posts? Dump 20 grains of 231 in ya .223 or whatever you shoot, go on do it! who fucken cares indeed, while your at it plug the barrel wi th some mud and get behind the butt and shoot it.

Most people on here actually do care and want to pass on good advice, but go on, who fucken cares.

Originally Posted by johnd

@NRT are you just trying to be obnoxious? with your who fucken cares posts? Dump 20 grains of 231 in ya .223 or whatever you shoot, go on do it! who fucken cares indeed, while your at it plug the barrel wi th some mud and get behind the butt and shoot it.

Most people on here actually do care and want to pass on good advice, but go on, who fucken cares.

Just for John who cares just have 20 thou of lands should be right

Sent from my Nokia 7 plus using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by NRT

Just for John who cares just have 20 thou of lands should be right

Sent from my Nokia 7 plus using Tapatalk

Does NRT stand for 'Not Really There' ? Making fun of safety advice is pretty retarded IMO.

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Greetings Padox,
AR2213 is a little faster than AR2213SC/ H4831SC and a little slower than IMR4831. It was manufactured from about 1986 and discontinued about 2000 but the last powder was likely made earlier than that. You will likely struggle to find much data for it and none of it will be recent. There was some data in the ADI November 2000 Handloaders Guide including some that is extra hot to dangerous. Lawn fertilizer perhaps?
Regards Grandpamac.

the SC stands for short cut.....it wouldve been more accurate label if had been CS for cut shorter..the logs of powder for want of better term are cut into shorter rings...to continue wood analogy..... it metered better and one particular market??? asked for it so it became the norm.... Ive had old 2213...and have data for it.... new 2213SC AND OLD H4831 and actually some dupont 4831 THANKYOU THANKYOU THANKYOU Grandpamac cause you confirmed what I thought...its just plain ol h4831........before it got the h......I had tested it in loads in poohseventy BEFORE the fatal cockup and it preformed same as my 2213sc and h4831...now before you get all hot under collar....I was confident it was 4831 and to best of my knowledge there is only two types,it looks just like my H4831...strangely enough with 140grn weight in poohseventy either type of powder runs similar charge weight..so I picked start for hotter which was middle ground for other....loads were fine... and still are.

Originally Posted by NRT

Talk who cares I want victims from bad reloading it's a crock of shit ,what sticky bolt or fucken jaw off doesn't happen urban myth .

Sent from my Nokia 7 plus using Tapatalk

I can show you a sticky bolt...its stuck on my wall with the case still stuck inside the end of it....and it will stay there....scarey experience I can tell you.... Im not sure if you having a bad day or are completely off your meds but man you need to take a long hard look at what you have posted..... and while you looking at urban myth.....drop a 20ga shot shell into your 12ga then put 12ga shell in and shut action.....if that doesnt put screaming shits up you when you consider what would happen if trigger was pulled....you shouldnt be any where near a firearm of any sort....

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

What you write re proof powders / loads may very well be correct, but I hazard it is a guess. How do we know what powders and loads are used ? Perhaps common powders are used. It would be useful to me if pressure was always quoted in load data so that I knew how close to 65,000 I was. Certainly some load data does quote pressure. I thought O'Conner used IMR4831 not H, anyway I dont really like 2213, just used it as an example.

2213sc...h4831sc is great powder in the ol poohseventy..... I started using it when had trouble getting win 760...... that meters so much easier.... the adi site has pressures beside the load data and it can be enlightening..... good exzample was mild loads for the 45/70 same speed load with 2208 has way lower pressure than with trailboss ...scratched my head a bit and looked around and other sources say same thing....
with recent cock up....if have choice between two loads for same velocity on paper the one with lowest pressure will be used by me from now on.....

MD, H4831 or AR2213 either original or SC are not the same as DuPont IMR4831. IMR 4831 is slightly quicker in burn rate.

yes I do realise they are diferent.......Ive got older container of dupont 4831.......which IS the same as the milserp reclaimed H4831 and is VERY close to same as new ar2213sc except grains are grey and logs are longer ...... check 140grn data and you may see what I mean about the closeness if the IMR stuff.....its not for other projectile weights...a bizarre anomaly maybe...

Originally Posted by NRT

Talk who cares I want victims from bad reloading it's a crock of shit ,what sticky bolt or fucken jaw off doesn't happen urban myth .

Sent from my Nokia 7 plus using Tapatalk

I think this sort of attitude in the in the forum and especially the reloading section is stupid and dangerous. What other misinformation is this user spewing out.
This sort of thing should bring the ban hammer.

Originally Posted by blair993

I think this sort of attitude in the in the forum and especially the reloading section is stupid and dangerous. What other misinformation is this user spewing out.
This sort of thing should bring the ban hammer.

That right Princess

Sent from my Nokia 7 plus using Tapatalk