Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

H-414

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by neal7250, Mar 14, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. neal7250

    neal7250 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Location:
    Upstate South Carolina
    I was looking for a powder to replace IMR 4064, because it dosen't meter well through a Dillon powder measure. I was told that H-414 is a great replacment. Has anyone used this as a rifle powder?
     
  2. MMCSRET

    MMCSRET Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,971
    Location:
    North Central Montana, across the Wide Missouri
    H414 is a very versatile powder. I use it in 270 and 338 win mag specifically because it does flow so well. Burning rate is right close to the 4350 family.
     
  3. Mikee Loxxer

    Mikee Loxxer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Location:
    Lincoln NE
    I loaded a bunch of 7.5 X54 using H414. I found it to be pretty sooty.
     
  4. neal7250

    neal7250 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Location:
    Upstate South Carolina
    Thanks for the replies
     
  5. Steve in PA

    Steve in PA Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,574
    Location:
    NE PA
    I settled on H414 several years ago for reloading my .30/06 for hunting. Great powder.
     
  6. Bad Flynch

    Bad Flynch Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    494
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    I have used a lot of H-414. It is virtually the same as WW760, differing only by lot blending specs. It burns in the IMR4350 category in most cases.

    I have found that it will be a little sooty if you do not use near-maximum loads. That is not necessarily bad, because it likes to shoot best right up against the wire.

    Formerly, I used it in .308 Win match loads with standard primers. However, some loads might need hotter primers, such as Winchester LR or even magnums on occasion. That .308 load was incredibly accurate, even if it was right against the max.
     
  7. Galil5.56

    Galil5.56 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,101
    My favorite in .243, and I like it a lot in 06 too. I have found mag primers to make a very big difference in accuracy. Meters like water, and good load density at max charges. Pretty much has replaced 4350 for me.
     
  8. kk5ib

    kk5ib Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    35
    My favorite 30-06 load, 56.0 grs H-414 with Hornady or Remington Core-Lokt 165 gr and CCI 250 Mag primers. Has shot better than anything else I have tried in two rifles, a Ruger M77 old model and a newer Remington 7400. I think it's standard Speer 13 or 14 max load.
    Darryl
     
  9. neal7250

    neal7250 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Location:
    Upstate South Carolina
    I tried it out wit the core lock, and it was on the money.
     
  10. Grumulkin

    Grumulkin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,587
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    H414 is not "virtually the same as WW760" but is EXACTLY the same as WW760. I have personally confirmed this with Hodgdon. If you would like written proof of this, you need only peruse the 2008 issue of Hodgdon's reloading magazine. You will find that when H414 is listed for a load that Winchester 760 is also listed for the same load with IDENTICAL pressures, velocities, etc.
     
  11. Bad Flynch

    Bad Flynch Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    494
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    >I was looking for a powder to replace IMR 4064, because it dosen't meter well <

    Easiest solution to that problem is an RCBS electronic powder dispensing system. It is an incredible gadget.
     
  12. ranger335v

    ranger335v Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,797
    "Easiest solution to that problem is an RCBS electronic powder dispensing system. It is an incredible gadget."

    IMHO, all such are incrediably expensive solutions to a non-problem. But, if gadgets are what floats your boat the folks at RCBS sure can use the money.
     
  13. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    22,840
    Strangely enough, even though Hodgdon says H414 is Win 760, in MY .22.-250 I have to use magnum primers with H414 to get as good accuracy as 760 with standard. Or maybe I just haven't shot enough to get a statistically valid comparison. But 414 - magnum works so well, I probably won't bother.
     
  14. neal7250

    neal7250 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Location:
    Upstate South Carolina
    I was looking for a powder to replace IMR 4064, because it dosen't meter well <

    Easiest solution to that problem is an RCBS electronic powder dispensing system. It is an incredible gadget.
    __________________
    I do own an electric powder dispenser, and at times when I'm using a rock chucker, I use it. But when you're using a progressive press such as a dillon, extruded powders, such as IMR 4064, do not meter as well as ball, or sperical powders.
     
  15. steve4102

    steve4102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,452
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Data for 760 and 414 according to Hodgdon may be identical, but is not identical in every other manual I own.
    For example: Sierra #5, 300WSM 135gr Pro Hunter. 760 max, 72gr at 3400fps, H414 max 68.8gr at 3300fps. 300WSM 150gr, 760 69gr 3150fps, H414 66.3gr 3100fps.
    Speer, 300WSM 180gr bullet, 760 65gr Max at 2941, H414 64gr at 2939.
    Nosler #6, 30-06 200gr bullet, 760 52gr Max at 2568fps, H414 53gr Max. at 2560. 300WM 165/168gr bullet, 760 67gr Max at 3026fps, H414 69gr Max at 3140fps.

    This list could go on and on. In many cases data is identical and in many more it isn't even close. IMO they were NOT the same powder when these manuals were written.
     
  16. neal7250

    neal7250 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Location:
    Upstate South Carolina
    I'm goig to tyr the 760 too.
     
  17. Grumulkin

    Grumulkin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,587
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    I'm aware of that but since Hodgdon distributes both powders, they should know. There is absolutely no way they could get identical numbers for both powders if the data wasn't from the same powder collected at the same time.

    Also, take a look at the maximum loads in other manuals when both Win. 760 & H414 are listed. You will find that they are very similar.

    Furthermore, you can't take velocities/loads in the Hornady manual with Win. 760 and compare it to loads with H414 in the Speer manual. The types of barrels, primers, etc. used vary from manual to manual.
     
  18. steve4102

    steve4102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,452
    Location:
    Minnesota

    Never did that. The loads I posted are from the same manual, same page, same brass, same primer etc. Speer to Speer, Hornady to Hornady and so on.
     
  19. GooseGestapo

    GooseGestapo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,391
    Location:
    W.GA
    What you are seeing it the Lot-to-Lot# variation. Making the powder is a very complex operation with many possible variables. Some powders seem to be inclined to greater lot# variance, especially the spherical or "ball" type powders.

    I've shot more Win231/HP-38 and Bullseye than any other powders. I've seen as much as 5% variation in density/energetics/velocity/pressure with the extruded type powders (ie:Bullseye- a "flake" type extruded powder). However, with Win231/HP38, I've seen variations greater than 10% regarding the aforementioned criteria.

    One batch of Win231 I aquired and exhausted in the mid-late 90's was exceptional regarding accuracy. I won numerous matches, and tied or established several National records in NRA PPC with that "batch". After it was gone, my averages took a noticeable "dive" and I haven't been able to duplicate the results since. However, the Bullseye I use now, occasionally approaches the performance of that single lot# of Win231.

    So, even it the powders are the same (they are), you'll still see the published data difference due to different lot#'s. This is why all the manuals state that anytime you change ANY component, even Lot#'s, you should rework the data. Kinda of an extream precaution, one I frequently ignore with my match level pistol/revolver loads, but a valid precaution nevertheless.

    Want talk about some differences in rifle loads?, try some BL-C2 manuf'd in late 70's and compare with some made last year !!!!! (Hint, as much as a 10% difference in max. loads with ALL other components and rifle the same). The latest lot# is VERY much slower burning and hence higher charge weights, and higher velocities than the previous lot. Also, note that the max recommended charge weights on Win760/H414 are as much as 5% higher than they used to be. IE: Hodgdon used to recommend 58.0gr as max with a 150gr .308 bullet in .30/06. Then, it went to 60gr, now it's at 61.0gr.
    Quite a difference when we are talking old CUP data vs. current PSI data which has caused most other power/data to go in the opposite direction(reduced charge weights and velocities).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page