neal7250
Member
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?
H-414
- Thread starter neal7250
- Start date
- Status
MMCSRET
Member
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.
Mikee Loxxer
Member
I loaded a bunch of 7.5 X54 using H414. I found it to be pretty sooty.
neal7250
Member
Thanks for the replies
Steve in PA
Member
I settled on H414 several years ago for reloading my .30/06 for hunting. Great powder.
Bad Flynch
Member
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.
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.
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
Darryl
neal7250
Member
I tried it out wit the core lock, and it was on the money.
Grumulkin
Member
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.
Bad Flynch
Member
>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.
Easiest solution to that problem is an RCBS electronic powder dispensing system. It is an incredible gadget.
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.
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.
Jim Watson
Member
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.
neal7250
Member
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.
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.
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.
neal7250
Member
I'm goig to tyr the 760 too.
Grumulkin
Member
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.
GooseGestapo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,149
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).
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).
- Status
