Imr 4227 /h4227??

[savagelover]

After reading so many different post about what one is made where,one being the old on being the new,. I'm still wondering if the data is interchangeable??. Any body have any information about this. I have 3 lbs of the imr 4227 and some load data calls for h 4227. I'm confused...

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I had wondered that about the 4895's. So i started digging through my library. And looked for loads where each was listed for the same cartrige and bullet.

 

[savagelover]

I had wondered that about the 4895's. So i started digging through my library. And looked for loads where each was listed for the same cartrige and bullet.

I have used both of the 4895's think I started a grain lower with the H4895. Had no problem.

 

[ballman6711]

I was on the phone with Hodgdon a while back, and they confirmed that IMR 4227 and H 4227 were interchangeable/identical and data for either could be used. The pic above is what I wrote on the bottle, including the name of the tech and the date I spoke with him.

As always, verify for yourself.

chris

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

View attachment 1089388

I was on the phone with Hodgdon a while back, and they confirmed that IMR 4227 and H 4227 were interchangeable/identical and data for either could be used. The pic above is what I wrote on the bottle, including the name of the tech and the date I spoke with him.

As always, verify for yourself.

chris

And remember when changing powders to drop back 10% from your known good load and work back up to an accuracy point you're happy with. Swapping between the H's and IMR's ought to be treated just like changing powder lots. It's more than just that - lot change - but treating it like that is close enough for government work.

 

[Charlie98]

And remember when changing powders to drop back 10% from your known good load and work back up to an accuracy point you're happy with. Swapping between the H's and IMR's ought to be treated just like changing powder lots. It's more than just that - lot change - but treating it like that is close enough for government work.

That was going to be my suggestion, sort of. 10% is quite a bit... that could be 4grns or more in a typical rifle cartridge, and actually take you back under the published starting load in some instances. It depends on where your current load is... is it pushing max data? ...or is it a moderate load (based on published data?)

I have used both of the 4895's think I started a grain lower with the H4895. Had no problem.

Funny thing...

I've always used IMR4895 to load 150grn/.30-06 for my M1 Garand. They must have been out, so I grabbed a can of H4895. I just dropped one grain... from 47grn IMR4895 to 46grn H4895, because I didn't feel like doing a complete workup on a cheapo blasting load. What showed up was a bit higher velocity with 1grn LESS H, than IMR.

IMR and H 4895's are definitely 2 different powders, but not so dissimilar that they aren't close...

Moral of the story is... yes, I would drop back, how much depends on the load that's being replaced, and verify what you have before you go crazy and load 100 rounds up.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

That was going to be my suggestion, sort of. 10% is quite a bit... that could be 4grns or more in a typical rifle cartridge, and actually take you back under the published starting load in some instances. It depends on where your current load is... is it pushing max data? ...or is it a moderate load (based on published data?)



Funny thing...

I've always used IMR4895 to load 150grn/.30-06 for my M1 Garand. They must have been out, so I grabbed a can of H4895. I just dropped one grain... from 47grn IMR4895 to 46grn H4895, because I didn't feel like doing a complete workup on a cheapo blasting load. What showed up was a bit higher velocity with 1grn LESS H, than IMR.

IMR and H 4895's are definitely 2 different powders, but not so dissimilar that they aren't close...

Moral of the story is... yes, I would drop back, how much depends on the load that's being replaced, and verify what you have before you go crazy and load 100 rounds up.

Good point. I tend to go back to starting load.

 

[Mr_Flintstone]

I was also told by Hodgdon that data could be used interchangeably since the burn rates and densities for the two powders were so close. They did say to make sure to start low and work up since a lot of older data is still out there.

 

[Y-T71]

I don't use those powders so I really don't have a horse in this race but, it would seem disastrous (at best) to have 2 powders that were so distinctly different in performance yet so similar in name that, aside from working up to a familiar, safe load from a new lot #; (which should be SOP), deadly consequences could be the result of interchanging their data.

IOW, any changes in performance between the "H" and the "IMR" versions should be within the ranges of performance that you would expect find simply within different lot #'s.

Again, I don't use those powders so I may be completely out of line but there are just way too many knuckleheads out there for a company that wants to stay in business more than a couple of weeks to find such a situation acceptable.

 

[25-20 WCF]

…Again, I don't use those powders so I may be completely out of line but there are just way too many knuckleheads out there for a company that wants to stay in business more than a couple of weeks to find such a situation acceptable.

And yet, both powders have been in production for longer than many posters have been alive. Ditto for H4895 and IMR4895…so perhaps as you suggested your opinion is moot.


.

 

[savagelover]

So what if a load calls for H4225 and I have imr 4227? What then ?

 

[Y-T71]

And yet, both powders have been in production for longer than many posters have been alive. Ditto for H4895 and IMR4895…so perhaps as you suggested your opinion is moot.


.

So you're suggesting my statement is common knowledge?

Edit: I have an old can of Hercules Blue Dot and a lot more Alliance Blue Dot.

I say knock the Alliant back 5% and see what happens.

Bad medicine or should I start fillin' out my will?

I'm inclined to drop 5% and keep playing ball.

 

[Jim Watson]

I do not see H4227 on the Hodgdon site today, and it is not in their load data for .44 Magnum, although IMR4227 is.

 

[Mr_Flintstone]

So what if a load calls for H4225 and I have imr 4227? What then ?

I typically use the data, but I don’t chase max loads. You should be good with minimum to 3/4 max loads; probably even with max, but I wouldn’t advise this without verifying them with software like Quickload or GRT before I go that far.

 

[Y-T71]

And yet, both powders have been in production for longer than many posters have been alive. Ditto for H4895 and IMR4895…so perhaps as you suggested your opinion is moot.


.

And the question is still asked

Where'd you go professor?

 

[Jonesy814]

In 2018,I email Hodgkin about this same question. Here is the response
Hello Xxxxxx

IMR 4227 and Hodgdon H4227 are very close in burn speed. We consider the data with Hodgdon H4227 and IMR 4227 to be interchangeable. With that , always begin load development by starting at the published starting load and working up slowly watching for pressure signs. We have recently discontinued H4227 and now package only under the IMR line. Here is our data for the .357 Mag with H4227 and the bullet weights you asked about.

Cartridge:

357 Magnum

Load Type:

Pistol

Starting Loads

Maximum Loads


Bullet Weight (Gr.)

Order BW

Powder

Bullet Diam.

C.O.L.

Grs.

Vel. (ft/s)

Pressure

Grs.

Vel. (ft/s)

Pressure



110 GR. HDY XTP

110

H4227

.357"

1.590"

18.9

1774

29,600 CUP

21.0

1900

35,500 CUP



125 GR. HDY XTP

125

H4227

.357"

1.590"

18.0

1692

34,400 CUP

20.0

1839

42,000 CUP



140 GR. HDY XTP

140

H4227

.357"

1.590"

16.2

1541

33,100 CUP

18.0

1685

42,600 CUP



146 GR. SPR JHP

146

H4227

.357"

1.535"

14.5

1440

34,300 CUP

16.0

1566

42,700 CUP



158 GR. HDY XTP

158

H4227

.357"

1.580"

14.5

1402

34,600 CUP

16.0

1520

42,600 CUP



170 GR. SIE JHC

170

H4227

.357"

1.580"

13.0

1272

32,300 CUP

14.5

1395

41,200 CUP



180 GR. NOS PART

180

H4227

.357"

1.575"

12.7

1247

36,900 CUP

13.7

1308

40,900 CUP


Jason Waller

Hodgdon Powder Company

6430 Vista Drive

Shawnee, Kansas 66218

[email protected]

913-745-0846

This email is confidential


This email is intended for the use of the named recipient only. It is not intended for publication without permission of the sender.


If you have received this email in error, please delete immediately.

 

[25-20 WCF]

Sweet, publicly posting an email which clearly states “This email is confidential, This email is intended for the use of the named recipient only. It is not intended for publication without permission of the sender.” No wonder some powder/bullet tech folks are hesitant to answer questions!



.

 

[Bearded Phil]

Sweet, publicly posting an email which clearly states “This email is confidential, This email is intended for the use of the named recipient only. It is not intended for publication without permission of the sender.” No wonder some powder/bullet tech folks are hesitant to answer questions!



.

Posting in an internet forum is not "publication".

 

[Jim Watson]

And yet, both powders have been in production for longer than many posters have been alive. Ditto for H4895 and IMR4895…so perhaps as you suggested your opinion is moot.

It is more complicated than that.
Hodgdon got started selling WWII surplus powders like 4895 which was then real deal DuPont IMR 4895.
DuPont eventually put IMR 4895 on the retail market to get a piece of the action.
When Hodgdon ran out of surplus 4895, they had powder of that burn rate produced by offshore companies as H4895, first ICI-Nobel in Scotland, then ADI in Australia.
If you look at ADI's powder equivalent chart it is interesting to see that there is AR2206 in the home market and AR2206H which is tweaked for Hodgdon to sell as H4895.

But H4227, H4198, and H4350 are different. These are not a case of replicating surplus they sold as long as it lasted, they are frank copies of IMR commercial powders.

 

[savagelover]

Interesting