Load not in new manuals

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr_Flintstone

Mr_Flintstone

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
1,445
Location
Eastern KY
I want to use some IMR-4227 (I know there are better powders) for some 170 grain 8mm Mauser Hornady soft points. Lee #1 lists a 170 gr jacketed load of 19.5-21.5 gr 4227@36,600 CUP with a velocity of 1860. This is right at the velocity I want to achieve, and since I've got the powder on hand, I thought why not.

I figure that since it was in at least one manual that it would be OK, but should I worry that this particular load doesn't appear in any other manual that I have?
 
Last edited:
Mr_Flintstone said:
I did manage to find the same load in a 2001 IMR Handloader's Guide. I believe I will email them though.
Click to expand...

Any data in the LEE manual was copied from somewhere else. So the old IMR data may just be from them.

A FYI it is better to call Hodgdon than to e mail them,
 
Mr_Flintstone said:
I figure that since it was in at least one manual that it would be OK, but should I worry that this particular load doesn't appear in any other manual that I have?
Click to expand...
With all the new powders available themes days and the new cartridges too it's difficult for the publishers of manuals to keep data for powders that are on the fringe of that cartridges ability. Every line counts in very large books with so many choices.
 
Mr_Flintstone said:
I want to use some IMR-4227 (I know there are better powders) for some 170 grain 8mm Mauser Hornady soft points. Lee #1 lists a 170 gr jacketed load of 19.5-21.5 gr 4227@36,6000 CUP with a velocity of 1860. This is right at the velocity I want to achieve, and since I've got the powder on hand, I thought why not.

I figure that since it was in at least one manual that it would be OK, but should I worry that this particular load doesn't appear in any other manual that I have?
Click to expand...

It seems they want to sell their powder but don't want to be liable for it's use.
I have noticed a fall off of info in books that used to be available.
I know there are so many options that could be in books like many powder options
that I have fall within the burn rate & such but data isn't available.
When I started reloading I depended totally on books, now I have to rely on net
options which makes me wonder if it is true or not sometimes.
 
Agree with Arch.
Testing isn't cheap so why bother with a powder that will not achieve standard ballistics?
Once upon a time DuPont showed every thing from 4227 to 4831 in every rifle caliber no matter whether you would really want to use the oddballs.

Years ago there was an outfit that tested every powder and bullet then available in .30-06. Bullseye and a 220 grain bullet; H870 and a 100 gr bullet? You bet.
 
Well, I got a reply from IMR (Hodgdon). They told me that this load data was produced by the old IMR company, and that Hodgdon has not tested it; and as such, they couldn't recommend it.
 
Looking around, I found that Trail Boss can apparently be used to achieve pretty much what I want as well. According to a load data article and the Trail Boss pdf (although it is no longer on the Hodgdon Reloading website), both show data for 308 and 30-06 in the range I’m looking at, and give a formula for calculating other loads.
 
The old data is useful. The only danger with fast burn rate powders, is any variation from components data, may greatly increase pressure. The rule to reduce 10% for a starting load should be followed.

In 30-06 i have loaded Alliant 2400-24 grs with a 110 gr jacket Hornady bullet. No problems.

Note that light loads will not expand brass fully. This mean the head to datum measurement will get shorter on firing. I would not use brass that was light loaded for full power loadings later on. The stretching may cause case head separations??

8mm.JPG

The IMR 4227 IS A MAXIMUM PRESSURE LOADING @ 21.5 GRS.
 
Last edited:
Old Old Old data, Lyman 44, for what it's worth. (Vintage 1967)
USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

8mm Mauser 168gr cast bullet #323470
IMR 4227 start 20gr 1658 fps MAX 26gr 2040 fps
(no note about gas check on this bullet like they mention on the 246gr cast bullet)
For the 246gr bullet (w/gas check) they show
IMR 4227 start 17gr 1337 MAX 21gr 1527

Maybe something in the Lyman cast bullet manual??
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all of the info guys. I use a lot of "old" data for .38 and .357, but this is my first venture into reduced rifle loads. I'm going to try a few 4227 and Trail Boss loads just to see what they do, but I think I'll buy some H4895 since it can be loaded full power or taken down to the "rule of 60%" for reduced loads. There's a guy nearby that sells bulk powder by weight in plastic bottles. I'll buy a half pound to start and go from there. If I like it, I'll buy more.
 
There's a guy nearby that sells bulk powder by weight in plastic bottles
Click to expand...

I would be leary of a "unknown" bulk powder sold in plastic bottles by someone, maybe just me but not much money to be to be made by buying fresh powder in say 8lb jugs and selling it off a lb at a time.
Surplus pull powder maybe, but is not the same as canister powder, and it maybe new, or maybe getting close to the end of it's life, etc.
Maybe I am just getting chicken in my old age. (not saying all pull powder is bad)
Also it is way to hard to ID powders by sight. Yes I can tell something that looks like Red Dot is different than something that is a Ball powder but that does not tell me what either powder is.
Lots of powder pics here
http://www.ilrc.ucf.edu/powders/sample_detail.php?powder_id=86
For example BLC(2) and H335 sure look alike to me but are not the same.
Many others as well.

When you buy a jar of H335 with a label from your LGS or online you can be pretty sure it is H335 and it's not 15 years old already.
 
Last edited:
Mr_Flintstone said:
I want to use some IMR-4227 (I know there are better powders) for some 170 grain 8mm Mauser Hornady soft points. Lee #1 lists a 170 gr jacketed load of 19.5-21.5 gr 4227@36,600 CUP with a velocity of 1860. This is right at the velocity I want to achieve, and since I've got the powder on hand, I thought why not.

I figure that since it was in at least one manual that it would be OK, but should I worry that this particular load doesn't appear in any other manual that I have?
Click to expand...
I used that data substituting a sierra 170gr. I have IMR4227 from the 90's though. I'm not sure about new formulations.
 
I watched one of those bulk sellers open a keg labeled HP38.
Inside was a packing slip reading 231.
But wait, Hodgdon tells us they are the same stuff, imagine that.
 
Dudedog said:
I would be leary of a "unknown" bulk powder sold in plastic bottles by someone, maybe just me but not much money to be to be made by buying fresh powder in say 8lb jugs and selling it off a lb at a time.
Surplus pull powder maybe, but is not the same as canister powder, and it maybe new, or maybe getting close to the end of it's life, etc.
Maybe I am just getting chicken in my old age. (not saying all pull powder is bad)
Also it is way to hard to ID powders by sight. Yes I can tell something that looks like Red Dot is different than something that is a Ball powder but that does not tell me what either powder is.
Lots of powder pics here
http://www.ilrc.ucf.edu/powders/sample_detail.php?powder_id=86
For example BLC(2) and H335 sure look alike to me but are not the same.
Many others as well.

When you buy a jar of H335 with a label from your LGS or online you can be pretty sure it is H335 and it's not 15 years old already.
Click to expand...
I understand your concern, but I know this guy. I worked with him for several years. I’m sure he doesn’t make any extra money from selling it that way, but he pours it right out of an 8 lb can into a smaller plastic bottle and weighs it while you are there; then he labels it. The powders I’ve bought that way are usually for test purposes, and the ones I like, I go back and buy a full can.
 
With all the combinations possible today that have been worked out by professionals and proved to be safe I wouldn't even consider it. I've always been very leery of having an explosion happen in my hand.
 
I finally decided to go with H4895 for my loads. I used Hodgdon’s reduced load formula to come up with 35.5 gr for an approximate 2000 FPS. It was exactly what I wanted; a 30-30 level 8mm load. The only problem was that my Lee perfect measure isn’t all that accurate with this powder (+/- .2 gr which looks like about +/- 30 FPS).
 
+/-0.2gr and +/-30fps is within “match” level tolerances for factory ammo.
For more information on your reduced loads and similar reduced loads, go over to castboolits.com.
Many more enlightened reloaders over there. Vastly more experience. But, several of us here also lurk over there, too.
BTW, your proposed 4227 load is well documented and still just as good as it was 50yrs ago. See articles under loads for military rifles by C.E.Harris.

Also, consult the Lyman Cast bullet manual. It contains a lot of good reduced loads.
Most 8x57 U.S. data is to quote John Barsness, is loaded to “burrito fart” pressure levels.
 
Last edited:
Mr_Flintstone said:
Well, I got a reply from IMR (Hodgdon). They told me that this load data was produced by the old IMR company, and that Hodgdon has not tested it; and as such, they couldn't recommend it.
Click to expand...
That's just legal talk to cover liability. IMR was a highly trusted company and the merger with Hodgdon doesn't change the validity of the work they did before the merger. I would use the IMR data without fear.
 
Mr_Flintstone said:
I finally decided to go with H4895 for my loads. I used Hodgdon’s reduced load formula to come up with 35.5 gr for an approximate 2000 FPS. It was exactly what I wanted; a 30-30 level 8mm load. The only problem was that my Lee perfect measure isn’t all that accurate with this powder (+/- .2 gr which looks like about +/- 30 FPS).
Click to expand...
I think you made a good decision even though your other choices weren't bad either. The reduced H4895 data is tested, reliable and safe.

As for Trail Boss, it's safe too. When IMR/Hodgdon discontinued SR4759 which was a great reduced rifle load powder they "replaced" it with Trail Boss according to them. I really liked SR4759 but at least we have TB and H4895.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Relationship between maximum load, velocity, & recoil
2
Replies
37
Views
992
orpington
O
Mr_Flintstone
  • Locked
30 Carbine w/ 2400
Replies
4
Views
328
CraigC
CraigC
Mr_Flintstone
  • Locked
Thinking about adding some new powders...
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
brewer12345
B
safarihunter
  • Locked
Looking to reload 350 Legend
Replies
6
Views
501
markr6754
M
Mr_Flintstone
  • Locked
IMR or H-4227
Replies
19
Views
3K
Jack B.
Jack B.
Back
Top