Wow! Interesting! I'll have to evaluate this a bit, but it does sound like my major issue was the powder. Do the bullet manufactures publish the various dimensions of each bullet? Like, for example, what the length of the boat tail is, the bearing surface, and the ogive? That would help me better compare bullets, rather than eye these with calipers.
H4831 vs H4831SC "Carolina Load" 6.5CM
- Thread starter yo-yo
- Start date
I know what you mean about "better tool precision" as I worked as an aircraft mechanic and delt with parts for turbine engines and the tolerances involved. I think that's what turned me into bit of a perfectionist.
The kind of precision we're used to isn't really so necessary for reloading cartridges. Though some precision is certainly helpful toward the end game, where consistency/repeatability is what we want. Where precision really comes in for precision shooting is in the manufacturing of actions, bolts and barrels. . . and bullets too. If you go whole hog on building parts for this hobby and have a milling machine, then you'll need some good precision tools.
A good high end caliper is very useful, though still isn't a precision instrument. Only real precision instrument I have is a micrometer that I use to measuring neck thicknesses before and after I turn them. Also have some pin gauges that I use for more accurate neck tension measurements.
I've not seen or heard of any of that kind of documentation that you're looking for. Those software apps are the best source known for what you want to do in comparing powders, since you can change variables that'll show you the result. The results are just a calculation that can be fine tuned by your input, but still only give you a ballpark idea of what to expect.
Last edited:
This is incorrect, it exists right on Hodgdon's site which I linked above. It is for a 140gr Swift A-Frame which is a flat bottom hunting bullet. Which gets right into the heart of the issue, the usable powder space. IF you mean you can't find "official" data for the ELD-M or SST you just answered your own question, it isn't an ideal combination.
Your question on powder "size"; the info does exist but not every vendor makes it easy to find, it is called "VMD"; volume measured density.
Your other post finally gets to the point; you have a bunch of H4831 and want to use it. Can you? Sure, it is going to require measuring YOUR components and YOUR chamber to figure out what you can safely get away with.
You seem to be all over the place on what you want to know as a first time reloader, immediately jumping into the unknowns then wanting info that a cartridge designer is going to use instead of starting at the basics first.
If you insist on this path, buy his book then contact him for an online or in person class to satisfy your curiosity:
IMO it isn't going to help you understand much where you are at now, you are trying to jump right to the end.
Yeah, I don't understand what those numbers are ahow they are meaningful. You can imagine why a rookie would be confused though, based on charts like this that suggest the burn rates of all of these are about the same. Why are they apples and oranges?
Attachments
That's just a chart that shows the "general" comparison of burn rates. As @ma smith showed on post #52, the actual load data is quite different; with the low level load for one powder being more than the max load for the other. Always, always start with a known load from a manufacturer of either the powder or the bullet (and I mean the EXACT powder or bullet, not "something similar")
I ran combination of the bullets and powders you mentioned in your first post through Quickload....they are all overfilled, with the 4831/ELD combination at 111%. All of them are indicated to be over maximum pressure. You would have to drop the charge weight down to 43.7 or less to be within indicated safe pressure, and even then you're overfilled so it will be a compressed load.
By comparison, the indicated max safe load with 4350 is just under 100% fill.
This is the reason I spent the money to buy Quickload, so if I'm attempting something not " in the books", I won't be putting myself at too much risk. That and tools to measure depth to lands, base to ogive etc.
By comparison, the indicated max safe load with 4350 is just under 100% fill.
This is the reason I spent the money to buy Quickload, so if I'm attempting something not " in the books", I won't be putting myself at too much risk. That and tools to measure depth to lands, base to ogive etc.
Thanks. Yeah, I saw that, but wasn't sure what to make of it. Appears to be so much more online misinformation than I expected. I've been staring at those charts in these books, but seems difficult to a real pattern. I should have looked further at other calibers that use H4831/SC to see how that varied from the IMR like that. Thanks for pointing that out.
This thread gives me a migraine.
@yo-yo You're trying to run before you've crawled. Buy the Speer reloading manual and read it a couple of times. Any reloading data with a special name should be viewed with a high degree of skepticism.
As far as all of the other recommendations in this thread, come back to them after you understand the fundamentals of handloading ammunition.
@yo-yo You're trying to run before you've crawled. Buy the Speer reloading manual and read it a couple of times. Any reloading data with a special name should be viewed with a high degree of skepticism.
As far as all of the other recommendations in this thread, come back to them after you understand the fundamentals of handloading ammunition.
Hmmm....I hate to say it...but that "Carolina Load" might be best suited as the Carolina "HOAX" then. I bought the SC powder and tried to load it with 44.3 grains. It's still compressed. Near exact same fit as the H4831 (regular cut). I can't find a good profile layout of the SST bullet (online) to compare with my ELD-M, but it does look like the SST is about .025" longer. I don't think there is anyway to get that much powder in that case, without a much much longer OAL.
4831, of all variations, is to slow and bulky for 6.5CM. 4350, RL16, etc is the optimal burn rate and bulk density for 6.5CM and 140gr class bullets.
Unsuitable, meaning what? It "looks like" the H4831 is just a bit slower than the IMR4350. I don't have that software program yet, but I would think one could use a little more H4831/SC to achieve a similar experience with H4831/SC. What about the H4831/SC stands out enough to suggest it's entirely unsuitable?
Is there something in particular to that book, that isn't evident in other books? I have access to several other books (belong to a friend), but otherwise I have guidance in basics process of reloading. Lack of access to information seems to be the problem. I'm interested in the detail of the chemical action in the powder and the relative chamber pressures and how that relates to the projectile.
Ah! Thanks! I missed this post! Thanks for the detail on that bullet!!!
Can you run that same data for the equivalent ELD-Match 140 grain bullet?
I'm thinking that taper looks far longer than the ELD-M, so I'm guessing it would fit even more compressed. Weird.
I think the Carolina Load may be a bunch of hogwash. I don't think there is any way to get that much powder in that case!
The Speer manual is the best explanation of the fundamentals of handloading I have read anywhere.
"Access to" is not the same as having read and comprehending. Whether you buy a manual or borrow your friends, you need to RTFM. If you understood reloading even a little you wouldn't have posted this thread, much less tried to replicate some nonsense data without working up.
Also @straightshooter1
Whereas, I can't seem to find a good way to measure the actual distance to the lands (kept seeing references to the "Wheeler" method, but all the videos have been taken down), I was able to determine a couple things last night...
1 - I found what I believe is a measurement that is the COAL when the bullets hits the lands and the bullet is slightly seated further in the case from closing the bolt on the gun. That distance is 2.9080".
I could see markings on the bullet (apparently from the lands contact) as early as 2.8940" though. It wasn't until I loaed a cartridge at 2.9100" that the net resulting length (after removing it from the chamber) of 2.9080".
2 - The would result in a "jump" in my gun at .108", if compared to a typical COAL suggestion (in the books) of 2.800. The Carolina Load also suggested 2.800". This seems like a really long jump!
Most of what I have read on precision shooting articles, is that people have a tendency of setting that jump to be somewhere between .020" to actually touching the lands.
Sorry if the post is a bit elementary for you. This whole process is a journey. I usually learn better through some reading and some "doing". Forums like this have been very helpful for me. I don't remember the last time a read a technical book worth the paper it was printed on, so I have a tendency to shy away from them. That software program look like the resource of information I haven't been able to get, so that looks promising.
Interesting. So, what was the reason you decided to try the H4831SC in that round? The Hornady book shows the use of IMR4831 with a 147 grain ELD-Match, but I haven't seen any of the 4831 powders (any manufacturer) used in the lighter weights. I am finding several references within this this forum website, suggesting they had good success with the H4831SC, in the 6.5 Creedmore, so that's why I thought it reasonable to try. Others here are calling it "unsuitable", but not sure why yet. Perhaps that fancy software program show that it shouldn't work??
The burn rate is too slow makes for compressed loads and low velocities. H4350, N555, and RL16 are your powders. Dont over complicate this.
You've been told why more than once. 4831, of all variations, is too slow and bulky for 6.5CM and 140 class bullets. Even loaded to 2.900, it barely makes 55kPSI. 147ELDM is only marginally better with a pressure ceiling of 58kPSI. That's 105% max fill rate, ie compressed.
The burn charts are counter-intuitive if you don't undestand what you are doing. Slower powders are deisgned for (and thus "need") bigger cases/heavier bullets/etc. IMR version 4831 works in 6.5 bore diameter but not in small volume cases. You typically only in LARGER cases like 6.5x55 sweede and even in 260 rem I believe you migh see it, which have large h20 capacity for it.
Below is a "by the book" example of how to use IMR 4831 and H4831 with a 142gr bullet...
6.5 X 55 Swedish Mauser Load Data
Explore the world of Nosler, renowned for crafting the finest bullets, ammunition, rifles, and brass. Discover our extensive lineup, including Partition, AccuBond, E-Tip, Ballistic Tip, Custom Competition, and more. Experience superior quality and performance with Nosler products.
www.nosler.com
Last edited:
Hodgdon has data for a couple 140s and heavier bullets with h4831 in the 6.5 creed. Says 46.3g with a 143eld is 61500psi. All the top end loads are compressed.
I stopped using 4831 because I got some h4350. In my short barrel creed the h4831 heated up the suppressor extremely fast, asumedly due to unburnt powder it was dumping into the suppressor. So I used varget and rl15 with 120s in it. That was all at time where h4350 was more or less unavailable.
I stopped using 4831 because I got some h4350. In my short barrel creed the h4831 heated up the suppressor extremely fast, asumedly due to unburnt powder it was dumping into the suppressor. So I used varget and rl15 with 120s in it. That was all at time where h4350 was more or less unavailable.
Last edited:
Similar threads
