Will Hogden ever standardize their and IMR's powders?

[Laphroaig]

Now that Hodgen controls IMR, will they ever standardize the duplicate powder numbers, i.e.4895, 4350, 4831 and others? The burn rates are so close that, IMO, it adds more confusion than benefit to the loading community.

I know some have definite preferences of one over the other but I wonder if the same result couldn't be obtained by tweaking the load with whatever powder they standardized? I've always been an IMR guy and would have some testing to do if it ever happened.

Laphroaig

 

[steve4102]

I know some have definite preferences of one over the other but I wonder if the same result couldn't be obtained by tweaking the load with whatever powder they standardized?

The same could be said about other powders with similar burn rates with completely different names.

They are different powders and perform differently, or at least they used to be.

If they had different names like IMR 4350 and H 4530 would you have the same concerns?

If you want to look at powder confusing take a look at the Hodgdon Clays line.

 

[243winxb]

4227 Both are AR2205

Hodgdon's MSDS makes me think, one day, IMR will become H. http://www.hodgdon.com/msds.html I should add that Hodgdon has no control over the powders, as i see it. ATK, ADI & General Dynamics manufacture the powders. ADI did change one of there powders for Hodgdon so it would sell better in the USA. IMR4227 >

Colour change of AR2205

10 May 2007

The colour of AR2205 has been made darker to align its appearance with other ADI sporting propellants sold in the US market. The change in colour has not changed the powder's ballistic performance therefore reloading data using AR2205 does not need to be altered.

AR2206H replaces AR2206

11 July 2007

Propellant AR2206H is finally set to replace AR2206 on the Australian & New Zealand reloading market. AR2206H is an improved variation of AR2206, and is designed to optimise heavy projectile performance where it increases projectile velocity while at the same time reduces chamber pressures. It is suitable for use in a similar range of calibres and powder loads as AR2206.

AR2206H was released into the North American market in 1999, and is distributed by the Hodgdon Powder Co. under the brand name H4895. This powder has proven to be extremely popular in the USA due to its superior loading consistency and its unrivalled performance stability in severe temperature variations. Distribution to such a demanding and variable market also means that we can offer more reloading data to cover your favourite calibre-projectile combinations. Australian handloaders can now experience the many benefits of reloading with AR2206H.

http://www.adi-powders.com.au/handloaders-guide/news.asp

 

[ReloaderFred]

This question would best be asked of Hodgdon............

Fred

 

[bluetopper]

Maybe they will, there is only one 4227 now.

Also powder companies I think have seen it's much better for powders to have names instead of numbers, it's much less confusing.

 

[buck460XVR]

Hodgdon's MSDS makes me think, one day, IMR will become H.

Actually, the "old" H4227 has, per Hodgdon, already become the "new" IMR4227 and the "old" IMR4227 is gone. I think brand loyalty with powders like W231/HP38 and H110/W296 will tend to keep them around for a while longer.

 

[Rico567]

Now that Hodgen controls IMR, will they ever standardize the duplicate powder numbers, i.e.4895, 4350, 4831 and others?

Tennyson knew all the following, but he probably couldn't tell you what you want to know. Prophecy's difficult.

"For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales;

Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain’d a ghastly dew
From the nations’ airy navies grappling in the central blue;

Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm, 125
With the standards of the peoples plunging thro’ the thunder-storm;

Till the war-drum throbb’d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law."

-Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Locksley Hall, 1835

 

[blarby]

Now that Hodgen controls IMR, will they ever standardize the duplicate powder numbers, i.e.4895, 4350, 4831 and others? The burn rates are so close that, IMO, it adds more confusion than benefit to the loading community.

Given the amazing results when they do actually do it, and the hilarity that ensues when they do, I think they should drop one or the other completely.

If it wasn't for strong branding- they would have.

If you happen to be reading this, and have no idea what I'm referrring to, feel free to look up w231 and HP38, or H110 and 296 for a comparative example.

 

[Boho]

Yeah I believe they are starting it slowly. I bought a 4lb jug of 700x Friday. It was Hodgdon 700x not IMR 700x. The guy I got it from is an Alliant powder dealer and said it had something to do with being manufactured in Canada.

 

[Swampman]

Originally posted by bluetopper

Also powder companies I think have seen it's much better for powders to have names instead of numbers, it's much less confusing.

I agree 100%!
See ya later guys.
I've gotta run out and see if I can find any of Hodgdon's new, "Sub Saharan Africa Clays".

 

[Jesse Heywood]

Yeah I believe they are starting it slowly. I bought a 4lb jug of 700x Friday. It was Hodgdon 700x not IMR 700x. The guy I got it from is an Alliant powder dealer and said it had something to do with being manufactured in Canada.

I just looked at the product pages for Hodgdon & IMR. 700-X &800-X have been moved and are now branded as Hodgdon. Also, the SR powders are gone. The IMR list grows shorter.

 

[jerkface11]

So someday soon ww296 will be replaced by H110

 

[KansasSasquatch]

So someday soon ww296 will be replaced by H110

I could be wrong but I don't think that will happen. I believe Hodgdon actually bought the rights to the IMR brand of powders. With Winchester powders, I don't believe they bought those rights. I believe they have a deal with Win/Olin to package/distribute Winchester powders, don't think they all out bought the rights. That's probably why a lot of people say Winchester powders tend to be a couple dollars more per pound than their Hodgdon equivalents, Hodgdon is probably paying royalties. Winchester is also a NAME that even new reloaders have some familiarity with and may have some brand loyalty to. IMR just doesn't have much meaning to new reloaders. It might not be a good move for Hodgdon to drop the Winchester name. However, dropping the IMR name probably won't bother even experienced reloaders, so long as they still package those IMR powders under the Hodgdon name.

 

[ironworkerwill]

They could put W760 and H414 on the same label on the same bottle. It's the same stuff. I guess that possibly the Winchester name may be an issue as far as copyrights go.

 

[dragon813gt]

They could put W760 and H414 on the same label on the same bottle. It's the same stuff. I guess that possibly the Winchester name may be an issue as far as copyrights go.

Did this come from Hodgdon? As far as I know there are no duplicates for W748 and W760. Close, yes. But not the same powders like H110 and W296 are.

And why would Hodgdon stop making Winchester powders? They make more money per pound because of the name on it. It's just like car parts. You can pay more for a part that has an OEM VW stamp on it. Or you can buy the Bosch part which is the exact same one for less money.

 

[spitballer]

Having slightly different powders does give us more choice, though. You mean like a standardized list of propellant numbers? For example, to keep someone from substituting Hodgdon 4198 for the slower IMR 4198? If it's a safety issue, it might be good to have some sort of standardization. Manufacturer response might be that it's cheaper to simply issue warnings on the label about brand variability, rather than conform to rigid standards and testing...

 

[noylj]

Well, they each have been standardized--just not to each other.
From my experience, I get as much lot-to-lot variation as I get variation from H- to IMR-, so they also seem fairly standardized to me.
The future, I would say, is that if sales aren't where they want them to be, that one or the other will disappear and you won't have a "problem" any more.

 

[Steve C]

According to what was published, Hodgdon only markets Winchester and IMR powders. They do not reformulate, make, or blend the bulk powders manufactured by divisions of these companies or other powder sources and use Win or IMR names on the canisters. If they do then they are meeting the specifications for the original powder as they came from Winchester and IMR.

As a business Hodgdon has always obtained surplus and bulk powders to develop canister grade product to be sold under the Hodgdon name.

 

[7mmb]

I certainly hope not. Yes it can be confusing to newcomers but the more powder factories cranking out powder the better. I'd much rather have Canadian made IMR 4350 and Australian made H4340 than Australian made powder packaged in Hodgdon and IMR bottles. The more factories online the more powder that will be available. And if one goes down for a while for whatever reason there is still the other factory up and running. If Hodgdon were to merge their IMR and Hodgdon powders that would only mean one less powder company producing powder. The stuff is scarce enough as it is. If they want to package IMR powders with Hodgdon labels, fine, but keep as many factories in production as possible. Maybe add a few more. Or drop some of the IMR numbered powders in favor of Hodgdon equivalents and have the IMR factory focus on more of other powders. Just keep the stuff flowing!

 

[ironworkerwill]

Did this come from Hodgdon? As far as I know there are no duplicates for W748 and W760. Close, yes. But not the same powders like H110 and W296 are.

No! I've not spoken with any rep from Hodgdon. It is the common knowledge of reloaders who use it(h414 and w760). Of course it is different lot-to-lot just as any other powder. But really, It's the same powder.

And why would Hodgdon stop making Winchester powders? They make more money per pound because of the name on it. It's just like car parts. You can pay more for a part that has an OEM VW stamp on it. Or you can buy the Bosch part which is the exact same one for less money.

They will not stop making it. Just "standardize the duplicate powder numbers" just as the OP said. And, yes, the marketing and money is what I was referring to when I mentioned copyrights.

 

[Laphroaig]

My original post didn't consider the powders with different ID's that are known (at least by 99% of loaders, there's always that guy who will argue the point) to be identical. To me that's not a problem because I know.

What got me thinking was another post where a guy wanted to load a cartridge but only had data for one version of 4895 but had the other powder on hand. What should he do? Good question.

From my experience, I get as much lot-to-lot variation as I get variation from H- to IMR-, so they also seem fairly standardized to me.

I wonder if that is true?

I had the same predicament recently. I've been loading 6.5 x 55 for years with IMR 4831. I had a load that was accurate and sighted in for my iron sighted rifle. As I ran short of powder I couldn't find IMR and bought a lb. of H. I never did try it because of the anxiety of working up a new load which might have had a different point of impact. I finally found a jug of IMR4831 at a back woods gun shop for like $40.

Hodgdon 4198 for the slower IMR 4198

4198 is my only experience jumping between brands. I've loaded reduced 30-06 loads successfully with IMR for years. I picked up a bottle of H and used the same data. Not quite the same, although I suspect the H was actually a tad slower based on my observation. It still worked fine, just not the same.

Just keep the stuff flowing!

So whatever happens, that's the bottom line. Maybe I'm being too picky as I read posts where people can't find any powder at all. And I suppose if Hogden is still making money, that's their business. But I wuz just sayin...

Laphroaig

 

[ironworkerwill]

Alright, you don't want to change or standardize the name/number of identical powders but rather standardize powders that have different burn rates and and identical numbers.

Well, they each have been standardized--just not to each other.
From my experience, I get as much lot-to-lot variation as I get variation from H- to IMR-, so they also seem fairly standardized to me.
The future, I would say, is that if sales aren't where they want them to be, that one or the other will disappear and you won't have a "problem" any more.

I would have to agree with this statement.

 

[dickttx]

It is not confusing if you read the entire name.
H-4350 and IMR 4350 even end up in completely different places if you sort.
Clays, International Clays, and Universal Clays only have one five letter word in common.
All CCI primer types start out CCI, but everyone looks for the 300 or 500 that follows before they decide what to buy.
If someone just did a search for Richard I doubt if they would find me, but if they added my last name, there I would be.

 

[kelbro]

Then wouldn't you need all new reloading manuals?

 

[FROGO207]

Many many different choices with in a small range of difference. Look at automobile makes/models for example. That's the American way to spend your cash.