Did IMR 4227 change at some time?

[jtcarm]

I bought my first lb of IMR 4227 about a about 18 months ago.,

I was quite happy with the results in .300 BO. So when I saw a post on my clubs message board offering a vintage canister (unsealed) in exchange for small rifle primers (which I have a nice supply of), I swapped a couple hundred for it.

I looked at it for the first time tonight and it didn’t look as I expected. At first I wasn’t certain whether it was extruded. The extrusions are much smaller from what I bought last year.

They appear to have identical densities. Weights from a Lee dipper differ no more that 0.1 grains and fill cases to the same volume.

Sorry for the shoddy camera work, but you should be able to see the difference.

Recent canister:

Vintage:

 

[M E Morrison]

I bought my first lb of IMR 4227 about a about 18 months ago.,

I was quite happy with the results in .300 BO. So when I saw a post on my clubs message board offering a vintage canister (unsealed) in exchange for small rifle primers (which I have a nice supply of), I swapped a couple hundred for it.

I looked at it for the first time tonight and it didn’t look as I expected. At first I wasn’t certain whether it was extruded. The extrusions are much smaller from what I bought last year.

They appear to have identical densities. Weights from a Lee dipper differ no more that 0.1 grains and fill cases to the same volume.

Sorry for the shoddy camera work, but you should be able to see the difference.

Recent canister:

Vintage:

Looks like SC short cut powder to me. Supposed to meter a little smoother, IIRC.

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

I've been using both IMR and H 4227 since around 1980 and your photo of Vintage IMR 4227 looks like it always did to me.

Ivan

 

[jtcarm]

Hmm, maybe the lot the recent powder came from was unusually long. I hadn’t noticed before, but there’s a lot of variation in length with the newer stuff, which is mildly disturbing.

 

[Nemo288]

Got an 8 pounder of IMR 4227 before the most recent shortage.
It is the only powder I use in the .445-SM.
Good in the 44 magnum also makes slightly reduced loads in the 444.
Superb and somewhat under-rated powder IMHO.
Very linear behavior and easy to work up loads without spiking pressure like some ball powders.
(It has a somewhat degressive burn characteristic.)
Still have some left and it looks like your older canister.
The shorter uniform grains are what it is supposed to look like.
Seems as quantity has been substituted for quality recently.
Running machines faster than they were designed for is always iffy.
Makes me wonder what primers are gonna look like when they reappear.
The bigger picture with the white background is from my jug.
The other one is from QuickLoad.
.5 mm = .02 in. = pretty darn small!

EDIT: FWIW my jug is labeled IMR 4227 "manufactured in Australia".
Hope that straightens everything out
There is a thread on Castboolits from 2016 "H 4227 vs imr 4227 whats the difference"
that illustrates the confusion over this labeling and marketing mayhem.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

IIRC Hodgdon retired IMR4227 but kept the 4227 powder under the IMR label even though they replaced the original IMR4227 with H4227.

So you won't see H4227 any longer because it's now IMR4227 and the original IMR4227 is no more.

I hope I explained that well enough.

 

[jimmyj]

a "Unsealed" cannister of #4227 from another person in a trade: I would not use it.

 

[ken158]

a "Unsealed" cannister of #4227 from another person in a trade: I would not use it.

I agree with Jimmy - in these days and times, people are going to the extreme to obtain components and my philosophy is to NEVER buy or trade for any powder that is not factory sealed or primers that are not examined carefully. Now, if you know the person or it is a shooting buddy, then I may waive some, but it is very easy to mix powder to appear like a full can of what you seek.

 

[WR Moore]

CORRECTIONS TO ORIGINAL POST:

I'm apparently showing signs of old timers.......My original post about IMR/H 4227 was incorrect. I confused 4227 and 4198. The picture above showing "old" IMR4227 does in fact resemble the one can I have on hand and have had for some time.

A check of the Hodgdon website shows that while 4198 is still being produced/labeled by both IMR and Hodgdon, 4227 is only listed as an IMR powder.

I did originally use IMR4198 for decades, but changed to the Hodgdon version around 2009. I find the Hodgdon version meters better, burns a tad slower and produces smaller velocity standard deviations.

 

[jtcarm]

a "Unsealed" cannister of #4227 from another person in a trade: I would not use it.

In case you hadn’t noticed, powder is a bit hard to come by lately.

 

[DWalt]

All the IMR 4227 in my inventory has the short grains, and it is all old (from duPont). It is my favorite propellant for use with cast bullets in .30-'06, .308, and .300 Savage, and it also works very well in the .45-70. While it can be used for .30 Carbine, you cannot get enough powder in the case to get a MV over about 1800 ft/sec. Some like it for full loads in .44 Magnum, but I make up only mild .44 Magnum lead bullet loads using faster powders such as 700-X, Bullseye, and Clays, so I do not use it for .44. 4227 is a very useful propellant for many purposes, but has never been as popular among handloaders as the slower powders.

If it looks like what the pictures show in posting #5, and has no evidence of deterioration, I wouldn't be at all hesitant about using it, even if in opened cans. After all, it is already about the fastest extruded tubular grain propellant I know of, and if used with 4227 recipes from reliable handbooks, it's not really possible to get an overload.

 

[Nevada Ed]

" different size/shape.... "

The company might change the "Cut" to keep the burn rate correct, for a new batch of powder.

Alliant "Steel" powder was famous, for having different burn rates for those that loaded steel shot for ducks & goose hunting.

However, rifle and pistol powders are kept to a much tighter burn & enenergy rate, for your safety............ if unopened.
One reason a powder has "Lot" numbers, per the chemical make up and making of the powder, for each shipment of powder.

 

[TIMETRIPPER]

Read somewhere the the difference between IMR and H 4227 was in the number of batches that were blended for the final production lot. Don't remember which used more and can't for the life of me find the article.
I use 4227 for hot loads in my 41 Mag and for hunting loads in my old straight walled rifle cartridges, the 32-40 and 38-55 specifically. Data is so close for either brand powder that I have used them interchangeably in the past. And I've never gone to full loads with the rifle cases. Of course now I have only the IMR variety.
For the 41 Mag I've found that 4227 and 2400 are very close in performance with similar weights.

John

 

[M29since14]

The IMR4227-H4227 thing Hodgdon created has muddied the waters in the minds of quite a few. Same with the 4198s. I don’t know why companies do stuff like that.

I use IMR4227 but have never had H4227 to compare it with. I wouldn’t hesitate to use the opened can, with all the usual provisios… comes from reasonable trustworthy source, looks and smells ok, no outward evidence of contamination, and “working up” as you should do anyway. With those precautions it would seem difficult to get into too much trouble. I’m in the same camp with Dwalt. I’ve been using 4227 and 2400 in cast bullet loads for 7.62x39, .308, and .30-06. They’ve always worked great. Herco and Unique seem to as well, but are notably dirtier than 4227.

 

[jimmyj]

In case you hadn’t noticed, powder is a bit hard to come by lately.

Powder Valley- check their web site

 

[olskool]

i just opened a sealed can just like the one in the first post 2 days ago. it looks like your powder,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Powder Valley- check their web site

Unfortunately there is even slim pickings there too.

 

[Nevada Ed]

If you trust using that powder, here are some numbers that I came up with, using imr4227 powder, if you have a chrony or might want to try some loads.

2" j frame HSM 125 LFN
9.5 gr imr 4227 at 507fps
speer 135 Gold Dot
12 gr imr4227 at 708fps
Sutter 158 Lwc
10 gr imr4227 at 571fps

686 6" L frame (38 case)
125 jhp
14c imr4227 at 945
158 Lwc
11.0c imr4227 at 888fps

357 case 110 jhp
18.5 gr imr4227 at 1295fps
125 jhp
18c imr4227 at 1217fps.

all loads care of my revolvers.......... reduce all .357 loads before testing.

Note;
there are other powders that work a lot better in the 38 special............. (hint)

 

[jimmyj]

Unfortunately there is even slim pickings there too.

recently purchased 3 one pound cannisters from Powder Valley

 

[Nemo288]

I did originally use IMR4198 for decades, but changed to the Hodgdon version around 2009. I find the Hodgdon version meters better, burns a tad slower and produces smaller velocity standard deviations.

Me too!
4198 is one of 2 "go to" powders for the 444 Marlin (the other is Reloder 7).
The H and I versions are definitely different powders.
They look different and the Hodgdon is a newer formulation that includes temperature compensation (one of their "Extreme" powders) and is cut shorter.
It is the same as ADI AR2207 or once was.

I once ordered several cans of H4198 from a major outlet and they sent me the IMR version instead.
When I complained they tried to tell me they were the same.
I finally did convince them they are not and they sent me the right powder and told me to keep the IMR so I calmed right down.
Later I ran into a forum member who was coming thru town and preferred the IMR4198 so we made an in-person deal for most of it.

This forum is where it's at!