Author Topic: Why not Scot 4100?  (Read 511 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DWTim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
  • Gender: Male
Why not Scot 4100?
« on: July 15, 2007, 11:54:15 AM »
Does anyone here have impressions about Scot 4100? It is a propellant currently sold by Accurate that is between AA#9 and H-110/296 in burn rate. So far the folks in my area have never heard of it. Considering my great success with Scot's Solo 1000, I figure this powder would be handy with my .357 heavy bullet project.

Here's why I'm considering it:

* It's slower than AA #9, but not so much that a 4" barrel revolver can't benefit

* It's also a ball powder that flows like AA #9, which gives perfect consistency through my measure

* Even with the hazmat and shipping fees on a 4 lb. container, it's still cheaper per pound than off-the-shelf H-110 or W296

* It's easier to ignite, so it doesn't need magnum primers, which are both hard to find and more expensive than regular
(I currently have less than half a carton of WSPM, which I'm saving for when I really need them. When pistol magnum primers dry up at my local shops, it is generally many, many months before they're restocked.)


The downside being:

* No one has heard of it, or has even stocked it in my area

* Most places stock only 4 or 8 pound containers


Has anyone else used this powder?

Offline stimpylu32

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (67)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6062
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why not Scot 4100?
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2007, 12:24:09 PM »
DWTim

Given that the maker has yet to list any data for handguns i'd say away from it , not that it would not work but more of the fact that it may be a case of having the high pressure spikes of H110/Win296 or other adverse affects .

So till a proven scorce has some proven data it would be safer to stick with the tested loadings .

stimpy
Deceased June 17, 2015


:D If i can,t stop it with 6 it can,t be stopped

Offline DWTim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why not Scot 4100?
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2007, 02:12:36 PM »
Thanks for the reply.

I think what happened was that when Accurate bought out Scot powder, #9 and 4100 were so close, the former had better name recognition (due in part to the popularity of WC820 surplus) that the latter was ignored. This is just my own speculation.

Older Accurate guides list 4100 data for handguns. I have both the 2002 and 2003 guides (one of which is on Steve's pages), and there is data in those. I think Accurate publishes based on relative demand. For example, handgun loads with S1000 and XMP-5744 disappeared for a couple years, but are now back in the newest loading data.

Then there are the recommendations on this page, which unfortunately is hard to find because the website has some broken links.
http://www.accuratepowder.com/data/pistol4100.htm

I was just wondering if there was some hidden negative about this powder, like "it leaves purple polka-dots on your gun's finish." If not, then I assume it's just because it is too close to the territory ruled by the undisputed King of Magnum Load Powders. I've switched over to "outdoor" loads for the summer, so I'd love to tinker with something that has the above advantages, and is a little easier on the wallet in the long run. Normally the only powder I'd ever consider buying in bulk is Unique, but I'd have no choice with this one. Just want to make sure I don't get stuck with four pounds of flower-bed fertilizer.

EDIT: For those of you interested in the load data, here are links to the two guides mentioned, one hosted by National Bullet, and the other on Stevespages.com:

http://www.nationalbullet.com/pdf/2002guide.pdf

http://www.stevespages.com/pdf/2003guide.pdf

I found these through Google. If it is not okay to link to them, I will remove the links and host my own copies somewhere else.

Offline roper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
Re: Why not Scot 4100?
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2007, 06:31:54 PM »
I've got Scot Powder reloading manual 3rd edition dated 1990 and they don't list a 4100 type powder but they list Solo 1000 and 1250 which I think Accurate still list that powder from the old Scot line.  Scot also made (Royal Scot,Pearl Scot and Solo 1500) in pistol and shotgun powder the other lines they call Brigadier 4197,3032,4065 and 4351 which was rifle powder.

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18266
Re: Why not Scot 4100?
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2007, 12:36:35 AM »
My educated guess would be that its nothing more then another version of wc820. Accurate packaged it as aa9 hodgdon as h108. Its probably just wc820 that was a different lot that burned a tad slower then there aa9 lot and so they packaged it as scotts 4100. If my guess is right and the price is right buy the crap out of it because its probably the finest magnum handgun powder that was ever produced. You have to keep in mind with powders that these people dont make there own powders they just buy in bulk and package in there company containers. It never ceases to amaze me that people shy away from surplus powders like wc820 but will buy the same thing if its in a fancy bottle like accurate arms uses. I see as much lot to lot variation with AA powders as i do with the surplus stuff and any good handloader needs to be careful when switching lots of any powder and any good handloader has no excuse in the world for not owning a chrongraph anymore as they can be bought for 60 bucks.
blue lives matter

Offline DWTim

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why not Scot 4100?
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2007, 07:21:41 AM »
My excuse is that I'd get thrown out of any range where I attempted to set up a chrono. I have few opportunities to do one on private land. (Attempting to rectify by joining a club without idiots.)

The problem with WC820 is that both pull-down and new went up about 35% since last year, with every supplier. At this point, it's $11 shy of retail including hazmat fees, and $11 is about how much it costs to ship 8 lbs.

Well, looks like I'm going to be the guinea pig on this one.


EDIT: Okay, my math is wrong, but still surplus isn't that much of a bargain.