|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 218
Campfire Member
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 218 |
This may be old news to some, but it was new to me. Per a call today to Hodgon These two powders ARE NOT THE SAME. The IMR version is made in Canada, and the H version in Australia. You can use the H version for reduced loads, up to 40%, but not the IMR version.
"Waidmannsheil"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4 |
Actually, IMR4895 is quite flexible with regard to backing off the throttle. John Barsness notes: Clark,
I had an extensive conversation with the head ballistic guy at Hodgdon on the 4895 subject a couple months ago, because I had been recommending IMR4895 for the same use for many years. In fact it has been a staple for making reduced loads since it was introduced.
He said there's no problem using IMR4895 with the 60% reduction. Instead, the reason they emphasize using H4895 is it often (but not always) produces more consistent results. But there is no danger in using the IMR version, which of course is now also sold by Hodgdon.
The reason I called was I'd just published a reduced .223 Remington load using 60% of a maximum charge of IMR4895--which resulted in the most consistent velocities of ANY reduced .223 load I tried, with any powder.
So no, there is no danger in using IMR4895 for the same purpose, and in fact it can produce great results in reduced loads, just as it has since the 1930's.
Last edited by mathman; 08/07/14.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,818 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,818 Likes: 4 |
I do a lot of reduced loads... and I have found IMRs powder produces a lot more consistency than Hodgdon's does...
Even tho they have better powders available for reduce loads, they promote H 4895, because ADI in Australia has tested the load data for their powder and GIVEN it to Hodgdon for free...
With Hodgdon's, I have noticed that the powder charge can be deadnuts accurate and then you change the grains up a couple of tenths in either direction, groups open up....often dramatically...
also my other complaint about it, is that with its reduced load, it produces a sizable KABOOM ( noise only), but it often intimidates younger and female shooters...
IMRs 4895 just seems to work pretty well across the board regardless of the caliber it is used in...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,668
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,668 |
I've used IMR's 4895 for full power loads as well as H4895. At full power, the H version's charges are usually a bit less than the IMR version.
I switched over to the "H" version because it is more temperature insenstive by reputation and meters a bit better.
In reduced loads, I've had excellent accuracy, particularly with magnum primers. I've found none of Seafire's fussy performance problems. Accuracy with most stick powders when used in reduced loads often varies as one varies the powder charges, but I've always found it takes a 1-3 grains, not a few tenths.
I've had excellent accuracy with H4895 in the .25-284, the .280 and the .308. especially with the lighter bullets. E
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 218
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 218 |
Actually, IMR4895 is quite flexible with regard to backing off the throttle. John Barsness notes: Clark,
I had an extensive conversation with the head ballistic guy at Hodgdon on the 4895 subject a couple months ago, because I had been recommending IMR4895 for the same use for many years. In fact it has been a staple for making reduced loads since it was introduced.
He said there's no problem using IMR4895 with the 60% reduction. Instead, the reason they emphasize using H4895 is it often (but not always) produces more consistent results. But there is no danger in using the IMR version, which of course is now also sold by Hodgdon.
The reason I called was I'd just published a reduced .223 Remington load using 60% of a maximum charge of IMR4895--which resulted in the most consistent velocities of ANY reduced .223 load I tried, with any powder.
So no, there is no danger in using IMR4895 for the same purpose, and in fact it can produce great results in reduced loads, just as it has since the 1930's. Mathman, Thanks for the post. It is great news as I have a source for the IMR version!
"Waidmannsheil"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,860 Likes: 4 |
You're welcome.
I've been burning a lot of IMR4895 lately. I feed eight 308's and a few other rifles/cartridges for which the powder is appropriate, and it is quite easy to work with. So when my local store got a supply of eight pound jugs, and at a nice price too, I grabbed a couple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,818 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,818 Likes: 4 |
You're welcome.
I've been burning a lot of IMR4895 lately. I feed eight 308's and a few other rifles/cartridges for which the powder is appropriate, and it is quite easy to work with. So when my local store got a supply of eight pound jugs, and at a nice price too, I grabbed a couple. Lucky Dog... I'm done to about 12 lbs of it... and 16 of 4064... getting in the need to pick up some more myself... now if Alliant Powders would ever show up that I use.. AT A DECENT PRICE....
|
|
|
|
|
172 members (300_savage, 338reddog, 308xray, 673, 16penny, 26 invisible),
2,124
guests, and
1,054
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,367
Posts18,488,265
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
