Discussed on another thread here in the last few days...
Personally I don't care for using H 4895 for load reduction, by going too low... especially near a 40% reduction.
However with that in mind last night I went out and loaded 15 rounds, 5 each of H 4895, IMR 4895 and finally IMR 4198.
At three examples were loaded with 15 grains of powder, in a 223 case Considering most 223 loads with H 4895 are 25 grains with a 55 grain bullet. So I used a Speer 55 grain SP, on all bullets. For this example I selected a small pistol primer, from S&B, as I have a bunch. 60% of 25 grain load would be 15 grains.
Here are chronograph results.: you can make your own decisions..
1. 15 grains of H 4895, S&B SP primer, 55 grain Speer SP.
a,) 2002 fps b.) 1902 fps c.) 2079 fps d.) dud e.) dud.
Cases from this test were covered heavily in soot, down most of the case body, and heavily around the rim.
Round 4 & 5, I am blaming the " dud" failure to fire, despite 3 attempts on each, on the primers.
2. 15 grains of IMR 4895, S&B SP primer, 55 grain Speer SP.
a.) 2034 sps b.) 2040 fps c.) 2041 fps d.) 2079 fps e.) 1971 fps
Cases covered in soot but nowhere near as much as H 4895.
3. 15 grains IMR 4198, S&B Small Primer, 55 grain Speer SP.
a.) 2255 fps b.) 2329 fps c.) 2277 fps d.) 2343 fps e.) 2354 fps.
I'll not make judgement on the IMR and Hodgdon 4895 loads, that is for the reader to decide.
IMR 4198 shows why it is my preferred powder in reduced loads in many cartridges especially on "Youth or Ladies" loads.
I find it more accurate in most cartridges versus H4895 and IMR 4895 loads.
I find reduced loads with H 4895 have a louder retort than 4198 or IMR 4895, and better accuracy.
I have experienced better accuracy with IMR 4895 reduced loads vs Hodgdon's H 4895.
Tomorrow I plan on doing the same testing once again, utilizing Small Rifle Primers instead.
Will post the results on this thread tomorrow evening.
