Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters H4895 and the 60% rule?

Hodgdon makes this recommendation for any of their data containing H4895 for developing reduced loads. Has anyone used this method with success? Thanks.

Yes, used H4895 extensively especially in the 243 for reduced loads in teaching my sons to shoot center fires before I got a 223. It does produce loud loads.

It also works with IMR4895. Hodgdon specifically recommends H4895 because they get a little more consistent results with it, but I've gotten fine results many times with IMR4895, especially in smaller cases.

As I also understand is that ADI developed that info and just gives it to Hodgdon, so they didn't have any work put into it..

Like JB, I find fine consistency with IMR 4895 along with less of a kaboom when you pull the trigger compared to Hodgdon's 4895.

In an effort to conserve powder these last few years combined with my increasing dislike of recoil, I've developed loads for various rifles using reduced amounts of IMR4895.

Just yesterday morning I settled on a good load for the 270 WSM that throws a 130 grain bullet at an avg. 2765 fps. Seven loads were tried in one grain increments and 4 shot groups went from a low of .502" to the worst at .739". That's as good as that unmodified rifle will do with any full power load of slower powder.

Reduced loads of IMR4895 have produced excellent accuracy in the .243, .270 Win, .308, .30-06, 6.5x55, 7.5x55, 8x57 and now the 270 WSM. In a couple of rifles those reduced loads produced the best groups the particular rifle has ever fired. What's even nicer is that a load that works well in one rifle does well in all of them in the same chambering.

FWIW, Reloder 15 also works very well at less than max loads although it doesn't seem to "load down" quite as well as IMR4895. I've seen great accuracy going down to about the 80% level with that powder but to be honest haven't worked with it as much as IMR4895 since 4895 does so well.

It works well in the 38-55 with cast bullets, too.

Yes, it does. It leaves a few unburned kernels but very good accuracy.

I wasn't able to find H4895 recently and got AA 2495 instead, which I understood is very similar. Are reduced loads following the 60% rule possible with that powder as well?

I don't know. Have used 2495 quite a bit and it's very good powder, in fact it has been more accurate than either 4895 in some rifles. But you might want to contact Western Powders to ask about reduced loads.

Good point. I've tried their help email address in the past and got quick, albeit not always very informative, replies.

Any 4895 was unavailable in Anchorage for a while but 2495 was,, now it's my go to powder for my 308 and my wifes 300 Savage. It meters great and seems to be a little more accurate or at least similar to Varget in my 308.

John:

With all this interest in reduced loads, how about an article? Just being selfish, it can center around the 7x57 if you want....

Tried the 60% suggestion in my 35 Whelen and had hang fires. Click - wait for it - bang. Unnerving to say the least. OTH, H4895 worked great at full pressure.

Switched to Blue Dot for reduced loads in the 1800-2000 fps range with much success.

60% of what?

For what it's worth, I much prefer to use 4198 in reduced loads compared to 4895.

I also prefer 4198 for reduced loads over 4895. I know Hodgdon recommends 4895 for reduced loads, but it has not ever produced good accuracy for me in that role. Have had stellar results, even with less than 50% case fill using 4198 in 30-06, with other favorites of mine being 2400 and 4227 in all rifle cases down to 17 Mach IV. Unique is has also been really good for reduced loads, and I use it a lot when speed doesn't have to be over 1600, because it does well with case fill below 30%. Have done some tests with Blue Dot in reduced loads, and got great results too. Titegroup is also showing promise for reduced loads, and doesn't seem to be position-sensitive, but I haven't run enough tests in enough cartridges to proclaim it good yet.

While I've been aware of the 60% rule for years the huge cavern in my cases kept me from going less than 75%. 25% reduction in a 358 Norma or a 425 Express makes them feel like pussycats and are a ball to plink with!

Does the "60% Rule" apply to 4198 as well?

I use all sorts of powder for reduced loads, exactly which powder depending on how much reduction is desired. The 4895's are most useful for "somewhat reduced" loads, where I might want to tame a deer rifle from 3000 fps to, say, 2500 for recoil reduction for a kid. Have never encountered a problem when using the 60% rule, and accuracy is usually very good, though the exact powder charge might need to be played with, just as it is in any handloading.

When going lower, say when turning a .375 H&H into a .38-55, I'll use a faster-burning powder like IMR4227. But that's a major reduction.

Rev Mike,

I've not seen any huge swings in speed or pressure when dropping charges down to about 50% of max book loads with 4198. Sometimes this has taken me to approximately 40% of case fill. I don't think I have gone much lower than that, as there are faster powders that will work well at that low volume. I have far more experience with the IMR version of 4198 in reduced loads than the Hodgdon version, and it has become my neck-in-neck favorite along with 4227.

I use reduced powder charges basically this way: H4895 or IMR4064 for somewhat reduced loads in '06 cases, 4198, 5744 and the like for more reduction, then 4227, Blue Dot, Unique, and just recently, Tightgroup. If the cartridge calls for 4895 and 4064 in full-power charges, I start reduction with the next step faster in burn rates. Still blows my mind how accurate 12-16 grains of Unique is in 30-06 cases with bullets from 110-240 grains.