Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters H4895

I still have 2 or 3 pounds of old H4831 from a 25 lb. drum that I bought in the early 1960s. When I bought it I was told that it was WWII surplus 20mm powder.

It is still feeding my 270, 30/06 257 Wby and my 300 Wby and in great condition.

Yep, I still have some WWII "H4831"--both from a waxed-cardboard can opened 2-3 years ago, and a couple of paper-bag pounds.

Have used a bunch of it to kill a bunch of bog game. It works fine, as long as you hunt in moderate temperatures (say around 25-85 degrees), and most powders made these days will also work fine there. Otherwise the Extreme version is superior.

H4895 is the catz azz in the 22-250. I've tried H380 as well, but got better accuracy with H4895. Great powder. I've never seen a 22-250 that didn't like the stuff..

BSA,

Glad you're apparently so concerned, but my powder is still in fine shape.

Contrary to what many claim my particular can is faster-burning ("hotter") than the present Aussie version. Or at least my particular can produces somewhat higher velocities than either of my present batches of new H4381, whether short-cut or "standard."

This was demonstrated in GUN GACK II by testing handloads with the same powder charge, same brass and primer, and same bullet seated to the same depth in the same rifle.

Of course, this may have been due to a bunch of the WWII powder not being "blended" to result in a fairly consistent burn rate, like most of today's canister powders. Other batches of mil-surp H4831 may burn faster or slow. A friend just send along a couple of pounds of eatly "bagged" mil-surp powder, which also appears to be fine.

H4350 and H1000 started out in Scotland too.

H 4895 is fabulous for reduced loads for young shooters. Always accurate, my favorite powder.

So, it seems that if one was to use load data from 1950 to 1970 (for instance) for H4895, one should probably do as with all published data - start low and work your way up to velocity that has been published in various manuals, given that no pressure signs occur. With small base cases like the 222 by the time the bolt gets sticky, the pressures are way high.

It seems there's more issues than the powder burn rate changing - such as lack of pressure equipment back then, accuracy of pressure testing methods, weight changes in brass, primer changes and bullet changes, possibly a few other things.

I've not used the base expansion method and probably should, but for now, I'll use the chronograph.

Still it would be interesting in knowing the dates of changes in powder manufacture so when a report in 1967 states using H4895 or other powder one would know that the author was probably using Scottish or WW2 surplus or...

FWIW H4895 was also made in Scotland. A pound bottle of Scottish in my closet is from '91. I believe this is from the same powder company that started making Scot powder. Their Brigadier 4351 was the original short cut 4350. They also made a 4065, 3032, & 4197. Older H4350 (the can I have is from '87) was long grain & likely from DuPont in Delaware.

I use it in 6mmBR loads with 88 grain Bergers. I haven't found anything better, although IMR 3031 surprisingly comes close in my particular rifle.

I have a few of the older Lyman manuals. some have the starting load as 51.0 gr. Current Lyman's show that as a max load.
H4895 was the first powder I used when I first started handloading ammo. Bought it in a brown paper bag, fifty cents a pound. Depending on the barrel it would say use 3031 data, or use 4320 data Some said use 4064 data. That stuff at first was all over the place in burning rate. From what I understand, Hodgden finally just blended it all into one homogenous powder before supplies ran out. It did make life simpler. Just don't use Lyman data from before 1964.
Paul B.