Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles IMR 4895/H4895 Powder?

OK, I'm a bit confused. I am looking for some rifle powder to load .30-06 for use in a M-1 Garand rifle. For those unaware, the M-1 Garand gas system requires ammo loaded to a certain pressure range to avoid possibly damaging the operating rod. To do this, only certain powders can be used and it is best to use 150 grain bullets. No problem at all on the bullets. However, when researching powders for this, I came across two Hodgdon products being H 4895 and IMR 4895. Both of these are marketed by Hodgdon. Hodgdon's website for loading data would seem to indicate these are indeed two different powders. Is this incorrect load data and the powders are the same, or is this really two different powders with the same product number? Is either one of these better than the other for loading for the Garand rifle? Is there a better powder choice than these?

They are 2 different powders while they may be close the H4895 is better for stability. All the guys I know who shoot 1,000 BR use the H4895 in ther 6BRA

Yep, H4895 is one of the Extreme Hodgdon powders made in Australia.

IMR4895 is essentially a copy of the original 4895 introduced by DuPont in the 1930s, in large part for use in the Garand. It isn't as temp-stable as H4895, and according to Hodgdon's most recent tests isn't as consistent as H4895 Extreme when used in reduced loads.

It's also worth noting that H 4895 will almost always produce better velocities in almost any given cartridge. I'm not sure if that's important to you or not but for some it might be.

Thanks very much to all that replied. That is exactly the information that I needed.

I prefer IMR 4895 HANDS DOWN over H 4895. I shoot them in bolt actions, but I always find IMR's most consistently accurate than I do Hodgdon's 4895. in about anything I use both of them in, regardless of caliber.

I have a few pounds of both and I’ve found one or other more accurate shooting from the bench. In the future, I’ll be working more with H4895 for reasons MD mentioned.
H4895 worked best in my 350 RM, in a 30-06 ‘03 and others. Another rifle preferred IMR4895 shooting from the bench. However, the change in impact due to temperature change is often much greater than the accuracy difference on a day shooting at the bench it seems. I’m grateful for the time MD has spent working on testing temperature stability in powders. I’m disappointed that a powder that I really liked is not so good temperature stability wise - I wouldn’t have known this but from reading MD’s testing. My own experience has mostly been issues with high temperatures and high pressures. I see people using and recommending powders that I avoid like the plague. But then there’s other powders that fall somewhere in between, it seems.
If I can, I’ll go with the most stable powder. In times like these a guy might have to go with 2nd best.

H 4895 is really good for reduced loads.

I'm shooting IMR4895 and Sierra 168 grain bullets in my Garand with excellent results. As already stated, IMR 4895 and H4895 are different powders that are fairly similar, but should not be substituted for one another.

I've adhered to IMR-4895 in my Garand loads because temperature stability is a moot point in my life - you simply won't but rarely catch me shooting in blazing hot weather and certainly not in frigid weather, and accuracy with that powder is A-ok. In recent years I've also been using Varget, not because of temp stability but because it's proved to be accurate. Experiments with RL-15 were only so-so - a shame because I fell into a goodly stash of it.

The issue about twanging the op rod with ill conceived loads with slow powders and/or heavy bullets can be ameliorated to a degree with use of an adjustable gas valve, something I haven't messed with. 150-165's at 2700 give or take pushed by 4895 or Varget suit my temperament just fine.

I could care less if IMR 4895 is " second best" in the 4895 burn rate.


I've seen more consistency and accuracy across the board with IMRs version than Hodgdon's., in a wide variety of calibers and the rifles I use it in... I can't say that with the results I've seen with H 4895... in almost any cartridge or calibers I've used that powder in.

Others MAY experience the exact opposite results than I see in my rifles, but anyone should expect people to buy what works best for THEM.

I've hunted with IMR 4895 in temps well below zero in Northern MInnesota when I lived there, and up into the 70s and 80s for deer and over 100 degrees when out shooting sage rats. I've never experienced any temp sensitivity that dramatically effected my results in the field.

Maybe I'm just lucky... who knows.;

I think I've saw H4895 in stock at an online place maybe once, since Covid.

Actually bullet weight isn't an issue and you can use an extremely wide range of powders in the garand.

4895 has nothing to do with the garand or it's ammo as it wasn't loaded until around 1943-44 timeframe.



Find a powder you can get in volume and go with it.

Buy a copy of Hornady's reloading manual, it has a section for M1 Garand loads. H4895 is listed as a recommended powder for the 150gr bullets but IMR4895 isn't.

IMR4895 isn't recommended until you start using 168gr or heavier bullets. This is proof that H4895 is a faster powder (faster powders are used with lighter bullets).

The Garand op rod only had a problem when long range competition shooters started pushing heavy bullets (necessary for better BC values with the bullets available at that time) at high velocities (better performance at 1000 yards). That combination pushed the op rod at high speeds which created higher impulse forces. Those forces were far greater than the op rod was designed to handle. For the average shooter, bent op rods should never be an issue, you aren't trying to keep 180gr bullets at supersonic speeds at 1000 yards.

Don't forget that the Hornady garand data is extremely anemic. It shouldn't even be considered "definitive". I don't even look at it.


Hogdons is much better...but don't be afraid to look at regular data either.

To be clear, are you suggesting that IMR4895 is inappropriate for use with a 150 grain bullet in a Garand?

Often manuals leave out a powder that seems would work well. I’m not sure why, though I can give a good guess or more.
For one thing they don’t have room for all loads as shown by Brian Pierce or Ken Waters in their pet load articles.
They may not have had good luck with a powder with that cartridge/bullet and dropped it.
They may have their prejudices.
There may have had time limitations that precluded testing more powders.
Fianally i feel leaving a powder out that seems like it should work well only means there wasn’t enough room/time to show all the possibilities.
They were paid to come up loads using ip to 6 powders after all.

Just a example of why not to use Hornady data...



4895 was used for M2 ball loading starting in late '43-44 timeframe.


But don't get hung up using only 4895. Dozens of powders out there that work fine.

What is a good source for .30-06 M-1 Garand loads using 150 gr. bullets other than Hodgdon? Some seem to not be satisfied with Hornady data. I don't know as I don't have a Hornady book. It seems that H 4895 is pretty much unobtainable for now. Plenty of IMR 4895 available. What else works well for a Garand? I've got a good supply of Sierra 150 grain bullets, but I'm reluctant to buy one of Sierra's books if they don't have any specific loads listed in it for this application. Maybe they do, I just don't know. Kinda reminds me of the "need to pass the bill to find out what is in the bill" situations.

Ya do remember that until about ~73-74 that H4895 was IMR4895 the Garand is older than that.