I was going through my stash of powder and realized I have Hodgdon and IMR for the popular powders in which each manufacture offers the same 4-digit # ( H4895, IMR 4895). I fully realize that in almost every instance they are different powders which require different data, but in 20 years of handloading I’ve developed a strong preference for one over the other. So how do you lean?

Me:
4198 -H
4895 -IMR
4350 -H
4831- IMR

Both H4350 and IMR 4350
H4831
H4895

I stopped using 4198 because there are a lot better/newer powders available

In 55 years of handloading, I've used all the IMRs mentioned and now stick with the H versions of 4895, 4350, and 4831. I see no need to go back unless there is a shortage and the Hodgdon powders were not obtainable. The IMRs have a very long history except for IMR4831. I don't think it was available to handloaders until around '73 or thereabouts.

H4831 has been slow in most of the loads Ive tried it in. I now have some H4831SC to play with, so that might sway me. IMR4831 has been god to me in the 270 and with heavies in the 06. Very similar to RL19 IME. I haven’t played with Hunter much, but also a similar burn rate.

H4895 is ok for reduced loads in the 270, not much luck with it in the 06. One placed it shined for me was the 35 Rem, very good accuracy and velocity. IMR 4895 is a gem, not a velocity champ, but accurate and predictable.

H4895
H4831sc

I like H4895 because I have been convinced it is the better choice for reduced loads when I want to go that way.

I have no application for 4198 of either type.

4350, which ever is on the shelf when I am buying. Yes, different data.

4831, I switch back and forth depending on application. If I can not get enough H4831 into the case to reach velocity, then I switch to IMR 4831.

For example 30-06 with LC 67 brass. 63 gr H 4831 works with a 165 gr ballistic tip. But when I switched to the 190 gr Hornady spbt, there was too much compression with H4831. But I could seat the bullet over a full charge of IMR 4831.

The only two from that list that apply to me are 4350 and 4831. For 4831, it is definitely I. For 4350, I have applications where I prefer one over the other.

Same for me as others with the 4350’s. For 165’s in 06, I lean IMR. For 180’s I lean Hodgdon, but some rifles have preferred IMR. Previous 257 Roberts all seemed to prefer H4350. I guess if someone had me in a headlock to pick one, it would be H. Probably the best rifle powder I’ve used.

I prefer H (Hodgdon) over IMR powders. I especially H-4350 for several of my rifles . That is not to say I don't like IMR in anyway however. IMR-4064 is very useful.

I do like some Alliant powders also like RL-16, RL-19 and RL-22. I'm betting I may like RL-23 if I ever get around to trying it.

I'll get back to you when I'm done flipping a coin... That's what 20+ years of using both has taught me.

Honestly, though - each has beaten the other for me, and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to my results. I put 3 .257" bullets in one .258" hole at 100 hundreds once (with a witness!) and thought H was incredible. I've used H to consistently put 7 Mag bullets from various rifles in sub 3/4" groups. Then when all I could find was IMR, one of those 7 Mags turned into a 1/2" shooter.

I used to mostly lean toward H because of the temperature insensitivity touted by the factory and others with experience. I won't argue that point because it makes sense, but IMR continues to put meat in the freezer for me - even when I've sighted-in at 80 degrees and hunted at 15 degrees. That point is hard to argue as well.

I prefer IMR over the H variety and it ain't even close. H has always been slower in every rifle I've tried it in.

IMR..........easily the favorite.

The old brown paper from Dupont load data......it was free. I have 4 of these. They list a load from their fastest powder to the slowest for ALMOST every rifle caliber.

You still follow the rules of handloading.......but those powders do work in all those applications still to this day.........saying "its not optimum" means little to nothing....if its accurate and chronographed then go hunt or punch paper...

It looks like they decided to give you every opportunity to try whatever you have as far as their powders were concerned..........genius.


H......wants you to buy a different powder for each caliber or small change in case dimension or bullet weight........not all the time.....but.....it is very noticeable.....

Lymans cast bullet manual defeats some of that nonsense by H showing you can use those powders in other applications or cases.......when cast bullet data and jacketed data overlap......its going to work. AGAIN...use common sense and GOOD handloading technique to get safe results.

Yes, I use H's powders, BLC2.....in only 2 cartridges....223 and .308. All the other bottle neck cases get IMR......much more consistent across multiple rifles.



Best

Heavy

If its a 4-digit numbered powder, I prefer IMR.

Have tried H4350, not as accurate as IMR in the loads I tried it in.

Just the way things worked out for me.

Began using IMR and now lean towards H versions. Have a new use for H4895: reduced loads! Having fun with a 358 win and 180 FN Speers @ 1990 fps. (40 gr of H4895)

https://www.hodgdon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/h4895-reduced-rifle-loads.pdf

I used to use H4895 for reduced loads and very happy that Hodgdon publishes such data. Using reduced loads is the biggest overlooked skill of a hand loader. Recently (last couple years) SeaFire has got me switched over to IMR 4895. I now prefer it. It works better for mid-range loads as well. 4198 is also a good one for really reduced stuff. I noticed that Speer will publish reduced data for some cartridges using IMR4198.

I have so much IMR 4198 that I will never need to buy more, or try H4198. IMR 4198 is my favorite powder in the 222. I like IMR 4895, but switched to Varget in the mid-1990s. With the 4350s, I use whatever I have on hand in the 30-06 and 270. If I'm going hunting, I prefer H4350. I have always found IMR4831 to be a winner in 270 loads, but like the H version just fine.

IMR 4198 and H4198 is all I have run out my 222 as well. My accuracy node w/ 50 grain SP’s is about 19.5 with IMR, where as my rifle likes 20.5 of the Hodgdon. Therefore I get a little more speed out of the H4198 load, not that it matters. I sought a 222 over a 22-250, etc. for its mild report and reputation for non-fuzziness. The mild report matters when seeking permission to hunt chicks with the hope of being allowed back.

All that said, I believe I will try something different when my current stock of 4198’s is run out. It just takes some time as a pound goes a long way when throwing 19.5 grains at a time😁

Tom, if you want something as a substitute for 4198....as something different...

try RL 7... its a little slower powder, but has great accuracy...

another old school powder... but it has never let me down in accuracy or velocity...

In my Hart barreled Sako Vixen 20 grains of IMR 4198 gives me around 3,200 fps with a 50 grain bullet. With RL-7 it takes 20.5 grains, same speed, and 21.0 grains gives me 3,300 fps.

I also like VV-130 in the 222. AA2200 is a good choice, and has a burn rate very close to H322, another long-time accuracy favorite in the Triple Deuce. RL-7 and AA2200 are ball powders and easier to measure than the extruded powders in case you're loading lots of ammo.

Yes, was thinking about trying RL7 next actually, though I don’t see it around often. A friend that uses it in his .358 also mentioned trouble finding it.

I've tried many powders in .222 rifles and most are good for making accurate loads. Reloder 7 is all I use in my .222s now, along with a 50 grain Sierra Blitz or SP. Reloder 7 has been hard to find, but Powder Valley got some in two or three weeks ago. I ordered a keg as soon as I saw it on their website. It may still be in stock.

I'm more of an H fan guess because the "extreme " line came out as such .. but I know imr and many others have caught up per say.
That said I burn more imr 8208 than as ny other powder

when I started reloading I found IMR4350 loads seemed the most common so I felt it a logical starting point. Luckily I got cloverleafs with it in three different rifles. When I expanded things I picked up H4831sc for heavier bullets in my 260 and 270.

After trying multiple other combinations I am going back to my original formulas that includes these two powders and bullets that aren't 'supposed' to shoot well in my rifles.

I prefer the H versions because of the better temperature stability. I'm in Mississippi, it makes a difference with the heat and humidity.

Crow Hunter: have you tested H4198's temp stability or are you just repeating the powders sellers web site dogma?