I have been reading old articles on reloading the 222. H4895 is being referred to in some articles. It’s been quite a while since I have seen 4831, 4895 sold in bags and at less cost than a Can of pop/coke/soda today.
I have shot groups with old H4895 and new H4895 which over-lapped in ‘06 reloads, so I believe the difference isn’t great in some circumstances. But when I read old articles Or old reloading manuals where the author refers to H4895 I wonder...Especially if the author doesn’t mention old vs new.
Brings me to the point of this thread, “When did new H4895 come out?”

Thanks.

There have been more than one new H4895. I don't recall the dates.

H4895 was originally war surplus, then manufactured by Hodgdon, and the Extreme line came out, 15? 20? years ago.

No doubt there's been other changes along the line. Different manufacturing plants in different countries, also.

I don't believe Hodgdon ever manufactured any.

Hodgdon doesn't manufacture H4895?

Or do you mean Hodgdon contracts with smokeless powder manufacturers to Hodgon's specifications?

That's it with respect to H4895.

Most powders are manufactured for different powder brands to their specs by other plants around the world. Vortex doesn't manufacture optics, either.

Which is why I said Hodgdon didn't manufacture H4895. I know they originally marketed 4895 that was surplus which had been made by Dupont. They marketed H4895 made in Scotland, and now in Australia by ADI. I don't know if there were other versions.

On the same theme, I've always used IMR 4895, but lately I come across H4895 more often. What is the main difference and how will the loads transfer over to the H4895 in the real world. I've read data, but I've never tried it. Anyone with any experience?

I was wondering the same thing. Don't use much H4895, but I have almost a full pound of it here. Got 8 pounds of IMR-4895 and the way things are going I don't expect to be making very many powder purchases any time soon. I can read the loading data for each one but just curious as to some folks real world experience.

The Aussie H version is all I’ve ever used. Had some stunning groups from a Kimber Longmaster .308 and 46gr with a 150gr NPT is a favorite ‘06 load. Have also used it a bit with 70gr .243 loads and IIRC, .223

Very versatile stuff. I try to keep some on hand, JIC. The Hodgdon manual has loads out the wazoo.

I have two old pounds of the H and have no idea why. Need to look at the notes.

Found some H4895 just last Friday, along with some H380. Plan on working up some 22-250 loads for a new Bergara rifle. All they would let me purchase was a pound of each.

Geeeez....

Hodgdon, the powder company, has actually manufactured very little powder in the 70+ years the company has been around. Instead they've sold powders made by various factories. Originally they were all military surplus, but these days they come from a lot of different sources.

The orginal H4895 started as a DuPont product, IMR4895, which co-evolved with the M1 Garand rifle, which required a moderate pressure at the gas port near the muzzle.

That powder was produced and used for ALL military .30-06 ammo through WWII. After the war there was so much on hand that Bruce Hodgdon could buy it cheaply by the box-car load. THAT was the "original" H4895--but it was really DuPont IMR4895.

After that started running out, the same basic formula (with some modifications) to make more IMR4895. This was made by DuPont for a while, but eventually they got out of the handloader-powder business. It is now made, with a similar formula, in a plant in Quebec--but also by the Australian factory that produces the Hodgdon Extremes, including today's H4895. Which is the Extreme powder that comes closest to the burn-rate of the original, and Canadian, and Australian-made IMR 4895.

God bless them all!

lol.......Amen!

According to Hodgdon, when the surplus 4895 ran out they contracted with a Scottish company to manufacture it.

They did that as well with H4831, but it only lasted a few years.

I've always had stellar success with H4895
no matter what boat it came off of

I acquired one of the cardboard canisters of H4831 when I bought out an older gentleman's reloading bench. It indeed says "Made In Scotland". It still had a few tablespoons of powder in it. The powder was pretty dusty though.

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.