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.

This is very helpful. Thanks

This was my objective.

Thanks all for your help.

What cartridge are you working with?

The 270 Winchester.

3031 may be a good candidate as well. It's bulkier than 4895, and it's good at moderate pressures.

It was H4895, based on Hodgdon's youth load recommendations.

Did you notice the sentence "DO NOT use H4895 in a cartridge where it has not been shown."?

The .35 Whelen is not shown.

And it still begs the question. 60% of what?

60% of the max load of H4895 for that cartridge.

From their pdf:
"To create this type of target and plinking loads, we recommend our 60% rule with H4895: Refer
to our latest reloading manual or the Reloading Data Center found on this website; take the maximum H4895 charge listed
for any given cartridge and multiply it by 60%."

https://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/H4895%20Reduced%20Rifle%20Loads.pdf

Yes I know that. But if there is no H4895 load, then the question becomes, 60% of what?

Wrong



Apparently reading comprehension is a lost art

"To create this type of target and plinking loads, we recommend our 60% rule with H4895: Refer
to our latest reloading manual or the Reloading Data Center found on this website; take the maximum H4895 charge listed
for any given cartridge and multiply it by 60%."

Hodgdon STATES refer to their manual or Reloading Data Center and take 60% of the max of load of ANY given cartridge, if it has H4895 data.

There are LOTS of H4895 loads listed by Hodgdon for the 35 Whelen.

You people are going off that one sheet, that's just a few examples.

Go to Hodgdons site, they list H4895 loads in the 35 Whelen for 180, 200, 220, 225 and 250 grain loads.


You'll notice in the link you boys are using, it also states SAMPLE LOADS, apparently people don't know what SAMPLE means either.

No I am not going off that sheet. My load with H4895 is with a 130 gr bullet. Not on the sheet. Where I did screw up, is assuming someone else had correctly read the information. Same with the 280. That cartridge is not on the sheet.

Now, I have since found that these reduced loads work great with the 130 gr bullet in the 270. I'm experiencing zero hang fires in it and the 280.

tag

Cut and paste from Hodgdons own document:
"To create this type of target and plinking loads, we recommend our 60% rule with H4895: Refer to our latest reloading manual or the Reloading Data Center found on this website; take the maximum H4895 charge listed for any given cartridge and multiply it by 60%."

Their loading guide they refer to has loads for H4895 and the 35 Whelen. I used their data based exclusively on their documentation. How did I misread anything they published?

Sorry I misunderstood.

Weird that you got hangfires. What bullet and primer? Was your brass new or previously fired?

Muledeer,

I was using a Remington 200 grain PSPCL, Remington previously fired (in this rifle) brass and CCI 200 primers. I can't remember if the brass was partial or full resized.

BTW
I'm not wishing to stir the pot, just here to learn. Hope my tone wasn't combative since that's not my intent.

No, it was my fault for apparently having a brain fart, which happens more often at my age.

So you were using around 34 grains of H4895?

I too suffer from flatulistic events in the cerebral regions. What is it they say about the dullest pencil keeping better records than the sharpest mind?

I didn't save the notes since I considered the load a dead end. However, using a max of 56 grains for that bullet would have put me at 34 grains (rounding up from 33.6) to start.

The brass has previously been used with full power loads in the same rifle so the brass fit the chamber without any excessive headspace and that lot of primers had no other misfires. Since the rifle went down the road for other reasons, I can't repeat the test.

Thanks for the details. Guess it will just have to go down as one of those mysteries!

Tag

Does it follow the "60% Rule"? I can't find any 4895 but there is a lot of 3031 around here.

I don't know about the 60% rule. I mentioned 3031 in response to a post about "somewhat reduced" loads. It's supposed to be really good as a 30-30 powder, so it operates well at less than full blast bolt action pressures.

Thanks. I'm just curious since it covers a wide range of bullet weight in some cartridges. If it can also be loaded down for plinking, so much the better.

How far down are you wanting to load? 7x57 right?

Right. 2000 fps or less with 110-120 grain SP or HP.

That's really light, far outside my experience, so I can't recommend anything.

Mine too. I can get there with 4227 but that limits its use to very light loads. If I can get the 3031 down around that point (or close), I can then increase it for 160 gr. hunting loads. It's just a thought.

Are you tilting at the one powder for all load levels windmill?

Good question. Perhaps. But at this point it is also an issue of current availability.

So, is the purpose here to reduce larger cartridge's recoil instead of shooting smaller cartridge at full capacity?

Um, yes.

pathfinder, just trying to figure why go to the trouble of reducing loads, when a simpler solution is to shoot a smaller cartridge at full power?

Guess it's six of one, half dozen of the other, type situation.

leomort:

I can tell you what's behind the interest in my case. It really boils down to three issues:

1. Increased practice/range time. I'm not shooting a hard recoiling rifle, but shooting a lighter load allows me to concentrate on essentials and develop muscle memory with the same rifle I generally hunt with, and in different positions and shooting situations.

2. Sometimes I do a little "varmint control" while sitting in a stand waiting for a porker to arrive and it's easier to use the same gun for both instead of lugging two guns (a .22 and my hunting rifle).

3. It allows my wife and daughter to enjoy my rifles as well as their own (which I'll probably regret someday... ).

Did you ever wonder why shooting a couple boxes of 416 Rigby left you a bit forgetful for a few hours afterward? Yeah, those 60% loads can be kind of handy now and again.

BTW, my little 375/350 Rem Mag really loves either 4895 at full power - and isn’t bad to shoot either. Single digit extreme spreads make it seem like a good match for the little case too.

Klikitarik,

It's great hearing from you!

Before I starting hanging out the 'campfire, downloading a larger cartridge made sense to me.

Heck, downloading my 308win to 300savage levels would still be pretty effective

But, I've started to come around to the smaller cartridges. Namely the 223rem. It seems much more useful than larger "big game" rifle, perhaps even my 308win.

Sorta along the mindset that us eastern get about buying an "elk rifle" for when/if we go out west when the majority of us will never hunt anything more than whitetail deer. However, we're much more likely to target shoot at paper, steel, varmints and predators, etc.

So I was thinking that getting a rifle that fits what most do right now and load premium bullets like barnes for that one deer a year hunting. Southern states my have more number of harvest but are the deer usually smaller down there, thus hardly needing a larger cartridge/caliber?

This way the wife and kids get tons of practice during the summer and off season thus get very familiar with a their rifle that doesn't beat them up so they're not afraid to shoot. Plus you don't break the bank shooting the smaller calibers as much.

Just some rambling thoughts, and I maybe way off base here.

In any event, this is an interesting thread.

Small case, one powder, small game & whitetails. Sounds like a job for the Ozark Mountain Special, the .32-20 and 4227!

Oops, wrong thread.

For a large percentage of my shooting I load my 308's to mimic the old Lake City match ammo. 165/168 at approx. 2550-2600 fps.

Well, I'm not sure how buying another rifle, optics, dies, brass etc is a simpler solution. Nor six of one, half dozen of the other.
I'm doing this for an eleven year old son who will not be eleven forever.