H4895 and IMR4895

[Nature Boy]

I'm loading .308 and .30-06

I have ~20 lbs of H4895 but I don't have IMR4895 and I've never tired it either.

I know they aren't the same, but my question is are they different enough for me to want to carry some IMR4895 in my inventory? There are a few references, both published and on line, that list it as a component in their accuracy load.

I've also read that the differences between the two include IMR4895 being a tad slower and more sensitive to temperature. What are your experiences?

 

[badkarmamib]

I use H4895, and use Hodgdon's website and Reloading Assistant app to verify data. Yes, there is quite a difference between H4895 and IMR4895, but there is data for both.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

While there is a real difference between the two I disagree there is quite a difference. Of course I'm not saying to interchange the data. Yes, the IMR variant is slightly slower and when I load both in the 30-06 I use the same charge with a 150gr bullet, not at the max. Should you have both, not in my opinion. I wouldn't worry about temperature sensitivity, it's overstated on the forums these days.

 

[badkarmamib]

Sorry, "quite" to me, means sufficient that simple load substitution is not possible. For .30-06 Nosler 150's, for instance, the published low end is 3gr difference. In the OP's position, I would just load with H4895. Using respective published load data, the performance of the two powders should be almost identical.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Sorry, "quite" to me, means sufficient that simple load substitution is not possible. For .30-06 Nosler 150's, for instance, the published low end is 3gr difference. In the OP's position, I would just load with H4895. Using respective published load data, the performance of the two powders should be almost identical.

I understand this but the data alone may not tell the entire story. When Hodgdon took over distribution of IMR powders much of the data that was tested by IMR was not tested again. This is evident by the Hodgdon Powder pressures being listed in CUP and the IMR powders in PSI. You may want to argue semantics but they are close in performance. That was the OP, do I need both? My answer stands at not IMO.

 

[badkarmamib]

Sorry if it sounded like I was arguing. If I read only your posts, I agree with you completely, 100%. My posts were trying to convey the same info, but was executed poorly

 

[Reloadron]

If you are asking while sitting on 20 pounds of H4895 it is worth buying up IMR 4895 my answer would be nope. If I were you and going to buy more powder, depending on what you are loading, the money would be better spent on another powder, for example AA 2495 or IMR 4064. That being just my opinion. Then too, if you are really curious pick up a pound of the IMR 4895 and give it a try.

Ron

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Sorry if it sounded like I was arguing. If I read only your posts, I agree with you completely, 100%. My posts were trying to convey the same info, but was executed poorly

The word argue doesn't always have to infer anger. It was meant you were arguing a point, not arguing with me. That is what discussions should be about.

 

[1KPerDay]

I also have a bunch of old H4895 and don't see the need to buy IMR. For my purposes they are interchangeable, or close enough I'd never be able to shoot the difference.

 

[Nature Boy]

Great feedback guys.

AA2495 - don't have any
IMR4064 - Have 2 lbs.

I'm about to place a purchase, will add these to the list. I might just order a pound of IMR4895 like Ron suggested and see for my self.

Also thinking about 8 lbs more of Benchmark since I've found a really accurate load for it with 110g AMAX in .308

 

[Slamfire]

I have shot kegs of IMR 4895 and AA2495. Accurate Arms told me that AA2495 is a copy of IMR 4895 and blended to the same pressure curve. I shot enough that I could not tell the difference in point of impact or anything else. I earned my Distinguished shooting AA2495 and IMR 4895 in a M1a.

I purchased some H4895 in 2008, and I can't tell any real difference, either on target, over over the chronograph, between it and either IMR 4895 or AA2495. As for temperature sensitivity, I have blown/pierced primers will all of these powders in hot weather, even after extensive testing in nice weather. If H4895 is less temperature sensitive, I do not have the test equipment to measure the difference.

They all shoot well, I "believe" H4895 is a more advanced powder, because it is green, and because the advertising says so. So it must be true. All I know, it shoots well. I would not fool with buying the other 4895 powders in an attempt to figure some deep truth, because it does not exist. I think the best way to go is to buy by price. And if you want to experiment, try IMR 4064 or Varget. Personally I think Varget is the best 308 Bolt gun powder on the market. But I am not giving back my Distinguished Rifleman badge just because I won it with AA2495.

[SIZE="3"][B]M1A Super Match	[/B]	1/10" 6 groove Douglas		
							
174 FMJBT 40.5 grs H4895 wtd, lot 4501 LC mixed WLR 			
	 	OAL 2.800" 				
18 May 2008 T =  71 °F						
							
Ave Vel =2524						
Std Dev =	36						
ES =	90						
High =2587						
Low =2497						
N =	5						
	good group						
							
174 FMJBT 41.0 grs H4895 wtd, lot 4501 LC mixed WLR 			
	 	OAL 2.800" 				
18 May 2008 T =  71 °F						
							
Ave Vel =2594						
Std Dev =	14						
ES =	30						
High =2609						
Low =2579						
N =	5						
							
							
							
174 FMJBT 41.5 grs H4895 wtd, lot 4501 LC mixed WLR 			
	 	OAL 2.800" 				
18 May 2008 T =  71 °F						
							
Ave Vel =2593						
Std Dev =	15						
ES =	42						
High =2613						
Low =2571						
N =	5						
	Best group						
							
174 FMJBT LC79 Match M118 White Box 				
18 May 2008 T =  71 °F						
							
Ave Vel =2550			 			
Std Dev =16						
ES =	41						
High =2564						
Low =2523						
N =	5			[/SIZE]

[SIZE="3"][B]Ruger M77 MKII [/B] 26 " Barrel 1:10 twist						
							
174 FMJBT 40.5 grs H4895 wtd, lot 4501 LC mixed WLR 			
	 	OAL 2.800" 				
18 May 2008 T =  71 °F						
							
Ave Vel =2559						
Std Dev =	14						
ES =	50						
High =	2589						
Low =	2539						
N =	11						
	good group						
							
174 FMJBT 41.0 grs H4895 wtd, lot 4501 LC mixed WLR 			
	 	OAL 2.800" 				
18 May 2008 T =  71 °F						
							
Ave Vel =2634						
Std Dev =	19						
ES =	50						
High =	2657						
Low =	2607						
N =	6						
	good group						
							
174 FMJBT 41.5 grs H4895 wtd, lot 4501 LC mixed WLR 			
	 	OAL 2.800" 				
18 May 2008 T =  71 °F						
							
Ave Vel =2670			 			
Std Dev =	3						
ES =	9						
High =	2675						
Low =	2666						
N =	5						
	good group						
							
174 FMJBT LC79 Match M118 White Box 				
18 May 2008 T =  71 °F						
							
Ave Vel =2590						
Std Dev =	11						
ES =	35						
High =	2609						
Low =	2574						
N =	9						
	excellent				[/SIZE]

 

[Archie]

I load IMR 4895 in several bullet weights and rifles chambered for .308 Winchester. It is as close to a 'standard powder' as I have for that caliber and it also works well in 150 grain (more or less) loads with .30-06. There are a couple other rifle calibers which respond well also, but I cannot remember them without looking things up (which I don't care to do right now).

I don't feel the need for any H4895 in my locker. They are close enough that one doesn't get any further 'flexibility' in my mind (different bullet weights or expansion ratios). However, they are different enough to require changing charge weights and working up new loads. What I have now works for me.

At this point in life I'm trying to simplify things, not complicate them.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I agree with Slamfire, at this point I see no reason to buy IMR 4895 or AA2495, H4895 works just fine. When I was putting in powder I bought 2x 8lb jugs for my 30-06 Garand ammo. I do however prefer H4350 for my bolt action 30-06 ammo but if I had to use IMR 4350 I probably couldn't tell the difference down range.

 

[res45]

Another option is that you can do reduced loads in many calibers using the H4895 by dividing the MAX load for a given bullet weight by .6 to give you a starting load to work up from with no filler necessary. I us it with cast bullet loads when I want to get the velocity up and give the bullet a nice slow push instead of using the faster burning pistol and shotgun powders.

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

 

[GaryL]

I generally prefer IMR4895 over H4895, having used both. However, if I had 20lbs of H4895 to start with, I'd work up loads for it and if some of those worked well, there would be no reason to make a switch. Worst case, there would be plenty of powder for cheap plinking and blasting loads, and some other powder would go towards target/hunting loads.