Imr4895 and .308

[conan32120]

I'm new to .308 loading and was looking for loads with powder I had on hand, when I researched imr4895 I found 37.7-46.4gr for 150gr fmjbt in hornady specs and 42.7-45.5gr for 165gr in hodgden specs. This seems totally opposite of what I expected, any thoughts?

 

[Hugger-4641]

Not sure what you expected, but I don't see anything really amis.
Two different bullets, even if same weight , will have different charge data in same manual. Heavier bullets generally have lower max charge. Hornady is generally a little more conservative on max charge than Hogdon and they probably didn't use the same test barrel and/or method as Hogdon, and they only list data for Hornady bullets.
You have to consider all these things, but again, I'm not sure what you saw that is not what you expected.

 

[Howa 9700]

X2. What were you expecting?

 

[Skeptic13]

You seem to be mixing a few different subjects together. Hornady load data will always be more conservative than Hodgdon in my experience. For 150 gr bullets and IMR 4895 Hodgdon lists the load range between 42.6-47.3. Considerably higher than Hornady.

As far as the different bullet weights remember that it takes less powder to create the same pressure level in a smaller space than it does in a larger space. Because you are using a heavier bullet of the same caliber it will will seat deeper into the case that the lighter bullet creating the smaller space and requiring less powder.

 

[lightman]

I'm another thats not sure what you were expecting. But 4895 works great in the 308.

 

[AJC1]

With a 150 44.4 was an accuracy node with the Speer btsp at 2.700. 41.5 was good for a 168 at 2.800.

 

[Charlie98]

Not sure what you expected, but I don't see anything really amis.

+1

The data for the 150grn FMJ bullet covers a lot of ground, because it is used quite a bit in service rifles. That powder charge range would give a handloader some good leeway working up a load for the myriad rifles that would take that bullet. The 165grn data, which is most likely for a hunting-type bullet, would operate in a much narrower velocity range.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I think the OP saying it's opposite to what he expected pertains to the heavier bullet having a higher charge weight. Remember, you are comparing 2 different sources.

I don't have my Hornady book on hand so I can't check the OAL they used compared to Hodgdon. Most times you will find data with lower charges weights compared to another source are a result of a different OAL. Also, like said already, Hornady is very conservative with it's data.

If you're not happy with 4895 give 4064 a look see, it's a really good .308 powder. Varget is highly thought of also.

 

[conan32120]

I think the OP saying it's opposite to what he expected pertains to the heavier bullet having a higher charge weight. Remember, you are comparing 2 different sources.

I don't have my Hornady book on hand so I can't check the OAL they used compared to Hodgdon. Most times you will find data with lower charges weights compared to another source are a result of a different OAL. Also, like said already, Hornady is very conservative with it's data.

If you're not happy with 4895 give 4064 a look see, it's a really good .308 powder. Varget is highly thought of also.

You were correct in what I was inferring as I find it good policy to start low and work up, and I am trying to find some varget but for now it's 4895, tac and cfe223. Also finding it unusual how .308 shares so many powders with .223 but so few with .243

 

[AJC1]

You were correct in what I was inferring as I find it good policy to start low and work up, and I am trying to find some varget but for now it's 4895, tac and cfe223. Also finding it unusual how .308 shares so many powders with .223 but so few with .243

It's the case volume to bore symmetry. 243 is more overbore.

 

[Charlie98]

It's the case volume to bore symmetry. 243 is more overbore.

And much like 6.5 Creedmoor. I was surprised at the (slow) powders people were using for it, at first, but now I'm a believer.

 

[conan32120]

With a 150 44.4 was an accuracy node with the Speer btsp at 2.700. 41.5 was good for a 168 at 2.800.

Are you sure about these? Your 168 load is below hodgden min yet you show velocity being higher than the 150gr load.

 

[Ironicaintit]

Are you sure about these? Your 168 load is below hodgden min yet you show velocity being higher than the 150gr load.

That's OAL, not FPS

 

[AJC1]

Are you sure about these? Your 168 load is below hodgden min yet you show velocity being higher than the 150gr load.

That's oal not speed...

 

[alsaqr]

My favorite .308 powder is IMR 3031: Most of my .308 loads utilize bullets no heavier than 150 grains along with Winchester cases. My most accurate loads are on the ragged edge of maximum. Bullets are seated about .020 off the lands and most won't feed from the magazine.

 

[conan32120]

That's oal not speed...

Sorry my eyeballs not wonderful these days, seeing a comma instead of a period on this phone can be quite difficult and those numbers did seem about right for fps. Anyway I trust your numbers as I've used them before and loaded up 10 to try

 

[Charlie98]

My favorite .308 powder is IMR 3031: Most of my .308 loads utilize bullets no heavier than 150 grains

While IMR4895 might be the 'Unique' of rifle powders, and works swimmingly in the .308, I've found IMR3031 to be a lot handier for my shooting in .308 with 110grn-150grn bullets. Once I go to 168's, I bypass IMR4895 and go to IMR4064.

 

[Howa 9700]

When it comes to powders for the 308, there is good, better and best, but what I find remarkable is it is one of those calibers where there are literally dozens of powders that can be used. When I resumed loading a couple years back, not much of anything was available (and no idea if or when it would ever be), so I would snag a pound of this and a pound of that as they became availabe. I think I now may have 6 or 8 powders to load the 150 to 165 grain bullets I'm using. All work and work pretty well. They all go BANG and you don't want to be standing in front of it when it does.

 

[dh1633pm]

I tried IMR4064, AA2520, IMR4895, and IMR3031 for my 308 loads with 168 SMK's. AA2520 shot the best, but I couldn't find any until recently. After 2520, IMR4895 worked best in my 700 MilSpec. So I stuck with it. I just couldn't get a load with IMR4064 to work right. I worked up a load with 4895 and used it to shoot F-Class at a local range. It worked. Like Howa97000 there are lots of choices and a lot of good choices. Try some out and see what works.

 

[AJC1]

Sorry my eyeballs not wonderful these days, seeing a comma instead of a period on this phone can be quite difficult and those numbers did seem about right for fps. Anyway I trust your numbers as I've used them before and loaded up 10 to try

I got the 41.5 load from another member and just confirmed it for myself as good. The 44.4 was a test I ran, and it kinda surprised me how good it shot.
150 speer btsp x5

168 horn bthp x10