IMR4895 and H4895

[Catpop]

Now that Hodgdon owns/makes? IMR4895 and H4895 is it now the same powder?
Reason I ask is I love the 60% of max rule with H4895 for lighter loads and also in loading for my WW2 Garand service loads?

Can the powders be used interchangeably now with new production IMR4895.

In other words same powder, different label?

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I like IMR 4895 a lot. But the data is a little different with 2 4895's. Best stick with what Hodgdon reccomends.

 

[Laphroaig]

I asked Hodgdon several years ago whether it was OK to use 60% loads with IMR4895. Their response was that the IMR and H versions had different pressure curves, and that they didn't recommend it. So at least at that time, the two powders were different.

 

[Charlie98]

No, they are still 2 different powders... and quite different. H is one of their Extreme powders... so it is supposed to be more temp stable than an IMR powder.

Back in the day, I couldn't find any IMR4895 for the Garand, so I grabbed a bottle of H4895. I decided to just drop down one grain, from 47grn (IMR) to 46grn (H,) and just give it a go. Over otherwise identical loads, the 1grn less H load gave me more velocity than the IMR load. That was some time ago, but I don't believe Hodgdon has changed H4895 in any significant way.

 

[hoardingthemanual]

The Sierra manual acknowledges naming conventions are very similar and that can cause problems. That said, they advise it’s not the same powder and not to substitute them.

 

[Jim Watson]

Not the same stuff. Hogdon gets H4895 from ADI in Australia, IMR 4895 from IMR in Canada.

Original H4895 was Army surplus made by DuPont. When that ran out, they had fresh powder made by ICI in Scotland, then changed manufacturers to ADI in Australia.

I asked Hodgdon several years ago whether it was OK to use 60% loads with IMR4895. Their response was that the IMR and H versions had different pressure curves, and that they didn't recommend it.

Old DuPont literature said you could safely load IMR 4895 down to "3/5 of the maximum." Pretty close to 60%, eh?

 

[Catpop]

Well Drats!

 

[MonkTx]

Now that Hodgdon owns/makes? IMR4895 and H4895 is it now the same powder?
Reason I ask is I love the 60% of max rule with H4895 for lighter loads and also in loading for my WW2 Garand service loads?

Can the powders be used interchangeably now with new production IMR4895.

In other words same powder, different label?

Hodgdon doesn't make powder, they own different companies that make powder.

 

[Slamfire]

This was before the current merger, which will be before the next corporate takeover, and the one after that. Ad infinitum.




I went out and shot the stuff in my M1a and in a 308 Bolt gun. There was no practical difference in velocity between IMR, H 4895 and AA2495. There may be pressure differences, but I don't have pressure gauges, so within the equipment I have, I can't tell a difference. I can say, with over charges, both powders will blow primers.

One is green, the other is black. From what I read, that difference is huge, almost galactic in consequence.

Since the manufacturer's are the same, the pressure curve specifications the same, I really doubt the owner's name on the bottle changes the characteristics of the powders.

 

[Jim Watson]

Well, not exactly. Hodgdon has the distributorships for Winchester and IMR powders sewed up but they do not own the powder mills, those are General Dynamics properties.
They now own Western/Ramshot/Accurate but those have never been manufacturers, just importers and packagers, same as Hodgdon, competitors that got bought out.

Somewhere out there is a plant that makes Pyrodex, Hodgdon owns that. I don't know about 777.

Since the manufacturer's are the same, I really doubt the owner's name on the bottle changes the characteristics of the powders.

They are not. See post #6. I went to shopHodgdon.com and enlarged the labels; clearly marked for national origin.
AA2495 is made in Canada, no doubt right off the IMR 4895 production line.

 

[Slamfire]

Well, not exactly. Hodgdon has the distributorships for Winchester and IMR powders sewed up but they do not own the powder mills, those are General Dynamics properties.
They now own Western/Ramshot/Accurate but those have never been manufacturers, just importers and packagers, same as Hodgdon, competitors that got bought out.

Somewhere out there is a plant that makes Pyrodex, Hodgdon owns that. I don't know about 777.



They are not. See post #6. I went to shopHodgdon.com and enlarged the labels; clearly marked for national origin.

Ok, the manufacturer changed. So has the pressure curve specifications changed also? Can you share the technical specifications put out for bid?

 

[Jim Watson]

The manufacturer has changed multiple times.
Where are the pressure curve specifications you speak of?
I don't have pressure test equipment, either, I just have to go by the simplified consumer manuals.

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

Back in the day, before there were so many different powders from which to choose, it was fairly well known in handloader circles that the medium burn rate extruded (IMR-style) powders were suitable for downloading.
H4895 is a medium rate extruded powder. So is I4895. So is 3031, etc etc etc...

The 3/5 rule (60%) is a good rule of thumb. Just about any of the medium burn rate extruded powders can be used that way.

Before anybody starts screaming - if you are not comfortable doing it, by all means don't do it.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Back in the day, before there were so many different powders from which to choose, it was fairly well known in handloader circles that the medium burn rate extruded (IMR-style) powders were suitable for downloading.
H4895 is a medium rate extruded powder. So is I4895. So is 3031, etc etc etc...

The 3/5 rule (60%) is a good rule of thumb. Just about any of the medium burn rate extruded powders can be used that way.

Before anybody starts screaming - if you are not comfortable doing it, by all means don't do it.

Working down from the minimum carries the same risk as working up to the maximum: go slow, watch for signs you’re not getting proper ignition and a good burn, don’t ignore the signs of a bad burn: gas leakage around the neck or primer bulges. Both indicators say you’re too low for safety. Other than that, going under the listed minimum in a manual is just using it as intended: as a guide.

 

[Jim Watson]

I don't see the word minimum in my manual.
It is their idea of a starting load and is often just an arbitrary 10% reduction.

 

[cfullgraf]

For my Garands, I prefer H4895 but I have worked up loads with IMR4895 that yield the same velocity. It is just a hedge against having difficulties finding one powder or the other.

My loads are slightly different between H4895 and IMR4895. It did not take too much time or components to establish an equivalent load using IMR4895.

I have not tried Accurate 2495. Maybe I should.

But, one caveat, I've not loaded any with current production powders, only powders that are 15-20 years old. I guess, when I buy more powder for my Garands, I'll need to work up the loads again.

Garands are the only rifles I have chambered in 30-06. I generally do not use H4895 in anything else other than 30-06. I have used H4895 in other cartridges but for those cartridges I have more favorite powders than H4895.

 

[Charlie98]

Garands are the only rifles I have chambered in 30-06. I generally do not use H4895 in anything else other than 30-06. I have used H4895 in other cartridges but for those cartridges I have more favorite powders than H4895.

I walked into the LGS over in Fort Worth many years ago, asked "I need a powder to load the Garand." Guy at the counter turned around and handed me a can of IMR4895... the rest is history. When I got my M1a... a 16" barreled Socom16, I started with IMR4895, which worked well enough, but I've found IMR3031 to be better for what I'm shooting. My .308 bolt gun was the same... IMR4895 worked, but IMR4064 was better. That leaves the M1 Garand as the only rifle I load IMR4895 for. I consider the 4895's the 'Unique' of rifle powders... It works in so many applications... but it seems like there is always a better powder for a given cartridge when you start digging into it.

 

[murray brook]

I walked into the LGS over in Fort Worth many years ago, asked "I need a powder to load the Garand." Guy at the counter turned around and handed me a can of IMR4895... the rest is history. When I got my M1a... a 16" barreled Socom16, I started with IMR4895, which worked well enough, but I've found IMR3031 to be better for what I'm shooting. My .308 bolt gun was the same... IMR4895 worked, but IMR4064 was better. That leaves the M1 Garand as the only rifle I load IMR4895 for. I consider the 4895's the 'Unique' of rifle powders... It works in so many applications... but it seems like there is always a better powder for a given cartridge when you start digging into it.

I have the same opinion of H-4831. Jack of all trades master of none. JMO

 

[Jim Watson]

But you have a lot more choices now.

 

[Nature Boy]

H4895 has the widest accuracy nodes in my .308 target rifle shooting Berger 185s. Varget is second but encounters pressure signs on the fps curve sooner than H4895.

I’ve never tried IMR4895 so I can’t provide any first hand experience, however, I tend to shy away from powers that aren’t identified as temp stable

 

[Slamfire]

The manufacturer has changed multiple times.
Where are the pressure curve specifications you speak of?
I don't have pressure test equipment, either, I just have to go by the simplified consumer manuals.

You worked at TVA, did TVA not use product or performance specifications? Or did TVA just catapult a pallet of money over the wall and tell the contractors: "Make it Work!"

(based on what I heard about TVA nuclear power plant construction, it was put it in, and pull it out, and put another in, and shake it all about)

Off the top of my head, I thought of what I would think ought to be in a propellant spec. And I am sure the list is tiny compared to what is in a real propellant specification.

Burn rate
Flame temperature
Compatibility with primers
Material compatibility with case, bullet, and primers
Does not leave harmful residue
Does not produce toxins in front of shooter
Max pressure variation with temperature
Pressure curve at ambient, at high temperature, at low temperature
Not dangerous at low temperature
Bulk allowablity, that is it has to fit into the case to produce the desired velocity and pressure
Pressure curve
Shelf life criteria
Ignition shock resistance,
Resistance to auto ignition at the high storage/operating temperature

then the verification tests:

Testing data desired at temperature, case, primer, barrel specifications, and pressure measurement locations from the breech.

The above are performance characteristics, but the prime contractor can specify a chemical composition, and then most of the performance characteristics are tossed out, because it is build to specification.

Looks like DoD has hidden all their propellant specifications except for black powder.

Mil P 00223C Military Specification Powder black
file:///C:/Users/Windows%2010/Documents/Daily%20Dump/MIL-P-00223C.pdf

This specification is a product specification since DoD is requiring a composition, so there are few, if any, performance type requirements. But it can be a guide for what a technical specification is.

This was interesting, some characteristics are being tested for munitions in the field

NATO STANDARD
AEP-97
MULTI-CALIBRE MANUAL OF PROOF AND INSPECTION (M-CMOPI) FOR NATO SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION
https://diweb.hq.nato.int/naag/Public Release Documents/AEP-97 EDA V1 E.pdf

Well, if TVA did not buy things according to technical specifications, I assume this is all Greek to you.

I would be very surprised if Hodgdon, Accurate Arms, Winchester, etc, did not use performance specifications when buying gunpowder from vendors.

 

[Jim Watson]

Oh, yeah we had lots of specifications at TVA.

I am sure Hodgdon has specs, but they are not telling us.
I have not run into the lot to lot variation the Internet warns us of.
I did see a small but distinct difference between the same label number powder from different manufacturers.

 

[243winxb]

A SDS (safety data sheet) shows who & where powders are made. Its availabe on websites.

I have down loaded IMR 4895 & 4198. No issues. Single base powders.

IMR 4198 has been made in Canada & Australia. Sold in same container. Different countries.

The original *(Australia's version)* 4895 made in Australia was modified for the USA market & made darker. Became H4895. *edit*

 

[Jim Watson]

ORIGINAL 4895 was made by DuPont for the US Army.
Australia was two stops later.

 

[Slamfire]

Oh, yeah we had lots of specifications at TVA.

I am sure Hodgdon has specs, but they are not telling us.
I have not run into the lot to lot variation the Internet warns us of.
I did see a small but distinct difference between the same label number powder from different manufacturers.

I was told by Accurate Arms that they blended their powders to plus or minus 5% of their spec. And the technician claimed industry standard was plus or minus 10%. So differences between lots, whether by the same vendor, or different, is to be expected, and is not an artifact of powder being made by subcontractor A or subcontractor B.

Bourbon is also blended to an average taste, unless the distiller is selling it as single barrel. But those single barrel bourbons are chosen so they are close to the brand taste. The stuff that tastes like rot gut, I assume that gets blended with something equally bad, but on the other end of awful, in the hope it all averages out. I did not ask that question on my distillery tours, it would be interesting to find out what they do with the bourbon that tastes like Jimmy Hoffa in a barrel.