Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

IMR4895 vs. H4895

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by Fatelvis, Jan 12, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fatelvis

    Fatelvis Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,849
    Location:
    Lockport, IL
    Ive been using IMR4895 for years in my M1A and Garand, and like it. But Ive been hearing that H4895 is less effected by temp, and meters better. Im thinking of making the switch. Has anyone used both, to compare thier properties? Thanx guys-
     
  2. Robert inOregon

    Robert inOregon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    319
    Location:
    Fairview, Oregon
    Don't know about H4895, but Benchmark which is a newer powder from Hodgdon is almost completely insensitive to temperature change. The burn rate of both IMR4895 and H4895 are almost identical, but load data should not be interchanged. H4895 burns ever so slightly faster than its IMR relative and there is enough differences between them to create problems.

    Been slowly replacing all my rifle powder from IMR to Hodgdon because of consistency issues.
     
  3. Freedom in theSkies

    Freedom in theSkies Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    206
    Location:
    Helping to stop Terrorism...One day at a time...
    Unless I have a super accurate load worked up, I try to avoid using powders that have similar names or acronyms. That way it cuts Murphys' Law right out of the picture.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page