IMR 4895 vs H 4895

[rwsmith]

I have a ton of IMR 4895 and probably want need any more, but I just read some things that I wasn't aware of. I like IMR 4895 for 1) its tremendous versatility and 2) its ability with reduced loads.

I just read that IMR 4895 is more temperature sensitive than H4895.

Also H4895 handles reduced loads better, because IMR 4895 gets erratic with reduced loads.

About the only good thing I read was that IMR 4895 gets slightly higher velocities as H4895 is a little faster burning.

I've been nothing but happy with the IMR version. All of my shooting is done between around 45 to 90 degrees tops, if it's colder or hotter, I don't shoot.

I've never noticed erratic performance with reduced loads in the IMR version.

I've loaded from mild to wild in all of my calibers with IMR 4895 and I'm happy with the performance.

What do you think of this? Comments. I don't expect Star performance from a powder that I can use for .223 to 8mm Mauser. Versatility is worth something.

 

[rockquarry]

I stopped using IMR4895 a good while ago and switched to H4895. I use H4895 for all .223 and .308 loads including some reduced charge cast bullet loads. IMR4895 is also a good powder, but maybe lacks a little of the versatility of the Hodgdon powder and H4895 is less temperature sensitive than the IMR powder. That can make a difference if you live in Texas and shoot in the summertime or hunt elk in the Rockies in the fall. H4895 is hard to find at the moment; don't know about the IMR version.

However, if I had a good supply of IMR4895, I'd use it up before I looked for any H4895. Ballistically, the difference between the two is not great if you're using moderate to full charges and it's not real hot or cold outside.

 

[M1A4ME]

Guns are funny. Not haha funny. Funny about what they "like." Like = functions well with and shoots good groups with.

Many years ago, before we had a lot of these new powders (early 1980's) I spent a lot of time/money working for a really good load for my M1A. I tried bullets from 150 to 180 grain. Flat based, boat tails, spitzers and match bullets. I tried a long list of powders.

IMR 4895, IMR 4064, IMR 3031, IMR 4350 (not good for the M1A, but that was before I'd read about slow burning powders and M1A/M1 Garand gas systems), IMR4320 (same as IMR4350) W748, W760 (at the time I read W760 wasn't bad for the gas systems but can't guarantee it's true), H335, BLC2, seems like H322 was in there, too. Maybe a couple more I don't remember now. Of all those the best hunting bullet loads were the Sierra 165 grain spitzer boat tails with IMR 4895. Best groups overall were with the IMR4350 and 180 grain Sierra Match Kings (which resulted in a couple broken operating rods.

Just saying, finding the best loads for a gun can be a long journey and some guns like loads other guns don't. A recommendation can be a good thing to try, but it may not shoot as well in my rifle as it does yours. Or it may shoot better. Guns are funny.

Good luck with your reloading journey.

 

[243winxb]

No, have not noticed erratic performance with reduced loads in the IMR 4895 version, shooting cast bullets in 30-30 & 30-06.
IMR4895 is an all around use powder. Cast or jacketed.

Great in 308 Win. Doesnt produce top velocity in 243 Win, but works .

Check the SDS for both. https://hodgdonpowderco.com/safety-data-sheets/

 

[Lance Boyle]

I stopped using IMR4895 a good while ago and switched to H4895. I use H4895 for all .223 and .308 loads including some reduced charge cast bullet loads. IMR4895 is also a good powder, but maybe lacks a little of the versatility of the Hodgdon powder and H4895 is less temperature sensitive than the IMR powder. That can make a difference if you live in Texas and shoot in the summertime or hunt elk in the Rockies in the fall. H4895 is hard to find at the moment; don't know about the IMR version.

However, if I had a good supply of IMR4895, I'd use it up before I looked for any H4895. Ballistically, the difference between the two is not great if you're using moderate to full charges and it's not real hot or cold outside.

I still have a goodly amount of IMR 4895 in an 8 pound jug and just a one pound of the H variety. H variety goes in the hunting loads and I variety goes in the Garand and M14 loads. I already decided when the 8 pound jug of IMR is empty to replace with Hodgdon. Hopefully it's not at gougery pricing then.

Edit to be clear I am not swapping the varieties 1 for 1, they're worked up in a specific gun, with a specific set of components.

 

[71vette]

This is strictly anecdotal information based on my rifles and my results. I'm loading up some basically starting charge "M2" Garand loads using M80 pulled bullets. With 47 grains of IMR4895 I got 2560fps. To get very close to that with H4895 I used 45.5 grains and got 2540fps. I switched powders as I only had 2 pounds of IMR and used it up. I have 10 pounds of H4895.

I have not compared group size between these two loads yet. Also, commercial 30-06 brass.

 

[gwpercle]

I have used both , at different times , over the years , when loading 30-06 , 308 and 30-30 ...
I use data that calls for IMR when using it and data for H when using it ... other than that I can see no big difference in the powders performance or accuracy .
I can be happy with either IMR or H ... 4895
Gary

 

[greenwellg]

When we pulled 880 rounds of Russian surplus the powder looked exactly like 4895. When it was $39.95 for 440 rounds we pulled the bullets and used the powder and projectiles to load boxer primed commercial brass (Privi Partisan) that I bought for $9 per box of 20. It worked out to 440 bullets and right at 3 pounds of powder for $39.95. Since we were going from steel cased to brass, we dropped the charges by 10% which gave us another 44 rounds of powder left over.

 

[WR Moore]

About temperature sensitivity.......it really only gets important if you're shooting way out yonder under varying conditions as that's when velocity variation starts being a real world issue. At 1000 yards a 100 f/s difference could be 3 feet in elevation. Non cannister versions of 4895 was used in a whole lot of GI ammo. If it wasn't a significant problem then, it's not a significant problem now. The OCD types have gotten really, really annoying in their search for absolutes.

Looking for an IMR 4064 substitute I tried A2520, which is also temperature sensitive. During one chrono session the ammo moved from 70F inside to mid 90s and in direct sunlight. Firing in one minute intervals, I watched the velocity climb 25 f/s per round. Shot to shot, not an issue, overall, concerning. But if you're shooting long range matches, you'll note the change when firing sighter shots and adjust. Plus, if you're dedicated, your data book will suggest sight changes that fit weather data.

Turns out 2520 works well for .223 practice ammo, so there is another use for the stuff. I'm working on loads with Varget for the other thing. I'm seeing real world demonstration that burn rate charts aren't absolute in evaluating powders. Gotta use the data books cautiously.

 

[rockquarry]

About temperature sensitivity.......it really only gets important if you're shooting way out yonder under varying conditions as that's when velocity variation starts being a real world issue. At 1000 yards a 100 f/s difference could be 3 feet in elevation. Non cannister versions of 4895 was used in a whole lot of GI ammo. If it wasn't a significant problem then, it's not a significant problem now. The OCD types have gotten really, really annoying in their search for absolutes.

Looking for an IMR 4064 substitute I tried A2520, which is also temperature sensitive. During one chrono session the ammo moved from 70F inside to mid 90s and in direct sunlight. Firing in one minute intervals, I watched the velocity climb 25 f/s per round. Shot to shot, not an issue, overall, concerning. But if you're shooting long range matches, you'll note the change when firing sighter shots and adjust. Plus, if you're dedicated, your data book will suggest sight changes that fit weather data.

Turns out 2520 works well for .223 practice ammo, so there is another use for the stuff. I'm working on loads with Varget for the other thing. I'm seeing real world demonstration that burn rate charts aren't absolute in evaluating powders. Gotta use the data books cautiously.

Granted, lots of seriously obsessive people on Internet.

However, if you can have the advantage of using a powder that is less temperature sensitive than another very similar powder that is not, and prices and availability were about the same, why no pick the powder with least sensitivity? You never know when that might work to your advantage. I attempted to explain that in an earlier post but may not have done it well.