Problem ?

[JOHN COOK]

I purchased a pound of what I thought was IMR 4895. Guy at store bagged it and I didn't check behind him. :icon_redface: Got home and opened it and was about to start loading some 30.06 with 150 grain metal jacket and discovered I had H 4895.

Anyone have a suggestion as for a load using the HODGDON IN THIS ROUND. Maybe I should set aside and purchase the IMR 4895.

Suggestions accepted. :eusa_wall:

john

[barretcreek]

Get a recent Hodgdon manual. They have both 4895s listed, because they are the source for both. There's a difference but not much.

[Tuna]

Go to the Hodgdon web site. It's listed there and you can compare it to the IRM4895 on the same site. Both powders are controlled by Hodgdon.

[13Echo]

Should not be a problem with any reasonable load. the H4895 meters better and is less temperature sensitive. I'm now using it in place of IMR 4895 and cannot see any difference in performance or accuracy.

Jerry Liles

[Sunray]

You will need to work up the load again.
H and IMR 4895 are very close but are not the same. Numbers 88 and 90, respectively, on the burn rate chart. The 'H' uses slightly less powder to produce slightly less velocity(roughly 50 FPS difference) with like bullets. As mentioned, Hodgdon's site is your friend.

[JOHN COOK]

Thanks guys, will go to Hodgdons site. Spoke with a guy named Dave ( VIA PHONE) yesterday at Hodgdons and about all I got out of him was about coating and temperature resistant and a few other tid bits, but not the answer I want'd. I did learn they get most of their powder from Australia and Canada.

Thanks again , will do some home work tonightNo big rush.

john

[slamfire]

Actually you did good. H4895 is a more advanced powder than IMR 4895, though what I have seen over the chronograph indicates there is hardly any velocity difference between the two. From what I have read and heard, the more advanced nature of the powder is revealed at maximum loads. When H4895 first came on to the market in the 1980's, it was advertised as a charge for charge equivalent for IMR 4895. Now the composition is different, but over a chronograph, I could not tell the difference in 308 Win. You will find that the IMR 4895 / AA2495 / H4895 series of powders are just great in the 223, 308 Win and 30-06.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/ReducedIMRnexttoH4895.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/ReducedIMRnexttoH4895.jpg.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/ReducedIMR-H4895oncard.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/ReducedIMR-H4895oncard.jpg.html)

For your information, AA2495 is a copy of IMR 4895, so buy by price. The differences in charge weights in manuals is primarily due to the differences in burn rates between different lots. Lots will vary around 10%. The lots we buy are blended but they stop blending once they get around 10% of the baseline.

For a 150 grain bullet in the 30-06, I would start around 45.0 grains H4895 and stop around 47.0. Forty seven grains is close to the original WW1-WW2 load.

[Tuna]

Hodgdon started 4895 back in the 50's when he was buying all the surplus IMR powders from the government including 4895. He called it H4895 when he had to finally make his own after selling all of the surplus powders like slamfire said. I have just started using AA2495 in my Garand and have found that the start and top loads are low compared to both IMR4895 and H4895. I will be starting to load for accuracy testing now that the function testing is done. Starting loads would not function the action on my Garand.

[JOHN COOK]

Good info and thanks to all.................

john

[Allen]

Speer reloading manual #13 suggest for 30-06 150gr :

H4895
Starting load 42.0gr @ vel of 2427
Max load 46.0gr @ vel of 2572

For comparison:
IMR 4895
Starting load 45.5 @ vel of 2516
Max load 49.5 @ vel of 2722

[Liam]

They are close, but compare the loadings via your manuals.31908