H4895 vs IMR4895

I have not yet used either of the 4895 powders. I keep seeing it come up in the threads and see it in many of my reloading manuals for calibers I load for (30-30,30-06,308,223,7.62x39,&444) IIRC I find more data for H4895 than the IMR version, and when data is listed for both the H4895 is typically listed before the IMR in the data. I have always thought the data is listed in order by best performance, I don't know if that is true or not though.

Is one powder typically better then the other (or may be I should say one have any advantage over the other)? Which do you use?

Even in reloading manuals, powder is listed from fastest to slowest by burn rate, just like in powder burn rate charts.

H4895 meters better than IMR 4895. According to the Hodgdon 2013 manual article the burning speed difference is negligable do to lot variations of the powders themselves. So they wind up being pretty much the same. I like them both but if I had to choose it would be H4895.

For me H4895 seems to burn a tad cleaner,get you more velocity(Faster) and slighly better es/sd readings. But I find IMR4895 more often then H4895 so I use it more. Haven't seen H4895 in quite awhile.

H4895 meters better and more accurately as each stick is shorter and smaller in lenght than IMR4895.

H4895 is also an "Extreme" powder and less temperature sensitive.

Over the years I've found H4895 to very much less lot to lot.

If buying new 4895 I buy H4895.

In some smaller cases where IMR4895 is loading density challenged you can get more H4895 in the case.

Larry Gibson

I agree with the above statements as well.
H4895 is a bit faster,less temperature sensitive and meters better but i weigh my charges and find both powders give very good accuracy with reduced loads and cast boolits so i use em both.
Right now i have more IMR so i use more of it.

I've had good luck with H4895. I use it in loads for .204, .222, and as a very good second choice for my .308 loads. Using H4895 I was able to develop a great load for my .204 Ruger. One reason I went with H4895 was that it is an extreme powder, and less temperature sensitive. It meters very well in my digital powder dispenser. It has worked so well for me I've never saw any reason to use IMR 4895.

I have asked this question before concerning these two powders and while the consensus seems to be that they are pretty much the same Hodgdon lists very different load data for them. I was concerned mostly with the 45/70 loadings and according to Hodgdon the IMR version lists waaaay higher pressures for both minimum and maximum loads for the IMR4895 vs H4895 in this loading. Apparently Hodgdon considers them to be quite different.

Another plus for H4895 is the very reduced loads that Hodgdon lists. I use the reduced load formulas for my cast bullets. I have loaded up some very reduced loads for my .270 to teach my son how to shoot it. It was like shooting a .22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldred

I have asked this question before concerning these two powders and while the consensus seems to be that they are pretty much the same Hodgdon lists very different load data for them. I was concerned mostly with the 45/70 loadings and according to Hodgdon the IMR version lists waaaay higher pressures for both minimum and maximum loads for the IMR4895 vs H4895 in this loading. Apparently Hodgdon considers them to be quite different.

---

It surly does;
IMR4895- 400 GR. SPR JFP IMR IMR 4895 .458" 2.540" 54.0 1785 30,500 CUP 58.0C 1930 38,600 CUP

H4895- 400 GR. SPR JFP Hodgdon H4895 .458" 2.540" 50.0 1614 19,200 CUP 55.0C 1859 26,500 CUP

I know these loads are for jacketed bullets and not :cbpour: but I can see what you mean. Another note is they are not identical loads either. Seems like I read that the H4895 variant was Australian made and that they also used a process of coating the powder with a flame retardant to change the burn rate. This kind of lends itself to H4895 being from the same mom and dad with some gene modification. But that is simply conjecture on my part :roll: . As far as burn rate, Hodgdon list them H4895#87 and IMR4895#89 on their burn rate chart http://www.hodgdon.com/burn-rate.html.
Anywho... I have been reloading since I was a teen and have never had a desire to be a Chuck Yeager (if U don't know of him, then that just blew right past you :mrgreen:) and being that way I always went with reputable printed loading data for reloading and paying attention to detail. Experience taught me that even doing that, mistakes could and would still happen!

IMR 4895 is usually in stock around here and it works great in .30 WCF and .45-70. So far it seems to be as friendly to reduced loads as H4895 so thats what I use.