StainLess Steel MediaInline FabricationBallisti-CastLee Precision
Titan ReloadingRotoMetals2Graf & Sons
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: H4895 vs IMR4895

  1. #1
    Boolit Master
    turmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Delmarva
    Posts
    524

    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?

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    oneokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jackson County, Choctaw Nation, Indian Territory
    Posts
    5,042
    Even in reloading manuals, powder is listed from fastest to slowest by burn rate, just like in powder burn rate charts.
    Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

    “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity”. Sigmund
    Freud

  3. #3
    Boolit Master
    cdet69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    MP 68 Milton, New York
    Posts
    530
    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.
    I keep trying to stay afloat but can't help from shooting holes in my own boat.

  4. #4
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    412
    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.

  5. #5
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    13,965
    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

  6. #6
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Central Maine Highlands
    Posts
    58
    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.

  7. #7
    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.

  8. #8
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    East Tn
    Posts
    2,043
    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.

  9. #9
    Boolit Man Wilkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah
    Posts
    111
    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.

  10. #10
    Boolit Bub 350Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Southeast Louisana
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by oldred View Post
    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 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 . 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 ) 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!

  11. #11
    Boolit Master FergusonTO35's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Salvisa, KY
    Posts
    1,400
    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.
    Currently loading: .32 Long/Magnum/Auto, .38 Special, 9X19, .357 Magnum, .257 Roberts, .30 WCF, .45-70 Gov't.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check