Imr 4895

[LAH]

For several years I've used this powder for reduced loads [mostly 50% case capacity] in my rifles with any bullet. While I don't subscribe to Handloader Magazine anymore I do get the Wolfe Tracks Newsletter & the March edition has a download for Handloader March/April. I find this at the bottom of page 7:

After my article “Reduced Rifle Loads” appeared in Handloader No. 306 (February 2017), Hodgdon contacted me with new information. After considerable testing, they recommend against using IMR-4895 for reduced loads, suggesting only H-4895 and Trail Boss. – John Barsness

Guess I should contact Hodgdon.

[Bohica793]

Loved your article. Please keep us advised as I plan on using a lot of this data for load development.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Doggone--IMR 4895 is the powder I'd most like to be marooned on a desert island with! If these warnings continue there won't be anything left that's safe to use. Just how much did they say is too little?

[Texas by God]

I've never even had any H4895- just IMR4895. I've always interchanged the data so I'm listening!
Best,Thomas.

[FergusonTO35]

IMR 4895 is one of my favorites, 28 grains under a 150 grain boolit in .30 WCF works great in every rifle I have ever tried it in. I find that a lot of powders work superbly when loaded a couple of grains under the starting load. In addition to 4895, I've had good results doing this with 4064 and Varget. Now, there are reduced loads and there are REDUCED loads. I've never viewed a course grain medium burning rifle powder as a great choice for the latter. Unique and the dearly departed SR4759 work a lot better for that purpose.

[rockrat]

So, does Hodgdon make the IMR powders? If not, then could this be a bit of self serving to get handloaders to use their powder???

[runfiverun]

I have found the IMR version to be a little slower burning.
every time I try the H-type I cannot get groups as good as I can with the IMR type.


they'd probably throw up if they seen some of my 22-250 and 220 swift loads with the IMR type.

[leadman]

Hodgdon sells IMR and Win. along with their brand. There is a reduced load formula on Hodgdon's website on using H4895. Make sure you use it with the published data from Hodgdon only.
I use both IMR and H4895 and it seems there is a greater difference in the 2 now than there was previously. could just be my lot numbers though.

[Moleman-]

So, does Hodgdon make the IMR powders? If not, then could this be a bit of self serving to get handloaders to use their powder???

Sort of like how if you buy a reloading manual from a powder company that lists their competitors powders theirs always has higher velocity and/or lower pressure?

[Kraschenbirn]

In the last 50-some years, I've probably loaded and shot more pounds of IMR4895 (and it's milsurp equivalents) than any other powder on the market...everything from 'powder-puff' CBs to M2 Ball duplication (lots of that!) to 'Omigod, need to back this down a grain or two' without blowing up anything but a lot of tin cans and milk jugs. Admittedly, H4895 meters better (through my B&M measure, anyway) but, like R5R, I get more consistent groups with IMR.

Bill

[mfraser264]

Like others, have shot many many rounds with reduced loads of IMR 4895 and burned up a bunch last Summer. Would like to see specific reasons or is this marking ploy?

[oldblinddog]

This has nothing to do with marketing as they produce and sell both powders. The instructions on the reduced loads have ALWAYS stated that it applied to H4895 ONLY.​ Couldn't have been more plain.

https://www.hodgdon.com/wp-content/u...ifle-loads.pdf

Been that way more than 40 years that I know of.

[LAH]

While I was still in the business the IMR tech gave me the 50% capacity rule. It wasn't Hodgdon. This is a new thing as it said in the article.

[LAH]

This has nothing to do with marketing as they produce and sell both powders. The instructions on the reduced loads have ALWAYS stated that it applied to H4895 ONLY.​ Couldn't have been more plain.

https://www.hodgdon.com/wp-content/u...ifle-loads.pdf

Been that way more than 40 years that I know of.

Thanks for the link. Hodgdon acquired IMR Powder Company in 2003. I was given the information from them [IMR] before that time I'm sure. I've never used H-4895 so had no reason to check their information. The powder I'm using at present came from a 55 gallon drum purchased years ago by Melvin Forbes if memory serves. Again thanks for the link.

[smokeywolf]

Been dropping IMR 4895 in 30-06, 30-40 and few others for the better part of a half century. It's got to be the most predictable smokeless powder ever produced.

[Uncle Jimbo]

Been dropping IMR 4895 in 30-06, 30-40 and few others for the better part of a half century. It's got to be the most predictable smokeless powder ever produced.

I too have used it in 30-06 and 22-250 for over half a century in the 06 and a half century this year in the 22-250. Never found a reason to change.

[oldblinddog]

Been dropping IMR 4895 in 30-06, 30-40 and few others for the better part of a half century. It's got to be the most predictable smokeless powder ever produced.

I'm sure it is.

[Shiloh]

Gone light with IMR 4895 with no issues at all.

Shiloh

[Larry Gibson]

I also have shot a lot of H4895, IMR4895 and milsurp 4895 (IMR) over the years. Right now I have 50+ lbs of the IMR and 10+ lbs of the Hodgdon in my powder magazine. I shoot it with cast and jacketed bullets in every thing from 222 Rem up through the 375 H&H and 45-70. When I shot NRA HP with M1903s, M14s and M1As in was my preferred powder for match loads. Since the late '60s 4895 has been my mainstay with most medium to heavy cast bullets in a plethora of cartridges.


I've been chronographing with Oehlers since the mid 70's. I have found with "reduced" loads either powder works very well. It s with "light" loads (those in the 40 - 60% +/- load density) that the H4895 works better than IMR4895. The difference is simply a matter of performance as thorough pressure testing in numerous 30, 31 and 8mm cartridges has shown there to be no safety problems. The difference also is simplistic; every powder has a certain psi that it ignites and begins to burn efficiently at and H4895 ignites and burns efficiently at a slightly lower pressure than does IMR4895. H4895 is also slightly faster burning than IMR4895. In the .308W for example with a 168 or 157 MK bullet H4895 will develop the same velocity with 1 - 2 +/- gr less powder than IMR4895. Also 4895, especially milsurp lots, has an acceptance burning rate variation of 10% max. That's why some lots of milsurp 4895 are actually closer to 4064 in burning rate.

The original H4895 was milsurp IMR 4895. Back in the day I would go into one hardware store that had large barrels of it and by 5 lbs in a paper bag for less than a dollar a pound. When the supply ran out Hodgdon began having it made. The new commercial H4895 was/is very consistent lot to lot and when I started buying it the cost was $1.75 for the old 1 lb cardboard squarish "can".

BTW; with a Dacron filler light loads of either H4895 or IMR4895 ignite and burn efficiently negating any differences. Thus I use a lot of milsurp IMR4895 with a Dacron filler in most rifle cartridge when using medium to heavy weight cast bullets.

Larry Gibson

[LAH]

Thanks Larry. I know that's a bunch of typing & your valuable time. I surely appreciate the effort.