H4895 vs Milsurp 4895 reduced loads in 6.5 x 55 ?

[Tedly]

I've been loading my 6.5x55 Swedes and Norway Krag with #266469 ACWW . My charge has been 19.6grs. H4895 as per the Hogdon formula , i.e. use 60% of the maximum load ...I guess I've errored and been using 60% of the start load....also , at some point in time , I began using US milsurp pulldown IMR 4895...I've got these clocked at 1525fps/mv....any potential problems using the milsurp IMR 4895 vs the H4895 , I can't see any reason as the burn rates are so close ? What say you ?Thanks in advance...Tedly

[Duckiller]

Current IMR 4895 and H4895 are different. Similar but different One is Canadian and the other is made in Australia. Not sure where you are getting Military surplus 4895. You are using a light load. If not too light no problem. Anything near a max load should be approached slowly and with caution. If reasonable and possible I would settle on one powder or the other and stick with it. Another possibility would be to treat the two powders as totally different and keep separate records on each. They are different powders and should be treated as such. I am surprised you didn't get velocities and/or POI.

[Tedly]

They are both shooting to the same impact point....no discernible difference

[Larry Gibson]

They are both shooting to the same impact point....no discernible difference

At the psi's you are using the two 4895's (IMR and H) are essentially the same. The only real difference will be the H4895 is less sensitive to variations of temperature than the IMR, especially a surplus IMR. You might drop back to 16 gr and use a 1.2 - 3.4 gr Dacron filler and work back up if you are experience any vertical dispersion of the group.

Larry Gibson