» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > Handloading > Handloading Procedures/Practices
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-30-2004, 08:10 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,911
H-4895 Vs IMR 4895


Registered Users do not see the above ad.


In the past I've used the 4831s interchangably and like wise with the 4350s. By this I'd use which ever starting point and work up to what ever the accuracy load was or drop the powder if I was getting to close to the top end without satisfactory results.
I'm using the IMR 4895 in a Winchester 95, 405 Winchester. Loading data is a bit scarce for this caliber. I had 4 or 5 pounds of IMR 4895, the loading data was for H-4895. I started filling cases with the starting load for H-4895, using IMR 4895 with good results.
Since starting this project I purchased 32 pounds of Data 4895 powder, so 4895 powder will be in play for a while.
Is there a tinker's hoot between these two powders?
Jim
__________________
Cast bullets are the true and rightous path to shooting bliss
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-31-2004, 08:46 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,904
Check your loading mannuals, IMR requires from 2-4 grains less powder for the same velocity.ie 30/06 220 grain round nose. IMR 52.2 grains = 2500 fps, while H-4831 requires 58.6 grains = 2500 fps. the same velocity requires the same pressure. In other words if using load data for H4831 to load imr4831 you will be increasing pressure, possibly even into proof loads or greater. "IN OTHER WORDS, DON'T DO IT"!!
Lee L.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-31-2004, 08:58 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,904
As an added note, the max load listed for IMR 4198 behind a 300 grain 45/70 is 48.7, while H 4198 is listed as 51.2 grains. Imr is listed as 2100 fps H4198 is listed as 2000 fps. in order to get 2000 fps out of the IMR 4198 reduce the load to 46.2 grains. again I repeat do not use the two powders interchangeably. USE YOUR MANNUALS.

Lee L.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-31-2004, 09:26 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,904
I misread your original question, but yes there is also a difference in the two powders as well. H4895 also requires more powder for the same loads as IMR 4895. 37.5 grains of IMR 4895 for 2400 fps behind a 180 grain bullet in a 308 win. 38.9 grains of H 4895 behind a 180 grain in 308 Win. for 2300 fps both are listed as max loads. In other words IMR and Hodgden cannot be used interchangeably.

Lee L.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-31-2004, 10:57 AM
IDShooter's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 2,076
They cannot be used interchangably in terms of grain-for-grain substitution. However, they are pretty well interchangable in terms of application, which is what it sounds like you are getting at, Arky.

"Since starting this project I purchased 32 pounds of Data 4895 powder"

I don't know exactly what you mean by "Data 4895" powder, but if you are just comparing Hodgdon to IMR, they are very similar in function, if not charge weight.
__________________
IDShooter

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-31-2004, 11:05 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,911
I've not opened the cans as yet. The 'Data Powder' is some variety of bulk powder from Bartlets (sp) that I bought from a defunct reloading company.
I use the 'Data' label as that was what I learned many years ago to describe powders not labeled IMR, Hodgens, Hercules, etc.
jim
__________________
Cast bullets are the true and rightous path to shooting bliss
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-31-2004, 11:28 AM
IDShooter's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 2,076
Jim,
Okay, now I get it. In that case, I would proceed as you have been, using data for starting loads and working up. Maybe even drop the starting charge weight a bit. 4895 seems to be very forgiving when it comes to somewhat reduced charges. Do you have a chronograph? That would be a great aid in working up your load.

Good luck!
__________________
IDShooter

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-31-2004, 07:46 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,911
Unfortunately I don't have a chronograph, I do have several friends who do. If we should show up at the range at the same time they will generously let me their machine.. Eventually I'll get a chronograph, but I'm too cheap to take money from the new rifle, powder, new scope, bullet molds, new dies fund and put the money into the chrono.
So far I've been solely interested in accuracy, at nearly or full weight powder charges, with cast bullets. The bullet does not have to do much of anything outside of having the same powder charge that a jacketed bullet would have and make nice tight little groups at one hundred yards and not lead the barrel.
I've worked my way through the 45-70, using this program, with the 405 cast bullet, the 445, the 500 (ouch), the 350 and a 385 grain. Duplicated this 20 some odd years later with a Winchester 1886, take down. Then I did it with a 375 Whelen and a 243.
Now I'm working the program with a 405 Winchester and the 30-06, both in Winchester model 95s. Both calibers have really nice brass molds made by Mountain Molds, of my design. Both bullets are heavy for caliber, bore riding and have the apperance of being right fair hunting bullets.
I've used IMR 4064, 4350, 3031, 4831, 4198 in the past and for some reason either of the 4895s just did not appear on my radar screen.
Thanks for you and everybody else's replys.
Jim
__________________
Cast bullets are the true and rightous path to shooting bliss
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-26-2011, 02:08 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1
These threads are old but this still applies. I was looking at differences between H4895 & I4895 and aside from load data, the H4895 varies little with ambient temperature but I4895 has a lot of variation. So it looks like H4895 would win for consistency.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-26-2011, 04:35 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: US South
Posts: 874
H-4895 Vs IMR 4895

I also have an interest in the interchangeability of these two powders.

Anyone know whether one or the other is sensitive to temperature variations?
__________________
Ray
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-26-2011, 05:46 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 834
As a general rule the Hodgedon powders are a bit slower in burn rate as IMR Powders of the same number.H4831 is slower than IMR 4831,H4350 is slower than IMR 4350 and so on.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
imr 4895 &imr 3031 - .308, .223 and .30-30 tasunkawitko Rifles and Rifle Cartridges 5 12-12-2002 05:53 AM
45-70 loads using IMR 4895? arkypete Leverguns and Their Cartridges (General) 5 02-20-2001 04:34 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:01 PM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
View Privacy Policy | Contact Webmaster | Legal Information
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2