So now Varget is officially "Short-Cut IMR4064"?

Andy

Andy

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
329   0   0
Location
Ottawa
After all these years it's now revealed! Or is IMR4895 (or is it H4895, or both) that is shortcut IMR4064?

These recent statements all seem to be repeats of other Internet claims, and my experience with these powders says otherwise. It's not a H4831 and H4831SSC (and IMR7828 and IMR7828SSC) situation where the powders are interchangeable.

What does Hodgdon say?
 
Maybe they sell more powder. Let's see, IMR 7828 looks like it has about the same burn rate as H4831, so maybe I'll load some and see how it works in my rifle.

Hodgdon owns both of them as far as I know.
 
Last edited:
gewehr76 said:
Who cares how its called, as long as its available to buy in stores in Canada.
Click to expand...

It's not what it's called... but what it is "interchangeable" with... that is handy info when you run out of powder for your favorite load...

If you come up with a perfect match for RL-17 & Rl-19, please let me know... I'm dying here...
 
Years ago I was working with Expro (who make IMR powders) and I was trying to convince them to make short cut powders. They made three test batches of short cuts. 4831, 4895 and another (I forget what it was, but the batch got screwed up and we never tested it).

The test consisted of just changing the cutter setting, to make the powder kernels a bit shorter. All other coatings and procedures were identical to the long cut power. Expro decided the experiment was a total failure because the test results of long and short were identical. I looked at the same results and thought it was a resounding success. I said that a short cut 4350 and 4831 would sell better.

I distributed the 2000 pounds of SC4895 to Target Rifle shooters, where it was found to work well.

The problem was that Expro was run by accountants and chemists. No shooters. When I met them, their loading lab did not have a loading block, a powder trickler or a powder thrower. They measured powder with a bowl of powder and a teaspoon into the scales. Thatis why they could not see any advantage to a short cut powder.

I have all the power formulations, cutter settings and grain sizes. Varget is not in any way the same as 4064. They may be similar in burning speed (don't know about that) but they are not related powders. They were developed by different companies, about 50 years apart.
 
Thanks Ganderite. I was skeptical. On my burn charts, Varget is quite a bit slower than 4064. If anything, I'd think a short-cut powder would burn faster due to increased surface area.
 
Pr589 said:
Thanks Ganderite. I was skeptical. On my burn charts, Varget is quite a bit slower than 4064. If anything, I'd think a short-cut powder would burn faster due to increased surface area.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what we expected to see in our experiment. But the long cut and short cut versions of the same powder tested out the same. As i type this, I don't recall of more DNT coating was used on the short cut, to slow it down a tad.
 
Andy said:
After all these years it's now revealed! Or is IMR4895 (or is it H4895, or both) that is shortcut IMR4064?

These recent statements all seem to be repeats of other Internet claims, and my experience with these powders says otherwise. It's not a H4831 and H4831SSC (and IMR7828 and IMR7828SSC) situation where the powders are interchangeable.

What does Hodgdon say?
Click to expand...

Just be caeful what you say abut H4831!
 
Hodgdon says nothing. Burn rates are not the same and they(IMR & H 4895) are not interchangeable. Very close though. Varget is a fair bit slower than either and is slower than either 4064.
Burn faster due to increased surface area has nothing to do with it. Burn rates are controlled/changed chemically.
 
sunray said:
Hodgdon says nothing. Burn rates are not the same and they(IMR & H 4895) are not interchangeable. Very close though. Varget is a fair bit slower than either and is slower than either 4064.
Burn faster due to increased surface area has nothing to do with it. Burn rates are controlled/changed chemically.
Click to expand...

Other things being the same, surface area has everything to do with it. A kernel burns like a log, from the out side in. As it burns, the surface area gets smaller, so the gas production slows. Ideally, you would want the opposite. This is why surfaces are coated with a retardant, so the initial burn is slower, then it speeds up as it gets by the treated surface.

Flake powders burn on both sides and the burn rate is more constant.

Some kernels have a hole through them, so that it will burn in both directions. The internal burn is increasing the surface area, offsetting to a degree the reduction of area on the outside.

See Chapter 5.4 of "Firearms, the Law and Forensic Ballistics". I am sure someone as well informed as you must have a copy.
 
I'm still using some of the SC4895 for .223 Rem and 75g projectiles :)
Got it from a target shooter...

Lovely stuff.

When that runs out I'll switch to N140, worked up a load for that too.
 
hoytcanon said:
It's not what it's called... but what it is "interchangeable" with... that is handy info when you run out of powder for your favorite load...

If you come up with a perfect match for RL-17 & Rl-19, please let me know... I'm dying here...
Click to expand...

There is no direct substitute for any powder with another. The load will need to be tweaked any way for when you switch powders. The name of the product is irrelevant when none available on the shelf.
 
Chatting with Aussies at the Worlds, they had a wonderful time when they came to the US to load "varget". Wasn't even close to their varget.

What I learnt is there are 3 powders that is sent over here and packaged as Varget. Why some see some big burn rate changes from "lot to lot".

Always start low and work up with ANY component change.... Be safe and enjoy any powder you can get your paws on.

YMMV

Jerry
 
Ganderite said:
Years ago I was working with Expro (who make IMR powders) and I was trying to convince them to make short cut powders. They made three test batches of short cuts. 4831, 4895 and another (I forget what it was, but the batch got screwed up and we never tested it).

The test consisted of just changing the cutter setting, to make the powder kernels a bit shorter. All other coatings and procedures were identical to the long cut power. Expro decided the experiment was a total failure because the test results of long and short were identical. I looked at the same results and thought it was a resounding success. I said that a short cut 4350 and 4831 would sell better.

I distributed the 2000 pounds of SC4895 to Target Rifle shooters, where it was found to work well.

The problem was that Expro was run by accountants and chemists. No shooters. When I met them, their loading lab did not have a loading block, a powder trickler or a powder thrower. They measured powder with a bowl of powder and a teaspoon into the scales. Thatis why they could not see any advantage to a short cut powder.
Click to expand...
Maybe this explains a lot about our current powder situation.

Ganderite said:
See Chapter 5.4 of "Firearms, the Law and Forensic Ballistics". I am sure someone as well informed as you must have a copy.
Click to expand...
LOL for the zinger! :dancingbanana:
 
Mystic Precision said:
Chatting with Aussies at the Worlds, they had a wonderful time when they came to the US to load "varget". Wasn't even close to their varget.

What I learnt is there are 3 powders that is sent over here and packaged as Varget. Why some see some big burn rate changes from "lot to lot".

Always start low and work up with ANY component change.... Be safe and enjoy any powder you can get your paws on.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Just bought an 8 lb. jug of Varget .... wonder what burn rate I've got and if I should reduce my established load data ....

My Speer manual lists for Varget:

- 43.0 to 47.0C for 150 gr bullets in the .308

- EXACTLY the same for 4064 with 150 gr bullets!

For .30-'06 with 150 gr bullets:

- Varget - 49.0 to 53.0 max

- 4064 - 48.0 to 52.0 max

That's as close to "interchangeable" as damn is to swearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom