H4895 vs. IMR 4895

fireball

fireball

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
53   0   0
Location
Coquitlam
Like the title says H4895 vs. IMR 4895.

Can anyone comment if these powders vary at all, are they the same and just relabelled ? older data sheets show there to be little difference.

Looking for a faster powder to use in a 18.6" 1/11.25 twist .308 pushing 168 and 175 SMK's.

Top of my list so far would be IMR 3031 but read good results have been made with H4895, I'm assuming I won't be able to find H4895.
 
Never had trouble finding H4895.......my understanding is the main difference betwee it and imr4895 is that H4895 is less temperature sensitive
 
Why do you think you need a faster powder? You mention the shorter barrel, but the powder that produces the fastest velocity in a long barrel will almost certainly produce the fastest velocity in a shorter one.
 
I use both powders for .308 168 SMK rounds. I use 43.0 gr. of H4895 or 44.5 gr. of IMR4895 to achieve what is very close to the same velocity. The only reason I use the IMR4895 is because I couldn't get H4895 in large quantity at the time.

The H4895 is my preferred .308 powder, even over Varget. Nothing more than a personal preference really.
 
There's not a lot of difference in performance between IMR and Hodgdon 4895. Personally I have always been able to get better velocity from the IMR version, but it's not a great difference most of the time. I have pretty well decided that the IMR4895 is THE powder for 9.3x57, and in this cartridge it is markedly better than the Hodgdon variety.

Data is not interchangeable. A max load of IMR4895 in the 30-06 cartridge (for instance) is over-pressure if the same charge weight of H4895 is used. The powders are similar but they are not the same.
 
I've used both in my 700 as well as my M1A and the biggest difference I've run across is the affect of temperature. I thought it was maybe just better marketing with the H4895 but after testing both myself through the crony in the winter vs summer, damp/humid vs dry hot days (there was the biggest effect in the winter and damp days) the H4895 was just more consistent.

Like c3pppo mentioned, I've also noted similar velocities with less H4895 power in the case as opposed to the IMR when keeping everything else the same.
 
They are not the same powder. IMR is made in Canada, and I believe was formerly DuPont. Hodgdon bought them, but the same powder continues to be made. The H4895 is made by a company called ADI in Australia. ADI makes the Extreme stick powders for Hodgdon. The advantage of the Extreme powders is a reduced sensitivity to temperature compared to other powders including IMR.

My preference is for the Hodgdon powders due to the temperature sensitivity issue. I avoid the IMR stuff, even though I would like to support companies in Canada.
 
c3pppo said:
I use both powders for .308 168 SMK rounds. I use 43.0 gr. of H4895 or 44.5 gr. of IMR4895 to achieve what is very close to the same velocity. The only reason I use the IMR4895 is because I couldn't get H4895 in large quantity at the time.

The H4895 is my preferred .308 powder, even over Varget. Nothing more than a personal preference really.
Click to expand...

H4895 is my preferred for .308 win and .223 rem. Varget is over-rated.
 
I use IMR 4895 in reloading for the garand, from the information that I have gathered here is that they are basically the same powder but the H4895 is less temperature sensitive. So then I could safely use both powders in reloading for my garand? Same speed=same type of pressure? The temperature sensitivity makes sense in our climate.
 
Some time back I mistakenly used Hogdon data to load IMR 4895 at max levels. The load previously developed with H4895, had no issues at all. The result was a frozen action.

It had been my opinion that there wasn't much difference burn rate wise, up to that point, but I would never have purposely used the wrong data.

The action was Ok, after I finally got it open, but lesson learned. Check your data, before, during, and after loading.
 
"...are they the same..." No. Very close, but not the same. The IMR has a higher max, compressed, load. Compressed loads are nothing to worry about though.
 
dan belisle said:
The IMR version used to be slightly faster then the Hodgdon version. Now that they are owned by the same mother company I'm not sure that's true anymore. - dan
Click to expand...

This suggests that Hodgdon ("the mother company" you speak of) controls the production of these powders, which I doubt. While it is true that IMR powder and Hodgdon powders are distributed by the same group, the Hodgdon group doesn't manufacture anything, they simply buy from factories and repackage. H4895 is made by the Australian Defense Industry, in Australia, while IMR powders are made by Expro in Quebec. This can make for some real differences, the fact that both brands are registered trademarks of Hodgdon notwithstanding.
 
Hogdon orig. sold it as military surplus, when that ran out, they had it made to approx. the same specs, DuPont (then IMR) made a copy to slightly different specs. The Imr is faster burning and may show a velocity increase but at higher pressures IMHO....Ben
 
John Y Cannuck said:
Some time back I mistakenly used Hogdon data to load IMR 4895 at max levels. The load previously developed with H4895, had no issues at all. The result was a frozen action.

It had been my opinion that there wasn't much difference burn rate wise, up to that point, but I would never have purposely used the wrong data.

The action was Ok, after I finally got it open, but lesson learned. Check your data, before, during, and after loading.
Click to expand...

Hodgdon should have changed the name of one of these powders for this exact safety reason. The fact that this thread even exists is testament to the fact that there shouldn't be two different powders with the same number; especially when they are sold by the same company! They are lucky nobody has been hurt by this, imo
 
Just looking at loads for a .308, I noticed that the h4895 produces somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5% more pressure with 5% less powder than IMR4895. I was looking to do up some low pressure loads, so went with IMR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom