Load data for AR15 and H4895, 1:9

[Busta Capp]

Did some searches but did not find exactly what I was looking for. And the Speer and Lyman manuals do not have this exact combination (Has IMR4895 but not H4895). Can anyone share a successful recipe for an AR15 (.223 Rem)with 9" twist (including OAL) for 55 gr. FMJ's and H4895?

I also have Varget, but hear that this is not the best with the lighter weight rounds. If you have a load to prove me wrong, I am willing to listen...

 

[lcq]

Varget and H4895 are pretty close. I prefer the surplus WC735 from Higginsons, it meters very well and works superb for me.


Brian

 

[beltfed]

IMR4895 and H4895 are very close in burn rate. I sub one for the other, you may want to start low to be on the safe side.

 

[manitou210]

I chronoed H48965 with 69 gr sierras it drives them faster than IMR 4895 but I did not get great results with H4895 or imr 4895 just fair would be okay for a hunting load but not target.
The best i have seen at range with 55gr bullets was a fellow shooting with Benchrest, but Benchrest is nor so good with bigger bullets,
The best success I have had is with Rl 15 ,Varget & VT 540 I was shooting 75gr Bergers at 3001 fps for a five shot average, Varget or Rl 15 would not get to that speed.
Check out powders here
http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
Good luck manitou

 

[sunray]

Go to Hodgdon's site. There are loads using H4895 for every .223" bullet weight. I'd be looking at a 69 or 70 grain bullet.
H4895 and IMR4895 are not the same. Nor is the data interchangeable. H4895 burns a bit faster.

 

[beltfed]

I chronoed H48965 with 69 gr sierras it drives them faster than IMR 4895

I too have chronographed identical loads side by each and that hasn't been my experience.

H4895 and IMR4895 are not the same. Nor is the data interchangeable.

Again, My experience with the two powders side by side in identical loadings, same gun, same day, same chrono, blah, blah, blah...has produced near on identical data.