|
June 13, 2002, 01:01 PM
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: September 6, 2001
Posts: 90
|
4895
Have any of you compared H and IMR 4895 in the same cartridge? Meaning: worked up loads and shot for groups? I've notice a lack of data in my books using both powders in the same bullet weight. Both powders are compatible in 308, 22-250,...
|
|
|
June 13, 2002, 05:25 PM
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: November 24, 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 431
|
Although they're "similar" in burn curve, the IMR powder burns ever so slightly hotter with the same powder volume. Enough to get someone in trouble if trying to use the same load data for both powders. The Hodgon powder is a bit more friendly to the gun (lower pressure!) and produces better velocities (very small difference). IMR powder is also slower on a burn chart.
|
|
|
|
June 13, 2002, 07:02 PM
|
#3 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: December 30, 2000
Posts: 699
|
ViLLian,
You seem confused about the burn rate. H-4227 Hodgdon N130 Vihtavuori AAC-1680 Accurate W-680 Winchester N132 Vihtavuori N-200 Norma N133 Vihtavuori IMR-4198 IMR H-4198 Hodgdon XMR-2015 Accurate Reloader 7 Alliant N134 Vihtavuori IMR-3031 IMR Benchmark 1 Hodgdon N-201 Norma H-322 Hodgdon Benchmark 2 Hodgdon |
|
|
|
June 13, 2002, 07:27 PM
|
#4 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: November 24, 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 431
|
No. Not confused. Look at your numbers again.
Battling dyslexia? 
|
|
|
|
June 13, 2002, 07:52 PM
|
#5 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: December 30, 2000
Posts: 699
|
ViLLain,
As the years go past I seem to be battling something. Of course that bicycle wreck and losing 15 minutes of my life to a head injury last year didn't help matters any. I guess I saw what I wanted to see, not what was there. My apologies. Thanks. |
|
|
|
June 13, 2002, 08:22 PM
|
#6 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: November 24, 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 431
|
Use to work aerospace till I was forced to make a career change. So, you are not the only one. Only reason why I didn't make the mistake was that I'd done that same mistake before.
|
|
|
|
June 13, 2002, 10:05 PM
|
#7 |
|
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,382
|
dammit, I can understand posting in the wrong thread, but in the wrong thread in the wrong forum? I'm such a putz...
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
|
|
|
June 13, 2002, 11:14 PM
|
#8 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2000
Posts: 434
|
ViLLain,
I'm not arguing with your points about H4895 & IMR4895, you may have personal experience that I don't. And that would give your statements more weight than mine. But. My QuickLoad software shows just the opposite: Load for .308 - 168gr Sierra hpbtMK seated to OAL of 2.80 out of a 22" barrel with 41.5gr of each powder - IMR4895 - 2556fps, 47114psi H4895 - 2526fps, 52337psi I have found this program to be a fairly reliable indicator of velocities for my M1A and I, therefore, make the leap that it may be doing a fairly good job predicting pressures. The information it gives should not be used without further consultation with a manual of course. And the Sierra manual shows the H4895 max load as 1.5gr less than the IMR4895.
__________________
If you're not a little upset with the way the world is going, you're not paying attention. |
|
|
|
June 14, 2002, 02:22 AM
|
#9 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: November 24, 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 431
|
Hodgdon 27th edition list 43.5 grains of H4895 as maximum for a 168 grain Sierra HPBT and the pressure is only 49500 CUP. Lyman 47th list a maximum load of 42.5 grain of IMR4895 with those same bullets. Pressure is 51200 CUP. IMR's own web site list 43.8 grains of 4895 as maximum for Sierra 168 grain HPBT and at a pressure of 58000 PSI.
|
|
|
|
June 14, 2002, 07:32 AM
|
#10 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: August 13, 2001
Location: Montana
Posts: 489
|
Hell, I might as well get in on this one...
Fast... 88. H-4895 89. AA-2495 90. RL-12 91. Benchmark 2 92. IMR-4895 ...Slow Useful load range for 165 to 170 grain bullets in .308 Winchester: H-4895 From 34.8 grains to 43.5 grains with Remington 9-1/2 primer IMR-4895 From 35.0 grains to 44.0 grains with Remington 9-1/2 primer However, my preferred powder is H-380 From 41.3 grains to 51.0 grains with Remington 9-1/2 primer.
__________________
http://stevespages.com/page8.htm |
|
|
|
June 14, 2002, 09:09 AM
|
#11 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 19, 2002
Posts: 99
|
Shoots OK in a variety of calibers but is a pain to get through a measure. Doesn't meter very well at all.
dfm |
|
|
|
June 14, 2002, 12:32 PM
|
#12 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: Job hunting on the road...
Posts: 3,827
|
Uh... Where'd you get that list?
I've found that 133 is slower than 322. I shoot 56 clicks in my 6PPC, but I was popping primers with 50 clicks of H322 with the case nowhere near as full... I'm also shooting some 8208, which I understand is very similar to the old T322 powder, which I'm running at 55 clicks.
__________________
Job hunting, but helping a friend out at www.vikingmachineusa.com - and learning the finer aspects of becoming a precision machinist. And making the world's greatest bottle openers! |
|
|
|
June 14, 2002, 09:52 PM
|
#13 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: June 13, 2002
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 6
|
Hello group,
If you are using the IMR4895 in a Garand then you are using the powder the rifle was designed to use. Within the given loading data it produces the right amount of gas to keep the op rod working correctly. Also, why so many conflicting burn rate charts being published? It's getting as bad as the reloading manuals. Anymore, I just use the manuals to get me close to what I want. good shooting, WJ |
|
|
 |
|
|
