The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 20, 2006, 06:29 PM   #1
SanQ
Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 37
noobie question, difference between IMR4064 & IMR4895

what are their differences?
performance differences on 7mm rem and .243 win?
thx
SanQ is offline  
Old September 21, 2006, 05:09 AM   #2
Smokey Joe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2001
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 2,034
Powder diffs

SanQ--From Lyman's 48th edition loading manual:

"IMR 4895. This is a popular wide application propellant with a fine granulation. It meters well through a progressive measure. Many target shooters favor it for the .308 Winchester. (S, T)" (S=Single-based powder; T=Extruded powder with tubular shape)

"IMR 4064. A versatile and accurate powder with a very wide range of applications. Favored in the .308 Winchester, the .30-'06 Springfield with 150-grain or lighter bullets, and in the .375 H&H. Its applications range from the .22-250 Remington to the .416 Remington, doing quite well at both extremes. (S, T)"

The 4895 is the faster burning powder by a little bit, according to their positions in the data pages. In the Lyman burn rate chart, of 97 powders listed, IMR 4895 is number 58, and IMR is 5 powders slower at number 64.

With the .243 Win, the "classic" powder is IMR 4350, which is considerably slower--number 77 on the Lyman chart. But IMR 4895 performs well for at least one reloader I know who uses it for the .243. And the Lyman manual lists IMR 4895 for use with bullets below 90 grains.

With the 7mm Rem Magnum, IMR 4064 is mentioned for use with light bullets. IMR 4895 isn't mentioned at all--I take it that this powder is too fast burning to use in this cartridge, according to Lyman.

This is commonly available data in most loading manuals.

You do have a loading manual, do you not?? If you don't have a manual yourself, PLEASE GET ONE BEFORE PROCEEDING!!! Better yet, 2-3 different ones, or even more. No one manual can cover all the possible combinations of cartridge, powder, primer, and bullet, that exist.

Don't use loads that any old yahoo posted on the I'net--unless they agree with what's in the published manual. Something that is published and put out on paper, there is an organization standing behind, with white-coated PhD's who have actually tested the loads they reccommend. These guys DO know more about what is safe and not safe than you. Or me. Or whoever, on the Internet. You don't want to prove them right by ruining your precious Old Betsy--not to mention yr own eyes and fingers.

Sorry for the flames. Don't wish to appear rude. It's important to stay safe.
__________________
God Bless America

--Smokey Joe

Last edited by Smokey Joe; September 21, 2006 at 05:12 AM. Reason: The usual--had another thought.
Smokey Joe is offline  
Old September 22, 2006, 09:41 AM   #3
ClarkEMyers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2004
Location: PacWest
Posts: 454
4064 bulks up a little more for loading density

4064 bulks up a little more for loading density. 4895 as already noted may meter a little better. In a smaller case it may not be possible to get enough 4064 in the case for best extenal ballistics and 4895 may give fine high loading density. I, like many others, will tend toward 4895 in the .308 and toward 4064 in the slightly larger .30-'06 case for higher loading density and arguably slightly better accuracy or slightly less position sensitivity or slightly more consistent results. 4064 is a little slower powder that works well given a little more room.
ClarkEMyers is offline  
Old September 22, 2006, 07:06 PM   #4
Johnny Guest
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Location: North Texas
Posts: 4,116
Google is your friend.

(Also Yahoo! and other search engines. )

Go to the IMR Smokeless Powder site. Second button should show "Powder Profiles." Hit one, print out the data, or copy to a data file, go to the other and do the same. That way, you are getting the information straight from the manufacturer.

Please take note: IMR 4895 is a DIFFERENT POWDER from H4895. Same with both 4064s. Similar but different.

If your current loading manual doesn't give at least SOME of the powder characteristics, please buy one that does. You're operating with too little information for safe handloading.

Good luck
Johnny
__________________
MOLON LABE!
Amendment II ensures the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Blog: Expert Witness
Johnny Guest is offline  
Old September 22, 2006, 11:10 PM   #5
Dave Haven
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2000
Location: near Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 790
Quote:
Please take note: IMR 4895 is a DIFFERENT POWDER from H4895. Same with both 4064s. Similar but different.
Same with the 4831's and 4198's and 4350's.
And Hodgdon owns IMR..
Dave Haven is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06470 seconds with 7 queries