.223 AR15 Using H4895 Question....

UtopiaTexasG19 · September 22, 2011, 02:25 PM

I loaded up some 55grain Speer soft points with H4895 this morning one set with 25 grains of H4895 and the second with 26 grains of H4895 which were both recommendations on the Hodgdon chart. I made the OAL at 2.20 as per the chart. The 25 grain H4895 felt like some of the similiar commercial rounds I have fired this last week but the 26 grain H4895 had a substantually harder kick. I also noted with the 26 grains my spent casings were thrown out at the 3 o'clock postion unlike the usual 5 o'clock position and that oil from the bolt area was splattered on the right outside of the AR. Has anyone else had a similiar experience with this powder and a difference of 1 grain? Thanks...

**Unclenick** · September 22, 2011, 03:20 PM

You just had a pressure sign. It surprised you because you weren't following good load development practice, even though you might have thought you were. Let me explain:

First. 1 grain is a big jump in the little .223 case. Normal procedure is to increase powder by not more than 2% at a time, or 1/5 the difference between the minimum and maximum listed loads, whichever is smaller. That would be not more than half a grain in .223 with your powder choice. It would be 1 grain in a .30-06, but you don't have that much room in a .223.

I also note you must have gone by memory on the Hodgdon load list, because 25 and 26 grains are not listed by them on their load data site for H4895 under the 55 grain Speer bullet. It always pays to write these things down. They actually list 23 grains to start and 26.2 grains maximum, with a Winchester case and a Winchester WSR primer. That means you should start with 23 grains. When no starting load is listed, the general rule of thumb is to back off 10% below the maximum. You start with that load and work up in 5 equal 2% steps (6 shots total, counting the first one), watching out for pressure signs at each step.

If you get a pressure sign at any place along the way, you reduce the charge weight that caused it by 5%. In your case, since you got a pressure sign at 26 grains, I would back down to 24.7 grains, and call that your gun's maximum for that powder with your cases and primers and bullets. It will perform close to the 25 grain charge and be safe and not put excessive wear on your gun, using your brass and primer combination. If you change brass or bullet brand (even if it's the same weight) or primer brand, or get a new bottle of the same powder with a different lot number, go back down at least 5% (23.5 grains) and work back up to be sure you're still safe.

I've seen changing primer brands change velocity and pressure equivalent to increasing the powder 4%, so I always reduce 5% for a different primer and work back up. Some brass can change pressure that much or more, but I've only seen that in .300 Win Mag and .308. In .223, the difference in brass isn't usually that big. Still, when you follow a recipe, you need to copy their brass and primer or back off an extra 5% from maximum to start.

To see the brass and primer detail in the Hodgdon data, you need to click on the Print button, and look at the preview (you don't actually have to print it).

Stay safe.

oldpapps · September 22, 2011, 03:46 PM

I totally agree with Unclenick.
Small things can make big differences.
Lake City military brass (5.56 NATO), full length sized, all fired from a 223 chambered bolt (not 5.56 throated) with 18 ½ barrel, same lot CCI small rifle primers, same lot 748 powder, OAL 2.20 inches. Average of 5 test shots.
26.2* grains 748 – 55 grain JSP – 2912 FPS (@10 ft)
26.3* grains 748 – 55 grain FMJ – 2742 FPS (@10 ft)
I would have thought that the GI Full Metal Jacket would have given greater pressure and velocity.
These are getting close to top loads for this rifle as it is chambered and these were shot during a testing session. I selected a final loading with a 50 grain HP at 2854 FPS.

*Just because I haves uses this loading does not indicated that others can or should. Always refer to one or more respected loading manuals and always use caution. It is better to error on the side of safety.

OSOK

UtopiaTexasG19 · September 22, 2011, 04:14 PM

Unclenick, I believe you are looking at the chart for IMR 4895 and not the Hodgdon 4895 powder. Here is a copy and paste from the Hodgdon site.

55 GR. SPR SP IMR IMR 4895 .224" 2.200" 23.0 2843 39,500 PSI 26.2C 3219 53,200 PSI

55 GR. SPR SP Hodgdon H4895 .224" 2.200" 25.0 3176 39,700 CUP 26.0 3315 49,000 CUP

I did in fact use the figures given for the H4895 though I did not step up the powder charges in the smaller increments as you advise and will do so in the future. I thought I had read that the IMR 4895 and the H4895 were the same but apparently not from the Hodgdon chart. Thanks...

**Unclenick** · September 23, 2011, 01:56 AM

You are right. My eyes must have jumped. My apologies. Just don't want you blowing up.

I have to say, though, that Hodgdon data looks funny. They are claiming a 4% difference in powder charge gave them about 20% difference in pressure! I'm sure they've got data recorded to show it, but it's over twice the pressure difference you'd normally expect from that charge difference. The velocity difference is about right, which says even more loudly that the lower pressure reading was off, for whatever reason, and that low reading is likely why they didn't lower the starting charge further.

Speer #6 says to use 23.5 grains H4895 to 25.5 grains maximum (IMI case and CCI 400 primer) and shows the 25.5 grain load is compressed already. That compression may be due to the IMI case, though. IMI cases run heavy. The Sierra manual's bolt gun .223 section runs 23.1 grains to 26.1 grains maximum with all their 55 grain bullets, using a Federal case and Remington 7½ primer (their AR section doesn't list H4895). Sierra doesn't indicate compression, though. Lee just copied Hodgdon's data, so that doesn't help.

So, something's off about that Hodgdon data. Their IMR4895 data had a more normal span of charge weights. Lyman, Nosler, and Hornady don't list H4895, but the Speer and Sierra load ranges also have more normal spans than Hodgdon does.

One thing I've seen repeated often on the board (and have repeated myself) is the old rule of thumb to check three sources of load data before deciding what to use. That particular piece of Hodgdon data makes a good example of why.

Jimro · September 23, 2011, 04:29 AM

UtopiaTexasG19,

I'm guessing you have a carbine gas system on your AR? If all you experienced were "harder kicks" and a difference in bolt ejection (along with the oil getting blown out of the BCG) it sounds like your load has too high pressure at the gas port. I'm guessing the primers were just fine as the chamber pressure wasn't excessive.

Jimro

**Unclenick** · September 23, 2011, 04:54 AM

That makes sense. A little bit faster powder will reduce that, too, and the .223 is perfectly happy with and gets a full measure of velocity from Reloader 10X with that bullet weight.

UtopiaTexasG19,

You're right the H and IMR 4895's don't match quite. The former is Australian and the latter is Canadian. The former has ADI's formulation for reducing sensitivity to temperature change, while the latter is basically the same powder it has been since 1942. The IMR product isn't bad with temperature, but not as good as the ADI, so you can expect the difference between the two will change with temperature. In some loads they may match very well at one temperature and load pressure, then be different at others.

Jim243 · September 23, 2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

I made the OAL at 2.20 as per the chart. The 25 grain H4895 felt like some of the similiar commercial rounds I have fired this last week but the 26 grain H4895 had a substantually harder kick.

The 25 grains of H-4895 is the same load I use at 2.200 OAL. No need to go to 26 grains. I also use H-335 a bit faster powder than the H-4895, it seems to not build up as much presssure. But should work your bolt without any problems at 25 grains. I have changed to IMR-8208 powder about the same burn rate as H-4895 but is a bit snappier and droped my load to 24.6 grains. Be sure to check for pressure build up on all your fired rounds till you get what works best for YOUR rifle.

Jim

chris in va · September 23, 2011, 11:29 AM

IIRC, 25gr of 4895 is a compressed charge (barely) so that extra grain probably stuffed it in there good.

I'm fairly new to loading 223 and also discovered it's necessary to check more than one source of loading data. I was just going by my Lyman manual and had some really flattened primers with a mid load of 335. Come to find out it was a max charge on the powder site.

trublu · September 24, 2011, 11:08 PM

H4895 is manufactured by ADI and sold here in Australia as AR2206H. The load data is correct - between 25.0 and 26.0 g for a 55gr projectile. However, 26.0 is a maximum load. I would stick with 25.0 or 25.5 at most if I were you.

I think there are better powders to use for .223

I had a lot of success using 19.5 gr of AR2207 (which is sold in the US as H4198) in my .223 loads.

**Unclenick** · September 24, 2011, 11:23 PM

25 to 26 grains may be a recommendation from ADI as well as Hodgdon, but 4% difference is just too tight to allow for some odd chambers and short throats and heavy brass, like the IMI. The standard 10% range would be more accommodating of the oddballs. That would be 23.4-26 grains.

I agree with you on the 2207, though. I've long used both that and IMR 4198 in both .222 Rem and .223 Rem for lighter bullet accuracy loads. H4198 (2207) and the Sierra 53 grain flat base MatchKing bullet have a cloverleaf relationship at 100 yards in several of my guns. Reloader 10X is another one that does well with light bullets if you need another couple hundred fps.

Here's my list of equivalent powder numbers based on MSDS data for those trying to follow the OEM and manufacturer details.

Code:

                   | St. Marks  |                        |          |
     Hodgdon       |  Military  |      Winchester        | Thales   |  IMR
                   |  & OEM     |                        | (ADI)    |
___________________|____________|________________________|__________|_______________________
                   |            |                        |          |
HP-38              |   OBP231   |  231                   |          |
H110 --------------|--- WC296 --|- 296 ------------------|----------|-----------------------
H414               |    WC760   |  760                   |          |
H380               |    WC852   |                        |          |
Lil' Gun ----------|-- OBP516 --|------------------------|----------|-----------------------
Hybrid 100V        |   SHP771   |                        |          |
HS-6               |    WC540   |                        |          |
H335 --------------|--- WC844 --|------------------------|----------|-----------------------
BL-C(2)            |    WC846   |                        |          |
Titewad            |   OBP132   |                        |          |
Tightgroup --------|-- OBP242 --|------------------------|----------|-----------------------
Longshot           |   OBP473   |                        |          |
US869              |    WC869   |                        |          |
-------------------|--- WAA90 --|- WST ------------------|----------|-----------------------
                   |   WXC170   |  WSF                   |          |
                   |   OBP124   |  AALite (WFL)          |          |
-------------------|-- OBP465 --|- Super-Handicap (WSH) -|----------|-----------------------
                   |    WC748   |  748                   |          |
                   |   WMR780   |- Supreme 780           |          |
-------------------|-- SMP224 --|  AutoComp -------------|----------|-----------------------
                   |            |                        |          |
Clays              |            |                        |  AS30N   |
International Clays|------------|------------------------|- AS50N --|-----------------------
Universal Clays    |            |                        |  AS70N   |
H4227              |            |                        |  AR2205  |  IMR 4227 second source
H4198 -------------|------------|------------------------|- AR2207 -|-----------------------
Benchmark          |            |                        |   BM2    |
H322               |            |                        |  AR2219  |
-------------------|------------|------------------------|- AR2210 -|- IMR 8208 XBR --------
H4895              |            |                        |  AR2206H |
Varget             |            |                        |  AR2208  |
H4350 -------------|------------|------------------------|- AR2209 -|-----------------------
H4831              |            |                        |  AR2213  |
H4831SC            |            |                        | AR2213SC |
H1000 -------------|------------|------------------------|- AR2217 -|-----------------------
Retumbo            |            |                        |  AR2225  |
H50BMG             |            |                        |  AR2218  |
-------------------|------------|------------------------|- AR2215 -|- IMR 4198 second source
                   |            |                        |  AS25BP  |- IMR Trail Boss

trublu · September 25, 2011, 12:21 AM

Yes i totally agree with your point that 4% difference between min and max loads doesn't give much room for error or fine adjustment.

Wheras H4198 gives load options between 19.0 and 21.0 for a 55gr projectile. (and uses less powder).

I never load maximum loads - usually just above the minimum.

September 22, 2011, 02:25 PM	#1
UtopiaTexasG19 Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 2011 Location: S.E. Texas Gulf Coast Posts: 743	.223 AR15 Using H4895 Question.... I loaded up some 55grain Speer soft points with H4895 this morning one set with 25 grains of H4895 and the second with 26 grains of H4895 which were both recommendations on the Hodgdon chart. I made the OAL at 2.20 as per the chart. The 25 grain H4895 felt like some of the similiar commercial rounds I have fired this last week but the 26 grain H4895 had a substantually harder kick. I also noted with the 26 grains my spent casings were thrown out at the 3 o'clock postion unlike the usual 5 o'clock position and that oil from the bolt area was splattered on the right outside of the AR. Has anyone else had a similiar experience with this powder and a difference of 1 grain? Thanks...

September 22, 2011, 03:20 PM	#2
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,732	You just had a pressure sign. It surprised you because you weren't following good load development practice, even though you might have thought you were. Let me explain: First. 1 grain is a big jump in the little .223 case. Normal procedure is to increase powder by not more than 2% at a time, or 1/5 the difference between the minimum and maximum listed loads, whichever is smaller. That would be not more than half a grain in .223 with your powder choice. It would be 1 grain in a .30-06, but you don't have that much room in a .223. I also note you must have gone by memory on the Hodgdon load list, because 25 and 26 grains are not listed by them on their load data site for H4895 under the 55 grain Speer bullet. It always pays to write these things down. They actually list 23 grains to start and 26.2 grains maximum, with a Winchester case and a Winchester WSR primer. That means you should start with 23 grains. When no starting load is listed, the general rule of thumb is to back off 10% below the maximum. You start with that load and work up in 5 equal 2% steps (6 shots total, counting the first one), watching out for pressure signs at each step. If you get a pressure sign at any place along the way, you reduce the charge weight that caused it by 5%. In your case, since you got a pressure sign at 26 grains, I would back down to 24.7 grains, and call that your gun's maximum for that powder with your cases and primers and bullets. It will perform close to the 25 grain charge and be safe and not put excessive wear on your gun, using your brass and primer combination. If you change brass or bullet brand (even if it's the same weight) or primer brand, or get a new bottle of the same powder with a different lot number, go back down at least 5% (23.5 grains) and work back up to be sure you're still safe. I've seen changing primer brands change velocity and pressure equivalent to increasing the powder 4%, so I always reduce 5% for a different primer and work back up. Some brass can change pressure that much or more, but I've only seen that in .300 Win Mag and .308. In .223, the difference in brass isn't usually that big. Still, when you follow a recipe, you need to copy their brass and primer or back off an extra 5% from maximum to start. To see the brass and primer detail in the Hodgdon data, you need to click on the Print button, and look at the preview (you don't actually have to print it). Stay safe. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle Last edited by Unclenick; September 22, 2011 at 03:35 PM.

September 23, 2011, 01:56 AM	#5
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,732	You are right. My eyes must have jumped. My apologies. Just don't want you blowing up. I have to say, though, that Hodgdon data looks funny. They are claiming a 4% difference in powder charge gave them about 20% difference in pressure! I'm sure they've got data recorded to show it, but it's over twice the pressure difference you'd normally expect from that charge difference. The velocity difference is about right, which says even more loudly that the lower pressure reading was off, for whatever reason, and that low reading is likely why they didn't lower the starting charge further. Speer #6 says to use 23.5 grains H4895 to 25.5 grains maximum (IMI case and CCI 400 primer) and shows the 25.5 grain load is compressed already. That compression may be due to the IMI case, though. IMI cases run heavy. The Sierra manual's bolt gun .223 section runs 23.1 grains to 26.1 grains maximum with all their 55 grain bullets, using a Federal case and Remington 7½ primer (their AR section doesn't list H4895). Sierra doesn't indicate compression, though. Lee just copied Hodgdon's data, so that doesn't help. So, something's off about that Hodgdon data. Their IMR4895 data had a more normal span of charge weights. Lyman, Nosler, and Hornady don't list H4895, but the Speer and Sierra load ranges also have more normal spans than Hodgdon does. One thing I've seen repeated often on the board (and have repeated myself) is the old rule of thumb to check three sources of load data before deciding what to use. That particular piece of Hodgdon data makes a good example of why. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle Last edited by Unclenick; September 23, 2011 at 02:02 AM.

September 23, 2011, 04:54 AM	#7
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,732	That makes sense. A little bit faster powder will reduce that, too, and the .223 is perfectly happy with and gets a full measure of velocity from Reloader 10X with that bullet weight. UtopiaTexasG19, You're right the H and IMR 4895's don't match quite. The former is Australian and the latter is Canadian. The former has ADI's formulation for reducing sensitivity to temperature change, while the latter is basically the same powder it has been since 1942. The IMR product isn't bad with temperature, but not as good as the ADI, so you can expect the difference between the two will change with temperature. In some loads they may match very well at one temperature and load pressure, then be different at others. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

September 22, 2011, 03:46 PM	#3
oldpapps Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2011 Location: Middle America Posts: 518	I totally agree with Unclenick. Small things can make big differences. Lake City military brass (5.56 NATO), full length sized, all fired from a 223 chambered bolt (not 5.56 throated) with 18 ½ barrel, same lot CCI small rifle primers, same lot 748 powder, OAL 2.20 inches. Average of 5 test shots. 26.2* grains 748 – 55 grain JSP – 2912 FPS (@10 ft) 26.3* grains 748 – 55 grain FMJ – 2742 FPS (@10 ft) I would have thought that the GI Full Metal Jacket would have given greater pressure and velocity. These are getting close to top loads for this rifle as it is chambered and these were shot during a testing session. I selected a final loading with a 50 grain HP at 2854 FPS. *Just because I haves uses this loading does not indicated that others can or should. Always refer to one or more respected loading manuals and always use caution. It is better to error on the side of safety. OSOK

September 22, 2011, 04:14 PM	#4
UtopiaTexasG19 Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 2011 Location: S.E. Texas Gulf Coast Posts: 743	Unclenick, I believe you are looking at the chart for IMR 4895 and not the Hodgdon 4895 powder. Here is a copy and paste from the Hodgdon site. 55 GR. SPR SP IMR IMR 4895 .224" 2.200" 23.0 2843 39,500 PSI 26.2C 3219 53,200 PSI 55 GR. SPR SP Hodgdon H4895 .224" 2.200" 25.0 3176 39,700 CUP 26.0 3315 49,000 CUP I did in fact use the figures given for the H4895 though I did not step up the powder charges in the smaller increments as you advise and will do so in the future. I thought I had read that the IMR 4895 and the H4895 were the same but apparently not from the Hodgdon chart. Thanks...

September 23, 2011, 04:29 AM	#6
Jimro Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2006 Posts: 7,097	UtopiaTexasG19, I'm guessing you have a carbine gas system on your AR? If all you experienced were "harder kicks" and a difference in bolt ejection (along with the oil getting blown out of the BCG) it sounds like your load has too high pressure at the gas port. I'm guessing the primers were just fine as the chamber pressure wasn't excessive. Jimro

September 23, 2011, 11:29 AM	#9
chris in va Senior Member Join Date: December 26, 2004 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 13,806	IIRC, 25gr of 4895 is a compressed charge (barely) so that extra grain probably stuffed it in there good. I'm fairly new to loading 223 and also discovered it's necessary to check more than one source of loading data. I was just going by my Lyman manual and had some really flattened primers with a mid load of 335. Come to find out it was a max charge on the powder site.

September 24, 2011, 11:08 PM	#10
trublu Member Join Date: November 6, 2008 Posts: 97	H4895 is manufactured by ADI and sold here in Australia as AR2206H. The load data is correct - between 25.0 and 26.0 g for a 55gr projectile. However, 26.0 is a maximum load. I would stick with 25.0 or 25.5 at most if I were you. I think there are better powders to use for .223 I had a lot of success using 19.5 gr of AR2207 (which is sold in the US as H4198) in my .223 loads.

September 25, 2011, 12:21 AM	#12
trublu Member Join Date: November 6, 2008 Posts: 97	Yes i totally agree with your point that 4% difference between min and max loads doesn't give much room for error or fine adjustment. Wheras H4198 gives load options between 19.0 and 21.0 for a 55gr projectile. (and uses less powder). I never load maximum loads - usually just above the minimum.