4064 vs 4895 in 30-06 pro's cons

Colduglandon · September 20, 1999, 09:30 PM

I have always used 4064. A friend uses 4895 and swears by it. I always thought 4064 was made for the 30-06 and 4895 for the 7.62 Nato. Any comments for this war of words.
Both used with 150 and 173 grain bullets

Paul B. · September 21, 1999, 12:43 AM

Paul. IMR 3031, 4064, 4320, all came out in the mid 1930's. I have not been able to locate the date of origin on IMR 4895, but I believe it was also in that time frame.
Years ago, (about 1958 or 9)I got 850 rounds of 30-06 ammo, with the WW-2 corrosive primer. Headstamps on this ammo was Den 42 and LC 43, indicating manufacture in those years. Powder type was 4895. Charges ranged from 48.0 to 51.0 gr. After salvaging all that powder, I decided on 48.0 gr. with 150 gr. Sierra bullets. Made a good deer load. I've since gone to heavier bullets for deer.
A while back, curiosity got the better of me, so I loaded up 5 rounds with the current IMR 4895 to chronograph. I had always wondered what the velocity was. They were too hot. I quit after the first round. It seems the batch of 4895 I just bought is a bit faster burning than the stuff I salvaged.
But to answer your question, I think 4895 was the powder of choice for the 30-06 in WW-2 and before. The original powder was a form of Pyro DG, by the way. There was something else in between, but I can't remember what it was.
I don't think 4064 was used in the military ammo; at least I cannot find any reference to that effect.
Paul B.

bfoster · September 21, 1999, 05:45 PM

Sirs, Paul B. is correct on his powder history, the introduction of DuPont 3031, 4064 & 4320 took place in the mid thirties. 4895 is a bit newer: I don't have reference to commercial lots being available until after WWII; it was developed for use in the Garand and used during WWII. The only other powders I can find reference to the government having used in the 30-06 are DuPont PyroDG, 1185, and for match ammo DuPont 1145, 1147, (perhaps) 15 1/2, & Hercules HiVel. I can find no evidence of the government using IMR 4064 in the 30-06 cartridge.

I don't know if the lot of 4895 Paul B used is atypical, or what the other circumstances were, but pressure tests in my FN Browning 30-06 show 49 grains of IMR 4895 with 150 grain Sierra hunting bullets in WW brass with a Remington 9 1/2 primer to develop less than 60,000 psi M43.

For near maximum loads in a gas operated rifle, I prefer 4895 to 4064 as it appears that 4895 is more likely to burn consistently with heavier (165 grain & up) bullets. 4064 is a classic powder, but to get the best out of it the handloader needs to pay greater than average attention to his load development- particularily with near red line loads, & also watch lot to lot variation. In a bolt action rifle, as typically handloaded, it is (IMHO) likely that powders in the class of IMR 4350 or IMR 4831 will produce near optimum results with most hunting class bullets. Bob

Art Eatman · September 21, 1999, 08:02 PM

My father started loading 4895 in his sporterized Springfield sometime in the late 1940s that I know of. I started loading for the '06 in 1950, and use 4064 for 150-grain and heavier bullets; 3031 for the 110-grain or lighter bullets.

I've never been able to tell the general difference in his group sizes and mine. Deer keep falling down as though they can't tell the difference.

By a few reloader books, the 4064 will allow about 100 ft/sec more than the 4895 with the 150-grain bullet. I recall this is even more so with heavier bullets...

Now, this is all bolt-action. I concur as to guns like the Garand and 4895...

FWIW, Art

Colduglandon · September 21, 1999, 09:45 PM

Thanks for the input. I think I will give 4895 a try in my Garand. Coincidentally I just saw it on special in a catalog this month. I have tried 3031 with good results in 30-30. So so in 7.62x39

[This message has been edited by Paul Morceau (edited September 21, 1999).]

Joefo · September 22, 1999, 02:56 PM

Paul, don't use the 4350 powder in your Garand. You have to use a faster powder or you will bend or break the operating rod. I can't find it right now but I had a chart showing what powders you can use in the Garand. I use 3031, 4895, and Varget.

Joefo

Peter M. Eick · September 23, 1999, 07:32 AM

I would like to offer some experimental/antidocial test results between the two powders. I use both in my M1A SM and NM rifles with c-34 primers, federal 308 GM brass and 168 seirra BTHP. The difference between the SM and the NM M1A's is 1 in 10 vs 1 in 11 inch twist rifling (if memory serves). Both are douglas barrels. All testing is 20 rnd targets at 100 and 200 yards off a bench.

Now with that preface in mind, I have found that my Super Match does better with 39.5 grns of IMR-4895 while the National Match does better with 40.2 grns of IMR-4064. Those of you who will check this against the Seirra manual will see that these are very light loads, but the federal brass is heavier then most and I am using the c-34 primer which is magnum equivolent. (ejection and extraction are 100% reliable and consistent)

Checking my records, this is the result of over 150 test under various conditions and if I swap the loads, groups tend to open up about half to three quarters of an inch.

So what does this all have to do with 4064 and 4895 and the 30-06? My suggestion is get both, document your test procedure and start to experiment and work up your loads. Every gun is different, and the only way to find the "perfect" load is to test, document, consider and re-test.

I only wish I had kept as meticulous records 20 years ago as I do today.

PS: these are my "perfect" loads for a while, I am now starting to look at rebarreling both rifles next spring so I get to start the whole procedure all over.

Paul B. · September 24, 1999, 01:28 PM

BFoster. Thank's for the update on 4895. Most of my data came frome Sharpe's COMPLETE GUIDE TO HANDLOADING. I searched through the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN magazines I have, starting back in 1936. I was trying to answer a question in another forum asking "Why did the govt. pick on 4895?" I could not find an introduction date. I would venture a guess the as the Garand was adopted in what? 1937 thereabouts, that the powder must have come shortly thereafter.
Unfortunately, my collection is missing some of 1936,1937, and all of 1939. BUMMER. The data may have been in one of those.
Paul B.

alan · September 24, 1999, 05:28 PM

Paul and others:

D0 NOT USE 4350 IN A GARAND. Medium burning rate propellants (3031, 4895, 4064 and maybe 4320) are suitable. Slower burning rate powders tend to be hard on the operating rod, chamber pressures are lower, but gas port pressure is to high for the rod. One can use virtually anything reasonable in a bolt gun, however gas guns tend to be somewhat sensitive. Best stick to propellants that are similar to what the military used, for the 30-06 Garand, 7.62 NATO Garands also, that was 4895, from the arsenals. If memory serves, the 1966 or 67 Match(last year it was loaded) load from Lake City used 47.5 grains of 4895 in 30-06, under the 173 grain FA Match bullet, which shot quite well in some rifles, and not so hot in others, depending on the lot also.

As for 3031, I had a Remington 40X Rangemaster, that came with a factory target. 15 shots at 100 yards indoors averaged 0.43". The load they used was 37 grains of 3031, in .308 Winchester (7.62mm NATO). Out of curiousity, I tried, in the same rifle, the same loads, at least powder charge, and was amazed at grouping at 600 yeards, the load held mostly inside 10 ring elevation, as I recall, and it seemed a mild load too.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

September 20, 1999, 09:30 PM	#1
Colduglandon Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 1999 Location: Mass Posts: 493	I have always used 4064. A friend uses 4895 and swears by it. I always thought 4064 was made for the 30-06 and 4895 for the 7.62 Nato. Any comments for this war of words. Both used with 150 and 173 grain bullets

September 21, 1999, 12:43 AM	#2
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,800	Paul. IMR 3031, 4064, 4320, all came out in the mid 1930's. I have not been able to locate the date of origin on IMR 4895, but I believe it was also in that time frame. Years ago, (about 1958 or 9)I got 850 rounds of 30-06 ammo, with the WW-2 corrosive primer. Headstamps on this ammo was Den 42 and LC 43, indicating manufacture in those years. Powder type was 4895. Charges ranged from 48.0 to 51.0 gr. After salvaging all that powder, I decided on 48.0 gr. with 150 gr. Sierra bullets. Made a good deer load. I've since gone to heavier bullets for deer. A while back, curiosity got the better of me, so I loaded up 5 rounds with the current IMR 4895 to chronograph. I had always wondered what the velocity was. They were too hot. I quit after the first round. It seems the batch of 4895 I just bought is a bit faster burning than the stuff I salvaged. But to answer your question, I think 4895 was the powder of choice for the 30-06 in WW-2 and before. The original powder was a form of Pyro DG, by the way. There was something else in between, but I can't remember what it was. I don't think 4064 was used in the military ammo; at least I cannot find any reference to that effect. Paul B.

September 21, 1999, 05:45 PM	#3
bfoster Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: N. of Fords Switch, OK, USA Posts: 297	Sirs, Paul B. is correct on his powder history, the introduction of DuPont 3031, 4064 & 4320 took place in the mid thirties. 4895 is a bit newer: I don't have reference to commercial lots being available until after WWII; it was developed for use in the Garand and used during WWII. The only other powders I can find reference to the government having used in the 30-06 are DuPont PyroDG, 1185, and for match ammo DuPont 1145, 1147, (perhaps) 15 1/2, & Hercules HiVel. I can find no evidence of the government using IMR 4064 in the 30-06 cartridge. I don't know if the lot of 4895 Paul B used is atypical, or what the other circumstances were, but pressure tests in my FN Browning 30-06 show 49 grains of IMR 4895 with 150 grain Sierra hunting bullets in WW brass with a Remington 9 1/2 primer to develop less than 60,000 psi M43. For near maximum loads in a gas operated rifle, I prefer 4895 to 4064 as it appears that 4895 is more likely to burn consistently with heavier (165 grain & up) bullets. 4064 is a classic powder, but to get the best out of it the handloader needs to pay greater than average attention to his load development- particularily with near red line loads, & also watch lot to lot variation. In a bolt action rifle, as typically handloaded, it is (IMHO) likely that powders in the class of IMR 4350 or IMR 4831 will produce near optimum results with most hunting class bullets. Bob

September 21, 1999, 08:02 PM	#4
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	My father started loading 4895 in his sporterized Springfield sometime in the late 1940s that I know of. I started loading for the '06 in 1950, and use 4064 for 150-grain and heavier bullets; 3031 for the 110-grain or lighter bullets. I've never been able to tell the general difference in his group sizes and mine. Deer keep falling down as though they can't tell the difference. By a few reloader books, the 4064 will allow about 100 ft/sec more than the 4895 with the 150-grain bullet. I recall this is even more so with heavier bullets... Now, this is all bolt-action. I concur as to guns like the Garand and 4895... FWIW, Art

September 21, 1999, 09:45 PM	#5
Colduglandon Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 1999 Location: Mass Posts: 493	Thanks for the input. I think I will give 4895 a try in my Garand. Coincidentally I just saw it on special in a catalog this month. I have tried 3031 with good results in 30-30. So so in 7.62x39 [This message has been edited by Paul Morceau (edited September 21, 1999).]

September 22, 1999, 02:56 PM	#6
Joefo Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 1999 Location: NY Posts: 165	Paul, don't use the 4350 powder in your Garand. You have to use a faster powder or you will bend or break the operating rod. I can't find it right now but I had a chart showing what powders you can use in the Garand. I use 3031, 4895, and Varget. Joefo

September 23, 1999, 07:32 AM	#7
Peter M. Eick Senior Member Join Date: August 3, 1999 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 2,991	I would like to offer some experimental/antidocial test results between the two powders. I use both in my M1A SM and NM rifles with c-34 primers, federal 308 GM brass and 168 seirra BTHP. The difference between the SM and the NM M1A's is 1 in 10 vs 1 in 11 inch twist rifling (if memory serves). Both are douglas barrels. All testing is 20 rnd targets at 100 and 200 yards off a bench. Now with that preface in mind, I have found that my Super Match does better with 39.5 grns of IMR-4895 while the National Match does better with 40.2 grns of IMR-4064. Those of you who will check this against the Seirra manual will see that these are very light loads, but the federal brass is heavier then most and I am using the c-34 primer which is magnum equivolent. (ejection and extraction are 100% reliable and consistent) Checking my records, this is the result of over 150 test under various conditions and if I swap the loads, groups tend to open up about half to three quarters of an inch. So what does this all have to do with 4064 and 4895 and the 30-06? My suggestion is get both, document your test procedure and start to experiment and work up your loads. Every gun is different, and the only way to find the "perfect" load is to test, document, consider and re-test. I only wish I had kept as meticulous records 20 years ago as I do today. PS: these are my "perfect" loads for a while, I am now starting to look at rebarreling both rifles next spring so I get to start the whole procedure all over.

September 24, 1999, 01:28 PM	#8
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,800	BFoster. Thank's for the update on 4895. Most of my data came frome Sharpe's COMPLETE GUIDE TO HANDLOADING. I searched through the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN magazines I have, starting back in 1936. I was trying to answer a question in another forum asking "Why did the govt. pick on 4895?" I could not find an introduction date. I would venture a guess the as the Garand was adopted in what? 1937 thereabouts, that the powder must have come shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, my collection is missing some of 1936,1937, and all of 1939. BUMMER. The data may have been in one of those. Paul B.

September 24, 1999, 05:28 PM	#9
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	Paul and others: D0 NOT USE 4350 IN A GARAND. Medium burning rate propellants (3031, 4895, 4064 and maybe 4320) are suitable. Slower burning rate powders tend to be hard on the operating rod, chamber pressures are lower, but gas port pressure is to high for the rod. One can use virtually anything reasonable in a bolt gun, however gas guns tend to be somewhat sensitive. Best stick to propellants that are similar to what the military used, for the 30-06 Garand, 7.62 NATO Garands also, that was 4895, from the arsenals. If memory serves, the 1966 or 67 Match(last year it was loaded) load from Lake City used 47.5 grains of 4895 in 30-06, under the 173 grain FA Match bullet, which shot quite well in some rifles, and not so hot in others, depending on the lot also. As for 3031, I had a Remington 40X Rangemaster, that came with a factory target. 15 shots at 100 yards indoors averaged 0.43". The load they used was 37 grains of 3031, in .308 Winchester (7.62mm NATO). Out of curiousity, I tried, in the same rifle, the same loads, at least powder charge, and was amazed at grouping at 600 yeards, the load held mostly inside 10 ring elevation, as I recall, and it seemed a mild load too.