The book is Hornady from the mid '70s. i am sure I could cross reference the loads shown for 348 Winchester, but none of my other reloading books have 348 Win listed. Which came first, IMR or Hodgdon? I'd love a history lesson on 4895. Thanks in advance...
Old reloading book just says "4895"
- Thread starter warhwkbb
- Start date
- Status
FROGO207
Member
As my past research shows the IMR 4895 was the classic load for the 30-06 MIL SPEC round. IIRC the H4895 was the first one available but they are so close that years ago they kind of figured that both were interchangeable as long as you start at a min charge and work up to max. With new equipment and different batches we now know that this is not the case. There is data on line for both with different bullets in many calibers and if your particular combo is not, an email to the manufacturer of said propellants will get you a safe load from their balastician.
IMR 4895 is faster than H4895 according to the burn rate chart I have.
IMR 4895 is temp sensitive and not as accurate for me in 30-06 and 308.
H4895 is one of their extreme propellants and is less temp sensitive and more accurate in the 30-06 and 308 for my variety of rifles as a rule.
I would use H4895 If I had the choice. YMMV
RC or one of the others may have more/better info than I presented.
ETA: My Lymans reloading manual #42 from 1960 shows the only 4895 is from Hodgdon. There is usually a section that shows the propellants and who made them in the manual somewhere-- usually in the notes after the reloading section with the other tables. My older Speer and Lyman manuals are set up that way.
IMR 4895 is faster than H4895 according to the burn rate chart I have.
IMR 4895 is temp sensitive and not as accurate for me in 30-06 and 308.
H4895 is one of their extreme propellants and is less temp sensitive and more accurate in the 30-06 and 308 for my variety of rifles as a rule.
I would use H4895 If I had the choice. YMMV
RC or one of the others may have more/better info than I presented.
ETA: My Lymans reloading manual #42 from 1960 shows the only 4895 is from Hodgdon. There is usually a section that shows the propellants and who made them in the manual somewhere-- usually in the notes after the reloading section with the other tables. My older Speer and Lyman manuals are set up that way.
Last edited:
243winxb
Member
carbine85
Member
IMR4895 is probably one of the best overall rifle powders on the market. I get good results in everything I reload with it. I buy it in the 5lb containers.
USSR
Member
"In the beginning, there was IMR4895". When the old reloading manuals simply say "4895", they are referring to IMR4895.
Don
Don
Clark
Member
ArchAngelCD
Member.
That is the correct answer in a nut shell. Your data is referring to IMR4895.
Jim Watson
Member
Disagree.
Hodgdon was selling WWII surplus 4895 years before fresh DuPont IMR 4895 was available.
Yes, early 4895 WAS surplus IMR 4895 but it seems not to have been from a lot number that matched what DuPont eventually put on the market.
When DuPont came out with canister IMR 4895, Hodgdon started calling their surplus H 4895.
When the surplus ran out, Hodgdon started having fresh H 4895 made up to the same specs as what they had been selling surplus, not exactly the same as what DuPont was making and selling at the time.
Hodgdon started out I think with Nobel in Scotland, then went to ADI Australia, where they have stayed.
If I had old data for 4895 I would be looking in current data and being sure I loaded in the range where the two brands overlap, they are similar but not identical.
Hodgdon was selling WWII surplus 4895 years before fresh DuPont IMR 4895 was available.
Yes, early 4895 WAS surplus IMR 4895 but it seems not to have been from a lot number that matched what DuPont eventually put on the market.
When DuPont came out with canister IMR 4895, Hodgdon started calling their surplus H 4895.
When the surplus ran out, Hodgdon started having fresh H 4895 made up to the same specs as what they had been selling surplus, not exactly the same as what DuPont was making and selling at the time.
Hodgdon started out I think with Nobel in Scotland, then went to ADI Australia, where they have stayed.
If I had old data for 4895 I would be looking in current data and being sure I loaded in the range where the two brands overlap, they are similar but not identical.
Last edited:
FROGO207
Member
^^ That was what I was referring to in my post. The older reloading books I inherited from my grandfather showed that the propellant was H 4895 and no other referenced propellant. I don't believe that they did not reference the propellant brand in the reloading book somewhere. Every one of mine do even the old Belding and Mull handbook from 1950 that show data for Hercules and E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company that introduce the new IMR type propellants. There was no IMR 4895 listed then either.
280shooter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 707
I have and used Vol 2 hornady for a lot of years. I also have many reloading books. But in the old vol.2 if it does not have a H or N in front of the powder, its always IMR..AGAIN THIS IS IN THE OLD VOLUME 2 OF HORNADY HANDBOOK.... I have the first printing and that is 1973,
280shooter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 707
the 1973 book has the 348 imr4895 starting load at 44 gr. max at 53.0
sage5907
Member
Jim Watson quote: "Hodgdon was selling WWII surplus 4895 years before fresh DuPont IMR 4895 was available.
Yes, early 4895 WAS surplus IMR 4895 but it seems not to have been from a lot number that matched what DuPont eventually put on the market.
When DuPont came out with canister IMR 4895, Hodgdon started calling their surplus H 4895.
When the surplus ran out, Hodgdon started having fresh H 4895 made up to the same specs as what they had been selling surplus, not exactly the same as what DuPont was making and selling at the time.
Hodgdon started out I think with Nobel in Scotland, then went to ADI Australia, where they have stayed."
I think Jim Watson explained the transition from military surplus to H and then IMR. Some of us, like me, didn't realize they were different powders in the 1960's and loaded a few high pressure cartridges until we realized the difference in the powders.
Yes, early 4895 WAS surplus IMR 4895 but it seems not to have been from a lot number that matched what DuPont eventually put on the market.
When DuPont came out with canister IMR 4895, Hodgdon started calling their surplus H 4895.
When the surplus ran out, Hodgdon started having fresh H 4895 made up to the same specs as what they had been selling surplus, not exactly the same as what DuPont was making and selling at the time.
Hodgdon started out I think with Nobel in Scotland, then went to ADI Australia, where they have stayed."
I think Jim Watson explained the transition from military surplus to H and then IMR. Some of us, like me, didn't realize they were different powders in the 1960's and loaded a few high pressure cartridges until we realized the difference in the powders.
USSR
Member
First, there was no single lot number of surplus IMR4895 to match the commercial IMR4895 with. I've got the load data for M72 Match ammo which used IMR4895 from the late 50's to the mid-60's, and the charge weights were different because the powder lots were different from one year to the next. And secondly, the implication here is, Hodgdon was able to have fresh H4895 made, which was previously surplus IMR4895, by a third party to the same specs as the surplus IMR4895 that they previously sold, but Olin was not able to create their commercial IMR4895 to the same specs as their own surplus IMR4895. Huh?
Don
It is my recollection that H4895 was sold as new gunpowder in the early 80's. Hodgdon also started H4350 about that time. The ad I remember reading said H4895 was a duplicate of IMR 4895. This is no longer true as H4895 now has advanced coatings. The pressure curves may be close, but they are chemically different powders.
243winxb
Member
Color of Powders
Color of powder may mean nothing.
Color of powder may mean nothing.
http://adi-powders.com.au/handloaders-guide/news.asp H4895 is AR2006H
But above it reads
http://www.hodgdon.com/msds.html H4895 has changed to a slower powder burn rate. And no one noticed?? Could that be correct??
Jim Watson
Member
According to Phil Sharpe, a "lot" of powder corresponded to a railcar load. He said that the powder mill could hold operating conditions for longer and back blend much more than that for uniformity, but handling every carload separately made sure loads were correct.
Hodgdon reportedly reblended their surplus powder for consistency in retail sales. They could not do like the Army and provide different load data for every batch, there was no way of knowing what would be on the shelves. No way to get a customer not under company policy or military discipline to go by the right set of numbers, either.
You could also get surplus 4895 from the DCM through NRA. Sometimes you got load data, sometimes not. Sharpe notes a one or two grain spread to get M2 hardball ballistics from different lots.
Well, we were just talking about lot variations. I can only assume that DuPont, not Olin, started selling IMR 4895 made just like they had been making for the Army and that it turned out to be a little different than the average of all the surplus Hodgdon had bought and blended. So what Hodgdon had copied when their WWII surplus ran out was not quite what DuPont was making when they picked a canister grade to sell.
Later, DuPont started selling IMR 4831 and it turned out to be noticeably faster than H 4831 that started out as surplus 20mm powder and later copied on contract. DuPont said "We are making it just like we always have, Hodgdon's stuff is just old and stale."
- Status
