AA 2495 vs H4895

[H2OBUG]

I know H4895 and IMR 4895 are very close.
Has anyone used AA2495? If so how does it compare?

Burn rate, temp sens & flow

 

[RegionRat]

Burn rate was slower as I recall, no idea on the temperature sensitivity, and it was about the same size extrusion so it flows about the same.

I did more of the IMR 4895 vs H4895 testing in 30-06 by far, than ever using AA just since more manuals called out the IMR and H versions. When all I could find was one or another, then I ran with with it and found all three of these to be forgiving at the very least, and once it a while they would shine.

I still run H4895 and IMR4895 in some CMP competition loads for 30-06 in order to download for rapid strings, and downloading is one thing these do well.

 

[Ned Ludd]

This is not a direct answer to your question, as I have never used AA2495. However, I have used a lot of H4895 and IMR4895. IMO, those two powders are not all that close to one another, even though they fall within a similar region on burn rate charts. IMR 4895 is noticeably faster than H4895, and the kernels range from extremely short little fragments to much longer/larger sticks, whereas H4895 kernels are fairly small and uniform in size. The bottom line is that AA2495 is in the right burn rate region of the chart that it should work well in loads for which you might previously have used H4895 or IMR4895, but you can only know how close your loads using it end up to the other two powders by direct testing/load development. Even subtle differences between powders can cause a noticeable difference in the final load, but you shouldn't have any major issue tuning in loads using a powder such as AA2495 as an alternative to H4895 or IMR4895.

 

[urbanrifleman]

I thought aa2495 was a ball powder?

 

[Doug Beach]

I thought aa2495 was a ball powder?

It’s a stick powder.

 

[H2OBUG]

Thanks for the feedback
I will be running it in my 338-06
Will try some test loads and see what happens.

 

[jackieschmidt]

Well, I use in my .060 throat 6BR with both Barts 65 grn BT and 80 grn BT in a 1-12 twist Krueger. I have suggested it several times on this Forum And have never received one comment.
it is a clean burning single base powder, the grn size is a little corner than powders like 133. I shoot 33.5 grns behind the 80 grn with around 3350 FPS, and 34.5 grns with the 65 grn at around 100 FPS more.
I tried it with my 104 in a 1-8 twist, it proved to be a tad fast. N150 is my choice there. I personally thing N150 is a little faster than what most burn rate charts suggest, as 30.9 grns yells 2910 FPS in my 1-8 twist 6BR with my 104.
I have found 2495 it to be more consistent than 4895 shooting at 200 yards.

 

[urbanrifleman]

Well, I use in my .060 throat 6BR with both Barts 65 grn BT and 80 grn BT in a 1-12 twist Krueger. I have suggested it several times on this Forum And have never received one comment.
it is a clean burning single base powder, the grn size is a little corner than powders like 133. I shoot 33.5 grns behind the 80 grn with around 3350 FPS, and 34.5 grns with the 65 grn at around 100 FPS more.
I tried it with my 104 in a 1-8 twist, it proved to be a tad fast. N150 is my choice there. I personally thing N150 is a little faster than what most burn rate charts suggest, as 30.9 grns yells 2910 FPS in my 1-8 twist 6BR with my 104.
I have found 2495 it to be more consistent than 4895 shooting at 200 yards.

Oh crap!!! It is made in Canada by General Dynamics!!!! Same as aa2015 and LT32.

WOW. How did I miss this???

 

[rockrat]

Loading it in my '06 with 168 matchkings, it seems just a little faster than imr 4895. I had to drop down a couple of grains.
May have to try it in my 6mm br.