H 4895 IMR 4895

[cocopuff]

can these powers be inter changed? Like one is hotter
thanthe other.Correct ? I have lots of the H4895
but none of the IMR 4895...Thanks

 

[wapiti25]

use less of the H4895

 

[watercam]

I, too, have been wondering about that. In looking at various load data from a variety of manufacturers they look oh so close! The Hodgdon product is an Extreme powder I believe which should make it more temperature tolerant.

 

[mikecr]

I don't know what the number 4895 means, but I wish they would drop that system..
Of all the places to generate confusing similarities, powder should not be one.

 

[cocopuff]

;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[CatShooter]

I don't know what the number 4895 means, but I wish they would drop that system..
Of all the places to generate confusing similarities, powder should not be one.

How about calling one of them 4894? ???

 

[ShootDots]

IMR 4895 is almost always listed on the "burn rate charts" as just a shade slower than the "H" variety. I have never found IMR 4895 to be particularly temp sensitive, even though it is not an "extreme" powder. I can tell you that in the 22-250 and 220 Swift, using 55gr pills, IMR 4895 will cause them light slugs to scream out of the barrel with great accuracy! It was the powder I used when hammering WoodChucks up in New York and PrairieDogs in Texas.

 

[mikecr]

How about calling one of them 4894? ???

That would help

 

[Brians356]

They cannot be interchanged grain-for-grain, but they are so close that if one works in a particular combination of components, the other will, too. You still should work up the load using reasonable caution as if you are using a different powder - which you are!

Just looking at the published load data out there, whenever both powders are listed for a particular combination of components, you see some surprisingly significant differences between the two powders WRT charge weights and velocities. In fact I will venture to say they are never identical (if someone can cite an exception - "Show me!")

Brian

 

[mikecr]

Anybody have an idea what 4895, or 4350 means?
I always wondered

 

[Brians356]

use less of the H4895

Good. How much less?

 

[Brians356]

Anybody have an idea what 4895, or 4350 means?
I always wondered

That's like wondering what "F-150" means. It could well be an arbitrary name someone in Marketing liked the sound of.

Hodgdon says "H-380" came from 38 grains of powder in a 22-250 which shot ragged holes for Bruce Hodgdon. But I don't think most powder names designate anything specific.

 

[Buzz]

Anyone have a real comparison between these and accurate's equivalent, AA2495?

 

[wapiti25]

brians356, the loading manual's show 1-2 grains less of H 4895. you should always go to a manual for the starting load and work up.

cocopuff's, H4895 is faster burning on the charts than IMR 4895. We usually don't refer to powder as one is hotter than the other. Burn rates can change position in real loading data for some cartridges. Burn rates are set by combustion bomb data which is measured at a lower pressure than our newer cartridges.

 

[jonbearman]

F-100 means =1000 payload f-150 is 1500 # payoad Just a shortened version of the numbers. Don't know what the others mean. 4895 and 4350 are more then likely military stock numbers or such.

 

[TonyR]

In most cases I have seen, IMR4895 is predicted to give higher muzzle velocities than H4895. I am generally using QL to estimate for heavy bullets and long barrels; so I think that means that IMR4895 is slower than H4895.

 

[Brians356]

F-100 means =1000 payload f-150 is 1500 # payoad Just a shortened version of the numbers.

Hmmm ... There is no F-100. And F-150 is Ford's 1/2 ton pickup, F-250 is the 3/4 ton, F-350 the 1-ton.

Last I checked a ton was 2000 lbs. I'll leave the arithmetic as an exercise for the reader, but the "150" cannot be a shortened version of the nominal payload.

 

[mjoplin]

True on the 1/2, 3/4, one ton assertion, but not so much on the F-100. Ford made F-100 designated 1/2 ton pickups well into the early 80's First 150's came out in the late 70's. I worked at a Ford dealership in parts for a few years out of high school back when the first 150's appeared.

It is good to see the discussion on H vs. IMR. I've had good luck with both but for some reason (probably not rationally based) seem to lean to H.

F-100 means =1000 payload f-150 is 1500 # payoad Just a shortened version of the numbers.

Hmmm ... There is no F-100. And F-150 is Ford's 1/2 ton pickup, F-250 is the 3/4 ton, F-350 the 1-ton.

Last I checked a ton was 2000 lbs. I'll leave the arithmetic as an exercise for the reader, but the "150" cannot be a shortened version of the nominal payload.

 

[Brians356]

True on the 1/2, 3/4, one ton assertion, but not so much on the F-100. Ford made F-100 designated 1/2 ton pickups well into the early 80's

I figured that would come up, I should have preempted it with "Ford does not make an F-100 today". The F-100 is one of the iconic pickups of the 1960s.

However, since you pointed it out, it only serves to better illustrate that both F-100 and F-150 can't derive from the same nominal payload figure, yet they were both "1/2 ton" pickups.

While we're' flogging this dead horse, if F-100 was a 1/2 ton, when did they sell a 1-ton "F-200"?

I rest my case. The numerals in the F-series model names are not derived from the foreshortened nominal payloads, and never were. But the "F" does mean "Full-sized". 8)

 

[rcol317]

There is a difference in burn rate so data needs to be for specific powder. 30 years ago the books just called it 4895 most of the data was for IMR 4895.