IMR 4895 vs. H4895 in the .204
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:26 am
- .204 Ruger Guns: Savage Model 12FV
- Location: Southeast Idaho
IMR 4895 vs. H4895 in the .204
I have googled and done other searches about the differences of the two powders. According to my Hornady manual, the burn rates are separated by only one powder so, I know they are similar. I see that many on here have had good results using H4895. Has anybody used IMR 4895 with similar results? I ask because I have a pound of the IMR shtuff sitting on the shelf and I'd like to use it if it would work alright.
- MG34
- New Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:17 pm
- .204 Ruger Guns: Remington 700 VS
- Location: Lakeside Ca.
Re: IMR 4895 vs. H4895 in the .204
I have never used H4895 but I have used IMR 4895 for many many years with excellent results. I just started using IMR 4895 in my Rem 700 204 VLS, also use it in my 22-250 243 and 25-06, 308, 30-06.
Big Sandy Shooter K6MGX Remington 700 VS 6X24 Bushnell Elite
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2324
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:00 am
- .204 Ruger Guns: also now, a Savage switch bull barrel in 204R. 23 inch SS
- Location: Lake Forest, Ca.
Re: IMR 4895 vs. H4895 in the .204
One thing to remember, most the reload books state you may use H4895 in IMR4895 loads, but never reverse IMR into H loads. IMR will produce higher pressures. Just a word of warning, to keep in mind. Best to follow the reloading manuals for each make of powder. Bill K
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:26 am
- .204 Ruger Guns: Savage Model 12FV
- Location: Southeast Idaho
Re: IMR 4895 vs. H4895 in the .204
Yeah, I wasn't looking to use them interchangably. I guess I was really just wondering if anyone had used IMR 4895 in the .204 and which combo of charge and bullet worked well for them. Most reloading manuals have H4895 listed as a viable powder for the .204 but so far only one, Nosler, lists IMR 4895.Bill K wrote: Best to follow the reloading manuals for each make of powder. Bill K
- Vartarg
- Senior Member
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:26 pm
- .204 Ruger Guns: Ruger 77MkII Target, Remington LVSF
- Location: Louisiana
Re: IMR 4895 vs. H4895 in the .204
In the case of the 32 gr bullet, the Hodgdon online data site shows the same load for both the IMR and H versions of 4895: 29gr Compressed load.
http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
For the 35gr and 40 gr there's a tenth difference.....
I'm not saying they're interchangeable....just sayin' what the Hodgdon site reflects......
FYI, YMMV
http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
For the 35gr and 40 gr there's a tenth difference.....
I'm not saying they're interchangeable....just sayin' what the Hodgdon site reflects......
FYI, YMMV
PEACE-Through Superior Firepower
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:06 pm
- .204 Ruger Guns: CZ-527, Remington 700 VLTHSS
Re: IMR 4895 vs. H4895 in the .204
I've had superb results with H4895 in my 204's. My only experience with IMR4895 was years ago in a 308 (it too was superb).
Re: IMR 4895 vs. H4895 in the .204
I have had great results with IMR 4895 with both the 35 and 40 grain Berger bullets, haven't messed with H4895, haven't had to!