Printable View
Hey guys,
From what I've read these powered are the same. Both are made in the same factory but one comes via the US and the other from Australia. Is that correct? I would assume you still need to work up pressures with the different powered.
Any one noticed perfor.ance difference?
Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
Hodgdon H4895 is exactly ADI2206H. IMR also do IMR4895. IMR is produced via Hodgdon and is listed as "equivalent" to ADI2206H but I wouldn't guarantee it to be exactly the same.
Only differences between the ADI powder and the Hodgdon would be lot to to variation. But as always take care if changing even though they should be exactly the same.Attachment 236796
From the printout I have on my wall 2206h is the ADI equivalent of 4895
When people say 4895 there could be 3 4895s kicking around, not all necessarily exactly the same.
H4895 - Hodgdon's version via ADI4895, the exactly the same powder.
IMR4895 - IMR's recipe. May be the same/close. I believe now discontinued. Maybe ADI decided not needed given their own ADI2206H/H4895.
4895 milsurp - probabaly rare to non existant now. Could be quite different to the modern versions.
Take care,
Imr isn't discontinued as it's for sale at gun city. Did they stop it recently?
Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
IMR Enduron powder line was discontinued by Hodgdon back in 2022. IMR4895 (along with others) is one of their Enduron powders. Stock may well be available here us being at the bottom of the world.
IIRC there was a safety issue as well as those powders could not be manufactured in the States (which was pobably Hodgdons preference) due to the process not meeting USA safety standards, hence their manufacure in Canada.
So, I could be wrong on all that, just dredging my memory cells.
So is it worth buying the imr as a substitute for adi? I'm starting to run low and am aware the US are limiting ammo and firearm exports. Adi was hard enough to source before then.
Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
The first powder I ever bought for reloading was 4895, still use IMR4895 now. And having worked up my loads I will often change to the same load in 2206H with no noticeable difference.
All of the Hodgdon extreme powders (basically all the good ones are all made by ADI.
So yes they are interchangeable.
You will still need to work up in your rifle but you can use other people's data to get a good idea of the weight range you should be looking to be.
Go with ADI. Although ADI2206H right now is hens' teeth. When powders become hard to get, (like virtually always now) the USA powders will be the hardest to source. Just a fact of our market size and distance to supplier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rn-85
Over the recent years I have changed to entirely ADI powders. Dropped VVN140, Reloder 15, IMR3031 plus a few others and so on.
The recent Biden imposed 90 day export limit does not affect NZ, we are exempted.
Cheers, I just bought an lb
Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
Hey,Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmer
I really value your input. I rolled the dice on the imr. Maybe I'll come out sweet, maybe I'll learn something.
Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
Zimmer....below is copy/paste from Reloading Directs home page. https://reloadingdirect.co.nz/Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmer
2nd Novemeber 2023
Note: The USA Bureau of Industry and Security is suspending the issuance of license for 0A500 series items. This means our shipments of brass and projectiles, gun parts are on hold TFN.
All respect to RD but I think NZ is on the exempt list. Nick over to the specific thread that did this issue to death.
He may be talking about something more specific rather than the recent Biben 90 day directive.
A quick check on Hodgdons reloading site shows a bit of a difference between IMR & H 4895
https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/rel...c=true&type=54
Greetings,Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg
You will have noticed that most of the Hodgdon data for the older projectiles has pressure expressed in CUP so it could be 30 plus years old. The IMR data has pressure expressed in PSI so it is much more recent und used a different method of measurement using electronic systems rather than mechanical. To be honest I would be surprised if they were the same. There are three versions of 4895 marketed by Hodgdons. The original milsurp stuff just called 4895. When this ran out H4895 was manufactured by Nobels and now ADI. Dupont started offering IMR4895 after the milsurp stuff ran out. I have used all but the Nobels manufactured stuff, alas in the days before I had a chronograph.
Regards Grandpamac.
Greetings again,
Cross checked with some of the older CUP data for the IMR powders and the current data is clearly hotter. Where the data for both powders is in PSI the data is mostly closer. In any case IMR4895 and H4895 (AR2206H) are different powders and each should be used with the data provided for it, working up from below and chronographing as we go>
Regards Grandpamac.
I did a wee bit of looking into this, last night.
All the tables I checked were consistent with each other and adi and h4895 data were identical. Imr was constant across; lee loader load data sheet, Richard Lee Modern Reloading and the Hodgson's website.
That said Hodgson bought IMR in '03 and potentially they are still using old data? Modern Reloading and the lee loader would likely have pre'03 data.
One observation, imr4895 is faster on paper with a higher don't exceed level. If you went Over the adi don't exceed level wouldn't you get similar speeds?
Also, I haven't poured any imr out yet but could the imr have a different cut length or grain size creating a different burn rate?
Possibly dumb questions from a newbie but my 2c. I have the powder now so I'll find out. Surely the difference won't be massive and the deer don't prefer adi over imr....
Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
Yes I'll use the imr data when loading imr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rn-85
Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
It would be best to think of IMR4895 and H4895 (AR2206H) as different powders as you propose. True they are similar in burning speed but each can be slower or faster than the other depending on what is being loaded. IMR4895 was developed in the 1930's for the .30-06 Garand rifle and is more temp sensitive than AR2206H so two different powders. IMR loads have increased substantially over the last 50 years for whatever reason, possibly the different pressure measuring system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rn-85
Regards Grandpamac.
So then the power being more sensitive, would it perform difference in different situations? What situations? Does this make that powder less usable over a range of hunting environments?Quote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
This got me thinking. Velocity and pressure are quite linear within the normal pressure ranges so I gathered up some data for 150 grain projectiles and my calculator. In 1976 Dupont listed 44.5 grains of IMR4895 for 2,780 fps as max. In 2003 IMR listed 45.5 grains of IMR4895 for 2,880 fps. The current Hodgdons data lists 47.3 grains of IMR4895 for 2,920 fps. A big range of both charge and velocity. Using the current Hodgdons data and interpolating velocities for 44.5 and 45.5 grains gave 2,745 and 2805 fps respectively. Cases, primers and projectiles varied but the predicted and actual results were close enough to indicate that powder speed had not changed that much, just the method of pressure testing. The Hodgdons data for the 150 grain and H4895 closely matched the IMR 2003 data.
Regards Grandpamac.
PS. Just spotted your post. For NZ hunting conditions you can probably ignore the temp sensitivity, Just don't leave the cartridges lying in the sun or on the dash of your ute.
GPM.
Having done a bit of digging into light loads recently, with Hodgdon suggesting that H4895 can be used for 60% of max loads, that would seem to be the critical area where they might not be interchangable.
Then I found this.
I've fiddled with light loads a bit and found that at 80% and above results are good but can burn a bit dirty when you go below that. I had seen Johns note in Handloader plus the original article. Originally my light loads were used as a low recoil target load in my .308. More recently as a light load in the .303 that lets cases last a very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanman
GPM.