How would you rate these powders as fast to slow burn rate or also other characteristics among the 3, lets say in a cartrige like 9.3x57 or maybe in a cart. you have tried the 3 in? I have about 6 different burn rate charts on my wall so I know how they are listed

Ive never used 4064, but my speer manual says its simular to 3031. Ive used 3031 and 4895.

Have fun

IMR 3031 is significantly faster than the other two. IMR 4895 and IMR 4064 are very close in speed, with 4895 usually considered slightly the faster.

In my experience, IMR 4895 is extremely versatile and would be my first choice in working up a load in a 9.3x57 simply because it seems to have a very linear pressure/velocity curve and also does well at rather low pressures in reduced loads. It usually also exhibits very consistent shot-to-shot velocities. IMR 4064 more often produces slightly better top velocities. Its drawbacks are that it is a little less easily metered through powder measures and typically exhibits a little more velocity variation (though not extreme, by any means). I've never had too much luck with IMR 3031 as it often exhibits wide swings in velocities and seem more temperamental as one approaches maximum working pressures. However, its characteristics aren't so bad that I would refuse to accept a gift keg of it !

Fastest IMR 3031, then IMR 4895, then IMR 4064.

I use a lot of IMR 3031, in everything from the 223 to my 450 No2 Double rifle.

I use it for reduced deer type loads in my 375 H&H as well.

I find it much more convient to only have one kind of powder for a wide variety of calibres and uses.

It has always given me excellent accuracy in every calibre I have used it in.

quote:

IMR 4895 is extremely versatile .... it seems to have a very linear pressure/velocity curve and also does well at rather low pressures in reduced loads. It usually also exhibits very consistent shot-to-shot velocities. IMR 4064 more often produces slightly better top velocities. I

Good info, I like imr 4895, in my 9.3x57 and was wondering how 4064 would compare, since I saw someone else post that they were useing 4064 in 9.3x57.

The IMR powders are old technology of 60+ years. They burn dirty, often have long kernels resulting in poor / variable density and are sensitive to temperature.

I wonder why people have not moved to more modern powders like VV 500 series double based powders, Ramshot double based ball powders etc. I wish i could buy Ramshot powders here.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
The IMR powders are old technology of 60+ years. They burn dirty, often have long kernels resulting in poor / variable density and are sensitive to temperature.

I wonder why people have not moved to more modern powders like VV 500 series double based powders, Ramshot double based ball powders etc. I wish i could buy Ramshot powders here.

The simple answer. "Because sometimes, somethings are better off unchanged". With that said some of us (and most certainly I) do expand my inventory of powders to develop the best possible load for my rifle (s), including all the latest bullets. In other words I don't limit myself during development and feel to do so would only impede the process and leave a void. Now with that said, I do use VV but, IMR has won the day in the majority of my loads and the old 4895 still reins as the champ! 60+ years old and dirty, many of my guns love it!

Hell, most my rifles are at least, or pret near 60 years old too.

"Now that there is funny, I don't care who ya are". So dido!

quote:

The IMR powders are old technology of 60+ years

Hell, most my rifles are at least, or pret near 60 years old too.

I use IMR powders because they work well.
Regards, Keith

IMR 3031 is probably the most versatile powder to ever be developed from the small cartridges to the big bores. It willl work from the miniscule 17's to the 458's!! IT IS VERSATILE!! And then came VARGET from Hodgdons!! Meters easlier and mimics the burn characteristics of 3031.............so is versatile!! And the bottom line of this thread is that the VERSATILE powders offerd by the ACCURATE brands have been neglected and not readilly available at your local gunshosp duplicate the wonderful versatility of 3031, 4895 and 4064!! Try some ACCURATE 2230 or 2520 and see for yourselves! AA2520 will suffice from the 204 to the 375H&H!! Now that's VERSATILE!! GHD

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
IMR 3031 is significantly faster than the other two. IMR 4895 and IMR 4064 are very close in speed, with 4895 usually considered slightly the faster.

In my experience, IMR 4895 is extremely versatile and would be my first choice in working up a load in a 9.3x57 simply because it seems to have a very linear pressure/velocity curve and also does well at rather low pressures in reduced loads. It usually also exhibits very consistent shot-to-shot velocities. IMR 4064 more often produces slightly better top velocities. Its drawbacks are that it is a little less easily metered through powder measures and typically exhibits a little more velocity variation (though not extreme, by any means). I've never had too much luck with IMR 3031 as it often exhibits wide swings in velocities and seem more temperamental as one approaches maximum working pressures. However, its characteristics aren't so bad that I would refuse to accept a gift keg of it !

quote:

Originally posted by JD Miller:
I like imr 4895, in my 9.3x57 and was wondering how 4064 would compare, since I saw someone else post that they were useing 4064 in 9.3x57.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
The IMR powders are old technology of 60+ years. They burn dirty, often have long kernels resulting in poor / variable density and are sensitive to temperature.

I wonder why people have not moved to more modern powders like VV 500 series double based powders, Ramshot double based ball powders etc. I wish i could buy Ramshot powders here.

quote:

Originally posted by groundhog devastation:
IMR 3031 is probably the most versatile powder to ever be developed from the small cartridges to the big bores. It willl work from the miniscule 17's to the 458's!! IT IS VERSATILE!! And then came VARGET from Hodgdons!! Meters easlier and mimics the burn characteristics of 3031.............so is versatile!! And the bottom line of this thread is that the VERSATILE powders offerd by the ACCURATE brands have been neglected and not readilly available at your local gunshosp duplicate the wonderful versatility of 3031, 4895 and 4064!! Try some ACCURATE 2230 or 2520 and see for yourselves! AA2520 will suffice from the 204 to the 375H&H!! Now that's VERSATILE!! GHD

I agree with everything quoted above, and most of the other posts too. I'm probably the guy who you referred to who posted the info about 4064 and the 9.3x57. Frankly, the reason I used 4064 is because I have lots of it, and I have lots of 4350 too, and I'm determined to burn it through some bore.

It's not that it's the best powder for the 9.3x57, but it works well, nevertheless. I simply don't know what the "best" powder is for the 9.3x57. 4064 works well in lots of cartridges, including the 308, and the 9.3x62, and 375 H&H. But it is correct, that it is old tech.

I like all the newer powders, and especially the Hodgdon powders, which I am most familiar with. I can't think of a powder that I don't like, frankly, except perhaps bullseye, and even it has certain uses. I'll probably never shoot it again, but that's besides the point. I like all the VV powders, and the Accurate powders, especially the AA2460.

Now, back to loads for the 9.3x57. My tests so far have yielded excellent results with 4064. Keep in mind that my rifle is a FN commercial 98, so I'm not restricted to low pressure loads. The charge is up into the neck, and thus compressed a little, but I seat the bullet out too.

I believe IMR4895 and H4895 would yield excellent results too. Also, RL 15 is a winner. I'll bet VV 140 is good too, and don't overlook H335, and AA2460, and I'm sure there are others in that burn rate class. I think they will all be compressed at max load, except perhaps H335.

It's just like loading for the 308, or the 8x57. There are just so many good powders that will work, sometimes it's just use what ya got. If optimum is the goal, then experiment, and use a cronograph.

It's unfortunate that there seems to be no good source of load data for the 9.3x57. That's a quandry, because i for one don't like to take chances with this stuff. So, that's another reason I chose the 4064, since I found some data that supported my starting place. IMO, the safest and most forgiving powder to start low and work up is H4895, and if you used only that powder, you couldn't be too far away from optimum.

It's my understanding that some software is good, such as Quick Load. If you have a friend or can talk someone into providing info from it, then that could be helpful. My suggestion is to stay with powders in the burn rate class between 3031 and about BL-C(2).

KB

quote:

Originally posted by groundhog devastation:
IMR 3031 is probably the most versatile powder to ever be developed from the small cartridges to the big bores. It willl work from the miniscule 17's to the 458's!! IT IS VERSATILE!! And then came VARGET from Hodgdons!! Meters easlier and mimics the burn characteristics of 3031.............so is versatile!! And the bottom line of this thread is that the VERSATILE powders offerd by the ACCURATE brands have been neglected and not readilly available at your local gunshosp duplicate the wonderful versatility of 3031, 4895 and 4064!! Try some ACCURATE 2230 or 2520 and see for yourselves! AA2520 will suffice from the 204 to the 375H&H!! Now that's VERSATILE!! GHD

I understand your point, but I think you may be generalizing a bit. With all the great info on these boards I have never seen a bias towards VV or AA powders nor do I believe they are overlooked during development. I also believe that any dealer that decides not to carry these brands is a fool especially now-a-days. I like 2520 & 2460 and on the other side N150 & N550. But as I have said before IMR based on my development percentage consistently out performs the other brands.

One of the reasons lots of us use the IMR powders is because we have 30-to-60 years experience with them, and know what they will do and where.

One of the really nice things about the whole IMR series is that they all have the same basic chemistry and the same amount of inherent energy per unit of weight. They differ by having different burn rates, which are determined by added burning deterrants and using different sizes of kernals and perforations. With the slower ones, as they release their energy more slowly, one can use more powder and release more total energy while the bullet is travelling down the bore, all without exceeding max pressures allowable at any given time or point of the bullet travel.

The result is a series of powders which are very predictable across the whole range of uses, for those who are familiar with them.

I use a LOT of different powders, mainly European ones, and yes, some of them are cleaner buring, or have more energy per weight unit because of being double-based. (The IMR series powders are ALL single-based propellants.)

But "modern" powders better performing in the standard cartridges used for hunting in America? If that's true at all it is only very, very marginally true. As people are so fond of saying, you can only kill an animal so dead. IMR powders will do that well, and safely for any person who pays attention and learns which one and how much to use.

And for many years they were less expensive too.

Lastly, IMR powders are all stick powders (extruded). Because of the multiple ways burning rates are controlled in stick powders they generally perform without the sudden changes in pressures which seem to be found inherently in ball powders, as the edges of the pressure envelope in which they are designed to burn are approached.

Talking about old powders, heck, I am still using Hi-Vel #s 2 and 3. In fact, in a couple of my rifles, they are still my favourite powders. Didn't somebody once say, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

The result is a series which is very predictable across the whole range of uses, for those who are familiar with them.

(The IMR series are ALL single-based propellants.)

Lastly, IMR powders are all stick powders (extruded). Because of the multiple ways burning rates are controlled in stick powders, they generally perform without the sudden changes in pressures which seem to be found inherently in ball powders, as the edges of the pressure envelope in which they are designed to burn are approached.

I couldn't have said it better. So, that's all the more reason why I chose 4064 powder, since the 9.3x57 in particular is a special case, given there is practically no lab tested load data manual out there, especially approximating 50,000 psi. I wanted a predictable pressure line, and the comfort of working up without having to worry about spikes.

I have one other cartridge I load for, a wildcat, that has no book data, and I take the same approach, and use H4895, which as far as I know follows the same predictability rules as IMR powders.

KB

If I limited myself to just 3 powders, those three would be my top choice..

I like Viht powders, but I won't pay retail for them. They are 30-50% more than the IMR/Hodgdon numbers around here.

If you decide to quit reloading, I'll be more than happy to give you $12/lb for N135, 140 or 540.