Have you tested one against the other? What was the difference? I always thought Hogdon was slower but I'm wondering if it isn't the other way around by some margin. Thanks

it's been a while since I've looked but I believe they're found side by side on the burn rate chart.....which means nothing at all except they could be identical to different......probably not much however.

here's the chart

They are identical.

The only one to be worried about is 4831 as the IMR version burns about 10% faster so if you use Hodgdon data with IMR powder you will blow yourself up.

-Spencer

Thanks guys. After all the years the '06 has been around and the 4895's have been used I would have thought there would be more consistant data around on the powders. I was picking a load today and found max loads all the way from 47.5 t0 53.8 on these two powders.
I know that's reloading manuals and there are different powder lots but I was a little surprised by how normally agressive manuals seemed conservative and conservative sources seemed aggressive.

CAREFUL: They burn differntly in my gun, H4895 burns faster(?) (more velosity) at same load.

In my experience, the two 4895's are closer than just about any other identically numbered powders in the IMR vs. Hodgdon brands. The currently available IMR 4895 is made in Canada, and the H4895 is made by ADI in Australia. Whether this will continue to be the case is I can't say. But even when H4895 came from Scotland, it was surprisingly close to IMR 4895. I would treat the two powders just like I treat any two powders from different lots: Expect minor variations from the previous lot and adjust the test loads downward until powder qualities are proven if your are at what you consider near-maximum.

When anyone tells you that two differently labeled powders are identical without specifying the source of the information I'd take it with a lot of salt.

They just might be identical.....and they might be "said to be".

H-414 and WW-760 have been said to be identical too.....and there are folks that claim there are differences.

Unless you absolutely know differently always look up the powder manufactures recommendations for use and load accordingly. The Info is free on the internet and is published free from Alliant, IMR and Hodgdons as well as other powder companies.

IMR-4350 and H-4350 are also similar and you look up the loading data and it says that they are loaded about the same.....but look it up and don't just say "close enough".

It cost almost nothing to look up the data on the net......a few seconds at the most
http://www.imrpowder.com
http://www.hodgdon.com
http://www.alliantpowder.com

I find IMRs a boat load more flexible and a lot more accurate across the board.....

Hodgdon's seem to have a "sweet spot" in each cartridge.... IMRs is consistently accurate....
I prefer that than looking for that "Sweet Spot", which I have only found in two rifles....
a 22.250 with a 55 grain bullet and 32.5 grains of H 4895...

and then a load in a 30/30 off of Hodgdon's web site or a magazine article... However I didn't continue using it, because I found SR 4759 was accurate as heck in the 30/30 regardless of powder volume....

Kraky:

According to my notes, I did a limited test of this 5 years ago. I had somehow ended up with three different lots of IMR4895, plus had some left-over H4895 from pre-'Extreme' days. I used 20 R-P .223 Rem. cases, CCI-400 primers, and bulk Win. 55 gr. FMCbt's, all from the same lots, and loaded five cases for each powder lot with a weighed 25.0 gr. of powder. The test rifle was an old Rem. M788 with a well-used 24" bbl; air temperature was about 50°F (10°C); velocities were measured at 15' from the muzzle; shots for each 5 round batch were fired at a rate of about 1 per min.; and 10 to 15 minutes was allowed between each 5 shot batch to permit the barrel to cool. The results were as follows, with the IMR lots listed in order of ascending lot number:

H4895 - 2888 fps (Std dev = 48 fps);
I4895 (#1) - 2806 fps (Std dev = 14 fps);
I4895 (#2) - 2715 fps (Std dev = 16 fps); and
I4895 (#3) - 2769 fps (Std dev = 22 fps).

In this instance the H4895 proved to be somewhat faster, as you suggested, but what I found most interesting was that the difference between the H4895 and the 1st lot of IMR4895 was less than that between 1st and 2nd lots of the IMR powder.

Cheers, Al