I use IMR 4350 for many loads. Have wondered if I should try Hogdons version.

Question:
Between IMR 4350 and Hogdon 4350 what one do you prefer and why?

Choices:
Hogdon
IMR

 

I use H4350 in my 6.5x284 and one of my 243s

I use IMR4350 with the 260 grain Partition in my 375H&H.

Use whichever one works best for you.

After using IMR for 40 years, I tried H about 5 years ago. H is now my preferred 4350. The groups are better, velocity is about the same.

I confirmed it using my chronograph. Some of my H-4350 loads have single digit "extreme spread" readings.

IMR 4350, just works.

Use(d) it in;
30-40
358NM
7x64
30-06
6.5x55

H4350......because I have a large quanity of it !

H4350 my go to powder in 6 x 47 Lapua in my 1,000 BR rifle......former owner has won matches with this powder.

I use the equivalant of H4350 because it is available as AR 2209 from Australia. However it is also part of the Extreme range of powders that are relatively less sensitive to temperature variations.

I use it for some loads in my 7mm08, 280 Ack Imp,

I have always used IMR4350 as it is a little slower burning than the Hodgdon version. Both of these powders are pretty impervious to variations in temp. Try one of them and if it works, use it. I am sure they are both good products when used in correct application.

Quote:

Posted 11 December 2011 15:51 Hide Post
I have always used IMR4350 as it is a little slower burning than the Hodgdon version.

what i have loaded and read over the 30+ years the H is slower then the IMR

faster

N550 (Vihtavuori)
4350 XMR (Accurate)
4350 (IMR)
S365 (Somchem)
TU7000 (Vectan)
AR2209 (ADI)
H4350 (Hodgdon)
N204 (Norma)
R904 (Rottweil

slower

IMR is my choice for the 243win. H works as well, but more is needed.

vines,I agree with you. IMR 4350 seems to be about to 2% faster than H4350. I voted IMR4350 cause it works better.

I couldn't vote because I always use the Accurate Arms version instead of either of these. It is supposed to be identical to IMR, but as in all powder, individual lots vary. I buy it because I can sometimes find it cheaper. Now I just see no reason to change.

Please inform me: I am familiar with the relatively long kernals of IMR 4350, but I was under the impression that both Hodgdon and Accurate 4350's were of the "short cut" variety. Is this true?

What ever one I could by at the best price.

Stonecreek, the Accurate (XMR) 4350 I have looks exactly like my IMR did. Same thing for the 4064 versions. Accurate told me they were different lots of the same powder as IMR.

I have some AA 4064 and it is MUCH shorter in kernal length than the IMR 4064 I have used. Of course, I haven't bought any IMR 4064 in over thirty years (because I didn't like the way it tended to hang up in the powder measure), so IMR 4064 could have changed in the meantime.

Anyone else have an observation on the kernal length of these powders?

In the 2011 Hodgdon reloading manual for the 375 H&H the max velocity given for H4350 is 2645. for imr4350 it is 2478, so it depends on the cartridge and ultimately each rifle likes and dislikes.

I have never even seen a Hogden powder much less used one. I have used IMR4350 as my primary powder for everything I load for probably nearly 50 years. If it works in a case that's what I use. I don't really experiment with loading. I NEVER load maximum loads and I don't worry about anything but accuracy. All else to me is primarily a waste of my time. My combination for everything is IMR4350 and Nosler Partitions. Why argue or experiment with success?

I grew up using nothing but DuPont IMR powders. But once Hodgdon developed their "Extreme" powders, I switched and never looked back. The Extreme powders are specially formulated to have much less velocity or pressure variation at different temperatures than standard powders. Even if I got a slightly smaller average group with IMR (which is unlikely), I would rather have 1.5" groups that were in the same place in August as in January than a 0.5" group that shifted zero several inches from summer to winter.

It really comes down to YOU making a $50 investment to buy a pound of each and seeing what shoots best in your rifle. While they are very close in burn rate, your rifle will have a preference to one or the other.

quote:

Brazos Jack
one of us
qoute:

I grew up using nothing but DuPont IMR powders. But once Hodgdon developed their "Extreme" powders, I switched and never looked back.

I was just wondering what most people call 'EXTREME' what temperatur spread are we talking about. 50 degree or 100 degree spread. usually if i zero my guns at 60 degree im good at 30-90 degrees.

I prefer ANY IMR powder over its Hodgdon equivalent...not saying Hodgdon's is bad... its just IMR is better...

they own both anyway... so my choice isn't hurting their pocket book..

I was just wondering what most people call 'EXTREME' what temperatur spread are we talking about. 50 degree or 100 degree spread. usually if i zero my guns at 60 degree im good at 30-90 degrees.[/QUOTE]

-40F to +75F
Have a Good One!!

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I have some AA 4064 and it is MUCH shorter in kernal length than the IMR 4064 I have used. Of course, I haven't bought any IMR 4064 in over thirty years (because I didn't like the way it tended to hang up in the powder measure), so IMR 4064 could have changed in the meantime.

Anyone else have an observation on the kernal length of these powders?

Many years ago I worked during summers at Jensen's custom ammunition in Tucson, AZ. It was there that I learned about reloading. We sold just about any powder you can imagine and lots of it. I was advised to use AA powders at the time bc they were cheaper. I was also told IMR and Hodgdon powders were "better." So, I bought all 3 since I got great discounts.

Back in the 80s IMR and AA powders looked identical (4350, 4064, and 3100), and I could tell no difference whatsoever in data, accuracy, or velocity in the 4 rifles I owned at the time (excluding 3100).

I have not bought or used AA powder since 1990 or 91 if I recall correctly. So if they changed the kernels to shorter lengths, I am unaware of it.

To the OP, I voted IMR4350 and that is really based on my own history with the powder and not that Hodgdon is of lesser quality in any way. I have found great loads with both and can not imagine not having both to use.

My very best loads I've ever achieved have been with IMR powders, specifically 4831 and 4350. Second place goes to Re22 and 19, then come the Hodgdon powders-and they shoot very well also for me. IMR4064 is equal to Re19 in placement.

Many shooters prefer to narrow down powder choices, even to one brand, and I can appreciate that. But that is something I can't imagine ever doing. I like a LOT of choices. I will never ever do without IMR4350 and that said, I COULD do without H4350 but I choose not to.

I've never experienced temp problems and POI changes with any of my IMR loads. IMR RULES.

If I had to stick with one powder for all of my reloading from 223 to 338/06....my choice would be IMR 4064 or IMR 4895...

I voted IMR simply because that is what I have always used and dont feel like starting over in load development. I dont think there is enough difference in the two to make a gnat flinch reguarding positive gains.

Don't forget there's another 4350 and that's Accurate 4350. It's pretty good too.

Let me tell you about an experiment I tried with 4895's. I happen to have surplus 4895, IMR 4895, Hodgdon 4895, and Accurate's version AA2495. The test rifle is a pre 64 Model 94 Win in 32 Special. Shooting a cast bullet of 175 grains. I use a Belding & Maul powder measure. Now you know that has a powder tube so it's basically a volume measurement. Without changing the tube's setting all the powders mentioned weighed within a few tenths of a grain from one another. I loaded and shot them over the chronograph and the most amazing thing, to me at least, was between all the velocities for each powder the averages were only 9 fps different. Now Hodgdon will tell you that their powders are different because they have a different coating on them, which you can see as it's lighter in color then the pencil lead dark colors of like IMR. They were quite surprised when I told them of my findings above. They were all pretty close. Now that may not apply to other powder numbers that more then one manufacturer makes.

I think you are correct with your qassessment Smokin J. I have used all four of the 4350s as well, and never found any significant difference in them.

I think part of that is because I use loads that are not extreme in either direction...hot or light. I suspect being well inside the parameters intended for that powder to burn at helps keep anything really unusual from popping up.

BTW, I found the same thing with several versions of 4895.

Thanks for your info.

quote:

Originally posted by tsturm:
I was just wondering what most people call 'EXTREME' what temperatur spread are we talking about. 50 degree or 100 degree spread. usually if i zero my guns at 60 degree im good at 30-90 degrees.

-40F to +75F
Have a Good One!![/QUOTE]

0 F to 115 F

I prefer H to IMR because it's easier for me to obtain regularly and for it's Extreme benefit (lots of VERY cold weather winter hunting).

Having said that; couldn't locate either one a short while back and purchased a coupla AA-4350's. Turned out to be a very accurate & consiostant powder in applications I was using H & IMR previously.

AA is very good stuff for accuracy but had to tweak the loads a tad to make up for the similar performance of the 3 different powders.