Has anyone here used the combination of IMR 4895 and 123 grain Hornady A Max bullets? I have a couple of pounds of the IMR and thought that I might work up a load using this. I'm new to the Grendel so any information is appreciated.
IMR 4895 + Hornady A Max
Collapse
X
-
IMR 4895 sits between VV N530 and VVN135 in the Hornady burn rate chart.
Absent someone haivng tried it and finding it not as "good" as these powders or the nearby TAC and IMR8208 the likely explanation is the powder was too mundane for early explorers.
One might try the starting loads for one of these four powders and work up until an accuracy node is discovered or pressures feel high.shootersnotes.com
"To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
-- Author Unknown
"If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JASmith View PostIMR 4895 sits between VV N530 and VVN135 in the Hornady burn rate chart.
Absent someone haivng tried it and finding it not as "good" as these powders or the nearby TAC and IMR8208 the likely explanation is the powder was too mundane for early explorers.
One might try the starting loads for one of these four powders and work up until an accuracy node is discovered or pressures feel high.
Negative. Early explorers tried 4895. Like Varget, it is too bulky to get velocity. I think the only extruded powder anyone has found to be efficient in the Grendel is 8208. The others will shoot but not real fast.
Best bet is a ball powder simply due to bulk density. TAC, 2520, H-335 were the go to powders before 8208 came along.
LR55
Comment
-
-
LR,
Got it! I vaguely recall those conversations.
Thanks!
Referring to the OP, however, he has a couple of pounds of the stuff and wants to know if and how he might use it behind the 123 AMAX.
Your comment suggests that he can use it, but will likely see less than max velocity and pressure.
Were there comments about accuracy, or were folks turned off by being 100-200 ps below what could be obtained with TAC or 8208?shootersnotes.com
"To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
-- Author Unknown
"If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JASmith View PostLR,
Got it! I vaguely recall those conversations.
Thanks!
Referring to the OP, however, he has a couple of pounds of the stuff and wants to know if and how he might use it behind the 123 AMAX.
Your comment suggests that he can use it, but will likely see less than max velocity and pressure.
Were there comments about accuracy, or were folks turned off by being 100-200 ps below what could be obtained with TAC or 8208?
I can only recall a couple of guys tried it and went to something else. Probably low velocities but can't really remember.
I think a lot of it was that Alexander had the only published load data at the time and guys tended to use the powders he had already tested.
I do recall that some of the VV powders were popular but as a whole, none of the extruded powders had the type of bulk density that the ball powders possessed and gave much slower velocities so guys just used the ball powders.
I never heard anyone complain about the accuracy of the extruded powders.
LR55
Comment
-
-
Bullets: 100 & 120 Nosler BT, 120 Matchkings and, 123 A-max.
Barrel: 16" Anderson; 20" Precision due to arrive in two to four weeks
Cases: Reformed 7.63x39 RP, FC and, Winchester Note: the reformed 7.62x39 brass is smaller in capacity than Lapua.
Results: mixed but show promise. VV N530 is a dense powder requiring less volume per given weight than any other I have found.
Comment
-
Comment