Old question, but... IMR 4064 or 4895 in Garand???

[Mr. X]

Curious as to what people's preferences are. Frankly I'm wondering if there's much of a real difference at all -- if you look at the Hodgdon data there's NOT much difference between those powders regarding throw weight, pressure, and velocity... I've loaded both with the 150 grain bullet at 44 grains and there does not seem to be much difference. However I will be working up a 168-175 load shortly.... thoughts?

[7.62]

Rifle or user preference. I have a rifle that likes 4064 & 175 grs. You should test both if you have the powder. Good luck and have fun.

[stripper clip]

I have had great results with both IMR 4895 and IMR 4064, but agree with 7.62 that my 175 grain bullet loads seem to do better with IMR 4064; I have found this to be especially the case when shooting further than 500 yards. With 168 grain bullets I have found IMR 4895 to be totally satisfactory, and prefer IMR 4064 for the longer range applications.

[Maury Krupp]

For me IMR4064 performs marginally better, especially with 175gr bullets, in .30-'06 and .308.

Both 4895s throw more consistently but since I can't overcome my OCD I weigh every charge anyway.

Either one and a 168 or 175 will shoot a clean back to 600yd if the shooter can.

Do as much load workup as makes you happy but don't be surprised if your .30-'06 load turns out to be 46.0 of 4895 or 47.0 of 4064 (+/- .5gr)

Maury

[Andy/CA]

Curious as to what people's preferences are. Frankly I'm wondering if there's much of a real difference at all -- if you look at the Hodgdon data there's NOT much difference between those powders regarding throw weight, pressure, and velocity... I've loaded both with the 150 grain bullet at 44 grains and there does not seem to be much difference. However I will be working up a 168-175 load shortly.... thoughts?

I'm with most folks... whip up some test loads, and figure out what your rifle likes. Most of mine really like my "standard target" load of 4895 & Nosler 168's. Whip up some test batches with your favorite rifles, and run them thru the paces. They'll tell you what they like to eat.

[Hip's Ax]

Same here, IMR 4064 shoots a little better in my Garands than 4895 BUT. 4064 doesn't meter very well so I save that for 600 yards and the 175 SMK. I shoot 150, 155 or 168 with 4895 for 200/300 because it meters fairly well and I drop those charges right from the powder measure. For 4064 I get the old Lyman Autoscale out. I only hand trickle 1000 yard charges and even then not too often.

[Bill]

I have shot a lot of both powders through Garands and 03s, and I believe the 4064 is slightly better, but the difference is not great.

4064 is slightly slower, and the load you work up will most likely be about a grain larger with 4064.

My usual is 50 grains 4895 with 150 grain bullets and 47 4064 with 168 or 173 match bullets. Cut it to 46 if using 4985.

[Mr. X]

Well, I am looking to pick up an 8 pounder this week and it'll probably be 4064. I've found that 45.5 of 4895 works well with a a 168 (.30-06) but never worked up a 4064 load for it. I may as well try some 175s instead of 168s because they seem to have the better BC.

BTW Maury, in all seriousness, you think that a Garand can shoot a clean at 600? I'd sure like to give that a try but I have a difficult enough time shooting reduced-course cleans with an AR (198 is my best). However I think it would be interesting to shoot the President's with a Garand.

[Maury Krupp]

I don't see any reason why a properly built and fed M1 couldn't shoot a clean at 600.

It's still a 2MOA 10-ring; lots of M1s shoot better than 2MOA.

All it would take is a shooter who can read the conditions and break the shots.

In theory anyway

Maury

[Hip's Ax]

My match M1A and match M1's can clean at 600, my service grades can keep them all in the black at 600. Its a lot of work when compared to a match rifle or even an AR but it is perfectly attainable. Of course a top shelf match built M1A or M1 is big bucks and requires regular gun smith visits to keep shooting like that.