H4895/45-70 confusion

[Dave Weiss]

According to Hodgdon, 53gr of H4895 w/350 Hornady bullet 1784fps. According to Hornady, 53gr of H4895 w/350 Hornady bullet 1550fps. I realize that there was 2" difference in the test barrel length, but that shouldn't account for the 200+ fps difference. I'm really interested in trying the H4895 and would like to achieve about 1700fps from a 22" Handi rifle. Any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks, >>>===> Dave

[Lone Star]

That is a considerable discrepancy, I can't account for it if the data is correctly posted.  I do know that there has been a change in the throating of some .45-70s in the past decade or so, with newer guns often having shorter throats than in the past.  This could account for some of the difference in velocity if it was taken in a factory rifle, as most of Hornady's data is....but it is still confusing.


.

[stimpylu32]

It could also be the diffrence between a calculated vol. and an actual vol. , just because the computer says it is going that fast does not mean that in the real worls it is .

Also no 2 rifles or test barrels will give the same results with the same loads . the only way to be sure is to test them yourself in your rifle . and just to ask a ? , why do you need to hit the 1700 fps mark ? is there some special reason for the extra speed , just wondering ?

stimpy

[Lone Star]

It could also be the diffrence between a calculated vol. and an actual vol. , just because the computer says it is going that fast does not mean that in the real worls it is .

I don't understand this comment at all.  The velocities he quoted were chronographed by two different loading companies - not calculated by some computer.   They are real world.....         


.

[stimpylu32]

It could also be the diffrence between a calculated vol. and an actual vol. , just because the computer says it is going that fast does not mean that in the real worls it is .

I don't understand this comment at all.  The velocities he quoted were chronographed by two different loading companies - not calculated by some computer.   They are real world.....         


.

The speeds were GIVEN by the loading company , no were does it say that they were shot over a chrono and even if they were , at what distance were they set up ( one at 5 Feet and the other at 50 Feet ) and what brands were used and what softwear was used in the chrono's .all these things can and will give diffrent readings .

stimpy

[Dave Weiss]

It looks to me like the Hornady data could be computer generated.
Stimpy, I picked the 1700fps because it seemed like a mid-velocity number. I've shot Buffalo Bore @ almost 2200fps (ouch) and wanted a little more than factory, I'll be using the load primarily for moose and black bear (grizz if the opportunity arises).
H4895 seems to be a popular powder, right up there with IMR 3031, I was hoping that the slow burn rate of the H4895 would help me take advantage of the 32 1/2" barrel on my BC and shoot well out of my Handi 22". Thanks,

>>>===> Dave

[Castaway]

Here we go again.  Barrel length is not the determining factor for powder selection.  For all practical purposes, all of the powder is burned at the chamber end of the rifle.  That's also where peak pressure is.  Any particles of powder you see left over in the barrel would not have contributed  to velocity of the bullet.  A better choice for a 350 grain bullet is IMR 3031.  Both IMR and H 4895 tend to come into its own with heavier bullets in the 45-70.

[drdougrx]

Hi All,

For what it's worth.  My hunting load is 56gr IMR4895 under a 350gr Speer soft point for 1825fps.  It will shoot about 1" at 100 if I'm careful.

[Castaway]

drdougrx, I guess I wasn't explicit enough.  I wasn't saying 4895 wouldn't work.  In fact, I load it under a 423 grain bullet and have unburnt powder in the barrel and get good results also.  My point was that barrel length shouldn't dictate powder choice.  Each rifle is a case in it's own, but general guidelines reduce a lot of experimental time.