Anyone compare IMR 4064 with Accurate 4064 in a 308?
- Thread starter the45er
- Start date
Marco Califo
New member
The short answer is use the correct load Data for your powder.
The two same # powders are similar, but not interchangeable.
The two same # powders are similar, but not interchangeable.
No, I haven't compared them. I get truly excellent performance from A4064 in the M1, and it's a bit on the bulky side (at least prior to Hodgy's takeover) so it fills the case well. Note that the M1 fires 30-06, not 308, but the fact that performance is so good bodes well for the 308 as well.
I use both IMR and Accurate 4064 powders. They are definitely not the same.
IMR works wonders in my 8mm Mauser, while my Ruger 77 in 30-06 prefers the Accurate brand.
Been tempted to try the Accurate 4064 in my .257 Roberts to see what it does.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
IMR works wonders in my 8mm Mauser, while my Ruger 77 in 30-06 prefers the Accurate brand.
Been tempted to try the Accurate 4064 in my .257 Roberts to see what it does.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Not in 308, but I've used both in .223 and 30-06 (in Garand only).
AA 4064 is not as energetic as IMR 4064, but the difference is not great. Takes about 1 grain more AA 4064 to match performance of IMR 4064 in the Garand, where the load is on the close order of 47-48 grains with a 135-150 grain bullet.
In the .223 AA 4064 works very well (although I have found no published data for it in that caliber). A load that would be 'hot' using IMR 4064 is 'tame' with AA 4064, can go up several tenths of a grain (in the 23.5 - 24.8 range) before the fired primers start to lose their rounded edges. I haven't been able to get enough AA 4064 in the .223 case to frighten me but maybe I'm just stupid.
I do not load 308 but my guess is you will find AA 4064 useful in it. Load data at https://hodgdonreloading.com/rldc/?t=1
AA 4064 is not as energetic as IMR 4064, but the difference is not great. Takes about 1 grain more AA 4064 to match performance of IMR 4064 in the Garand, where the load is on the close order of 47-48 grains with a 135-150 grain bullet.
In the .223 AA 4064 works very well (although I have found no published data for it in that caliber). A load that would be 'hot' using IMR 4064 is 'tame' with AA 4064, can go up several tenths of a grain (in the 23.5 - 24.8 range) before the fired primers start to lose their rounded edges. I haven't been able to get enough AA 4064 in the .223 case to frighten me but maybe I'm just stupid.
I do not load 308 but my guess is you will find AA 4064 useful in it. Load data at https://hodgdonreloading.com/rldc/?t=1
What bullet and primer are you looking to use with the AA powder?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I've used them in my 7mm-08s. They are definitely NOT close in my experience. I ended up with a completely different load to find acceptable accuracy for hunting purposes.
Other than that, A4064 is a fine powder. Just don't expect your final load to be the same, or similar, to IMR 4064. I find the IMR to be a superior powder in my firearms. I did find a nice load with in in my 30/06, but once again, my IMR load was better. Your experience may be different from mine, and in a pinch I would buy it again for a hunting gun.
Other than that, A4064 is a fine powder. Just don't expect your final load to be the same, or similar, to IMR 4064. I find the IMR to be a superior powder in my firearms. I did find a nice load with in in my 30/06, but once again, my IMR load was better. Your experience may be different from mine, and in a pinch I would buy it again for a hunting gun.
The problem with relative burn rate, even though it is supposed to take all differences in powders into account, the measurement of it is based on one bullet in one cartridge, and if you change the bullet or the cartridge, or sometimes even just the primer, the ranking order can change. Normally not by many places, but some.
That blew my mind when I first read that a few months ago in another thread . As much as it seems logical that the powder companies or whom ever can't test every powder in every cartridge with multiple bullets . It still seems crazy that the burn rate is based on one test for lack of a better description .
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the statement though . Lets say they are testing the burn rate or are testing what ever they test that ultimately gives them a burn rate for lets say a shotgun powder . As we know many shotgun powders are very good pistol powders .
Does the statement the powder is only tested with one bullet in one cartridge mean that that powder was only tested in (one) shotgun load and was never tested in any pistol cartridges as it relates to burn rates ? I know the powders are tested in specific cartridges to get load data but not for burn rates correct ?
Can you elaborate a bit more on this idea of burn rates and how they are found . Based on my little understanding now . How you explain it , explains why so many pistol powders that are "slow" on charts often seem a tad faster then where they sit on those charts and vise versa . CFE pistol comes to mind which to me seems much slower then the powders in the same general area on the charts . Then you see powders like Titegroup that have loads for the 308win :-@ I often wondered who or why did anyone ever even try that ? Now it makes me think the 308 just happened to be that one cartridge that was used when testing Titegroup for burn rate and is why there is data for it .
Anyways I used to have "some" faith in the burn rate charts and now I have ZERO !
Last edited:
it is relative burn rate, not an actual hard and fast ranking.
Ok, so they only use one cartridge and one bullet as their standard, so??
Obviously it can't be the same cartridge and bullet for every powder out there. In order to create a list showing each powder's RELATIVE ranking by burn rate, you have to use some fixed standard suitable for each class of powder.
These lists are guidelines, not holy writ and not even solid rules.
It does get confusing when different powder makers offer similar but not identical powders using the same nearly identical names.
No matter exactly what the differences between IMR and AA 4064 are, no one can accurately predict the exact results you will get shooting your loads from your rifle.
While there are some general trends that most rifles follow, every rifle and load combination has the potential to be unique and a "law unto itself".
For "hunting accuracy purposes" they ought to be similar, but the only way to find out if they are the same, or widely different is to work up loads in your rifle and see how it shoots.
Ok, so they only use one cartridge and one bullet as their standard, so??
Obviously it can't be the same cartridge and bullet for every powder out there. In order to create a list showing each powder's RELATIVE ranking by burn rate, you have to use some fixed standard suitable for each class of powder.
These lists are guidelines, not holy writ and not even solid rules.
It does get confusing when different powder makers offer similar but not identical powders using the same nearly identical names.
No matter exactly what the differences between IMR and AA 4064 are, no one can accurately predict the exact results you will get shooting your loads from your rifle.
While there are some general trends that most rifles follow, every rifle and load combination has the potential to be unique and a "law unto itself".
For "hunting accuracy purposes" they ought to be similar, but the only way to find out if they are the same, or widely different is to work up loads in your rifle and see how it shoots.
The burn rate of a powder, from the standpoint of the manufacturer, is one of a number of properties that affect the burning characteristics of a particular formulation and is a useful control for keeping canister grade powders for handloaders consistent enough for published load data to be applicable to them. It is tested by burning a standard weight of powder ignited by a standard weight of PETN in a large chamber and is given in liters per second of powder burned, IIRC. However, if you used burn rate to compare two different powder formulations, it wouldn't tell you that the same charge weight would perform the same way with the same set of other components. Burn rate only does that for different lots of the same powder formulation. This is because even if a different formulation has the same burn rate, it can have a different chemical potential energy content that could drive pressure up if loaded to the same charge weight, or a different progressivity rate that could cause it to peak at a different point the bullet's travel down the bore.
So, to figure out a way to compare what same charge weights of different powder formulations would produce by way of pressure with the same set of other components, they came up with the relative burn rate. They pick a cartridge and bullet and case and primer and load the same charge weight of different powders into it, then rank the powders by peak pressure produced from highest to lowest. An example in detail is given in the 2013 Norma data book. Obviously, the fastest shotgun and pistol powders would create destruction in the pressure gun doing this with a rifle cartridge, so they must change the charge weight or cartridge details at some point in the process and likely overlap the fastest rifle powder tested into the protocol change for comparison. But this is the basic method used for relative burn rate. One of the drawbacks to it is because of the differences in the powder burning characteristics, if you did the same comparison in a different cartridge or even just changed bullet weights, the order of the ranking will shuffle around a little. Usually it is just by a few rank positions, but it means you can't rely on relative burn rate to be exactly the same in your gun with your components as it is in a chart, so it really only gives you a vague idea of what to expect.
So, to figure out a way to compare what same charge weights of different powder formulations would produce by way of pressure with the same set of other components, they came up with the relative burn rate. They pick a cartridge and bullet and case and primer and load the same charge weight of different powders into it, then rank the powders by peak pressure produced from highest to lowest. An example in detail is given in the 2013 Norma data book. Obviously, the fastest shotgun and pistol powders would create destruction in the pressure gun doing this with a rifle cartridge, so they must change the charge weight or cartridge details at some point in the process and likely overlap the fastest rifle powder tested into the protocol change for comparison. But this is the basic method used for relative burn rate. One of the drawbacks to it is because of the differences in the powder burning characteristics, if you did the same comparison in a different cartridge or even just changed bullet weights, the order of the ranking will shuffle around a little. Usually it is just by a few rank positions, but it means you can't rely on relative burn rate to be exactly the same in your gun with your components as it is in a chart, so it really only gives you a vague idea of what to expect.
rc said:
Guilty as charged, but I had co-conspirators and nobody got hurt.
Couple years ago I came here and humbly asked for guidance:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=612344&highlight=aa+4064
In that thread I referenced this thread: https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=516631 which is about ten years old now.
The followup was https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=612595&highlight=aa+4064
I think "going off the reservation" does not have to be as dangerous as poking a sleeping rattlesnake... if one is careful and assumes that "anything that can go wrong, will" one can reduce the risk to that of, say, poking a sleeping garden snake. Might get bit, won't get killed.
Main reason I'm posting this is that in that 10-year-old thread, Slamfire mentioned that he had the opposite finding with AA 4064 in .308 - that with heavy bullets he ran into pressure signs. So - it is relevant to the OP asking about comparison of AA vs IMR in .308 Win.
Guilty as charged, but I had co-conspirators and nobody got hurt.
Couple years ago I came here and humbly asked for guidance:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=612344&highlight=aa+4064
In that thread I referenced this thread: https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=516631 which is about ten years old now.
The followup was https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=612595&highlight=aa+4064
I think "going off the reservation" does not have to be as dangerous as poking a sleeping rattlesnake... if one is careful and assumes that "anything that can go wrong, will" one can reduce the risk to that of, say, poking a sleeping garden snake. Might get bit, won't get killed.
Main reason I'm posting this is that in that 10-year-old thread, Slamfire mentioned that he had the opposite finding with AA 4064 in .308 - that with heavy bullets he ran into pressure signs. So - it is relevant to the OP asking about comparison of AA vs IMR in .308 Win.
again, I would point out that while other people's experiences with their guns and loads might be useful guidelines, they are not any guarantee that your gun(s) and loads will be exactly the same.
I've seen gun and load combinations that showed pressure signs before reaching the listed max in the books. I have also seen guns and loads that showed no pressure signs with loads exceeding the book listed max.
The OP should treat both as separate and different, until he has worked up loads for both in his rifle so he may do a valid comparison.
I've seen gun and load combinations that showed pressure signs before reaching the listed max in the books. I have also seen guns and loads that showed no pressure signs with loads exceeding the book listed max.
The OP should treat both as separate and different, until he has worked up loads for both in his rifle so he may do a valid comparison.