IMR 4064 vs IMR 4350

N

ninosdemente

New member
Would like to know what are the pluses and negatives of each of these powders. Looking to load 30-06, 150gr and 165gr. There is another I have seen somewhat mentioned and that is IMR 4320. But the most I have been reading/seeing here in POTN is 4064 and 4350.

I found that if not mistaken 4064 burns faster compared to 4350. Powder that burns faster, does it compromise accuracy?

Just using for paper target shooting. I'm nowhere near competition level. So I still consider myself an amateur at this.

I have used factory Winchester 150gr for hunting this past weekend. So eventually will want to load for hunting for next season.

Using it for Savage Model 111 if this is even relevant.

Is it better to buy one, then the other and compare? If so, what are things that one should look for when comparing? As being an amateur, not sure if my skills will allow me to compare properly both powders. Lol. Thanks in advanced.
 
They'll both push 150s to 2900, but 4064 will do it with 52gr. versus 59gr of 4350. That 4064 load has given 5/8" groups in six rifles with 150 Sierra, Hornady, or Corelokt. 4350 would be more efficient with 165s.
 
4350 is a common choice for getting maximum velocity from a .30-06 rather than maximum accuracy, necessarily. As GT said, you have to get to about 165 grains of bullet before it starts to show the velocity advantage, as it burns too slowly to keep up with the 150 grain bullets zipping down the tube.

4320 is sometimes called "the forgotten powder". It is between the burn rates of the other two powders and gives you highest velocity with the 150 grain bullet. But, again, highest velocity and smallest groups aren't always the same thing. While there have been lots of loads of 4320 and 4350 that are accurate as well as fast, most target shooters gravitate to 4064 for its insensitivity to small charge errors and relatively stable performance over a range of temperatures.
 
Thanks guys.

Did see that in two books (lyman 50th/Nosler 7), 4064 requires less powder vs 4350. Although Lyman 50th both start at nearly same grains.
 
I used to use IMR 4064 and H4895 in the 06.

Now I am more into Alliant's RL 17.

FWIW, RL 17 has a burn rate similar to IMR 4350 but not the same burn rate.

Good velocities and accurate.

This is with 150 to 180 gr bullets.
 
Good luck finding 4350... it's the darling of the 6.5mm loaders, I haven't seen a can of that on the shelf for a few years.

Lighter (150grn) .30 bullets, I would probably drop down to IMR4895, step up into the 160-180's I would go to IMR4064... in fact, that's what I do. 47.0grn IMR4895 under a 150grn bullet for my M1, and IMR4064 for 168grn bullets in my Savage's 24" barrel.
 
To summarize what has been said, 4064 and its near twin brother 4895 are mid burning rate powders and more efficient with 150 and 168 bullet weights, while 4350 is a lower burning rate powder and more efficient with the heavier 180 and 200 grain bullets. Note that 47 gr 4895 as well as 4064 are common loadings for the M1 Garand with 150 and 168 grain bullets.
 
Last edited:
I used 4064 and a 150gr bt-hp in my international harvester M1 at 100 y 8 round group .5 inch hi .75 wide with peep sights.
 
I only run 165+ gr bullets in my '06. So, I'm not sure how the powders perform with 150s -- though I suspect Unclenick's advice is solid.

Overall, I really like 4064. Great powder for a wide variety of applications. But I've had better luck in '06 with the 4350s (all of them). Of the 4350s, however, I have come to prefer the Accurate version. At least in my '06 and the other cartridges and rifles where I've tested it, I got the best of both worlds - velocity and accuracy.
 
I’m just here to second the 52gr 4064 load for 150s. It seems to shoot tiny groups for anyone who loads it. I use 4350 for the 180’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
As an aside, it should be mentioned that 4350, or any powder for which the maximum bolt gun loads for your bullet exceeds about 53 grains, normally should not be used in a stock M1 Garand, as they will drive the operating rod too hard and can wear it out and eventually bend it. If you achieve the same velocity with the same bullet in the same gun using two different powders, the net average pressure at the bullet base over the whole length of the barrel will turn out to be the same. The slower of the two powders will achieve that average pressure with a combination of lower peak pressure and higher muzzle pressure than the faster powder achieves. The lower peak is because the slower burn is less complete by the time the peak is reached, and the higher muzzle pressure is because the greater charge weight of slower powder has created a larger total volume of gas by the time the bullet reaches the muzzle. The Garand gas port is near the muzzle, so muzzle pressure, in particular, has to be within a design window for it to operate correctly.

Gas-operated guns, in general, have not only a maximum peak pressure at the chamber, but a gas port pressure window, meaning not-too-high and not-too-low. SAAMI only has standards for peak pressure and a velocity window for common bullet weights that is frequently ±90 fps in the standard pressure and velocity test gun. The military, however, has a maximum peak pressure, a minimum and maximum gas port pressure measured at a specified distance down the barrel from the chamber, and a velocity window that is often in the ±30 fps range. In short, the military specs are tighter. They have a smaller number of chamberings and a smaller number of different firearms models to load for, making this practical to do.

In the case of the Garand, specifically, one is generally warned not to use commercial .30-06 loads that are not specifically made for it. However, you can buy a hollowed out solid gas port plug designed by Eric Claypool at Garandgear.com who made actual measurements of gas port pressure which he shows at the site (scroll down the link) to determine that by adding a bit of volume to the gas cylinder this way, one may shoot any commercial load, including 4350 loads, in the Garand without subjecting the operating rod to excessively violent action. It will let you do so without having a gas bleeder valve that has to be adjusted to the particular load (the device is universal for all loads). As a bonus, with standard Garand loads it causes the rifle to eject the cases a little closer to the shooter, cutting down on brass loss.

John Clarke had some loads for the Garand using IMR4350, but these were with 180 grain bullets and higher, IIRC. That bullet weight and greater used a charge of 4350 that met the 53 grain limit, or close to it, IIRC, so the gas port pressure was not unduly raised.
 
IMR4064 is one of the go-to match load powders.
"...better to buy one, then the other..." Yep, but the 3 powders give very close results with a 150. You can really toss a coin about whether you try all three or not.
The 4320 gives slightly higher pressures with the slightly higher velocities.
4350 loads use slightly more powder that are mostly compressed(compressed loads are nothing to worry about) with slightly less pressure.
4064 uses slightly less powder for the same velocities at slightly higher max load pressure.
You can look at just how close on Hodgdon's site. The Max load velocity difference spread between the 3 is only 88 FPS.
You really don't need a 150 grain load and a 165 grain load. Loading a 165 will allow you to hunt any game in North America with a .30-06.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top