Anyone tried IMR 4166

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
I was discussing 4166 with a friend at Hodgdon's a while back and he said that this
powder was intended to eventually replace my beloved 4064. My first thought was
horror at the eventual loss, at some still distant time, of a powder that has helped
me win a lot of nice shooting medals over the years, and made some really nice
groups.

I am thinking about buying a pound of the new stuff and keeping an open mind.
My insider says this is really good stuff, will vary velocity much less with temps
and should be a real winner, but not a direct substitute by weight, of course.

Any wisdom out there about this number?

Bill
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
Yep. Thank the EPA. Apparently the environmental regs are closing in on powder makers,
the 4166 type newer powders apparently meet the enviro regs better. But, it appears, like
all other "green" stuff, they cost more. Let's hope they work as well or better, unlike almost
all other "green" products. Seems like about 75% of that stuff is a pale imitation of the
original product with a few notable exceptions like limonene cleaners.

Not that I want dirty water or air, but it definitely costs more to have 5 parts per billion
of something in the waste stream than 500 parts per billion which used to be
called 0.5 parts per million, and I wonder if that last level of cleanup is just because
we have better instruments to measure it, or because it is really safer.
No question it is more expensive, and when is "good enough"?

Bill
 

Josh

Well-Known Member
I hope it is as good as they say, but it is irritating, I bet the military will recieve and exemption for their powders... so why are they regulating us but not them? Because it is control... I will not touch a single Lb of the new green stuff till I can't get anything else!
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
My reason for considering it is that it is reported to have extremely low velocity
variation shot to shot. I am not totally sure that this is a huge deal for accuracy, but
it sure has to be an improvement if you have less variation in anything, and it would
seem that velocity would be a critical factor. I compete in two rifle disciplines at
300 yds/ meters so improving the groups should show up on scores.
 

yodogsandman

Well-Known Member
Remember Varget or BLC-2? They were touted as replacements for IMR4064, too. If it shoots better for you, that will be great!
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
Yes, I have about 1/2 lb of Varget. I have tried it in .45-70, .30-06, .308, .223, 7x57 and
a couple others. Never even once (VERY strange!) got a really good group with it. Finally
quit trying. I was copying various "favorite loads" from various online sources. Never equaled
what I get with 4064 in .223, .308, .30-06 and 7.5 Swiss and 7x57 (light loads for Rem RB) where
it is my most accurate load in most of them, or at least one of the very best.

Bill
 

yodogsandman

Well-Known Member
I get single digit SD's and barely two digit ES's with IMR4064 when used in some jacketed bullet loads. For my loads, I'm sticking with the gold standard!
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
I have gotten many excellent groups with 4064, but I do know that there is data which
shows significant changes in velocity with temperature. 4166 is supposed to have very
small changes with temp.

In the end, only Mr. Target knows the answer.

Bill
 

KHornet

Well-Known Member
The EPA standards affecting powder mfg's is not at all good news. I also like 4064, but for 223, have had best luck with Varget.