<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Daily Bulletin &#187; Rick Jenson</title>
	<atom:link href="https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/rick-jenson/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com</link>
	<description>from AccurateShooter.com</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 May 2026 16:48:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.26</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Powder Comparison Test: H4350 vs. IMR 4451</title>
		<link>https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2016/07/powder-comparison-test-h4350-vs-imr-4451/</link>
		<comments>https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2016/07/powder-comparison-test-h4350-vs-imr-4451/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jul 2016 14:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Editor]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bullets, Brass, Ammo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reloading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chronograph]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enduron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Extreme Powders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[F-Class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[H4350]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMR 4451]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Jenson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/?p=58399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many Forum members have been looking for a good substitute for Hodgdon H4350 powder, which remains hard-to-find in many parts of the country. One of the best alternatives is IMR 4451, part of IMR&#8217;s new Enduron line of powders. Last year, top F-Class shooter Rick Jensen did a comparison between H4350 and IMR 4451, shooting [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/imrtest01.jpg" alt="Hodgdon H4350 IMR 4451 temperature powder test"></p>
<p><i>Many Forum members have been looking for a good substitute for Hodgdon H4350 powder, which remains hard-to-find in many parts of the country. One of the best alternatives is IMR 4451, part of IMR&#8217;s new Enduron line of powders. Last year, top F-Class shooter Rick Jensen did a comparison between H4350 and IMR 4451, shooting the two powder in a wide range of temperatures. His data suggests that both powders show good temp stability.</i></p>
<h3>Powder Comparison Test: H4350 vs. IMR 4451</h3>
<p>Rick Jensen, Captain of the U.S. F-Open Rifle Team, has tested some of the new IMR 4451 powder. Rick and other team members were looking for a good powder that could replace Hodgdon 4350 which is difficult to obtain currently. The makers of IMR 4451 claim that it is not sensitive to temperature and that it delivers competitive accuracy. So far, Rick&#8217;s tests, done with a .284 Winchester and 180gr Berger Hybrids, appear to confirm those claims. Rick posts:</p>
<blockquote><p><img class="alignright" hspace="20" src="http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/rickjensen02.jpg" target='_blank'>&#8220;I did a little informal powder comparison of H4350 versus the new IMR 4451. Rifle used was a Kelbly Panda with a 30&#8243;, 1:8.75&#8243; twist 5R Bartlein barrel [chambered in .284 Win]. All charge weights were 50.0 grains using CCI BR2 primers. I was <b>very impressed</b> with this new powder and I believe it to be <strong>equal to H4350 as far as temperature sensitivity</strong>.</p>
<p>I did not test for accuracy but I will tell you my <b>groups were pretty much equal between the two and all were in the .2-.3 MOA range</b>. I will defiantly be shooting more of this powder in the weeks to come, assuming the supply chain will allow. It looks very encouraging to finally have a alternative to H4350 that we might actually be able to buy.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p><img src="http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/imrtest02.jpg" alt="Hodgdon H4350 IMR 4451 temperature powder test"></p>
<p><b>Chronograph Results with Temps from 23&deg; F to 101&deg;</b><br />
Here are chronograph results of a comparison test between IMR 4451 and H4350. Rick&#8217;s rifle was cleaned and allowed to cool between each test. Five fouling shots were fired before each test. Important: Note that for both Test #1 and Test #2, the powder order is reversed in the mid-temp fields (IMR 4451 first, then H4350). For the low and high temp entries, H4350 is listed first.</p>
<p><img src="http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/imrtest06.jpg" alt="Hodgdon H4350 IMR 4451 temperature powder test"></p>
<p>Here are the IMR 4451 fired cases, displayed Left to right, coldest to the hottest (in terms of case temp when fired). All charge weights were the same: 50.0 grains.</p>
<p><img src="http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/imrtest04.jpg" alt="Hodgdon H4350 IMR 4451 temperature powder test"></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2016/07/powder-comparison-test-h4350-vs-imr-4451/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
