"Whistler and Aspinwall .30" was produced for use by Frankford Arsenal beginning in 1895.

W-A .30 became available commercially in 1898.

Hercules discontinued W-A .30 in 1930.

Although, other early 'smokeless' propellants were utilized in the evolution of the .30-40 (.30 Army) cartridge and in some government SAW ammunition contracts, W-A .30 was the 'work horse' propellant, during the pre-WW1 Krag era.

Circa 1900 graphic displays application of various Laflin & Rand Propellants.

1898 graphic totes use in Krag.

'AFJuvat' kindly posted this link on another thread.

It takes you to a wonderful history of Laflin & Rand and the complicated relationships of our early 'smokeless' powder manufacturers.

Mr. Klaus Neuschaefer, the author, was very comprehensive and utilized great graphics.

(You need to Login to view media files and links)

A sample:

psteinmayer wrote on Jun 8^th, 2019 at 2:32pm:

I am dubious about the alleged near-equivalency of IMR4350 to W-A 30 for the basic reason that the normal charge of 34 grains* of the latter for an MV of ~2000fps in the Krag 30" rifle is significantly lighter than we need for the same velocity with 4350. The 34 grain charge indicates the burning rate of W-A 30 is closer to that found in today's IMR4895.

Data from Sierra manual -
.308 220 gr. RN
Cartridge OAL: 3.000"
Krag carbine, 22" barrel [so 1900 fps is equivalent to ~2000 fps in 30" rifle]

M.Vel - - - - - 1800 - - 1900      
IMR-3031      31.5      33.1
IMR-4895      32.0      34.1
IMR-4064      34.3      36.0      
IMR-4320      33.3      35.3      
IMR-4350      38.2      40.2
IMR-4831      40.1      42.3

* Source for 34-grain charge is reply #1 here - (You need to Login to view media files and links)

butlersrangers wrote on Jun 8^th, 2019 at 6:36pm:

No pressures from Sierra manual (testing done in 22" Krag, no pressure gun).

QuickLOAD gives estimates (in CIP piezo psi) -

Cartridge          : .30-40 Krag
Bullet             : .308, 220, Woodleigh FMJ 65
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.089 inch or 78.46 mm
Barrel Length      : 22.0 inch or 558.8 mm
Powder             : IMR 4895

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.941% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
%       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-11.8   72    30.00   1837    1649   27694   6150     95.8    1.682
-08.8   75    31.00   1891    1747   29864   6369     96.8    1.631
-05.9   77    32.00   1945    1848   32192   6574     97.7    1.582
-02.9   80    33.00   1998    1950   34686   6765     98.5    1.535
+00.0   82    34.00   2051    2055   37364   6940     99.1    1.489

And here’s the Hornady 9th edition. While it doesn’t have IMR 4895, I do fin it interesting that it has very different Max loads for IMR 4350.

One has to remember that cost containment was often an important desision factor during the period before our government surrendered fiscal restraint in favor of campaign contributions from the military-industrial complex. In 189X, it may have seemed worthwhile to employ a powder that could offer the same performance with 34 grains as another that would take 40 grains. If both were priced the same by weight, the 18% cost difference could be significant.

Of course it's also true that IMR 4350 didn't appear on the market until 1940.

In today's context, it's sometimes worthwhile to compare load efficiency. For example, a 2000fps charge of 4895 under a 220-grain bullet burns about 98% in the 30" Krag barrel while enough 4350 to give the same velocity burns only about 88%. Personally, I don't like throwing unburnt powder out the muzzle if it can be avoided without sacrificing safety, reliability, velocity, accuracy, barrel life, etc.

Well, since I already work with H4895 and have a significant amount on hand, what would be the advantage, or disadvantage of the H over IMR?  I could load up some rounds with the 34 grains of H4895 and see how it compares to my current load.  I'm betting the barrel would be much easier to clean!  FWIW, I do think H4895 is a little more uniform and meters a little better than IMR 4895 (yes, I used to use it).

I should not have been so specific. IMHO - Either 'flavor' of 4895 is a very versatile propellant, covering more applications than 4350.

I did not envision IMR-4895 or H-4895 as being safe propellants with 220 grain projectiles in the Krag. I thought pressures might be too high.

It would be interesting to see comparative results of 220 grain (projectile) loads using 4895 and 4350.