Jack O'Connor's .270 Winchester load.

hooligan1 · February 6, 2015, 06:45 AM

I'm working up to Jack's favorite load in my .270; 62 grains of H4831sc (sc, because it's all I got) and 130 grain Partition.
My intent is to see if this load is precision enough in my rifle to use deer hunting, and to see what velocity it'll wring out.
Im not looking for favorite petloads for .270 winchester, only this loading will interest me in what kind of feedback you got from this load...

cdoc42 · February 6, 2015, 08:18 AM

Is that from O'Connor's data? The Hodgdon site lists a max of 60.0 gr for a 130gr Hornady SP and the Barnes 130gr TSX. Maybe he was limited to Remington Core-Loks as well. If anything, I'd look at the velocity he achieved and check current data to reach that speed, although, as you know, speed does not always = accuracy. I can't get a load that satisfies me for 130gr in any of my 4 rifles (.270). My original likes 150gr and I use H-4831, 57.0 gr.

I converted one of my .270's to .25-06 and got a 0.3" 4 shot group at 100 yards with 50gr of H1000 using a Hornady 120gr H.P. AND a Sierra 120gr H.P. The current data lists 52gr as the start for 2775fps.

steveno · February 6, 2015, 08:31 AM

I think that the H4831 that O'Connor used was a little bit slower than the H-4831 ( and SC) powders now available. to get 62 grains in a case you will probably need to use a drop tube and maybe experiment with different brands of brass. it will also be a compressed charge although there isn't a problem with that. I used 60 grains of H-4831SC with the 130 grain Nosler partition and that was good for a little over 3,000 fps in a Ruger #1A with a 22 inch barrel. 3 shots under an inch a 100 yards was the norm

Economist · February 6, 2015, 11:54 AM

60 grains of H4831 sc under a 130 grain BTSP was all I could stomach in my .270. I didn't have a chrono at the time but the recoil was stout and the bolt was a little sticky to lift. Accuracy was OK, but I found better accuracy with smaller charges, like 55 and 56 grains.
When I chronoed a 55.5 grain charge, it averaged 2752 fps from a 22 inch barrel with a 18.3 fps standard deviation.

Pathfinder45 · February 6, 2015, 02:32 PM

Hooligan, what rifle is your 270, and what is its barrel length? Are you using a chronograph? As the 270 Winchester has beena lifetime favorite for me, I have done a whole lot of reloading for it. Since you want to limit this discussion to the use of H-4831, I will say that I have used 3 different versions: WWII surplus, the SC version, and the current long grain version.

stagpanther · February 6, 2015, 05:50 PM

I too reload for 270 but probably won't get around to it until this summer--too many other projects ahead of it but I'm all ears for effective recipes. I recently bought the ruger American in 270 and to break it in (please, I don't won't to get dragged down the black hole of break-in arguments) I bought a couple of boxes American whitetail. For a budget ammo I was VERY impressed with how well it shot. But I digress.

Mike / Tx · February 6, 2015, 05:52 PM

I have to say that I have never been a fan of the touted " O'Connor" load. I have had several friends with various rifles who just had to try it, or at least try to work up to it.

There was only one who managed to get there without REALLY ironing primers and ruining brass. He was a neighbor of mine and loved to run top end. His choice of bullet was the 130gr Sierra Gameking. His first victim was a nice 120'ish pound doe, which he more or less blew in half shooting through both shoulders. He then proceeded to condemn the bullet for being too fragile.

Like the others have mentioned the surplus powder that O'Connor was using isn't the same beast as today's blend. Not to mention the pressure testing equipment then is a far cry from what we have today.

hooligan1 · February 6, 2015, 05:53 PM

Well last months Handloader magazine had an article that studied Jack's load,(62 grains H4831, 130 grain Nosler Partition) and the fella that wrote it said he could easily fit 60 grains into winchester and remington brass, and that 62 grains was slightly compressed but not unduly so. And then he went on about these loads showing no signs of pressure.
My rifle is a 22" barreled Savage 110 with a worn throat, so I cant say if she'll be precise, but we will see, and yes I have a chrinograph, doesn't everyone?

jimbob86 · February 6, 2015, 06:01 PM

I've heard several purported "Jack O'Connor's .270Winchester load".... the only things each had in common with the others were that they all were .270WIN loads, and that they were all a couple of grains over what current manuals list as max loads.

jaguarxk120 · February 6, 2015, 06:04 PM

Wasn't it proven that O'Conners scale was off by three grains. So many of the loadings he used way above 65,000 PSI.

jimbob86 · February 6, 2015, 06:25 PM

Ask this guy:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/member.php?u=29175

Paul B. · February 6, 2015, 08:05 PM

As has already been mentioned, Jack's load with H4831 was with the old milsurp version originally listed as 4350 data powder. There was at the time it came out and people were instructed to use data for IMR4350. That 4831 was powder for IIRC 20 MM cannon shells with no actual reloading data available. Again, going from memory, jack worked up to 60 gr. and used that for a while and finally working up to that 62.0 gr. load. FWIW, Jack was using IMR7828 long before it became available to the shooting public.

I do know that current 4831, be it Hodgden's version or the IMR variety are much faster burning that what Jack was using. Hodgden finally destroyed the remaining powder as it had deteriorated to the point of being useless and dangerous.
Personally, I've never been all that fond of the 130 gr. bullet but lots of people like it. I've never found the .270 to be difficult in finding an accurate load but have gone with the 150 gr. bullet and my choice as they have been the most accurate in my particular rifles. Naturally YMMV.

Paul B.

William T. Watts · February 6, 2015, 08:27 PM

Frankly I don't think it is a good idea to try and duplicate a load Jack O"Connor tried 50 or more years ago before he settled on 60grs as a max for his rifle. I do not believe I have ever exceeded 58grs of H4831 with a 130gr bullet, I have never pierced nor blown a primer in 45 years and frankly I do not see the point in trying a 62gr load with today's powder.. My .02 William

BumbleBug · February 6, 2015, 08:44 PM

Back in the day, I was a teenager & I was a big Jack O'Conner fan & read all his Outdoor Life articles. He made me a .270 Win fan back when if you came home with a .270 everyone asked you: "What happened, did they run out of .30-06's?"

I remember the 62gr 4831 load & tried it. Yes, it was his standard. It had to be in a Winchester case, but using a cardboard tube I was able to sift the powder in just below the neck & crush it down with a 130gr bullet. You could also do it by pouring real slow all the while lightly tapping the case. The powder was surplus 20mm cannon powder that I was able to buy 10lbs for $1.00 per pound! It seemed "hot" but safe in my Remington 700 factory rifle. It was accurate too. Jack was catching a lot of flack from readers even back then saying it was too hot. Jack had it pressure tested at a lab or two & the pressure was well below 60K. I shot up all the surplus powder & it became obvious that it was definitely slower than the newer "H" or "IMR" 4831 flavors. As always, never use a load without working it up, but if I had to describe a standard .270 load today it would be 58.5gr of H4831 which usually fills right up to the bottom of a 130gr bullet. Never found a .270 Win that didn't at least have some luck with this combo. In my current favorite .270 of the 4 I own, H4350 has edged out 4831 slightly as the most accurate.

BTW: Jack had suggested sight in too for his favorite load. Set 3.5" high at 100yds & a mid body hold out to about 335yds was possible.

FWIW...

...JO fan

totaldla · February 6, 2015, 08:51 PM

If Jack wiped his butt with a pinecone, would you want to duplicate that too?

Times change. Use published reloading data.

oldscot3 · February 6, 2015, 09:52 PM

Ha ha ha , thats funny. I'm with you on that one. Use modern bullets, modern powders, primers, brass, and most of all...data.

hooligan1 · February 6, 2015, 10:14 PM

If you haven't read the article then don't reply, this is an educated test, and has been duplicated recently with no problems, and by the way 60 grains came in below shoulder with no drop tube over vigorous shaking.
The bullet tested is the 130 grain Nosler Partition.
Totalda you can wipe with whatever you like. Oldscot, I just bought that box of Partitions they seemed brand spankin new.

As I wrote before, my first test is 60 grains, and I will work this load up and reply as data has been compiled.

William T. Watts · February 6, 2015, 11:23 PM

I have never deliberately overloaded a cartridge case to see what would happen, without any current data to support what your attempting to do this is ill advised and it wouldn't bother me a bit if it were deleted!! William

Pathfinder45 · February 7, 2015, 01:01 AM

Seems like some of the comments here are starting to get a little off-color..... I think we have a worthy topic... Let's keep it clean and civil and get back on topic, OK?

Pathfinder45 · February 7, 2015, 04:27 AM

I don't currently have a chronograph, but have used them and find they can be a useful tool especially when experimenting with higher pressure loads. Since you have the device, you can better analyze the probable pressure since pressure and velocity are co-related. I also asked about barrel length since reasonable expections of velocity will be limited according to barrel length. There are some other factors within individual firearms that can seriously affect pressures. Things like minimum versus maximum chamber dimensions, or a short vs long throat, or throat erosion. The magazine length and throat will dictate what your maximum overall cartridge length can be.

So, a brief tale of two 270 Winchester rifles: Both model 70 Winchesters, the first a 24" barreled Classic Sporter, the second a 22" barreled pre-64. With all reloads the shorter barreled rifle shot at least 100 fps faster than the longer barreled one. Fired cases from the pre-64 would easily chamber in the Classic, but the reverse was impossible. None of the loads were excessive for the Classic, but one load in particular, gave sticky bolt lift in the pre-64, as well as primers falling free from the cases when the action was opened. Clearly an overload, perhaps alarmingly so.
The point of this is that a maximum safe load for one rifle may be lower pressure in another rifle and unsafe in a third. Factory ammo seldom achieves the claimed velocity because it is designed to be safe in all rifles of that caliber. It's generally loaded to maximum pressure for a minimum spec barrel, i.e. a worst case situation that's otherwise normal.
Jack O'Connor's load may very well have given higher pressure in another rifle. However, with some of the very slow burning, single-base, stick powders, you simply cannot get enough powder in the case to create an excessive pressure situation in a 270 Winchester. Some of the published loads are compressed loads. The falling-out-primer load was a ball powder load. Ball powders are a whole different story. Let's leave ball powders out of the discussion.
So, using a chronograph and H-4831, it is entirely reasonable to start well below maximum book data and continually check velocity as you keep increasing the powder charges until you get to a reasonable maxumum velocity without sticky bolt lift, loose primers, etc. In my 24" barrel, with optimum powders like H-4831, I consider 3,200 fps to be maximum with 130 grain bullets, 3,100 for 140's, and 3,000 with 150's. I have personally gone carefully further, like 140's at 3,285. But with loose primer pockets after two or three firings, that's a serious sign of pressure that needs to be backed away from. With your 22" barrel you should set your velocity expectations lower by at least 50 fps, and maybe even 100 fps. Remember, if you are getting abnormally high velocties, you are also getting abnormally high pressures. After you find your rifles red-line, back off a little and try to find the most accurate load. The best place to start, before working that load up, is to find the maximum cartridge length that will function reliably from the magazine without cramming the bullet into the rifling. In my rifle, that wouldn't leave enough bullet in the case with 130's. Probably why mine gives its best with 150's. Anymore these days I just use 130's for lighter plinking practice loads with a smooth loading ball powder. I think H-4831 is a bit slower burning than optimal for 130's; it's a better fit with heavier bullets. If I want hot redline loads I use stick powders and weigh every charge. I don't trust ball powders at maximum pressures. I like ball powders for fast loading with a powder measure of bulk practice loads well below maximum where fine long-range accuracy is not a priority.
My favorite hot load? 150 grain Nosler Partition driven to 3,000 fps with an appropriate charge of Norma N-205 powder. I still use H-4831 'cuz I have it. But N-205 is the cat's meow in the 270 Winchester.

hooligan1 · February 7, 2015, 05:47 AM

Thanks for you replys pathfinder, Im not sure how much higher I will go but the interest of sending that bullet that fast is worth trying for me. My go to load for hunting right now is a130 Accubond and 52.8 grains of H4350, which is pedestrian but nicely accurate.
When I load the 130 grn Btip, I used 54 grns of IMR4350, but that load tends to flatten primers a bit, velocity in my rifle was around 2850-2900.

William come away from the ledge, I shoot some other loads in rifles that fill the case more with powders, thats not gonna be a major deal...I've loaded long enough to know what pressure signs look like...

stagpanther · February 7, 2015, 08:30 AM

I just tried the pinecone thing while shooting my 270 win, my accuracy didn't seem to improve any. Where is the data for this load?

BumbleBug · February 7, 2015, 09:51 AM

The newer 4831sc will definitely let you get more powder in without over-flowing a .270 Win case. Reaching 62grs will be no problem & the results (let hope safe) will be interesting.

I think the real point being made by several here is that all 4831's are not the same. I wish I still had some of the old 4831 surplus powder like Jack used for some testing. Its a moot point now, but I "feel" like it burned more like H205 than H4831sc.

Good luck hooligan1 & thanks for an interesting post for JO & .270 Win aficionados.

...bug

stagpanther · February 7, 2015, 09:55 AM

Serious question--any notable difference between the IMR and Hodgdon 4831's (haven't tried the H)?

DAVID NANCARROW · February 7, 2015, 10:04 AM

Wish ya luck on that load, Hooligan. I once loaded up some 130 grain Partitions for my buddy's Rem 700 with 57 grains of H4831 SC and it just about blew a doe in half. Broke a rib on the way in, demolished the heart/lung area and snapped another rib on the way out, leaving a fist sized exit hole. It was about 75 yards away from him when he dropped the hammer. 62 grains of the same powder, well, WE Want pictures of what's left of the deer lol.

February 6, 2015, 11:54 AM	#4
Economist Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2014 Posts: 163	60 grains of H4831 sc under a 130 grain BTSP was all I could stomach in my .270. I didn't have a chrono at the time but the recoil was stout and the bolt was a little sticky to lift. Accuracy was OK, but I found better accuracy with smaller charges, like 55 and 56 grains. When I chronoed a 55.5 grain charge, it averaged 2752 fps from a 22 inch barrel with a 18.3 fps standard deviation. Last edited by Economist; February 6, 2015 at 06:27 PM.

February 6, 2015, 02:32 PM	#5
Pathfinder45 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2008 Posts: 3,224	I'll play! Hooligan, what rifle is your 270, and what is its barrel length? Are you using a chronograph? As the 270 Winchester has beena lifetime favorite for me, I have done a whole lot of reloading for it. Since you want to limit this discussion to the use of H-4831, I will say that I have used 3 different versions: WWII surplus, the SC version, and the current long grain version.

February 6, 2015, 05:52 PM	#7
Mike / Tx Senior Member Join Date: April 8, 2000 Posts: 2,101	I have to say that I have never been a fan of the touted " O'Connor" load. I have had several friends with various rifles who just had to try it, or at least try to work up to it. There was only one who managed to get there without REALLY ironing primers and ruining brass. He was a neighbor of mine and loved to run top end. His choice of bullet was the 130gr Sierra Gameking. His first victim was a nice 120'ish pound doe, which he more or less blew in half shooting through both shoulders. He then proceeded to condemn the bullet for being too fragile. Like the others have mentioned the surplus powder that O'Connor was using isn't the same beast as today's blend. Not to mention the pressure testing equipment then is a far cry from what we have today. __________________ LAter, Mike / TX Last edited by Mike / Tx; February 6, 2015 at 05:58 PM.

February 6, 2015, 05:53 PM	#8
hooligan1 Senior Member Join Date: July 18, 2010 Location: Independence Missouri Posts: 4,586	Well last months Handloader magazine had an article that studied Jack's load,(62 grains H4831, 130 grain Nosler Partition) and the fella that wrote it said he could easily fit 60 grains into winchester and remington brass, and that 62 grains was slightly compressed but not unduly so. And then he went on about these loads showing no signs of pressure. My rifle is a 22" barreled Savage 110 with a worn throat, so I cant say if she'll be precise, but we will see, and yes I have a chrinograph, doesn't everyone? __________________ Keep your Axe sharp and your powder dry.

February 6, 2015, 08:05 PM	#12
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,802	As has already been mentioned, Jack's load with H4831 was with the old milsurp version originally listed as 4350 data powder. There was at the time it came out and people were instructed to use data for IMR4350. That 4831 was powder for IIRC 20 MM cannon shells with no actual reloading data available. Again, going from memory, jack worked up to 60 gr. and used that for a while and finally working up to that 62.0 gr. load. FWIW, Jack was using IMR7828 long before it became available to the shooting public. I do know that current 4831, be it Hodgden's version or the IMR variety are much faster burning that what Jack was using. Hodgden finally destroyed the remaining powder as it had deteriorated to the point of being useless and dangerous. Personally, I've never been all that fond of the 130 gr. bullet but lots of people like it. I've never found the .270 to be difficult in finding an accurate load but have gone with the 150 gr. bullet and my choice as they have been the most accurate in my particular rifles. Naturally YMMV. Paul B. __________________ COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!

February 6, 2015, 06:45 AM	#1
hooligan1 Senior Member Join Date: July 18, 2010 Location: Independence Missouri Posts: 4,586	Jack O'Connor's .270 Winchester load. I'm working up to Jack's favorite load in my .270; 62 grains of H4831sc (sc, because it's all I got) and 130 grain Partition. My intent is to see if this load is precision enough in my rifle to use deer hunting, and to see what velocity it'll wring out. Im not looking for favorite petloads for .270 winchester, only this loading will interest me in what kind of feedback you got from this load... __________________ Keep your Axe sharp and your powder dry.

February 6, 2015, 08:18 AM	#2
cdoc42 Senior Member Join Date: March 13, 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,687	Is that from O'Connor's data? The Hodgdon site lists a max of 60.0 gr for a 130gr Hornady SP and the Barnes 130gr TSX. Maybe he was limited to Remington Core-Loks as well. If anything, I'd look at the velocity he achieved and check current data to reach that speed, although, as you know, speed does not always = accuracy. I can't get a load that satisfies me for 130gr in any of my 4 rifles (.270). My original likes 150gr and I use H-4831, 57.0 gr. I converted one of my .270's to .25-06 and got a 0.3" 4 shot group at 100 yards with 50gr of H1000 using a Hornady 120gr H.P. AND a Sierra 120gr H.P. The current data lists 52gr as the start for 2775fps.

February 6, 2015, 08:31 AM	#3
steveno Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Minden , Nebraska Posts: 1,407	I think that the H4831 that O'Connor used was a little bit slower than the H-4831 ( and SC) powders now available. to get 62 grains in a case you will probably need to use a drop tube and maybe experiment with different brands of brass. it will also be a compressed charge although there isn't a problem with that. I used 60 grains of H-4831SC with the 130 grain Nosler partition and that was good for a little over 3,000 fps in a Ruger #1A with a 22 inch barrel. 3 shots under an inch a 100 yards was the norm

February 6, 2015, 05:50 PM	#6
stagpanther Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2014 Posts: 11,789	I too reload for 270 but probably won't get around to it until this summer--too many other projects ahead of it but I'm all ears for effective recipes. I recently bought the ruger American in 270 and to break it in (please, I don't won't to get dragged down the black hole of break-in arguments) I bought a couple of boxes American whitetail. For a budget ammo I was VERY impressed with how well it shot. But I digress.

February 6, 2015, 06:01 PM	#9
jimbob86 Junior member Join Date: October 4, 2007 Location: All the way to NEBRASKA Posts: 8,722	I've heard several purported "Jack O'Connor's .270Winchester load".... the only things each had in common with the others were that they all were .270WIN loads, and that they were all a couple of grains over what current manuals list as max loads.

February 6, 2015, 06:04 PM	#10
jaguarxk120 Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 2008 Location: Michigan Posts: 2,620	Wasn't it proven that O'Conners scale was off by three grains. So many of the loadings he used way above 65,000 PSI.

February 6, 2015, 06:25 PM	#11
jimbob86 Junior member Join Date: October 4, 2007 Location: All the way to NEBRASKA Posts: 8,722	Ask this guy: http://thefiringline.com/forums/member.php?u=29175

February 6, 2015, 08:27 PM	#13
William T. Watts Senior Member Join Date: January 20, 2010 Location: Central Arkansas Posts: 1,074	Frankly I don't think it is a good idea to try and duplicate a load Jack O"Connor tried 50 or more years ago before he settled on 60grs as a max for his rifle. I do not believe I have ever exceeded 58grs of H4831 with a 130gr bullet, I have never pierced nor blown a primer in 45 years and frankly I do not see the point in trying a 62gr load with today's powder.. My .02 William

February 6, 2015, 08:44 PM	#14
BumbleBug Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2013 Location: Near Heart of Texas Posts: 870	Jack's Load Back in the day, I was a teenager & I was a big Jack O'Conner fan & read all his Outdoor Life articles. He made me a .270 Win fan back when if you came home with a .270 everyone asked you: "What happened, did they run out of .30-06's?" I remember the 62gr 4831 load & tried it. Yes, it was his standard. It had to be in a Winchester case, but using a cardboard tube I was able to sift the powder in just below the neck & crush it down with a 130gr bullet. You could also do it by pouring real slow all the while lightly tapping the case. The powder was surplus 20mm cannon powder that I was able to buy 10lbs for $1.00 per pound! It seemed "hot" but safe in my Remington 700 factory rifle. It was accurate too. Jack was catching a lot of flack from readers even back then saying it was too hot. Jack had it pressure tested at a lab or two & the pressure was well below 60K. I shot up all the surplus powder & it became obvious that it was definitely slower than the newer "H" or "IMR" 4831 flavors. As always, never use a load without working it up, but if I had to describe a standard .270 load today it would be 58.5gr of H4831 which usually fills right up to the bottom of a 130gr bullet. Never found a .270 Win that didn't at least have some luck with this combo. In my current favorite .270 of the 4 I own, H4350 has edged out 4831 slightly as the most accurate. BTW: Jack had suggested sight in too for his favorite load. Set 3.5" high at 100yds & a mid body hold out to about 335yds was possible. FWIW... ...JO fan Last edited by BumbleBug; February 6, 2015 at 09:17 PM.

February 6, 2015, 08:51 PM	#15
totaldla Senior Member Join Date: August 10, 2009 Location: SW Idaho Posts: 1,295	If Jack wiped his butt with a pinecone, would you want to duplicate that too? Times change. Use published reloading data. __________________ Lee Auto Bench Prime Castor Oil Case Lube

February 6, 2015, 09:52 PM	#16
oldscot3 Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 2007 Location: texas Posts: 997	Ha ha ha , thats funny. I'm with you on that one. Use modern bullets, modern powders, primers, brass, and most of all...data.

February 6, 2015, 10:14 PM	#17
hooligan1 Senior Member Join Date: July 18, 2010 Location: Independence Missouri Posts: 4,586	If you haven't read the article then don't reply, this is an educated test, and has been duplicated recently with no problems, and by the way 60 grains came in below shoulder with no drop tube over vigorous shaking. The bullet tested is the 130 grain Nosler Partition. Totalda you can wipe with whatever you like. Oldscot, I just bought that box of Partitions they seemed brand spankin new. As I wrote before, my first test is 60 grains, and I will work this load up and reply as data has been compiled. __________________ Keep your Axe sharp and your powder dry.

February 6, 2015, 11:23 PM	#18
William T. Watts Senior Member Join Date: January 20, 2010 Location: Central Arkansas Posts: 1,074	Yes, I have read the article! I have never deliberately overloaded a cartridge case to see what would happen, without any current data to support what your attempting to do this is ill advised and it wouldn't bother me a bit if it were deleted!! William

February 7, 2015, 01:01 AM	#19
Pathfinder45 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2008 Posts: 3,224	Im back.... Seems like some of the comments here are starting to get a little off-color..... I think we have a worthy topic... Let's keep it clean and civil and get back on topic, OK?

February 7, 2015, 04:27 AM	#20
Pathfinder45 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2008 Posts: 3,224	I don't currently have a chronograph, but have used them and find they can be a useful tool especially when experimenting with higher pressure loads. Since you have the device, you can better analyze the probable pressure since pressure and velocity are co-related. I also asked about barrel length since reasonable expections of velocity will be limited according to barrel length. There are some other factors within individual firearms that can seriously affect pressures. Things like minimum versus maximum chamber dimensions, or a short vs long throat, or throat erosion. The magazine length and throat will dictate what your maximum overall cartridge length can be. So, a brief tale of two 270 Winchester rifles: Both model 70 Winchesters, the first a 24" barreled Classic Sporter, the second a 22" barreled pre-64. With all reloads the shorter barreled rifle shot at least 100 fps faster than the longer barreled one. Fired cases from the pre-64 would easily chamber in the Classic, but the reverse was impossible. None of the loads were excessive for the Classic, but one load in particular, gave sticky bolt lift in the pre-64, as well as primers falling free from the cases when the action was opened. Clearly an overload, perhaps alarmingly so. The point of this is that a maximum safe load for one rifle may be lower pressure in another rifle and unsafe in a third. Factory ammo seldom achieves the claimed velocity because it is designed to be safe in all rifles of that caliber. It's generally loaded to maximum pressure for a minimum spec barrel, i.e. a worst case situation that's otherwise normal. Jack O'Connor's load may very well have given higher pressure in another rifle. However, with some of the very slow burning, single-base, stick powders, you simply cannot get enough powder in the case to create an excessive pressure situation in a 270 Winchester. Some of the published loads are compressed loads. The falling-out-primer load was a ball powder load. Ball powders are a whole different story. Let's leave ball powders out of the discussion. So, using a chronograph and H-4831, it is entirely reasonable to start well below maximum book data and continually check velocity as you keep increasing the powder charges until you get to a reasonable maxumum velocity without sticky bolt lift, loose primers, etc. In my 24" barrel, with optimum powders like H-4831, I consider 3,200 fps to be maximum with 130 grain bullets, 3,100 for 140's, and 3,000 with 150's. I have personally gone carefully further, like 140's at 3,285. But with loose primer pockets after two or three firings, that's a serious sign of pressure that needs to be backed away from. With your 22" barrel you should set your velocity expectations lower by at least 50 fps, and maybe even 100 fps. Remember, if you are getting abnormally high velocties, you are also getting abnormally high pressures. After you find your rifles red-line, back off a little and try to find the most accurate load. The best place to start, before working that load up, is to find the maximum cartridge length that will function reliably from the magazine without cramming the bullet into the rifling. In my rifle, that wouldn't leave enough bullet in the case with 130's. Probably why mine gives its best with 150's. Anymore these days I just use 130's for lighter plinking practice loads with a smooth loading ball powder. I think H-4831 is a bit slower burning than optimal for 130's; it's a better fit with heavier bullets. If I want hot redline loads I use stick powders and weigh every charge. I don't trust ball powders at maximum pressures. I like ball powders for fast loading with a powder measure of bulk practice loads well below maximum where fine long-range accuracy is not a priority. My favorite hot load? 150 grain Nosler Partition driven to 3,000 fps with an appropriate charge of Norma N-205 powder. I still use H-4831 'cuz I have it. But N-205 is the cat's meow in the 270 Winchester.

February 7, 2015, 05:47 AM	#21
hooligan1 Senior Member Join Date: July 18, 2010 Location: Independence Missouri Posts: 4,586	Thanks for you replys pathfinder, Im not sure how much higher I will go but the interest of sending that bullet that fast is worth trying for me. My go to load for hunting right now is a130 Accubond and 52.8 grains of H4350, which is pedestrian but nicely accurate. When I load the 130 grn Btip, I used 54 grns of IMR4350, but that load tends to flatten primers a bit, velocity in my rifle was around 2850-2900. William come away from the ledge, I shoot some other loads in rifles that fill the case more with powders, thats not gonna be a major deal...I've loaded long enough to know what pressure signs look like... __________________ Keep your Axe sharp and your powder dry.

February 7, 2015, 08:30 AM	#22
stagpanther Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2014 Posts: 11,789	I just tried the pinecone thing while shooting my 270 win, my accuracy didn't seem to improve any. Where is the data for this load?

February 7, 2015, 09:51 AM	#23
BumbleBug Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2013 Location: Near Heart of Texas Posts: 870	Surprisingly, this thread has ruffled a few feathers! The newer 4831sc will definitely let you get more powder in without over-flowing a .270 Win case. Reaching 62grs will be no problem & the results (let hope safe) will be interesting. I think the real point being made by several here is that all 4831's are not the same. I wish I still had some of the old 4831 surplus powder like Jack used for some testing. Its a moot point now, but I "feel" like it burned more like H205 than H4831sc. Good luck hooligan1 & thanks for an interesting post for JO & .270 Win aficionados. ...bug

February 7, 2015, 09:55 AM	#24
stagpanther Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2014 Posts: 11,789	Serious question--any notable difference between the IMR and Hodgdon 4831's (haven't tried the H)?

February 7, 2015, 10:04 AM	#25
DAVID NANCARROW Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2000 Location: Wyoming Posts: 1,761	Wish ya luck on that load, Hooligan. I once loaded up some 130 grain Partitions for my buddy's Rem 700 with 57 grains of H4831 SC and it just about blew a doe in half. Broke a rib on the way in, demolished the heart/lung area and snapped another rib on the way out, leaving a fist sized exit hole. It was about 75 yards away from him when he dropped the hammer. 62 grains of the same powder, well, WE Want pictures of what's left of the deer lol.