Why no Varget for target??

Smokey Joe · March 25, 2015, 05:43 PM

Am researching a load for the .300 WSM. Want to use 168 grain target bullets, either Sierra or Nosler. Have researched several printed sources, plus the Hodgdon website. Was thinking of using Varget as the propellant. All agree that I could use Varget with a 165 grain bullet, but all also have ZERO data on Varget for 168's!!

Gee, whiz! I wouldn't have thought that 3 grains of bullet weight, a difference of 1.8%, would cause that much difference. The "standard wisdom" is that you can use the same load for 165 or 168 grain bullets, but Hodgdon's website gives different loads, for example, with H4350, for 165's and 168's.

So. What to do? Any suggestions?

jepp2 · March 25, 2015, 06:36 PM

I would expect many other variables to "potentially" impact the load more than 3 grains difference in bullet weight.

The water capacity of your cartridge vs the cartridge used in the load development (chamber size, brass internal volume, etc.)

Different powder lots used

Different bullet bearing surface

Different distance from the lands

Different test conditions, temperature being the potential largest

So I would consider using the data for the 165 gr bullet, but dropping the starting load slightly due to the heavier bullet.

If you look at the Nosler load data link is for the 165/168 grain bullet.

Smokey Joe · March 25, 2015, 06:50 PM

Jepp 2--Thx for your reply. I have the Nosler Reloading Guide 6, and checked that against their online load data as given with your link. The data seem to be all the same. And no Varget in either place, for the 168 grain bullet.

I may very well just use the 165 grain data. I would begin with the starting load in any instance.

reynolds357 · March 25, 2015, 07:57 PM

Use the 165 starting load and work up.

huntinaz · March 26, 2015, 12:31 AM

^^^Agree, use 165 data and work up.

Road_Clam · March 26, 2015, 06:35 AM

One of the things I have been learning as I gain more comfortable handloading experience is that you don't necessarily have to take online powder data as law. They are a suggested starting, and more importantly, stopping points. During the height of the powder scare a few years ago I had two choices, try some alternate powders or don't shoot. So using several cross reference powder equivalent and burn rate charts I started experimenting loading non suggested powders based upon similar burn rates for the specific caliber and bullet wt I intended to load. Long story short I have had excellent success loading different than suggested powders from the mfg's. The key is as stated above start conservative and work up. From my loading experiences rarely do I find an accurate load at max published velocities. A perfect example is when I was loading 7.62x39 not much load data beyond 4198 , yet I had 8# of Benchmark (no load data for this combo) which is a slightly slower burning powder , started loading very conservative , and eventually found a great load. I also recently worked up some mild "cowboy" loads using Win WST shotgun powder to shoot through my 460 S&W mag. So it can be done just gotta do your own cross referencing research and start mild. I also use a chronograph which is essential for obtaining velocities when venturing into loading powders with minimal or no data. A squib shot from too low a velocity is better than blowing apart your chamber...

Smokey Joe · March 26, 2015, 11:56 AM

Thank you all for your thoughts!

**Unclenick** · March 26, 2015, 12:21 PM

S.J.,

The main reason you aren't finding Varget data for the 168 is that Varget is on the fast side for the .300 WSM as you get to higher bullet weights. So nobody has bothered to work with it much in this cartridge at those weights. It's also the reason the top velocities you can get from it for these bullets are lower than most other powders recommended for it will achieve. Nonetheless, it is likely the 165 grain starting loads will work with the 168. It just won't be a stellar performer.

JeepHammer · March 26, 2015, 04:23 PM

When you start with a new powder, case, caliber, ect.

GET AT LEAST THREE SOURCES!

Don't take the word of the first site you run across...

MISPRINTS ABOUND!

More than one guy has screwed himself,
Get three and work from an 'Average' if they are all close.

If one is WAY OFF the other two,
Then use the two that are close.

I've heard a LOT of stories about guys using 'Published' data to load,
Just to have a bullet stuck in the barrel,
Or have to beat the bolt open!

alancac98 · March 26, 2015, 09:05 PM

Check www.handloads.com. They have a 168 gr Speer using 56 gr. of varget. OAL is 2.900", Primer is LRM. The loader noted that 5 shot group were all under an inch out of a Savage model 12 w/ a 26" barrel. Lots of loads on that site to view. good luck and happy shooting.

Smokey Joe · March 27, 2015, 01:41 PM

Thanks again to all who have taken the time to offer help & advice.

skyhawk172n · March 28, 2015, 05:47 PM

With Smoky Joe's permission, I would like to continue this thread. If my questions don't fit, I'll start another thread.

I, too, have started loading .300WSM, but have looked for "light load" data. Not squib loads using pistol powder, but something between my 7.62mm/41.5grIMR4895/168SMK and a full house 62-65gr Magnum load. Haven't found the data anywhere. Does anybody have such a load already worked up? Gotta confess, I stick to the "old timey" IMR powders mostly, except for that newfangled Varget stuff

On my own today, I tried 47grIMR4064/Nos168grMatch with outstanding results at 100yds. 1" groups with no signs of anything bad, pressure-wise. Am I living dangerously, or on the right track?

Roy

reynolds357 · March 28, 2015, 06:12 PM

You can work up the loads with Quick Load software pretty easily. The reason you do not find published data is because the manufacturers assume one does not want to turn a .300 WSM into a .308 Winchester. Ramshot lists load data for AA5744 @ 1864 fps.

tobnpr · March 28, 2015, 06:51 PM

Funny...ran into something similar just this morning when loading up early prior to going to the range.

When I got to my son's .308, I grabbed one of the boxes of 175 SMK's I had just gotten in off the shelf.

Except, they weren't 175's- they were 180's. Heck, I didn't even know Sierra made a 180 SMK in .308. Turns out, they shipped me two boxes of the wrong boolits.

Quick check on Hodgdon's site showed no difference in the max load of Varget for the 5 grain increase in bullet weight. His rifle HATED 168's, so I wasn't keen on loading up 100 rounds of bullets we weren't sure would shoot- but he told me to go ahead. His accuracy load with the 175's was a full grain and a half under max anyway (and we'd put over 46 grains down the tube before with no pressure signs) so I didn't hesitate to keep the same load with the 180's. Can't put enough Varget into a .308 case to blow it up, anyway...

It was too windy (15-25 and gusty) here today to put holes in paper, but he was still able to hit the small-ish 4" plate at 225 yards without a miss so it seems the rifle didn't know the difference.

Smokey Joe · March 28, 2015, 10:45 PM

Skyhawk 172 N--Have at it! I think I've gotten what I need.

Think I'll be loading my .300 WSM with H380. The Nosler #6 book makes this the most accurate powder they tried. The Hodgden annual, the 2015 one as well as my old 2011 annual, list this powder also.

Fortunately, I've GOT some H380.

skyhawk172n · March 29, 2015, 08:29 PM

Thanks for the replies, guys. Seems that I (and my rifle) like the reduced load, so I'll stick with it. Easy enough to reset a scope to shoot full power loads if I have the desire to. Add 12 grains of 4064 and away we go. I'm not a competitive shooter any more, just enjoy loading and shooting as a hobby. Been at both for about 30 years, and looking forward to many more.

Roy

March 25, 2015, 05:43 PM	#1
Smokey Joe Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2001 Location: State of Confusion Posts: 2,106	Why no Varget for target?? Am researching a load for the .300 WSM. Want to use 168 grain target bullets, either Sierra or Nosler. Have researched several printed sources, plus the Hodgdon website. Was thinking of using Varget as the propellant. All agree that I could use Varget with a 165 grain bullet, but all also have ZERO data on Varget for 168's!! Gee, whiz! I wouldn't have thought that 3 grains of bullet weight, a difference of 1.8%, would cause that much difference. The "standard wisdom" is that you can use the same load for 165 or 168 grain bullets, but Hodgdon's website gives different loads, for example, with H4350, for 165's and 168's. So. What to do? Any suggestions? __________________ God Bless America --Smokey Joe

March 25, 2015, 06:36 PM	#2
jepp2 Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 2008 Location: Loveland, CO Posts: 1,476	I would expect many other variables to "potentially" impact the load more than 3 grains difference in bullet weight. The water capacity of your cartridge vs the cartridge used in the load development (chamber size, brass internal volume, etc.) Different powder lots used Different bullet bearing surface Different distance from the lands Different test conditions, temperature being the potential largest So I would consider using the data for the 165 gr bullet, but dropping the starting load slightly due to the heavier bullet. If you look at the Nosler load data link is for the 165/168 grain bullet. __________________ NRA Benefactor Life member

March 25, 2015, 06:50 PM	#3
Smokey Joe Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2001 Location: State of Confusion Posts: 2,106	Nosler--No Varget... Jepp 2--Thx for your reply. I have the Nosler Reloading Guide 6, and checked that against their online load data as given with your link. The data seem to be all the same. And no Varget in either place, for the 168 grain bullet. I may very well just use the 165 grain data. I would begin with the starting load in any instance. __________________ God Bless America --Smokey Joe

March 26, 2015, 12:31 AM	#5
huntinaz Senior Member Join Date: September 21, 2010 Location: az Posts: 1,332	^^^Agree, use 165 data and work up. __________________ "When there’s lead in the air, there’s hope in the heart”- Hunter’s Proverb "Feed me, or feed me to something. I just want to be part of the food chain." -Al Bundy

March 26, 2015, 11:56 AM	#7
Smokey Joe Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2001 Location: State of Confusion Posts: 2,106	Thx! Thank you all for your thoughts! __________________ God Bless America --Smokey Joe

March 25, 2015, 07:57 PM	#4
reynolds357 Senior Member Join Date: December 10, 2012 Posts: 6,165	Use the 165 starting load and work up.

March 26, 2015, 06:35 AM	#6
Road_Clam Senior Member Join Date: November 21, 2013 Location: New Hampshire Posts: 1,695	One of the things I have been learning as I gain more comfortable handloading experience is that you don't necessarily have to take online powder data as law. They are a suggested starting, and more importantly, stopping points. During the height of the powder scare a few years ago I had two choices, try some alternate powders or don't shoot. So using several cross reference powder equivalent and burn rate charts I started experimenting loading non suggested powders based upon similar burn rates for the specific caliber and bullet wt I intended to load. Long story short I have had excellent success loading different than suggested powders from the mfg's. The key is as stated above start conservative and work up. From my loading experiences rarely do I find an accurate load at max published velocities. A perfect example is when I was loading 7.62x39 not much load data beyond 4198 , yet I had 8# of Benchmark (no load data for this combo) which is a slightly slower burning powder , started loading very conservative , and eventually found a great load. I also recently worked up some mild "cowboy" loads using Win WST shotgun powder to shoot through my 460 S&W mag. So it can be done just gotta do your own cross referencing research and start mild. I also use a chronograph which is essential for obtaining velocities when venturing into loading powders with minimal or no data. A squib shot from too low a velocity is better than blowing apart your chamber... __________________ "To be old an wise you must have been young and stupid"

March 26, 2015, 12:21 PM	#8
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,060	S.J., The main reason you aren't finding Varget data for the 168 is that Varget is on the fast side for the .300 WSM as you get to higher bullet weights. So nobody has bothered to work with it much in this cartridge at those weights. It's also the reason the top velocities you can get from it for these bullets are lower than most other powders recommended for it will achieve. Nonetheless, it is likely the 165 grain starting loads will work with the 168. It just won't be a stellar performer. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

March 26, 2015, 04:23 PM	#9
JeepHammer Junior member Join Date: February 27, 2015 Posts: 1,768	When you start with a new powder, case, caliber, ect. GET AT LEAST THREE SOURCES! Don't take the word of the first site you run across... MISPRINTS ABOUND! More than one guy has screwed himself, Get three and work from an 'Average' if they are all close. If one is WAY OFF the other two, Then use the two that are close. I've heard a LOT of stories about guys using 'Published' data to load, Just to have a bullet stuck in the barrel, Or have to beat the bolt open!

March 26, 2015, 09:05 PM	#10
alancac98 Member Join Date: April 3, 2013 Location: North Central PA Posts: 59	Check www.handloads.com. They have a 168 gr Speer using 56 gr. of varget. OAL is 2.900", Primer is LRM. The loader noted that 5 shot group were all under an inch out of a Savage model 12 w/ a 26" barrel. Lots of loads on that site to view. good luck and happy shooting.

March 27, 2015, 01:41 PM	#11
Smokey Joe Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2001 Location: State of Confusion Posts: 2,106	THX! Thanks again to all who have taken the time to offer help & advice. __________________ God Bless America --Smokey Joe

March 28, 2015, 05:47 PM	#12
skyhawk172n Junior Member Join Date: February 21, 2015 Location: central MS Posts: 8	.300WSM With Smoky Joe's permission, I would like to continue this thread. If my questions don't fit, I'll start another thread. I, too, have started loading .300WSM, but have looked for "light load" data. Not squib loads using pistol powder, but something between my 7.62mm/41.5grIMR4895/168SMK and a full house 62-65gr Magnum load. Haven't found the data anywhere. Does anybody have such a load already worked up? Gotta confess, I stick to the "old timey" IMR powders mostly, except for that newfangled Varget stuff On my own today, I tried 47grIMR4064/Nos168grMatch with outstanding results at 100yds. 1" groups with no signs of anything bad, pressure-wise. Am I living dangerously, or on the right track? Roy

March 28, 2015, 06:12 PM	#13
reynolds357 Senior Member Join Date: December 10, 2012 Posts: 6,165	You can work up the loads with Quick Load software pretty easily. The reason you do not find published data is because the manufacturers assume one does not want to turn a .300 WSM into a .308 Winchester. Ramshot lists load data for AA5744 @ 1864 fps.

March 28, 2015, 06:51 PM	#14
tobnpr Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2010 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 4,556	Funny...ran into something similar just this morning when loading up early prior to going to the range. When I got to my son's .308, I grabbed one of the boxes of 175 SMK's I had just gotten in off the shelf. Except, they weren't 175's- they were 180's. Heck, I didn't even know Sierra made a 180 SMK in .308. Turns out, they shipped me two boxes of the wrong boolits. Quick check on Hodgdon's site showed no difference in the max load of Varget for the 5 grain increase in bullet weight. His rifle HATED 168's, so I wasn't keen on loading up 100 rounds of bullets we weren't sure would shoot- but he told me to go ahead. His accuracy load with the 175's was a full grain and a half under max anyway (and we'd put over 46 grains down the tube before with no pressure signs) so I didn't hesitate to keep the same load with the 180's. Can't put enough Varget into a .308 case to blow it up, anyway... It was too windy (15-25 and gusty) here today to put holes in paper, but he was still able to hit the small-ish 4" plate at 225 yards without a miss so it seems the rifle didn't know the difference. __________________ Remington 700/Savage Rebarreling /Action Blueprinting 07 FFL /Mosin-Nagant Custom Shop/Bent Bolts Genuine Cerakote Applicator www.biggorillagunworks.com

March 28, 2015, 10:45 PM	#15
Smokey Joe Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2001 Location: State of Confusion Posts: 2,106	Permission and... Skyhawk 172 N--Have at it! I think I've gotten what I need. Think I'll be loading my .300 WSM with H380. The Nosler #6 book makes this the most accurate powder they tried. The Hodgden annual, the 2015 one as well as my old 2011 annual, list this powder also. Fortunately, I've GOT some H380. __________________ God Bless America --Smokey Joe Last edited by Smokey Joe; March 28, 2015 at 10:47 PM. Reason: Check on data.

March 29, 2015, 08:29 PM	#16
skyhawk172n Junior Member Join Date: February 21, 2015 Location: central MS Posts: 8	Thanks for the replies, guys. Seems that I (and my rifle) like the reduced load, so I'll stick with it. Easy enough to reset a scope to shoot full power loads if I have the desire to. Add 12 grains of 4064 and away we go. I'm not a competitive shooter any more, just enjoy loading and shooting as a hobby. Been at both for about 30 years, and looking forward to many more. Roy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search