Plinking load for 303 Brit in Lee Enfield

emcon5 · October 16, 2009, 08:32 PM

Getting ready to do some loading for my new (to me anyway) Lee Enfield #5, and looking at the sources I have available for the suitable powders I have on hand I am getting conflicting data.

I have the 50'th anniversary Sierra manual, two Hornady books, the 4th and 7th editions, plus the published data from Hodgdon's web site.

Powders I have available that seem like the best candidates are IMR 4320, IMR 4895 and Hodgdon BL-C(2).

I am using new Privi Partizan cases and 150gr FMJ bullets.

Here is the published data I can find for 150gr bullets with these powders:

BL-C(2)
Hodgdon 43 - 48gr
Horn(old) 37.3-41.8gr

IMR 4320
Horn(old) 40.4-44.1
Sierra 40.5 - 44.9
Horn New 32.8 - 40.7

IMR 4895
Sierra 39.1 - 44
Hodgdon max 44.2

The load data from both Hornady books and Hodgdon are all for Hornady's 150gr soft point. For both the BLC2 and 4320 one sources starting load is at or over the maximum from another source with the same bullet.

Any suggestions where to start with a 150gr FMJ with these powders?

I am just wanting a plinking load, so I am leaning toward using the lowest published load which would be ~32gr of 4320.

Any recommendations?

Thanks,

**Unclenick** · October 16, 2009, 08:42 PM

If you actually want to plink, get some of the little 100 grain Hornady #3005 or the Speer #1805 half-jacketed plinking bullets and run them with 9 or 10 grains of Unique or Universal Clays. Accurate and very satisfactory for small game like squirrels. Great load for teaching kids to shoot. You can also fire your 150 grain bullets with these loads, but it's kind of a waste of money if the light ones are cheaper, and the trajectory won't be as flat.

All the powders you listed are too slow to combust well at very reduced pressures. There will be more unburned powder and fouling and irregular ignition with them than with the light fast powder loads I mentioned. If you stick to the starting loads, they will work, though among them, IMR4895 has the best reputation for good accuracy in a low case capacity load. Speer's manual has load data with IMR SR4759, which is a high bulk powder that will reduce to lighter levels without creating a lot of empty space in the case. Used with the 150's this will likely be a more accurate light load than the others.

emcon5 · October 16, 2009, 09:26 PM

Thanks for the reply. I have never tried reduced charges of pistol/shotgun powder, and while I am not against the idea, I have none of those components on hand. I do have the 150 grain FMJs, and these powders laying around itching to get used up.

I did find another data source, P.O. Ackley's "Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders, Volume I" which for the 303 lists 40-44 grains of "4895". Not that that helps any....

**Unclenick** · October 16, 2009, 09:51 PM

You could probably run as low as 35 grains of the IMR 4895 with the 150 grain bullet. That still gives 60% case fill. The pressure is very low (about 20,000 psi) and the ballistic efficiency is poor (21%; Hatcher considered 30% about nominal) and it throws about 15% of the powder out of the muzzle unburned. That inefficiency will cost you powder. Just 18 grains of Unique or Universal will give you the same velocity with better consistency and half the cost per round, if you can find some to buy?

With that low powder level, it will help ignition if you place a small tuft of polyester (e.g., Dacron) pillow filler over the powder before seating the bullet. It will melt and go away during firing. Some people wad up a little toilet paper for the purpose, but I don't find it holds as well. Don't use cereal fillers, as they will raise pressure a good bit and could ring the chamber.

444 · October 17, 2009, 07:21 AM

Before I tried any reduced charges of rifle powder, I would call a powder manufacturer and ask their technical help line what their recomendations were. This is a definite safety issue. While you have them on the phone, ask them their opinion of using fillers over the powder. These guys are the experts that do this for a living. They have the expertise, facility and equipment to test loads scientifically. And, it costs you nothing to call them and talk to them about what you want to do. Every time I have called these powder/bullet technical help lines they have been very friendly and very helpful. If you call them, please let us know what they say.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you are going to take the time and effort to handload, why not use a powder that is safe and appropriate for what you want the load to do rather than basing your load on what powders you happen to already own ? I realize that you might have to pay for a pound of powder but ending up with a good and safe load is the goal of the whole exercise isn't it ? You can certainly use up the powders you currently have in full power loads and it won't go to waste.

"The Load" is something that I have used in several different calibers over the years for a light load. http://members.shaw.ca/cronhelm/TheLoad.html

emcon5 · October 17, 2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Before I tried any reduced charges of rifle powder, I would call a powder manufacturer and ask their technical help line what their recomendations were. This is a definite safety issue. While you have them on the phone, ask them their opinion of using fillers over the powder.

I wasn't talking about reduced charges, Unclenick brought that up. What I said was "am leaning toward using the lowest published load which would be ~32gr of 4320"

I guess I wasn't clear with what I am trying to do. What I mean by plinking load is that unlike a rifle I planned on hunting or competing with, if the starting load works and shows no signs of pressure, I will do no further load development.

Quote:

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you are going to take the time and effort to handload, why not use a powder that is safe and appropriate for what you want the load to do rather than basing your load on what powders you happen to already own ?

The powders I have are appropriate, as each has published loads available from the manufacturer. Would Sierra, Hornady and Hodgdon all bother to work up and publish a load if the powder wasn't safe and appropriate for the application?

What is causing me confusion is the disparity in load data between sources, particularly between for IMR4320 my old and new Hornady manuals. The data from the Sierra and 4th edition Hornady are pretty similar, and both list using Remington cases, but the 7th edition Hornady load was with Hornady cases, so that probably is the reason for the difference. Even so, I am surprised that the starting load with a Remington case (40.4) is around the maximum load in a Hornady case (40.7).

A ~19% reduction in starting load between brands of cases seems high to me, but comparing the other powders that are listed in both editions, all of the starting loads are much lower in the new edition:

IMR 4320: 7.6 grains lower (~19%)
IMR 4064: 6.2 grains lower (~16%)
IMR 3031: 4.5 grains lower (~13%)
H4895: 7 grains lower (~19%)

I have no idea how my Privi Partizan cases would compare to either a Remington or Hornady, and I have no load data for the Privi FMJ bullets I am using.

To be safe in a 64 year old military surplus rifle, starting with the lowest published load seems like the smart thing to do.

TEDDY · October 17, 2009, 08:03 PM

why dont you use the tried and true load.13.5 gr RED DOT with lead bullet.
the lee C312-185-1R.I use the load in all my military loads except the jap 6.5 carcano 6.5.my 1903 with lyman 311291 at 1680fps or the lee 312160 TL.

444 · October 18, 2009, 10:35 AM

emcon5:
I am sorry, I totally misunderstood what you were trying to do. I was under the impression that you were trying to load very light loads. I guess I just didn't pay attention to the last little bit of your post. I should probably just mind my own business and not worry about what other people are doing.

emcon5 · October 18, 2009, 10:15 PM

I made up 2 different batches, one using 35 Grains of 4320 and the second using 37 grains of IMR 4895

Both seemed to work fine, no unusual pressure signs, and the cases showed no sighs of gas leakage. There was a little more powder debris in the barrel from the 4320 than the 4895. The 4895 load felt a little snappier, but both hit around the same point on the target.

As expected, both loads shot low, using the 300 yard battle sight was about 2" below point of aim at 50 yards.

There is some info from Hodgdon on reduced loads here:

http://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/Youth%20Loads.pdf

Doesn't really help me, but still good to know.

beauetienne · October 20, 2009, 02:08 PM

My most accurate loads overall have been with IMR 4895.

October 16, 2009, 08:42 PM	#2
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	If you actually want to plink, get some of the little 100 grain Hornady #3005 or the Speer #1805 half-jacketed plinking bullets and run them with 9 or 10 grains of Unique or Universal Clays. Accurate and very satisfactory for small game like squirrels. Great load for teaching kids to shoot. You can also fire your 150 grain bullets with these loads, but it's kind of a waste of money if the light ones are cheaper, and the trajectory won't be as flat. All the powders you listed are too slow to combust well at very reduced pressures. There will be more unburned powder and fouling and irregular ignition with them than with the light fast powder loads I mentioned. If you stick to the starting loads, they will work, though among them, IMR4895 has the best reputation for good accuracy in a low case capacity load. Speer's manual has load data with IMR SR4759, which is a high bulk powder that will reduce to lighter levels without creating a lot of empty space in the case. Used with the 150's this will likely be a more accurate light load than the others. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

October 16, 2009, 09:51 PM	#4
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	You could probably run as low as 35 grains of the IMR 4895 with the 150 grain bullet. That still gives 60% case fill. The pressure is very low (about 20,000 psi) and the ballistic efficiency is poor (21%; Hatcher considered 30% about nominal) and it throws about 15% of the powder out of the muzzle unburned. That inefficiency will cost you powder. Just 18 grains of Unique or Universal will give you the same velocity with better consistency and half the cost per round, if you can find some to buy? With that low powder level, it will help ignition if you place a small tuft of polyester (e.g., Dacron) pillow filler over the powder before seating the bullet. It will melt and go away during firing. Some people wad up a little toilet paper for the purpose, but I don't find it holds as well. Don't use cereal fillers, as they will raise pressure a good bit and could ring the chamber. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

October 17, 2009, 08:03 PM	#7
TEDDY Junior member Join Date: December 10, 2006 Location: MANNING SC Posts: 837	plinking loads why dont you use the tried and true load.13.5 gr RED DOT with lead bullet. the lee C312-185-1R.I use the load in all my military loads except the jap 6.5 carcano 6.5.my 1903 with lyman 311291 at 1680fps or the lee 312160 TL.

October 18, 2009, 10:35 AM	#8
444 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 3,968	emcon5: I am sorry, I totally misunderstood what you were trying to do. I was under the impression that you were trying to load very light loads. I guess I just didn't pay attention to the last little bit of your post. I should probably just mind my own business and not worry about what other people are doing. __________________ You know the rest. In the books you have read How the British Regulars fired and fled, How the farmers gave them ball for ball, From behind each fence and farmyard wall, Chasing the redcoats down the lane, Then crossing the fields to emerge again Under the trees at the turn of the road, And only pausing to fire and load.

October 16, 2009, 08:32 PM	#1
emcon5 Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 1999 Location: High Desert NV Posts: 2,850	Plinking load for 303 Brit in Lee Enfield Getting ready to do some loading for my new (to me anyway) Lee Enfield #5, and looking at the sources I have available for the suitable powders I have on hand I am getting conflicting data. I have the 50'th anniversary Sierra manual, two Hornady books, the 4th and 7th editions, plus the published data from Hodgdon's web site. Powders I have available that seem like the best candidates are IMR 4320, IMR 4895 and Hodgdon BL-C(2). I am using new Privi Partizan cases and 150gr FMJ bullets. Here is the published data I can find for 150gr bullets with these powders: BL-C(2) Hodgdon 43 - 48gr Horn(old) 37.3-41.8gr IMR 4320 Horn(old) 40.4-44.1 Sierra 40.5 - 44.9 Horn New 32.8 - 40.7 IMR 4895 Sierra 39.1 - 44 Hodgdon max 44.2 The load data from both Hornady books and Hodgdon are all for Hornady's 150gr soft point. For both the BLC2 and 4320 one sources starting load is at or over the maximum from another source with the same bullet. Any suggestions where to start with a 150gr FMJ with these powders? I am just wanting a plinking load, so I am leaning toward using the lowest published load which would be ~32gr of 4320. Any recommendations? Thanks,

October 16, 2009, 09:26 PM	#3
emcon5 Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 1999 Location: High Desert NV Posts: 2,850	Thanks for the reply. I have never tried reduced charges of pistol/shotgun powder, and while I am not against the idea, I have none of those components on hand. I do have the 150 grain FMJs, and these powders laying around itching to get used up. I did find another data source, P.O. Ackley's "Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders, Volume I" which for the 303 lists 40-44 grains of "4895". Not that that helps any....

October 17, 2009, 07:21 AM	#5
444 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 3,968	Before I tried any reduced charges of rifle powder, I would call a powder manufacturer and ask their technical help line what their recomendations were. This is a definite safety issue. While you have them on the phone, ask them their opinion of using fillers over the powder. These guys are the experts that do this for a living. They have the expertise, facility and equipment to test loads scientifically. And, it costs you nothing to call them and talk to them about what you want to do. Every time I have called these powder/bullet technical help lines they have been very friendly and very helpful. If you call them, please let us know what they say. Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you are going to take the time and effort to handload, why not use a powder that is safe and appropriate for what you want the load to do rather than basing your load on what powders you happen to already own ? I realize that you might have to pay for a pound of powder but ending up with a good and safe load is the goal of the whole exercise isn't it ? You can certainly use up the powders you currently have in full power loads and it won't go to waste. "The Load" is something that I have used in several different calibers over the years for a light load. http://members.shaw.ca/cronhelm/TheLoad.html __________________ You know the rest. In the books you have read How the British Regulars fired and fled, How the farmers gave them ball for ball, From behind each fence and farmyard wall, Chasing the redcoats down the lane, Then crossing the fields to emerge again Under the trees at the turn of the road, And only pausing to fire and load. Last edited by 444; October 17, 2009 at 07:28 AM.

October 18, 2009, 10:15 PM	#9
emcon5 Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 1999 Location: High Desert NV Posts: 2,850	I made up 2 different batches, one using 35 Grains of 4320 and the second using 37 grains of IMR 4895 Both seemed to work fine, no unusual pressure signs, and the cases showed no sighs of gas leakage. There was a little more powder debris in the barrel from the 4320 than the 4895. The 4895 load felt a little snappier, but both hit around the same point on the target. As expected, both loads shot low, using the 300 yard battle sight was about 2" below point of aim at 50 yards. There is some info from Hodgdon on reduced loads here: http://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/Youth%20Loads.pdf Doesn't really help me, but still good to know.

October 20, 2009, 02:08 PM	#10
beauetienne Junior Member Join Date: September 26, 2009 Location: Louisiana Posts: 8	My most accurate loads overall have been with IMR 4895.