Winchester powder accuracy ?

Zak Smith · May 14, 2001, 12:12 AM

I reload for 308, 8x57, and I will be starting 243 soon.

IMR 4895 and 4064 are very popular, and have been used with success in matches. 4895 is the "classic" .308 powder.

How accurate are the Winchester powders 748 and 760, when compared to the corresponding IMR powders?

Given that I measure to a tenth of a grain, is it possible to get Win748 as accurate as 4895, or 760 as accurate as 4064?

thanks
-z

**Bud Helms** · May 14, 2001, 02:24 AM

W748 an 760 are both ball powders and meter better than any stick powders you'll ever try. Is that the accuracy you are asking about? Accuracy of charges through a measure?

Zak Smith · May 14, 2001, 02:27 AM

They are ball powders and meter quite well - within a couple tenths, consistent. When I want more consistent loads, I still dribble until the scale is exactly on the weight I'm shooting for.

But, no, I am referring to, for lack of a better term, ignition and burn consistency. Given exactly the same powder charge (45.00gr, for example), will the powder column burn consistently from shot to shot ?

-z

bk40 · May 14, 2001, 04:22 AM

smithz,

Take a look at Varget also. Works best for me with my 7-08... should be very good in .308 and maybe .243

4064 is not a ball powder, its a short extruded type powder.

My guess is that extruded/flake powders will burn more consistently than ball in your scenario... but, I could be wrong

Cheapo · May 14, 2001, 10:25 AM

748 must burn consistently, because it is known for producing very consistent loads (including consistent velocities) in .308 and many other rifle calibers.

Comparing powders is often difficult. There really is no "corresponding" Ball powder for a certain IMR stick powder, because there are chemical and burn differences between the two, regardless of what any "burn rate chart" tells you.

Paul B. · May 14, 2001, 02:46 PM

Just my .02. I use a lot of W-748. W-760 amd WMR (unfortunately discontinued. They meter very well through my powder measures. I used 748 in 30-30, and 760 in my .308's. According to Winchester/Olin, 748 is THE powder for .308. Mine just does not like it. Go figure. The WMR gets used in .270 Win. and .300 Win Mag.
When starting out, I check weigh every round for the first ten rounds. Then every five rounds for the next twenty rounds. If all is well, and it usually is, then I check weigh every tenth round till the batch is fully loaded.
Powders like 4895, 4046 etc, don't meter well enough in my measures for me to load as I do with the ball powders.
Accuracy? My 30-30 does 1.5 to 1.75 inches, the .308 averages 1.0 to 1.25 inches and the .300 mag and .270 both run .75 inches. Works for me.
Paul B.

Zak Smith · May 14, 2001, 03:02 PM

Paul, yes, the reason I am querying about 748 and 760 is that they meter so consistently. I have the standard RCBS powder measure and it works well with these powders.

I normally calibrate the measure, check it again, then check every 10th charge, and then check at the end to see if it's "drifted" at all. Finally, I visually inspect the powder level in all the cartridges from above as they sit in the cartridge block.

I would, however, be willing to take more time measuring extruded powder if it gave me a noticable accuracy improvement.

-z

**Bud Helms** · May 14, 2001, 03:24 PM

I understand that 4895 is available as 4895SC (short cut) to help alleviate the metering problems. The rods are cut shorter and the "bridging" problems are lessened. I don't remember if Hodgdon or IMR (or both) are doing this.

Zak Smith · May 14, 2001, 03:28 PM

Bridging? Is that when individual grains are caught in-between the various moving parts in the measure?

-z

Walt Welch · May 14, 2001, 06:34 PM

Yep, that is 'bridging', all right. Walt

May 14, 2001, 12:12 AM	#1
Zak Smith Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 1999 Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA Posts: 2,682	I reload for 308, 8x57, and I will be starting 243 soon. IMR 4895 and 4064 are very popular, and have been used with success in matches. 4895 is the "classic" .308 powder. How accurate are the Winchester powders 748 and 760, when compared to the corresponding IMR powders? Given that I measure to a tenth of a grain, is it possible to get Win748 as accurate as 4895, or 760 as accurate as 4064? thanks -z

May 14, 2001, 02:24 AM	#2
Bud Helms Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 1999 Location: Middle Georgia, USA Posts: 13,198	W748 an 760 are both ball powders and meter better than any stick powders you'll ever try. Is that the accuracy you are asking about? Accuracy of charges through a measure?

May 14, 2001, 02:27 AM	#3
Zak Smith Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 1999 Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA Posts: 2,682	They are ball powders and meter quite well - within a couple tenths, consistent. When I want more consistent loads, I still dribble until the scale is exactly on the weight I'm shooting for. But, no, I am referring to, for lack of a better term, ignition and burn consistency. Given exactly the same powder charge (45.00gr, for example), will the powder column burn consistently from shot to shot ? -z

May 14, 2001, 04:22 AM	#4
bk40 Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 1999 Location: Mississippi Posts: 1,004	smithz, Take a look at Varget also. Works best for me with my 7-08... should be very good in .308 and maybe .243 4064 is not a ball powder, its a short extruded type powder. My guess is that extruded/flake powders will burn more consistently than ball in your scenario... but, I could be wrong

May 14, 2001, 10:25 AM	#5
Cheapo Senior Member Join Date: November 19, 1998 Posts: 986	748 must burn consistently, because it is known for producing very consistent loads (including consistent velocities) in .308 and many other rifle calibers. Comparing powders is often difficult. There really is no "corresponding" Ball powder for a certain IMR stick powder, because there are chemical and burn differences between the two, regardless of what any "burn rate chart" tells you.

May 14, 2001, 02:46 PM	#6
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,802	Just my .02. I use a lot of W-748. W-760 amd WMR (unfortunately discontinued. They meter very well through my powder measures. I used 748 in 30-30, and 760 in my .308's. According to Winchester/Olin, 748 is THE powder for .308. Mine just does not like it. Go figure. The WMR gets used in .270 Win. and .300 Win Mag. When starting out, I check weigh every round for the first ten rounds. Then every five rounds for the next twenty rounds. If all is well, and it usually is, then I check weigh every tenth round till the batch is fully loaded. Powders like 4895, 4046 etc, don't meter well enough in my measures for me to load as I do with the ball powders. Accuracy? My 30-30 does 1.5 to 1.75 inches, the .308 averages 1.0 to 1.25 inches and the .300 mag and .270 both run .75 inches. Works for me. Paul B.

May 14, 2001, 03:02 PM	#7
Zak Smith Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 1999 Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA Posts: 2,682	Paul, yes, the reason I am querying about 748 and 760 is that they meter so consistently. I have the standard RCBS powder measure and it works well with these powders. I normally calibrate the measure, check it again, then check every 10th charge, and then check at the end to see if it's "drifted" at all. Finally, I visually inspect the powder level in all the cartridges from above as they sit in the cartridge block. I would, however, be willing to take more time measuring extruded powder if it gave me a noticable accuracy improvement. -z

May 14, 2001, 03:24 PM	#8
Bud Helms Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 1999 Location: Middle Georgia, USA Posts: 13,198	I understand that 4895 is available as 4895SC (short cut) to help alleviate the metering problems. The rods are cut shorter and the "bridging" problems are lessened. I don't remember if Hodgdon or IMR (or both) are doing this.

May 14, 2001, 03:28 PM	#9
Zak Smith Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 1999 Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA Posts: 2,682	Bridging? Is that when individual grains are caught in-between the various moving parts in the measure? -z

May 14, 2001, 06:34 PM	#10
Walt Welch Senior Member Join Date: November 3, 1998 Location: Alamo, CA Posts: 424	Yep, that is 'bridging', all right. Walt