I'm loving this Supreme 780 powder

Doodlebugger45 · October 29, 2010, 01:31 PM

I loaded up some 7mm mag last night with this stuff. I don't know how well it will shoot yet, but it sure is easy to meter. It's ball powder and meters just like the best pistol powder. With my perfect powder measure, most loads were dead on. I only loaded up 15 of them, but I only had 2 that were off by 0.1 gr and I was weighing every load.

It is supposed to be pretty slow stuff, so hopefully it will work well with the 7 mag. The only downside is that the only place I could find load data was the Hodgdon website.

FrankenMauser · October 29, 2010, 03:02 PM

I love the stuff.

It is my go-to slow burn rate powder. (It is essentially a spherical equivalent to 4831.) I've had good luck with it in .220 Swift, .243 Win, .270 Win, .30-06, and 7.62x54R.

With my .220 Swift, the norm for a tuned load is a 100 yard group that can be covered with a dime. The first trip out with the W780, it set the new standard: One not-so-ragged hole at 100 yards. I know most people don't consider slow powders to be appropriate for .22 caliber cartridges, but the .22-250, .224 Weatherby, and .220 Swift love the slow stuff in rifles with longer barrels.

As you pointed out, the downside to the powder is the lack of load data. However, it is tens, maybe hundreds of times better now, than when the powder was first released. When I bought my first pound, Hodgdon listed 4 loads: 1 for the .243 Win (I didn't have one at that time), 1 for the .270 Win (in a bullet weight I avoid), and 2 loads for the .300 Win Mag.

No one, not even Sierra with their "Any Bullet, Any Powder, Any cartridge" promise, could help me with data. I ended up spending a great deal of time scouring reloading manuals to compile tables of data with powders in the 4831 burn rate class. Until I loaded for the '06, all of the loads were completely improvised/extrapolated/calculated. Now that most of my loads do have data available from Hodgdon, my old loads all fall within the min-max boundaries

. It was one of the easiest powders I've ever worked with, for extrapolated/calculated data.

flashhole · October 30, 2010, 06:32 AM

I shoot a 7mm RM. I'd be interested in your data and the range results as well. My go-to slow powder has been Retumbo. If 780 has a burn rate similar to 4831 it will be faster than Retumbo, at least that's what the burn rate charts say. I use Retumbo for my 25-06 as well with excellent results but it is not always on the shelves so having an alternative would be helpful. Good luck with it and please post your results.

October 29, 2010, 01:31 PM	#1
Doodlebugger45 Senior Member Join Date: April 15, 2009 Location: Wyoming Posts: 1,717	I'm loving this Supreme 780 powder I loaded up some 7mm mag last night with this stuff. I don't know how well it will shoot yet, but it sure is easy to meter. It's ball powder and meters just like the best pistol powder. With my perfect powder measure, most loads were dead on. I only loaded up 15 of them, but I only had 2 that were off by 0.1 gr and I was weighing every load. It is supposed to be pretty slow stuff, so hopefully it will work well with the 7 mag. The only downside is that the only place I could find load data was the Hodgdon website.

October 29, 2010, 03:02 PM	#2
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,424	I love the stuff. It is my go-to slow burn rate powder. (It is essentially a spherical equivalent to 4831.) I've had good luck with it in .220 Swift, .243 Win, .270 Win, .30-06, and 7.62x54R. With my .220 Swift, the norm for a tuned load is a 100 yard group that can be covered with a dime. The first trip out with the W780, it set the new standard: One not-so-ragged hole at 100 yards. I know most people don't consider slow powders to be appropriate for .22 caliber cartridges, but the .22-250, .224 Weatherby, and .220 Swift love the slow stuff in rifles with longer barrels. As you pointed out, the downside to the powder is the lack of load data. However, it is tens, maybe hundreds of times better now, than when the powder was first released. When I bought my first pound, Hodgdon listed 4 loads: 1 for the .243 Win (I didn't have one at that time), 1 for the .270 Win (in a bullet weight I avoid), and 2 loads for the .300 Win Mag. No one, not even Sierra with their "Any Bullet, Any Powder, Any cartridge" promise, could help me with data. I ended up spending a great deal of time scouring reloading manuals to compile tables of data with powders in the 4831 burn rate class. Until I loaded for the '06, all of the loads were completely improvised/extrapolated/calculated. Now that most of my loads do have data available from Hodgdon, my old loads all fall within the min-max boundaries . It was one of the easiest powders I've ever worked with, for extrapolated/calculated data. __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

October 30, 2010, 06:32 AM	#3
flashhole Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2005 Location: Owego, NY Posts: 2,000	I shoot a 7mm RM. I'd be interested in your data and the range results as well. My go-to slow powder has been Retumbo. If 780 has a burn rate similar to 4831 it will be faster than Retumbo, at least that's what the burn rate charts say. I use Retumbo for my 25-06 as well with excellent results but it is not always on the shelves so having an alternative would be helpful. Good luck with it and please post your results. __________________ ,,, stupidity comes to some people very easily. 8/22/2017 my wife in a discussion about Liberals. Are you ready for civil war?