The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 14, 2001, 12:12 AM   #1
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
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
Zak Smith is offline  
Old May 14, 2001, 02:24 AM   #2
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,000
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?
Bud Helms is offline  
Old May 14, 2001, 02:27 AM   #3
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
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
Zak Smith is offline  
Old 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
bk40 is offline  
Old 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.
Cheapo is offline  
Old May 14, 2001, 02:46 PM   #6
Paul B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,619
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.
Paul B. is offline  
Old May 14, 2001, 03:02 PM   #7
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
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
Zak Smith is offline  
Old May 14, 2001, 03:24 PM   #8
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,000
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.
Bud Helms is offline  
Old May 14, 2001, 03:28 PM   #9
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
Bridging? Is that when individual grains are caught in-between the various moving parts in the measure?

-z
Zak Smith is offline  
Old 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
Walt Welch is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08039 seconds with 9 queries