30-06 powders - Page 2

ShootistPRS · January 6, 2017, 05:23 PM

Very valid point Unclenick. I must have missed the mention of this being a semi-auto. H4895 does have loads for semi-autos.

Paul B. · January 6, 2017, 06:19 PM

Uncle Nick said:
"It was actually IMR 4895. Back when 30-06 was still a common match cartridge (50's and 60's), Hodgdon was a relatively new business (started in 1952) and his H4895 was rebranded surplus IMR 4895. Government manufactured match ammunition used bulk grade IMR 4895.

The current H4895 is Australian made low temperature sensitivity powder (part of Hodgdon's Extreme line) with a similar burn rate at standard temperatures, though most manuals use a little less H4895 than they do IMR 4895 in .30-06 loads, indicating the H4895 is a little faster. Perhaps it is made to match whatever surplus lot Hodgdon had when they made the switch. I don't know, but if you ask them they might tell you."

Interesting stuff, that H4895. After the war,(WW2) IMR 4895 was about as scarce as hen's teeth so what was available was what Hodgden had. It came in large kegs and you scooped it into a bag and paid your money. You got a load data sheet of sorts that would say, "Use 3031 data" or "Use 4320 data". Some even said "Use 4064 data". Finally Hodgden combined the whole mess into on homogenous powder that came close to IMR 4895 but was slightly slower. How or why current IMR 4895 is now slower than Hodgden's version is beyond me.
That old stuff was darn good powder and cheap. A paper bag with about a pound in it was something like fifty cents as I recall. I burned a lot of that powder in my old 1917 Enfield I had way back then. That and a whole lot of 150 gr. Sierra spitzer flat base bullets. They didn't call them Pro-Hunters back then.
Paul B.

Mike / Tx · January 7, 2017, 09:05 AM

I have had some very accurate loads using H4895 myself in both the several '06's that we have as well as my .308 using both 150 and 165'ish grain bullets.

Never had a real need for anything heavier. A couple of years ago I picked up a couple boxes of REM CL's in both calibers and worked up loads for both using REM bulk bullets in 150&165gre using H4985. Both calibers easily matched the factory velocity's as well as topping the accuracy. Best part was that the factory and handloads both shot close enough to each other that in a pinch I can just use factory if I run out or forget my loads at the house. Yep been there dun that....
I

reinert · January 7, 2017, 10:40 AM

Another vote here for IMR 4350. I've found it works very well using the Hornady 165, 180 and 190grn. B.T.S.P.s in all my '06s. I understand Hornady discontinued the 190grn. B.T.S.P.s. I'm glad I have a fair supply of those on hand. They're a great elk hunting bullet.

Rifletom · January 7, 2017, 12:46 PM

Wendy, earlier I mentioned H4350 for 165/168 and 180gr bullets. For the 150's, IMR 4064 was and is an excellent choice. Just thought I'd add that.

Wendyj · January 7, 2017, 04:22 PM

You can see RL 22 3 shot group in the summer.

Wendyj · January 7, 2017, 04:24 PM

This is picture in winter. Five shot group but no where close to summer group

GeauxTide · January 7, 2017, 08:21 PM

In four 30-06 rifles of different manufacture and having 10" twist, 52gr of 4064 under 150 Sierra, Speer, or Hornady produced 5/8" groups, SD of 9.9, and ES of 26fps at 2950.

Rifletom · January 7, 2017, 09:49 PM

^^^Matches my 150 loads perfectly.

kilimanjaro · January 7, 2017, 10:26 PM

4895 is my go-to powder for the WWII 30-caliber cartridges.

Slamfire · January 8, 2017, 03:08 PM

I think both groups are fine. This really reads as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/09...ooter-fallacy/ Try shooting some 20 shot groups. Five shot groups don't provide much information about the inherent accuracy of any load, and both of your groups may fit inside a 20 shot group, (better yet, 40 shot groups).

Quote:

I loaded it up with 59 grains of RL 22 and in 80 degree weather it was shooting sub 1/2 groups at 100 and close to same at 200. Went last week and shot some in 35 degree weather.

I have shot in competition in 100 F weather, and I have shot XTC matches in the snow. I have never shot in extreme temperatures conditions as well as I do in nice, sunny 50-60 F weather. I am plenty warm in 50 F weather because I wear a quilted shooting jacket! In cold weather I wrap my cold hands around the rifle barrel after a rapid fire sequence to warm up my cold fingers. It is hard to shoot straight when you can't feel your index finger!

Don't expect to shoot as well in frosty winter as in spring time.

By the way, the 1:10 twist will shoot 125 grain through 220 grain 30 caliber bullets equally well. I think the Krag used a 1:10 and a 220, and the original 30-06 may have been a 220 with a 1:10 twist barrel. I have shot tens of thousands of 190's in 1:10 twist 30 caliber barrels. I had buds shooting 125 grain 308 bullets, standing and sitting rapid fire, in their 1:10 twist M1a barrels. I have shot good groups in a 1:10 with 110 grain varmint loads.

ShootistPRS · January 8, 2017, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Slamfire said:By the way, the 1:10 twist will shoot 125 grain through 220 grain 30 caliber bullets equally well. I think the Krag used a 1:10 and a 220, and the original 30-06 may have been a 220 with a 1:10 twist barrel. I have shot tens of thousands of 190's in 1:10 twist 30 caliber barrels. I had buds shooting 125 grain 308 bullets, standing and sitting rapid fire, in their 1:10 twist M1a barrels. I have shot good groups in a 1:10 with 110 grain varmint loads.

My 3006 printed 220 grain bullets sideways on a 100 yard target. It is an 03A3 with 1:10 rifling. I was shooting at sea level +100 feet at most in cool temps and in low humidity. Apparently not all 30 caliber guns will shoot 220 grain bullets with a 1:10 twist.

Slamfire · January 8, 2017, 04:42 PM

Quote:

My 3006 printed 220 grain bullets sideways on a 100 yard target. It is an 03A3 with 1:10 rifling. I was shooting at sea level +100 feet at most in cool temps and in low humidity. Apparently not all 30 caliber guns will shoot 220 grain bullets with a 1:10 twist.

That's weird. I have shot 220 ish grain cast bullets out of my M1903A3 and Ruger #1, both 1:10 twist barrels and they did OK. Cast bullets require a lot of experimentation to make them shoot reasonably well. I tried 174 ish grain cast bullets in my M1a, it has a 1:10 twist, they keyholed and I gave up the experiment. My two grove M1903A3 shoots cast better than the four groove.

I have shot 200 grain bullets in my 1:10 30-06 Match rifle all the way to 1000 yards. They did not keyhole, they will shoot Master to HM at 600 yard. I am the limiting factory at 1000 yards, I really struggle at 1000 yards. I never shot 220 grain 308 bullets because, I don't have any, and I never bought any because the 200 grain bullets kick hard enough for me not to go looking for ways to increase the pain.

supercub99 · January 9, 2017, 02:05 AM

Quote:

"My 3006 printed 220 grain bullets sideways on a 100 yard target. It is an 03A3 with 1:10 rifling. I was shooting at sea level +100 feet at most in cool temps and in low humidity. Apparently not all 30 caliber guns will shoot 220 grain bullets with a 1:10 twist."

You have a problem with your bore. My guess is the throat is eaten out for several inches if not more. I have/had more 1903's and A3's than I care to think about and all of them with the exception of one shot 125 to 220 gr bullets very well. There were more 03's and A3's used to make sporters out of after the wars than you can imagine. They used 220 gr bullets as common as anything else.
That one 03 that wouldn't shoot them?....it was a Springfield Mark 1 in 100% original condition. It had served honor duty at national cemeteries after the war and shot thousands of blanks without cleaning. The first almost 1/3 of the barrel was eaten out, the rest was fine. Keyholes at 50 yards was the result. You could drop a throat gauge down that gun and if it weren't for the 90 deg. handle with would have fallen down a long ways.
I would have that bore looked at with a scope and see what it looks like. Other than that it would be a nasty crown problem or a real light load?

It isn't the norm, that's for sure.

Kurt

**Unclenick** · January 9, 2017, 11:56 AM

May or may not be a problem. The .30-40 Krag shot a 200 grain bullet and the .30-03 shot a 220 grain bullet. (.30-06 was developed when the switch to 150 grain Spitzer was made.) Both the Krag and .30-03 bullets, however, were round nose, so they were short compared, at the other extreme, a 220 grain VLD.

Folks easily forget that it is bullet length that primarily determines how much twist it will need. The more weight you cram into its length, the less twist you need, but only in proportion to the square root of that mass, where the proportion is directly related to length. You see this in the full version of the old Greenhill formula (here you see length in the denominator because the twist unit is expressed as pitch, which is in unit length/turn, rather than as twist, which is in turns/unit length, and which would require Greenhill to be rearranged to put length the numerator).

So, whether the keyhole meant there is a gun problem or if it were simply due to an over-long bullet, or a normally long bullet combined with inadequate velocity (another factor that reduces required spin), I can't say.

Paul B.,

The burn rate discrepancy will be due to the fact the surplus IMR 4895 Hodgdon bought (the way he started his business) was bulk grade powder. If you look at National Match loads of IMR 4895 bulk powder, you find they varied from 46.0 grains to 48.5 grains between 1961 and 1966, with the lighter loads actually producing higher tested velocities (the tolerances allow a 60 fps span, IIRC). The burn rates of the bulk grades of powder used during those years clearly varied a good bit, and Hodgdon's purchase must have been powder on the faster end of the range.

The powders developed for the reloading market specifically, are called canister grade powders. They go through additional testing and adjusting to make the burn rate more consistent and closer to the powder type's nominal value. This is necessary because handloaders don't typically own pressure testing equipment to adjust their charge weights with, where commercial loaders of new ammunition do. The tighter burn rate tolerance is needed for load manual recipes to remain valid. Bulk powder burn rates vary too much for that to work, but they cost less to produce.

RC20 · January 9, 2017, 12:23 PM

Unclenick: For 30-06:

Rather than go through all the calcs etc, can you tell us what twist would be more likely to stabilize the 190 acu bond if its one that is on the stability edge?

And even with the newer bullets from Hornady and Sierra are we seeing a shift to say 175 gr norm for a 1-10 twist?

**Unclenick** · January 9, 2017, 05:42 PM

Well, the only way I can tell is to go through the calculations. You can too, though, pretty easily. Go to the stability calculator at the JBM site. At the bottom they have a gyroscopic stability estimator. You plug in the weather conditions and the muzzle velocity you will get and your twist. On the left of the screen is also a link to a list of bullet lengths to use with it.

In this case if I assume a 24" barrel and 10" twist and ICAO standard conditions, then this 1.46" long bullet, with what looks like a 0.15" plastic tip, gets a stability factor of 1.962, which is plenty stable. Anything below about 1.3 can begin to be an issue, and 1.4 or higher is wanted for match accuracy. Even dropping temperature to -40° and MV to 2400 fps, it still exceeds a stability factor of 1.5, so I think you are good to go. Go back to that calculator with your actual shooting conditions to be sure.

RC20 · January 10, 2017, 01:52 PM

Thanks, I have a lot of things that make my head hurt but looks like a good one to get using.

jumpingeezer · January 10, 2017, 02:09 PM

I do use H4831 in the 30-06 and I have had very good luck with it. I have used it for many years with the heavier 180 and 190gr. Hornady Interlock bullets that I still favor for hunting.

I have also used RL 22 with those same bullets and have always had excellent results with it. I never noticed any change in accuracy due to temperature variations.

jimbob86 · January 10, 2017, 02:21 PM

Wendyj, what primer are you using?

I had wild velocity swings at low temps with large charges of slow burning powders in my .270WIN ....magnum primers pretty well cured that.

Wendyj · January 10, 2017, 05:01 PM

I use br2 match primers in everything but magnums and I use Remington 9.5 magnum primers in those.

jimbob86 · January 10, 2017, 06:04 PM

RL-22 is a very slow powder .....rework your load using CCI 250's and see if that does not solve the cold temp iregularities issue.

RC20 · January 10, 2017, 07:11 PM

Good thoughts there.

Usually the magnums are only needed for Ball powder, not sure what R-22 is.

jimbob86 · January 10, 2017, 10:49 PM

I've not used RL-22 ...... it is usually behind IMR7828 on the burn charts ..... and large charges of 7828 call for magnum primers, IME.

Rifletom · January 11, 2017, 09:19 AM

Rel#22 gave me fits. It was accurate enough, just too finicky between hot and colder temps. Loss of fps in cold temps difference in POI also. This was observed in my 25-06 and two 7mm RM's. Never tried it in a 30-06. H4831sc is what the 25-06 gets now and works great. Rel#25 for the 7mm RM's now.
Just some info for ya.

January 6, 2017, 06:19 PM	#27
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,801	Uncle Nick said: "It was actually IMR 4895. Back when 30-06 was still a common match cartridge (50's and 60's), Hodgdon was a relatively new business (started in 1952) and his H4895 was rebranded surplus IMR 4895. Government manufactured match ammunition used bulk grade IMR 4895. The current H4895 is Australian made low temperature sensitivity powder (part of Hodgdon's Extreme line) with a similar burn rate at standard temperatures, though most manuals use a little less H4895 than they do IMR 4895 in .30-06 loads, indicating the H4895 is a little faster. Perhaps it is made to match whatever surplus lot Hodgdon had when they made the switch. I don't know, but if you ask them they might tell you." Interesting stuff, that H4895. After the war,(WW2) IMR 4895 was about as scarce as hen's teeth so what was available was what Hodgden had. It came in large kegs and you scooped it into a bag and paid your money. You got a load data sheet of sorts that would say, "Use 3031 data" or "Use 4320 data". Some even said "Use 4064 data". Finally Hodgden combined the whole mess into on homogenous powder that came close to IMR 4895 but was slightly slower. How or why current IMR 4895 is now slower than Hodgden's version is beyond me. That old stuff was darn good powder and cheap. A paper bag with about a pound in it was something like fifty cents as I recall. I burned a lot of that powder in my old 1917 Enfield I had way back then. That and a whole lot of 150 gr. Sierra spitzer flat base bullets. They didn't call them Pro-Hunters back then. Paul B. __________________ COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!

January 7, 2017, 09:05 AM	#28
Mike / Tx Senior Member Join Date: April 8, 2000 Posts: 2,101	I have had some very accurate loads using H4895 myself in both the several '06's that we have as well as my .308 using both 150 and 165'ish grain bullets. Never had a real need for anything heavier. A couple of years ago I picked up a couple boxes of REM CL's in both calibers and worked up loads for both using REM bulk bullets in 150&165gre using H4985. Both calibers easily matched the factory velocity's as well as topping the accuracy. Best part was that the factory and handloads both shot close enough to each other that in a pinch I can just use factory if I run out or forget my loads at the house. Yep been there dun that.... I __________________ LAter, Mike / TX

January 9, 2017, 11:56 AM	#40
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,061	May or may not be a problem. The .30-40 Krag shot a 200 grain bullet and the .30-03 shot a 220 grain bullet. (.30-06 was developed when the switch to 150 grain Spitzer was made.) Both the Krag and .30-03 bullets, however, were round nose, so they were short compared, at the other extreme, a 220 grain VLD. Folks easily forget that it is bullet length that primarily determines how much twist it will need. The more weight you cram into its length, the less twist you need, but only in proportion to the square root of that mass, where the proportion is directly related to length. You see this in the full version of the old Greenhill formula (here you see length in the denominator because the twist unit is expressed as pitch, which is in unit length/turn, rather than as twist, which is in turns/unit length, and which would require Greenhill to be rearranged to put length the numerator). So, whether the keyhole meant there is a gun problem or if it were simply due to an over-long bullet, or a normally long bullet combined with inadequate velocity (another factor that reduces required spin), I can't say. Paul B., The burn rate discrepancy will be due to the fact the surplus IMR 4895 Hodgdon bought (the way he started his business) was bulk grade powder. If you look at National Match loads of IMR 4895 bulk powder, you find they varied from 46.0 grains to 48.5 grains between 1961 and 1966, with the lighter loads actually producing higher tested velocities (the tolerances allow a 60 fps span, IIRC). The burn rates of the bulk grades of powder used during those years clearly varied a good bit, and Hodgdon's purchase must have been powder on the faster end of the range. The powders developed for the reloading market specifically, are called canister grade powders. They go through additional testing and adjusting to make the burn rate more consistent and closer to the powder type's nominal value. This is necessary because handloaders don't typically own pressure testing equipment to adjust their charge weights with, where commercial loaders of new ammunition do. The tighter burn rate tolerance is needed for load manual recipes to remain valid. Bulk powder burn rates vary too much for that to work, but they cost less to produce. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

January 9, 2017, 05:42 PM	#42
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,061	Well, the only way I can tell is to go through the calculations. You can too, though, pretty easily. Go to the stability calculator at the JBM site. At the bottom they have a gyroscopic stability estimator. You plug in the weather conditions and the muzzle velocity you will get and your twist. On the left of the screen is also a link to a list of bullet lengths to use with it. In this case if I assume a 24" barrel and 10" twist and ICAO standard conditions, then this 1.46" long bullet, with what looks like a 0.15" plastic tip, gets a stability factor of 1.962, which is plenty stable. Anything below about 1.3 can begin to be an issue, and 1.4 or higher is wanted for match accuracy. Even dropping temperature to -40° and MV to 2400 fps, it still exceeds a stability factor of 1.5, so I think you are good to go. Go back to that calculator with your actual shooting conditions to be sure. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

January 10, 2017, 05:01 PM	#46
Wendyj Senior Member Join Date: April 3, 2015 Location: North Georgia Posts: 1,372	I use br2 match primers in everything but magnums and I use Remington 9.5 magnum primers in those. __________________ God is NOT dead!!!!

January 6, 2017, 05:23 PM	#26
ShootistPRS Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2017 Posts: 1,583	Very valid point Unclenick. I must have missed the mention of this being a semi-auto. H4895 does have loads for semi-autos.

January 7, 2017, 10:40 AM	#29
reinert Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2008 Posts: 646	Another vote here for IMR 4350. I've found it works very well using the Hornady 165, 180 and 190grn. B.T.S.P.s in all my '06s. I understand Hornady discontinued the 190grn. B.T.S.P.s. I'm glad I have a fair supply of those on hand. They're a great elk hunting bullet.

January 7, 2017, 12:46 PM	#30
Rifletom Senior Member Join Date: February 11, 2011 Location: So-Cal Posts: 786	Wendy, earlier I mentioned H4350 for 165/168 and 180gr bullets. For the 150's, IMR 4064 was and is an excellent choice. Just thought I'd add that.

January 7, 2017, 08:21 PM	#33
GeauxTide Senior Member Join Date: April 20, 2009 Location: Helena, AL Posts: 4,423	In four 30-06 rifles of different manufacture and having 10" twist, 52gr of 4064 under 150 Sierra, Speer, or Hornady produced 5/8" groups, SD of 9.9, and ES of 26fps at 2950.

January 7, 2017, 09:49 PM	#34
Rifletom Senior Member Join Date: February 11, 2011 Location: So-Cal Posts: 786	^^^Matches my 150 loads perfectly.

January 7, 2017, 10:26 PM	#35
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	4895 is my go-to powder for the WWII 30-caliber cartridges.

January 9, 2017, 02:05 AM	#39
supercub99 Senior Member Join Date: September 30, 2012 Location: Alaska Posts: 146	Quote: "My 3006 printed 220 grain bullets sideways on a 100 yard target. It is an 03A3 with 1:10 rifling. I was shooting at sea level +100 feet at most in cool temps and in low humidity. Apparently not all 30 caliber guns will shoot 220 grain bullets with a 1:10 twist." You have a problem with your bore. My guess is the throat is eaten out for several inches if not more. I have/had more 1903's and A3's than I care to think about and all of them with the exception of one shot 125 to 220 gr bullets very well. There were more 03's and A3's used to make sporters out of after the wars than you can imagine. They used 220 gr bullets as common as anything else. That one 03 that wouldn't shoot them?....it was a Springfield Mark 1 in 100% original condition. It had served honor duty at national cemeteries after the war and shot thousands of blanks without cleaning. The first almost 1/3 of the barrel was eaten out, the rest was fine. Keyholes at 50 yards was the result. You could drop a throat gauge down that gun and if it weren't for the 90 deg. handle with would have fallen down a long ways. I would have that bore looked at with a scope and see what it looks like. Other than that it would be a nasty crown problem or a real light load? It isn't the norm, that's for sure. Kurt

January 9, 2017, 12:23 PM	#41
RC20 Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 7,014	Unclenick: For 30-06: Rather than go through all the calcs etc, can you tell us what twist would be more likely to stabilize the 190 acu bond if its one that is on the stability edge? And even with the newer bullets from Hornady and Sierra are we seeing a shift to say 175 gr norm for a 1-10 twist?

January 10, 2017, 01:52 PM	#43
RC20 Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 7,014	Thanks, I have a lot of things that make my head hurt but looks like a good one to get using.

January 10, 2017, 02:09 PM	#44
jumpingeezer Member Join Date: November 19, 2015 Posts: 88	I do use H4831 in the 30-06 and I have had very good luck with it. I have used it for many years with the heavier 180 and 190gr. Hornady Interlock bullets that I still favor for hunting. I have also used RL 22 with those same bullets and have always had excellent results with it. I never noticed any change in accuracy due to temperature variations.

January 10, 2017, 02:21 PM	#45
jimbob86 Junior member Join Date: October 4, 2007 Location: All the way to NEBRASKA Posts: 8,722	Wendyj, what primer are you using? I had wild velocity swings at low temps with large charges of slow burning powders in my .270WIN ....magnum primers pretty well cured that.

January 10, 2017, 06:04 PM	#47
jimbob86 Junior member Join Date: October 4, 2007 Location: All the way to NEBRASKA Posts: 8,722	RL-22 is a very slow powder .....rework your load using CCI 250's and see if that does not solve the cold temp iregularities issue.

January 10, 2017, 07:11 PM	#48
RC20 Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 7,014	Good thoughts there. Usually the magnums are only needed for Ball powder, not sure what R-22 is.

January 10, 2017, 10:49 PM	#49
jimbob86 Junior member Join Date: October 4, 2007 Location: All the way to NEBRASKA Posts: 8,722	I've not used RL-22 ...... it is usually behind IMR7828 on the burn charts ..... and large charges of 7828 call for magnum primers, IME.

January 11, 2017, 09:19 AM	#50
Rifletom Senior Member Join Date: February 11, 2011 Location: So-Cal Posts: 786	Rel#22 gave me fits. It was accurate enough, just too finicky between hot and colder temps. Loss of fps in cold temps difference in POI also. This was observed in my 25-06 and two 7mm RM's. Never tried it in a 30-06. H4831sc is what the 25-06 gets now and works great. Rel#25 for the 7mm RM's now. Just some info for ya.