The Firing Line Forums

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 1, 2000, 10:44 PM   #1
Juan Hunt Greer
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Posts: 449
I used to do a LOT of handloading for pistol calibers , but am just now setting up for c.f. rifle I would like to know reccommendations for a good,consistent powder for 308 with bullets in the 150 gr. range- not neccessarily for max loads.
thanx crankshaft
paranoia is the only sane outlook when THEY really, truly are out to get You!
Juan Hunt Greer is offline  
Old October 1, 2000, 11:36 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: November 21, 1999
Location: Madison, WI.... "78 Square Miles Surrounded by Reality"
Posts: 923
Hodgdon or IMR 4895 is the "classic" choice for 150gr bullets in the .308 Winchester. Alliant's Reloader 15 is another real good one with similar characteristics.
Kernel is offline  
Old October 2, 2000, 08:21 AM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1999
Location: Westerville, Ohio
Posts: 636
Varget is what I switched to from the IMR4895. Varget is not as sensitive to tempature variations as the 4895 appears to be.

mbott is offline  
Old October 2, 2000, 10:00 AM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 1998
Posts: 986
I like Win 748. Meters within .2 grain, right down to the 2nd to last charge from an almost-empty hopper. That's with both the Dillon slider-type measure and with a more conventional drum-type unit.
Cheapo is offline  
Old October 2, 2000, 11:39 AM   #5
Paul B.
Senior Member
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,234
Juan. I use WW-760 for all my .308 loads. I don't post loads on the forums, I will
E-mail them if you want.
With that said, there was an article on powders for the .308, where representatives from the different powder makers told which of their products was the all round best for the .308. Winchester said that WW-748 was designed expressly for the .308. I haven't tried it yet, but it is supposed to give higher velocity than WW-760.
I've used the 760 loads for years, ever since that powder came out, and I get great accuracy from rifles that are not exactly noted for being the most accurate.
Before that, I used H-335, but that powder gives an astonishily loud muzzle blast and a humongous ball of fire, easily seen at noon on a bright sunny day. Accurate? Yes. Pleasant to shoot? Not from a 20 inch barrel.
IMR-4895 is good, as is IMR-4064 in some rifles.
I would suggest you try different powders and see which one your rifle likes best.
Paul B.
Paul B. is offline  
Old October 2, 2000, 12:34 PM   #6
Join Date: May 7, 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 76
Paul B.,

Do you remember where you read that article? I would like to read it myself. Thanks
dongun is offline  
Old October 2, 2000, 07:46 PM   #7
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 517
Two of my favorites are Accurate 2230 and Win. 748. I can get more MV out of the Win. 748 but the 2230 for me has always been more accurate. The ball powders also have excellent metering qualities. Something else to remember is your fastest loadings aren't usally the most accurate.

A couple weeks ago I loaded up a 168 gr. bullet loading with A-2230 shot 3 shot group 1' to slightly under from 200 yards with my M1A Super Match (scoped). Was shooting from my range box and not bagged.

Last night I loaded up some 7.62 NATO same load and components but neck sizing only and bullet touching the rifle groves. Hopefully I'll get our this week and plan to bag the rifle this time.

This rifle has always been super accurate.


[This message has been edited by Turk (edited October 02, 2000).]
Turk is offline  
Old October 2, 2000, 11:46 PM   #8
Juan Hunt Greer
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Posts: 449
Thanks a lot, guys, now I at least hava a starting point. I plan to feload for 2 different 308s, a fal and a remington mod. 600 Mohawk ( which does what I consider rather well with Rem HPBT Match, about 1 1/8 " at 100yds with my aging eyes at the scope, not too bad for a lightweight short-action). Now I have a mark to work toward!
paranoia is a good thing to have when they actually are out to get You!
Juan Hunt Greer is offline  
Old October 3, 2000, 01:54 PM   #9
ol blue
Join Date: January 21, 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 62
IMR 4064 is another good powder to consider for the .308 and 150gr bullets. I've had good luck with it....ol blue
ol blue is offline  
Old October 3, 2000, 04:40 PM   #10
Paul B.
Senior Member
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,234
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dongun:
Paul B.,

Do you remember where you read that article? I would like to read it myself. Thanks

Dongun. The article is from the August 1994 SHOOTING TIMES. The title is THE .308 IN DEPTH, by Rick Jamison. His request was for powders that were best for 165 and 168 gr. bullets. From better than 30 years of playing with .308's, I'd say that most of the powders work well with other bullet weights as well.
It covers a lot more than just the best powders. A good article, if you can find it. I'll list the powders by maker, in case you cannot get a copy.
Hercules, now Alliant.....Re-15
Winchester (Olin).........W-748*
Accurate Arms.............AA2520
IMR (Formerly DuPont).....IMR-4064**
**I'm just now trying W-748. I worked up loads with W-760 and have had excellent results with it, although I don't get the highest velocity.

**The representative from IMR tried to fudge a bit by going with two other powders, IMR-4895 and IMR-3031. He finally settled on IMR-4064.
I would be a bit careful with both Alliant and IMR powders. They seem to bet just a touch faster burning than when they were made by Hercules and DuPont.

Anyway, that's the list of preferred powders from the manufacturors, as of August 1994. I'm sure there are some new powders that will work as well, but these will give you something to work with for some time.
Paul B.

[This message has been edited by Paul B. (edited October 04, 2000).]
Paul B. is offline  
Old October 4, 2000, 01:52 AM   #11
H&K Fan
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 1999
Posts: 138
I guess I'm the cheap b*****d in the bunch because I am partial to Hodgdon H-335 and BLC
(Lot 2) powders. They meter fairly well and have not let me down.
H&K Fan is offline  
Old October 4, 2000, 02:12 PM   #12
Paul B.
Senior Member
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,234
H&K Fan. H-335? That brings back memories. I used H-335 years ago, in my first .308. A Remington 660. I got it, because the Springfield 03 I was using weighed too darn much at 9,000 feet MSL and the 660 was almost two pounds less. I forget the charge I used with the 150 gr. bullets that I used at the time, but I will never forget the unusually load muzzle blast and the visible ball of fire that shot out of the muzzle of that rifle. It looked to be about three feet in diameter and was visible at high noon. My hunting buddy said it was the only rifle he ever saw that would kill the deer and cook it too. Even with hearing protection, it was a painful bang. I still have two cans of the stuff I bought back in the mid 70s. maybe I'll use it in my .223.
Paul B.
Paul B. is offline  
Old November 29, 2005, 09:40 PM   #13
Junior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2005
Posts: 1
I have come to appreciate the accuracy of the IMR powders, I use IMR 3031 and with my Remington 700 PSSLTR have shot many 3 shot 1 hole groups at 100yds. I will be trying the IMR 4064 next so as to need only 1 type of powder for both my .243 and .308 rifles. After looking over all of the reloading data, I have confidence this will be a good choice as well. The down side is that these powders don't meter very easily, but I have an automatic despinser that weighs it for me, so I am not as affected by this. Good luck on your reloads.
sergeantduncan is offline  
Old November 30, 2005, 01:00 PM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2002
Posts: 1,249
I like the extruded powders because they're generally cleaner and you don't get the big jump in velocity/pressure when the temperature goes up. For moderate loads, IMR4895 is a good one. Varget is excellent, but it seems like it's at it's best when you use a lot of it.
30Cal is offline  
Old November 30, 2005, 02:18 PM   #15
Zak Smith
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
For my bolt rifle, Varget seems to be an excellent choice for 155's up to 175's.
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old November 30, 2005, 07:25 PM   #16
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 260
a buddy of mine has been after me to try Varget for a long time an i finally did
now using it in both 243 an 308 since it works so well i'm going to try working it into my 22-250 .
MrGee is offline  
Old December 1, 2005, 01:52 PM   #17
Dave R
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2000
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,073
Don't ya love it when everyone agrees?

I'm another fan of H335 in both .308 and .223. I tried Varget as well, but I got slightly better groups with the H335. And I love the way it meters. And its economy. Yup, I get good muzzle fireballs with the .308 in a 22" barrel. Part of the fun.
I am Pro-Rights (on gun issues).
Dave R is offline  
Old December 1, 2005, 02:22 PM   #18
Harley Quinn
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2005
Location: State of KALI
Posts: 1,531
Imr 3031


I will throw in a bid on the IMR 3031. Been around a long time and avaliable all over. A very versitile powder. You are using a little less of it then the others which will go along with some economy of sorts. I also like IMR 4350 it can do this cartrige good and also the magnums.

Harley Quinn is offline  
Old December 2, 2005, 01:18 PM   #19
Join Date: July 28, 2005
Location: PA, Shoot: PA, OH
Posts: 51
My father-in-law's Remington 700P likes varget and H335 using 168gr bullets.
pittbug is offline  
Old December 2, 2005, 07:42 PM   #20
Senior Member
Join Date: October 15, 2004
Posts: 934
You're all right. The .308 is the least particular cartridge I have ever loaded for as far as powder goes. Everything from H-322 to H-414 has given at least acceptable results.
Leftoverdj is offline  
Old December 4, 2005, 04:00 PM   #21
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2005
Location: Pensacola, Fl
Posts: 3,070
It has been more years that I care to count since I did any reloading for .308, but back when I did I used IMR 3031 just about exclusively. It seemed to worked well for me. Oh, and what I was using was the Dupont variety, FWIW...
Formerly lived in Ga, but now I'm back in Tx! Aaaand, now I'm off to Fla...
gb_in_ga is offline  
Old December 4, 2005, 07:16 PM   #22
Senior Member
Join Date: January 1, 2002
Location: Athens,Georgia
Posts: 355
Well, my .308 doesn't seem to like Varget very mush, and its done OK with BL(C)-2 and H355. I picked up a pound of IMR-4895 today to try behind some 150gr bullets, so hopefully my results will be a little better.
Jason280 is offline  
Old December 4, 2005, 08:39 PM   #23
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 15,763
Varget does very well in most guns, but you need a near full-house load, which will likely be compressed with the 175 grain MK. It is Middleton Thompkins's powder of choice for the .308 using Winchester cases (maximum powder capacity brand) and the Sierra 155 grain MK Palma Match bullet design, shooting from Palma rifles (30" tubes commonly). It is one of the Hodgdon Extreme extruded rifle powders, as is H4895. Now that Hodgdon owns IMR, I don't know if the IMR equivalent powders will come to be identical to their Hodgdon equivalent numbers or not?

As to the ball powder, they do indeed burn cooler and meter better than the stick powders. I ran 2520 in matches one season with good results in the M14, but with one caveat: The ball powders have less space between the grains, so the flame front has a little harder time spreading. This means they need exceptional ignition. In the M14 I could get 10 rounds of 168 grain MK's to group 1.25" from sandbags at 100 yards in WW cases. This was a load developed for group size minimum. I then ran a flashhole deburring tool and hole uniformer into my cases and the same load began grouping 0.75" at 100 yards. I used the gun loaded that way the rest of the season and had a number clean prone targets from it in our local league (100 yards, reduced targets).

Before that experiment I'd have assumed deburring flashholes was something only a bench rest rig could benefit measurably from. I was wrong.

I later switched to Varget under the 175 gr. MK because at 600 yard slow-fire it seemed to group a little more consistantly than 2520 under either the 168 or the 175 grain MK. No better at 100 yards, though.


Last edited by Unclenick; December 4, 2005 at 11:53 PM.
Unclenick is offline  
Old December 4, 2005, 10:16 PM   #24
Senior Member
Join Date: March 13, 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 702
I just finished working up a load for a friend's Sako .308; using 46.0gr Varget, Hornady 150gr spires and CCI Large Rifle Mag primers I got a 100-yd, 4 shot group that measured 1.067". Second trial, different day, got four shots into 0.8." (Could not duplicate that with CCI 200 primers.)
cdoc42 is offline  
Old December 4, 2005, 11:39 PM   #25
Dave R
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2000
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,073
Yup. Speer recommends the magnum primers with H335, specifically because it needs exceptional ignition.

Unclenick's about got me convinced to start doing the flash hole deburr/uniform thing. Makes sense.
I am Pro-Rights (on gun issues).
Dave R is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 06:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09812 seconds with 8 queries