First load
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Joined
·
37,100 Posts
If it's labeled "4831SC" then the grains of powder are shorter and flow through a measure easier. Data is the same.
FYI, I just got to reloading for a "new" .270 - it was a .30-06 Savage with a bad barrel, and a Midway .270 barrel restored it to life. I have H4350 on hand (the short cut version actually) and it worked great. Using some couch cushions for a rest, and using a 4x scope in a hard crosswind with a 6+lb creepy trigger, was still getting groups around 1.5" inches at 100 yards. This was with Ballistic Tips (varmit load!) and some old Speer Grand Slam bullets that I found a partial box of.
Have fixed the trigger and have high hopes for improvement.....
Good luck to you.
FYI, I just got to reloading for a "new" .270 - it was a .30-06 Savage with a bad barrel, and a Midway .270 barrel restored it to life. I have H4350 on hand (the short cut version actually) and it worked great. Using some couch cushions for a rest, and using a 4x scope in a hard crosswind with a 6+lb creepy trigger, was still getting groups around 1.5" inches at 100 yards. This was with Ballistic Tips (varmit load!) and some old Speer Grand Slam bullets that I found a partial box of.
Have fixed the trigger and have high hopes for improvement.....
Good luck to you.
Joined
·
13,632 Posts
The powder's original form is a longer grain stick, while the short cut, as the name implies, is a shorter stick, with some modification to the powder formulation or to the grain perforations so the burning rate isn't increased by cutting it shorter.
Short grains usually meter to a more consistent throw from a powder measure. However, the longer grains usually ignite more readily. If you are weighing charges rather than throwing from a measure, I would get the longer grain version if I could. Even if you are throwing from a measure, the ignition superiority may still outweigh charge precision as in the example below. You just have to try it to find out.
In Hatcher's Notebook, Gen. Julian Hatcher describes working up National Match ammunition one year (the Frankford Arsenal used to roll all the ammunition used at the National Matches back when they were still considered a function of military practice for civilians that might one day be drafted) with powder candidates that boiled down to a long grain and a short grain powder, both similar to what later became IMR 4320. The powder metering on the arsenal loading machines could hold the short grain to an extreme spread of 0.6 grains in charge (+/- 0.3 grains), while it could only hold the long grain version to an extreme spread of 1.7 grains (+/- 0.85 grains). The former is decent even by modern commercial standards, but the latter is well below what home reloading measures today will do. Nonetheless, he said that in machine rest test firing, the coarse grain loads, with all that variation, produced consistently more accurate ammunition than the more accurately metered fine grain loads, and was selected to load that year's National Match ammunition.
Hatcher said some know-it-all at the matches that year pulled down enough of the ammunition to discover the wide charge variance, and declared that it was no good. This fellow conveniently ignored the fact several records were set with it that year. Hatcher believed the accuracy had to do with the superior ignition characteristics of the coarse grain, which lets the flame front move freely through the large spaces between the grains. The explanation goes no further, though others have observed some of the IMR powders seem to be less "pressure sensitive" than some others. The ability of IMR 4895 to produce accurate ammunition even in load densities as low as 60% being one of the better known examples.
So, you can't be sure without testing in your gun which powder cut will really do best? You'll have to run them side by side. My concern about the SC and SSC versions of some popular powders has been that they were concessions to complaints by fellows like the one who pulled the ammo at the national matches in Hatcher's tale, and not that they actually demonstrate better shooting performance. But that could also be wrong. Like all things for reloading, you just have to do a side by side with your loads and equipment to see how they do for you, and not for some theoretical consideration?
Sierra's manual lists only the IMR 4831 SC version with the 130 grain SBT, but the load should apply to both. If you have both powders the lot numbers will be different, so they would have to be worked up separately if you want to compare the two? [EDIT: BAD DATA REMOVED per error noted in following posts] In Winchester cases with Winchester WLR primers, seated to 3.300" COL, they list H4831 SC 52.1 to 59.2 maximum. The load was developed in a Savage 116, and not a test barrel, so the chamber was not likely a minimum chamber. That means, if your chamber is tight chamber its maximums may be lower. I would be tempted, for that reason, to start at more like 61 grains, just to be sure, and watch carefully for pressure signs during load work up.
Short grains usually meter to a more consistent throw from a powder measure. However, the longer grains usually ignite more readily. If you are weighing charges rather than throwing from a measure, I would get the longer grain version if I could. Even if you are throwing from a measure, the ignition superiority may still outweigh charge precision as in the example below. You just have to try it to find out.
In Hatcher's Notebook, Gen. Julian Hatcher describes working up National Match ammunition one year (the Frankford Arsenal used to roll all the ammunition used at the National Matches back when they were still considered a function of military practice for civilians that might one day be drafted) with powder candidates that boiled down to a long grain and a short grain powder, both similar to what later became IMR 4320. The powder metering on the arsenal loading machines could hold the short grain to an extreme spread of 0.6 grains in charge (+/- 0.3 grains), while it could only hold the long grain version to an extreme spread of 1.7 grains (+/- 0.85 grains). The former is decent even by modern commercial standards, but the latter is well below what home reloading measures today will do. Nonetheless, he said that in machine rest test firing, the coarse grain loads, with all that variation, produced consistently more accurate ammunition than the more accurately metered fine grain loads, and was selected to load that year's National Match ammunition.
Hatcher said some know-it-all at the matches that year pulled down enough of the ammunition to discover the wide charge variance, and declared that it was no good. This fellow conveniently ignored the fact several records were set with it that year. Hatcher believed the accuracy had to do with the superior ignition characteristics of the coarse grain, which lets the flame front move freely through the large spaces between the grains. The explanation goes no further, though others have observed some of the IMR powders seem to be less "pressure sensitive" than some others. The ability of IMR 4895 to produce accurate ammunition even in load densities as low as 60% being one of the better known examples.
So, you can't be sure without testing in your gun which powder cut will really do best? You'll have to run them side by side. My concern about the SC and SSC versions of some popular powders has been that they were concessions to complaints by fellows like the one who pulled the ammo at the national matches in Hatcher's tale, and not that they actually demonstrate better shooting performance. But that could also be wrong. Like all things for reloading, you just have to do a side by side with your loads and equipment to see how they do for you, and not for some theoretical consideration?
Sierra's manual lists only the IMR 4831 SC version with the 130 grain SBT, but the load should apply to both. If you have both powders the lot numbers will be different, so they would have to be worked up separately if you want to compare the two? [EDIT: BAD DATA REMOVED per error noted in following posts] In Winchester cases with Winchester WLR primers, seated to 3.300" COL, they list H4831 SC 52.1 to 59.2 maximum. The load was developed in a Savage 116, and not a test barrel, so the chamber was not likely a minimum chamber. That means, if your chamber is tight chamber its maximums may be lower. I would be tempted, for that reason, to start at more like 61 grains, just to be sure, and watch carefully for pressure signs during load work up.
Joined
·
194 Posts
So, if given the choice it would be better to get the longer cut rather than the short cut, correct? Would it be better for me to weigh each charge or throw it through the measure? I'm not too sure the kit I ordered comes with a scale or not. I just ordered the Lee Anniversary Kit. Oh and I have a few Winchester cases, What primer would be best? I believe the CCI large rifle is what is desired but what else is good?
Joined
·
3,749 Posts
Get what ever version of H4831 you can find and load NO MORE THAN 60 grains under your 130gr Bullets. I don't know where unclenick got his data but my sierra manaul shows 59.5 as a MAX charge. Lyman# 49 shows less than Sierra, Hornady is the same as sierra's, and Nosler is even than Lyman. I suspect unclenick is giving you 270WSM load data.
I use CCI primers for most of my rifle and pistol reloading. They cost me less money and they give me good results.
I use CCI primers for most of my rifle and pistol reloading. They cost me less money and they give me good results.
+1 to what dmsbandit said...Hodgdon's own site shows a max of 60grains of H4831 under any 130gr .277 bullet, in the 270 Winchester. Not sure what Unclenick was referring to, but this just illustrates that you should never trust an "internet load"...always refer to a reloading manual or go directly to the source for all of your load recipes.
Either the standard, or the short cut powder will work just fine. I have found the long cut 4350 and 4831 will get "stuck" in my powder measure, occasionally throwing a much heavier charge as a result of working the handle to free the powder. You're not shooting at 1,000 yards, so I think ease of metering would be more important than another tenth or two of accuracy.
Also, you really can't safely reload without having some kind of a powder scale. It can be a manual triple beam, or a newer digital model, but you really need this to confirm the weight of your power charges, especially since you're just getting started into reloading.
Either the standard, or the short cut powder will work just fine. I have found the long cut 4350 and 4831 will get "stuck" in my powder measure, occasionally throwing a much heavier charge as a result of working the handle to free the powder. You're not shooting at 1,000 yards, so I think ease of metering would be more important than another tenth or two of accuracy.
Also, you really can't safely reload without having some kind of a powder scale. It can be a manual triple beam, or a newer digital model, but you really need this to confirm the weight of your power charges, especially since you're just getting started into reloading.
Joined
·
37,100 Posts
Yeah, Nick's data matches the .270 WSM, not the regular .270 Win. 60 grains of H4831 is already a compressed charge in a "regular" .270 Win, so not likely you'd get the additional amount in, anyway.
I think Nick's point of the short cut vs. standard version is not that you have to try both, but you don't know in advance which one will work better. While I agree with that assessment, I also don't have the patience for trickling powder. So.... it's the short cut versions for me. I loaded IMR-4064 and IMR-4350 with great accuracy results for several years, but bailed on them and went to Varget, and H4350 (short) just to save time. For hunting loads, the accuracy of the short versions has been fine - for me.
I think Nick's point of the short cut vs. standard version is not that you have to try both, but you don't know in advance which one will work better. While I agree with that assessment, I also don't have the patience for trickling powder. So.... it's the short cut versions for me. I loaded IMR-4064 and IMR-4350 with great accuracy results for several years, but bailed on them and went to Varget, and H4350 (short) just to save time. For hunting loads, the accuracy of the short versions has been fine - for me.
Joined
·
194 Posts
Ok, My lyman manual says that 59.5 is max and is a compressed charge. I think I'll try the short cut first. I'd like it to be a easy as possible the first go-round.
My brother went to Cabelas yesterday and picked up some supplies for me. He got me some CCI large rifle primers but they were out of powder, I had him buy the 1000 primer pack. I have quite a few once used Winchester brass. And as soon as I get me the powder I'll order some 130gr Sierra SBT Gameking bullets. Though it might be a while, I'm trying to avoid the $20 shipping charge, no place around me sells reloading supplies and its a long drive to go anywhere that does.I'm getting anxious waiting for this stuff. Oh, Besides the dies and consumables what else do I need to start? I have the Lee anniversary kit ordered.
My brother went to Cabelas yesterday and picked up some supplies for me. He got me some CCI large rifle primers but they were out of powder, I had him buy the 1000 primer pack. I have quite a few once used Winchester brass. And as soon as I get me the powder I'll order some 130gr Sierra SBT Gameking bullets. Though it might be a while, I'm trying to avoid the $20 shipping charge, no place around me sells reloading supplies and its a long drive to go anywhere that does.I'm getting anxious waiting for this stuff. Oh, Besides the dies and consumables what else do I need to start? I have the Lee anniversary kit ordered.
Take it you're loading for the .270 Win?
Don't say what the powder type is. Being a beginner reloader, would advise sticking to the starting weights first and work your way up.
The Hazmat fees only get charged on primers and powders. Bullets and cases are only the normal shipping charges. You might find someone in your area that also orders powders and share the Hazmat fees.
The Lee kit will have all the basics other than the brass, primers, powders and bullets you will need to get started. It will also have a recommended reloading sheet for your die specific order. Start small, work up and go slow.
Don't say what the powder type is. Being a beginner reloader, would advise sticking to the starting weights first and work your way up.
The Hazmat fees only get charged on primers and powders. Bullets and cases are only the normal shipping charges. You might find someone in your area that also orders powders and share the Hazmat fees.
The Lee kit will have all the basics other than the brass, primers, powders and bullets you will need to get started. It will also have a recommended reloading sheet for your die specific order. Start small, work up and go slow.
Joined
·
194 Posts
The load is for a .270 win. I plan on starting at the minimum load and work it up to not quite max. I think that if I shoot for just under a compressed load I'll be alright. Most of my shots are under 200 yrds anyway. Oh and another question, What do y'all think of the 90gr sierra varminter? I have heard it is an accurate and explosive round good for coyote and such. Have any of you tried it.
I haven't used the 90gr Sierra varminter but they used to make a 110 blitzking in 277 and they ended all earthly concerns for a few ground squirrels, back when I lived in CA. To be honest, the accuracy wasn't all THAT great with them, though. The 140gr SGK boat-tails would occasionally fly into a group less than 3/4" at 100 yards and my best ever group, with any center-fire rifle, was ".580. The 110 blitzking bullets maybe didn't stabilize as well, or something, because they averaged closer to 1.5" groups.
Joined
·
194 Posts
Well the reason I'm asking is that there are some coyote that are being very brazen at my home. There actually coming into the yard, though they are staying away from my dog. I'm afraid that the 130gr is too powerful and would just pass though without grabbing anything.
Joined
·
3,749 Posts
the 130's will pass thru any coyotes roaming the earth, but it will also kill them dead as a door nail. Don't be afraid to pop one with those 130s, just make sure the area behind the 'yote is clear. Once a bullet passes thru an animal, it starts tumbling so it won't travel too far.
Joined
·
13,632 Posts
You'll want a relatively fast powder with that light bullet, and you won't need full power at close range. I see the Hodgdon site has 46 grains of IMR 3031 as a starting load with that bullet, which should be OK. About 43 grains of either IMR 4198 or H4198 should also be in that ballpark, but we are still well over 3200 fps with any of these starting loads.
I notice Speer lists a load of up to 24 grains of IMR SR 4759 as a reduced load for the 130 grain bullet (about 2000 fps) which would certainly kill a Coyote. You could use that same charge with the 90 grain Sierra Varminter and get more velocity and less chance of a through-and-through hole. SR 4759 is a high bulk fast powder commonly used in reduced loads, and at such short range, it might be just the ticket here.
I notice Speer lists a load of up to 24 grains of IMR SR 4759 as a reduced load for the 130 grain bullet (about 2000 fps) which would certainly kill a Coyote. You could use that same charge with the 90 grain Sierra Varminter and get more velocity and less chance of a through-and-through hole. SR 4759 is a high bulk fast powder commonly used in reduced loads, and at such short range, it might be just the ticket here.
For shooting something as light as a coyote, I would definitely not recommend the 130gr .277 bullets...they're constructed for deer and will probably pencil-hole right through a coyote. The 90gr varminter would be a much better choice. Let me know how they group for you.
Joined
·
194 Posts
Well I found out about the coyotes a day or so ago. I've set up some traps to see if I can get one, I hope it works. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to wait a couple of weeks before I can get any powder to reload. Until then I'm going to have to use either factory 130gr loads or my traps. I need a smaller rifle, but once I get started the 90gr should be good enough.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!