Hodgdon BL-C2 Powder
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Joined
·
817 Posts
I have used BL-C2 to load some 223 rounds. I didn't get the accuracy I was looking for out of it. I was loading a Hornady 75 grain BTHP for a barrel with a 1:7 twist. You may have better luck with it in different bullet weights. I plan to try it with some 308 loads but have not done so yet.
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
I use BLC-2 all the time in my Savage .223. It works well enough and it meters perfectly. I use it in nearly all my varmint loads. It throws accurately right out of the powder measure, and it's great for velocity in the 35-55 grain range. I also use it in my 150-170 grain 30-30 loads for the same reason, but it has a significant amount of muzzle blast out of a carbine-length 30-30.
Joined
·
6,248 Posts
Just a quick glance through several reloading manuals showed there are a lot better powders in the .30-06 than BLC 2. I've used it in .204 Ruger, but I prefer TAC for that task now.
Joined
·
13,632 Posts
I'm not sure what BL-C(2)'s niche really is? It may be higher velocity and pressure .308 loads with medium to heavy projectiles? It is really too slow for the very light bullets in .223, where its efficiency is rather poor (a lot exits the bore unburned), and you can pretty much beat it by 200 fps or more with a number of faster powders. If you further ignore the SAAMI 55 kpsi pressure limit for .223, which is a throwback to the old military practice of confusing CUP with PSI, and instead use the CIP pressure limit of 62 kpsi, you'll find you can beat BL-C(2) under a 35 grain bullet by 400 fps with the right powder choice.
The military mainly uses WC 844 which is sold in canister grade as H335, but the lightest bullet they use it with is 56 grains. The lightest military bullet is the 52 grain M995 AP bullet, and that's loaded with WCR845, which has no commercial version.
IMR 4198 is really one of the best powders for accuracy loads with light bullets in .223. It doesn't meter nearly as neatly as the ball powders, but there is no point to having exact metering if the powder still doesn't produce best accuracy. Stick powder loads seem generally to be less sensitive to charge variance than spherical propellants anyway, IME.
Hatcher described National Match ammunition load development one year with two powders similar to what later became IMR 4320. One was a long, coarse stick, while the other was a short, finer grain, apparently like the modern SSC (super short cut) powders. His arsenal load equipment could only meter the coarse powder to +/- 0.85 grains. Pretty awful by handloading standards. The fine stuff would meter to a much more reasonable +/- 0.30 grains in that gear. Nonetheless, the coarse powder loads were more accurate and became that year's NM ammunition and several records were set with it. Hatcher credited that to the superior ignition properties of the coarse sticks. The larger spaces between the grains allow the flame front to move better.
I think there is more to it than ignition sensitivity. Many match shooters have found IMR 4064 to produce more consistently accurate ammunition than IMR 4895 in the .30 caliber guns. John Feamster published a chart showing the ammunts of each required to produce the same velocities in .308 ammunition with 168 grain SMK bullets. Curiously, the required charge weights crossed over at about 2400 fps. Below that it took less charge weight of IMR 4064 to reach 2200 fps or 2300 fps. Since both powders are single-base propellants with the same energy content per pound, that smaller amount indicated the IMR 4064 was the faster powder. At 2400 fps, though, the charge weight is about the same. At 2500 fps it took less IMR 4895, indicating the IMR 4064 was slower at the pressure needed to produce that velocity. So the IMR 4064 seems to respond to increased pressure with less burn rate increase than IMR 4895 does. That makes it more immune to charge weight variance and should make it less sensitive to temperature as well.
Anyway, the bottom line is that the best powder choice can't necessarily be determined by published burn rate (they can change order with pressure, as in Feamster's example) or metering ease or case fill or any other single factor you might dream up to measure. You still end up having to try a passel of powders to find the best one for your gun and bullets.
For the .30-06, the listed loads on the Hodgdon site fill the case poorly, so a fair amount of MV variance is likely. I would work up to them using a magnum primer for that reason, as that should tend to reduce MV variance by providing higher start pressure. My .30-06's seem to like Varget best for accuracy loads.
The military mainly uses WC 844 which is sold in canister grade as H335, but the lightest bullet they use it with is 56 grains. The lightest military bullet is the 52 grain M995 AP bullet, and that's loaded with WCR845, which has no commercial version.
IMR 4198 is really one of the best powders for accuracy loads with light bullets in .223. It doesn't meter nearly as neatly as the ball powders, but there is no point to having exact metering if the powder still doesn't produce best accuracy. Stick powder loads seem generally to be less sensitive to charge variance than spherical propellants anyway, IME.
Hatcher described National Match ammunition load development one year with two powders similar to what later became IMR 4320. One was a long, coarse stick, while the other was a short, finer grain, apparently like the modern SSC (super short cut) powders. His arsenal load equipment could only meter the coarse powder to +/- 0.85 grains. Pretty awful by handloading standards. The fine stuff would meter to a much more reasonable +/- 0.30 grains in that gear. Nonetheless, the coarse powder loads were more accurate and became that year's NM ammunition and several records were set with it. Hatcher credited that to the superior ignition properties of the coarse sticks. The larger spaces between the grains allow the flame front to move better.
I think there is more to it than ignition sensitivity. Many match shooters have found IMR 4064 to produce more consistently accurate ammunition than IMR 4895 in the .30 caliber guns. John Feamster published a chart showing the ammunts of each required to produce the same velocities in .308 ammunition with 168 grain SMK bullets. Curiously, the required charge weights crossed over at about 2400 fps. Below that it took less charge weight of IMR 4064 to reach 2200 fps or 2300 fps. Since both powders are single-base propellants with the same energy content per pound, that smaller amount indicated the IMR 4064 was the faster powder. At 2400 fps, though, the charge weight is about the same. At 2500 fps it took less IMR 4895, indicating the IMR 4064 was slower at the pressure needed to produce that velocity. So the IMR 4064 seems to respond to increased pressure with less burn rate increase than IMR 4895 does. That makes it more immune to charge weight variance and should make it less sensitive to temperature as well.
Anyway, the bottom line is that the best powder choice can't necessarily be determined by published burn rate (they can change order with pressure, as in Feamster's example) or metering ease or case fill or any other single factor you might dream up to measure. You still end up having to try a passel of powders to find the best one for your gun and bullets.
For the .30-06, the listed loads on the Hodgdon site fill the case poorly, so a fair amount of MV variance is likely. I would work up to them using a magnum primer for that reason, as that should tend to reduce MV variance by providing higher start pressure. My .30-06's seem to like Varget best for accuracy loads.
Joined
·
5,318 Posts
BL-C2 was one of Hodgdon's earlier powders sold as surplus, and at the time, it was claimed to be a substitute for 4895's, and it sorta is. I've had some on hand for most of the last 40 years, and have used it for .223/.243/7-08/30-06/.35 Whelen with various bullets. It actually works quite well in the Whelen.
For the most part, you can get reasonable speed and often very good accuracy with it, it's quite flexible for the most part. With powders kind of scarce, it isn't the worst choice.
Joined
·
3,312 Posts
These days, if you can get it, you burn it, sure enough.
BLC(2) is one of the few powders I have never used. It is one of the original spherical propellants, as Nick noted. Technologically, that makes it something of a dinosaur in the evolution of powder. It is heavily deterred which makes it hard to ignite and also creates a very stubborn fouling. Old spherical powders also burned more or less regressively, meaning that as the surface area of the powder shrinks (as the spheres get smaller), they produce less and less gas, heat and pressure.
Extruded powders, in contrast, are hollow tubes that burn mostly from the inside out. As the inner surface increases, the burn rate increases as well. Thus, they burn progressively. Progressive burning helps overcome the rapidly increasing volume of the "combustion chamber" as the bullet accelerates down the barrel.
Today's sphericals are complex. They vary in chemical composition so that they DO burn progressively. They are also less deterred, making them easier to ignite with much less fouling.
First generation sphericals like H335, BLC(2), the early versions of W748 and W760/H414 and such still have their fans. But modern sphericals such as those by Accurate, Western (Ramshot) and the current versions of Winchester/Hodgdon pairings are far superior. Even Alliant is getting into the spherical market with a new line of powders coming out now.
BLC(2) is one of the few powders I have never used. It is one of the original spherical propellants, as Nick noted. Technologically, that makes it something of a dinosaur in the evolution of powder. It is heavily deterred which makes it hard to ignite and also creates a very stubborn fouling. Old spherical powders also burned more or less regressively, meaning that as the surface area of the powder shrinks (as the spheres get smaller), they produce less and less gas, heat and pressure.
Extruded powders, in contrast, are hollow tubes that burn mostly from the inside out. As the inner surface increases, the burn rate increases as well. Thus, they burn progressively. Progressive burning helps overcome the rapidly increasing volume of the "combustion chamber" as the bullet accelerates down the barrel.
Today's sphericals are complex. They vary in chemical composition so that they DO burn progressively. They are also less deterred, making them easier to ignite with much less fouling.
First generation sphericals like H335, BLC(2), the early versions of W748 and W760/H414 and such still have their fans. But modern sphericals such as those by Accurate, Western (Ramshot) and the current versions of Winchester/Hodgdon pairings are far superior. Even Alliant is getting into the spherical market with a new line of powders coming out now.
I have used BL-C2 in a 222 magnum, but never in a 223. Seemed to work OK.
BL-C2 is the second iteration of that powder. The original was BL-C (big surprise). Back in the day when the 222 was king of the benchrest competitions, the original BL-C was highly prized as a really accurate powder. BL-C2 never was, don't know why.
BL-C2 is the second iteration of that powder. The original was BL-C (big surprise). Back in the day when the 222 was king of the benchrest competitions, the original BL-C was highly prized as a really accurate powder. BL-C2 never was, don't know why.
Joined
·
502 Posts
I just loaded up some Barnes Varmint Grenades and used BL-C2 in .223. Excellent powder for that cartridge.
Jerry
Jerry
Joined
·
170 Posts
BL-C(2) works well in my 308 Winchester for Hornady 180 grain SST, Remington 165 PSP and not bad but not great with Hornady 168 A-Max. It is a little bit dirty in an auto.
AL
Meters fantastic as well.
AL
Meters fantastic as well.
Joined
·
55 Posts
Doc
Ive play around with BL c (2) in the 223 Remington it has been a real tack driver for me. My pet load is from the Hodgdon 26th manual, i used a Sierra 55 Gr SPT 27.5 grains Winchester Brass,WSR primers, Winchester Comerical Brass, OAL 2.215, velocity is 3313 FPS from my Savage model 12 with a 26 inch BBL. This is the MAX load so start 10% lower and work up from there watching for sign of high pressure and good luck
Ive play around with BL c (2) in the 223 Remington it has been a real tack driver for me. My pet load is from the Hodgdon 26th manual, i used a Sierra 55 Gr SPT 27.5 grains Winchester Brass,WSR primers, Winchester Comerical Brass, OAL 2.215, velocity is 3313 FPS from my Savage model 12 with a 26 inch BBL. This is the MAX load so start 10% lower and work up from there watching for sign of high pressure and good luck
BLC2 is the second most accurate powder in my .223 model 12 Savage with a 26 inch barrel. The powder charge is over maximum according to the books so won't post it. In my rifle no pressure signs and accuracy was continuing to improve with charge weight until I quit that experiment. Personally I couldn't detect much more fouling than with other popular powders.
Thanks for the info.. The Brown Truck should be here tomorrow. with some new powders.
I've given up trying to use 2400 in the 223. Just did not want to push the presure up and getting a little scared to play without a crony..
Note! did have a fair results using 4.2 grains with a 55 grain bullet. (still think was on the light side But without any more info and No Crony.
I've given up trying to use 2400 in the 223. Just did not want to push the presure up and getting a little scared to play without a crony..
Note! did have a fair results using 4.2 grains with a 55 grain bullet. (still think was on the light side But without any more info and No Crony.
Joined
·
25 Posts
Bl-c2 isn't the best choice for either calibre. My choice for the 30-06 would be h-414 for bullets up to and including the 150 grain. Beyond 150 grain, i'm using either h4831 or rl-22. In the 223 cartridge i found that 2015br powder works very well with 50 grain nosler ballistic tip and the use of federal match primers. I have had good results with ww748 powder as well. Hope you find a good recipe for your 223 and 30-06.
Most of the info in this & similar treads are ageless.
Most of the info in this & similar treads are ageless. I enjoy them all. Interesting to see various powders that were scarce in past powder crises and our current Corona hysteria, very similar.
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!