scatterbrain
New member
Pathfinder45, where are you getting the Norma 205 powder?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
270 WIN
- Thread starter kilotanker22
- Start date
I have reloaded for 270 a lot over the last 5 years. Mostly all with 130 gr pills.I have had great results with h4350 and IMR 4451. I worked up a load using h4350 and 130 gr INterlocks and was getting 3040 at the muzzle. I also worked up a load with IMR 4451 and 130 gr nosler ballistic tips that was getting 3030 with single digit ES and SD of 2. Just so happened that the IMR4451 load shot sub moa too.
I recognize that burning rates are not absolute, but relative, and may even change to some degree, depending on the lot produced. But the relative rates at least give one some sense of where they stand in relation to each other.
For example, Lyman 50th Ed lists 127 powders from "fastest" to "slowest." Bullseye is 4/127. IMR 4350 is 101/127; H-4350 is 102/127 and H-4831 is 111/127.
Do those of you who use IMR 4451 have any idea where it might be placed in the burning rate?
For example, Lyman 50th Ed lists 127 powders from "fastest" to "slowest." Bullseye is 4/127. IMR 4350 is 101/127; H-4350 is 102/127 and H-4831 is 111/127.
Do those of you who use IMR 4451 have any idea where it might be placed in the burning rate?
bamaranger
New member
.270
My Rem 700 ADL has the shorter 22" barrel. I just recently worked up a max load (Sierra manual, edition #5) of IMR4350 and bulk 130 grain bullets, and it provided 2950 fps. That is the highest velocity I've gotten with 130gr pills since acquiring the rifle twenty years ago. I have used H4350 as well, but that was before I acquired a chronograph.
A pal has a 24" Rem 700 ADL, and gets about the same velocities with a grain less powder, and he uses either H4350 or IMR4350 depending on what is available. I'm thinking the Jack O'Conner, the high priest of the .270, liked H4350..........but that is from memory.
My Rem 700 ADL has the shorter 22" barrel. I just recently worked up a max load (Sierra manual, edition #5) of IMR4350 and bulk 130 grain bullets, and it provided 2950 fps. That is the highest velocity I've gotten with 130gr pills since acquiring the rifle twenty years ago. I have used H4350 as well, but that was before I acquired a chronograph.
A pal has a 24" Rem 700 ADL, and gets about the same velocities with a grain less powder, and he uses either H4350 or IMR4350 depending on what is available. I'm thinking the Jack O'Conner, the high priest of the .270, liked H4350..........but that is from memory.
According to this chart, IMR-4451 is right after IMR-4350 in burning rate, so slightly slower than IMR-4350I recognize that burning rates are not absolute, but relative, and may even change to some degree, depending on the lot produced. But the relative rates at least give one some sense of where they stand in relation to each other.
For example, Lyman 50th Ed lists 127 powders from "fastest" to "slowest." Bullseye is 4/127. IMR 4350 is 101/127; H-4350 is 102/127 and H-4831 is 111/127.
Do those of you who use IMR 4451 have any idea where it might be placed in the burning rate?
https://imrpowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2020-burn-rate-chart.pdf
Yes. They discontinued H414 as a separate powder number this year, but it is and always has been the same powder as Winchester 760, a St. Marks powder called WC780 which is not discontinued. They still have plenty of loads listed under H414 at their load data site. You can select it and 760 to see that the charge weights are idential.
I have H- and IMR 4350, as well as H414, with which I at some point came to understand it was not that much different than H-4350. Now I find it is the same as W760, which I might have purchased. For years I had H110 and 296 side by side, eventually to find they are the same.
That really should give some of us - mostly me -pause, when picking powders. I have to admit to having fallen prey. Right now I have in my inventory 39 powders that I'm playing with for 17 calibers with no other guidance than relative burning rate, recipes with lower pressures and higher velocities while reviewing a myriad of sources for what I should be doing. Admittedly, I have achieved success more often than failure but at what expense? But then, if the expense is the final determinant, what fun would I have missed in experimenting for 44 years? But we really do need some guidance with powder election that is more precisely clarified to avoid excess expense.
That really should give some of us - mostly me -pause, when picking powders. I have to admit to having fallen prey. Right now I have in my inventory 39 powders that I'm playing with for 17 calibers with no other guidance than relative burning rate, recipes with lower pressures and higher velocities while reviewing a myriad of sources for what I should be doing. Admittedly, I have achieved success more often than failure but at what expense? But then, if the expense is the final determinant, what fun would I have missed in experimenting for 44 years? But we really do need some guidance with powder election that is more precisely clarified to avoid excess expense.
kilotanker22
New member
In my opinion, the information is already available. We discuss such topics among other individuals who share the same psssions we do. I believe that just about any powder that is appropriate for a given cartridge will shoot well given a proper load work up and accounting for harmonics.
When I am attempting to pick a powder for a cartridge I am unfamiliar with. I try to pick a powder that is in the slower range of acceptable powders for that cartridge unless I already have something that works well
When I am attempting to pick a powder for a cartridge I am unfamiliar with. I try to pick a powder that is in the slower range of acceptable powders for that cartridge unless I already have something that works well
Pathfinder45
New member
Scatterbrain asked:
Norma N-205 was discontinued decades ago. I found mine at the gunshow and bought a couple of cans from a guy that had several clean, un-opened, well-kept cans of it. I had read a long time ago that it was a good 270 powder, so I thought I'd give it a try. Well, after trying it, I kick myself for not buying all of it! And the guy only wanted $8 a can...what a fool I was! It is just the cat's meow in my 270. On the lucky occasion I have found a little more here and there, but only at gunshows.Pathfinder45, where are you getting the Norma 205 powder?
my m70 tack driver uses 4831sc jack conners load
Sorry, H4831 SC did not exist in JOC day!
kilotanker22
New member
Yeah, but H-4831 has been around since 1950. Jack lived until 1978Sorry, H4831 SC did not exist in JOC day!
scatterbrain
New member
Pathfinder45, I remember when the notice was sent out, Norma warned that it could explode on the shelf and advised to dump it out. It was the best of powders for my 25-06, 280 and 270. Send me a can.
Sure Shot Mc Gee
New member
Although when using both 4350 & 4831 near or at full MAX charging's. There velocity's are very near the same. The one issue I have with 4831 with 06 capacity brass. (270) Slower burning 4831 seems to have a sharper noticeable recoil than 4350.
Old soldier's with "old shoulders are sensitive too or lack of recoil."
Old soldier's with "old shoulders are sensitive too or lack of recoil."
When I bought my Voere Titan / KDF Rifle ... in a time long long ago, 1986 , a specific hand load accompanied the booklet .
The “worked down “ load using H 4831 stated 57.6 gr. Topped with a SPEER 130 gr. Spitzer #1830. Fed case & primers.
.. The KDF folks Kleinguenther & Keune , Said best accuracy came using this ^^ in my rifle.
For most of you folks , that takes all the fun out of it. SHUCKS.
The “worked down “ load using H 4831 stated 57.6 gr. Topped with a SPEER 130 gr. Spitzer #1830. Fed case & primers.
.. The KDF folks Kleinguenther & Keune , Said best accuracy came using this ^^ in my rifle.
For most of you folks , that takes all the fun out of it. SHUCKS.