4166 (and others) in Savages

[kgb41]

The recent crop of powders with copper fouling reducers and claimed resistance to velocity changes due to temperature don't seemed to have been developed in .300 Savage and .250AI, the two for which I load, so I started in on them with a couple that have caught my eye. Only data for the .250AI I have is in a Sierra manual, the .300 is in all of them, my .250's in a 700 while the "big bore" is in an Interarms Mark X. Reloder 15 has been the one powder I'd take for both if limited to one, although Reloder 7 is really good with 125gr in the .300.

I had hopes for RL16, and with 100gr and 87gr bullets it was ball-park with velocity although no real accurate combination showed up in limited trials, but when I called to ask Alliant about RL16 in the .300 I was told they couldn't make it work in the .308Win and doubted it would be good for the .300Sav. With data for .243Win, 260Rem and 7mm-08 it didn't make sense that it would fail in the .308 but that's what the technician told me. I turned to 4166, and comparing it vs 4064 in the .308 against 4064 charges in the .300, was really pleased with it and 150/155/165gr bullets.

I'd like to ask if anybody runs across the CFE-type powders being tested in .250AI or .300 Savage please post about it here. I see data for .250 savage on Hodgdon's site, suspect 4451 should work out well in the Improved as H4350 is another good one in my rifle.

Disappointment with RL16 in the .250AI is tempered by how well it works for me in 6mm Remington and .270Win.

Thanks.

Kirk

[CFJunkie]

I've had very good results with IMR4166 Enduron with two .308s and two .223s (shooting heavy bullets 69 & 77 grains).

I can't speak for performance in a .300 Savage or a .250 AI.
I've found that different calibers or cartridge case configurations often don't translate powder performance easily from caliber to caliber.
For example, my three 6.5mm Creedmoors don't shoot powders that work best in my .308s as well as slower burning powders like H4350 and IMR4451 Enduron that my .30-06 rifles shoot best.

[Fuj']

R-16 is my go to powder in the Creed with 140 class bullets. When I
was loading for the 250 and 300 Savage, IMR 4064 was my choice.
Nowadays, I would tell you to get a lb of Varget and get testing.

[kgb41]

The only 4064 I tried in the .250AI was AA4064, from 75gr HP to 117gr SP it gave one nicely accurate loading with the 75s at 3200fps. The 4064 range seems really compatible and 4166 a natural among the new types to try. Not that I have to have laboratory-tested data, but I'd like to see it along with the more common calibers in the manufacturers' listings.

I tried a pound of Varget between January and October 2003 in the .250AI, results were close to Reloder 15 and I just decided to go with the latter. If there's some specific reason to select Varget over RL15 I'd like to hear it--at the time it didn't seem to be a bad choice but never know.

My 6mm and .270 have favored RL22 and RL19 as well as H414/760. The .250AI's single best loading to date used 760 and Speer's 87gr TNT, best consistent groups and 3380fps, accuracy fell off when I bought a new pound of the powder so I'll work it a little, at the same time as experimentation with the newest powders. Maybe StaBALL 6.5 can be tried next.

I bought both 4451 and 4166 after putting a new barrel on my 6mm 788. Bolt lift stiffened about a1.5 grains short of book maxes, with velocities already close to those for max. Reloder 19 shines in the new barrel but as I've just used up the last pound of it I'm hoping RL16 can take over with the added benefit of eliminating a powder from the shelves. 4166 has use in .204 Ruger and I plan on keeping H4350 around, so 4451 is out for me.

Appreciate the help. The phenomenon of particular powders nor working in cases that are very close to others is something I saw in data for Blue Dot and the .41 Magnum, makes no sense but there it is.

[charlie b]

4166 is relatively new, as are many of the Enduron powders, so mfgs will take a while to list them for less popular calibers. It is supposed to be a modern version of 4064. Loads are NOT identical.

I've used RL15 and Varget in my .308. They seemed to give similar size groups, but, the Varget had more consistent performance from cold to hot days and it performs very well in both my .223 and .308. If you don't mind changing you scope settings for the day you shoot then RL15 would work well. For some reason I have not tried 4166 in the .308 for some reason.

[darkker]

1) The recent crop of powders with copper fouling reducers and claimed resistance to velocity changes due to temperature don't seemed to have been developed in .300 Savage and .250AI...

2) .... when I called to ask Alliant about RL16 in the .300 I was told they couldn't make it work in the .308Win and doubted it would be good for the .300Sav....


A couple things for you to consider.

1) Copper fouling reducers aren't new. The base chemical composition and usage, came from the French @ 1900. You can read about it in Hatcher's Notebook. As far as practical availability, if you don't market a pretend something is revolutionary and new; people forget. Monkey like shiny, after all.
Win 748, H335, Blc-(2) have had copper fouling reducers in then for at least 40 years, if not forever. So when everyone complains about a "dirty" powder.... Well...

CFE223 comes from General Dynamics SMP 842, it's been in existence for almost 20 years now. Increased additives aside, it's fundamentally WC 846. For those who don't know, that's pronounced Blc-(2) & H335. Despite claims to the contrary, Hodgdon is only, and had only ever been; a surplus buyer and blender. Powders are only developed by defense contractors, for military applications. Hodgdon's pressure testing (in house) has been extremely crude for the most part, as they held on to crushers primarily. Now with the purchase of Western, it appears to be changing as they have a modern pressure testing lab.

2) Alliant, hasn't made rifle powder in a very long time. They are like Hodgdon, buy something and pay for testing. Not to say they don't mean well, or aren't trying to be helpful. But if you are simply a reseller, how many archaic things to you want to constantly pay to test?
With Hodgdon's latest marketing agreement, and the purchase of the Western Lab; one would hope things shall improve. But western was unaware of the difference in CIP instrumentation and location for the 223 case, so.....

Cheers

[charlie b]

I haven't cared much about the copper fouling thing as I have the temp sensitivities. Blc2 and RL15 were two of those that I had trouble with going from loads developed at 40F to shooting when at 100F. That was about when I discovered Varget and have used it since. 4166, Varget, and the other similar compounded powders, work well for me in these temp extremes, no matter who packages them.

[darkker]

Varget and 4166 aren't similar compounded, in the sense you mean.

Temp stability is a set of designed-for parameters, it isn't a universal property in any application.
If you really want to look behind the curtain, a powder that speeds up or slows down burning speeds depending on impulse. Is attempting to compensate for the primers. The real culprit of "temperature instability" is the primers. Dr. Bramwell has done some really good work showing this.


Cheers

[charlie b]

I did not mean they were similar compounds, only that they are less temp sensitive than many other powders, like Rl15.

I really don't care if the powder is compensating for the primer or not, the end result is the use of those powders means my ammo is less sensitive to temp spreads.

[Burr]

I don't have insight into the copper fouling reducer powders your asking for, but I'll say I found it interesting you have found an attraction to the faster powders in your 250AI than what I have. Although you are also referencing much lighter bullets than I, but then you do mention 117 Gr 25 caliber bullets as well. I've only shot 100 to 117 grain bullets in my 250 AI, and only ran 2 powders through them. H4350 and Hybrid 100V. For me the Hybrid 100V was a better performer in SD and certainly velocity. That said, the powder you've dismissed - 4451 would seem to be the closest burn rate to what I like shooting 100-117 Gr bullets. I have not shot anything lighter than that, so no input on lighter weight bullets.