Reply With Quote39-40gr of H4895 with the 178gr. If you have IMR 4064, I would recommend that over the H4895.
I'm struggling to find a decent load for this rifle. I have no problems shooting .75-1 moa using my 168 gr amax loads for my m14 at 41.5 gr H4895 but can't get on track with the 178 AMAX. Does anyone shoot this combo and have a load that has been doing well for them. I've got about 80 bullets left to play with.
I believe I was shooting 2.800 coal with 40.2, 39.7 39.6 39.3 and 38.4 gr h4895 but expected much better results. I expected to fin at least one half decent grouping in the bunch to go off but the results were erratic. Switches back to 168 gr amax and they were bang on.
Last edited by rdamours; 09-20-2015 at 05:14 PM.
39-40gr of H4895 with the 178gr. If you have IMR 4064, I would recommend that over the H4895.
We can't tell you what makes your girlfriend happy, nor what your rifle likes. If you can't say exactly what the specs on your loads were, that may be a big piece of the problem.
I'm a firm believer in the theory that if it bleeds, I can kill it.
I double checked and those were the loads. My Hornady 9th edition has the 178 amax listed at 33-40.2 max at the max load doing 2400 fps. Hodgsons site lists the 180 with H4895 at 40-42.5 max which is more in line with a friends 1 k load which is 41.5 gr H4895 at 2650 or so fps. Since I don't trust anyone I'll inch my way up to the 41.5 load to see if I can get the groups down.
Checking for pressure signs of course along the way. Tons of proven loads posted in Varget and Rl15 but not much in H4895. I just took a look at my old targets and the 40.2 load was the best at 1.6-1.7 moa and the worst you don't want to know about. The lower charged loads were even more rotten.
Last edited by rdamours; 09-21-2015 at 10:10 PM.
IMR 4064 right on.Originally Posted by wbm
Actually yeah. Tons of bughole group listed for 4064. I'm not that familiar with it so just asking if it's temp insensitive like Varget and H4895 We go from -40 to 100 here so it's quite the swing.
I have read where it is more sensitive to temp than Varget. I have used a lot of IMR4064 since 1965 in several different cal. and not noticed any problems. Though I never leave my ammo laying in the Sun or other stresses.
I couldn't get 178 amax,s to work for me. tried rl15/varget/4064/imr4895. just didn't work on my tube
175smk,s and 4064 have been the ticket for several yrs for me.
Life is tuff.....its even tuffer when your stupid
{John Wayne}
Me too....and lot's of other 308 shooters.175smk,s and 4064 have been the ticket for several yrs for me
Sad news for you about how "magic" Varget is, that is primarily marketing and half truths.
Being temp insensitive is a matter of what something was specifically designed for and NOT a universal property. Dr. Denton Bramwell has done some very good, actual scientific tests showing this. MOST of the problems of "sensitivity" come from freezing/cooking in the chamber, and the primer can be as big a contributor to the "problem" as the powder.
Varget was designed around the 145-150gr bullets in the 308. Big shocker that a defense contractor would build a powder for ball ammo, right?
Use that powder outside of it's design and the results for insensitivity become a train wreck. Denton published a test in the now defunct Varmint Hunter mag; may be posted in the technical articles on RSI's website. Anyway in the 223 while Varget can turn in some stellar groups, it is an absolute pig for being sensitive compared to what you call H335.
Hodgdon specifically says that CFE comes from technology developed for the US military; read it here:
http://www.hodgdon.com/new_prod.html
The "technology" is a series of Tin/Bismuth compounds that was invented and used for that purpose around 1900, by the French military, not the US. You can read about it in Hatcher's Notebook, and has also been in 748, 760/414/2700 for multiple decades... They don't tell you that little nugget. Nor that General Dynamics has been tweeking SMP-842(CFE223) for well over a decade, and many of us were shooting surplussed lots of it, until they bought-up all of it and invented a "new" product.
They also won't tell you ANY details of the testing or sample size for their published extreme data. So take the data from a surplus powder reseller with a grain of salt.
I'm a firm believer in the theory that if it bleeds, I can kill it.
Looks like I'm onto something at .616 moa at a 100 with 42 gr of H4895. 40.5 was 1.039 and opened up from there until it hit 42. I'll move around in .1 increments now until I see the smallest group and will play with coal after but it's a good start.
Not sure the length of your barrel. Have been using varget and 178 gr hornady bullets with great success with my savage 10T 308. 24 inch barrel, 5R rifling. Have found 178 gr match liked 43.7 gr of varget. Just tested the 178 XLD and found 43.9 gr of varget the sweet spot. Varget has worked better for me than 4064. Been using lapua brass for all my testing.
Savage 10 FCP-SR 308, 300BO PCS
Members who have read this thread in the last 1 days: 0
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks