Powders for 308

but varget is hard to come by and I only have 3/4lb left. I just can't justify it when I need it for 30-06 loads I already have dialed in.
Click to expand...

Use the Varget for 308. It isn't a very good choice for your 30-06 and darn near perfect for 308. The RL 17 is a better choice for 30-06 than Varget.
 
RE-15 is a good 308 powder. That may not be available either,but some Norma powders seem to be available.

I cannot confirm this,please do not jump to any conclusions, but Someone on TFL claimed RE-15 and N-140 might be the same powder.
I would not assume RE-15 data would be good for N-140, but if I needed RE-15 and found N-140, I'd buy it and use N-140 data.
 
Someone on TFL claimed RE-15 and N-140 might be the same powder.
Click to expand...

I think the guy on TFL was slightly confused. VV is made in Finland, RL 15 and Norma in the Bofors plant in Sweden

Target Shooter Magazine writer Laurie Holland compared Norma 203B and Reloder 15 using data from QuickLOAD. Laurie also checked load manuals to see how listed charge weights varied for the two propellants. Laurie concluded there was very little difference between Norma 203B and Reloder 15.
Click to expand...

https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/bofors/
 
Last edited:
jmr40 said:
Use the Varget for 308. It isn't a very good choice for your 30-06 and darn near perfect for 308. The RL 17 is a better choice for 30-06 than Varget.
Click to expand...
I have not tried it yet. My main reason for sticking with varget is the temperature stability. Got too many Irons in the fire right now with 9mm, 223, and now 308. having problems with cast bullets in 9mm which I hope will be ironed out soon. Trying to get a 223 load finalized. Switching primers and have to re-test charge weights for it. Once that is done I need to do the last bit of testing for my 30-06 to finalize my hunting load. Not to mention a LOT of 9mm, 223, and 308 brass I am in the middle of processing.....

Then I can start on the 308 and start tinkering with my 30-06 and some match bullets.
 
I fooled wit h CFE223 a little bit a couple of years ago with 165-168 grain bullets, hornady and nosler. It's good in the 308. I got hgher velocities and acceptable accuracy, though not as accurate as Varget in my rifle. As it's a ball powder, my Lee Perfect Pwder measure threw very consistent and accurate charges.
 
I'm keeping the cfe223 for 223 for now. I do hope to test it later on if I can get more of it. Testing the blc-(2) tomorrow for pressure signs. Got cci large rifle mag primers, and charges from 40.5 to 45.0 in 0.5g increments. Using 168g hornady otm bullets and LC brass. Got a lot of jump to the lands to fit in the magazine, about 0.075.
 
I have not tried it yet. My main reason for sticking with varget is the temperature stability.
Click to expand...

I get it, we just can't find some powders.

Per Hogdon, their "extreme" series of powders are all temp stable. That would include H-4350. If I were looking for a bolt action 30-06 powder,H-4350 would be a great choice. I would not choose 4350 for a Garand,myself.

Varget works great with 69 gr 5.56 loads. I prefer RE-15 with 75-77 grn5.56 loads.
Benchmark is great in 5.56 using 60 gr Varmint Ballistic Tips.
Varget is my go-to for 165-175 gr AR-10 .308 loads (usually with a 168 gr Nosler Comp )
 
Last edited:
How one assesses a load's accuracy also determines which one is most accurate.

One way is using the load that produces the smallest few-shot group.

Another is using the load that produces the smallest many-shot group.

Which one is statistically more significant?
 
That depends on how you evaluate the group. If you track each shot's location, then a large group evaluated by radial standard deviation is best. If you track only the group diameter as determined by the two furthest-spaced shots in your groups (group diameter) it turns out that firing 7-shot groups and averaging the diameters of several of them get's you to statistical nirvana with the fewest number of rounds fired. A paper covering this and how many groups of 7 you need to get certainty within different percentages is here. It says the average diameter of 6 groups of 7 shots (42 shots fired altogether) gets you to within 15% error expected for an infinite group count with 90% confidence.

The radial standard deviation method will do that in 15 shots with 95% confidence, so probably about 13 shots for 90% confidence, which is just one more than the number of holes you are including in your measurements of the extreme spread of six groups of 7. The radial SD method is the most ammunition-economical method, but you do need to know where each round lands to use it.
 
Tested up. No pressure signs at 25.0g velocity around 2700fps. Gonna test to 27.0g this weekend.

I'm keeping it simple for now. Going to stop at 27.0g or pressure signs, whichever comes first. Then down over the crono to find the groups with the best ES. Then tuning seating depth back in 0.003 increments. 5 shot groups. Looking for a couple tight groups together.
 
One issue shooting 7 rounds per test group is when impact starts moving one direction as the barrel heats up.

Most often caused by the receiver face not squared up to the barrel thread axis. Barrel fits hard against the receiver at one point. Having the receiver face squared up then shim washers between barrel and receiver to have good headspace solves the problem. Or wait a couple minutes between shots.
 
Last edited:
Bart B. said:
One issue shooting 7 rounds per test group is when impact starts moving one direction as the barrel heats up.

Most often caused by the receiver face not squared up to the barrel thread axis. Barrel fits hard against the receiver at one point. Having the receiver face squared up then shim washers between barrel and receiver to have good headspace solves the problem. Or wait a couple minutes between shots.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. I had learned and somewhat forgotten this detail. However I had put a method in place to compensate for this. I fire 1 round. Then open the bolt and leave it open for a few seconds before clambering the next round. And usually wait about 10min between strings with the bolt open to let the barrel cool. I am looking to get a chamber chiller in the near future as well. This should mitigate most of the issues, right?

I'm sure there is an ideal way to deal with the issue. I will have to do some reading on technique and best practices.
 
Last edited:
Shadow9mm said:
Ah yes. I had learned and somewhat forgotten this detail. However I had put a method in place to compensate for this. I fire 1 round. Then open the bolt and leave it open for a few seconds before clambering the next round. And usually wait about 10min between strings with the bolt open to let the barrel cool. I am looking to get a chamber chiller in the near future as well. This should mitigate most of the issues, right?

I'm sure there is an ideal way to deal with the issue. I will have to do some reading on technique and best practices.
Click to expand...
Leaving the bolt open a few seconds is not good enough.

Best way to prevent point of impact moving as barrel heats up is to have the receiver face squared up. Then shimmed a few thousandths so chamber headspace doesn't change. This assumes the barrel is properly stress relieved before it's installed.

If you're shooting highpower match rifle rapid fire matches and putting 10 shots downrange in 60 or 70 seconds, the above lets you get near half MOA test groups at 200 or 300 yards.
 
Last edited:
Where did you end up with the 308 and BLC-(2)?
I am about to start testing that powder along with Varget and IMR 4064 tomorrow or Tuesday. Got Lucky and found two pounds of each today
 
kilotanker22 said:
Where did you end up with the 308 and BLC-(2)?
I am about to start testing that powder along with Varget and IMR 4064 tomorrow or Tuesday. Got Lucky and found two pounds of each today
Click to expand...
Still in progress. Bad weather. Hoping to test again within a week or so. Going to finish pressure testing, and start testing for es and SD consistency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top