Reduced loads for 22-250 using Benchmark powder

C

Colorado Redneck

New member
I use 3 different rifles in 3 different cartridges to shoot prairie dogs. The powder of choice for all 3 is Benchmark, a decision based on component shortages. If one powder works for all guns then I can buy a bigger quantity to keep on hand. So, i have a bunch of Benchmark.

Many times in the early summer, most shots are at closer range. In the interest of extending barrel life, I want to experiment with reducing the charge for the 22-250 and want to try dropping below the minimum charge listed on the Hodgdon web site.

I have used Googlefoo but came up with zero info about reducing loads with this powder. I want to try 30 gr and 53 gr. V-max. I am 98% sure this won't result in bad things happening. Any experience or advice/insight would be appreciated.

I know H4895 is the "go-to" powder for reduced loads, but I am trying to be thrifty.
 
I cannot help you with Benchmark - never have used the stuff. But I thought I'd share my reduced load just in case you do decide to look for other powders.

Using IMR 4320, 31.5g under a Dogtown 50g JHP clocks in at 3,237 fps and shoots 1/2 MOA at 100y with a hot barrel in my mid-70s Remington 700 BDL (1:16 slow twist, old fixed-power Weaver 12X scope and no bull barrel).

(For comparison, Hodgdon's data for IMR 4320 using a 50g Sierra SP bullet shows a starting load of 35.0g at 3582, and a max of 38.0 at 3864.)

I have also achieved very good results with IMR 4064, with good accuracy on reduced loads that shoot down around 3,000 fps. Both of those powders are slower than Benchmark (and even slower than H4895). I mention the burn rate only because Hodgdon includes this statement about H4895:
H4895
was chosen because it is the slowest burning propellant that ignites uniformly in reduced charges.
Click to expand...
Although this does not say that all faster powders will be fine at reduced charges, it certainly suggests that slower powders might be an issue. But my loads are only reduced by about 20%, not the maximum 40% that Hodgdon says for H4895 - maybe that is why they work fine?

I have also developed loads around 3,100 fps with IMR 3031 (near Benchmark on the charts), but the accuracy was not quite as good.

Your suggestion of 30.0g Benchmark is less than a 10% reduction from Hdgdon's data for a 55g bullet; I would not hesitate to try it at all.
 
Last edited:
Thx., Mauser. Seems I am a little skittish going outside the load book data. So a post like yours will let me breathe easier the first round with that load.
 
Do you have a chronograph? I think the smartest way to go about this is slowly working down while shooting over a chronograph. If you get to the point where speeds start getting weird like wide deviation or sudden drops in speed its time to stop and go back up a touch.
 
Hodgdon data for 22-250 is for 52gr A-Max and start to max load is 2gr different and if your getting same max @ 3755fps and start 3602fps. Just dropping another 2gr may put you at start load for another powder.

I understand what your trying to do and I use 222 for those closer shots using same power 22BR,6ppc east of Pueblo. If that rifle would handle 60gr bullet look at Benchmark powder for that bullet @ 29gr.

I'm using the surplus 8208.
 
OldRoper--the 222 is also in my little arsenal, and gets 5 rounds in each rotation. You posted a few years back about shooting prairie dogs in Southern Colorado on really hot days. In that post you mentioned using several guns and rotating every few rounds to keep barrels from getting blistering hot. That sounded logical, so I do that. But in early summer when there are lots of targets, it occurred to me that by reducing the charge for a load just for that kind of situation might give me a few hundred more rounds of barrel life on this 22-250.

I doubt that reducing the bottom end charge will cause anything drastic. If the light charge caused a "detonation" that would be an issue. Some loading references make a recommendation to go 10%less than start load under some circumstances.

I have a bit of H4895 on hand, so that is a really good option, if Benchmark is not useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top