Varget 270 Win Reduced Loads

U

USAF Ret

New member
So, dealing with some medical issues, more than previously. Causing me issues at the range. Has to do with head pain and recoil does not help. I was looking at reduced loads. Hodgdon says you can really reduce loads to 60% of max with H4895, of which I have none at the moment. Going to try and fix that this week.

Doing some cross-referencing, I am trying to find the least powder load I can use. I also want to use the same powder to compare the Hornady Interlock and Sierra TGK 140 grains.

The Hodgdon website lists Varget at a starting load of 41 grains for 140gr soft points (does not list a specific bullet brand). Sierra lists starting load at 45.7 for Varget. Hornady does not even list Varget as an option.

I would like to start at 41 grains of Varget for both bullets and work up in small increments to test velocity, accuracy and recoil. With Hodgdon's listing, is that an accurate assessment to go that route?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
i am a has been, not a never was. 375 h&h. 300 weatherby, 50bmg, 454 casull. etc.
nowadays even standard loads are too much. 5744 is my friend. 270, 308, 7.5 swiss, 3006. all get it.
....45 70 and 38 55 like it too. fwiw.
 
bobn said:
i am a has been, not a never was. 375 h&h. 300 weatherby, 50bmg, 454 casull. etc.
nowadays even standard loads are too much. 5744 is my friend. 270, 308, 7.5 swiss, 3006. all get it.
....45 70 and 38 55 like it too. fwiw.
Click to expand...
Don't have any on hand and don"t see it in the reloading data. Varget, Benchmark, A4350 and H4350 are what I have on hand.
 
My 270 Win and 30-06 rifles shoot best with H4350.
In fact, it is their favorite powder.

The slightly faster ".308" powders don't seem to be as accurate in the heavier long action bullets, based upon my data.
But then again, each rifle barrel is different, and your results will tell you what works best.
With .270 rounds in my M70, 4350 and R22 are the most accurate with 130 gr and 140 grain bullets. Varget increases group sizes by about 0.2 at 100 yards.

My .270 doesn't produce as tight groups with the 150 gr bullets.
But the groups are tight enough for hunting - right around 1 MOA.
Again, it depends upon the particular barrel and its preferences.
 
.270 Win. = my fav. of over 30 years
My experience with H 4831 SC has been the best so far .
130 gr. Sierra match king ( flat base) 57.6 Gr. Of powder
Wondering what Hornady ELD Match would bring ?
 
the slower powders are great for full power loads. they dont lend themselves to reduced recoil ones. 5744, 4895 and the older 4579 do. fwiw
 
I appreciate all of the input. Really just looking for an answer on using the 41 grains of Varget based on the Hodgdon information.
 
{EDIT: Please read the board policy on posting copyrighted material. Be aware that virtually anything clipped from the web is copyrighted unless it specifically states it is public domain or free for use. You can quote a small amount of information by typing it, such as this one example of powder load data, under the Fair Use doctrine, and you can link to a source, but screen captures include not only the data but the fonts and color schemes, and layouts of the of source, all of which are copyrighted as graphic material soon as they are posted, and under current law that holds true automatically with or without a copyright notice being included.}
 
Have you considered cast bullets? There you can have really light loads with pistol powders. That's why I shoot antique guns with.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
USAD Ret,

Please read the board policy on posting copyrighted material and do not include screen captures from other sights in posts without first getting the origin site's permission and then giving it a citation in the post.


Drilling down into the weeds:

With Varget or any other rifle powder, the broad rule of thumb is to avoid loading densities (water capacity under the seated bullet) below 70%. Some use 60%, but that's not allowing for the variability of powder bulk density from lot to lot or its tendency to be packed down by vibration in travel. I have one data source suggesting 41 grains of Varget in a 270W case that has 71.5 grains of case water overflow capacity (measured as water weight capacity in grains filled level with the case mouth), would, with the TGK and a COL of 3.340, fill the space under the bullet by 73.2%, while the other gives it 66.4%. In other words, their information about the bulk density of the powder differs, with QuickLOAD believing it is 0.89 grams/cc (890 kg/m³, or 225 grains/in³, or 13.4 grains/cc, or VMD 0.0736) and GRT believing it is 0.96 grams/cc (960 kg/m³, or 243 grains/in³, or 14.8 grains/cc, or VMD of 0.0676). That's enough disagreement that you want to determine what you have for yourself.

With the Hornady Interlock, for those two powder bulk densities, QL has a loading density of 71.4%, and GRT has 64.9%.

Anyway, in your shoes, I would take a fired case and see what water weight it will hold level with the mouth, then subtract 8.7 grains for the longer TGK bullet to get water capacity under the seated bullet, and subtract 7.1 grains for the shorter Hornady Interlock. Both numbers assume seating to 3.340" COL. Subtract 0.155 grains of water capacity for each additional 0.01" of seating depth. If you want the capacity in CC's instead of grains of water weight, divide the result by 15.43236.

Bottom line, I would avoid going below 70% case fill.
 
Unclenick said:
USAD Ret,

Please read the board policy on posting copyrighted material and do not include screen captures from other sights in posts without first getting the origin site's permission and then giving it a citation in the post.


Drilling down into the weeds:

With Varget or any other rifle powder, the broad rule of thumb is to avoid loading densities (water capacity under the seated bullet) below 70%. Some use 60%, but that's not allowing for the variability of powder bulk density from lot to lot or its tendency to be packed down by vibration in travel. I have one data source suggesting 41 grains of Varget in a 270W case that has 71.5 grains of case water overflow capacity (measured as water weight capacity in grains filled level with the case mouth), would, with the TGK and a COL of 3.340, fill the space under the bullet by 73.2%, while the other gives it 66.4%. In other words, their information about the bulk density of the powder differs, with QuickLOAD believing it is 0.89 grams/cc (890 kg/m³, or 225 grains/in³, or 13.4 grains/cc, or VMD 0.0736) and GRT believing it is 0.96 grams/cc (960 kg/m³, or 243 grains/in³, or 14.8 grains/cc, or VMD of 0.0676). That's enough disagreement that you want to determine what you have for yourself.

With the Hornady Interlock, for those two powder bulk densities, QL has a loading density of 71.4%, and GRT has 64.9%.

Anyway, in your shoes, I would take a fired case and see what water weight it will hold level with the mouth, then subtract 8.7 grains for the longer TGK bullet to get water capacity under the seated bullet, and subtract 7.1 grains for the shorter Hornady Interlock. Both numbers assume seating to 3.340" COL. Subtract 0.155 grains of water capacity for each additional 0.01" of seating depth. If you want the capacity in CC's instead of grains of water weight, divide the result by 15.43236.

Bottom line, I would avoid going below 70% case fill.
Click to expand...
My apologies on posting that link.

Thank you for the additional information. I am actually looking at the H-4895 reduced loads. An article stated that a Hodgdon rep said that the newer IMR-4895 could be substituted. I have reached out to Hodgdon for confirmation on that source and the information provided. There are two cans for H-4895 on Gunbroker for $80 apiece. While I don;t wish to spend additional money, I may order them just to be able to test.

My medical issues and recoil impact may have me stepping away from the 270 altogether. While it is not optimal, given how much I have invested, going to my lighter recoiling rifles is really the best solution.
 
Well, called up Hodgdon. Let me say first, they are awesome!

1) The article in Handloader Magazine that stated IMR-4895 can also be used at the 60% load of H-4895 is false. They need to do a redaction.
2) Found what I needed in A-5744 and that powder is in stock.
3) The 41 grain Varget load I was asking about can be used with any 130 grain SP.
4) All load data provided is for copper jacketed lead bullets.

Thanks for all the inputs!
 
USAF Ret, when I started to reload in 1976 I only had my Rem Mod 700 .270 and H4895 with 130 gr bullets. As a neophyte, it is the only time I locked my bolt and needed a rubber hammer to get the fired case out. Recoil protection is one thing, but the pressure is another. Start low and look for accuracy.
 
USAF Ret said:
I saw that and it is as hard to find as the H-4895. Bad part is I got jumpy and ordered the IMR-4895 before checking for sure that the information was correct. lesson, just because it is in print in a magazine does not mean it's true.
Click to expand...
Too bad you don’t live near enough to Northern Virginia, I have 4-5 bottles of Trail Boss I’d gladly sell you for $20.00 apiece.
 
Got some H4895 off Gunbroker. I paid twice what it costs, but you can't find it anywhere. Figured it would be a good start as I watch for it to come available again. Excited to work up some reduced loads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top