Need a powder for reduced rifle loads…

Hooda Thunkit said:

Knew a guy years ago that loaded 4895 in 44 Mag.

Asked him why - he said because he couldn't get enough in the case to get in pressure trouble. Just scooped the case in the powder, jammed a bullet on top.

I stayed well away from him on the firing line.

Click to expand...

That’s the same theory the Ford 3.3L-1V i6 is based on. Fords engineers designed the intake manifold and head as a single unit with insufficient airflow for the engine to build up enough rev’s to spin a bearing or blow a gasket. It wouldn’t even fit a blower or turbo. The theory holds true in both instances; but, what a waste! I’m just really not about to blow a whole bunch of rifle powder into the ether just to avoid having to measure.
BTW: Nitrous oxide turns the 3.3L i6 into a fire breathing dragon - for about 15 seconds.

I would say give IMR4198 or AA5744 a try... in fact, it's what I use. Yes, IMR is expensive powder right now... I just dropped nearly $650 for a keg of IMR4198 and TAC... the IMR was almost exactly $100 more expensive than the Ramshot. But... it's the best for my purpose... which is lower velocity cast rifle. I would pick H4198 or AA5744 as an alternate. Nice thing about those powders is... even reduced loads give you reasonable case fill.

Mr_Flintstone said:

Another is that since all the above guns are quite old, I don’t want to beat them up unnecessarily. The Carcano is of particular concern because of the age of the bolt.

Click to expand...

If you are concerned about the bolt, be very careful with very fast rifle powders (think IMR4227, etc, which I have used with very good results in cast rifle,) or pistol powders (2400, Unique, etc...) where the peak pressure is much sharper than with a slower rifle powder. Something like QuickLoad is your friend, here, because you can plug in even rudimentary numbers to get an idea where your pressure peaks is, and how high. Now that I mention it... IMR4227 might be a very good choice to consider, and it's available. Let me know if you need me to run some number through QuickLoad.

I’ll do it! I’m still out of town on vacation, when I get back next week, I’ll crunch the numbers.

As an aside, I mentioned peak pressure numbers with fast-ish powders. I’m not familiar with any of the metric cases you mentioned, just the .30-30, but I’ve used IMR4227 with cast in .30-30, .308, and .”348… with reasonable results, it just depends on the case volume, among other factors. Data calculators have really helped me understand rifle reloading, and particular lower- and mid-velocity applications.

Mr_Flintstone said:

Thanks. I actually found data for 30-30 and IMR 4227 in an old Hodgdon manual that I forgot I had, it matches what was posted above, and I’m sure that the IMR data will be fine in 8x57 as well. I just need some extra verification on the Carcano and I’ll feel a lot better about using it.

Click to expand...

I got tons of 30-30 4227 data. It's listed in the current 4th edition cast manual.

Toprudder said:

The information that I found on the Hodgdon website a few years ago indicated that H4895 could be downloaded to 60% of the published max charges for a given cartridge. I read somewhere (can't find it now) that said not to use IMR4895 in this fashion.

https://hodgdon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/h4895-reduced-rifle-loads.pdf

Similar information for Trailboss:

https://hodgdon.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/trail-boss-reduced-loads-2018.pdf

5744 is also an option, there are reduced load data for it available.

Click to expand...

I had read this article and it was dangling in the back of my mind. I'm not saying he's right or your right, but it appears that imr and h 4895 can both be reduced. I'll just grab a different powder as I have faster and slower, but many may not.
https://www.handloadermagazine.com/reduced-rifle-loads

It appears that 30-31 and 4885 cover all three but 4227 is faster than I can find a listing for 6.5.

Mr_Flintstone said:

Today I loaded some test loads in the Carcano with BL-C(2). Hodgdon listed a minimum of 28 gr, and Lee #1 listed 27 gr. with PPU 267 gr jacketed, so I went on the low end to see how it went. Gordon’s showed a pressure of 21,000 psi, and the chronograph showed an average velocity of 1615 fps. Off hand I got a 1” pattern at 20 feet, but I think that was mainly just due to my shaky hands. I think next time I’ll go up to 27.5 or 28 gr. After I get a decent load for the pressure I’m going to test from a bench rest to see how accurate it is. I’m still going to test the 4227, but the BL-C(2) is excellent so far.

Click to expand...

I'm curious to see if the faster powder helps operating and improves accuracy. You may have to get to mid range loads to see the effect.

Mr_Flintstone said:

I tested some loads today with 18 gr IMR 4227 with the same bullets. Gordons showed 23,000 psi, and the chronograph showed an average of 1450 fps with an SD of 14. I moved my chronograph out to 10 yards and taped a target to the back sunshade. I got a 3/8” pattern, but 4/5 bullets made one ragged hole. The other one I knew I pulled a little when I shot it. Accuracy-wise, this beats the BL-C(2) loads, but are a little slower with a little higher pressure. Overall, I’m happy for a plinking load. I’m still going to do a little more testing though.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear it worked so well. I sure like it in rifle over pistol.

I see people mentioning using Quickload or GRT to predict pressure/velocity using fast powders in rifle cartridges. I have not used GRT so I can't comment on that, but something that Quickload can't predict is case position sensitivity, I believe it assumes the powder is always against the primer.

I've seen as much as 300fps difference in velocity in 357mag loads (powder forward test), I have to imagine it could be even worse in rifle cartridges.