748 for 270

[timbertramp]

I load 748 in 308 & 30-06 with good results and thought I would try it in my 270 but couldn't find any info. Have any of you tried it and how did it work? Thanks.

 

[loadedround]

At first, I thought you weren't looking hard enough until I discovered the same thing, the two current manuals I checked along with the Hodgdon website did not show any loads for WW 748 in 270 Win. Frankly I am confused since 748 is an ideal powder in the 308 and works well for the lighter bullets in the 30-06. Why the 30-06 then and not the 270 since they share the same parent case. Why not call Winchester and talk to them? 913-362-9455 or www.wwpowder.com Phone number and website is from a 2006 brochure, hopefully it's still good. I would like to know this answer myself.

 

[NCsmitty]

Win 748 is a bit too fast for the bottle neck 270. That's why they make Win 760 and a lot of other nice slow powders.


NCsmitty

 

[rcmodel]

+1
WW748 is too fast for the 270, and it's even marginally too fast for the 30-06 & .308, except with lighter bullets.

Winchester load data stops at 150 grain loads for both of the 30's. But even with a 150 grain, WW760 powder will give more velocity in the 30-06.

rc

 

[loadedround]

Thanks Smitty and RC...I thought so.

 

[waffentomas]

I found loads for the .270 using BL-C(2) and RL 10x - two powders with virtually the same burn rate as 748. Sure, burn rates, and pressure, and heat, of various powders can vary a lot, but I think there is probably a load out there using 748 in .270. I love the stuff, and load all my .308 ammo with it, from 110gr spire points to 200gr Barnes.

Tom

 

[timbertramp]

Thanks guys. Just got back to check the posts. I felt the same way loadaround, but maybe smitty's right. Maybe I'll call w-w tomorrow and see what they say. I've since acquired a couple lbs of h4895 and a lb of 4831 so I have something to work with anyway. I'll try to let you know what w-w has to say. Thanks again.

 

[bhawkeye]

According to Quickload, 748 has lots of reasonable loads, from the lighter (110gr) to the heavier (150gr) bullets. Around 100 fps less than 760, but should be cleaner burning.

 

[timbertramp]

Well, it appears smitty was right. I called the number provided by loadedround and talked to Dave. He says 748 is too fast for loading the 270as the pressures got too high before they reached the velocities they were looking for. Oh well, lots of other good propellants to chose from. Thanks for your input.

 

[rcmodel]

Well, it appears smitty was right.

Would you expect anything less from him?

I haven't noticed him giving anyone bum advice so far.

rc

 

[avan47]

I recently read an article in one of the gun mags on handloading. The basic story line was that the author could not find any loads for a particular powder he wanted to try, so he started with loads for a similar powder and got very erratic results. He contacted the powder manufacturer about the problems he was having and was told that there was a reason he couldn’t find any loads for the combination he was trying. The powder was not suitable for that application. Burning rate does not tell the whole story about a powder. Only lab testing can tell if a powder is suitable for a particular application. It will be interesting to hear what Winchester has to say about 748 in the .270. I tried 748 in .308 loads quite a few years ago, and I didn’t like the results. I got signs of high pressure, including partial head separation. I had the headspace of the rifle checked by Browning, and it was ok. (BLR in .308) The problem may have been soft brass, but there are too many other powders more suitable for loading the .308, so I gave up on 748. I still use it for reloading .223 and 30 – 30 win. With good results.