Powder not recommended for specific bullet weights?

[OIFumbled]

Hello all, I'm in the process of getting into reloading (Planning and Pricing everything out to justify it to the wife and myself that it's worth the effort), mainly for economic purposes, and had a few questions. I've searched high and low, but haven't been able to find solid answers on a few questions, so I figured I would turn to the experts on the forum that I've been stalking for years and use a bit of their knowledge to answer a few questions. Apologies ahead of time for the incoming wall of text (I wish to give the fullest explanation possible of the various things I've researched and my thought process)

FYI, the weapons that will be referred to are a Savage 11/111 with 22" barrel, an MVP Patrol with 16.25" barrel (both in .308), and a Palmetto State AR15 (assembled not bought) in .223 (with a 16" 1:7 barrel). If possible, this will relate to a Remington 7400 in 30-06, but that isn't required.

I'm in the process of making a spreadsheet to project the given cost of reloading, to find the break-even point where reloading becomes less expensive per round than purchasing factory ammunition, but I've stalled out while researching powders. I'm looking for that unicorn that I can load for both .308 and .223 (and yes, I know search function, I've read dozens of articles and forum discussions regarding this on this and other forums). The bullets preferred are the Hornady 168gr BTHP and Remington 55gr FMJ (Both are cheap and available, which are primary concerns for when I purchase). The .308s will be used for both paper and eventual hunting, while the AR15 is purely for paper purposes (and if there's ever a zombie apocalypse, etc.). I know the hornady is not recommended for hunting, but it's something to start paper with.

Through cross referencing various resources, primarily Hodgdon's loading database, recommendations from various articles and forum postings, and burn rate charts from Accurate Powder, Hodgdon, and powder density charts from tacticoolproducts and leeprecision, I've narrowed my list of powders.

I'm currently looking at:
H335
BL-C(2)
CFE 223
W748

(I'm not considering Varget or a number of other powders, because they are either not available everywhere I've checked, or are not spherical, which is a major preference based on anecdotal information gleaned from my many searched)

Something I noticed is that some powders, such as W748, are recommended for some bullet weights but not others (and yes, I know that some powders are intended for only weights above or below a specific bullet weight). For instance, W748 is listed for .308 with a wide spectrum of weights, from 125gr to 208gr, but some weights are not listed, such as 165 and 168.

Now, I thought this might be a marketing stunt (If you go on the assumption that if it's not listed then it's not recommended, to promote product diversity etc), so I cross referenced it against Nosler's load data for similar weight bullets (Hornady's website doesn't list such information), and W748 was absent for 165/168 there as well.

Is it possible for a powder to perform functionally across a wide spread of bullet weights, but not work for bullet weights within that spectrum?

Also, I know that burn charts aren't considered reliable for determining loads etc, and there is some variance between charts. Is there a reliable resource for the burn characteristics (pressure curve, etc.) out there, which could explain why a powder which is rated with very similar grains, velocities, and pressure to a powder which IS recommended, and is surrounded by recommended powders on the burn charts (in this case Hodgdon's own burn chart, which puts it between Varget, BL-C(2), and CFE 223), wouldn't be recommended in the same applications?

Thanks in advance to anyone who reads through this and/or replies. This is the last piece of data I need to finish up my research.

 

[JohnhenrySTL]

I'm about to sleep. Others will adress your question in detail. Very quickly, I'm not understanding why you want one powder for everything? If I even read you properly? Having different powders for particular loads works well for me.
To my knowledge, never create a load that isn't published.
If somebody somewhere did not publish it, it likely is not safe. Some powders work well for multiple loads, but never assume anything that has not been published in a manual by an accredited source is safe. I'm aware of several marketing tricks in the world of guns. But concerning published data, I don't think they mess around. I think they would quickly be sued out of existanse. Welcome to THR. I'm sure you will get all your questions answered.

 

[macgrumpy]

CFE 223 and W748 will work but you I doubt if you will get results that will be very impressive. Trying to find one powder that will work with the same caliber but different barrel lengths is very difficult but adding in a second caliber makes it just about impossible. You'll find a powder that works but your groups wont be anything to brag about...good luck.

 

[Pete D.]

reloading

you have not searched as much as you think if you are still asking questions that are answered in just about any reloading manual. Buy a copy, if you have not already, of Lyman's #49 Reloading manual. (I believe that is the most recent) All of your questions are answered therein.
The rifles that you are using are relatively unimportant as far as answering your questions. The cartridges are the main. --- .30-06 and .223 Remington. Your 1-7 twist AR will stabilize bullets up to 80 grains....and may be a bit too fast for the 55s.
About propellants that are similar but not listed......if you were to check another reloading manual, you may well find it listed. Reasons for a propellant not being listed while similar ones are are too numerous to discuss. The simple answer is that they may not test every powder. For instance, for the 168 BTHP, Hornady lists 12 powders while Sierra lists 18. Both Sierra and Lyman list Reloader 15 for the 168 BTHP, Hotnady does not.
Savings....You will save dramatically compared to the price of factory ammo - from shot one.
Don't get too caught up in the spherical powder idea. There are many powders that will meter as well. I use Alliant's Reloader 15 for my AR and Sierra 77s; It is also useful for the .30-06 (with 168s).
More often than not - for the .30-06 - I use IMR 4895 (also useful in the .223 for 55s) There are a number of propellants from IMR that will work nicely with both .223 and .30-06 (IMR 4895, 3031, 4064) These are all extruded propellants and meter out very nicely from my powder measures.
of the propellants that you have mentioned....they will work; BL C2 and 748 both have a good reputation. Are they optimal? Probably not...that is the sticking point in trying to do everything with one powder.
You could, taking things to extremes, use Alliant's Red Dot for everything - rifle, pistol, shotgun.....but performance would be way reduced in most applications.
Pete

PS _ The Hornady 168 BTHP is not recommended for hunting.

 

[Walkalong]

Is there a reliable resource for the burn characteristics (pressure curve, etc.) out there, which could explain why a powder which is rated with very similar grains, velocities, and pressure to a powder which IS recommended, and is surrounded by recommended powders on the burn charts (in this case Hodgdon's own burn chart, which puts it between Varget, BL-C(2), and CFE 223), wouldn't be recommended in the same applications?

The reloading manuals do a good job of explaining this. They make a great many different burn rates for a reason. You can get a few powders that will work pretty well with the middle weight bullets for both calibers, but you won't find one that excels at all bullet weights for both. Concentrate on the bullet weights you want to shoot in each caliber and then pick a powder or two based on recommendations from research and asking here. I know you are trying to pinch pennies (Aren't we all), but no one here keeps only one power around. You can easily keep it to two for .223 & .308, and, as posted, one if you limit yourself somewhat.

Welcome to THR

 

[jmr40]

I would strongly advise using separate powders for 223 and 308. I'd add a 3rd if you want to load for 30-06. Buying 3 containers of 3 different powders costs exactly the same as 3 containers of the same powder. In the long run you spend exactly the same and have optimal powders for each cartridge instead of poor performance from all 3.

Ball powder can work, but all of my best results are with stick powder.

Slower powders work best with heavier bullets, faster powders can be used with the heavies, but you won't get the speed you'd get with slower powder. Many other powders CAN be used, but companies don't waste time testing them and publishing the results because they know they won't work well.

For example Varget, 4064, RL15 and several other powders are excellent in 308 with common bullet weights between 150-180 gr. If you want to shoot lighter 110-130 gr bullets, or heavier 200-215 gr bullets those powders will work, but at those weights there are better choices and you won't find as much data.

If your goal is to put together cheap ammo just for plinking you'll at best break even compared to buying cheap bulk factory ammo. Especially in 223. If you consider the time spent you can buy bulk 223 cheaper than you can load it. But if you want to put together high quality ammo using premium bullets, with better accuracy and usually a little better speed you will save a lot of money compared to buying premium ammo. FWIW, even though I have the equipment, I don't bother loading for 223 or 9mm. I do for 308, 30-06 and 300 WSM.

Some of the premium super accurate factory ammo in 308 can be over $50 for 20 rounds, over $75 for my 300 WSM. You can load 20 rounds with premium bullets and get the same or better accuracy for about $20 for all of them. By hand loading my 300 WSM costs basically the same to shoot as my 308. If you really want to get the best performance out of a rifle you can certainly save money. But it does take time to recover the costs of the initial investment.

 

[Reloadron]

I have yet to find a one size fits all powder. For example I can load IMR 4895 in 223 Win using 55 grain bullets as well as 308 Win and 30-06 Spring using 168 grain bullets. The problem is while that powder will work in all three cartridges for the bullets mentioned I never had much luck with it in my 223 loads.

The more you read on hand loading the more you will appreciate the wide range of powders out there and why certain powders are suggested and used in certain loads with certain bullets and cartridges. You will also understand why some loads just do not work out very well.

Using a spread sheet as a cost justification can be a tricky process, note what jmr40 has to say:

Some of the premium super accurate factory ammo in 308 can be over $50 for 20 rounds, over $75 for my 300 WSM. You can load 20 rounds with premium bullets and get the same or better accuracy for about $20 for all of them. By hand loading my 300 WSM costs basically the same to shoot as my 308. If you really want to get the best performance out of a rifle you can certainly save money. But it does take time to recover the costs of the initial investment.

Sometimes, as is often my case, the ammunition I make in 308 Winchester exceeds my cost of manufactured match grade ammunition.

Welcome to THR and enjoy your visits.

Ron

 

[Sam1911]

Hello all, I'm in the process of getting into reloading (Planning and Pricing everything out to justify it to the wife and myself that it's worth the effort), mainly for economic purposes

Hi! Great that you're getting into reloading! It's a wonderful hobby and accompaniment to your shooting development.

I'm in the process of making a spreadsheet to project the given cost of reloading, to find the break-even point where reloading becomes less expensive per round than purchasing factory ammunition, but I've stalled out while researching powders.

The economics of it will be very hard to pin down in a way that makes sense to all people. If you're buying cheap blasting ammo for your rifle (especially in such common chamberings) you may really never break even, or will slowly. If you're looking to make high quality ammo tailored to your guns' most specific preferences, then you can pretty quickly do better than the cost of "premium" factory ammo. And, more importantly, make ammo you just plain cannot buy. (No factory is going to build EXACTLY the loads that work best in your rifles.)

And then, if you want to make the very very best ammo you can possibly make, you probably will be putting more money into those (esp. the specialty bullets) than it would cost you to buy good factory ammo.

And that's outside the question that some folks don't want to think about: what's my time worth? Reloading takes time, space, very good record keeping, and concentration. Can you spare those without undue impact on your home and family? Or what is the cost of those impacts?

I'm looking for that unicorn that I can load for both .308 and .223

Why, exactly? What's the point of that? It sure isn't going to save you money. And jumping on one powder, even for just one cartridge/rifle, isn't likely to get you to the most accurate ammo for your rifle. It might, if you're lucky, but most folks end up trying a handful of powders and some multiple of that number in different loads to find what their rifle performs best with. It's going to be pretty unusual that their results say that one powder was just the best for three different rifles -- let alone three different cartridges!

or are not spherical, which is a major preference based on anecdotal information gleaned from my many searched

I'd heavily re-evaluate that requirement. You can get nice results from ball powders, but unless your budget reloading plans include a progressive press with an automatic powder measure/dropper avoiding stick powders is cutting yourself off from best results. If you're throwing and weighing loads by hand, using extruded powders won't bother you at all.

Something I noticed is that some powders, such as W748, are recommended for some bullet weights but not others (and yes, I know that some powders are intended for only weights above or below a specific bullet weight). For instance, W748 is listed for .308 with a wide spectrum of weights, from 125gr to 208gr, but some weights are not listed, such as 165 and 168.

Most experienced reloaders would be comfortable working up loads with one powder for a 165 gr. bullet if the manufacturer has that powder listed with 150s and 180s. They'd apply good safe loading techniques, chrono their results as they work up, and be fairly confident in their safety.

Manufacturers usually can't give every result from every powder with every load under every bullet they might have tried, so they'll give a selection that they've achieved pretty good results with. Maybe their results with 748 under a 165 just weren't as good as other powders.

Most of us would also say, if there is good data for other powders, why bother with tinkering around with something they didn't like enough to publish? Go with what they're telling you works.

Again, you won't save money and you won't get better performance by limiting yourself the way you're describing.

Is it possible for a powder to perform functionally across a wide spread of bullet weights, but not work for bullet weights within that spectrum?

In any given gun, sure. In some other gun, might be the opposite way.

Also, I know that burn charts aren't considered reliable for determining loads etc, and there is some variance between charts. Is there a reliable resource for the burn characteristics (pressure curve, etc.) out there, which could explain why a powder which is rated with very similar grains, velocities, and pressure to a powder which IS recommended, and is surrounded by recommended powders on the burn charts (in this case Hodgdon's own burn chart, which puts it between Varget, BL-C(2), and CFE 223), wouldn't be recommended in the same applications?

Probably nothing definitive. If so it would be an extremely detailed scientific treatise on combustion and pressures and flame spread and who knows what all else that most likely wouldn't be of much use to your average (... and, ahem newbie...) reloader.

What matters is what works, and a large selection of "what works" is in the various published data. Make sure you have a good reloading GUIDE that explains how to work up safe loads with given data and have fun!

 

[Buck13]

Buy a copy, if you have not already, of Lyman's #49 Reloading manual. (I believe that is the most recent)

I can't remember the source, but I think I heard that Lyman's #50 is coming out pretty soon. If he wants to use a newer powder like CFE223, it might be better to wait a little while for that one (if it even adds CFE223) and use the data on Hodgdon's website for now. I glanced at #49 and didn't see any CFE223 data.

 

[JimKirk]

You are trying to take a car apart with an adjustable wrench ... yea you may can do it!

Think about it ... by putting all your eggs in one basket ... if that powder becomes unavailable like the Clays powders did ... you are S.O.L. Another shortage is just one blink away...

During the latest powder shortage ... I burned up some powders that I had on hand ... some I only did a few test loads and set the can back in the cabinet ... some of them were not ideal for the loads as I would have liked .... But I was able to shoot some ....

It is better to several different powders that work for a specific area ... don't lock your self into just one or two...

 

[Sam1911]

Hello all, I'm in the process of getting into reloading (Planning and Pricing everything out to justify it to the wife and myself that it's worth the effort), mainly for economic purposes

Hi! Great that you're getting into reloading! It's a wonderful hobby and accompaniment to your shooting development.

I'm in the process of making a spreadsheet to project the given cost of reloading, to find the break-even point where reloading becomes less expensive per round than purchasing factory ammunition, but I've stalled out while researching powders.

The economics of it will be very hard to pin down in a way that makes sense to all people. If you're buying cheap blasting ammo for your rifle (especially in such common chamberings) you may really never break even, or will slowly. If you're looking to make high quality ammo tailored to your guns' most specific preferences, then you can pretty quickly do better than the cost of "premium" factory ammo. And, more importantly, make ammo you just plain cannot buy. (No factory is going to build EXACTLY the loads that work best in your rifles.)

And then, if you want to make the very very best ammo you can possibly make, you probably will be putting more money into those (esp. the specialty bullets) than it would cost you to buy good factory ammo.

And that's outside the question that some folks don't want to think about: what's my time worth? Reloading takes time, space, very good record keeping, and concentration. Can you spare those without undue impact on your home and family? Or what is the cost of those impacts?

I'm looking for that unicorn that I can load for both .308 and .223

Why, exactly? What's the point of that? It sure isn't going to save you money. And jumping on one powder, even for just one cartridge/rifle, isn't likely to get you to the most accurate ammo for your rifle. It might, if you're lucky, but most folks end up trying a handful of powders and some multiple of that number in different loads to find what their rifle performs best with.

or are not spherical, which is a major preference based on anecdotal information gleaned from my many searched

I'd heavily re-evaluate that requirement. You can get nice results from ball powders, but unless your budget reloading plans include a progressive press with an automatic powder measure/dropper avoiding stick powders is cutting yourself off from best results. If you're throwing and weighing loads by hand, using extruded powders won't bother you at all.

Something I noticed is that some powders, such as W748, are recommended for some bullet weights but not others (and yes, I know that some powders are intended for only weights above or below a specific bullet weight). For instance, W748 is listed for .308 with a wide spectrum of weights, from 125gr to 208gr, but some weights are not listed, such as 165 and 168.

Most experienced reloaders would be comfortable working up loads with one powder for a 165 gr. bullet if the manufacturer has that powder listed with 150s and 180s. They'd apply good safe loading techniques, chrono their results as they work up, and be fairly confident in their safety.

Manufacturers usually can't give every result from every powder with every load under every bullet they might have tried, so they'll give a selection that they've achieved pretty good results with. Maybe their results with 748 under a 165 just weren't as good as other powders.

Most of us would also say, if there is good data for other powders, why bother with tinkering around with something they didn't like enough to publish? Go with what they're telling you works.

Again, you won't save money and you won't get better performance by limiting yourself the way you're describing.

Is it possible for a powder to perform functionally across a wide spread of bullet weights, but not work for bullet weights within that spectrum?

In any given gun, sure. In some other gun, might be the opposite way.

Also, I know that burn charts aren't considered reliable for determining loads etc, and there is some variance between charts. Is there a reliable resource for the burn characteristics (pressure curve, etc.) out there, which could explain why a powder which is rated with very similar grains, velocities, and pressure to a powder which IS recommended, and is surrounded by recommended powders on the burn charts (in this case Hodgdon's own burn chart, which puts it between Varget, BL-C(2), and CFE 223), wouldn't be recommended in the same applications?

Probably nothing definitive. If so it would be an extremely detailed scientific treatise on combustion and pressures and flame spread and who knows what all else that most likely wouldn't be of much use to your average (... and, ahem newbie...) reloader.

What matters is what works, and a large selection of "what works" is in the various published data. Make sure you have a good reloading GUIDE that explains how to work up safe loads with given data and have fun!

 

[Laphroaig]

It's a wonderful hobby and accompaniment to your shooting development.

I think that this is the right reason to start reloading. Once you start to amortize the initial cost of the equipment, its going to take you a while to break even. Wives are pretty savvy with that kind of concept so it might take awhile to convince her otherwise.

But back to the one powder for both of your applications, I agree that it might not be the best compromise but it is a good way to get started. Get your feet wet before you jump in all of the way.

I faced the same dilemma when I started years ago. My first 2 calibers were .308 and 30-06, and I chose IMR4895. When cheap 4895 pulldown powder was available I found that it was also an excellent choice for .223 and 55 gr. bullets and used it for all 3 applications.

So you might get lucky and find that one powder. You never know until you try. That's the fun part

Laphroaig

 

[Walkalong]

Buying 3 containers of 3 different powders costs exactly the same as 3 containers of the same powder. In the long run you spend exactly the same and have optimal powders for each cartridge instead of poor performance from all 3

Good advise.

 

[OIFumbled]

I would strongly advise using separate powders for 223 and 308. I'd add a 3rd if you want to load for 30-06. Buying 3 containers of 3 different powders costs exactly the same as 3 containers of the same powder. In the long run you spend exactly the same and have optimal powders for each cartridge instead of poor performance from all 3.

Ball powder can work, but all of my best results are with stick powder.

Slower powders work best with heavier bullets, faster powders can be used with the heavies, but you won't get the speed you'd get with slower powder. Many other powders CAN be used, but companies don't waste time testing them and publishing the results because they know they won't work well.

For example Varget, 4064, RL15 and several other powders are excellent in 308 with common bullet weights between 150-180 gr. If you want to shoot lighter 110-130 gr bullets, or heavier 200-215 gr bullets those powders will work, but at those weights there are better choices and you won't find as much data.

If your goal is to put together cheap ammo just for plinking you'll at best break even compared to buying cheap bulk factory ammo. Especially in 223. If you consider the time spent you can buy bulk 223 cheaper than you can load it. But if you want to put together high quality ammo using premium bullets, with better accuracy and usually a little better speed you will save a lot of money compared to buying premium ammo. FWIW, even though I have the equipment, I don't bother loading for 223 or 9mm. I do for 308, 30-06 and 300 WSM.

Some of the premium super accurate factory ammo in 308 can be over $50 for 20 rounds, over $75 for my 300 WSM. You can load 20 rounds with premium bullets and get the same or better accuracy for about $20 for all of them. By hand loading my 300 WSM costs basically the same to shoot as my 308. If you really want to get the best performance out of a rifle you can certainly save money. But it does take time to recover the costs of the initial investment.

If your goal is to put together cheap ammo just for plinking you'll at best break even compared to buying cheap bulk factory ammo. Especially in 223. If you consider the time spent you can buy bulk 223 cheaper than you can load it. But if you want to put together high quality ammo using premium bullets, with better accuracy and usually a little better speed you will save a lot of money compared to buying premium ammo. FWIW, even though I have the equipment, I don't bother loading for 223 or 9mm. I do for 308, 30-06 and 300 WSM.

I did take this into consideration, and part of using the data table I'm making is to see if there is a cost savings, and if purchasing bulk ammo compared to once fired brass reduces the cost as the number of rounds shot increases. (example: Instead of reloading 500 virgin rounds, purchase 500 and then reload the brass)

And that's outside the question that some folks don't want to think about: what's my time worth? Reloading takes time, space, very good record keeping, and concentration. Can you spare those without undue impact on your home and family? Or what is the cost of those impacts?

I have taken this into consideration, though I'm glad someone pointed it out. It is also being evaluated as part of my calculations (the cost of my manpower if I were to pull overtime to cover the cost, vs savings per the time involved)

I'd heavily re-evaluate that requirement. You can get nice results from ball powders, but unless your budget reloading plans include a progressive press with an automatic powder measure/dropper avoiding stick powders is cutting yourself off from best results. If you're throwing and weighing loads by hand, using extruded powders won't bother you at all.

It's funny that you mention that, the equipment I was looking at starting with would likely be a Dillon 650 similar, with those specific features. That was part of why I was looking at ball powders in the first place, though if there are extruded powders that are usable through the same feeders they would be added to my list.

Quote:
It's a wonderful hobby and accompaniment to your shooting development.
I think that this is the right reason to start reloading. Once you start to amortize the initial cost of the equipment, its going to take you a while to break even. Wives are pretty savvy with that kind of concept so it might take awhile to convince her otherwise.

I hear you. My initial projections show that it's likely in the ballpark of what I would shoot in around two years to fully amortize the expense, something the wife actually understands.

I would strongly advise using separate powders for 223 and 308. I'd add a 3rd if you want to load for 30-06. Buying 3 containers of 3 different powders costs exactly the same as 3 containers of the same powder. In the long run you spend exactly the same and have optimal powders for each cartridge instead of poor performance from all 3.

You kind of called it. I was looking at the expense difference of purchasing one powder in bulk, vs the cost of purchasing the equivalent in smaller quantities to test multiple powders, though once the initial test loads are done, buying bulk in multiple powders would cost the same (though would have a higher inventory cost early on, for stocking a higher overall amount of powder).

********
Thanks for all of the responses everybody, I can now see the error in how I was thinking on the issue. I will finish my table out with powders specifically recommended for the loads I'm working up (BL-C(2) and CFE-223 to start), and take the time to experiment and make loads that give me what I'm looking for in performance and consistency.

Also, since the 168 Hornady BTHP isn't recommended for hunting, does anyone have suggestions on for a decent and inexpensive hunting bullet?

 

[Walkalong]

Remington Core-Lokt or Speer Hot Core.

Others will work of course, but those are reasonably priced and have been doing the job for a long time.

 

[Mad_Charlie]

FWIW, PP2000MR works very well for me with heavier bullets (75gr Hornady) in .223, and 178 AMAX in .308. Highest velocity, lower pressure, and very good accuracy in my rifles, (Colt AR-15, 1-7 and R700 SPS Tactical 1-12) and it is a ball powder. It is fairly cheap too. As are the Hornady bullets. I do use mag primers with it.

This may help you with your startup.

I don't have a .30-06.

Good luck.

 

[Pete D.]

bullets

does anyone have suggestions on for a decent and inexpensive hunting bullet?

Remington 165 Grain PSP......a consistently accurate bullet out of all my .30-06s.

 

[dragon813gt]

FWIW, I used only W748 across a broad range of cartridges for many years. I was always able to find an accurate load. Now I have a large variety of powders. While I have been able to find some loads that are more accurate than W748. I've spent a lot of time, and money, doing it. W748 is a very versatile powder that works in all but the larger cartridges. At that point you move up to W760.

Don't get me wrong, trigger time is great. And developing loads is great. But as a new reloader it's best to focus on one cartridge and one powder. Especially w/ jacketed bullets because finding "the load" is fairly simple. The different burn rate come more into play when you're loading cast rifle bullets. I'd personally keep it simple to start w/.

 

[Jim Watson]

The guys are right in theory, but to say that one should not use the same powder for .223 and .308 is picking the wrong example. The overlap in suitable powders for those two is tremendous. I give up little if any velocity and no accuracy by loading both with the same powder.

"Spherical" powders are great for bulk loading on a progressive machine. I find extruded powders to give SLIGHTLY better accuracy in most of MY rifles, but I am not using a progressive for F class target ammo, I don't care what Mike Dillon says.

You can read the data for the ones you can find as easily as I can, no need for me to participate in an Internet Recipe Hunt.
But if you don't see a load for Winchester 748 and a 168 grain bullet, you apparently don't have a Lyman manual. Not everything you might like to know is on the Internet.

 

[dragon813gt]

To my knowledge, never create a load that isn't published.

It's called load development for a reason. I would not suggest a novice start down the road of a non published load. But there to to many variables for every load to be printed in a manual. W/ a chronograph and Quickload it's a straightforward process to develop a load.

 

[CarJunkieLS1]

Without reading all the responses and such. I did gather you want to use one powder for .223, .308, and maybe .30-06 later...it's easy IMR 8208 XBR. It is an excellent powder in .223 and .308 and I've seen a few favorable results using it in .30-06

In short I don't share your train of thought, but if I only had to use one powder for those 3 it would be IMR 8208 XBR.

 

[armarsh]

...Thanks for all of the responses everybody, I can now see the error in how I was thinking on the issue. I will finish my table out with powders specifically recommended for the loads I'm working up (BL-C(2) and CFE-223 to start), and take the time to experiment and make loads that give me what I'm looking for in performance and consistency.

Also, since the 168 Hornady BTHP isn't recommended for hunting, does anyone have suggestions on for a decent and inexpensive hunting bullet?

Actually you would give up nothing using CFE223 for 223 and 308. Hodgden has loads for 165-168 grain 308s on their web site. Please look them up and satisfy yourself that top-tier velocitys are achievable with CFE223 in 308. There is no shortage of 30 caliber 165 grain hunting bullets. Nosler makes a 165 grain partition which is a superb hunting bullet. They are expensive, however. Hornaday makes an Interlock in 165 that is fairly reasonable.

Not that much of the above advice from others is generally wrong. I prefer extruded powders and am not shy about using a different powder if I think it is an advantage. In this one specific example one powder does work very well for two very different cartridges.

 

[Dudedog]

BLC(2) worked well for me in .223 with 55gr and 62gr bullets.
BLC(2) also meters well.
It is on slower side of powders for .223.

I haven't used it in .308 but I believe it was "designed" for the .308/7.62 Nato.

I do see listed loads for it in 30-06 but don't know how well it works there either.

I doubt that one powder will work best in all three, but it might be possible to find good loads in all three.

 

[Airgead]

I agree with what others have said -- don't get hung up on spherical/ball powders even in a progressive. Extruded and flake work just fine. You should always be diligent at checking weights periodically in a progressive run and you should always understand the variance your volumetric powder measures will throw a charge with. In my notes I keep a record of the variance seen over 10-20 test charge throws to establish a baseline spread. For example with IMR4895 I get +/- 0.1gr but with LeveRevolution I get 0-.0.2gr variance on throws. Your setup will be different and will be something you need to test for yourself before you finalize a load and then do a complete progressive run.

 

[OIFumbled]

I actually went by an LGS (to me, they've been there forever, but since it's across the border in MD to my WV I would likely never buy a firearm there), and the guy behind the counter has been reloading for over 40 years, and was very nice. He teaches reloading for what seems like a reasonable fee ($80, and it's hands-on on his equipment), plus they have a ton of reloading equipment in stock. (Their powder selection was more diverse than Midway's, though most of it is only in 1lb sized containers)

I priced out a full setup on a single stage (which he and several reloaders who were in store all recommended, even if I eventually move to a progressive) for under a grand, some come taxes I might be in business.

Thanks again everyone for all of your suggestions on powders, and for breaking down barriers in thought that I had which were limiting my options. And I did get a Lyman's manual (albeit a 48th edition, but will get the new one when it comes out)