fnbrowning
Member
Disclaimer: I understand what amateur reloaders call “Burn Rate Chart” is not used by professional ballisticians to develop loads. I understand that really it is just a general guideline showing "Relative Quickness."
That being said. . . .
Have you noticed that since Winchester/Olin sold their powder plant (in St. Marks, FL), and then sold the "marketing rights" to the powder, to Hodgdon, that they've moved W748 around in their propellant chart? Hodgdon's latest lists IMR 4320(#100), W748(#101), BLc2(#102) and CFE(#103). It's pretty clear it is a re-do of one of these powders. . . . . Nowadays, it appears that W748 is slower than 4320, which is slower than 4064, which is slower than 4895 (either of them), which is slower than TAC.
This was never the case before, 2010, when Hodgdon placed W748 near AA2460, which is where all the respectable powder companies rekon'ed it belonged. An alert reader of the latest Hodgdon chart, who was unfamiliar to the long history of W748, would conclude these days that W748 is just too damn slow for the 223-55gr combination! Now that's interesting.
Back in the late 80's when my Father was working at the Olin casting plant, and he was reloading 55gr .223 for his son's Mini-14
he naturally went to the Olin company store on Powder Mill Road. When he told the old Winchester man behind the counter he was loading .223, what powder did the man slap down on the counter? That's right, W748.
So why is there so few recommended 748 loads for each bullet weight on Hodgdons website?
Why the rant? I'd like to start using W748 with the SS109/M855 loads, but no-one is testing it with mil-spec bullets. You just can't look up a Sierra or Speer 6x grain hunting bullet and expect to transfer load data over to a longer military bullet.
That being said. . . .
Have you noticed that since Winchester/Olin sold their powder plant (in St. Marks, FL), and then sold the "marketing rights" to the powder, to Hodgdon, that they've moved W748 around in their propellant chart? Hodgdon's latest lists IMR 4320(#100), W748(#101), BLc2(#102) and CFE(#103). It's pretty clear it is a re-do of one of these powders. . . . . Nowadays, it appears that W748 is slower than 4320, which is slower than 4064, which is slower than 4895 (either of them), which is slower than TAC.
This was never the case before, 2010, when Hodgdon placed W748 near AA2460, which is where all the respectable powder companies rekon'ed it belonged. An alert reader of the latest Hodgdon chart, who was unfamiliar to the long history of W748, would conclude these days that W748 is just too damn slow for the 223-55gr combination! Now that's interesting.
Back in the late 80's when my Father was working at the Olin casting plant, and he was reloading 55gr .223 for his son's Mini-14
he naturally went to the Olin company store on Powder Mill Road. When he told the old Winchester man behind the counter he was loading .223, what powder did the man slap down on the counter? That's right, W748.So why is there so few recommended 748 loads for each bullet weight on Hodgdons website?
Why the rant? I'd like to start using W748 with the SS109/M855 loads, but no-one is testing it with mil-spec bullets. You just can't look up a Sierra or Speer 6x grain hunting bullet and expect to transfer load data over to a longer military bullet.
