NIKON PROSTAFF - 480 CLICKS OF CAN-DO!
 

Topic Options
#7141555 - 12/04/12 Jack O'Connor's load data
Fraser Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 07/18/01
Posts: 628
Loc: Deep River
I just finished loading some .270 ammo and I was using 60 grains of H-4831 with 130 grain Nosler Partitions. O'Connor used 62 grains. I've heard that some think his scale was off (I doubt that) and I've heard that H-4831 has changed over the years (which I don't doubt). But what I'm wondering is if anyone still uses the old 62 grain load?
_________________________
"Hail to the King, Baby!"
Ash, Army of Darkness

Top
RV 728 BP
#7141602 - 12/04/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: Fraser]
n8dawg6 Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 01/20/07
Posts: 2209
Hornady manual still lists 62.0 g as max with a 130 g bullet.

I use 60 g and am very content with it. No pressure signs in my two rifles and very good accuracy.

correction: I have the previous version of the Hornady manual, they just did a new one.


Edited by n8dawg6 (12/04/12)
_________________________
Uber Demanding Rifle Aficionado

Top
#7141753 - 12/04/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: n8dawg6]
Lou_270 Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 03/07/03
Posts: 1361
Loc: Dallas, TX
O'Connor used military surplus H-4831. Apparently H4831 has been through 2 iterations since the H-4831 O'Connor used and is a bit faster. I have a Handloader's Digest with an article on handloading for the .270 by O'Connor and O'Connor himself mentions in it that his 62 gr load is with the military surplus version and the new (at the time - 70s since the surplus supply ran out) manufactured H4831 and dupont version (imr) are both faster than the military surplus version and require lighter charges.

Lou


Edited by Lou_270 (12/04/12)

Top
#7141792 - 12/04/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: Lou_270]
bsa1917hunter Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 08/12/10
Posts: 20915
Loc: Orygun
Where's Bradford at??? He may be able to clarify whether or not his dads scale was off. The powder in question has definitely changed a bit though and supposedly 62gr. is a very HOT load for todays powder (H4831SC). I'd start around 58gr's. and work up to maybe around 60 if it were me. I'll be doing that here in a few days with the 130gr. partiions I just bought at SPS for $15.00/box.... Some of you guys should jump on this deal, it's a pretty good one:

http://shootersproshop.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=71_101_102&product_id=158
_________________________
Originally Posted By: raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.


BSA

Top
#7141819 - 12/04/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: bsa1917hunter]
RinB Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 03/06/08
Posts: 1501
Most of you are too young to know that the original 4831 was a surplus military powder. I think it was from WW two. In the 50's you could buy 100 pounds for about 40 cents a pound. It was sold at retail for a buck a pound. None of the successors have been as slow.

Top
#7141934 - 12/04/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: RinB]
BobinNH Offline
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 30532
Yeah,like RinB says, the old stuff JOC used was slower...he did very deliberately use 62 grains of it in his rifle.His scale was not off.

I use 61 gr of the current stuff with 130 Sierra, and Partition for a smidge under 3100(or a bit over in some barrels),and shoot it year round with no ill effect.

Funny thing I discovered awhile back but paid little attention to until recently;you can carefully work up to 62 gr 7828 and get roughly the same results that JOC got with 130 gr bullets in the 270.It has worked so well in 3-4 barrels for us that a pal of mine now uses it as his standard load for the 270.For giggles I am going to try this with the 130 Swift SS II in a 9 twist barrel.

It never occured to me that 7828 could have been designed to replace the old 4831 but maybe so(?)
_________________________
You can't say very much on here without pissing at least SOMEBODY off-get used to it.

Top
#7141981 - 12/04/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: BobinNH]
rrogers Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 03/30/10
Posts: 532
Loc: Cedaredge, CO
I really like 7828 with 140's in my 270.
_________________________
Steak, It's my favorite vegetable!

Top
#7142101 - 12/04/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: Fraser]
jwall Online   content
Campfire Tracker

Registered: 09/06/10
Posts: 5024
Loc: Southern Arkansas
Originally Posted By: Fraser


But what I'm wondering is if anyone still uses the old 62 grain load?


YES - I STILL have most of 1 lb in an original m s can (hodgdon's can BUT NOT H 4831). I could post a pic but don't have it handy. In the last 70s I bought several lbs. for 2-3 bucks/lb can.

I've bought 10 lbs of of MS 4831 recently, but don't have possession of it.

Reminds me, I need to CALL someone.

BobinNH, I've been replacing ms4831 with IMR 7828 since it has been available.


Edited by jwall (12/04/12)
_________________________
jwall

aka - 3100 guy.

There is no aftermarket FIX for operator error. jw


Top
#7142413 - 12/04/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: jwall]
BRoper Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 08/22/03
Posts: 837
Loc: Parma, Idaho
I have used 62 gr. H-4831 in my .270 quite a bit with no signs of high pressure. My normal load is 60 gr. though. I get 3050 fps and 1" groups so I don't see a need to go hotter.
_________________________
"I've labored long and hard for bread,
For honor and for riches,
But on my corns to long you've tread
You fine haired sons o' bitches"
Black Bart, po8

Top
#7143324 - 12/04/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: BRoper]
bobnob17 Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 05/01/12
Posts: 1032
Loc: NSW Australia
Maybe its my rifle, but loading 62g of H4831 (called AR2213sc here) gets me only to 3050fps or so with the 130 cup and cores. Its mild. I can't get much more in than that so I use 4350 instead for just under 3100fps.

I find the 4831 perfect for the 150 and 160 though, 59 and 57.5 respectively give 2950 and about 2800.

Barrel is 23.5 inches on a Zastava Mauser.

Top
#7144674 - 12/05/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: BobinNH]
M1Garand Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 08/11/06
Posts: 1132
Loc: Michigan
Originally Posted By: BobinNH

Funny thing I discovered awhile back but paid little attention to until recently;you can carefully work up to 62 gr 7828 and get roughly the same results that JOC got with 130 gr bullets in the 270.It has worked so well in 3-4 barrels for us that a pal of mine now uses it as his standard load for the 270.For giggles I am going to try this with the 130 Swift SS II in a 9 twist barrel.



Bob, be careful with the Swift if you're looking at running it up to 62 grns, they run higher pressure than either the Sierra or Partition. I blew a primer working up loads with the first version of it with Magpro that were under max and fine with the 130 Partition. I was chronying at the time too and my velocity was in Weatherby territory.

Top
#7144862 - 12/05/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: M1Garand]
BobinNH Offline
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 30532
M1: Noted and thanks! wink
_________________________
You can't say very much on here without pissing at least SOMEBODY off-get used to it.

Top
#7145740 - 12/05/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: BobinNH]
RinB Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 03/06/08
Posts: 1501
Years back I used 57.5 of IMR 4831 with 130's for 3100+. That powder usually won the velocity contest with all the 130's but I had some concerns about using it in hot weather so went to H4831 and now to H4831sce.

I have gotten great velocities with 150's using IMR7828ssc but with charges less than those used by Cactus Jack.

Top
#7145822 - 12/05/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: BobinNH]
bellydeep Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 12/12/09
Posts: 835
Loc: Montana
Originally Posted By: BobinNH

Funny thing I discovered awhile back but paid little attention to until recently;you can carefully work up to 62 gr 7828 and get roughly the same results that JOC got with 130 gr bullets in the 270.It has worked so well in 3-4 barrels for us that a pal of mine now uses it as his standard load for the 270.For giggles I am going to try this with the 130 Swift SS II in a 9 twist barrel.

It never occured to me that 7828 could have been designed to replace the old 4831 but maybe so(?)


60gr IMR7828 in my .270 did a shade over 3200 with a 130NBT....how far above that do you get with 62?
_________________________
This is a public service announcement. The following individuals are generally regarded as knowing next to nothing and their advice should not be mistaken for actual knowledge:

Savage 99
Logcutter
Take a Knee/4321/drinkwater(?)
Ringman


Top
#7146183 - 12/05/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: bellydeep]
BobinNH Offline
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 30532
Originally Posted By: bellydeep
Originally Posted By: BobinNH

Funny thing I discovered awhile back but paid little attention to until recently;you can carefully work up to 62 gr 7828 and get roughly the same results that JOC got with 130 gr bullets in the 270.It has worked so well in 3-4 barrels for us that a pal of mine now uses it as his standard load for the 270.For giggles I am going to try this with the 130 Swift SS II in a 9 twist barrel.

It never occured to me that 7828 could have been designed to replace the old 4831 but maybe so(?)


60gr IMR7828 in my .270 did a shade over 3200 with a 130NBT....how far above that do you get with 62?


bellydeep we are not getting near that velocity....in two Kriegers and one pre 64 M70 barrel(all 22") we are getting about 3100 fps.I have not tried it yet in the newer Brux barrel.
_________________________
You can't say very much on here without pissing at least SOMEBODY off-get used to it.

Top
#7147653 - 12/05/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: RinB]
Eremicus Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 18881
Loc: Placerville,CA,USA
I remember when old Jack started fooling with H4831. It was called "4350 data powder" as one could use IMR 4350 data and not get into trouble.
It was WWII military surplus powder. It was used in the 20mm ammunition. The story goes that old man Hodgdon bought it as it lay in piles on the runways of old air bases. He had it washed, blended and packaged. It sold very cheaply and was loved by the long range target shooter of that era. E

Top
#7148063 - 12/05/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: Eremicus]
Richdeerhunter Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 587
Loc: Pennsylvania
In JOC's 1961 "Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns", page 147, he said he never found a better .270 load than 49.5 gr of IMR-4064 with a 130 gr bullet.

He mentions IMR-4350 as the slowest IMR powder.

Perhaps this is prior to his finding H4831.

For .30-06, he recommended 4320.

Top
#7148250 - 12/06/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: Richdeerhunter]
wildhobbybobby Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 12/27/09
Posts: 2457
Loc: Michigan Yooper
I still have about a gallon and a half (out of 5 gallons originally purchased) of WWII 4831 that I bought for $1.50 a pound in about 1968. It still smells sweet and shoots well.

I used 62.0 grs with a 130 gr bullet in various .270's over the years with no issues until last year, when I got an apparently soft batch of Remington nickel plated brass. I experienced difficult extraction and ejector marks on the case head. I think that I would have had problems with any load with that brass.

In a 24" barrel I was getting just about 3200 fps with 62/H4831/130 NP. Now that I am old, I have backed off to 60.0 grs of 4831 with no damage to my ego so far.


Edited by wildhobbybobby (12/06/12)
_________________________
Life is like a purple antelope on a field of tuna fish...

Top
#7148264 - 12/06/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: Richdeerhunter]
Dale K Offline
Campfire Guide

Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 2509
Loc: Somerset County, Pa.
Was there any bullet/charge weight information with that recommendation of IMR 4320 in the 30-06?

Dale
_________________________
Homeowner to trick or treaters: "What do we have here, a horde of mindless zombies?" "Close, we're the mainstream media!"





Top
#7148610 - 12/06/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: Dale K]
forepaw Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 06/13/03
Posts: 298
Loc: NV
I believe O'Connor's load, and the one I have used and liked, was 53.0/4320 with any 150 gr. bullet. Since then, I have had better luck with AA 2520 and Varget, but if you have 4320 it's still a good load.

forepaw
_________________________
"Only accurate rifles (that are light enough to be carried by a middle-aged man in rough country) are interesting"

Top
#7148633 - 12/06/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: Fraser]
forepaw Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 06/13/03
Posts: 298
Loc: NV
Keep in mind that O'Connor used WW brass, and a powder funnel with long drop tube, which required shaking and tapping as the powder trickled in. There is nothing magic about 62 gr. but it is pushing things and if you have a tight bore or chamber, soft brass, a bullet with a long bearing surface, min. headspace or any number of other things, you could be at max pressure during fall temps. If you shoot those same loads during the summer you may see some symptoms of high pressure, which to me = risky. If your primers fall out, or your bolt handle is sticking, you are way overpressure.

forepaw
_________________________
"Only accurate rifles (that are light enough to be carried by a middle-aged man in rough country) are interesting"

Top
#7149644 - 12/06/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: Richdeerhunter]
BobinNH Offline
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 30532
Originally Posted By: Richdeerhunter
In JOC's 1961 "Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns", page 147, he said he never found a better .270 load than 49.5 gr of IMR-4064 with a 130 gr bullet.


He used this load back in the 40's...once IMR4350 cam out he used that and once H4831 became available that's about all he used from then on.
_________________________
You can't say very much on here without pissing at least SOMEBODY off-get used to it.

Top
#7149919 - 12/06/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: BobinNH]
BRoper Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 08/22/03
Posts: 837
Loc: Parma, Idaho
I have used 49.5 gr. 4064 in my .270 too. It's a good load and chronographs about the same speed as 60 gr. H4831, in my gun.
_________________________
"I've labored long and hard for bread,
For honor and for riches,
But on my corns to long you've tread
You fine haired sons o' bitches"
Black Bart, po8

Top
#7149982 - 12/06/12 Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: BRoper]
jwall Online   content
Campfire Tracker

Registered: 09/06/10
Posts: 5024
Loc: Southern Arkansas
Originally Posted By: BRoper
I have used 49.5 gr. 4064 in my .270 too. It's a good load and chronographs about the same speed as 60 gr. H4831, in my gun.


I am not and don't intend to be critical, so....

I used 49 grs 4064 TILL I found JOC's load. After getting my chrono I found these results to be pretty consistent.

49-4064 / 130 / 22" = 2900 fps.

62-4831 (MS) / 130 / 22" 3100 fps.

HOWEVER, HOWEVER - when MS ran out the NEWER H4831 did NOT equal the MS. Vels were @ +/- 3000. I quit H 4831 altogether when I found 7828.

NOW TO BE FAIR H changed their newer 4831 at least twice that I did NOT know about. JB (MD) says that now the newer H 4831 is performing pretty well. I would accept that sight unseen.


Edited by jwall (12/06/12)
_________________________
jwall

aka - 3100 guy.

There is no aftermarket FIX for operator error. jw


Top

Moderator:  RickBin, SYSOP 
RV 180 2
CLICK HERE for HUGE SUMMER DAYS SAVINGS on ZEISS OPTICS at CAMERA LAND!
RV 160 1 2
CLICK HERE for HUGE SUMMER DAYS SAVINGS on ZEISS OPTICS at CAMERA LAND!
RV 160 2 2
CLICK HERE to see SUPERB STEINER OPTICS!
Who's Online
368 registered (204guy, 257wby, 257heaven, 17_wizzer, 1flier, 46 invisible), 993 Guests and 310 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
RV 160 3 2
Forum Stats
53,256 Registered Members
72 Forums
687,207 Topics
9,925,781 Posts

Most users ever online: 4,830 @ 12/02/14










Copyright © 2000-2015 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.