Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#7141555 - 12/04/12 03:56 AM 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

RV 728 BP
#7141602 - 12/04/12 04:08 AM 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 04:09 AM)
Uber Demanding Rifle Aficionado

#7141753 - 12/04/12 04:55 AM 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.


Edited by Lou_270 (12/04/12 04:55 AM)

#7141792 - 12/04/12 05:10 AM Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: Lou_270]
bsa1917hunter Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 08/12/10
Posts: 20724
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:
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.


#7141819 - 12/04/12 05:24 AM Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: bsa1917hunter]
RinB Online   content
Campfire Regular

Registered: 03/06/08
Posts: 1490
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.

#7141934 - 12/04/12 06:53 AM Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: RinB]
BobinNH Offline
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 30518
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.

#7141981 - 12/04/12 08:34 AM 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!

#7142101 - 12/04/12 12:22 PM Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: Fraser]
jwall Offline
Campfire Guide

Registered: 09/06/10
Posts: 4991
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 01:29 PM)

aka - 3100 guy.

There is no aftermarket FIX for operator error. jw

#7142413 - 12/04/12 02:39 PM Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: jwall]
BRoper Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 08/22/03
Posts: 836
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

#7143324 - 12/04/12 07:47 PM Re: Jack O'Connor's load data [Re: BRoper]
bobnob17 Online   content
Campfire Regular

Registered: 05/01/12
Posts: 1001
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.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >

Moderator:  RickBin, SYSOP 

Copyright © 2000-2015, Inc. All Rights Reserved.