Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What was the Jack O'connor load?

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2572118

60 or 62 grains 4831?????????

130 grain bullet. But what bullet did he use mostly?

62 back in the day...but it was much slower burning back then. Now it is advised to pretty much max out at 60 with today's burning rate on H4831. Being right down the road from Speer, he seemed to be most fond of their products if I remember correctly.

Thought he was a Partition guy. Evidently used bronze points as well. Reading his biography now, can't say I can see what all the hub bub is about. Never read a single book or article that he wrote so maybe that explains it..

Follow up: my 270's all seem to prefer the short cut version (H4831SC)... They really hum with that load. Most of em prefer 58.5 grains, not a 60 grain max load. I don't lose much velocity, but almost always gain significant accuracy. I'm shooting Partitions if that matters...happy hunting!

Jack's .270 load was 62.0 grains of WWII surplus 4831 powder with the 130 grain Partition. I have used that load myself and it develops over 3200 fps from a 24" barrel.

4831 was originally used by the military in 20mm cannon ammunition. Tons of it were sold as surplus after the war for very low prices. Today's H4831 is a bit faster than the WWII stuff and no manual I am aware of recommends more than 60 grains with a 130 grain bullet.

I still have a couple gallons of WWII 4831 that I bought back in 1968 and it still smells fresh and shoots well.

O'Connor used a bunch of loads in the .270 over the years, but after Hodgdon started selling the surplus powder called H4831 after WWII he used 62.0 grains with 130's, as somebody has already stated. The bullet was usually the 130 Speer or Nosler Partition, depending on the game hunted.

I knew somebody would mention that 62.0 grains is considered too hot with today's version of H4831, but Hornady lists 62.0 grains as max in their manual with 130's and I've used 62 with Hornady 130's in several rifles with no problems. It usually shoots very well, with velocities ranging from 3050 to 3150, depending on barrel length, but did one 26" barreled .270 that got over 3200 with that load. Partitions develop more pressure, and usually 59-60 grains is a more reasonable maximum.

I have some of that old 4831, too. Mine came in paper bags, lined up in a cardboard box. I shot some last weekend and out of a half dozen powders, this old stuff shot the best group, 7RM with 150 gr. NPT's. Pretty amazing.

DF

John, my 4th Edition of the Hornady manual only goes up to 59.6 grains of H4831 with the 130 grain bullet. Have they increased it in later editions? If so, that is remarkable in these litigious days.

Back in the day, they called that recovered 20 mm powder "4350 data" powder because it had no name and if you used IMR-4350 powder data you wouldn't blow your rifle up.

That 60 or 62 grain load depends partly on what brass you're using, too. WIN brass has more internal capacity than REM brass.

I load 60 grains of H-4831 SC in both our 270's (newer Mod 70 Featherweight and MKII Model 77 Ruger) and get good accuracy and around 3020 FPS out of the Model 70. I haven't had a chance to chrono the Model 77 yet.

It's 62.0 in both the 8th and the most recent 9th edition, published in 2012.

One of the problems is that there have actually been three H4831's over the years, the original mil-surp, the replacement made in Scotland when Hodgdon ran out of the mil-surp powder in the mid-1970's, and the present Australian-made H4831SC, called AR2213SC down under.

I lucked into a bunch of the mil-surp stuff just before it was discontinued. Thought I had a lifetime supply and shot it all up within a few years, burning out at least one .270 barrel, as well as making a few other cartridges go bang. It was very accurate in a number of rounds but I like the newest version for its temperature-resistance and shorter granules. It's not nearly as hard to get 62 grain under a 130 now!

When I put 62 grains of that WWII stuff in a FL sized .270 case, it actually fills the case to just above the end of the case neck...there are 3 or 4 granules of powder heaped in a little mound beyond the mouth of the case. When I seat the bullet, I hear crunching noises...does that qualify as a "compressed load"?

Ha! Yeah, I know that feeling.

I found the only way it would "fit" was to use Winchester brass (which apparently still is lighter than other brands of .270 cases, judging from a fresh batch I recently bought) and tap the case while dribbling the powder slowly into the funnel.

I use the green RCBS funnel and an old BIC pen body with the guts pulled out as an extended drop tube.

From the horses mouth: "Here are some of my favorite loads: 130-grain bullet of controlled expanding type with 60-62 grains of old H4831, 61 grains of W-W 785, 60 grains of Norma 205 or 55-56 grains of 4350. Velocity is from 3,050 to 3,150. Excellent bullets that I have used are the W-W Power Point, the Remington pointed soft point Core-Lokt and the Nosler.
This load can be used on everything from rabbits to moose. I have used more Nosler bullets in front of 62 grains of H4831 in W-W cases than anything else."

Thanks neighbor. Do you have a reference for that, I would like to read the full article if it is on line.

I might get banned from these forums for admitting this in public... but I have never read any book or article by J.O., not once, never. But here lately I have been wanting to curb my appetite for every new cartridge and get a lot more plain, mostly because of the recent darth of components. 270 has been available in my neck of the woods all throughout the shortages, brass, loaded ammo and rifles.

You might want to back up about 10% and work up your loads in your rifle. I recall reading an article by Brad OConnor where he stated that he had used his fathers load of 62 gr of 4831 from memory and encountered some pressure problems due to the modern powder being faster burning.

That quote is from the "NEW EIGHTH EDITION HANDLOADERS DIGEST" copyright 1978. That's also the year Jack died so I'm guessing that's one of the last things he wrote(?).

I can't recall the name of one of his hardback books I read, but do remember he wrote liking 130 Partitions with 62/4831 in W-W cases which he claimed got 3140 fps from a 22 inch barrel. I suppose this was his all around load for Elk etc. He several times referred to liking something that opened up more quickly on deer and antelope and made references to a favorite old discontinued open point bullet made by W-W. JOC also said the Speer's were good and loaded 160 Speer in his wife's 7x57 which she used in Africa.

I loaded for a 270 for several years with a variety of case brands. With 60/H4831 it was a compressed load from a drop tube funnel and had good accuracy but did flatten primers consistently. Which causes me to wonder, did the old surplus 62/4831 load flatten primers?

My 270 liked 130 Speer Hotcors so I did too.

StrayDog I don't recall any issues with the load.

I shoot 61 of the present H4831 with 130 Sierra's, NPT's and Bitterroots. I throw the cases out because they get ratty but no issues with primer pockets opening.

Old guys had a shortcut for the whole -06 family with surplus 4831: scoop them full, card them level, stuff a bullet in them.

Two, brothers that load together, friends of my Dad were / are, last I saw them, still working their way thru a 1/2 barrel of the stuff. They weigh sight in and hunting loads, but practice and plinking loads are just scooped full with a wriggly motion thru the barrel of powder and capped with a bullet. They've been doing this to good effect, judging by their targets and mounted horns and hides, since before I was born.

Rovering you can do pretty much the same thing with 7828 and a 130 gr bullet.....but I didn't say that.

You can also probably do it with H1000. I just tried a bunch of .270 handloads in two rifles, a Model 70 with a 22" barrel and a Ruger 1B with a 26" barrel, for a magazine article. 64.0 grains of H1000 did very well with 130's, especially in the No. 1. And yes, 64 grains fits easily in Winchester brass, because H1000 is another "short-cut" powder.

Another good powder for 130's is Ramshot Magnum. Ramshot's maximum listed loads for 130's run between 63.6 grains for Nosler E-Tips to 65.8 grains for Sierra GameKings. I tried 65.0 grains with 130 Ballistic Tips, and it shot very well in both rifles at about 3050 from the M70 and over 3150 from the Ruger. It's a ball powder and 65 grains didn't come anywhere near filling the case, so a typical hot-rod handloader could end up with some super-zippy loads.

Back in the late 70's I developed a load for my hunting Bud using 62gr H4831 w/130gr Speer in his M700(22" bbl). 5shot avg velocity was 3112. Accurcy was sub moa. He was killed in a motorcycle wreck 6yrs ago so I still have a few of those rounds left.

Wasn't it Jack who wrote you could just dip the case full in a keg of H4831(mil-surp)and be good to go?

IIRC, he wrote that in the fifties or sixties, when I was beginning to be interested in such things. Likely published in Outdoor Life.

A lot of us thought the writing world had ended when JOC retired. Were we wrong? Yes. Along came Carmichial !

Kind of like I told one of my fellow command officers one time. "Those of us who think we can not be replaced by a younger, smarter, better educated, person are on an ego trip."

I've used the 62 gr. H4831 load in both Won. & Rem. brass with no ill effects. The last few years I've settled on 60 gr. It shoots 3050 fps in my 22" Mod. 700 and is just as accurate. Another load O'connor liked was 49.5 gr. 4064 with 130 gr. bullets. It gives virtually the same velocity in my gun and just as accurate.

Thank you, I was going to mention IMR4064 but didn't recall the charge weight and didn't want to "weigh in" to the thread without it.

IIRC, Jack said something along the lines of "if your .270 doesn't shoot well with a 130 grain bullet and 49.5 grains of 4064 there is something wrong with the rifle".

Some writer I forgot who checked the very scale O'Conner used and said it was out of calibration by 1-2 grains high. No idea if it was like that when he used it but I wouldn't doubt it. Someone else said he would put black tape over the digital clocks to avoid having to set them. He wasn't a tech-y.

I find the JOC worship pretty interesting. I'm not sure if he was a writer that hunted or hunter that wrote. Can't speak to anything other than wrapping up his poorly written biography, haven't read any of his actual work.

He was certainly both and those of us that spent undue time in our formative years reading the "Hook & Bullet" prose will always be enamored.

I even enjoy him more after crossing paths with those who knew him personally and cast new light on the man. I won't advocate Canonization but the world is a better place with Jack than without.

Maybe "worship" wasnt the right word, but the enduring influence is fascinating.

Hunting/ shooting evokes a lot of passion...

Look at the amount of ink spilled and bandwidth used by people trying to understand and learn it today.....then let's go back to the 1940's through the 1970's (when I guess he was most active as a writer),and recall that there was no internet....no printed medium except for the gun mags, and the Big 3 outdoor magazines.

You learned from people within your sphere of influence,or by reading and then trying, or by doing it by yourself and making all the goofy mistakes.

JOC's appeal was that he clarified a lot for a lot of people. He kept it simple and wove the shooting/hunting lessons into the stories.He was educated, articulate,and could write...rare in one package.

Plus his information and experience were first-hand, not gleaned from others. He spent his early years as a working stiff, largely broke,hunting the Southwest and Mexico on DIY hunts. He did not hunt out of the Southwest on his outfitted hunts until he was in his 40's.Most of the international stuff much later, when he was at his peak in popularity.

Both he and Warren Page had vastly more hunting experience in more places,and on more types of game,and with more cartridges than Keith ever did. I suspect that the magazines they wrote for had bigger circulation and bigger budgets.

Today, even people who don't know, or won't admit it,have been influenced by him. Just look at the number of lightweight(7-8 pound), mild recoiling rifles in use today....they are the result of his ideas and promotions o what a BG rifle should be. He is know for using a 270, but he also had the Big Bore experience as well,so he knew what he was talking about.People sensed this.

I'll add a few points to Bob's excellent points:

There really weren't gun magazines as we know them until after World War II. American Rifleman was about it, and back then AR was more technical and devoted to match results than it is today.

As I recall, Outdoor Life had the largest circulation of any of the hunting/fishing/shooting camping magazines until Field & Stream overtook it a couple decades after WWII, and even then F&S didn't beat it by much. And OL was THE outdoor magazine selected to be sent to overseas troops during WWII, introducing O'Connor to millions of servicemen.

The largest-circulation magazine Elmer Keith ever worked for was American Rifleman, which was a smaller and less influential than either OL or F&S in those days. Keith eventually quit AR to work for Guns and then Guns & Ammo, both much smaller shooting magazines started after WWII. Eventually G&A's circulation became medium-large, but even at its peak it never matched the numbers of Sports Afield, the smallest of the so-called Big Three outdoor magazines.

O'Connor's influence on hunting firearms at the peak of the Big Three period, roughly the 1950's through the 1970's, could probably be compared to major sports columnists in big-city newspapers back then. Of course, those newspapers have also lost considerable circulation now, and many have even disappeared--along with real writing. Instead we're in the era of sound bites and controversy, whether on the Internet, radio or TV.

O'Conner was also a really talented writer. From just a pure literature standpoint, I enjoy reading O'Conner hunting stories in much the same way I enjoy reading Hemingway hunting stories.

I have to admit I was intrigued from a purity standpoint, maybe even boredom. I grew up as a Field & Stream kid and couldn't tell you the name of one person or article that left an impression on me like JOC did on previous generations. In fact, I swore off most of it. At least until I discovered Steven Rinella.

So, seeing that some of you grew up with JOC's works in hand, what would be your recommendation for a fella that just finished his biography?

I was too young to have grown up with O'Conner, but have had a few cocktails with his biographer over the years, though never read the book. I would recommend a book called, "the Lost Classics of Jack O'Conner" or something like that, which was a collection of his stories published a few years ago. I enjoyed each story in the book.

Thanks for pointing out that title. I will be getting that book once I locate a source.

The Lost Classics is OK, but has two major problems: it doesn�t contain O�Connor�s best work, and two of the stories selected obviously weren�t his, even though the editor claims they were written under pseudonyms.

For a single introductory volume I would suggest The Best of Jack C�Connor, since it includes hunting stories from throughout his career. Other good books are The Hunting Rifle, Game in the Desert Revisited (a slight revision of his very first book), and Sheep and Sheep Hunting.

If you�re still interested after those, his autobiography, Horse and Buggy West, is a lot better than the biography you read, and there�s also The Last Book, written about the gun-writing and hunting business but with orders from O�Connor that it not be published until he was dead, since it named some names. Both are rarer and more expensive than the others.

Mule Deer is dead on on the Lost Classics. I talked with Bradford about the article of Jack shooting his first Dall Sheep on Black Rapids Glacier in the Alaska Range. He said that there was another Jack O'Connor who had the same name that Jim Casada put in the Lost Classics book. Jack never hunted in Alaska for sheep. He did hunt Brown Bears in South East and on Kodiak but he never hunted sheep in Alaska.

Jack O'Connor 2 book Collection of hunting on Three Continents is a good book. I would argue that if a person has access to the Ken Amber Gun Digests through the years that you get a lot of great articles. Sheep and Sheep hunting is still the book that I have worn out two copies of.

The biography was horrible. I'll keep a look out for some of the titles mentioned. Guess I'm on an old school kick, just started working my way though John Noslers book.

I read this somewhere too.

Oh gawd......."I heard", "He said"..... "someone who knows someone,who said someone told him that someone who knew someone somewhere,said that someone calibrated JOC's scale,and he was really shooting 60 gr not 62 gr.....or was it 64?....which is why the load was compressed.....and they heard he was too dumb to set the scale correctly or know it was off...."


This is hearsay piled on hearsay....I suppose, then, that Jack's loads for the 300 Weatherby, 257 Roberts, 416 Rigby, 7x57,30/06, 22-250, 6mm Remington, etc, were all off by 2 grains also?

Hilarious!

That's funny Bob. I do know one thing. I left the damn 270 fwt at home today. It's been making my 30-06 look bad at the range. I took the 338 Alaskan and 7mm rem mag along with my pre 64 30-06 fwt. No wonder JOC loved the 270 win ....

My Ruger boat paddle 270 will flatten primers, leave ejector marks, and stiffen the bolt with anything more than 58 grains of H4831. TTSX, BT, Accubonds, or Partitions. Best groups with Magpro and mag primers. Laoded some TTSX with Norma 204 yesterday, looks promising, need to chronograph.

That's a Ruger. JOC used the good stuff... ...It starts with a W and ends with a "pre 64"...

calikook: Get a Winchester.

Actually, a pal had one 270 like that...we sent it out and had the bore slugged. I'll spare you the details...

Not getting rid of the Ruger for any other brand, wouldn't trade it for a Winchester.

Maybe if I had a loose chamber and oversized bore I could pour more powder in it.

It seems to always come up short on max loads. Also cleans easy, stays sighted where I left it, and shoots 3/4 groups with most any combo. Some better, some worse.

I was pulling your leg.

When we have seen that happen it's usually a shorter than average throat (unlikely),or an undersized barrel (more likely I bet).


I have seen what you experienced very infrequently. That 270 I mentioned miked on the tight side (.276 IIRC). It was a McGowen barrel,and Harry measured it when my pal encountered what you have seen.

Other than that I can't recall a 270 that showed any signs of pressures with 60 gr H4831 with any of the bullets you mentioned.

Be interested in the velocities you are getting.

I had a batch of apparently soft Remington nickel plated .270 brass that showed pressure signs with Jack's load, while all the other brass I ever used over 40 years did not.

Loads with that brass would show ejector marks and the bolt was quite difficult to open. I pulled the bullets and weighed the powder charges and there was nothing out of order.

Here is Bradford O'Conners response to the myth, rumor, story or legend of the un-calibrated scale. Doesn't prove anything except I didn't make this up.

"Whether Dad's scales were off a bit, I cannot say. However. I have found that his load of 62 grains of 4831 way too hot with a 130 gr bullet in my .270.
Of course, the 4831 I use now is not exactly the same animal he used."

From the Firing line forum I believe.

WW II surplus 4831 was slower than the stuff we use today....even if just by a bit. JOC's favorite pair of 270's #1 and #2 were both pre 64 M70 Winchester factory tubes. IME pre 64 barrels seem to take somewhat heavier charges than many 270,s.In fact they behave very much like Krieger barrels. They had 4 lands and it is not unusual for pre 64 barrels to be slightly over sized in groove diameter.I know that, for example, my M70's always took slightly heavier charges and produced a bit more velocity than a friends Rem 700's, for example. He noticed the same things after shooting/loading together for many years.

In any event,a combination of factors can pile up in little ways to make a load perfectly OK in one rifle,a bit over the top in another.

I am pretty sure that if JOC noticed that his loads were a bit hot, he was astute enough to back them off to a safe level. He made the point of mentioning in his writings that he used that load all over the world without any trouble, including in such hot places as the Kalahari, the Sahara Desert,and India.

I recall a chat a couple years ago with Bradford O'Connor, Jack's son, and he mentioned that Jack's old #2 .270 showed too much pressure with the 62 grain load was too hot (Brad used the rifle to kill an antelope a few years ago) . I believe he used 60 grains of the newer powder.

"He made the point of mentioning in his writings that he used that load all over the world without any trouble, including in such hot places as the Kalahari, the Sahara Desert,and India."

One of the articles I have of JOC's says after mentioning the above that he used 62gr in Western cases and that required tapping the case as powder is put in. In Remington cases he considered 60gr max. He also says pressure tests by Winchester for that 62gr load showed less than 50K psi where as tests done by Remington for the same load gave a little over that.

Yeah....I didn't talk to Brad.I read what his father wrote.I also have shot a bunch of 270's (I only have three right now and all are pre 64 M70 FW's). Like any rifle /cartridge combo, max loads will vary for any number of reasons.


"....It drives many aficianados mad to see the same bullet weight and the same powder charge listed as giving different velocities in different loading manuals. No mystery-velocities vary with with different lots of the same powder, with the case and primer used,with the barrel length, the rifling twist,and with individual rifles.My son,for example,has a beautiful Burgess-Milliron Mauser which gives the same velocity with 60 grains of H4831 as I get in my pet rifle with 62......"; and

".....I have used 62 grains of old H4831 and various 130 grain bullets in some of the hottest places in the world-in the Sahara Desert, in the Kalahari desert (both in Africa),and on the burning plains of India north of New Delhi. Never have I had any trouble with pressure....";

and under "Jack's Favorite Loads"......"130 gr bullet of controlled expanding type with 60-62 grains of old H4831.......I have used more Nosler bullets in front of 62 grains of H4831 in W-W cases than anything else...."

Above quotes are by JOC himself in the 8th Edition of the Handloader's Digest, "Handloading for the 270" by Jack O'Connor.


I am continually fascinated by revisionist history, proffered 35 something years posthumously...entertaining, which is the only credit I would give it

Not sure where the revisionist history bit comes in, I'm just adding some modern context here. The newer H4831 being somewhat faster than the old, simply gave too much pressure in Jack's rifle with the newer stuff and was apparently fine with the older powder.

My own .270 experience began in 1974, and a boatload of .270s since, but that's hardly relevant either.

I seem to remember reading something about the �off scale� but didn�t give it much credence either, mostly because I used the 62.0/130 load in more than one of my .270�s with the mil-surp H4831. The first rifle was also my first .270, a Remington 700 ADL purchased in 1974, shortly before Hodgdon ran out of the old powder, and with the old-style Nosler Partition (with the �relief groove� around the position of the partition) the load got very good accuracy at about 3060 fps from the 22� barrel. Brass was Winchester and primers CCI 200.

In the late 80�s an older hunting/fishing writer I knew decided to give up big game hunting and gave me a few more pounds of the original H4831. By that time I had another Remington 700 .270, which also shot extremely well, and tried 62.0 grains with the 130-grain Hornady Spire Point, which develops less pressure than the Partition. Brass was Federal and the primer again the 200, and velocity was around 3025. The new-style, extruded 130 Partition with the same powder charge, case and primer got right around 3100 fps and grouped three shots under an inch.

One of the .270�s I have right now is a commemorative O�Connor Featherweight M70 from the batch of 2000 Winchester made a couple years ago. With 61.0 grains of H4831SC in Winchester case with WLR primers it shoots the 130 Hornady Spire Point into less than 3/4� at around 3050 fps. I am sure it would work fine with 62 grains, which would bring the muzzle velocity up to around 3100, but with 61 the Hornadys land in exactly the same place as 150 Partitions with 58.5 grains of H4831SC.

Am sure there are .270's that won't handle the load, but many will.

John I hate to admit it (not really but I have actually stuffed 62 of the "new" H4831 in WW cases with 130 gr Sierra's....just to see what happens, which was nothing but called off the experiment because I am a happy guy with anything from 3050-3100 fps with the 130's.

I have 50 rounds loaded for this year downstairs.....61 gr of the new stuff with those old 130 screw machine Partitions.They shoot good!


GF1 I may have misread your post which I took to mean that the load of 62 gr of the old (not the new) H4831 was too hot. I can see how some rifles would not like 62 gr of the new stuff, depending on the bullet.

The two most recent Hornady manuals list 62.0 grains of H4831 as maximum with 130-grain bullets. Since they were published in 2010 and 2012, the powder would have to be the most recent H4831. I should also note that Hodgdon says there�s no difference in results whether loading the �long-cut� version (which they still sell, when they have any powder to sell) or H4831SC. I have both on hand and can confirm that.

Lotsa crunch in that load, for sure....

Yeah, 62 grains of the long-granule powder is pretty crunchy! No problems with short-cut, though, at least in Winchester cases.

Actually, there's no problem with 64.0 grains of H1000 with the 130 Hornady either--another short-cut powder.

Figured as much, not going to get any hate PM's from me!
Not short throated, but can hit the lands with some at mag length(3.4ish+). I don't have a chrony, but have access to two, if I get around to it this winter I will load some more and get back to you. I have quite a few bullets that I can't hunt with anymore! (damn condors)

Bob, I'm loading 62g of AR2213SC (H4831SC) under yellow box, lathe turned 130g Partitions. 3100fps from a 23.5 inch barrel.

No pressure signs. Great accuracy. Fantastic performance on pigs!

bobnob the old lathe turned bullets made the Partition reputation. I have used a lot of them over the years in 7mm-140 (used up and gone now),and now 130-270's. They work well, too!

I have 250 of the 130 grainers in those yellow boxes Bob, and 200 of the 160 grainers!

Gonna use 'em all on pigs and deer too.

bobnob: I get freaked out when I think back and realize I was shooting and hunting when the new bullets came along!

Bob: I thought you were shooting and hunting when smokeless powder came along.

The load of 62/"new" H4831 is too hot...in Jack's favorite rifle (according to Brad, I wasn't there). It may be fine in others, and I make no broad claim either way.

59gr of modern H4831 was too hot in my WINCHESTER 270 using Winchester cases. I backed down to 58. Only switched to H4831 because Win 785 went obsolete.

It also depends on the bullet. Hornady bullets result in less pressure than some others. I would also bet 62 grains would be safe in most rifles with 130 Barnes TSX's--but would also bet it would be tougher to seat the bullets, especially with the "long-cut" powder!

I ran 60 with 130GMX at around 3k in my M70. Switched to R19 and 129's and am at 3,100 with a 22" tube. Have never used a NPT though.

Guess I'll be a heretic and comment that I like Reloader 22...



Granted, if I hunted in really cold temps I'd probably try H4831SC, or some of the other newer powders, but R22 works well in several different rifles for me.

60gr under 130gr Nosler BT's is a grain over Nosler's max, but it shoots very well and clocks 3165 fps. I could maybe nudge them past 3200 fps out of the Ruger's 26" barrel, but haven't bothered to try.

Yeah, 22 is a great .270 powder as well. In fact it's what I'm using in my No. 1B with 150-grain bullets, though it has worked with 130's in numerous other .270's. In this rifle 57.5 grains gets right around 3050 and very fine accuracy with both the Sierra GameKing and Nosler AccuBond Long Range. I plan to mostly use this rifle for pronghorn hunting, so colder temperatures won't be a problem. (57.5, by the way, is a also a grain over Nosler's max, but is about average for all sources of data for 150's in the .270.)

John,
Just as a matter or interest, when did you first learn about temperature fluctuation as I obviously never knew about it until I moved here.

As a full disclosure, I was hunting in the US some years prior and the loads that shot well in Oz were terrible here, so I tried some 2nd choice loads that were in the same box, different bullets and powder and they shot better than Oz.

It simply didn't twig with me back then, that it was a temperature issue.
John

John,

I started chronographing ammo in colder temperartures at least 20 years ago, partly because I'd noticed that often point of impact changed considerably, even at 100 yards and wanted to know why.

Sometime afterward I became aware that Hodgdon Extreme powders (which you know so well, right from the source) cured most cold problems. I also started chronographing in warmer temperatures at some point, probably about the mid-1990's, because I was also traveling a lot more where they could be a problem.

Thanks John.
Over that same period, about mid 90's, the Aussie powders were being transitioned and modified. The volumes I consumed meant that I had the Mulwex/AR/ADI versions and noticed the changes in burning rate going from a little faster than IMR to a little slower but cold to an Aussie is still T-shirt weather to an American, so the temp aspect was not aparent.

FYI, I found the IMR loads shot the same here but the Aussie powder varied and I reported same to the benchrest shooters I mixed with back then.

This was never a concern to them as they always loaded and shot same day at the respective location so never cared for issues like temp stability as long as the groups were where they needed to be. Also, they never chronographed as their focus was simply accuracy on that particular day.

Thanks for the feedback.
John

I had some of the details here wrong - rifle in question that showed too much pressure with the 62 grain load was Bradford's Milliron/Burgess .270, not his dad's rifle as I reported above.

While he has shot and killed game in the past few years with his dad's pet Biesen .270, Brad did not recall the load used.

GF1: That would make sense...JOC mentioned Brad's rifle in the article I cited above.

Its amazing how much dialog can come from 2 grains of H4831. Certainly shows the passion for JOC.

Bob,

I have a few dozen of these ol' 130 grain turned Partitions and would like to put them mostly into game rather than paper. Can you suggest a current, I almost said modern, bullet to try switching them for? Rifle is still enroute, so nothing to go on yet, and appreciate any suggestions.

My paternal grandfather was contemporary with JOC and when I was coming of age and moving up from a .22 centfire gramps suggested the 270 Winchester and Nosler Partitions citing that Jack O'connor knew what works. I'm hoping to take that memory afield, with gramps looking on from the happy hunting grounds.

Norman

Norman do you mean a pratice bullet that impacts about the same as the screw machine Partitions? If so, sure...a 130 Sierra should work with about the same loads and andvin my rifles point of impact is about the same.

Yes, thank you.