Forgive my ignorance, but I keep seeing loads listed here using WC 872. I plan on getting back in the habit of burning some powder and would like to try this in a STW with 175 grainers.
Thanks Boyd, I'm still trying to figure out how to get a bunch of it up here into the great white north. Perhaps this info will give me more incentive. - Dan
Posts: 5285 | Location: Alberta | Registered: 05 October 2001
WC 872 is somewhat slower than H-870 (at least in the 8-lb lot which I have used). It burns cleanly, so long as the load you use produces reasonably full pressures, which is hard to do in most conventional cartridges. I have had good luck with it in .264 Win and 7mm STW. I can't say how it would do with the .300 RUM, although I expect that only bullets above 180 grains would do well.
Proceed with caution, however, as surplus powders tend to vary in burning rate from lot to lot. WC 872 was made by the Olin Corporation, or its successor, at the St. Marks plant and, like the original 4831, was a propellant for the 20mm shell.
Posts: 13334 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001
Well guy's.WC 872 work's very well in My Ultra's with the 240gr MK's.But I can not get enough in a case with the lighter bullet's.(200gr).It is dirty,but not as dirty as 870.I found it to act MUCH like 870 in my STW.90gr gave me a velocity of 3245 with the 162gr A-MAX in a 27" barrel...Will be doing more testing this coming weekend.........E.S. with the 240gr bullet's is in the single digit's........
The lot of WC 872 you are working with sounds a bit faster than my lot. I load up in the mid 90's with a 160 grain bullet in the 7 STW. As I said earlier, watch the burning rate on surplus powders! I also find very consistent velocities with WC 872, even with standard force primers.
I know I don't have to tell you this, but with WC 872, in spite of it being a rather dense ball powder, you can still crowd significantly more powder into the case using a long drop tube. If you haven't been doing that with your .300 RUM, give it a try.
Despite it's presumably being faster, the WC 860 which I've worked with seems a bit slower (and dirtier) than 872. It hasn't been nearly as satisfactory for me.
Posts: 13334 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001