I have been working with a Grendel (Sako action) in 308, and decided to try BLC 2 with 168 grain hollow points due to the recommendation in the Nosler manual that it was the most accurate powder that they tested with this weight range bullet. Previously I had used RL 15, IMR 4895, IMR 4064, IMR 4320, etc. The rifle has always been able to digest max published loads with no excess pressure signs.

Nosler listed a max of 46.5 grains of BLC 2 for 165 and 168 grain bullets, so I loaded a few rounds at 45.0 grains and a few at 46.5. The same can of powder has been used for 222 and 223 loads, and seemed to follow recommended max loads for these cartridges without unusual pressure signs, so I felt safe starting only 1.5 grains below max.

The first loads with 45.0 grains of BLC 2 exhibited slight resistance on bolt lift, but otherwise appeared normal. The first shot with 46.5 grains gave heavy bolt lift and a shiny spot at the ejector. The second round caused a very heavy bolt lift, and the primer fell out as the case was ejected. The shiny spot was slightly more noticeable on this round.

All charges had been weighed when originally loaded, so I speculated as to whether I had set the scale incorrectly. On returning from the range I pulled the bullets on the other four rounds and weighed them. None varied as much as 0.1 grain from the intended 46.5. All brass was commercial WW with CCI 200 primers, and had been neck sized only (was on the second loading). Max loads in other manuals varied from 44.8 grains to 47.0 grains, so Nosler was not notably higher than other published max loads. Cartridges were loaded to 2.83 OAL, and bullets were not touching the lands. Cases were not longer than the recommended trim-to length, and .308 bullets freely enter the fired brass. Expansion measurements are .001 to .0015 greater with these loads than with 44.0 grains of RL 15 .

Any ideas as to why pressures were this high (even though the powder does not seem to be a fast lot, and the chamber does not have a tight neck)? I did not chronograph these loads, so I can not compare to expected velocity.

Thanks,
Jim

You have found the max load(to hot) for your gun. Spherical powders, blc2,h-335, h-380, h-450 all seen to have problems in this area.(not all people will agree, just my personal opinion) Pressure spikes,hard to ignite, hangfire, missfires (h-450),its the coating on the powder, (even with mag primers). I have found that just increasing the power charge by 1 gr. can cause excess pressures in some calibers. The best powder i have found for the 308 win. is IMR 4895

Sierra's 4th Edition lists a maximum charge of 45.0 grains of BL-C2 with their 168gr. Matchking and a maximum of 45.4 with their 165 grain bullets. It's interesting that Nosler shows a higher charge. From my experience their loads usually are somewhat lighter than my other manuals.

I didn't know H-450 sucked!!! It's been my favorite .270 powder for years, just use CCI-250's and expect amazing accuracy, and top velocity!

You didn't say (exactly) that you were using Sierra 168 HPBT bullets, but their 5th edition load manual lists 44.5 grains of Blc\2 as max.

Common problem, especially with ball powders... there's a point, past which pressure continues to rise, and muzzle velocity does not.

That "slightly sticky", 45 gr. load was your clue, back off one gr. and call it max....Ball powders are fine, but you gotta respect them as they can jump a lot at max level and in a hurry...Also ballc2 give off an awfull ball of fire at the muzzle....308 powders? WW-748 for ball, and IMR-4064 for stick, will get you all it can handle.

Each rifle is an individual when it comes to max loads. I have found Nosler to be on the hot side when it comes to maximum loads. Sierra seems to be a little more conservative, but I have found the Sierra data that shows the accuracy to be very close to the load that gives best accuracy in my rifles regardless of claiber. The 300 WSM rifle that I had built for F class competition would max out 1.6 gr. below what Nosler listed as the max load for a 155 gr. bullet using IMR 4064 that they listed as the most accurate powder tested in that claiber with that bullet weight. Yes it shot the 155 very well with IMR 4064 just well below what they listed as the most accurate load for that powder. But the velocity was nearly dead on what they showed for the max load.

I have to agree with Ray on this one. If I had to pick just one ball powder for the 308 it would 748 and if I had to pick just one stick powder it would be IMR 4064. N540 is a close second in stick powders for the 308, works well across a broad range of bullet weights as well. Not to say that other powders don't work well because they do, but these two powders give excellent results across a broad range of bullet weights where other powders seem to be more bullet weight specific.

May I be half the man my grandson thinks I am...RiverRat

mbogo375:

Just in case you didn't know BL-C2 and Winchester 748 are the same powder except for lot to lot variations. The manufacturer is St. Marks Powder, Florida formerly known as Primex Technologies, Inc. The people and the plant are the same just the ownership has changed.

If your interested in temperature insensitive powders you may want to consider the "exteme" forumlations from Hodgdon and specifically Varget among others in your .308. Hodgdon testing reportedly shows much less pressure fluctuation across a range of temperatures when compared to traditional powders and ball powder in particular.

http://www.hodgdon.com

Another thing about BLC-2 and some of the other ball powders is that they will pressure spike when exposed to high ambient temperatures. This probably isn't a factor in December, but it might be next summer. Just something to keep in mind. 4064 and 4895 are great .308 powders with more stability .
Good luck
Merry Christmas
Covey16

BLC-2 and 748 are the same stuff?? That's a useful bit of info! Didn't know that.

I tend toward Varget for the 308. It's a lot like 4895, but if you use 46 grains behind a 165 grain bullet, you'll probably get a very temperature insensitive load. Now in a 223, the same powder is very temperature sensitive.

Thanks for the responses. In my past experience (over 30 years) I have used a good bit of ball powder (including a number of pounds of BLC 2 in various small capacity cases), but not nearly as much as extruded and flake powders. It has not been my normal experience to go from SLIGHT resistance on bolt lift with no other pressure signs to popping primers in 1.5 grains in this case capacity range (and from a published load at that). Other manuals give max loads as follow; Lyman #46, 47, and 48 give 165 grain at 46.0 and 168 at 45.0. Hodgdon #25 and 26 give 165 at 46.0. Speer #9 gives 165 at 46.0. Speer #13 gives 165 at 42.0 and 168 at 45.0 (now that's a strange max load difference! ). Lee #2 gives 165 at 47.5 and 168 at 47.0. Ken Waters gives 180 at 45.0 (165 or 168 not listed with BLC 2). As you can see, the Nosler load is not way out of line with other sources.With this in mind I solicited information from the vast experience of fellow forum members. This forum really is an amazing collection of knowledge and experience.

While I certainly understand what happened, I still would like to be able to explain WHY it happened. I have had other rifles that would not accept max published loads, but they generally had an apparent reason for this (short throat, tight chamber, etc.). In those cases pressure signs started showing up early with most powders, not just one. I am mainly looking for ideas to help track down the REASON for the pressure spike with this one powder in this particular rifle, so keep those ideas coming .

Thanks,
Jim

WW 748 and BallC are very close, but they are not the same and the loading data at max is not the same, you can get into trouble with this according to the handloading manuals..I have found that I can load a grain or two more with WW 748 in my Savage rifles. In a bolt gun I do not know...Also according to Hodgedon they have a different coating and that also makes a difference of some kind in pressure spikeing with BallC that does not occur in 748, but I couldn't speculate on that, just passing this on for what its worth...All I really know from experience is BallC2 blows a huge ball of flame out the end of the barrel that WW748 does not...To test this shoot them just a dusk or at night.

Mbogo, you have your answer already; I just wanted to throw my 2 cents out there. I don't know how differently Grendel and Remington cut their chambers, but my M700 VS shot a batch of 165gr Sierra BTHP's with 45.0gr BL-C(2) with no ill effects. I don't know the velocity at that time (foolishly grazed my Chrony with a .45 that month), but 43.7gr of BL-C(2) had posted 2608 fps, 46sd. Primer was a Rem 9-1/2, in Remington cases. No pressure signs showed in either load. Different rifles acting differently.

This reply doesn't answer the original question but FYI there quite a few powders that appear to be made by Winchester and Hodgdon. I don't know if they have them made with different coatings but Hodgdon on their website advises complete load data interchangability with HS-6 and HS-7 with Win 540 and Win 571, respectively. As Winchester discountinued both 540 and 571 Hodgdon doesn't seem to mind disclosing what they are and who made them for them.

They don't comment on the others but they include Win 231 and HP38, Win 760 and H414, Win 296 and H110 and I believe several more. My understanding is that Hodgdon does not manufacture any powder at all but markets powders from other manufacturers including surplus powder. I still love Hodgdon powders even if they don't make them.

I agree that the load data for these reportedly the same powders doesn't usually match hence my reference to lot to lot variations. Another member states that the base for Win 296 and H110 is different. It would sure make sense that you could order the powder to your own specifications just as they do in the commercial loader formulations.

Personally, I always play it safe. Irregardless of the powder I load only within data from manuals published by reputable manufacturers and using safe and sound load development procedures.

You made me go back to my 20 year old notebooks as I don't have all of the old loads loaded into the computer. I used BL(C)2 with 165 grain Hornady BTSPs in WW cases and CCI 200 primers with charges between 44 and 46 grains. My notes say that I had no high pressure signs and velocities were close to, but just below published levels.

At 44 grains standard deviation was 15.7 fps and groups were 1.5 moa.
At 45 grains SD was 14.7 fps and groups were at 1.25 moa.
At 46 grains SD was 30.2 fps and groups were around 1,5 - 1.75 moa.

This rifle would do a lot better so I gave up on BL(C)2 and used 4895, then finally settled on 4064.

Hi mbogo375 -



I agree with those who have said that at the top end, pressures for various ball powders are somewhat less predictable than with stick propellants.



I believe that is because of the way burning rate is established. With stick powders, burning rate is set by diameter of the sticks, perforation (size & number of perforations), chemistry (content), and coatings. In ball powders, it is mainly chemistry and coatings.



Things may have changed over the years, but at one time it was very difficult to control the size of the spheres created when producing raw ball powder. That meant two things...



1. It was expensive to sift out a narrow range of sizes to sell. It was cheaper (more economical from a manufacturer's point of view) to keep a large variation of sizes...gave more saleable powder per batch.



2. Burning rate was controlled by heavy coatings.. Some of the early coatings also left a very dirty, sticky, scummy deposit in the rifle bore.



Anyway, the hotter the flame and the higher the pressure, as in maximum loads, the quicker the coatings are gone, and then you have in effect a different, quicker propellant. And the rising pressure "curve" steepens its climb. So with very little more powder, you can expect a lot more pressure, when loading at the top end of acceptable pressures.



As I say, things may have changed considerably over the last 60 years of making ball powder, but at least that is the way it used to be.



Incidentally, I think that you will find that WC-846, W-748, and Hodgdon's Ball-C(2) are all the same powder. Every lot differs from every other, in any powder. They are blended to perform within accepted "cannistered" parameters, when intended for "direct" commercial sale to handloaders. But where they differ a lot, or where for some other reason blending is not economic, they are either sold to the ammo companies or the military for non-handloading use, or they are sold to a wholesaler of such "commercial" surplus, to be re-sold to handloaders under a different name.



One should never interchange data between 748 and Ball C, but then, one should never use the same data from one batch of Ball C to another batch of Ball C without working up a new load, either. Sometimes one can get away with it but, sometimes one can't.



Best wishes,



AC

Fjold & AC,

Thanks gentlemen! This is the type of info and experience I was looking for. I really had no particular need for a ball powder load for this rifle, as it shoots well with RL 15 and the medium burning rate IMR powders, but when has that ever stopped a reloader/rifle nut .

Jim

The 50 lb keg of Ball C that I bought about 1956 used to torture me. It was the only time that I have ever blown primers in 50 years of handloading. We split the keg three ways but within weeks I had two thirds of it as one of us only had a 270 Win.



It blew primers in the 30-06 with 125's and the .222 Rem. The data may have been wrong also.



There is still some of that junk left around here but most of it is gone.



In the 308 IMR 3031 with 150 grs or less and IMR 4064 with 165's and up will do very well. Now there are newer powders like RL 15 that will pack in a case with higher density but don't have the high pressure sensitivity of Ball C.



The long range match shooters here are using Varget out of long barreled 308's with 155's and up.

Gotta agree with Ray about muzzle flash with BLC2 in the .308.

Years ago I was shooting a max load of BLC2 with a 150 spitzer, taken from the then-current Speer manual. Another shooter touched off one of these rounds from my Ruger M77 right before dusk, and I was amazed at the flamethrower effect.