I have a vague memory of reading somewhere that, after O'Connor's death, someone else came into possession of Jack's loading tools, and found that his loading scale was about 2 grains light, meaning that if it said 61 grains, the load was actually 59 grains.

Can anyone here confirm this vague story. Was it actually published somewere -- either in print or on the net -- and is it true? I.e., is it true that O'Connor's loading scale indicated a heavier charge than what it was really delivering?

[This message has been edited by LE270 (edited 06-06-2001).]

If I remember correctly, the load originated in Spokane WA. The fellow that cooked up the load reported his findings and almost immediatly several shooters in Kalispell MT began playing with it. These included Ralph Pike, John Buhmiller and my father. There were others of course, but I only know the above guilty parties for certain. At the time, the powder wasn't called called 4831, it was known as 4350 DATA powder. It was in this period of time Jack started ranting about the lunatics in the northwest. Later Jack had some of these loads tested and adopted it as his pet load.

My father tells me that a few .270 rifles at the time wouldn't shoot this load without bright spots and stiff bolt lifts. He assumed at the time that bore and groove diminsions varied as well as chambers. Later he discovered the load was rather sensitive to bore fouling as well, with respect to pressure.

I pulled some of these original loads and weighed them on a laboratory balance a few years ago and they ranged between 61 and 62 grains. My grandfather even managed 61 grains in FA brass. To this day, I don't know know how he managed to stuff it all into a military case.

My current .270 peaks out at at just over 59 grains of H4831SC with a 130 spitzer and I don't think it would like the same charge with with a 150 bullet.

[This message has been edited by Scott H (edited 06-06-2001).]

With that said, 60 or 61 grains of the ORIGINAL 4831 behind a 130 grain .270 is too stiff in many rifles. My pre-Garcia Sako takes only 58.5 grains of the original 4831 (yes, I have quite a hoard of it) to achieve 3200 fps out of a 24.35" barrel. On the other hand, a friend's 70A Winchester would digest 60 grains with no problem. A 150 grain bullet over this amount of powder would be a recipe for blown primers or worse.

Original 4831 will average just about 1 grain faster than IMR 7828 in most applications. It gives incredibly consistent velocities and is adaptable to a wide range of cartridges from .243 to .338. But it is difficult to meter, so I weight-check each charge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Again, remember that O'connor's loads were with original surplus H-4831 which is substantially slower than currently manufactured H-4831 and MUCH slower than IMR 4831.

---

So, this may finally explain the loads given in the Hornady Handbook, Vol. II (1973). There it gives a max load of 61 gr of "4831" (It doesn't say H or IMR as this was before the existence of IMR4831) for 3200 f.p.s. in the 270, from a 24 in. barrel.

In my own 270 with a 22 in. barrel, I've never been able to get near that velocity. About the best I've gotten is 3050. And 61 gr. of present-day H4831 is definitely too much, at least in my rifle.

So what that Hornady book is talking about is the original surplus H4831, not the present-day H4831.

That Hornady book also gives loads that are supposed to give 3000 f.p.s. with 150 gr. bullets. Again, I've never been able to get near that with H4831, IMR4831, H4350, or IMR4350. Finally, in desperation, I tried IMR7828 with 150 gr bullets, and voila! I got about 2980 f.p.s., with some shots actually reaching the magic 3000 number.

But I envy your stash of the original H4831.(I also remember reading O'Connor talking about 4350 DATA powder.) It seems that this original surplus H4831 is more accurate and more consistent than any of the newer powders currently available.

The report also lays claim to "extremely consistent...and efficient results."

My 1959 Speer Manual lists 4831 (no letter mentioned) pushing their 130gr bullet @3180fps behind 60 gr, and the 150 @2935 with 58gr.

I have used 59gr of surplus 4831 behind the 150gr Speer, and it really smoked (haven't had any for years!), but have settled on 54gr of 4350 with the 150gr Hornady as my sub-MOA load, and its a 2900-2975 round.

I was wondering, if the original 4831 was so all powerful great (and, yep, it apparently was), then why dosen't somebody make it now?

I realize this post doesn't seem to have much of a coherent thread, but it's late.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Again, remember that O'connor's loads were with original surplus H-4831 which is substantially slower than currently manufactured H-4831 and MUCH slower than IMR 4831.

With that said, 60 or 61 grains of the ORIGINAL 4831 behind a 130 grain .270 is too stiff in many rifles. My pre-Garcia Sako takes only 58.5 grains of the original 4831 (yes, I have quite a hoard of it) to achieve 3200 fps out of a 24.35" barrel. On the other hand, a friend's 70A Winchester would digest 60 grains with no problem. A 150 grain bullet over this amount of powder would be a recipe for blown primers or worse.

Original 4831 will average just about 1 grain faster than IMR 7828 in most applications. It gives incredibly consistent velocities and is adaptable to a wide range of cartridges from .243 to .338. But it is difficult to meter, so I weight-check each charge.

---

I looked in Jack OConnors Hunting and Ammunition Manual ( 1959 ) and there is no DATA on reloading. He mentioned that someone dumped a double charge of UNIQUE into the shell with disasterous results.( understandable )
I like to find out, however at what time 4831 was called Data-powder. I bought my first few cans in 61. and it was already 4831. If memory serves it was pulled out of
20MM AIRCRAFT CANNON shells. Hodgden had one hell of a time to find a place to " PARK " that trainload of surplus powder.I was told he paid 5 cents a pound.
Looking into an old LYMAN MANUAL from the early 60`s, it list a MAX LOAD of 60 GR. 4831
for 3175 ft/sec. Somewhat optimistic I dare say. I bought 4831 for $ 1.25 a can. Somewhat later our club bought a 100 lbs. drum for $ 80.00
I loaded my .264 with 68.5 gr.4831 100gr. bullet for 3200 ft/sec.
Later I made the mistake loading a NOSLER 100 GR. ( no 2 DIAMETER ) bullet with 64 gr. IMR 4831 and HIGH PRESSURE.
I never was able to get the factory 3700 ft/sec. Most of the Velocity figures advertised were at a time when hardly anyone had a chronograph.
I tried once to get that magically 3700 ft/sec, so I switched to a 87 gr. SIERRA.,
I came close but the bullet evaporated enroute to the target.

Bruce Hodgdon bought a huge volume of it, and yes, it was originally manufactured for 20MM cannon shells.

Hodgdon stored some of his purchased powder in a grain elevator!

I'm not sure where the designation 4831 came from although I think it was it's official designation in the non-canister IMR line up, but when he first started to market it, he simply sold it as "4350 Data Powder" since data for 4350 was common and you couldn't get into trouble using the loading data for the faster powder.

When stocks of the original surplus powder started to dwindle in the early 1970's, Hodgdon contracted with, I believe, a Scottish company to manufacture a new batch. I'm not sure of the exact year that Hodgdon started distributing the new in place of the old, but it must have been in the mid-70's; at any rate, my stock was purchased in 20 lb kegs for $22.50 a keg in about 1971 while I was a college student.

So, any data you find in loading manuals prior to the mid 70's will be referring to the only 4831 that existed at that time -- the military surplus powder.

About the same time that Hodgdon started marketing the new H4831, DuPont brought out its IMR 4831. Hodgdon's contractors did a much better job of matching the surplus 4831 in burning characteristics, although the new stuff was a little faster (many people contend that the original 4831 had "slowed" in burning speed due to its age, but I've noticed no change in mine over 30 years).

The IMR version was much closer to 4350 than to 4831, and caused a lot of head-scratching among reloaders (not to mention picking brass splinters out of various parts of same head). I've always suspected that Dupont simply took an off-speed batch of 4350 and stuck it in an orange can -- and its been with us every since. I've never used the IMR 4831, but in almost every reference I've got, IMR 4350 has a more favorable pressure-velocity relationship.

There's bound to be some difference, also, in the first "new" H4831 and that which is currently marketed, since I believe they are produced by different manufacturers (on different continents, for that matter). The H4831 "short cut" seems to be pretty similar to the regular, but for the life of me, I can't understand just how they do that. Guess that's why I'm a broke farmer and not a chemist or physicist.

The only thing I've ever found that I liked as well as original 4831 was Norma 205, but the two cans I had of it were from different lots and were very different. Some people say that Alliant RL22 is virtually identical to the old N205. Don't know about that, but if I didn't have plenty of "O"-4831, I'd try some. Incidentally, I find that my 4831 is consistently just about one grain "faster" than IMR 7828, at least according to references. Haven't used 7828 either, but I think it would be a good powder also.

Oh yeah, one more thing about surplus 4831: I never found one batch to be different from another. It seems to all have come from the same hugh batch, or maybe Bruce blended it as he poured it into the grain elevator to get nice even results. Can't say that I've used all that many sources, but powder parcelled out from a retailer's 100 pound keg acted just like each of my 20 pound kegs, and in turn was identical to a 4 pound batch I found at a gun show. I'm sure there's some out there somewhere, but I've never found and bad or deteriorated sample of 4831. It is, of course, a single base powder, and therefore less subject to deterioration than nitro-glycerine-spiked fuel.

I've found my 4831 to be a great powder in a whole range of calibers: .243 (80 grain bullets and up), .244, 257 Roberts, .264 Win (120 gr. bullet and below), .270 Win, 7mm Rem, 7mm STW (140 and below), .30-06 (180 and up), 8mm Rem Mag, and .338 (with 200's up).

Offhand, I can't think of a single species I've ever hunted, from prairie dogs to bull elk, that hasn't had it's demise fueled by a charge of good ol' 4831.

Bruce Hodgdon argued for years that no such phenomenon existed. Turns out it was rare, but later ballisticians were able to reproduce it almost at will.

It seems that if some rather slow powders like 4831, when loaded to a very low density, say a case half to three-quarters full, could experience a partial ignition which didn't really get the whole charge burning. This "partial" ignition would have the effect of pulverizing the remaining charge, which then burned at a greatly accelerated rate. There are some other factors I forget, like possibly position of the charge in the case, etc., but you get the picture.

Back in the 50's and 60's, nobody understood this phenomenon, and the .25-06 gained such a reputation for blowing up guns (because the first loads tried in a newly-built wildcat were always on the conservative side), many gunsmiths refused to chamber the .25-06. That's what originally gave the .25-284 a flurry of interest -- .25-o6 ballistics in a gun that wasn't the "dangerous" .25-06!

So, just keep your loading density up over 85% or so, and you'll never have a chance of experiencing this unsettling phenomenon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slamfire:
Jack's often quoted load of 62.0 grains behind a "soft" 130 grain bullet, has been legitimized in the latest edition of Hornady's Manual.

---

I don't have the latest edition of Hornady's Manual. But the earlier Hornady Manual seemed to me to be optimistic on some of its maximum loads, especially those for the 270. This may be OK in some rifles, but in others it will prodice signs of being over-pressure.

I also remember reading that O'Conners scale was off about 2 grains.

Anyhow, today we have to use what is available. The powders have gotten alot better and are easier on the bores. In the 270 it is hard to go bad with H4831, H4350, N160 and Reloader 22.

Ciao

Mike

quote:

---

Originally posted by LE270:
... the earlier Hornady Manual seemed to me to be optimistic on some of its maximum loads, especially those for the 270.

---

Can't say for sure but my impression is Hornady is rather middle of the road. One thing I like to do to figure out loads is to go through every manual to see what each says about my chosen powder-- I just write down starting loads, maximum loads and maximum velocity listed along with the data source.

The manuals that I seem to notice as outliers are Speer on the low end and Nosler on the high end, probably due to varying methods of measuring pressure as well as Speer's use of shorter-barreled rifles for their tests.

Hornady does stand out on the low end with regard to loads for some of the older military Mauser calibers such as 6.5x55 and 7x57.

John

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slamfire:
Jack's often quoted load of 62.0 grains behind a "soft" 130 grain bullet, has been legitimized in the latest edition of Hornady's Manual. I think he was using the Winchester Silver Tip, but he was pretty caggy, and you can't prove it. H4831 as made in Australia worked pretty much the same in my .270 as the original surplus powder. It wasn't the short cut version. I don't load for anything now that might show an advantage. Besides I'm now into metering ball powders instead of weighing sticks.

---

That "soft " bullet was a WTCW bullet, I believe. WTCW stood for WESTERN TOOL AND COPPER WORKS. Nobody seems to know where they were located.Someone told me some time ago that they were made in a FEDERAL PENETENTARY. Talking about mysterious companies does anyone know about a bullet mould company BIEHLER & ASTEN .These were first class moulds and as rumor has it they were made by some school kids in the school machine shop.
When jack expressed disaproval of reloading, he was not alone. Most companies let it be know that one took his life into their own hands when engaging in those foolhardy practices. Elmer Keith,Nonte and several others got the ball rolling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Frazer:
Hornady does stand out on the low end with regard to loads for some of the older military Mauser calibers such as 6.5x55 and 7x57.
John

---

I think that they give "low end" loads for those older military Mauser calibers because of all the older rifles of questionable strength that are out there. For the same reason, American loading companies (Remington and Winchester) have only very mild loads for the 7X57. If you are shooting a new Ruger or Remington 700 or Winchester Model 70 or other strong rifle, you can use loads that are nearly as hot as 280 loads in the 7X57.

A couple of American companies do publish full-power loads with warnings against using them in older rifles. I'm thinking Nosler and Speer, maybe Sierra? Don't have my manuals handy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Frazer:
Understood but to me Hornady seems milder than most.

A couple of American companies do publish full-power loads with warnings against using them in older rifles. I'm thinking Nosler and Speer, maybe Sierra? Don't have my manuals handy.

---

Yes, you're right. Several loading manuals do list full-power loads for the 7X57, along with stern warnings that these loads are not to be used in the older rifles. But I had in mind factory-loaded ammunition, which is under-loaded.

Does anyone know whether Hornady makes their Light Magnum loads in 7X57?

I wish they'd add the 154-gr. Spire Point, which would at least approach the sectional density of the 150-gr. .270 Win.

Have you chronographed these loads? Why is the BTSP bullet 100 fps slower than the regular SP?

I suppose the BTSP might be slower because it protrudes more into the case and cuts into the safe powder charge?

IMR 7828 was around for a long time as a non-canister powder prior to being released for sale to individual reloaders. It wasn't uncommon back in the 60's for gun writers and others close to "the trade" to get ahold of various non-canister powders. We do it today through surplus marketers, and many more reloaders use non-canister grade powders because they have better communications (like the web), and can locate such commodities more easily. We also have inexpensive chronographs, micrometers for measuring expansion, and even affordable pressure measuring equipment available, so it's more practical for an individual to safely utilize powders which have a non-standard burning rate.

Another reason that IMR 7828 was so long making it to the market may be that the ammunition companies, particularly Remington-Peters who used DuPont powders exclusively, maintained it as a kind of "proprietary" powder for loading magnums like .264 and 7mm Remington. After all, if your everyday reloader could match factory ballistics with an over-the-counter powder, the company would'nt sell as many shells (according to their marketing people at the time).

Anyhow, I suspect IMR 7828 may be one of the best numbers currently available for .270 Win.

Generally, there has been enough variance in the various 4831s that I have tended to avoid it in a .270. The primary goal of my reloading is accuracy first, velocity is a nice to have bonus but peak accuracy seldom seems to coincide with peak velocity.

I prefer to stay with 130s in this particular rifle as the performance is more than adaquate for the game hunted. I would consider the Barnes as more than adaquate for elk with a WELL PLACED SHOT. Complete penetration is produced. I have passed on iffy shots in the past and would continue to do so in the future.

I am thinking of trying a round of load developement with the 140 gr Fail Safe, but if I do the rifle will recieve a new stock. The recoil with the original stock and steel butt plate when mounting a scope can only be described as nasty. I can only think that the drop of the stock is responsible.