I have a rather short throated and tight chambered 270 that is extremely accurate using 57 grains of H4831 current production, 150 grain Hornady flat base SP, Winchester brass and Winchester WLR primers. This load shows no pressure signs, extracts easily and has taken two elk along with much smaller game down to coyotes with quick dispatch. My antelope load was 59 grains of the same powder and a 130 grain flat base Hornady sp with the rest of the components the same. These loads will work perfectly for nearly all North American game and are well under MOA in my rifle.

Mark:
I'm going to deviate from most of the crowd here on the board. Yes, more than likely, one of the 4831's or 4350's will work ok but I found Rl-22 even better. I've had problems with consistant accuracy using the 4831' and 4350's in my Ruger Mod. 77. Glass bedding the action, new trigger, re-crowning, varying bullet seating depth, different bullets - nothing really seemed to work. In desperation, I finally tried Rl-22 and voila!! Consistant accuracy all the time.
My advice would be to try one each of the 4831's and 4350's, use bullets from a known, quality accurate manufacturer (like Sierra) and play a bit with seating depth. If you don't get consistancy immediately, go to
Rldr-22 and then play with seating depth. For hunting, I've always used 150 gr. Partitions but have found them slightly less accurate. I've always lived with this since I was looking for performance & was ewilling to sacrifice a bit of accuracy. Now, I'm looking at trying the 150 Gr. Northforks since I found them to be more accurate in my .338.
Hope this helps some. Seating depth can make quite a difference so I'd pay attention to it.
Bear in Fairbanks

Well, it sounds like H-4831sc is the way to go. I guess I'll pick up a pound to try when I go by the store this weekend.

Thanks to everyone for the help!
Mark in GA

I have had better luck with IMR4350. Especially in pencil thin barrels and semi's. But I never shoot over 140gr bullets. If I moved up to 160gr or even 150gr, I might consider 4831sc again.

You're contemplating almost exactly the same load development that I'm currently in the middle of. I'm loading both H4350 and H4831 loads for my .270 to determine best accuracy. I'm using 150 grain Nosler Partitions. I'm also using CCI 200 primers. Remington brass.



I had the H4831 on hand. The Nosler #5 reloading manual shows the H4350 as being the "Most Accurate Load Tested" which happened to be at the MAX loading of 52.0gr which is why I bought the H4350 to try.



I haven't finished shooting my experimental loads, but thus far the two powders are exhibiting about the same groups in my factory 700 BDL, between 0.75 and 1.8MOA depending upon powder weight.



The results are not in yet, but I'm guessing that the H4831 will win out because it will group just as well or better as the H4350 and probably at higher velocities for the best grouping powder weight. We shall see.



Regarding the H4831 vs the SC version...My reloading store showed me a Hogdon published notice that stated that the two powders are completely interchangable. The noticed stated that some have questioned why a shorter version wouldn't burn faster and then answered that they (Hogdon) had altered the chemistry so that the SC burns exactly the same as the original by weight. I was convinced so I bought some SC and plan to use it the same as the original.



Added later same day:



I just finished off the loads that I loaded with H4831 in the 270. They were 3 rounds apiece at 52.5, 53.5, and 54.5 grains. All 3 shot groups were sub MOA. The funny thing is that if I'd have fired all 3 groups at the same target (I was shooting at a 4 bullseye target), it looked like they'd all go in the same inch. So, I'm getting very repeatable results with H4831 with different powder weights. I think I found the sweet spot.





Good luck

most people claim best performance with RL 22. That is going to be what I try next. I do know RL 22 is going to give you slightly more speed, otherwise 4831 is very good in the 270. I don't think 4350 is the most efficient powder for the 270

Both H 4350 and H 4831 are superb powders, and either will give you excellent results in the .270, but I agree with those who advise you to begin with H 4831. H 4831 will definitely give you a slight velocity advantage, and possibly an accuracy advantage as well in the .270 Winchester.



You do not need magnum primers -- in fact, I think that magnum primers are likely to decrease accuracy in the .270 Winchester.



If you have CCI 200 primers on hand, go with them. If you are going to buy primers for this project, I would recommend Winchester Large Rifle (WLR). (Years ago, these primers were called Winchester 8 1/2-120.)



In any case, if you begin with the CCI primers you have on hand, that will establish a benchmark you can compare with if you change components. The WLR tends to be a "hotter" primer than others, so if you develop a maximum load using the CCI primers, you should back off a grain or two and work back up to max if you switch to the WLR ones.

I'm getting ready to start working up some loads for a couple of 270's (my Dad's and a Friend's). I plan to try some loads with the Hornady 130 gr. and 150 gr. Spire points and either H-4350 or H-4831.

Money is tight right now after Christmas so I can't really afford to buy a can of each of these powders to try right now. What I want to do is buy one powder now to work with and then if I can't get the accuracy I want, buy the other powder down the road.

The question is which should I try first? What advantages would one of these powders have verses the other? Is one of them more versatile to have on your bench? Do either require magnum primers. The data I have shows the WLR, but I'm not sure if the WLR is like the WLP (which says for Std. and Mag loads). I have CCI 200's on hand.

Thanks for your help,
Mark in GA

There is no question in my mind, I'd pick H4831. It goes with the .270 like bread and butter, peanut butter and jelly, like... well you get the idea. I've yet to have a .270 that didn't like somewhere in the neighborhood of 57.0 grains with 130 grain bullets. As usualy work up your loads carefully.

By the way I'm a huge .270 fan. Of all the new fangled cartridges that come out year after year, none have that great an edge over the .270/.280. They are well balanced, easily managed cartridges that will be with us long after the short mag craze is history.

Mark:

I use H4350 for my .270 in both the 130 and 150 loads. A lot of people use H4381 as well. .270 is very easy to load and you can't go wrong with either one of the powder.

CCI200 is what I use. You don't need magnum primers.

Danny Boy

Start with H4831. That's sort of the long-standing "standard" .270 Win. powder, and the odds are you'll get very good results with it. I like the short-cut version of H4831 best.

As a sidenote, one of my friends, who is a professional riflebuilder, asked me about .270 Win. loads this year. I told him about my preference for H4831, IMR4831, and Reloader 22 in the .270 Win. As it turns out, the rifle he was working up loads for did better with H4350 than any other powder. It just goes to show you that every rifle is really a law unto itself.......

AD

Does the data for H-4831 and H-4831SC interchange? The data manuals I have do not say it is for the short cut version.

Thanks,
Mark in GA

"Does the data for H-4831 and H-4831SC interchange?"

Yes.

I would definitely go w/ H4831 out of the two you've mentioned. It has given me great accuracy out of my Rem. 700 270 and also a good friends Rem. 760.

In my model 700 I've pushed the Hdy 150 SPILs at max charges w/ bug hole groups at 100. For the 760 I load them right around 2800 fps w/ great results on the range and on whitetails.

I like H4831 in 7RM and 30-06 too. It is a pretty versatile powder and works well in many carts.

Good Luck!

Reloader

Mark, I also vote for the 4831, SC version. It is basically the same powder with the extruded sticks being cut shorter, therefore sc for short cut. It meters better than the standard, and I have not been able to tell a difference in performance in my 270's, except that it is possibly a little more consistent than the longer graind version. I have used exclusively Winchester Large Rifle primers and I agree that a Magnum primer might actually negatively impact accuracy. I have found the Hogdon powders to be real consistent from can to can, but nowadays I always buy 8 pound cans, which last me a good little while.

Reloader 22 is a great powder to try in the 270 also if you decide to experiment with something else later.

Good Luck--Don

Between the two, I would recommend H-4831. It is claimed that the "short cut" version behaves identically to the standard version. I question this, but have no experience to indicate otherwise. I'd start with the SC version since it meters easier and more accurately.

The currently manufactured H-4831 is a bit faster than the old original surplus 4831, so DO NOT assume that the old "standby" load of 60 grains under a 130 grain bullet will be just fine in your gun. While some guns with loose chambers and bores might digest it, most .270's will be running undesirable pressures using that load with current H-4831, and may even pop primers with the even faster IMR-4831.

If you want performance "close" to the surplus 4831, try some IMR-7828. RE-22 is in the same burning range, but its lot-to-lot variations seem to be greater than average and a bit unpredictable.

Every powder is going to have some lot-to-lot variation. My advice is to buy enough of a single lot to last for an extended period of loading and shooting, or else you'll find yourself working up your load all over again each time you purchase a new can of powder from a different lot. (You'll get about 115-125 loads for a .270 out of a 1 pound can of powder. Plan your powder purchases to match your shooting.)

Your CCI 200 primers are perfectly adequate for any load in a .270.