I've used Re-22 and H4831 and H4831SC but have heard that with 150 grain bullets (as in 30-06 and the M1 Garand) IMR 4064 is worth considering.

I know that in the Garand it is about the gas pressure and piston issues. So in my Mauser action Parker-Hale I wonder if:

My idea is that I'd get reduced muzzle flash and need only 47 grains of IMR 4064 in my re-loads to get about 2,750fps with my 150 grain bullets in my 270 Winchester.

Also would I get reduced "heat to barrel" with IMR 4064 as against Re-22 or H4831 or H4831SC?

And better shot to shot recovery? In other words a shorter recoil stroke?

My rifle has a 24" barrel and I use it for game from anything from 20 yards to 150 yards.

I am using 150 grain weight bullets ONLY as I intend to use it for wild boar where, in Europe, a minimum of 150 grains weight is mandated.

I have never loaded for the .270 win but I do use 4064 in the 30-06 with 150 grain bullets for the M1Garand and also with 168 grain bullets in my Remington 700. I personally like IMR4064 in the 30-06 so I could see trying it in the .270Win.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
I wonder if:
My idea is that I'd get reduced muzzle flash and need only 47 grains of IMR 4064 in my re-loads to get about 2,750fps with my 150 grain bullets in my 270 Winchester. THIS IS SPOT ON

Also would I get reduced "heat to barrel" with IMR 4064 as against Re-22 or H4831 or H4831SC? YES ! BUT NOT AGREAT DEAL

And better shot to shot recovery? In other words a shorter recoil stroke? IF SO YOU PROBABLY WON"T NOTICE ANY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.

roger

I largely agree with Bartsche. If you desire only loads that are slightly reduced from the full .270 potential, then you can achieve that with a faster burning powder like IMR-4064. Loaded to the same pressure, IMR 4064 will probably produce about 150 fps less velocity than something like H-4831 or RL-22.

I've always found somewhat higher velocity variations with "low density" loads such as this, and usually, somewhat degraded accuracy as compared with using powders which more nearly fill the case. But I have occasionally run across a reduced load that shoots quite accurately.

In general, the less powder then the less muzzle blast, flash, and barrel heat; but the reduction in all of these as compared to a more conventional load with a slower powder will be negligible.

I made up some reduced .270 loads with 4064 and 110gr bullets for the kids. They were sub-MOA at 200yds.

I give it a thumbs up.

quote:

Originally posted by BECoole:
I made up some reduced .270 loads with 4064 and 110gr bullets for the kids. They were sub-MOA at 200yds.

I give it a thumbs up.

Me too.


It is probably worth remembering that 4064, 4320, 4350, and 4831 didn't exist as cannistered powders when the .270 was introduced in 1925. Still the cartridge performed great and built a trmendous following.

Every time a slower burning Dupont IMR series powder was introduced, the maximum potential velocity increased, but accuracy really didn't in any significant degree. Accuracy didn't get any worse, either, depending on the individual gun.

But, there were some terrifically good loads for the .270 using powders even as fast burning as 3031 and Hi-Vel#2.

If 4064 is easily available to you, I say "go for it". It will work okay, and give you a few more loads per pund than some of the slower burning more modern powders.

Wasn't Jack O'Connor's favorite powder for the 270 4064?

quote:

Originally posted by adamhunter:
Wasn't Jack O'Connor's favorite powder for the 270 4064?

No, it was Surplus "Hodgdon" 4831, which was actually IMR 4831, but the current IMR 4831 is a faster powder than the "old" "surplus" "Hodgdon" 4831. Current Hodgdon 4831 is made by ADI of Australia (now that it is no longer made by ICI-Nobel in Scotland) and acts pretty much like the old surplus 4831. Oh yeah, and is available in a Short Cut version. Simple, right? Got it?

Actually, early on one of Jack's favourite loads for the .270 WAS built around 4064. But 15 years later he had switched first to 4350, then to surplus 4831.

But Stonecreek is right too; once 4831 was available, it became Jack's favourite for that chambering.

47grs of imr 4064 is just a little too hot witha
150gr bullet for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Actually, early on one of Jack's favourite loads for the .270 WAS built around 4064. But 15 years later he had switched first to 4350, then to surplus 4831.

But Stonecreek is right too; once 4831 was available, it became Jack's favourite for that chambering.

And Jack's famous 60/130 grain recipe is 1.5 grains too hot in my .270 (and yes, this is with genuine surplus 4831, of which I'm down to only about 3 pounds remaining ). I guess his old M70 was a bit looser in places that my Sako is tighter.

quote:

And Jack's famous 60/130 grain recipe is 1.5 grains too hot in my .270 (and yes, this is with genuine surplus 4831, of which I'm down to only about 3 pounds remaining ). I guess his old M70 was a bit looser in places that my Sako is tighter.

Jack used the same load in at least three different .270s, they weren't "loose". The rest of the story is this: after O'Connor's death a well-known gun writer obtained his reloading equipment, apparently from the estate. When he started using the equipment, he found that Jack's powder scale read 1-2 grains higher than the actual powder weight. This helps to explain why some of Jack's loads were too hot in some other shooter's rifles. This was covered in Handloader magazine over twenty years ago, but I cannot find the original article.



.

Actually, 4064 is my GoTo Powder for the 270 with 130, 140 and 150 grain bullets... it may sacrifice a max MV of 100 fps or so, but it is accurate, very accurate... and that is more than enough for me..

I don't like working with compressed powder in my loading...just a preference..

for general hunting I use a charge of 44 grains...but if in open country, I'll load that up to max..

my preference for bullet weight and bullet is the 140 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip...with that 44 grain Charge...

quote:

Originally posted by TX Nimrod:

quote:

And Jack's famous 60/130 grain recipe is 1.5 grains too hot in my .270 (and yes, this is with genuine surplus 4831, of which I'm down to only about 3 pounds remaining ). I guess his old M70 was a bit looser in places that my Sako is tighter.

Jack used the same load in at least three different .270s, they weren't "loose". The rest of the story is this: after O'Connor's death a well-known gun writer obtained his reloading equipment, apparently from the estate. When he started using the equipment, he found that Jack's powder scale read 1-2 grains higher than the actual powder weight. This helps to explain why some of Jack's loads were too hot in some other shooter's rifles. This was covered in Handloader magazine over twenty years ago, but I cannot find the original article.
.

I'd never heard that story of Jack's scale weighing light. Sounds plausible.

However, I've had friends who have .270's that seem to digest the 60 grain load with no problem, and at least one of those was in a Winchester 70. It seems that Winchester Model 70s, at least among a sample of reloading manuals in which that rifle is used as the test bed, tend to be a bit "looser" than many other rifles (by "looser", I mean using more powder to generate the expected velocity). Whether this is an accurate observation would depend on a lot of variables, but by and large, I often find data worked up in M70's to be on the warm side in some other rifles.

Oh yeah, as I recall, O'connor shot out a couple of barrels on his .270's and replaced them with something other than Winchester barrels, so obviously his results aren't in any way indicative of the characteristics of M70's.

Well, Jack talked about shooting 62gr of H4831 in a .270, behind a 130gr bullet, and how 62gr will only fit in Winchester brass. Yes, you can fit 62gr in Win brass, and yes, there are .270 Wins that will digest it....with some pretty impressive velocites....But just because Jack did it, doesn't mean you should try it at home.

IME Winchester Model 70's do tend to have long throats, and Sako's tend to be on the tight side.

quote:

Originally posted by Antelope Sniper:
Well, Jack talked about shooting 62gr of H4831 in a .270, behind a 130gr bullet, and how 62gr will only fit in Winchester brass. Yes, you can fit 62gr in Win brass, and yes, there are .270 Wins that will digest it....with some pretty impressive velocites....But just because Jack did it, doesn't mean you should try it at home.

I don't shoot at home Makes the neighbors in our subdivision snarky and I'm tired of buying coffee and doughnuts for the entire SWAT battalion.


Now that I've got that smart-ass response out of my system, I guess I can say that I am one of the lucky folk who has a pre-'64 Winchester FW .270 that dotes on Jack's load of 62 grs. H-4831 behind Hornady 130 gr. bullets.

It also shoots 1-1/4" groups at 200 yards with that load quite dependably. I've shot a heap of Alberta mule deer with it and it kills them DRT.

That's one of the guns (and ammo) that go in the box with me when I go........

Alberta's experience goes to show what experienced handloaders have known for years: Rifles vary in how they perform. Some will digest more powder than others; some will yield higher velocity than others, and some shoot accurately with loads that spray all over the landscape in others.

My Sako .270 shoots my standby, the old Nosler Solid Base 130 grainer, at 3200 fps (chonographed numerous times on an Oehler M35) when propelled by 58.5 grains of original surplus 4831. I'm guessing that is probably about the same velocity that Alberta's M70 was doing with 3.5 grains (6%) more of the same powder. This doesn't make one gun superior to the other -- just different.

I'm always amused at the younger guys on this forum who frequently ask questions like "what's the best load with 4350 for my 7mm Whiz Bang?" Send me your 7mm Whiz Bang and a half dozen boxes of different bullets and I'll give you an answer after a few sunny days. But whatever the answer, it's not likely to be the same as the answer to what's the best load in MY 7mm Whiz Bang.

Stonecreek, you re-visit a very good point... My 22" BDL in 270 consistently clocks 3150 fps and cloverleafs at 100 with either 59 grains of IMR 4831 or 60 grains of AA 3100 behind a Speer 130 GS, and lit with a CCI-200. When seated to ~.010" off the lands, there is nearly 1/4"of bullet exposed behind the cannelure, but I have no feeding issues, extraction is not a problem, and primers are not cratered. I think I am quite fortunate: I got a fast barrel from Remington.

Yes, a long throat can make a profound difference in how much powder a given rifle will digest. You typically lose a little "efficiency" in terms of FPS per grain of powder, but you can use more powder, which nets you a bit of additional velocity. Long-throating is very much akin to using a larger case -- you effectively increase the size of the pressure vessel.

Lots of people don't understand that every rifle chambered for the .270 Winchester doesn't have a chamber identical to every other .270 Winchester.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Yes, a long throat can make a profound difference in how much powder a given rifle will digest. You typically lose a little "efficiency" in terms of FPS per grain of powder, but you can use more powder, which nets you a bit of additional velocity. Long-throating is very much akin to using a larger case -- you effectively increase the size of the pressure vessel.

Lots of people don't understand that every rifle chambered for the .270 Winchester doesn't have a chamber identical to every other .270 Winchester.

X-2 roger