748 in 308

Ruger007

Ruger007

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
127   0   0
Location
Way West
Lately I have been playing a lot with the 308. 168gr bullets.
I stumbled across a load that seems to preform very well for me.
44gr of W748
Fed210m
168gr Hornady.

Been reading that magnum primers are the go to for this powder. That ball powders can be harder to ignite.

Any one else like W748?

What had your experience been between primers? Mag and non magnum?
 
Last edited:
I tried W748 w/ CCI200 large rifle vs CCI250 magnum in my 308 (180gr bullet, 18.7" barrel)

-15c temp
CCI 200 2426 fps SD21
CCI 250 2411 fps SD20

+13c
CCI 200 2424 fps SD10
CCI 250 2439 fps SD33

+29c
CCI 200 2477 fps SD12
CCI 250 2486 fps SD12

CCI 200 large rifle proved to give superior ignition than the magnum
 
primers vary from company to company. some magnums can perform like anothers regular, and vise versa. you didn't say you had unburned powder, and you are happy with your load. don't fix what ain't broke. but if you like experimenting, have at it. plenty of info on primers on the net, with pics and graphs. if you change primers you may have to adjust your load. depends on the distance and accuracy requirements.
 
So I figured I should just try it.
Tried to duplicate the load that worked so well for me the day before.

100yds

R-P Brass, 44gr W748, Fed 210M, 168gr Hornady
Avg 2698
Max 2719
Min 2681
ES 38

I think the bottom left was a flyer. Doesn't fit into the group area.

Same load except CCI250 Primer.
Avg 2725
Max 2748
Min 2707
ES 41


The barrel seems to be a fast one. IBI 1-10 5r. 26"

Going to pay a bit more with the Federal load. As yesterdays targets was the same as the federal but at 150yds.
 
Nice groups. I have used nearly the same load as you, but not with Magnum primers. I just use Winchester std LR primers with Winchester powder. I figure they are made for each other, and that has worked well in practise.
 
I am still learning about these. I do not think your Fed 210M primers are "standard" Large Rifle primers - I think they are "Match" Large Rifle primers, which an acquaintance tells me are "always" hotter than the same company's standard primers. I used Fed 210 for years and years with RL15 in 308 Win, 165 grain Speer HotCor. Finally ran out of both that powder and those primers - replacement primers that showed up are Fed 210M, so apparently not the exact same thing, and nothing in sight for the RL-15 powder, except some Varget. So, will be starting all over again.
 
W748 is a very good powder with lower flame temps which is supposed to help with barrel life, etc. I have always used a magnum primer with W748 as often my hunting temps will be quite south of freezing.
 
No experience with W748 in the 308 Winchester, but have burned quite a bit in the 222 & 223 Remington.
Always delivered great results with 50-55 grain bullets. Always used R-P 7½ primers.
Also used some in the 30-30, where it also performed admirably. Dave.
 
Primers are not all the same:
ViYZnqa.jpg

3kbmXIi.jpg



DaJ8Rwq.jpg

lS01A06.jpg



wVrlHbF.jpg

za9BVFA.jpg
 
44.0 grains of W748 over CCI250 primers, under 165 grn SST

This has proven to be a great "starting" accuracy point for every 308Win I've loaded for. It's not a starting load.
 
Last edited:
bearhunter said:
44.0 grains of W748 over CCI250 primers, under 165 grn SST

This has proven to be a great "starting" accuracy point for every 308Win I've loaded for. It's not a starting load.

Another powder, which is very similar and almost interchangeable, start about 40 grains is the old surplus WC867, if you happen to have it on hand and are looking at a use for it. Very close burn rate to W748. There were two lots offered by Higginson's, one slower than the other, so start on the low side and work up.
Click to expand...

Bearhunter, you must mean WC852, not WC867?? I had one lot of 852 that was about like H450,
and another faster lot, closer to 748.
Another Higginson surplus that worked well was WC755. Dave.
 
I know exactly where you're coming from.

I still have some 450 and 852 on hand as well as some Ball C (original, not BLC2) and a few others from Tom.

When Tom sent me a couple of boxes of the W867 to test, because he was concerned with its burn rate, I went through several different charts made up for surplus powders and found that WC867 was actually made up in several different lots and all of them were different burn rates.

The lot Tom had purchased, very cheap, was much faster than indicated by it's designated number. It should have been closer to H414sl10 or even a bit slower.

This lot isn't. That's why I cautioned people to be careful as to which lot they have on hand.

The quickness rate on my lot is between 99 and 105, which is right in the W748 ball park and that's what I use for starting load purposes.

The other lot of WC867 I have is very slow, right around the same speed as RL22 and I have huge white labels on the boxes to indicate the slow burn rate.

The fast WC867 has RED labels to indicate it's fast burn rate.

There was a very good reason Tom got this powder slightly over the cost of hauling it back to his warehouse for repackaging. It's possible that it was not properly designated at the manufacturer or had gotten mixed up in another order. The lot numbers were out of sync as well.

There was a big problem with this powder that started immediately after Tom sent out different lots to people such as myself, who helped him make up hand loading charts and tables for the individual powders.

Same thing happened with the BLC powder he brought in. Three different lots of what at first appeared to be the same powder but all three had radically different burn rates.

The lots of WC867 and BLC that I have were both much faster than their designations indicated.

You're right to question my load and I'm going to remove it. The load would be safe and accurate with W748.

Thanx for doing this. I should know better.

That's one reason why I often discourage hand loaders from purchasing surplus powder lots. Especially if they don't understand burn rates can vary so much between lots. The folks that purchase one pound containers at a time are especially prone to making what could be drastic errors if they trust the information on the container.

Surplus powders are not usually cannister grade. Often, they're experimental powders for the military loadings or a specified burn rate for some corporate loading facility. Care must be taken.
 
Last edited:
OK, very good explanation, BH. I never ran into any of the "quick" 867, only a slow lot that I used in the 7mm STW, and it was slower than H450.
The 852, I had some of the slow and fast lots, and I marked the fast lot with a big red marker so I would not inadvertently drop a charge into one
of the slow burning applications. You take care my friend. Dave.

To the OP.....sorry for hijacking the thread. :(
 
Eagleye said:
OK, very good explanation, BH. I never ran into any of the "quick" 867, only a slow lot that I used in the 7mm STW, and it was slower than H450.
The 852, I had some of the slow and fast lots, and I marked the fast lot with a big red marker so I would not inadvertently drop a charge into one
of the slow burning applications. You take care my friend. Dave.

To the OP.....sorry for hijacking the thread. :(
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider your viable concern to be a hijack. That's what these threads are for.
 
No hijack. No have been know to use a bunch of surplus powder myself. WC872. Didn't know about fast and slow WC867. Just assumed it was all a slow boy.
 
Ruger007 said:
No hijack. No have been know to use a bunch of surplus powder myself. WC872. Didn't know about fast and slow WC867. Just assumed it was all a slow boy.
Click to expand...

WC872 was brought in in four separate lots. Each lot was different from the other, to the point where the slowest vs the fastest weren't even close.

Some people are finding similar issues with the excellent, non cannister grade propellants being sold by Canada Ammo. Doesn't mean they aren't useful at all or inconsistent burning.

I believe it's one of the main reasons Higginson's doesn't offer as many surplus powders as they used to.

Sorry OP, I managed to get your original post way off topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom