.30-30 load data for H4198 & 160 gr FTX

[flashman]

Gents, does anyone know of a source for subject data? Hornady and Hodgdon don't list it. Hodgdon has data for 150 & 170 gr Sierras and 160 gr cast, but that's it.

Trying to work up a load for a 16" barrel, so I figure a faster powder should be a good place to start and the 160 FTX a great projectile. Unfortunately it seems the books don't agree?

 

[Andy]

You can use the data for the 170 gr bullet.

There is no such thing as a "powder for a short barrel". This myth is perpetuated as fast as it's debunked. No-one ever seems to wonder why powder manufacturers don't market powders as such, and then provide "short barrel load data". It's because they know that. Whatever powder will give you the highest MV's in a long barrel will do the same in a short barrel.

If that's why you chose H4198, then I have to suggest another powder. You're leaving about 200 fps in the table using H4198.

 

[labrador76]

Buy some Leverevolution powder. If Hornady can get an extra 200 fps with it than you likely can get some too!

 

[flashman]

Cheers Andy, I've loaded a workup off the 170 gr data, always nice to triple check against published data though.

I should have clarified that I care not one whit about hitting max velocity, rather I'd like to achieve acceptable energy for deer out to 200 yards while minimizing muzzle blast and flash. In that respect, there certainly are powders better suited for short barrel applications. I agree not if the goal is max MV though; yes, I am aware that the powder producing the highest MV in a long bbl will produce the highest MV in a short one. Right answer; different problem.

 

[Andy]

Cheers Andy, I've loaded a workup off the 170 gr data, always nice to triple check against published data though.

I care not one whit about hitting max velocity, rather I'd like to achieve acceptable energy for deer out to 200 yards while minimizing muzzle blast. In that respect, there certainly are powders better suited for short barrel applications. I agree not if the goal is max MV though; yes, I am aware that the powder producing the highest MV in a long bbl will produce the highest MV in a short one. Right answer; different problem.

"Muzzle Blast" varies according to the muzzle pressure and the amount of powder used (on the noise side of the equation) and for "Muzzle Flash", on the flash suppressants used in the powder (on the light side of the equation). So if reducing muzzle blast is your objective, then you need to choose a load that uses the least amount of powder at the lowest acceptable pressure. H4198 would be a good overall choice in that regard. As for Muzzle Flash, I can't say how H4198 would fare.

 

[flashman]

"Muzzle Blast" varies according to the muzzle pressure and the amount of powder used (on the noise side of the equation) and for "Muzzle Flash", on the flash suppressants used in the powder (on the light side of the equation). So if reducing muzzle blast is your objective, then you need to choose a load that uses the least amount of powder at the lowest acceptable pressure. H4198 would be a good overall choice in that regard. As for Muzzle Flash, I can't say how H4198 would fare.

Bingo. Exactly why I picked it. This Is for my wife; I put together a 336Y topped with a Leupold IER for her as a close country deer weapon, and after fitting a Limbsaver her only observation was the muzzle blast with commercial ammo. I can't say that I disagree.

If the flash is excessive, I'll just fit a flash hider. I don't want it washing out the NVGs if a follow up shot is necessary.

 

[Ganderite]

I have had some short barrel rifles with incredible muzzle blast. Far too painful to shoot without good ear protection. Blast varies by powder and it does not seem to be related to powder speed.

My suggestion would be to get a cup of 3031, 4895, RL15, Varget, 748, 335 and BLC2 and try them all to test for blast. 4198 would not be on my list to test.

 

[flashman]

I have had some short barrel rifles with incredible muzzle blast. Far too painful to shoot without good ear protection. Blast varies by powder and it does not seem to be related to powder speed.

Thanks Gander -absolutely, there's a trade off with short barrels for sure, hence my quest to achieve a useable load in all respects, on both ends of the muzzle. The older I get, the shorter, lighter and quieter I like my rifles. Almost mutually exclusive traits, so finding loads that are adequate with minimal muzzle blast has been something I've worked up for a few different calibers and platforms. My experience has absolutely been that fast for caliber powders reduce pressure at the muzzle and hence blast, although I suppose it is indeed possible that the relationship is just correlational and not causal, and it's factors other than speed that result in reduced blast and noise. As I say though, my experience has been that the conventional wisdom is correct and the faster the powder, the less objectionable the blast.

My suggestion would be to get a cup of 3031, 4895, RL15, Varget, 748, 335 and BLC2 and try them all to test for blast. 4198 would not be on my list to test.

I have IMR 3031, H4895, Varget, 748, and BL(C)2 on hand, it would certainly be easy enough. I hadn't considered it given that anything north of 3031 is slower than the burn rate of the powder that's objectionable in the first place. I've already loaded a batch with H4895, it's usually been a fantastic reduced load powder, but it wasn't noticeably better than factory ammo at useable velocities. So I didn't see much point in testing slower powders. You don't mention why you wouldn't test H4198 given the aim. I'd be interested in hearing why.

 

[hoytcanon]

Can't speak for 4198 with the 160 FTX, but LVR is working out very well in my short barrel .30/30's with the FTX... very good accuracy. @ 35.0 grains.

 

[Ganderite]

Thanks Gander -absolutely, there's a trade off with short barrels for sure, hence my quest to achieve a useable load in all respects, on both ends of the muzzle. The older I get, the shorter, lighter and quieter I like my rifles. Almost mutually exclusive traits, so finding loads that are adequate with minimal muzzle blast has been something I've worked up for a few different calibers and platforms. My experience has absolutely been that fast for caliber powders reduce pressure at the muzzle and hence blast, although I suppose it is indeed possible that the relationship is just correlational and not causal, and it's factors other than speed that result in reduced blast and noise. As I say though, my experience has been that the conventional wisdom is correct and the faster the powder, the less objectionable the blast.



I have IMR 3031, H4895, Varget, 748, and BL(C)2 on hand, it would certainly be easy enough. I hadn't considered it given that anything north of 3031 is slower than the burn rate of the powder that's objectionable in the first place. I've already loaded a batch with H4895, it's usually been a fantastic reduced load powder, but it wasn't noticeably better than factory ammo at usable velocities. So I didn't see much point in testing slower powders. You don't mention why you wouldn't test H4198 given the aim. I'd be interested in hearing why.

The reason I would not test 4198 is that the objectionable blast is caused by muzzle gases hitting the air. This tends to be a trait of the lot number of a given powder. Some blast, so me do not. Military powders would be the place to start. No need to given up any velocity with a too fast powder like 4198.

 

[flashman]

Well, we're going to do some testing then... Loaded up a bunch of test rounds with H4198, H4895, Varget & 748, and I'll try to capture sound pressure levels and muzzle flash for each one.

 

[flashman]

Well, that was a spectacular failure! The Db meter app on my phone doesn't capture gun shots. It just sits down and quits; dunno if it has a limiting feature to protect itself but that's my guess. Plan B may just be subjective testing if I can't find a workaround.

Interestingly, I was also shooting some .223 load with N140 and Varget. At the same charge weights, the N140 has noticeably more muzzle blast. I've not shot them back to back before so never really noticed. Interesting, as they have the same burn rate more or less, with N140 a tiny bit faster... hmmm.

 

[07blackwater]

I'm another LVR fanboy.

Better velocity and accuracy.
I've found that the closer you get to max loads the more accurate it is. I run 170 hornady's @ 36.3 grains and it's awesome.

One thing I found is it prefers a cooler primer. With winchester LR - not so good.
CCI 200 - just right.

I'm sure Bruce (H4831) will chime in soon as well.

 

[Ganderite]

You areassuming that the objectionable laod balst is the gasses escaping behund the bullet. A slow powder would have a higher pressure at the muzzle.

But the blast that hurts the ears is from another source. It is an explosion of gases when they hit the air. Some lots of powder do this, some don't. It has nothing to do with powder speed.

The test is to shoot without ear protection. Better yet, wear your ears, but have an observer listen (without ear protection) 20 feet behind you.

 

[flashman]

You areassuming that the objectionable laod balst is the gasses escaping behund the bullet. A slow powder would have a higher pressure at the muzzle.

But the blast that hurts the ears is from another source. It is an explosion of gases when they hit the air. Some lots of powder do this, some don't. It has nothing to do with powder speed.

The test is to shoot without ear protection. Better yet, wear your ears, but have an observer listen (without ear protection) 20 feet behind you.

Thanks, that definitely helps clarify it. I was wondering when you said it's caused by gases meeting atmosphere; that was my understanding too, but yes, I was assuming those gases were directly related to muzzle pressure, and caused by the volume of gas exiting the muzzle. IE larger gas volume in the same size container = higher pressure = more blast.

What you said got me thinking though; clearly the variation in burn rates between types of canister grade powder will be far more than the lot to lot variation of the same type, so I started to wonder what muzzle gases you meant in your last when you said it's not related to powder type. But that definitely illuminates things. Thanks for that.

Interesting that exactly what you say was borne out by shooting N140 and Varget back to back. Same rifle, same cases, primers, bullets, OAL, same velocity. Powder was the only variable, and they're darn near the same in rate - near enough as makes no difference anyway, and the N140 was VERY noticeably louder across all the charge weights.

Interesting.

 

[flashman]

Military powders would be the place to start.

Well, to cap this off, I followed that suggestion and BL-(C)2 worked great. Actually, muzzle blast wasn't really all that bad with any load; it was easy to forget you were shooting a 16.5" barrel .30-30. It's an added bonus that the BLC2 was otherwise dead to me; had a few pounds kicking around with no particular plans for them. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[H4831]

I'm another LVR fanboy.

Better velocity and accuracy.
I've found that the closer you get to max loads the more accurate it is. I run 170 hornady's @ 36.3 grains and it's awesome.

One thing I found is it prefers a cooler primer. With winchester LR - not so good.
CCI 200 - just right.

I'm sure Bruce (H4831) will chime in soon as well.

Too much unproven controversy about muzzle blast for me to get involved in!
I am a great fan of LVR powder for the 30-30, as well as the 35 Remington.
Like virtually every modern loading chart, Hodgdon's on line is optimistic on velocity. For me, it takes another grain and a half, or so, of LVR to bring the 170 grain bullet up to the velocity they give. But it is accurate and performs very nicely in my 30-30 rifles with no indication of excess pressure.
Sorry, but for me, a primer is pretty much a primer. It ignites the powder, but beyond that, I can see no difference in the results, regardless what primer is in the case. Your mileage may vary, but I am quoting my experience with them.
Bruce