.308 Win light recoil hunting loads
- Thread starter Pathfinder
- Start date
Good information. The original post said he wanted to work with 4320,4064, or BLC2. I haven't read all the postings, but most I have read ignore this, and suggest other powders. I too, don't know about BLC2, but either of the others, and I would choose 4320, should make a good low power load.
The book minimum (Hodgdon's) shows a starting load of 44.1, with a 150 grain bullet, but the speed given, 2650 with a 150 grain bullet, is still a lot more power than she needs, or I think, the poster wants.
I would start in the area of about 36-37 grains of 4320, for probably around 2300 fps with a 150 grain bullet and I will guess that about 38-39 grains will give about 2400 to the 150 bullet. He can judge what he wants.
Forget about it having to be minute of angle. Anything that will group in the area of 2 inches, which all those light loads mentioned should, will get her dear. (Oops, I meant deer, but maybe it would be both!)
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
the thing is Im very leery of loading below minimum charges listed by powder manufacturers, its really not the kind of experimenting I like to do. Im actually more afraid of underloads than overloads, less so in this situation since Im playing with medium burning powders.
Other than that,Im not too worried about moa groups . Where I hunt Deer 100 yards is a long shot. Knowing myself I will probably will try to tweak the load anyways as Long as I stay in my recoil parameters.
Last year I contacted Hodgdon Powder company and ask a tech about reduced reloads for my new 308. I am also a first time reloader. He suggested I try H4895 which he claimed I could download 60%. He also suggested 150 grain bullets.
I them found a chart where I could calculate a reduced load.
http://www.handloads.com/calc/reduced.asp
I also found a chart where I could calculate the recoil of my firearm based on the receipt of the load.
http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp
I must say, it has been fun working up different loads at the range and not having to worry about heavy recoil for myself and daughter.
I them found a chart where I could calculate a reduced load.
http://www.handloads.com/calc/reduced.asp
I also found a chart where I could calculate the recoil of my firearm based on the receipt of the load.
http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp
I must say, it has been fun working up different loads at the range and not having to worry about heavy recoil for myself and daughter.
just having some fun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
have you thought about some cast 150g loads for practice for your wife
my wife will shoot about 30-40 rounds of 308 cast rounds when we visit the range with no complaint
155g gc cast with SR4759 at about 1950 fps in a 71/2 lb bolt action
with this load i can do 20 round 2-1/2"groups at 100 yds
my wife will shoot about 30-40 rounds of 308 cast rounds when we visit the range with no complaint
155g gc cast with SR4759 at about 1950 fps in a 71/2 lb bolt action
with this load i can do 20 round 2-1/2"groups at 100 yds
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
I thought about it but again I want use my existing inventory of powders which are already suitable to that case. Ill test some minimum loads with 4320 and blc-2 and see what shoots best, I think that's best for now.
thanks guys.
thanks guys.
I suppose they have been using light loads for a hundred years, millions of them. I don't know how long they have been using something over the powder to take up space, but I suppose nearly as long.
I didn't load light loads, or use something over the powder to take up space until about 45 years ago. At that time it was corn starch that was all the rage. Other items stuffed in included, but by no means restricted to, was toilet paper, cotton batting, then kapok, when that was invented, and on and on.
However, the jury is still out on whether any of this stuffing is needed, or if it helped do what ever it was supposed to do.
The point is, not one of those millions or billions of light loads fired, stuffing or no stuffing, was ever proven to have "blown up" a gun, because of the light powder charge. Because some guns have blown up and the cause was said to be a light load, various powder manufacturers tried to duplicate it in labs.
No lab was ever able to prove that a light load of powder created extra pressure, because it was light loaded.
Bruce Hodgdon was one who tried it in their lab. He used every type of slow and medium powder they marketed, including 4831. In every single case, and with every type of powder, loaded down to so light that it barely burned the powder, less powder in the case resulted in less pressure.
If anyone doubts this, I can post some results of the Hodgdon testing.
In my opinion, any handloader who is afraid to reduce a load in his rifle, is in the wrong hobby.
I didn't load light loads, or use something over the powder to take up space until about 45 years ago. At that time it was corn starch that was all the rage. Other items stuffed in included, but by no means restricted to, was toilet paper, cotton batting, then kapok, when that was invented, and on and on.
However, the jury is still out on whether any of this stuffing is needed, or if it helped do what ever it was supposed to do.
The point is, not one of those millions or billions of light loads fired, stuffing or no stuffing, was ever proven to have "blown up" a gun, because of the light powder charge. Because some guns have blown up and the cause was said to be a light load, various powder manufacturers tried to duplicate it in labs.
No lab was ever able to prove that a light load of powder created extra pressure, because it was light loaded.
Bruce Hodgdon was one who tried it in their lab. He used every type of slow and medium powder they marketed, including 4831. In every single case, and with every type of powder, loaded down to so light that it barely burned the powder, less powder in the case resulted in less pressure.
If anyone doubts this, I can post some results of the Hodgdon testing.
In my opinion, any handloader who is afraid to reduce a load in his rifle, is in the wrong hobby.
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
Would you care to explain why manufacturers (including Hodgdon) lists minimum powder loads for given cartridges / bullet weights .
For many years the loading charts showed only one load for each item. This was the standard load for that calibre, cartridge and bullet weight, a load very similar in pressure to a factory load. Some, but not all, charts stated as a footnote that the loads should be worked up to this load.
Later, they began using a "Suggested starting load," and the standard load became known as "Maximum."
Still later, the words, "Suggested starting load," was changed to "Minumum," load.
It is just word play, as far as I know.
Pudelpointer
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lethbridge, Alberta
H4831, I would appreciate a link to this information.
As for the "wrong hobby" comment, I do not think considering the safety of yourself and others provides a reason to denigrate those of us who follow the accepted wisdom of the day. If you have documented wisdom to share then please do so.
The dearth of accurate, reliable information can be a challenge in this era of misinformation.
Here is some documentation of what I have been saying.
Here is a copy of, you will note, a Hodgdon's loading chart. Can you see anything on there about a "minimum," load to start at?
All I can see is the caution to start low and work up!
Here is a copy of, you will note, a Hodgdon's loading chart. Can you see anything on there about a "minimum," load to start at?
All I can see is the caution to start low and work up!
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
So I guess inconsistent ignition, squibb loads and secondary explosion effect are all rubbish ?
Pudelpointer
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lethbridge, Alberta
Well, and omission does not equal evidence to support. You said you had results of Hogdon's testing to see if he could recreate increased pressure with reduced loads, did I misunderstand?
One of my manuals states to "follow loading recommendations exactly. Don't substitute components for those listed. Start loading with the minimum powder charge in the load shown."
It does not say pick an arbitrary load to start from. It does not state that it is safe to go below the value listed, nor does it say that it is unsafe. I do not know how old that manual is, but I would bet it printed sometime before society in general got stupid and began requiring that rifles be sold with a sticker on them stating "improper use of this firearm may result in serious injury or death"; well no sh*t.
I am looking for guidance in plain language that says "Using reduced loads is absolutely safe and we will gladly pay for any injuries sustained from following our advice."
Until you provide some solid evidence that reducing loads as you suggest is safe, then I believe you are being somewhat irresponsible. Are you right and I am wrong? There is a VERY good chance that may be so, but the fact I am not willing to risk my life (or stunning good looks) to what has so far been hearsay does not mean I am a pussy, it means I am making a rational decision with the information I have at hand.
Please post or link the work that you say has been done, I want to know.
Cheers.
ETA, do you have the page for 308 win, as that is what we are discussing?
One of my manuals states to "follow loading recommendations exactly. Don't substitute components for those listed. Start loading with the minimum powder charge in the load shown."
It does not say pick an arbitrary load to start from. It does not state that it is safe to go below the value listed, nor does it say that it is unsafe. I do not know how old that manual is, but I would bet it printed sometime before society in general got stupid and began requiring that rifles be sold with a sticker on them stating "improper use of this firearm may result in serious injury or death"; well no sh*t.
I am looking for guidance in plain language that says "Using reduced loads is absolutely safe and we will gladly pay for any injuries sustained from following our advice."
Until you provide some solid evidence that reducing loads as you suggest is safe, then I believe you are being somewhat irresponsible. Are you right and I am wrong? There is a VERY good chance that may be so, but the fact I am not willing to risk my life (or stunning good looks) to what has so far been hearsay does not mean I am a pussy, it means I am making a rational decision with the information I have at hand.
Please post or link the work that you say has been done, I want to know.
Cheers.
ETA, do you have the page for 308 win, as that is what we are discussing?
Pathfinder, your inconsistant ignition is not safety related and refers more to accuracy. No one said light loads are all accurate.
Squib loads, just refers to a very light load. I think the name comes from England where the term meant a bird, and these were the very light loads for shooting them. The only possible danger from such a load, that we have often pinted out, is the chance the bullet may not been driven all the way through the barrel. Therefore, caution must be used to see that the bullet did indeed, clear the barrel.
Your expression,"Secondary explosion," is indeed rubbish, smoleless powder is a flammable product, not an explosive. I will later post from a Speer loading manual, pointing this out.
Puddlejumper, I don't doubt yur manual states all those things. When the world, in particular the USA, got legal liability happy and sued everyone in sight, including a successful suit against McDonalds Restaraunts for serving hot coffee, the loading companies got worried. They hired bands of lawyers to iron out every possible conceived way to save their butts.
You wanted proof from Hogdon's testing, here it is.
Bruce Hodgdon is talking about people saying light loads blew up their case.
and here.
Note that every single reduction in powder reduced the preessure.
Squib loads, just refers to a very light load. I think the name comes from England where the term meant a bird, and these were the very light loads for shooting them. The only possible danger from such a load, that we have often pinted out, is the chance the bullet may not been driven all the way through the barrel. Therefore, caution must be used to see that the bullet did indeed, clear the barrel.
Your expression,"Secondary explosion," is indeed rubbish, smoleless powder is a flammable product, not an explosive. I will later post from a Speer loading manual, pointing this out.
Puddlejumper, I don't doubt yur manual states all those things. When the world, in particular the USA, got legal liability happy and sued everyone in sight, including a successful suit against McDonalds Restaraunts for serving hot coffee, the loading companies got worried. They hired bands of lawyers to iron out every possible conceived way to save their butts.
You wanted proof from Hogdon's testing, here it is.
Bruce Hodgdon is talking about people saying light loads blew up their case.
and here.
Note that every single reduction in powder reduced the preessure.
Pudelpointer
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lethbridge, Alberta
Excellent info. Could you name the book please?
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
H4831,
If you have a fair gun related library then I would ask you to turn your attention to the Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders Volume II by PO Ackley, Pages 43 and 44 Where he talks about reduced charges of slow burning powders being the cause of many blowups, in this page he quotes the Norma Technical Information No. 14 " N205 - Do not load below recommended minimum with this powder " and the Norma Gunbug's Guide No. 64 Page 8 where S.E.E is explained . I wish had a scanner handy but I dont'. I know many who read these threads own this book so maybe someone else can post it.
Now I know S.E.E is unlikely in a reduced charge of medium burning powder in a .308 winchester case but it doesnt' mean its a good idea. If one wants to reduce I still think he should do so by the guidelines laid out by manufacturers.
At least a couple shooters on cgn have blown up M-96 / 94's with reduced charges I believe one is Baribal and I forget the other(s)
If you have a fair gun related library then I would ask you to turn your attention to the Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders Volume II by PO Ackley, Pages 43 and 44 Where he talks about reduced charges of slow burning powders being the cause of many blowups, in this page he quotes the Norma Technical Information No. 14 " N205 - Do not load below recommended minimum with this powder " and the Norma Gunbug's Guide No. 64 Page 8 where S.E.E is explained . I wish had a scanner handy but I dont'. I know many who read these threads own this book so maybe someone else can post it.
Now I know S.E.E is unlikely in a reduced charge of medium burning powder in a .308 winchester case but it doesnt' mean its a good idea. If one wants to reduce I still think he should do so by the guidelines laid out by manufacturers.
At least a couple shooters on cgn have blown up M-96 / 94's with reduced charges I believe one is Baribal and I forget the other(s)
While P.O. Ackley half-failed describing and documenting the SEE, Norma of Sweden were able to reproduce it at will with a combination of the M/94/96/38, the 6.5X55 using less than 80 to 85% of load density of slow buring powder with their MRP powder and others from various manufacturers.
They show a picture of this on p.141 of their No. 1 reloading manual. they also describe the process on p. 149.
The phenomenon can be explained that way; it's a conjunction of low density load of slow burning powder in a large volume cartridge (large for caliber) especially when using heavy / long bullets (wich increase friction) in a long throated chamber / barrel. The powder load leaves an empty "chamber" over the powder and the primer ignites the coated powder mostly on top of the (coated) powder load, wich creates enough pressure to push the bullet further in the land (barrel engagement) and because the combustion heat was not enough to light the whole powder charge, there is condensation of the primal vapours wich re-ingites (acting like an accelerant) the whole powder charge. Then, because the bullet is now located far from the initial place it should be, the empty room (in the case + the barrel) to reach the bullet butt acts like an even bigger chamber, the bullet is now like a barrel obstruction and the pressure is peaking high very fast.
From my discussion with one of their lab tech, it seems Norma can make it happen (at will) with almost any magnum caliber with slow powder, and it's even easier if the caliber is less than .30 and the throat is quite long.
The pressure surge goes over 80 000 PSI in afraction of seconds.
One of the sign a SEE happened usually is the absence of visible barrel obstruction and damage - leaving the barrel "untouched", or undamaged. The action blows but the bullet almost always goes out of the barrel.
It seems that one way to avoid this is by using a case filler, such a those used for low-density loads for fast-burning powders reduced loads for handguns. all in all, a slow burning should never be loaded to less than 80-85% of the case capacity.
I think I am a reliable witness, because it happened to me with a starting load. and I am an experienced reloader and shooter who always double-check his expermental loads...
There were a couple of very interesting articles published in the past about Norma's experiments; one the most interesting one is "The Secondary Explosion Effect - Can the mystery besolved?" by Mauritz Coetzee & Shaun Kennard.
I have this article and others.
They show a picture of this on p.141 of their No. 1 reloading manual. they also describe the process on p. 149.
The phenomenon can be explained that way; it's a conjunction of low density load of slow burning powder in a large volume cartridge (large for caliber) especially when using heavy / long bullets (wich increase friction) in a long throated chamber / barrel. The powder load leaves an empty "chamber" over the powder and the primer ignites the coated powder mostly on top of the (coated) powder load, wich creates enough pressure to push the bullet further in the land (barrel engagement) and because the combustion heat was not enough to light the whole powder charge, there is condensation of the primal vapours wich re-ingites (acting like an accelerant) the whole powder charge. Then, because the bullet is now located far from the initial place it should be, the empty room (in the case + the barrel) to reach the bullet butt acts like an even bigger chamber, the bullet is now like a barrel obstruction and the pressure is peaking high very fast.
From my discussion with one of their lab tech, it seems Norma can make it happen (at will) with almost any magnum caliber with slow powder, and it's even easier if the caliber is less than .30 and the throat is quite long.
The pressure surge goes over 80 000 PSI in afraction of seconds.
One of the sign a SEE happened usually is the absence of visible barrel obstruction and damage - leaving the barrel "untouched", or undamaged. The action blows but the bullet almost always goes out of the barrel.
It seems that one way to avoid this is by using a case filler, such a those used for low-density loads for fast-burning powders reduced loads for handguns. all in all, a slow burning should never be loaded to less than 80-85% of the case capacity.
I think I am a reliable witness, because it happened to me with a starting load. and I am an experienced reloader and shooter who always double-check his expermental loads...
There were a couple of very interesting articles published in the past about Norma's experiments; one the most interesting one is "The Secondary Explosion Effect - Can the mystery besolved?" by Mauritz Coetzee & Shaun Kennard.
I have this article and others.
Last edited:
