Best powder for .270 Win?

crazy_davey said:
Interchangeable.

I don't think there is much if any price difference but have only bought sc in the past while. Yup, should be able to get it anywhere Hogdon powder is sold. It is fairly popular ;)
Click to expand...

To my understanding, the only difference between H-4831 and H-4831 SC is that the SC is easier to pour using volumetric dispensers.

Can anyone confirm, deny or add something to this? I would like to know more about the differences myself.
 
kevguy said:
To my understanding, the only difference between H-4831 and H-4831 SC is that the SC is easier to pour using volumetric dispensers.

Can anyone confirm, deny or add something to this? I would like to know more about the differences myself.
Click to expand...

Here ya go, ;)

It is probably safe to say more big game has been taken with H4831 than any other powder. Bruce Hodgdon was the first supplier to introduce this popular burning rate in 1950. Since that time it has become a favorite for cartridges like the 270 Winchester, 25-06 Remington, 280 Remington and 300 Winchester Magnum. As an Extreme Extruded propellant it shares the fine quality of insensitivity to hot/cold temperatures, as well as superb uniformity from lot to lot.
H4831SC - Ballistically, this Extreme Extruded powder is the exact copy of H4831. Physically, it has a shorter grain size, therefore, the designation SC or short cut. The shorter, more compact kernels allow the powder to flow through the powder measures more smoothly, helping to alleviate the constant cutting of granules. With the smoother flow characteristics comes more uniform charge weights, while the individual grains orient more compactly, creating better loading density.
Click to expand...
 
Crazey-D what is the typical barrel life of a .270 in round count? Are we talking 5K at least?
 
USP said:
Crazey-D what is the typical barrel life of a .270 in round count? Are we talking 5K at least?
Click to expand...

There are many things to factor in but I would say H4831 is bang on. If you take care of the barrel I would say 3-5000 rounds before accuracy starts getting effected enough to matter.
 
In the original post there is little mention of the projectile for use and barrel length. I believe the projectile is key for the choice of powder. There is so many variables here that it can boggle the mind. The key is to find a load with a wide node range so it provides some forgivness when variables change in the field.

For example, The Hodgdon line H4350 is faster burning in relation to H4831 and may provide great performance without as much muzzle flash in a 22" hunting barrel. Likewise, it may be more efficient to use the slower powder like H4831 in a longer target style barrel 26" or longer.

Now for my offer, IMR 4350 has yet to let me down in the 270 Win for bullets in the 130 to 150 gr class in a 22" to 26" barrel, and is bit cheaper to boot. I try to load develop hunting rounds in the spring, where the temps emulate late fall, or you could try the H series which is reported to be more temp sensitive. Enjoy...
 
One variable down. Many more to go. You will note that in most reloading books they show loads ranging from fastest power to slowest powder for any given bullet. Then you will see that some powders are recommended over a range of projectiles, bingo. The greatest thing about the 270Win is that it performs admirably with a wide range of powders.

In the end you are saving a couple grains per shot for many of the powders mentioned. The test is really in how your barrel behaves with the bullet/powder combo. I suggest you try a couple different powders from those mentioned in the thread. Your barrel will tell you what it likes when all is said and done. I've had barrels like the H4350 over the H4831 with a wider and more foregiving node to work within. Good luck...
 
Last edited:
Despite what Hodgdon claims, a couple of the ballisticians at Sierra (personal discussions) find H4831SC to generate a slightly higher set of pressure readings in their piezo-electric devices in lab testing than does H4831. They suggested approaching top loads with caution. I haven't been able to ascertain any meaningful difference in practical use between the two however.

From my own reloading of H4831 in a couple of 270's, a 264 Win Mag, a 25-06 and a couple of others, I found a grain or two less than top published loads to be most accurate in my own rifles. Some quote the 62 gr. load of H4831 with a 130 gr. bullet to be max, others suggest 60 gr. In my 270's 58 gr loads were most accurate with 130's, and that of two other buddies, 58 gr. and 59 gr. proved best, while 60 gr.+ loads opened groups up again. 60 gr. however worked like a charm with 90 gr. Sierras.
In my 25-06, 54 gr. H4831 gives best accuracy with 115 gr. bullets. Some list the max as being 52 gr, while an older Speer Manual lists 57 gr. for this caliber. The .264WM liked loads of 66 gr. with 120's. and 72 gr. with 85's.

I've had good results with Winchester LR primers in the 270's, but switched some time ago to Federal Gold Medal primers. LR's in the standard calibers and LR Magnum primers for the 264. No complaints.

Read lots of Jack's stuff and Warren's too ... a few powders and calibers around today that weren't even known in their era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom