Faster powders for shorter barrels - say 1680 for a 16 inch 308
- Thread starter steelgray
- Start date
- Status
308 Win, 165gr Hornady SP
43.0grs H4895 (95% load density)
26" barrel = 2767 fps (99.8% powder burn)
16" barrel = 2491 fps (98% powder burn)
36.5grs AA1680 (78% load density)
26" barrel = 2638 fps (100% powder burn @ 13")
16" barrel = 2399 fps (same as above)
43.0grs H4895 (95% load density)
26" barrel = 2767 fps (99.8% powder burn)
16" barrel = 2491 fps (98% powder burn)
36.5grs AA1680 (78% load density)
26" barrel = 2638 fps (100% powder burn @ 13")
16" barrel = 2399 fps (same as above)
You are not comparing apples to apples. Make sure all factors are the same. Ie bullet weight etc. Is the 308 shooting the same weight bullet? Does cartridge shape and capacity play a role in how much powder is burnt and therefore how much pressure is applied to the barrel before the bullet starts to travel? It's not as simple as you suggest... but what do I know?
North
Are both loads the same peak/max pressure? If so, that is exactly what i expect to see when i do the test.
No, I didn't think so. Sunray would - like a big old seagull - just swoop in and #### all over the place. He never returned to defend his ridiculous statements.
If the OP is so adamant in his statements he should just load up a bunch of cartridges using different powders of varying speeds and go shoot the damn things over a chronograph.
To suggest that Quickload's hypothetical answers are more definitive than Ganderite's decades of hands-on experience using very expensive laboratory quality equipment followed with actual range testing is just silly.
I have a Savage .308 Hog Hunter with a 20 inch barrel and use the standard powders listed in the manuals. Meaning I agree 100% with Ganderite and all the other "sane" reloaders who understand burning rate and load density. I'm not sure how sane I am, I traded a Stevens 200 .223 with a 26 inch heavy barrel for the Hog Hunter and I'm very glad the Hog Hunter has a very thick rubber recoil pad.
The OP needs to read about Elmer Keith and if he loaded faster powders in his 4 inch .44 Magnums.
I have Quickload but it is just a software program that gives you computer generated guesstimates. And the powders listed in the reloading manuals are there for a reason.
At the link below you will find .308 loads with different barrel lengths, and also 223 loads with the barrel being cut off one inch at a time.
https://rifleshooter.com/
Super Short Precision Rifles: Is there such thing as a 16.5″ .308 Tactical Bolt Action Rifle?
Below a 24 inch .308 barrel and the same IMR-4064 and Varget loads are used in both barrels.
The OP needs to read about Elmer Keith and if he loaded faster powders in his 4 inch .44 Magnums.
I have Quickload but it is just a software program that gives you computer generated guesstimates. And the powders listed in the reloading manuals are there for a reason.
At the link below you will find .308 loads with different barrel lengths, and also 223 loads with the barrel being cut off one inch at a time.
https://rifleshooter.com/
Super Short Precision Rifles: Is there such thing as a 16.5″ .308 Tactical Bolt Action Rifle?
Below a 24 inch .308 barrel and the same IMR-4064 and Varget loads are used in both barrels.
BigEd - I have been playing with a HogHunter for the last month. I shot it once before I installed a $20 ebay muzzle brake. It makes it a pleasant rifle to shoot. It comes threaded, so may as well screw something on it.
The proposed test has a problem. How do you load two different powders to the same max pressure?
I recently sold my last rifle that has a pressure strain gauge on it, so I can't help. And I won't ask the lab to undertake a silly test.
Maybe use virgin brass and measure head expansion?
A LeeEnfiled at 60,000 psi won't show any pressure signs, if it is well tuned, so how do you know if the fast powder is over max?
A good "standard" powder for a Lee Enfield is 4895, 4064 or RL15
Be careful with the 1680. It is much too fast.
The proposed test has a problem. How do you load two different powders to the same max pressure?
I recently sold my last rifle that has a pressure strain gauge on it, so I can't help. And I won't ask the lab to undertake a silly test.
Maybe use virgin brass and measure head expansion?
A LeeEnfiled at 60,000 psi won't show any pressure signs, if it is well tuned, so how do you know if the fast powder is over max?
A good "standard" powder for a Lee Enfield is 4895, 4064 or RL15
Be careful with the 1680. It is much too fast.
I bought a muzzle brake for my Hog Hunter, all I have to do is remember where I put it.
The only problem with muzzle brakes is the dirty looks and comments made by the people on the shooting benches next to you.
Its not a real problem for me because I like going to the range when no one else is there. That way when I leave the range I know I was the best shot that day.
Well the plan is to use quickload to give me an idea of what charge of 1680 will give me 40k psi and what the figured velocity should be with 123 and 180gr bullets in the 28" barrel. Then work upto that velocity, ill remote fire it in a vice. Using a near stripped no4 receicer and barrrel.
And for the normal powder for the 303 ill get quick load to figure out the velocitys for 40k and both bullets then work up to it.
ideally using quick load i plan to have all 4 loads sitting at 40k psi. May not be ideal but all velocitys will come from the same software.
So for the regular powder im going to use some thing close to 38gr h335 with the 180gr bullets and 44.5gr for the 123gr bullets id bet. We will see what QL says once the OP get his new copy
If that powder isnt ideal, i could also use h4895 or imr 3031. Hodgdons just happens to list it for both weights
And for the normal powder for the 303 ill get quick load to figure out the velocitys for 40k and both bullets then work up to it.
ideally using quick load i plan to have all 4 loads sitting at 40k psi. May not be ideal but all velocitys will come from the same software.
So for the regular powder im going to use some thing close to 38gr h335 with the 180gr bullets and 44.5gr for the 123gr bullets id bet. We will see what QL says once the OP get his new copy
If that powder isnt ideal, i could also use h4895 or imr 3031. Hodgdons just happens to list it for both weights
Last edited:
I'd like to continue the most important part of this discussion - which people still seem to be ignoring.
I'm really trying to address “user issues”. There are more and more short(er) barreled centerfire rifles being offered - and these guns definitely have their place.
I am a hunter and often find myself hunting in thick bush. And especially in deer session, I transport my guns in vehicles and on my back - or on a dirt bike, a mountain bike, etc. As such, I have no use for a rifle with a 29-inch barrel, nor for any ammo that is optimized for such an impractical gun.
Full disclosure however, I did, in fact, recently own a custom rifle - with a 29-inch barrel, which I bought on a whim, based on its caliber – which was 7.62x54R. Once the original interest wore off, I saw this as a really goofy gun with no value as a hunting rifle, here in the East - and not even a decent range gun; as if wouldn’t fit a normal gun case, or my car’s trunk. In the end, I couldn’t wait to get rid of it.
I now have a Mossberg 308 with a 16-inch barrel. It’s a safe bet that it goes in the bush with me this fall. I’ve had it to the range a few times. It is a nice gun but produces lots of muzzle flash and concussion with reloads made up with conventional load data. It would be the same with factory ammo because you can’t buy commercial ammo optimized for shorter (say 16’) barrels.
I don’t know Ganderite – probably a great guy.
However, I’m pretty sure that the industry that he is said to have worked in has spawned many old retired guys who, today, sit around wagging their fingers and pronouncing “A good standard powder for a Lee Enfield is 4895, 4064 or RL15. Be careful with the 1680. It is much too fast”. Or retired people you proudly flash theoretical pressure curve graphs going out to 5 Ms - when the bullet leaves the bore of even a 24-inch barrel in less than 1.3 Ms.
Those old timers will have spent decades cooking up loads for rifles with 24-inch barrels but may not have spent a day of their lives developing loads optimized for today’s ever more popular shorter barreled rifles.
Ditto for the old timers who developed the last generation of reloading manuals. The one exception is maybe Lyman 49 that, IIRC, has a bunch of Contender loads. Otherwise, both industries have the same blind spot.
At retail, you can’t buy a box of ammo optimized for best performance in, say, a 20-inch barrel – except if you pick up a box of factory 7.62x39 ammo.
I thank todbartell who came up with this QL data:
308 Win, 165gr Hornady SP
43.0grs H4895 (95% load density)
26" barrel = 2767 fps (99.8% powder burn)
16" barrel = 2491 fps (98% powder burn)
36.5grs AA1680 (78% load density)
26" barrel = 2638 fps (100% powder burn @ 13")
16" barrel = 2399 fps (same as above)
I’m not interested in the 26” loads but, of the 16” loads, I’d take the AA1680 deal in a heartbeat.
First of all, felt recoil would be a fraction of that for the H4895 load – ‘cause the weight of the powder charge makes a huge difference in recoil calculations. Second, the AA1680 features 100% powder burn and would have little or no muzzle flash or that the huge concussion that you get when you shoot a slow burning powder in a shorter barreled gun.
Ever taken that last light shot on a deer? You'd still be able to see after the AA1680 shot. After that H4850 shot, … Err you’re probably not going to be seeing much for a while. Where’d the deer go?
I'm really trying to address “user issues”. There are more and more short(er) barreled centerfire rifles being offered - and these guns definitely have their place.
I am a hunter and often find myself hunting in thick bush. And especially in deer session, I transport my guns in vehicles and on my back - or on a dirt bike, a mountain bike, etc. As such, I have no use for a rifle with a 29-inch barrel, nor for any ammo that is optimized for such an impractical gun.
Full disclosure however, I did, in fact, recently own a custom rifle - with a 29-inch barrel, which I bought on a whim, based on its caliber – which was 7.62x54R. Once the original interest wore off, I saw this as a really goofy gun with no value as a hunting rifle, here in the East - and not even a decent range gun; as if wouldn’t fit a normal gun case, or my car’s trunk. In the end, I couldn’t wait to get rid of it.
I now have a Mossberg 308 with a 16-inch barrel. It’s a safe bet that it goes in the bush with me this fall. I’ve had it to the range a few times. It is a nice gun but produces lots of muzzle flash and concussion with reloads made up with conventional load data. It would be the same with factory ammo because you can’t buy commercial ammo optimized for shorter (say 16’) barrels.
I don’t know Ganderite – probably a great guy.
However, I’m pretty sure that the industry that he is said to have worked in has spawned many old retired guys who, today, sit around wagging their fingers and pronouncing “A good standard powder for a Lee Enfield is 4895, 4064 or RL15. Be careful with the 1680. It is much too fast”. Or retired people you proudly flash theoretical pressure curve graphs going out to 5 Ms - when the bullet leaves the bore of even a 24-inch barrel in less than 1.3 Ms.
Those old timers will have spent decades cooking up loads for rifles with 24-inch barrels but may not have spent a day of their lives developing loads optimized for today’s ever more popular shorter barreled rifles.
Ditto for the old timers who developed the last generation of reloading manuals. The one exception is maybe Lyman 49 that, IIRC, has a bunch of Contender loads. Otherwise, both industries have the same blind spot.
At retail, you can’t buy a box of ammo optimized for best performance in, say, a 20-inch barrel – except if you pick up a box of factory 7.62x39 ammo.
I thank todbartell who came up with this QL data:
308 Win, 165gr Hornady SP
43.0grs H4895 (95% load density)
26" barrel = 2767 fps (99.8% powder burn)
16" barrel = 2491 fps (98% powder burn)
36.5grs AA1680 (78% load density)
26" barrel = 2638 fps (100% powder burn @ 13")
16" barrel = 2399 fps (same as above)
I’m not interested in the 26” loads but, of the 16” loads, I’d take the AA1680 deal in a heartbeat.
First of all, felt recoil would be a fraction of that for the H4895 load – ‘cause the weight of the powder charge makes a huge difference in recoil calculations. Second, the AA1680 features 100% powder burn and would have little or no muzzle flash or that the huge concussion that you get when you shoot a slow burning powder in a shorter barreled gun.
Ever taken that last light shot on a deer? You'd still be able to see after the AA1680 shot. After that H4850 shot, … Err you’re probably not going to be seeing much for a while. Where’d the deer go?
Last edited:
H335 IS NOT A GOOD CHOICE. It can have ignition problems with the light bullet. And is a bit fast for top velocity.
4895 would be a good choice.
Why shoot the 303Brit at low pressure? It should be shot at 45,000 psi to 50,000 psi.
I have to ask what you mean by this statement? Ganderite and others seem to be saying that the optimum powder for velocity for a cartridge & bullet combination is the same regardless of barrel length ie, 24” or 16”.
Are you saying they’re wrong and using 4350 and pistol cartridges as proof? Meaning 4350 is a great pistol cartridge powder but only in long barrels but not typical pistol length barrels?
It’s a confusing statement.
I think HE's saying that 4350 powder is way to slow to burn up in a short barrel and therefore would produce low velocity and a lot of muzzle flash -
RJ
Steelgray says : I’m not interested in the 26” loads but, of the 16” loads, I’d take the AA680 deal in a heartbeat.
First of all, felt recoil would be a fraction of that for the H4895 load – ‘cause the weight of the powder charge makes a huge difference in recoil calculations. Second, the AA1680 features 100% powder burn and would have little or no muzzle flash or that the huge concussion that you get when you shoot a slow burning powder in a shorter barreled gun.
I have some AA1680 and also a 16.5 " Ruger Scout 308 - I will try this powder out and see if it PERFORMs as he says before i Chat ! RJ
I do Load H4895 and Varget with my 150 and 165 gr Loads Now .
First of all, felt recoil would be a fraction of that for the H4895 load – ‘cause the weight of the powder charge makes a huge difference in recoil calculations. Second, the AA1680 features 100% powder burn and would have little or no muzzle flash or that the huge concussion that you get when you shoot a slow burning powder in a shorter barreled gun.
I have some AA1680 and also a 16.5 " Ruger Scout 308 - I will try this powder out and see if it PERFORMs as he says before i Chat ! RJ
I do Load H4895 and Varget with my 150 and 165 gr Loads Now .
You again fail to grasp the facts. You say recoil would be a "fraction" of the 4895 load. OK, as long as that fraction is a mere 15%. the actual difference in the 2 powders is just over 2 ft/lbs in a 7.5 lb rifle. Most shooters could not tell the difference between 14 and 16 ft lbs of recoil. Huge difference? I think not in this instance.
Additionally, Todbartels QL chart actually supports what we have been asserting all along. The powder that gives the highest velocity in the long barrel, also gives the highest velocity in the short tube, besting the fast burning number by near 100 fps. Powders that produce a large muzzle flash in a short barrel also do so in the longer barrel, since the flash is a characteristic of powders that lack flash suppressants.
You are trying to support an indefensible position, one that has been proven wrong by many actual shooters and ballisticians. Dave.
Ok ill use h4895. I love that powder and have loads of it
H335 was listed on hodgdons and gave better velocitys at lower pressures then h4895 and also was listed for both bullet weights. Is why i picked that powder.
Also the 40k is because all hodgdons loads are like 37k min load abd 43k max load. They have a few max loads of 46k psi listed but not many
Ill gladly use 45-50k psi, i wont get those numbers from hodgdon online so ill need quick load to give me an idea
I dont really care, ill do what ever test the OP wants provided its some what safe. This whole test is a mumbo jumbo of posts, once we nail down exactly what the test is and all the info, ill make a post containing it all.
Thanks for the insight ganderite
Last edited:
- Status
