Powder for .270 Win.
- Thread starter jackrabbit000
- Start date
The accuracy load from the Nosler Book is:
130 grain bullets - 52.5 H4831 to a max of 56.5
140 grain bullets - 49.5 with IMR4831 going to a max of 53.5
150 grain bullets - 52.0 grains of H4350 which is their max. I found this load to be superb.
160 grain bullets - 53.5 Re19 also a max load.
130 grain bullets - 52.5 H4831 to a max of 56.5
140 grain bullets - 49.5 with IMR4831 going to a max of 53.5
150 grain bullets - 52.0 grains of H4350 which is their max. I found this load to be superb.
160 grain bullets - 53.5 Re19 also a max load.
giant yetti
Regular
- Location
- Mighty Peace
I'm pushing nosler accubonds with imr 4350 with good results from my rem 700
A lot of romance and history in that load and not a bad place to start (or work up to as I think it is the max) if you already have the H-4831. I've had marginally better results in accuracy from the IMR-4350. I am shooting a reduced load of 53 grains.
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
I use IMR 4350 and IMR 4831 in my 270, with good results all around.
Just a bit of how that load of 60 grains of H4831 with a 130 grain bullet in the 270 got started.
After WW2, Bruce Hodgdon got a supply of surplus powder. Their early ads were that they could supply it by the pound or by the train load. Then they added that if by the trainload, they would need a weeks notice!
They had lots of this slow powder. They knew it was slower than 4350, so they first called their slow powder, "4350 data powder." That meant it was safe to load it, using 4350 data. Reloaders would do this, because it was dirt cheap.
Jack O'Connor was shooting and hunting editor of Outdoor Life Magazine, the most widely read and influential of any gun writer in history.
He experimented with the slow powder and came out with an article that 60 grains of it with a 130 grain bullet was an ideal load in a 270. Presto, thousands of reloaders loaded up their 270s with his stated load. I doubt if anybody would load a lighter load to start with. Jack said 60 grains, so 60 grains was the load. It became a very popular load.
Hodgdon's later named the powder H4831.
In writing about it later, Hodgdon's said they never even tested the load of 60 grains with a 130 grain bullet. They stated that so many thousands of handloaders were already using it, that they simply added Jack's load to their (Hodgdon's) loading charts, without any testing.
After WW2, Bruce Hodgdon got a supply of surplus powder. Their early ads were that they could supply it by the pound or by the train load. Then they added that if by the trainload, they would need a weeks notice!
They had lots of this slow powder. They knew it was slower than 4350, so they first called their slow powder, "4350 data powder." That meant it was safe to load it, using 4350 data. Reloaders would do this, because it was dirt cheap.
Jack O'Connor was shooting and hunting editor of Outdoor Life Magazine, the most widely read and influential of any gun writer in history.
He experimented with the slow powder and came out with an article that 60 grains of it with a 130 grain bullet was an ideal load in a 270. Presto, thousands of reloaders loaded up their 270s with his stated load. I doubt if anybody would load a lighter load to start with. Jack said 60 grains, so 60 grains was the load. It became a very popular load.
Hodgdon's later named the powder H4831.
In writing about it later, Hodgdon's said they never even tested the load of 60 grains with a 130 grain bullet. They stated that so many thousands of handloaders were already using it, that they simply added Jack's load to their (Hodgdon's) loading charts, without any testing.
H4831: according to Layne Simpson, gunwriter, the first load from O'connor was 62grof h4831, but due to Lawyers or whatever, Lore brought the load Down to 60gr.
Simpson has written that he found 62gr to be agreeable and never a problem in ANY 270win he has ever shot.
one if these days, I might get time to work up a load of H4831 and a 130gr Sierra.
Simpson has written that he found 62gr to be agreeable and never a problem in ANY 270win he has ever shot.
one if these days, I might get time to work up a load of H4831 and a 130gr Sierra.
The 270 is quite versatile, and performs with a number of slower powders. I have had great results with IMR4350, H4350, IMR4831, H4831, Norma MRP, Vihtavuori N165, IMR7828, Reloder22, H450, WC852 [slow lot] and H1000. Eagleye.
My Win 70 Classic SS FWT could care less about powder as long as it's a 130gr at 3000fps rips one ragged hole.................this one will be buried with me...............have used RE22.....IMR 4831.........IMR 4350 ..............Win 760.................Harold
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
Probably one of the powders I would classify as a favorite is IMR 4350. I've had great accuracy results with in in a number of calibers. Until fairly recently, a caliber I've never owned was the 270Win. I'm sure I've got quite a few years of shooting and hunting left but the years are creeping up so I thought I'd best correct that caliber deficiency. To that end, I purchased a very nice model 3000 Husqvarna from Why not? . I had a good supply of IMR 4350 on hand and thought that's what I'd go with. Before getting started and doing a bit of reading on reloading for and powder choices for the 270 and, taking into account the experiences and comments of those who've already been down that road, I 'decided' and made a trip to WSS in Naniamo and picked up a few pounds of H4831. I also have a couple of pounds of IMR 4831 so I may do some comparisson testing. It's been 'suggested' the difference between those two is like a Chev PU compared to a GMC PU. It'll give me something more to play with, once the weather improves.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with Layne Simpson, gunwriter.
My first question would be if Layne Simpson personally read the original piece at the time by O'Connor, when he said how to load 4350 data powder (later H4831) in a 270.
I was there and followed all of his writings. Also, I have a very good memory.
Jack gave the 60 grain load, singing it's praises. Sometime later, I think on the order of a year, or maybe longer, Jack O'Connor wrote in his column in Outdoor Life Magazine, that he had been playing around with the load, and discovered that 62 grains worked even better than did 60 grains.
This new load never caught on, not because of lawyers, or threats of law suits, but because 60 grains fills the 270 case. Just put your 270 case under the measure with H4831 in it, pull the handle and the case comes out on the verge of, or maybe, over flowing. You can compress it with the bullet, right from the completely filled case, but most of us like to tap the case, or in some other way, compress the powder a bit, before compressing with the bullet.
It is possible to tap the case enough to get 62 grains in, then compress it with the bullet, but there were too many complaints coming in to O'connor, so he gave up on convincing people to use 62 grains.
And that is the true story on the O'Connor loads of 4350 data powder, later named H4831 by Hodgdon's, in the 270.
I'm going by memory here so please don't be too harsh. I remember reading an article on O'Connor's load and there was some discussion that his reloading scale was off by two grains. The article suggested that his "62" grain load was in fact a "60" grain load.
ETA - I tried to find the article on-line and it appears that the change may have been a result of the powder being used rather than an error with the scale. It seemed kind of strange to me.
beretta boy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Orillia, Ontario
I tried the H4831 recipe in two different 270's, a factory pre-'64 model 70 and a '98 Mauser custom with a Peterson barrel. Both shot 130 Sierra & Hornadys most accurately with 59 gr. of H4831 than they did with anything from 55 through 62 gr. - and I check my scale regularly with a set of RCBS check weights.
