Unexpected conclusion on some 30-06 loads..

N

NorthCoast

New member
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Prince George, BC
First off, I'm new to reloading.
I recently aquired a reloading kit through a trade. I did my homework about all the sorts of steps to take produce accurate, consistent handloads.

I have 3 types of powder. Reloader 19, H4350 (both of which I aquired from the trade), and some IMR 3031 that I bought with the intention of rolling up some 30-30 rounds later.

Long story short, the IMR 3031 performed the best. Here's what I've got:

Remington P17 Sporter w/ 20" barrel

Remington Brass
Federal large rifle primers
Hornady SST 150 gr bullets

My first batch was 55gr of H4350. It shot well, but the groupings weren't the best. At 100 yds w/ iron sights I could hit the paper but that's about it.

Next batch was the Reloader 19. Better than the H4350, but still not the best.

Here's the sleeper.. the "ancient" IMR 3031.
After much research on reduced loads, I settled on a batch of 40gr, 41gr and 42gr rounds to see which shot the best. The 41gr rounds were great. They grouped the best. For fun, I tried my hand at clays setup down range (about 70 yds), and went 6 for 6 shooting off-hand. What gives? I thought this powder was not the best for 30-06..and most certainly the Reloader 19 and H4350 would perform better. I was wrong.

My conclusion? I guess the folks who say that you've got to find the right load for YOUR gun are absolutely right. People can argue all day about which powder is better in which type of gun or caliber, but that gets about as boring as the old "what is the best moose/deer/elk cartridge" debate.

Now, my question to the seasoned reloaders out there is: Will this load of 42gr IMR 3031 be sufficient enough to bring down game? I know I'm already sacrificing velocity with the 20" barrel and the faster burn rate of the powder. But, here in Northern BC, all the game I've taken have been well under 100 yards.

I guess the easier answer would be to just buy a chronograph and clock the damn thing to calculate the ballistics to see at what ranges a well-placed shot would be lethal.

/end rant
 
The 20 inch bbl makes the RL19 and 4350 less efficient than the IMR 3031. Remember that IMR3031 was designed for medium sized cases and similar bullet weights that you are using. It was developed more than 75 years ago and used in a lot of milspec cartridges in the same rifle you are shooting.

I like some of the new powders being offered but I still have and use more of the older powders, mainly because I am used to how they perform.

Your other two powders are no longer new but they are still great powders and would be quite useful with heavier bullets.
 
H4350 will do better with heavier bullets.

The tried and true load similar to many factory offerings is 55gr H4350 - 180gr.
 
Powder selection is determined by bore size vs case capacity. (Small er bore - larger case = slower powder)

And by bullet weight. heavier bullet = slower powder.

150 gr. is a bit light for a '06, so 3031 is perfect. For 180s and 200s, the 4350 would be better.

When you make reduced power loads, as you did, a faster powder is much better. Powder needs pressure to burn properly, and your cat fart loads of slow powder would not burn well at all.
 
I still think RL19 and 4350 could be good loads. You need to go high end with those powders for best performance. Nosler actually shows 61.5 gr of RL19 as the most accurate and 59 gr of IMR4350 as an accurate load with 150 gr bullets. As you're using H4350 you would need to work up a bit around that mark but you should be close. (I read that the -06 performs best at max loads... FWIW)
 
Last edited:
Hard to do a good load comparison with iron sights and offhand shooting, but if the load works for you then that's all that matters.
 
Last edited:
Ltbull01 said:
I still think RL19 and 4350 could be good loads. You need to go high end with those powders for best performance. Nosler actually shows 61.5 gr of RL19 as the most accurate and 59 gr of IMR4350 as an accurate load with 150 gr bullets. As you're using H4350 you would need to work up a bit around that mark but you should be close. (I read that the -06 performs best at max loads... FWIW)
Click to expand...

I agree that those slower powders would work well if he loaded them up. But, his original post indicated he was trying to make "reduced loads". This is why a faster powder is required.

He said "After much research on reduced loads, I settled on a batch of 40gr, 41gr and 42gr rounds to see which shot the best. The 41gr rounds were great."
 
Hmmm... Confusing post....

1) Its not clear why the OP wanted to go to reduced loads for 3031 - it can be used up to ~ 49 grains, giving ~ 2800 fps.
2) Shooting iron sights, and freehand, makes it hard to make definitive conclusions about any load.
3) If the rifle is in a decent state, with a decent shooter shooting iron sights off the bench, all groups should have been "on paper" eg < 6 in groups @ 100 y.. Perhaps the OP just got better through his load trials?

As a ballpark, 42 grains of 3031 should give about 2400 fps - approximating 30-30 performance. If 3031 shows promise out of the gate, there is opportunity to bump up the load.

I'm guessing the OP has a BSA sported rifle, which would be drilled and tapped for scope bases. Why not invest in a scope set-up, and really get this load stuff sorted out?
 
Last edited:
cosmic said:
Hmmm... Confusing post....

1) Its not clear why the OP wanted to go to reduced loads for 3031 - it can be used up to ~ 49 grains, giving ~ 2800 fps.
2) Shooting iron sights, and freehand, makes it hard to make definitive conclusions about any load.
3) If the rifle is in a decent state, with a decent shooter shooting iron sights off the bench, all groups should have been "on paper" eg < 6 in groups @ 100 y.. Perhaps the OP just got better through his load trials?

As a ballpark, 42 grains of 3031 should give about 2400 fps - approximating 30-30 performance. If 3031 shows promise out of the gate, there is opportunity to bump up the load.

I'm guessing the OP has a BSA sported rifle, which would be drilled and tapped for scope bases. Why not invest in a scope set-up, and really get this load stuff sorted out?
Click to expand...

1) I wanted to try a load that I could shoot comfortably during a day at the range. Let's call it a 'plinking' load.

2) Oddly enough, the H4350 & Reloader 19 loads were off the bench. It's possible that I just have sub-par bench shooting technique, but Id sooner go with what a previous poster said about how the minimum loads for both of the slower burning powders will suffer in accuracy. I also probably should do a grain-by-grain test like I did with the IMR 3031. But, I think I will wait to do that until I decide to buy heavier bullets.

3) it's fair to conclude that an accurate comparison can't really be made until the shooting conditions are exactly the same. It is weird that I shot better offhand with the 3031 loads than I did the other powders off the bench. The intention that day was for a good plinking session (I brought out the .22, 12ga and clay thrower as well). That's why I was pleasantly surprised when i hit right on the money with the 3031 loads. I was really just messing around with no real intention of seriously buckling down to zero in those handloads. Good call on the idea of bumping up the load.

The next batch I make will include rounds from 42gr all the way up to 48gr. Then the real testing can happen!
 
Reduced loads are one of the advantages available to a handloader. Less boom, less recoil, less cost, and more opportunity to observe what you are doing when touching off a round- as a result of less distracting boom and recoil. A load that approximates a .30-30 Win will do nicely for most hunting in NA. Some may argue it is marginal for moose or elk, but the tens of thousands of dead moose and elk killed by .30-30 are entitled to disagree. Many will argue for faster, flatter longer range cartridges, but perhaps the OP chooses to hunt, rather than shoot, his game. As in, stalk closely enough to hit the critter with the arm of choice. Hundreds of thousands of bow hunters and muzzle loaders can't be all wrong!
 
OP - It is extremely weird that you shot better offhand with 3031 than the other powders off the bench. Methinks you were doing something wrong - perhaps resting the barrel on the bags, or flinching?. As previously stated, all of your loads should have gone into less than 6 inches @ 100 y. Perhaps a retest is in order, with someone else shooting the gun.

FWIW - A given hunting rifle will usually "tune" to a specific bullet weight, assuming that the barrel and bedding are decent shape. So 150 gr pills may be sub-optimal for your rig. Additionally, flat base bullets tend to perform better in old military rifles than boat tails, at the distance you are shooting.

I would be looking at some 180 gr pills (plain jane Hornady SP Interlock comes to mind) with 4350 and Re19, as a counterpoint to your 150g/3031 load. I've shot lots of H4350 and Re19 at min book load, and had stellar performance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom