- Location
- West Quebec
We should talk lol
Varget Powder
- Thread starter Dunk
- Start date
We should talk lol
neoconfection
Regular
- Location
- Ottawa, ON
I use Varget in one of my 6mmBR rifles, because it gives the best results of the 5 or so powders I have tried.
In my second 6mmBR rifle, RL 15, Norma 203B and Vihtavuori N140 all outperform Varget.
I do not think Varget is any panacea, but if it works for you, great!
Supply lately has been "iffy" though.
Regards, Dave.
In my second 6mmBR rifle, RL 15, Norma 203B and Vihtavuori N140 all outperform Varget.
I do not think Varget is any panacea, but if it works for you, great!
Supply lately has been "iffy" though.
Regards, Dave.
- Location
- Vancouver Island
That's a nice way of putting it...
I was a bit lucky on my last powder purchase - my cat woke me up at 5:00 in the morning the night that Henry at Budget Shooting Supplies got back to town, so I went on-line and was able to order some Varget while it was still in stock. I should have given him (my cat, not Henry...) some extra treats for that!
I started shooting Varget in the .308 and .30-06 when it first hit the retail market back in 1994/95. I had always used IMR 4895 or IMR 4064 with 150/165/168gr bullets before this. After shooting a lot of the 3 powders in many different rifles since that time I see them all perform similarly in the .308 and .30-06. One of the 3 may do a hair better in a particular rifle, but they all work well. Varget is also worth a try in the .303 British.
- Location
- West Quebec
Remind me lol
I use Varget in my .308, Benchmark in my .223, and H-380 in my 22-250. Ive tried Varget in my '250, but went back to H-380..... When i couldnt get any Varget for the longest time this summer, I used IMR 4895 with good results, I wouldnt hesitate on using it again.... As a matter of fact, when i go south for work and stop by the cabellas down there, I will buy it whenever i can and stockpile it in case of another varget (read: artificial shortage) ;-)
- Location
- West Quebec
Have you compared the Varget to Benchmark in 223 ?
I imagine benchmark would be better for lighter bullets. I too have had less than satisfactory results with 40-55gr pills in my .223. Switched to IMR 8208 for those. Now for 68+ gr bullets, I still think varget is a great choice. FS, I am very surprised varget works in your .204. How compressed is that load?
- Location
- West Quebec
What rifle & twist ?
Just don't try to personally transport any smokeless powder back from the US, that's a US ITAR export violation.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/51554-Importing-Firearms-Ammunition-and-Parts-from-the-USA
I've been running Varget quite a while in .308 Win with 155g Lapua projectiles for LR matches. With the recent components famine,
I'm going to switch to N-140 for the same usage. Cdn importer for Vihtavuori is local and has stock when I ordered N-140,
so that seemed a good enough reason for me. I had gotten an N-140 sample from a fellow LR competitor
and worked up a load for both .308/155 and .223/75, so I know that N-140 would do what I wanted.
I tried Varget in .223 Rem, but metering and load density limits on it w/o a drop tube in progressive reloading discouraged me from
using it for that purpose. N-140 is not constrained in the same way, so that permits me to also progress to using the same powder
for both .308/155 and .223/75 which are my two current major rifle loadings.
By the way, N5xx family are all double-based powder, which may have more temperature co-efficient issues that N1xx
which are all single-based.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/51554-Importing-Firearms-Ammunition-and-Parts-from-the-USA
I've been running Varget quite a while in .308 Win with 155g Lapua projectiles for LR matches. With the recent components famine,
I'm going to switch to N-140 for the same usage. Cdn importer for Vihtavuori is local and has stock when I ordered N-140,
so that seemed a good enough reason for me. I had gotten an N-140 sample from a fellow LR competitor
and worked up a load for both .308/155 and .223/75, so I know that N-140 would do what I wanted.
I tried Varget in .223 Rem, but metering and load density limits on it w/o a drop tube in progressive reloading discouraged me from
using it for that purpose. N-140 is not constrained in the same way, so that permits me to also progress to using the same powder
for both .308/155 and .223/75 which are my two current major rifle loadings.
By the way, N5xx family are all double-based powder, which may have more temperature co-efficient issues that N1xx
which are all single-based.
I have a rem. SPS tac, 1:9 that I shoot 55-70 grain bullets with. I also have a Howa with 1:12 twist I shoot 40 and 50 grain bullets with. I just find Varget is a "one size fits all" powder. When in actuality, there is likely a powder that will shoot a specific combo better.
hometownhero
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Toon Town, Sk
If by down south you mean the USA stop doing this now. When you get caught it can land you in jail. The ITAR regulations are no joking matter.
Tell that to the people at Lebaron's they keep talking about shortages blah blah blah...
I've been using imr 4320 for 223 with some success for 50 and 55 gr bullets, plan to try it with heavier up to 75 gr (1 in 9 twist barrel.)
The only time I've used Varget was with my 30-06 and 150 gr amax and sst's and I didn't get very good results.
Spoke to a few stores and one wholesaler and I'm hearing that the next shipment of Varget into Canada ain't coming until spring! I hope they're got their info wrong else I'm gonna have to stretch my stash...
Varget is a good powder, but it is not a miracle powder. Varget hit the streets in 1994/95, but there was a lot of very accurate shooting done with other powders that existed long before then, and still do. A lot of what you see in the shooting world is all about marketing this or that new wonder powder/cartridge/rifle and I've seen a lot of it over the past 50-60 yrs. Funny how deer and moose still drop very quickly when hit properly with a 120 year old cartridge loaded with an 80 year old propellant.
Some of the excellent canister propellants that are still highly performing today had their genesis back in the 1930s; IMR4064, IMR4320 (developed as a propellant for .30-06 match ammo, still excellent in certain applications, but seldom heard of these days) , IMR 3031, IMR 4350, and IMR 4895 to name a few. IMR 4895 was used to load billions of rounds of .30-06 ammo in WW2 and countless rounds of 7.62 ammo after that. SR 4759, which is great in reduced rifle loads, has been around for a long time and was the MILSPEC propellant for .30-06 ammunition with a reduced charge and frangible bullets which was fired at friendly fighter aircraft in a training role in WW. BLC2, which is still widely used today, was derived from a Winchester ball propellant which was loaded in a gazzilion rounds of .303 British that WRA produced for the Brits in WW2. The original H4831 was salvaged from demilitarized 20mm cannon rounds and sold as surplus after WW2.
I like Varget in a .30-06 and .308 with 150-168gr bullets, but it really doesn't seem to perform any better than IMR 4895 or IMR 4064 in these ctgs. After thousands of rounds in a variety of rifles, I think 4064 is ahead by a nose in the .30-06, and 4895 by a hair in the .308. Varget does meter nicely, followed by IMR 4895. Charges of loggy old IMR 4064 can't be thrown accurately, but it's worth the effort to throw each charge a bit below weight and then trickle up on the scale. I did a lot of load development and testing with Sierra/Hornady/Nosler 168gr match bullets in a fairly accurate stock M700 Rem VS in .308 and found that the best groups, averaging .61 inch, came from WC755, a discontinued commercial ball powder, followed by IMR 4895, then W748 and H4895, with a tie between IMR 3031 and IMR 4064, followed by Varget at .68 inch. That's not much of a point spread over hundreds of rounds.
Some of the excellent canister propellants that are still highly performing today had their genesis back in the 1930s; IMR4064, IMR4320 (developed as a propellant for .30-06 match ammo, still excellent in certain applications, but seldom heard of these days) , IMR 3031, IMR 4350, and IMR 4895 to name a few. IMR 4895 was used to load billions of rounds of .30-06 ammo in WW2 and countless rounds of 7.62 ammo after that. SR 4759, which is great in reduced rifle loads, has been around for a long time and was the MILSPEC propellant for .30-06 ammunition with a reduced charge and frangible bullets which was fired at friendly fighter aircraft in a training role in WW. BLC2, which is still widely used today, was derived from a Winchester ball propellant which was loaded in a gazzilion rounds of .303 British that WRA produced for the Brits in WW2. The original H4831 was salvaged from demilitarized 20mm cannon rounds and sold as surplus after WW2.
I like Varget in a .30-06 and .308 with 150-168gr bullets, but it really doesn't seem to perform any better than IMR 4895 or IMR 4064 in these ctgs. After thousands of rounds in a variety of rifles, I think 4064 is ahead by a nose in the .30-06, and 4895 by a hair in the .308. Varget does meter nicely, followed by IMR 4895. Charges of loggy old IMR 4064 can't be thrown accurately, but it's worth the effort to throw each charge a bit below weight and then trickle up on the scale. I did a lot of load development and testing with Sierra/Hornady/Nosler 168gr match bullets in a fairly accurate stock M700 Rem VS in .308 and found that the best groups, averaging .61 inch, came from WC755, a discontinued commercial ball powder, followed by IMR 4895, then W748 and H4895, with a tie between IMR 3031 and IMR 4064, followed by Varget at .68 inch. That's not much of a point spread over hundreds of rounds.
