WC-735 in a 308 Winchester - Range Report

brotherjack

brotherjack

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Location
BC
Disclaimer: The following did not blow up my rifle. It might blow yours up. It might even kill you. I suggest you use EXTREME caution in using ANY load data worked up by some guy on the Internet (me) who didn't have a pressure-test rig. I take no responsibility if any of this turns out to be unsafe in your rifle. You have been warned!


That said, as I couldn't find any information like this floating around out there, I thought I'd share. Here's what I got in my first test run.


Components: RP brass, WLRM primers, Hornady 150grain FMJBT's - shot over a chronograph. 3 shots each per load listed below.

41 grains of powder: 2720-ish FPS
42 grains of powder: 2760-ish FPS
43 grains of powder: 2840-ish FPS
44 grains of powder: 2925-ish FPS


At 41 and 42 grains, I had signs of low-ish pressure (badly smoked case necks, and barely touched primers).

43 grains kept the primer in place, but still smoked the case neck pretty thoroughly.

44 grains looked pretty good - just a very wee touch of case neck smoking, just a touch flat (quite a bit less flat than I get with my Varget loads at the same velocity, actually). If it weren't for the fact that the chrony said the load was already pushing the limits of expected velocity for a 150 grain bullet in a 308 Winchester, I probably would have kept going based on what the case looked like after firing. As it is though, I think the Chrony just gave me an early warning that I'm pushing things, so I'm going to take that warning and stop there.

With all loads, the accuracy was just a hair less than I am getting with my Varget loads (about an extra 0.2-ish inches). Velocity spread looked a bit ugly (+/- 40 FPS or 80-ish FPS spread), but light conditions were very inconsistent, so that may have just been the chrono readings being a touch off due to the rapidly-changing cloud-cover.


Conclusion - for the price, I might just order more of this stuff. :)
 
Last edited:
I found WC735 a tad fast for the .308 case shooting lead bullets. SD's were large. Glad to see your accuracy loss was not that great. Powder works well in .223 and 7.62x39 though.

Take Care

Bob
 
I can expand the data a little bit, as I was more conservative working with a powder I knew nothing about.

FC cases, WLR primers, 147gn FMJBT mil-grade bullets
38.0 grains gave me 2376 fps average.
40.0 grains gave me 2515 fps average.

I would have been ecstatic with 40 fps extreme spread. My ES was well over 100 for 10 shots in both loads. Mind you, I have been having this problem a lot lately, and I think it might have to do with my recent experiments in annealing brass more than the powder.
 
Sorry, I mis-spoke - I mean +/- 40 FPS to mean 40 FPS more or 40 FPS less. :)

My extreme spread wasn't as bad as yours, but it was pretty bad - it ranged from 87FPS to 65FPS at the best (42 grains), with about 80 FPS being average.
 
I'm glad you gave all those warnings and caveats, because any load over 42.0 grs with that powder in the 308 with a 150gr bullet is over-pressure. "Pressure Signs" are notoriously deceptive.

Higginsons comes right out and says that the powder is "5% faster" than H335 - I take that to mean use 5% less powder. The top load for H335 is 44.0 grs, so 5% less powder is about 41.5 grs. To keep it simple, I just use H322 loads. In my 26" barelled mauser I get an accurate 2700 fps with 40.0 grs of the WC-735 with the same 150gr Hornady bullets. I get the same 2700 fps with 46.0 grs in a 26" barelled 30/06.

I suggest using H322 loads on the low end, and going no higher than the midway point between H322 and H335.
 
Chambers, throat, brass, etc all cause pressure variations but if the cases are heavily smoked and the primers are pushed out the pressure is low for that rifle and component mix.
 
Specifics:

Rifle is a Savage 16FCSS in 308 Winchester

Barrel is 22 inches, and the bullet would touch the rifling at a comparated OAL (ie: shell + bullet + comparator length) of 3.200 (or 2.2 inches, if I recall the size of my comparator correctly)

I seated the bullets to a comparated OAL 3.175 for a 0.025 jump.

I didn't even check the case OAL - but judging by the crimp ring's distance from the neck, I'd say probably longer than the 2.800 inches a 308 is supposed to be according to specs (3 inch OAL would feed in the Savage, so I've never paid any attention to OAL, just making sure I stay off the rifling a hair).

The brass has been fired 6 times, and other than initial fire-forming, it has been neck sized only in a Lee collet die.
 
As long as we are filling in the data points, mine were fired through a unmodified Norinco M14s. They were loaded to 70.5mm cartridge OAL and lightly crimped with a Lee FCD.

I will be loading some hotter ones this afternoon as I try to close in on a good M80 ball load.
 
Andy said:
I'm glad you gave all those warnings and caveats, because any load over 42.0 grs with that powder in the 308 with a 150gr bullet is over-pressure. "Pressure Signs" are notoriously deceptive.

Higginsons comes right out and says that the powder is "5% faster" than H335 - I take that to mean use 5% less powder. The top load for H335 is 44.0 grs, so 5% less powder is about 41.5 grs.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, there has been exactly zero pressure testing done with this powder in a 308 Winchester case. Without pressure testing in a real pressure test rig, "pressure signs" are all we've got to go on with this particular powder. I view Higginson's recommendation as just a vague guideline whereby you can (probably) not kill yourself or hurt your gun - it is a far cry from real load or pressure data.

Further food for thought - having a known powder burn rate is not exactly an accurate indicator of pressure to velocity curve. Consider that BL-C(2) is a whole lot faster than Reloader 15 (and even faster than H335 for that matter), but both BL-C(2) and Reloader 15 can propel a bullet to near identical (and very high-for-caliber) velocities in a 308 Win, while H335 can not.

Anyway - I am not trying to discount the idea that I am playing with fire here (hence my very strongly worded warnings; I meant every word of that!). But since everyone else out there who is doing what I am doing is playing with the same fire - I thought it might be useful for us all to compare notes. :)
 
Last edited:
I get 2940 fps out of a 30 inch barrel pushing 155's with 46 gr of Varget. Plain old IVI or DA with 147 gr bullets runs 2925-2960 fps out of 30 inch barrels.
Me thinks if you are getting 2925-ish out of a 22 inch barrel, you are way over pressure. If we are ever shooting together please introduce yourself so I can move further down the line.
Velocity does not equal accuracy.
 
brotherjack said:
As far as I am aware, there has been exactly zero pressure testing done with this powder in a 308 Winchester case. Without pressure testing in a real pressure test rig, "pressure signs" are all we've got to go on with this particular powder. I view Higginson's recommendation as just a vague guideline whereby you can (probably) not kill yourself or hurt your gun - it is a far cry from real load or pressure data.
Click to expand...

Not true. We can see from testing that the WC-735 powder reacts load for load very much like a powder between H332 and H335. For example in a 308, 40.0 grs gives MV's just a bit slower than H322 and a bit faster than H335, so does 41.0, 42.0 and so on. I tried that in my 308 as I had those powders on hand, and what I surmised was proven true.

Knowing how the powder behaves, we can look at published pressures for those powders (H332 and H335) and know the pressure range in which a given load of WC-735 falls. "Pressure Signs" are not reliable and that has been proven many times, and discussed ad nauseum here on CGN.

brotherjack said:
Further food for thought - having a known powder burn rate is not exactly an accurate indicator of pressure to velocity curve. Consider that BL-C(2) is a whole lot faster than Reloader 15 (and even faster than H335 for that matter), but both BL-C(2) and Reloader 15 can propel a bullet to near identical (and very high-for-caliber) velocities in a 308 Win, while H335 can not.
Click to expand...

Funny, in the 308, I have found BL-C(2) to have a bit slower burn rate than Re15 (and Varget), and way slower than H335. By that I mean that I need more powder to achieve the same MV. If I could be bothered, I'd load up a few 308 with 44.0 grs in each of WC-735, H335, BL-C(2), Re15 and Varget and share the results.
 
Ummmm.... some of you seem to think I'm advocating use of the hottest load I tried that day. If you'll go back and read, I already stated that I considered that velocity to be pushing it for a 308 Winchester.

For the record - the load I've just loaded up a dozen of to go back and do further accuracy testing is 42.5 grains - I got the least velocity spread and the best group with 42 grains, but I'd really like to make the case neck smoking as minimal as possible so I upped it by half a grain and I'll go try it out and see.

And the range I shoot at is a ghost town 99% of the time - nobody need worry about sitting down next to me.
 
brotherjack said:
Ummmm.... some of you seem to think I'm advocating use of the hottest load I tried that day. If you'll go back and read, I already stated that I considered that velocity to be pushing it for a 308 Winchester.

For the record - the load I've just loaded up a dozen of to go back and do further accuracy testing is 42.5 grains - I got the least velocity spread and the best group with 42 grains, but I'd really like to make the case neck smoking as minimal as possible so I upped it by half a grain and I'll go try it out and see.

And the range I shoot at is a ghost town 99% of the time - nobody need worry about sitting down next to me.
Click to expand...

I think you have a good handle on safe reloading - never doubted that. You stopped at 44.0grs. I went there too, knowing I was likely approaching 60K psi.

BTW, 42.0 grs is also my pet load in the 308 with the 150gr Hornady - the MV is about 2800 from a 26 1/2" tube.

In the 30-06 I like 48.0 grs for about the same 2800 from a 26er.
 
Andy said:
Not true. We can see from testing that the WC-735 powder reacts load for load very much like a powder between H332 and H335. For example in a 308, 40.0 grs gives MV's just a bit slower than H322 and a bit faster than H335, so does 41.0, 42.0 and so on. I tried that in my 308 as I had those powders on hand, and what I surmised was proven true.

Knowing how the powder behaves, we can look at published pressures for those powders (H332 and H335) and know the pressure range in which a given load of WC-735 falls. "Pressure Signs" are not reliable and that has been proven many times, and discussed ad nauseum here on CGN.
Click to expand...

But as far as I know, none of that proves anything about how much actual pressure you're making. Just because 42 grains of powder X and 42 grains of powder Y make bullet Z go a given velocity - one might be doing it at a lot more (or less) pressure than the other depending on the pressure curve of the powder.

Andy said:
Funny, in the 308, I have found BL-C(2) to have a bit slower burn rate than Re15 (and Varget), and way slower than H335. By that I mean that I need more powder to achieve the same MV. If I could be bothered, I'd load up a few 308 with 44.0 grs in each of WC-735, H335, BL-C(2), Re15 and Varget and share the results.
Click to expand...

On a burn rate chart, BL-C(2) is listed down beside Reloader 10x. Re15 is listed as much slower, down near Win760. If the burn rate chart isn't correct, then I am incorrect in my statements about it. :)



Again - I'm not exactly advocating that anyone go repeat my experiment - I was just sharing data here.

Thanks,
 
Last edited:
Look at 10 different burn rate charts and you will see BL-C(2) in 10 different places (as will other powders such as Re10X). I have seen BL-C(2) all over the map, and rated as slow as H380 (and slower than Varget), but never as fast as Re10X.

Since it's a Hodgdon powder, let's look at what Hodgdon says:



60

Hodgdon H322
61
Accurate Arms 2015BR
62
Vihtavouri N130
63
IMR, Co IMR3031
64
Vihtavouri N133
65
Hodgdon BENCHMARK
66
Hodgdon H335
67
Accurate Arms 2230
68
Accurate Arms 2460
69
Hodgdon H4895
70
Vihtavouri N530
71
IMR, Co IMR4895
72
Vihtavouri N135
73
Alliant Reloder 12
74
IMR, Co IMR4320
75
Accurate Arms 2495BR
76
IMR, Co IMR4064
77
NORMA 202
78
Accurate Arms 2520
79
Alliant Reloder 15
80
Vihtavouri N140
81
Hodgdon VARGET
82
Winchester 748
83
Hodgdon BL-C(2)
84
Hodgdon H380
85

​




​
 
Last edited:
Just something to think about. Maximum velocity seldom goes hand in hand with accuracy in any given rifle. The question you ought to be asking youself. Am I trying to develop an accurate load or am I trying to to see haw fast I can drive a bullet?

If the latter try another powder. If the former, try a different powder.

Take Care

Bob
 
*** Followup ***


Went back with a dozen loaded up at 42.5 grains. I think I'm going to call that my "winner".

That seems to be high enough pressure to not yield low pressure signs, and should be low enough pressure to not be pushing anything to badly (it's making right at 2785FPS - plus or minus 35FPS).

Accuracy over 12 shots (as compared to 3 per loading last trip out) was reasonable, but looks like the "real accuracy" is probably more like 1/2 inch larger groups than my Varget/Accubond loads. (which isn't really all that significant, when you consider that this gun isn't exactly a tack-driver in the first place).

In conclusion - all I really wanted out of this load was something cheap that would safely go "bang" and shoot straight enough to pound the steel gong's for off-hand target practice. 42.5 grains will suffice just fine for that purpose, so I'm happy.
 
Side note regarding burn rate charts.

Apparently I am guilty of not doing enough homework, as I was not aware that such things weren't 'standardized' (ie: there was an accepted/known burn rate for any given powder, and a chart simply listed them in order of those accepted/known burn rates). I was getting my info from http:// ww w.reloadbench.com/burn.html which lists BL-C(2) right down next to Reloader 10x.

After looking over half a dozen other burn rate charts, I see that Andy, you are indeed correct - most of them seem to be wildly different in their ideas of what burn rates are...

Hrmmm......
 
brotherjack said:
Side note regarding burn rate charts.
.....
....most of them seem to be wildly different in their ideas of what burn rates are...
Click to expand...

And if you study a few, you'll notice that the biggest variations between charts are those powders in the middle of the charts, i.e. from about the 4895's to the 4350's.

In particular, look at the "Dr Jekyll" of powders BL-C(2). It's all over the (middle of the) map, but I find it to be slower than Varget and that's how I use it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom