http://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8442&dir=278|281|727
how accurate are these? has anyone tried them?
how accurate are these? has anyone tried them?
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - wideners
I've read/heard that they're about MOA. Not bench rest quality but if you're banging LR Steel or position the consensus seems to be that they will fit the bill, especially for practice and the price.
I've read/heard that they're about MOA. Not bench rest quality but if you're banging LR Steel or position the consensus seems to be that they will fit the bill, especially for practice and the price.
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - wideners
hmmm. what bullets do the m118LR loads use?
hmmm. what bullets do the m118LR loads use?
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - widen
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dsparil</div><div class="ubbcode-body">hmmm. what bullets do the m118LR loads use? </div></div>
Sierra 30 cal 175 grain SMK - part # 2275.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dsparil</div><div class="ubbcode-body">hmmm. what bullets do the m118LR loads use? </div></div>
Sierra 30 cal 175 grain SMK - part # 2275.
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - widen
ah ok thanks for that.
ah ok thanks for that.
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - wideners
The original M118 Load used Lake City Arsenal produced bullets, nominally 175.5 +/-3gr, usually 173gr. They are an FMJBT bullet of moderately good consistency, originally used in the .30-'06 M72 load. Production in the final years produced lower quality bullets due to lapsed maintenance on the arsenal's bullet manufacturing equipment, and is one of the key reasons for the switch to the 175SMK.
M118 nominal charge was 42.0gr IMR4895 (but this is misleading, as each batch was actually loaded to whatever charge of the canister powder onhand that delivered 2550fps +/-30fps @78ft).
M72 nominal charge was 50gr IMR4895 (again misleading, loaded to achieve 2640fps +/-30fps @78ft).
M118LR was identical originally to M118, with the substitution of the 175SMK. The M118 and M118LR were also alternatively charged (nominally) with 44.0gr of WC846, later determined to be equivalent to W748.
Note, these reported charges are hot, hotter than Sierra manual listed max charges, are not to be considered actual charges but estimates, and allowance must be made for powder burn rate drift over the intevening years. Load with the specified propellents to achieve the listed velocities, and work up watching pressures carefully.
Greg
The original M118 Load used Lake City Arsenal produced bullets, nominally 175.5 +/-3gr, usually 173gr. They are an FMJBT bullet of moderately good consistency, originally used in the .30-'06 M72 load. Production in the final years produced lower quality bullets due to lapsed maintenance on the arsenal's bullet manufacturing equipment, and is one of the key reasons for the switch to the 175SMK.
M118 nominal charge was 42.0gr IMR4895 (but this is misleading, as each batch was actually loaded to whatever charge of the canister powder onhand that delivered 2550fps +/-30fps @78ft).
M72 nominal charge was 50gr IMR4895 (again misleading, loaded to achieve 2640fps +/-30fps @78ft).
M118LR was identical originally to M118, with the substitution of the 175SMK. The M118 and M118LR were also alternatively charged (nominally) with 44.0gr of WC846, later determined to be equivalent to W748.
Note, these reported charges are hot, hotter than Sierra manual listed max charges, are not to be considered actual charges but estimates, and allowance must be made for powder burn rate drift over the intevening years. Load with the specified propellents to achieve the listed velocities, and work up watching pressures carefully.
Greg
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - widen
The 1983 mfr M118 I pulled down two weeks ago had 43 grains of a ball powder in it, not a stick like H4895.
M118 and M118LR uses a variety of powders over the years and even currently, sometimes not cannister powder (stuff available to you and I).
The wonderful thing about standards is there are so many of them.
The 1983 mfr M118 I pulled down two weeks ago had 43 grains of a ball powder in it, not a stick like H4895.
M118 and M118LR uses a variety of powders over the years and even currently, sometimes not cannister powder (stuff available to you and I).
The wonderful thing about standards is there are so many of them.
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - wideners
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The M118 and M118LR were also alternatively charged (nominally) with <span style="font-weight: bold">44.0gr of WC846, later determined to be equivalent to W748.</span> </div></div>
I have been told that WC846 is BLC-2 equivalent. I've been using it for a number of years in numerous calibers starting at BLC-2 starting points and working up, the max load ends up very close to what is published.
You sure it's supposed to be W748? Or are W748 and BLC-2 incredibly close as well?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The M118 and M118LR were also alternatively charged (nominally) with <span style="font-weight: bold">44.0gr of WC846, later determined to be equivalent to W748.</span> </div></div>
I have been told that WC846 is BLC-2 equivalent. I've been using it for a number of years in numerous calibers starting at BLC-2 starting points and working up, the max load ends up very close to what is published.
You sure it's supposed to be W748? Or are W748 and BLC-2 incredibly close as well?
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - wideners
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The M118 and M118LR were also alternatively charged (nominally) with <span style="font-weight: bold">44.0gr of WC846, later determined to be equivalent to W748.</span> </div></div>
I have been told that WC846 is BLC-2 equivalent. I've been using it for a number of years in numerous calibers starting at BLC-2 starting points and working up, the max load ends up very close to what is published.
You sure it's supposed to be W748? Or are W748 and BLC-2 incredibly close as well? </div></div>
BLC-2 and W748 are very close in burnrate. Also WC846 is a non-canister grade propellent. With all non-canister grade propellents, each lot is tested an a new load is developed from that lot to meet the performance specifications. If the specification is not met, then that lot is rejected and another lot is pulled/ordered.
With canister grade propellents the manufacturer must <span style="font-weight: bold">blend</span> lots to achieved the specified burnrate/characteristics, so reloaders can use published data or existing load data and not blow themselves up.
Any lots that do not meet canister grade specifications are marked as "non-canister" grade. In addition to these powders, there are a whole host of boutique blends/formulations that are used by manufacturers that are not available to the general public.
The make things even more confusing there are canister grade powders that are marketed by different brands that are the SAME powder: W296/H110, W231/HP38, W540/HS6, W571/HS7 it is generally accepted these are the same powder and the variances noticed are lot-to-lot variances.
There are others that have similar designations by manufacturer but do <span style="font-weight: bold">differ</span> in burnrate: Acc/H/IMR4831, Acc/H/IMR4350, H/IMR4895, etc.
My recommendation, when using non-canister grade powder is to work up the load each time there is a different lot number. The manufacturer is operating under a much broader specification window than with canister grade powders.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The M118 and M118LR were also alternatively charged (nominally) with <span style="font-weight: bold">44.0gr of WC846, later determined to be equivalent to W748.</span> </div></div>
I have been told that WC846 is BLC-2 equivalent. I've been using it for a number of years in numerous calibers starting at BLC-2 starting points and working up, the max load ends up very close to what is published.
You sure it's supposed to be W748? Or are W748 and BLC-2 incredibly close as well? </div></div>
BLC-2 and W748 are very close in burnrate. Also WC846 is a non-canister grade propellent. With all non-canister grade propellents, each lot is tested an a new load is developed from that lot to meet the performance specifications. If the specification is not met, then that lot is rejected and another lot is pulled/ordered.
With canister grade propellents the manufacturer must <span style="font-weight: bold">blend</span> lots to achieved the specified burnrate/characteristics, so reloaders can use published data or existing load data and not blow themselves up.
Any lots that do not meet canister grade specifications are marked as "non-canister" grade. In addition to these powders, there are a whole host of boutique blends/formulations that are used by manufacturers that are not available to the general public.
The make things even more confusing there are canister grade powders that are marketed by different brands that are the SAME powder: W296/H110, W231/HP38, W540/HS6, W571/HS7 it is generally accepted these are the same powder and the variances noticed are lot-to-lot variances.
There are others that have similar designations by manufacturer but do <span style="font-weight: bold">differ</span> in burnrate: Acc/H/IMR4831, Acc/H/IMR4350, H/IMR4895, etc.
My recommendation, when using non-canister grade powder is to work up the load each time there is a different lot number. The manufacturer is operating under a much broader specification window than with canister grade powders.
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - wideners
am currently working up 175smk load using IMR4064 and using some m118LR as my "control" group for the testing. out of my savage 10fp the m118lr runs a scary consistent(+/- 10fps)at 2715fps. i think my 26" barrel and tight chamber boosts the velocities about 100fps over standard cuz my brother reports constant 2600fps out of his m-24. for me today the m118Lr grouped 1.25 but every handload charge went tighter and my best was .550 today. same bullets different loading. hope that helps
am currently working up 175smk load using IMR4064 and using some m118LR as my "control" group for the testing. out of my savage 10fp the m118lr runs a scary consistent(+/- 10fps)at 2715fps. i think my 26" barrel and tight chamber boosts the velocities about 100fps over standard cuz my brother reports constant 2600fps out of his m-24. for me today the m118Lr grouped 1.25 but every handload charge went tighter and my best was .550 today. same bullets different loading. hope that helps
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - wideners
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buffybuster</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The M118 and M118LR were also alternatively charged (nominally) with <span style="font-weight: bold">44.0gr of WC846, later determined to be equivalent to W748.</span> </div></div>
I have been told that WC846 is BLC-2 equivalent. I've been using it for a number of years in numerous calibers starting at BLC-2 starting points and working up, the max load ends up very close to what is published.
You sure it's supposed to be W748? Or are W748 and BLC-2 incredibly close as well? </div></div>
BLC-2 and W748 are very close in burnrate. Also WC846 is a non-canister grade propellent. With all non-canister grade propellents, each lot is tested an a new load is developed from that lot to meet the performance specifications. If the specification is not met, then that lot is rejected and another lot is pulled/ordered.
With canister grade propellents the manufacturer must <span style="font-weight: bold">blend</span> lots to achieved the specified burnrate/characteristics, so reloaders can use published data or existing load data and not blow themselves up.
Any lots that do not meet canister grade specifications are marked as "non-canister" grade. In addition to these powders, there are a whole host of boutique blends/formulations that are used by manufacturers that are not available to the general public.
The make things even more confusing there are canister grade powders that are marketed by different brands that are the SAME powder: W296/H110, W231/HP38, W540/HS6, W573/HS7 it is generally accepted these are the same powder and the variances noticed are lot-to-lot variances.
There are others that have similar designations by manufacturer but do <span style="font-weight: bold">differ</span> in burnrate: Acc/H/IMR4831, Acc/H/IMR4350, H/IMR4895, etc.
My recommendation, when using non-canister grade powder is to work up the load each time there is a different lot number. The manufacturer is operating under a much broader specification window than with canister grade powders. </div></div>
Thanks
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buffybuster</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The M118 and M118LR were also alternatively charged (nominally) with <span style="font-weight: bold">44.0gr of WC846, later determined to be equivalent to W748.</span> </div></div>
I have been told that WC846 is BLC-2 equivalent. I've been using it for a number of years in numerous calibers starting at BLC-2 starting points and working up, the max load ends up very close to what is published.
You sure it's supposed to be W748? Or are W748 and BLC-2 incredibly close as well? </div></div>
BLC-2 and W748 are very close in burnrate. Also WC846 is a non-canister grade propellent. With all non-canister grade propellents, each lot is tested an a new load is developed from that lot to meet the performance specifications. If the specification is not met, then that lot is rejected and another lot is pulled/ordered.
With canister grade propellents the manufacturer must <span style="font-weight: bold">blend</span> lots to achieved the specified burnrate/characteristics, so reloaders can use published data or existing load data and not blow themselves up.
Any lots that do not meet canister grade specifications are marked as "non-canister" grade. In addition to these powders, there are a whole host of boutique blends/formulations that are used by manufacturers that are not available to the general public.
The make things even more confusing there are canister grade powders that are marketed by different brands that are the SAME powder: W296/H110, W231/HP38, W540/HS6, W573/HS7 it is generally accepted these are the same powder and the variances noticed are lot-to-lot variances.
There are others that have similar designations by manufacturer but do <span style="font-weight: bold">differ</span> in burnrate: Acc/H/IMR4831, Acc/H/IMR4350, H/IMR4895, etc.
My recommendation, when using non-canister grade powder is to work up the load each time there is a different lot number. The manufacturer is operating under a much broader specification window than with canister grade powders. </div></div>
Thanks
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - wideners
The info I had regarding equivalency between WC846 and W748 came from sometime around 5-6 years ago (I'm guessing here...) from either <span style="font-style: italic">Precision Shooting</span> or <span style="font-style: italic">Tactical Shooter</span>, can't recall which, but there were a number of articles dealing with M118LR load evolution. They were extensively discussed on this site at that time. This was before they worked with RL-15. I no longer have my issues, their having been gifted to a friend.
I should clarify, when I talk about equivalency, I'm talking about what was described as the closest commercial equivalent to the WC846 canister propellent. Even when describing loads with the precisely same named propellants, one needs to recognize that propellants change over time, and loads should always be worked up, even when attempting to duplicate published loads. Owing to burn rate drift, even loads safe at one level with new propellant years ago may not be safe with the same charge of new propellant of the same name. Always do your own load development, and always start low and work up.
Greg
The info I had regarding equivalency between WC846 and W748 came from sometime around 5-6 years ago (I'm guessing here...) from either <span style="font-style: italic">Precision Shooting</span> or <span style="font-style: italic">Tactical Shooter</span>, can't recall which, but there were a number of articles dealing with M118LR load evolution. They were extensively discussed on this site at that time. This was before they worked with RL-15. I no longer have my issues, their having been gifted to a friend.
I should clarify, when I talk about equivalency, I'm talking about what was described as the closest commercial equivalent to the WC846 canister propellent. Even when describing loads with the precisely same named propellants, one needs to recognize that propellants change over time, and loads should always be worked up, even when attempting to duplicate published loads. Owing to burn rate drift, even loads safe at one level with new propellant years ago may not be safe with the same charge of new propellant of the same name. Always do your own load development, and always start low and work up.
Greg
Re: M118LR bullets(not the full cartridge) - wideners
Thats a good price on those bullets! Too bad Im a 155 Scenar whore!
Thats a good price on those bullets! Too bad Im a 155 Scenar whore!
Similar threads
