I'm looking for a good accurate load for my M1A (stock w/1:12 rifling) and Rem 5-R bolt rifle to share. Do any of you use one load for both, and if so, can you share your recipe? I swear I won't tell a soul! Thanks!
- Thread starter Fatelvis
- Start date
Commercial case
168gr SMK or Nosler CC
41.5 gr IMR4895 or h4895
CCI200 primer
2.8" C.O.A.L
Or you could substitute 42gr IMR4064
Shoots very well out of either my M1A or Savage.
168gr SMK or Nosler CC
41.5 gr IMR4895 or h4895
CCI200 primer
2.8" C.O.A.L
Or you could substitute 42gr IMR4064
Shoots very well out of either my M1A or Savage.
Last edited:
I have at least (10) .308s in bolt action, lever action, and semi auto.
I could build more with materials on hand, if I wanted to.
When I started shooting 308 it was a Colt M60 belt fed when I was a teeny bopper.
But 15 years ago I started building my own 308s.
The conventional wisdom was 168 gr Match Kings and IMR4895 powder.
That have never been an easy load to make work.
The sure fire load to get a group at 100 yards first time out with a 308 rifle is:
110 gr Vmax moly .308 LC or WW brass, 44.9 gr bulk 4895 that is better modeled as H322, 2.815" OAL.
That is a wimpy 43 kpsi load. That is a short range bullet. But it gets the smallest groups in an unknown 308.
I could build more with materials on hand, if I wanted to.
When I started shooting 308 it was a Colt M60 belt fed when I was a teeny bopper.
But 15 years ago I started building my own 308s.
The conventional wisdom was 168 gr Match Kings and IMR4895 powder.
That have never been an easy load to make work.
The sure fire load to get a group at 100 yards first time out with a 308 rifle is:
110 gr Vmax moly .308 LC or WW brass, 44.9 gr bulk 4895 that is better modeled as H322, 2.815" OAL.
That is a wimpy 43 kpsi load. That is a short range bullet. But it gets the smallest groups in an unknown 308.
Federal's Gold Medal Match is loaded with the expectation that folks will shoot it in all kinds of rifles... bolt guns and gas guns included.
They're using IMR 4064, in their own brass, which is thick. It requires less powder for a given amount of pressure. They're using 42.8 grains in FC brass with 168's, and 41.8 grains with 175's.
If you're using Lapua brass, bump these charges up to 43.0 and 42.0 grains, respectively.
With Winchester brass... add .4 grains; 43.2 grains with 168's and 42.2 grains in Winchester brass.
They're using IMR 4064, in their own brass, which is thick. It requires less powder for a given amount of pressure. They're using 42.8 grains in FC brass with 168's, and 41.8 grains with 175's.
If you're using Lapua brass, bump these charges up to 43.0 and 42.0 grains, respectively.
With Winchester brass... add .4 grains; 43.2 grains with 168's and 42.2 grains in Winchester brass.
45.5grs CFE under a 168AMAX in Lapua brass, Tula primers. Almost guaranteed to shrink your SD.
For me most likely involves 168amax and varget
tag for later
Commercial case
168gr SMK or Nosler CC
41.5 gr IMR4895 or h4895
CCI200 primer
2.8" C.O.A.L
I was going to recommend this load as well. I have yet to see a 308 that wouldn't shoot it well.
This is the last H-4895, 168 SMK work up in a SPS Varmint. As you can see, at least at short range, 4895 is not too fussy.
I shoot this load with match prepped LC in my M1A as well
I also happen to have chrono data for the M1A:
15 shots from SAI Standard M1A (22" bbl) over Beta Master Shooting Chrony
Average: 2,590fps
SD: 12.44fps
ES: 27fps
Last edited:
I ran the following load for my M1A and my bolt gun to get consistent MOA or better in both rifles.
-LC brass small base sized, trimmed, primer pockets swaged
-Wolf large rifle primers
-42.5 grains of IMR-4895
-Sierra 175 SMK
-Loaded to 2.81"
This load ran about 2615 fps and was a good middle load for both rifles. I developed this load trying to replicate some old M118 special ball that shot well. I also had a load specific for each rifle with different components.
-LC brass small base sized, trimmed, primer pockets swaged
-Wolf large rifle primers
-42.5 grains of IMR-4895
-Sierra 175 SMK
-Loaded to 2.81"
This load ran about 2615 fps and was a good middle load for both rifles. I developed this load trying to replicate some old M118 special ball that shot well. I also had a load specific for each rifle with different components.
tag for later
Great info Dan, thank you! Do you mind if I ask how you know Federal's actual load? Thanks-
Federal has used IMR 4064 historically. When ATK bought them, they began using RL15 (ATK owns Alliant... RCBS/Speer... and now Savage Arms too, it appears). The RL15 loads were good, but never were as good as the 4064 loads had been. The M118LR load used RL15, first a charge of 44.3 grains (which many of us predicted would start puking primers in the desert, and alas, it did)... so they backed the charge weight down to around 43 grains, and that worked pretty well. We saw a fantastic batch of M118LR the other day, which showed very low ES (less than MOA of vertical at 1040 yards)... so the RL15 loads work--but 4064 is more predictable in temperature extremes. Not that any powder is totally invulnerable to temperature swings, but some are less so than others.
Federal is building the new Mk316 Mod 0 long range load for the military. The sheet specs IMR 4064 by name, and calls for 41.75 grains in the FC cases with the 175 grain Sierra Matchking, of course. Pulled down Federal Gold Medal Match shows 41.7 to 41.8 grains of 4064 in the 175 SMK loads.
Many folks believe that commercial ammo makers use "proprietary" powders. The "proprietary" in nearly all instances simply means "they ain't gonna tell you."
But in some cases, particularly with ball powders used to mass produce low cost ammo, they might have a batch of "off lot" powder that they get at a bargain, since the powder maker can't really use it for anything much else. (think of Accurate Arms' "data powders"). These were supposedly pull down powders, but probably most of it never made it to any finished ammo. It's okay, and you can develop your own loads with it, but it doesn't line up with any published data out there, since the lot was off burn spec.Hodgdon got into the powder business when they took old IMR 4831 which had been exposed to the elements for a time... times... and half a times...
and the burn rate slowed down. But that worked out great, and "H4831" and Hodgdon was born.It would make no economic sense whatsoever for an ammo maker to have a special powder made (in this day and age) for a particular load they're building. There are ample powders already in mass production that will do the job, and these can be had at a cost much, much lower than what a special batch of "whatever" could be brewed up. This is not to say that ammo makers won't *tell* you that they've had special powders blended--but it is to say that you really ought to take that with a grain of W748--or salt, as it were.
It's easy to make some basic analysis to see what powder is in a factory shell. You begin by weighing the charge. Check published data sources that would help give you some suspect powders. Then you come up with a short list of what that powder *might* be. Then you begin striking potential powders off that list with high magnification visual comparisons, equal volume tests, burn tests, and even the smell of the burned powder.
When you find the powder that most closely (or in many cases, *exactly* mimics the factory used powder) you then double check the published data, to see if that would be a reasonable and safe charge, and would be likely to produce the velocity that the factory load produces.
Last of all... you run that same amount of powder, working up to the factory loaded charge from safe published load data of course, and you see if velocity compares favorably. If you use the factory brass, you should see accuracy and point of impact be pretty much the same as well. Never at any time would you exceed published maximum charges. That should go without saying, but there are self-appointed mall cops in our midst--hence the caveat.
So that's in a nutshell how it's done. We don't advocate just dumping a factory cartridge, weighing the charge, and guessing what powder it is, then putting that same charge of powder into a shell and shooting it. That would be stupid, and it would be quite condescending to the fellowship of reloaders out there to even allege that such would happen.
Dan
Last edited:
Great info in this thread. Do any of you have data for the 168smk? I have some LC match brass and some 168s I want to start load developing for my gas gun. I'm thinking about starting from 39gr and working up to 43.5 gr if there are no pressure signs.
In the LC cases, look for the node to show up at 42.8 grains... there will be a lower node around 41.5 or 41.6, but that'll be slow.
Dan, you provided some good info there. However, I do disagree (slightly) on one point. Powders. Factory ammo uses almost the same powder as we do with one caveat: Canister grade powder (what we buy) is blended, in order to ensure optimal lot-to-lot burn rate. This is not the case with Bulk powders. They are known to vary more lot-to-lot. This is why factories load to pressure/velocity for each lot, not charge weight. Basically, what I'm saying is that whenever the factory gets a fresh lot of powder the testing begins anew. I have opened factory 270 WSM to find 9gn of 780 over listed max. One other interesting tidbit: Federal's original Gold Medal load used IMR 3031 (I think at 39.5gn nominal). However, you are 100% correct that factory ammo does not use proprietary powders, unavailable to the reloading public.
I have a problem buying hats. They like to make "em "one size fits most" I'm a 7 3/4 and they usually do not fit well, or not at all. Got 8 or so 308's. Bolt and gas, so I can say without reservation: NO. Unless of course, performance is not important.
Tag for reference
Great info
Great info
I have thought about the mixing of like powders (from different lots) some in the past... and whether or not ammo makers would do this--and if they did it, how well it might work... I've mentioned elsewhere that I had been told that big ammo makers do blend like powders to unify the lot's burn rate in cases where they have differing powder lots.
I linked this page on another site... it's mostly too "techy" for me... but maybe it'll make sense to some: http://www.indicizer.com/files/SolidsMixingBlending.pdf What it deals with is the issue of blending solids, and how well (how fully) that can be accomplished.
I think about blending 10,000 yellow marbles with 10,000 blue ones. As far as shape and mass (which the linked article deals with) they're the same... it's only the color that is different. But even though they should blend well, a sample of 100 random marbles from the finished 20,000 part mixture would not always contain 50 yellow and 50 blue. This is why I wonder about the wisdom of blending powders--especially if accuracy is important.
If they're making "blasting fodder"... just AK ammo, or something to keep the Mini-14 shooters happy, then I could see them blending a very slow lot of 748 (or industry equivalent) with a very fast lot of that supposed same powder, and arriving at something which will be pretty close to what 748 ought to be. But even then, from one round to the next, pressures would have to vary... some rounds would have more granules of the fast lot, and some would have less. This of course might explain why some of this cheap ammo shoots so poorly--at least in part.
I would think that before a factory went to the expense and extreme of blending two powder batches together, we'd have to see the following two circumstances present:
1. The two lots of powder would have to be so far away from the useful burn rate that they could not be used in any other application.
2. The two lots of powder would have to meet the blending specs mentioned in the document I linked above.
(and there may even be other conditions I haven't thought of that would need to be met as well)...
Once the batch was blended, the charge weights of the batch would have to be loaded to a level that would allow for and presume the possibility of a very hot charge of powder, which contained the highest possible portion of the faster powder--while at the same time allowing for the safety of low pressure charges, when the slower powder was dominant in a particular shell.
And perhaps this is what they do. They tell us they blend powders anyway ... and this would be the only conceivable way it would make any sense at all. They would never "seek out" bad lots of powder, but would be willing buyers of off lots, thinking to blend them them and get some use from them, beating the competition's pricing for cheap blasting fodder. But even then, I'd say the first thing they'd want to try with that off lot of powder would be to simply see how they might use it without having to blend it.
All just thinkin' out loud... all just sayin'
Dan
I linked this page on another site... it's mostly too "techy" for me... but maybe it'll make sense to some: http://www.indicizer.com/files/SolidsMixingBlending.pdf What it deals with is the issue of blending solids, and how well (how fully) that can be accomplished.
I think about blending 10,000 yellow marbles with 10,000 blue ones. As far as shape and mass (which the linked article deals with) they're the same... it's only the color that is different. But even though they should blend well, a sample of 100 random marbles from the finished 20,000 part mixture would not always contain 50 yellow and 50 blue. This is why I wonder about the wisdom of blending powders--especially if accuracy is important.
If they're making "blasting fodder"... just AK ammo, or something to keep the Mini-14 shooters happy, then I could see them blending a very slow lot of 748 (or industry equivalent) with a very fast lot of that supposed same powder, and arriving at something which will be pretty close to what 748 ought to be. But even then, from one round to the next, pressures would have to vary... some rounds would have more granules of the fast lot, and some would have less. This of course might explain why some of this cheap ammo shoots so poorly--at least in part.
I would think that before a factory went to the expense and extreme of blending two powder batches together, we'd have to see the following two circumstances present:
1. The two lots of powder would have to be so far away from the useful burn rate that they could not be used in any other application.
2. The two lots of powder would have to meet the blending specs mentioned in the document I linked above.
(and there may even be other conditions I haven't thought of that would need to be met as well)...
Once the batch was blended, the charge weights of the batch would have to be loaded to a level that would allow for and presume the possibility of a very hot charge of powder, which contained the highest possible portion of the faster powder--while at the same time allowing for the safety of low pressure charges, when the slower powder was dominant in a particular shell.
And perhaps this is what they do. They tell us they blend powders anyway
... and this would be the only conceivable way it would make any sense at all. They would never "seek out" bad lots of powder, but would be willing buyers of off lots, thinking to blend them them and get some use from them, beating the competition's pricing for cheap blasting fodder. But even then, I'd say the first thing they'd want to try with that off lot of powder would be to simply see how they might use it without having to blend it.All just thinkin' out loud... all just sayin'
Dan
Last edited:
tag for future
Let's not start the crap about proprietary powders again. Yes, there are different powders out there produced for very specific loadings, and no, they're not necessarily available on the commercial market.
That's a simple fact, and is why some loads can't be duplicated with commercially available components.
That's a simple fact, and is why some loads can't be duplicated with commercially available components.
Add another tag for later.
Commercial case
168gr SMK or Nosler CC
41.5 gr IMR4895 or h4895
CCI200 primer
2.8" C.O.A.L
I was going to recommend this load as well. I have yet to see a 308 that wouldn't shoot it well.
This is the last H-4895, 168 SMK work up in a SPS Varmint. As you can see, at least at short range, 4895 is not too fussy.
I shoot this load with match prepped LC in my M1A as well
I also happen to have chrono data for the M1A:
15 shots from SAI Standard M1A (22" bbl) over Beta Master Shooting Chrony
Average: 2,590fps
SD: 12.44fps
ES: 27fps
That target makes me think about 42.2 grains should give you a really consistent load.
If you're looking for nodes, I'm about throw a wrench in Your gears: I adjusted the scope after 41.5. That said, im sure 42.2 would shoot nicely. I had a mid range match the next day, and just wanted to make sure my old standby M1A load would perform, as all I had on hand was H4895 & 168 SMK's. That rifle no longer has that bbl anyways. I think that target clearly illustrates that H-4895 and the tangent ogive, 168 pill of your choice will normally get nice results in a 308.
I have thought about the mixing of like powders (from different lots) some in the past... and whether or not ammo makers would do this--and if they did it, how well it might work... I've mentioned elsewhere that I had been told that big ammo makers do blend like powders to unify the lot's burn rate in cases where they have differing powder lots.
I linked this page on another site... it's mostly too "techy" for me... but maybe it'll make sense to some: http://www.indicizer.com/files/SolidsMixingBlending.pdf What it deals with is the issue of blending solids, and how well (how fully) that can be accomplished.
I think about blending 10,000 yellow marbles with 10,000 blue ones. As far as shape and mass (which the linked article deals with) they're the same... it's only the color that is different. But even though they should blend well, a sample of 100 random marbles from the finished 20,000 part mixture would not always contain 50 yellow and 50 blue. This is why I wonder about the wisdom of blending powders--especially if accuracy is important.
If they're making "blasting fodder"... just AK ammo, or something to keep the Mini-14 shooters happy, then I could see them blending a very slow lot of 748 (or industry equivalent) with a very fast lot of that supposed same powder, and arriving at something which will be pretty close to what 748 ought to be. But even then, from one round to the next, pressures would have to vary... some rounds would have more granules of the fast lot, and some would have less. This of course might explain why some of this cheap ammo shoots so poorly--at least in part.
I would think that before a factory went to the expense and extreme of blending two powder batches together, we'd have to see the following two circumstances present:
1. The two lots of powder would have to be so far away from the useful burn rate that they could not be used in any other application.
2. The two lots of powder would have to meet the blending specs mentioned in the document I linked above.
(and there may even be other conditions I haven't thought of that would need to be met as well)...
Once the batch was blended, the charge weights of the batch would have to be loaded to a level that would allow for and presume the possibility of a very hot charge of powder, which contained the highest possible portion of the faster powder--while at the same time allowing for the safety of low pressure charges, when the slower powder was dominant in a particular shell.
...
All just thinkin' out loud... all just sayin'
Dan
OK, I mostly agree with you; but I think your premise is wrong. There wouldn't be a 50/50 mixture of two powders, I'd bet it would be more like 95/05: thereby reducing the variance of any "off" mix areas of the blend. This would probably (at the farthest ends) have a mix ranging from 94/6 to 96/4. With similar burn rates, I highly doubt that a shooter couldn't notice the difference between the extremes...
...all this, of course, is purely academic; with nothing to back it up.
