200+ yard cast loads

[Mark Daiute]

In order to throw my wheel weight boolits out to 200 yards and beyond do I need to quench them in order to push them hard enough?

I'm shooting an old .303, a Krag an '03 Springfield and a Model 1917. For projectiles I have 314299, 311299, C309-180R and C312-185R

For powders I have plenty of IMR4064 and IMR4759

Thanks in advance!

Mark

[Doc Highwall]

I use 30:1 alloy in my 308 Win at 1750 fps no problem. My boolit is SAECO #315 175 gr TCGC.

[dromia]

Ed Harris's classic article is still the starting pont for all such questions.

Its stickied at the top of this forum but here's the link anyway:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=13425

[Mark Daiute]

Dromia:

Thanks for the kick in the but that I needed!

Given:

Mattern's "deer and 600 yard target load" can be assembled in cases of 30-40 Krag capacity or larger up to 30-06 using 18-21 grains of #2400 or 4227, 22-25 grains of 4198, 25-28 grains of RL-7 or 27-30 grains of 4895, which give from 1700-1800 f.p.s., depending on the case size. These charges must not be used in cases smaller than the 303 British without cross checking against published data! The minimum charge should always be used initially, and the charge adjusted within the specified range only as necessary to get best grouping.

I'm thinking that I will start with 27 grains of my 4064 and work my way up.

Thanks again,

Mark

[jonk]

I regularly shoot cast lead at 100 and 200 yards. 300 occasionally, but even with plinker loads of Red Dot I haven't found one that destablilzed at 300 yet.

My usual would be 21 gr of either 2400 or 4759 or 30-35 gr of 4895 with filler for a shot at that range out of a 30 cal weapon. Woudl be fine with any of the bullets you list. You might play with charge weights of 2400 from 16-22 and with 4759 from about 18 to 27 and see where you find happiness.

[JeffinNZ]

I have very good success with a CBE bullet not unlike the 314299 over 41gr H4350 for 2000fps. My SMLE loves it. BHN is 23-25.

[zomby woof]

1903A3 Springfield 2 groove. LEE 180, 20 grains 2400 shot at 200 yard, 1700 fps. Works for me.

[Bob S]

311284 with 40-42 grains of WW II surplus 4832, used in 03A3 for High Power 200 yard slow fire and 200 yard and 300 yard rapid fire. Would clean the 300 yard target if the nut behind the trigger did his job. Bullets were cast of "old" (pre-1970) wheelweights with no heat treatment or water quenching. Never any leading. Below is a 200 yard prone group fired after I put the rifle back together after having it out of the stock to put the scope mounts on:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/BobS_03A3_311284_200_yds.jpg

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[Pirate69]

Mark,
PM sent.

[257 Shooter]

Bob, that is really fine shooting! I have found that most problems are the nut behind the trigger.

[35 Whelen]

311284 with 40-42 grains of WW II surplus 4832, used in 03A3 for High Power 200 yard slow fire and 200 yard and 300 yard rapid fire. Would clean the 300 yard target if the nut behind the trigger did his job. Bullets were cast of "old" (pre-1970) wheelweights with no heat treatment or water quenching. Never any leading. Below is a 200 yard prone group fired after I put the rifle back together after having it out of the stock to put the scope mounts on:

Superb shooting, Bob! As always, you're an inspiration. By the way, could you help me locate some of that "WW II surplus 4832"? Does it burn a little faster or a little slower than 4831? :kidding:

35W

[Gray Fox]

I have the Lee 309-200-1R mold that drops WCWW at .310, @204 grains with GC and two thin coats of LLA. Will it work for the "deer and 600 yard target" load in a Sako '06? If so, might ACWW work better at these velocities?
Thanks, GF

[Bob S]

Greg:

The last cannister of WW II surplus 4831 that I purchased was in 1973 or 74 at Never-Fail in West Boylston Mass, for the then-outrageous price of $2. It hasn't been available for years.

My observation is that the surplus stuff was slighlty slower than the DuPont new-made stuff (now "IMR") I have not worked with the Hodgdon new production enough to make a judgement.

Some ten years after (circa 1984), when it was apparent that the surplus stuff was not available, I tested 38 grains of 4350 with that bullet, and in the M1 the performance was equal to the old 4831 load. It operated the action reliably and produced 2-1/2 MOA groups from a good, but not "accrurized", M1. I never tried it in the bolt gun.

About ten years ago (in 1998), I found a box of that same ammo, loaded in 1973, and fired it in the same 03A3, and was pleased to see that it was still shooting right around 1 MOA at 200 yards.

I think the secret to succes with that load in that rifle is that the coarse stick powder nearly fills the case, burns cleanly, and the bullets from that particular mould fit that particular throat and bore very well.

"Burns cleanly" here is relative. With those charges, there are some partially burned granules of powders in the bore. My friend Dave Yankus used to call these "mouse turds". But there was no carbon build up, and the mouse turds from the previous shot get swept out with the next shot: there was no accumulation. The mouse turds obviously were not detrimental to the load's performance. I have tried some of the slower burning ball powders, both surplus and cannister, and find that they leave too much trash in the bore for reliable accuracy for runs of more than ten shots, and the trash accumulates (carbon build-up). Remember that when you go down on the mat for your second string of 300 yard rapid fire, you've already got 50 rounds through the tube, plus sighters, if they were allowed. Obviously, your light Bullseye loads are burning clean (as I would expect them to).

I have a few other 311284 moulds that will not shoot that well from that rifle. The lesson is that all moulds are individuals, and it sometimes pays to own several copies of "the same mould" design.

Press on, and shoot 'em all in the middle.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[StarMetal]

Greg:

The last cannister of WW II surplus 4831 that I purchased was in 1973 or 74 at Never-Fail in West Boylston Mass, for the then-outrageous price of $2. It hasn't been available for years.

My observation is that the surplus stuff was slighlty slower than the DuPont new-made stuff (now "IMR") I have not worked with the Hodgdon new production enough to make a judgement.

Some ten years after (circa 1984), when it was apparent that the surplus stuff was not available, I tested 38 grains of 4350 with that bullet, and in the M1 the performance was equal to the old 4831 load. It operated the action reliably and produced 2-1/2 MOA groups from a good, but not "accrurized", M1. I never tried it in the bolt gun.

About ten years ago (in 1998), I found a box of that same ammo, loaded in 1973, and fired it in the same 03A3, and was pleased to see that it was still shooting right around 1 MOA at 200 yards.

I think the secret to succes with that load in that rifle is that the coarse stick powder nearly fills the case, burns cleanly, and the bullets from that particular mould fit that particular throat and bore very well.

"Burns cleanly" here is relative. With those charges, there are some partially burned granules of powders in the bore. My friend Dave Yankus used to call these "mouse turds". But there was no carbon build up, and the mouse turds from the previous shot get swept out with the next shot: there was no accumulation. The mouse turds obviously were not detrimental to the load's performance. I have tried some of the slower burning ball powders, both surplus and cannister, and find that they leave too much trash in the bore for reliable accuracy for runs of more than ten shots, and the trash accumulates (carbon build-up). Remember that when you go down on the mat for your second string of 300 yard rapid fire, you've already got 50 rounds through the tube, plus sighters, if they were allowed. Obviously, your light Bullseye loads are burning clean (as I would expect them to).

I have a few other 311284 moulds that will not shoot that well from that rifle. The lesson is that all moulds are individuals, and it sometimes pays to own several copies of "the same mould" design.

Press on, and shoot 'em all in the middle.

Resp'y,
Bob S.


Bob,

Hodgdon claims there 4831 is a little slower then the IMR version.
Have you ever tried any Accurate 3100?

Joe

[atr]

Im shooting 180gr RN cast fairly hard ..say #2+ at (2200-2300 fps) in 30-06 with 43 gr of IMR4350.....1917 Enfield action with Lyman target sights.....does well at 200 yards...shoots better than I can...and bucks the wind well too...

[stephen perry]

I would say the H 4831 is slower only because the IMR 4831 being a newer manufacturer has a different coating thus a dfferent burning rate. H is a light gray I has a shiny coating. I still have a good supply of both. Who cares at the safe loading rates they both perform in my 06 or my .338 just fine.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR :brokenima

[Bob S]

Bob,

Hodgdon claims there 4831 is a little slower then the IMR version.
Have you ever tried any Accurate 3100?

Joe

Hi Joe,

I can't comment first-hand on the IMR (post-DuPont) vs new Hodgdon, but I have heard the same from reliable sources. I have some 4831 SC; it goes through the measure nicer, but does not bulk up as well as the full size granules, so for duplicating my old load, I would probably stay with the "full size" powder and weigh charges. I have not tried just throwing the charges with the old Belding and Mull measure, but that's a possibility, too, now that I can find it.

The only Accurate powder I have used is their version of DuPont 4759. Accurate powders have not been widely available around here (Northern Virginia).

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[StarMetal]

Hi Joe,

I can't comment first-hand on the IMR (post-DuPont) vs new Hodgdon, but I have heard the same from reliable sources. I have some 4831 SC; it goes through the measure nicer, but does not bulk up as well as the full size granules, so for duplicating my old load, I would probably stay with the "full size" powder and weigh charges. I have not tried just throwing the charges with the old Belding and Mull measure, but that's a possibility, too, now that I can find it.

The only Accurate powder I have used is their version of DuPont 4759. Accurate powders have not been widely available around here (Northern Virginia).

Resp'y,
Bob S.

Thanks for your input. I believe the purpose of the SC cut of H4831 was so it didn't bulk up as much as to get more into the case, don't you think? That and to flow through the powder measures better. You would think that they would have known you could end up putting more into the case. Honestly I haven't tried the SC yet.

stephen perry, The Hodgdon tech told me that the supposedly comparable powders that IMR (other have) to Hodgdon brands do indeed have a different burning rate due to the different coatings. He also they put graphite on their powder to make it flow better in powder measures and cut static, whereas the burn rate is controlled by the powder blend, rather then the graphite coatins of other brands.

Joe

[madcaster]

I am going to get super-serious with my .30/06 and see if I can get a group half this good!

[Ricochet]

When DuPont reintroduced IMR 4831 in the late '70s, it was a little faster than the old surplus stuff. DuPont claimed it was made to original specs and the old stuff must have changed with aging. Hodgdon ran out of surplus and had new powder made to use the loading data of the old surplus stuff. DuPont had to put out warnings not to use theirs with old data.

[RU shooter]

In order to throw my wheel weight boolits out to 200 yards and beyond do I need to quench them in order to push them hard enough?

I'm shooting an old .303, a Krag an '03 Springfield and a Model 1917. For projectiles I have 314299, 311299, C309-180R and C312-185R

For powders I have plenty of IMR4064 and IMR4759

Thanks in advance!

Mark Out to 200 yds you only need to push them in the 1700 fps.(+ -) range .No need for a hard bullet .