Printable View
OK, I hate to admit it,ESPECIALLY in front of this bunch, but I have never shot any before.
Ok, Jeff finally got another batch in and I bought some just because it is supposed to be good in a lot of boolit loads.
45-70 was one of my goals.
Well lookin at the burn "rate" chart it is around the 4227 "speed".
IF that is true why don't we ever see it listed in some of the bigger handgun loads, especially with heavy boolits?
Jus wonderin
TC, My Lyman #45 (1970) Lyman Reloading Handbook lists loads of IMR 4227 for .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, and .45 Colt. Listed maximum MV are very close to the same publication's 2400 loads. I'm guessing that 4227 didn't offer much more power, and in some cases slightly less, than the well-established, and endorsed by Elmer Keith, loads of 2400. If your interested, I can post the IMR 4227 loads here. I won't post the 35 years ago loads of 2400 because today's Alliant 2400 is much faster burning than the original Hercules 2400. Point of trivia: 2400 originated around 1930 and was so numbered because it was the only powder that could safely reach 2400 fps in the then-new .22 Hornet.
It was the most popular cast bullet rifle powder for many years, but that was many years ago. Cast bullet rifle loading slipped badly in popularity for a long time and DuPont quit making the powder. It came back on the market about 20 years ago. It doesn't go through most powder measures very well, IMR 4227 is close to the same burning rate and slides through the powder measures real good, hence its' popularity. Neither of these powders offer much in pistol cases, H110 (WW296) or SR 2400 are better choices for most applications.
One of the great powders that all casters ought to have on hand. That also goes for 2400, Unique, 4198, and Red Dot.
1Shirt! :coffee:
Just for the reason it IS about the same speed but it's bulkier and you can't get enough in to do the same job as 4227 or 2400. Regards, WoodyQuote:
Originally Posted by TCLouis
4759 was developed by Dupont years ago for the military. It was formulated to be bulky for positive ignition in smaller charge weights. It was loaded in "frangable" 30-06 ammo at less that full velocity.
As stated, it was the darling of the cast bullet crowd for the same reasons as the military liked it.
It has been used with great sucess and fine accuracy in large capacity sixgun round like the 45 Colt. Somewhere I have some emails from Paco Kelly where he tells me about some work he did with this powder in that round. Mot much data around through.
It still remains one of the primo cast bullet powders.
...........I like it alot. You'll still see it listed quite often as the powder used in results published by the Fouling Shot. The only problem with it is that it doesn't meter well, as has been mentioned. It does very well measured with dippers just because of it's low density. Due to it's bulkyness it does a better job of filling cases.
I've found it as accurate as anything else in several cartridges.
http://www.fototime.com/E3932A18D38C8CD/standard.jpg
The last time Bartlett had SR4759 I only bought 2 jugs. I experimented with it enough to know it was just like the canister version. Before I could get the bucks together to get any it was gone. When it showed back up this time I got 4 jugs. And I see it's gone again.
..............Buckshot
Buckshot, and all here, I've got 2 cans (1 lb.) of it and haven't shot any yet, but will very soon. Will it meter well if the drop tube has at least a .30 cal. hole in it? I'm not shooting any calibers under .30 .... yet. Most will be .30., .31, .35 or .45. Heretofore, when using coarse grained powders, I haven't had any problems when the caliber was .30 or larger, but like TCL, would appreciate any advice y'all can offer.
...........I have had it bridge and deliver short charges using the Lee Perfect powder measure (not so perfect, eh?). I don't know what you'd be using a powder tube for with this powder, but if so I would for sure check each case with a light.
..............Buckshot
I have used a lot of 4759 in 7TCU -30-30 and 7-308 and have not had a problem with it metering . I use a RCBS duro measure,small chamber and use half charge settings,
just make two drops. Yes every case is checked with a light for the proper amount of powder.
Be carefull Dye
Buckshot, funny thing. This may be the first time that I have heard of anyone using 4759. I have been using it for years for my moisin nagant 7.62x54 russian. I have been following the various threads and don't seem to remember anyone mentioning it. Great powder except it doesn't work through powdermeasures all that well. No big deal as I weigh my powder charges.I think you'll like it. Frank
My best cast group so far was with SR4759. I can only get that accuracy by Weighing each charge. I switched to surp 4895, still get close to the same groups (so far, More testing is needed) but lost about 100 fps. Only problem is I still have to weigh the 4895 to get the good groups. Maybe I need a better powder measure. I use a Redding.
I bought the surp powder and have been kicking my self for not getting 8 lbs of 4759.
David
Thanks for the advice. I usually use an old Ohaus measure, but have two others. I asked because it seemed like somewhere in the catacombs of my memory, I'd heard that it'd bridge sometimes. As to checking powder levels with a light, I ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS do that, a fact due to having once gotten a squib due to not checking. It's also one reason I stick with my antiquated old single stage press, rather than going to a progressive. I know billions of rounds get loaded and shot with progressives, and that many if not most powders meter extremely well now, but .... it happened once, and I didn't much like it. I guess getting into casting really good bullets kinda' goes with making really good loads, and I still like that old single stage press.
For a while when 4759 was out of production, 4227 was touted by some as a replacement. There's no comparison as far as metering - 4759 can be a pain, and we all know how nicely 4227 falls through a meter. However, I was recently reminded by my chronograph why 4759 still has a place. I was working up a cast load for my .270 maximum pistol. At about the same average velocity, the extreme spreads with 4759 were a third what they were with 4227.
[QUOTE=Blackwater] I asked because it seemed like somewhere in the catacombs of my memory, I'd heard that it'd bridge sometimes. [QUOTE]
I had that problem too. I drill out an old Herters drop tube until it didn't bridge anymore and haven't had a problem with it doing it since.
I usually find that Rx 7 is the most accurate rifle powder for me. However, I have a 38-55 Winchester that does not like Rx 7...It shoots well with SR4755. Previously I had concluded that all my cast bullet RIFLE shooting would be with Rx 7. Wrong! Go figure.
Regards,
dahermit