22-250 and spherical-grain powders:

[TonyH]

I want to develop loads for 22-250 using spherical powders, bullet weight could be from 40 to 55gr. Several powders from IMR (especially), Hodgdon and Winchester are said to work well, but can anyone suggest a particularly good one? Efficient, consistent, fast and accurate?

Thanks, TonyH

[Vermincinerator]

I want to develop loads for 22-250 using spherical powders, bullet weight could be from 40 to 55gr. Several powders from IMR (especially), Hodgdon and Winchester are said to work well, but can anyone suggest a particularly good one? Efficient, consistent, fast and accurate?

Thanks, TonyH

 

Tony,

you are obviously aware of various makes of ball or spherical powders, yet you seem unaware of the classic load for 22-250???

 

Ian.

[Guest varmartin]

mmmmmm whould that be 38 grains of H380 under a 55 grain pill ?..try it you might like it !

[Alycidon]

I could never get mine to shoot better than moa with H380. 35.7gr and I was looking at slightly cratered Fed 210 primers.

 

A

[Vermincinerator]

mmmmmm whould that be 38 grains of H380 under a 55 grain pill ?..try it you might like it !

 

You are not supposed to tell him so early in the post martin

 

Ian.

[Vermincinerator]

Tony,

When i had a standard 22-250 about 10 years ago i was constantly switching between H380 and WW 760. depending on what was i stock at the time, rifle reloading powders were not as easily available as they are now ( more like i did not know where to find them)

Both are ball powders and both performed very well but my rifle at the time, a Model 70 HV preferred 37.8 grns of WW 760 with a 52grn JLK bullet.

 

Ian.

[TonyH]

Tony,

When i had a standard 22-250 about 10 years ago i was constantly switching between H380 and WW 760. depending on what was i stock at the time, rifle reloading powders were not as easily available as they are now ( more like i did not know where to find them)

Both are ball powders and both performed very well but my rifle at the time, a Model 70 HV preferred 37.8 grns of WW 760 with a 52grn JLK bullet.

 

Ian.

Thanks Ian, useful. H380 is (IIRC) the only ball powder i tried in the past, since I was (naturally) aware of that classic Hodgdon load from the Mesolithic Period (?) with 38gr of the stuff - but it didn't impress, and after experimenting with N150 & N160 i finally settled on 37gr of Varget behind the 55gr V-Max (WW brass, Fed210M), very good load indeed, worked for me here and in Canada for several years, knocked over pigeons, rabbits, crows, foxes, groundhogs....

These days there appear to be a number of ball powders around, some of them more sophisticated (possibly), and for various reasons I'd like to work up a load for 22-250 using one - so long as it produces top consistency/accuracy and preferably good MV as well. I'll bear Win760 in mind at that load figure.

I don't recall it being any more difficult 10-20+ years ago to find suitable rifle powders than it is today. In fact in some ways there was a greater variety available, more easily - and certainly a damn sight cheaper...

Regards, Tony

[Berger]

when I used a 22.250 I usd a 52 gr Berger with 36.8gr of varget,I didnt like H380 as it was very dirty

couldnt fault the VARGET

[TonyH]

when I used a 22.250 I usd a 52 gr Berger with 36.8gr of varget,I didnt like H380 as it was very dirty

couldnt fault the VARGET

Yes, I used Varget previously, but though its grains are small it's still an extruded powder, not spherical... I see lots of info on US sites about spherical-grain powders for 22-250 but I'm still very interested to know what current (spherical/ball) powder is used in 22-250 by Brits.

Thanks, Tony

[17 Rem]

I used N140 for the 22/250's I had, BUT when I needed ammunition loaded quickly I used BLC-2 as it metered so well. I found it a superb powder.

[nemasis243]

Tony I had a 22/250 for around a year and a half and it shot like a demon once i found the right combination,

I found IMR (4320 I think ,it was a long while ago) gave me very good velocity and hole on hole,

funny thing I shot shot a lot of stuff with it but it was one round that never floated my boat and I cant really tell you why,

I will see if i have still got the loading data and will PM it to you , I know it was Nozler 55grners ,

cheers Andy

[TonyH]

Thanks Andy and 17 Rem - both BLC2 and IMR4320 are now on my shortlist. Andy, funny that 22-250 never grabbed you, but these things are very personal. Me, I've had three rifles in this calibre, last one several years ago, and I'm happy to be starting shortly with a fourth: looking forward to tweaking it, working up a load, field testing... It might seem inefficient by current standards but it just works so well, and although it's not quite as inherently accurate as (say) .222 it responds to careful, intelligent load development, powder/bullet choice, and seating depth for instance. Which makes it really interesting. and it makes a nice Boom!

Regards, TonyH

[v-max]

I have a 22.250 & loaded it for 10-11yrs & have used BLC-2 nearly all them years it great & iv used the H380 to good accuracy. In the BLC-2 i used 33.3g for 55g bullet & cci primer or 34g for 50g with cci primer. I found it hard to get the BLC-2 so am now on the VARGET.

[sean c]

A mate of mine tried Accurate 2520 for the heavy'ish bullets but got the same results and a bit more velocity with varget.

 

Sean.

[ejg223]

I liked with plain jane 36gr varget and 52gr nos custom match. Worked on

crows to deer for me. N140 wasn't bad but seemed not as consistent.

 

edi

[bigun]

40gn vmax 34.5 of n135 shoot very well indeed

[17 Rem]

Chaps, he wants SPHERICAL powders.

[TonyH]

Chaps, he wants SPHERICAL powders.

Thanks for that reminder... A fair selection of opinions so far but I'd have thought with 22-250 being such a widely used calibre more people might have tried a wide variety of spherical powders... Like berger says above, I found H-380 dirty, and I didn't get useful velocities or consistency. A few people in the States speak very favourably of Win 760 in this calibre - and some say nice things about AA2520 though it's a bit fussy about e.g. primers and seating depth... With powder at such shocking prices now, I can't afford to experiment too much! At present I'm likely to try Win 760 first.

TonyH

[Laurie]

Tony,

 

a tip re the two Winchester ball powders that you often see quoted in American manuals, but only rarely find in this country - ie W740 and 760.

 

These powders are produced by the former Olin plant in St. Marks, Florida now an independent company and called the appropriately the St. Marks Powder Co. It is the only propellant manufacturer left in the USA and only makes ball powders. Its main business is selling to Uncle Sam either directly, or via ammunition manufacturers - all US military smallarms ammo uses ball powders, and there is now no US manufacturer of extruded powders thanks to health & safety regulations. (Hodgdon gets its extruded numbers from ADI in Australia, and IMR series powders are made in Canada in a plant now owned by Hodgdon.)

 

Both Winchester brand ammo / canister powders and Hodgdon Powder Co. get their ball / flattened ball from St. Marks, and their canister versions are simply different production lots of the same grades.

 

So Winchester W740 and H. BLC(2) are in effect the same, likewise W760 and H414 are a single product sold under two brand/grade names. Nowadays, both are packaged, distributed and wholesaled by Hodgdon from Kansas.

 

Because ball powders vary a bit between production batches, the contents of tins on the dealer's shelf may not be identical in their burning rates and you do see small variations in quoted maximum loads, but if you look at manuals that quote loads for both, you won't find a great deal of difference. For instance Sierra quotes 39.6gn W760 and 39.0gn H414 for its 60gn HP at 3,500 fps in .22-250.

 

If you go onto Hodgdon's "Reloading Data Center" website

 

(http://data.hodgdon.com)

 

you'll find the company doesn't differentiate between W760 and H414 at all in .22-250 (and other cartridges too I suspect but I haven't checked), both are listed for each bullet with identical starting and maximum loads, likewise velocities. For some reason, only BLC(2) is listed in the data for .22-250 with no mention of W740.

 

Since Winchester powders are a rarity here, it means you can use the equivalent and readily available Hodgdon equivalent without qualms. Likewise if you can only find W740 or W760 data in an American manual for a combination you want to load with the equivalent Hodgdon ball powder, you can use that data, subject to the usual warnings about using starting loads and working up etc.

 

The other slightly odd thing about these powders in .22-250 is that W760/H414 and H380 change their burning rate order in the cartridge. H380 is always listed as a faster burner than the other pair in burning rate charts and in most cartridges, but you'll find Hodgdon lists it with maximum loads at 0.5 or a full grain higher than the other two here for slightly higher velocities. (H380 also comes from St. Marks Powder Co.)

 

Laurie

[TonyH]

Tony,

 

a tip re the two Winchester ball powders that you often see quoted in American manuals, but only rarely find in this country - ie W740 and 760..............[snip]...........So Winchester W740 and H. BLC(2) are in effect the same, likewise W760 and H414 are a single product sold under two brand/grade names. Nowadays, both are packaged, distributed and wholesaled by Hodgdon from Kansas...................Laurie

Laurie, thanks for this very interesting information - wonder why I hadn't come across this before. Do you know this stuff as an enthusiast, through research, or do you have some professional connection...? I knew that Olin powders were being handled by Hodgdon, and I've been looking at the Hodgdon site & loading info. Seems odd to have the same powder under two names - I wonder what marketing advantage there could be.

I'll check them out a bit more - should be getting some W760 next week.

Regards, Tony

[baldie]

This site is now very fortunate indeed to have Laurie on board. I dont know of ANYONE with more reloading experience, or such indepth testing procedures on a huge range of calibre,s.

[Laurie]

Tony,

 

through research and the odd connection in the US shooting industry.

 

The reason for the two brand names is historical.

 

Winchester Western loaded 0.303" Mk 7z cartridges for us during late WW2 using a particular grade of ball powder. When the war ended our government terminated the contract tout suite, leaving several million surplus cartridges going spare that weren't delivered and nobody in the USA had any use for.

 

When Bruce Hodgdon got into buying up all the surplus wartime IMR-4895 and 4831 powders left over in 1946-50 and eventually built the present powder company on the back of selling it off in 100lb paper sacks, he heard about this unwanted .303, bought it all and sold the powder cheaply as Ball (Lot C) WW's original production code to handloaders after pulling the bullets. It was popular with American shooters, and when it eventually ran out, he went back to WW (now Olin Corporation) and asked them to make something similar for him, this eventually becoming BLC(2) or Ball Lot C No.2. which wasn't the same thing as the original but still sold well. Presumably at some time Olin decided they'd market the powder to handloaders too under the Winchester name, hence W740. It was a good deal financially for both companies as Olin made it by the ton for US government 7.62mm NATO cartridge orders keeping production costs down.

 

The genesis of H414 was that Hodgdon wanted a ball powder that did the same job as their existing ICI Nobel manufactured H4350 stick propellant in cartridges like .30-06, and went back to Olin. I don't know whether Olin already sold it as 760 or seeing Hodgdon on a good thing followed on behind as with 740. Don't ask me why Hodgdon wanted a ball powder to do the same job as an existing product - I can only assume it was people who wanted something that didn't hang up in their powder measures.

 

For years, the two were a bit different in that each make would come from a different manufacturing lot, and there could be a bit of difference in their characteristics - enough that the bullet and powder manufacturers tested and listed loads for each separately. Now that Hodgdon gets its ball powders in bulk from St Marks Powder to produce both brands, it looks like they take the stuff, simply fill x hundred thousand black plastic tubs, then label them as either Winchester or Hodgdon according to demand. It makes production and marketing sense as each brand will have its adherents who trust that name - no doubt many will swear blind that their Winchester powder is better than "that Hodgdon muck", or vice versa. (Like the uncle of a school friend many, many years ago who always bought Austin 1100s, 1300s etc - he wouldn't have a Morris 1100 / 1300 "because Morrisses have bad gearboxes. You've got to be a certain age to see the funny side of this comment!)

 

Baldie - you're too kind!

 

Regards,

 

Laurie

[TonyH]

....It makes production and marketing sense as each brand will have its adherents who trust that name - no doubt many will swear blind that their Winchester powder is better than "that Hodgdon muck", or vice versa. (Like the uncle of a school friend many, many years ago who always bought Austin 1100s, 1300s etc - he wouldn't have a Morris 1100 / 1300 "because Morrisses have bad gearboxes. You've got to be a certain age to see the funny side of this comment!)

 

Baldie - you're too kind!

 

Regards,

 

Laurie

Laurie, further thanks for the backup. Now I know what's going on. In my earlier response I actually thought of suggesting the Austin/Morris comparison, but rejected the idea as [a] showing my age, and the majority of people not knowing what I was on about! Your uncle was right about the gearboxes - though his opinion applies to both marques; I hated the gearshifts on all those BL hydrolastic-suspension cars, felt (as a friend of mine put it) like stirring a bowlful of Evostik and old nails... I had my first driving lessons on a Morris...

Regards, Tony

[Chris-NZ]

All this reminds me of the POS Austin Allegro my father was once talked into.

Gearbox exactly as described. Only good thing was my hoony sister wrote the thing off when only a couple of months old so us kids were spared being seen in it for long

 

Chris-NZ

[menial 1]

Cheeky lot of young tombola, I learnt to drive in a Morris 1000, I thought I was Stirling Moss.

Pete.