Author Topic: powder preference for .243 (Read 1435 times)

tvc15 · « **on:** March 24, 2006, 09:35:29 AM »

I have been using IMR 4350 and 100 grain bullets. Not much luck with accuracy. I bought some 85 grain bullets. I read where a 243 may need a faster powder. Any suggestions?? thanks, tvc15

Jerry Lester · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2006, 10:08:33 AM »

Varget has proven to be a very good powder for the 243's I load for, especially with bullets lighter than 100g. I've also had very good results with IMR-4831, which is "THE" powder for the heavier bullets in my experience, both in velocity, and accuracy.

Mac11700 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2006, 10:09:33 AM »

Try some RE22 with the 100/95 grain bullets...I had very good luck with it...it's not the fastest for it..but it sure worked great out of my NEF Bull barreled Handi rifle..with the 95 grain CT Silver BT's..

Mac

mjbgalt · « **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2006, 11:27:50 AM »

i shoot a 95-grain ballistic silvertip from Nosler over 33.5 grains of Varget and my rifle turns in groups of less than a half inch.

-Matt

ricciardelli · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2006, 12:15:12 PM »

Bullet: Sierra 85 Grain Hollow Point Boat Tail
Powder: 40.4 grains of IMR-4350
Primer: Remington 9-1/2
Case: Remington
Firearm: Ruger 77R
Optics: Leupold 3x9
Velocity: 3010 FPS @ 15' from muzzle
Accuracy: 5-shot, 200 yards, <1"

Jim n Iowa · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2006, 02:02:04 PM »

Sierra 85g hpbt #1530
IMR 3031 @ 36.2
Win Primer Win case
Parker-Hale rifle (no clue mod# bought in a bar)
RedField 3x9
est fps 3100
3 shot 100yd bench, 0.5" (200 is way to far to set up targets)
Out of 5 I had a flier at .25 off and one at .30 off (last 2 shots).
I have not been able to replicate this group again, so I am starting over to find the right equation. I believe I may have not cleaned the copper out enough. The 243 seems to like 75-85 bullets with 1:10 barrel.
Jim

victorcharlie · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2006, 03:07:17 PM »

I suggest going with a slower powder.

Try the 85gn sierra BTHP with IMR4831.

Jim n Iowa · « **Reply #7 on:** March 24, 2006, 03:16:33 PM »

This is a good call, as I am working with a ladder load for 70-100 bulletts in 243, and 4831 is the slowest. Others are 3031 and Varget.
Jim

Steve P · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2006, 07:27:52 AM »

H4831.

Steve

Jim n Iowa · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2006, 12:19:48 PM »

I have a 8lb can of IMR4831 that had been misplaced for over 30 yrs. I will be working on that with the 243, 7mm mag and 338 mag. I wished I had saved the manuals from that time period, as my notes on the loads for that powder appear to off the charts.
Jim

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #10 on:** March 26, 2006, 10:11:09 AM »

I am continually puzzled by people asking for reloading info on the i-net when there are several GOOD reloading manuals on the market. If you're too cheap to buy a couple of name brand reloading manual then maybe you shouldn't be reloading? Maybe I missed the part where you said you'd already consulted said manuals?

Jim n Iowa · « **Reply #11 on:** March 26, 2006, 12:46:42 PM »

Dusty
I am a little confused as to who your remark was aimed at. This thread appears to be sharing info as to a faster or slower powder for a 243. My latest reply was having some really old powder I wished that I had saved the manuals of that period. I can't think that is cheap on my part, but ignorant in not keeping a better library of manuals, which i can assure are many editions.
Jim

victorcharlie · « **Reply #12 on:** March 26, 2006, 01:02:26 PM »

It's ok with me Jim.......I've got several manuals, but if I were to load for a new cartridge I'd ask the same question, what works for who? This is a reloading forum isn't it?

ButlerFord45 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 26, 2006, 01:48:26 PM »

Quote from: Dusty Miller

I am continually puzzled by people asking for reloading info on the i-net when there are several GOOD reloading manuals on the market. If you're too cheap to buy a couple of name brand reloading manual then maybe you shouldn't be reloading? Maybe I missed the part where you said you'd already consulted said manuals?

Have you read something into this post that I've missed?

Lee Manual has 14 different powders listed
Lyman has 16 different
Serria has 17
I'm not absolutely positive but I had thought that asking in a reloading forum for any advice concerning powder selection for a cartridge that I'd already tried with dissapoining success would have been an appropriate thing to do.
Why not come back after you've gotten rid of that bad bowl of Cherios.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #14 on:** March 26, 2006, 03:18:21 PM »

Jim: The new data for the .243 with IMR4831 is a few grains lower than the old data. The load I've shot for years is a couple of grains higher than the new data. The older sierra manual list 47 grains as max with the 85 grain BTHP. 47 grains is hot in my rifle as the bolt becomes more difficult to open and the primer starts to flatten.

Jim n Iowa · « **Reply #15 on:** March 26, 2006, 05:00:13 PM »

Victor Charlie
Thanks for your reply. I will work on the imr4831 with the 85 gr. I had been advised before that the 3031 may be to fast, but it worked great for awhile. Spend time in Dixie and Yankee?
Jim

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #16 on:** March 26, 2006, 08:39:42 PM »

I made my position clear. There should be no problem understanding it. I don't eat Cheerios, granola and yogurt do it for me. AND, if I've checked my reloading manuals and can't find a suitable load THEN I ask for help in a reloading forum. I don't think that is what happened here. They don't call it the Great Dis-information Highway for nuth'n.

PaulS · « **Reply #17 on:** March 26, 2006, 10:18:13 PM »

MOst often the 243 gets more out of slow burning powders - slower than the 3006 because it has so much more space available for powder compared to its bore.
IMR7828
WW785 (no longer made)
Re19
H450
AA3100

With your 85 grain bullets the powders that are best (according to my manuals are:
H414
H4350
IMR4831
WW760
H450

You will have to find the best one for your rifle / bullet combination to find which one works best for you. I would try the H450 first because it will meter well in most measures and burns at a speed between 4350 and 4831. It will probably be most accurate with a near maximum loading so I would start at 97% of max. (47.5) and work up in .1 grain increments until I got an accurate load or reached the maximum of 49 grains. I would bet that you will find accuracy before you get to 48.2 grains. I also bet that thrown charges will be more accurate than weighed charges - that has been my experience with spherical powders - carefully weighed charges never seem to give the best accuracy. Don't ask me why - it is counter-intuitive just like hot water freezes faster than cold water - it makes no sense but it is true.

George Foster · « **Reply #18 on:** March 27, 2006, 12:04:16 AM »

Over the course of the past 20yrs I have gotten my best results in the 243s I have loaded for with IMR4831. This is with bullet weights from 75gr to 100gr. IMR4350 is suppose to be the "Classic" powder for the 243 but IMR4831 has always worked better for me as others have pointed out.

As far as a manual telling you what powder to use some list that a certain powder gave the best results and some list accuracy loads. I think though to ask in a reloading forum what powder works for other folks is a good way to go about things. Experience counts!!!

Greysky · « **Reply #19 on:** March 27, 2006, 12:12:56 AM »

I developed an excellent .243 load using RE-15 and Sierra 85gr BTHP bullets.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #20 on:** March 27, 2006, 04:57:15 AM »

Quote from: Dusty Miller

I don't think that is what happened here. They don't call it the Great Dis-information Highway for nuth'n.

I'm sorry Dusty, you seem kinda grumpy. What's really eating at you? Anything we can do to help?

As far as reloading, and this is a general statement, the powder listed in the manual that most completely fills the case is usually the most accurate. A near max load of IMR4381 will fill the .243 case and might even compress the load just a little. IMR4350 leaves some air space in the case.

Anyone else have the same experience regarding powder and capacity? Again, this is my observation and is general in nature but as powder cost are skyrocketing, this is one of the things I used to select a powder before we could post on the internet.

Steve P · « **Reply #21 on:** March 27, 2006, 06:57:01 AM »

Sounds like someone needs some Midol in their yogurt!!

If I go thru my 8 or 10 reloading manuals and load up even half of the loads listed as 'good' for the .243, with only 5-10 rounds each, working up in half grain increments, I would could easily have 300 rounds on my loading bench. Thats a lot of sighting in. If you ask someone in the forum which powder they like, and you get several posts on powders you have on hand, it makes it much easier to grab your manual and start working up loads.

{edit: Paragraph deleted by Butler Ford}

TVC15, I hope some of these posts have helped.

Steve

lilabner · « **Reply #22 on:** March 27, 2006, 12:05:09 PM »

victorcharlie raised a good point. I know Hodgdon cut H4350 loads back recently and now he says H4831 loads were reduced. Pressure spikes in the case of 4350, who knows on 4831. Try 7828 up to a max of 47.5 gr. I load 47 gr. and get nice tight groups at 3000+ fps. (That is for 100 gr., use faster powders for varmint loads. Another choice would be H1000. These powders may seem strange for such a small case but the .243 is seriously overbore and it works.

blaster2560 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 27, 2006, 04:32:16 PM »

I am continually puzzled by people asking for reloading info on the i-net when there are several GOOD reloading manuals on the market. If you're too cheap to buy a couple of name brand reloading manual then maybe you shouldn't be reloading? Maybe I missed the part where you said you'd already consulted said manuals?
_________________
OH! I do love the smell of H110 in the morning!

Why do you read the board? Trying to kick the H110 monkey?

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #24 on:** March 27, 2006, 09:33:11 PM »

Hey you guys, BACK OFF!! My dog peed on the carpet in the middle of the night and the Mrs. has been ALL OVER my case about it!! (Uh, where does a guy get some of that Midol stuff?!!)

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #25 on:** March 27, 2006, 09:56:31 PM »

I've been told that I've been "insulting". If that's the case I offer my PROFUSE apology!! I don't see it myself but others may and believe me when I say I certainly had no intent to insult anybody.

Steve P · « **Reply #26 on:** March 28, 2006, 04:01:31 AM »

Quote from: lilabner

victorcharlie raised a good point. I know Hodgdon cut H4350 loads back recently and now he says H4831 loads were reduced. Pressure spikes in the case of 4350, who knows on 4831.

A lot of the initial testing with these powders was done years ago. At that time they used actual rifles instead of shooting fixtures. Most of the rifles were built off Mauser 98 type actions are were really strong.

We have a society that is more litigious now than ever. We also have some firearms that are not on the higher end of the quality spectrum. Because of these factors, the pressures of the loads in the reloading manuals are lowered to accomodate.

I have, and use, loading manuals from the 50s and 60s. They list the actual firearm used and the max loads are a little higher than more recent publications. I start low and work up in my quality firearms. If one of my older manuals lists a little higher load, I am not concerned when slightly exceeding current data. I have on occasion had to pull bullets when loads got too hot to shoot. The key is to work up and know when to stop. Too much change in priming mixtures and variations between manufacturors can change a load from mild to wild by just changing the primer.

Stay safe and work up sloooooooowwwwwwwlyyyyyy.

Steve

ButlerFord45 · « **Reply #27 on:** March 28, 2006, 06:40:01 AM »

Quote from: Steve P

[....I have, and use, loading manuals from the 50s and 60s.
Stay safe and work up sloooooooowwwwwwwlyyyyyy.

Steve

Steve be cautious doing this, some of the powders have been improved in the past 5 to 6 decades.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #28 on:** March 28, 2006, 08:38:53 AM »

Its always a good idea when changing lots of powder to back off a few grains and then work up to the old load looking for signs of excessive pressure.

lilabner · « **Reply #29 on:** March 28, 2006, 08:45:12 AM »

About those old loading manuals. I have an old Speer manual and an old Hornady manual and the loads are hairy chested. I suppose some of the loads have been reduced due to differences in the powders, but I suspect more of them have been cut because modern attorneys pack more punch than their predecessors.