Powder for .270 Win.

j*ckrabbit000 said: Anyone know what's the best powder for reloading .270 Win? Right now I'm using 58 gr. IMR 4831 with 130 gr. Sierra Boattails bullets. Seems to work ok but are there better loads?

h*rseman2 said: The accuracy load from the Nosler Book is: 130 grain bullets - 52.5 H4831 to a max of 56.5 140 grain bullets - 49.5 with IMR4831 going to a max of 53.5 150 grain bullets - 52.0 grains of H4350 which is their max. I found this load to be superb. 160 grain bullets - 53.5 Re19 also a max load.

M*on said: My favorite powder for the 270 Win is IMR-4350. I have had very good results with H-4831 but IMR-4350 has proven to be the most accurate out of my Sako 75. ETA - I'm using 130 grain Nosler Partitions and Barnes TSX bullets

s*perd222 said: H-4831SC or if you like ball powder, Winchester 760 has given very good results! Good luck - SD

g*ant yetti said: I'm pushing nosler accubonds with imr 4350 with good results from my rem 700

j*ckrabbit000 said: Thanks everyone for the input, I'll try some of the 4831 loads since I have the powder at home. I'll pick up some 4350 tomorrow.

H4831 said: Thanks everyone for the input, I'll try some of the 4831 loads since I have the powder at home. I'll pick up some 4350 tomorrow. If you have H4831 on hand, there is no use getting 4350, as it is not as good for the 270, as is H4831. For the last about sixty years, the classic load has been 60 grains of H4831 with 130 grain bullets.

t*grr said: IMR 4064 and RL22 are my 2 favorites.

M*on said: If you have H4831 on hand, there is no use getting 4350, as it is not as good for the 270, as is H4831. For the last about sixty years, the classic load has been 60 grains of H4831 with 130 grain bullets. A lot of romance and history in that load and not a bad place to start (or work up to as I think it is the max) if you already have the H-4831. I've had marginally better results in accuracy from the IMR-4350. I am shooting a reduced load of 53 grains.

N*rthman999 said: I use IMR 4350 and IMR 4831 in my 270, with good results all around.

H4831 said: Just a bit of how that load of 60 grains of H4831 with a 130 grain bullet in the 270 got started. After WW2, Bruce Hodgdon got a supply of surplus powder. Their early ads were that they could supply it by the pound or by the train load. Then they added that if by the trainload, they would need a weeks notice! They had lots of this slow powder. They knew it was slower than 4350, so they first called their slow powder, "4350 data powder." That meant it was safe to load it, using 4350 data. Reloaders would do this, because it was dirt cheap. Jack O'Connor was shooting and hunting editor of Outdoor Life Magazine, the most widely read and influential of any gun writer in history. He experimented with the slow powder and came out with an article that 60 grains of it with a 130 grain bullet was an ideal load in a 270. Presto, thousands of reloaders loaded up their 270s with his stated load. I doubt if anybody would load a lighter load to start with. Jack said 60 grains, so 60 grains was the load. It became a very popular load. Hodgdon's later named the powder H4831. In writing about it later, Hodgdon's said they never even tested the load of 60 grains with a 130 grain bullet. They stated that so many thousands of handloaders were already using it, that they simply added Jack's load to their (Hodgdon's) loading charts, without any testing.

n*nuk said: H4831: according to Layne Simpson, gunwriter, the first load from O'connor was [B]62gr[B]of h4831, but due to Lawyers or whatever, Lore brought the load Down to 60gr. Simpson has written that he found 62gr to be agreeable and never a problem in ANY 270win he has ever shot. one if these days, I might get time to work up a load of H4831 and a 130gr Sierra.

*agleye said: The 270 is quite versatile, and performs with a number of slower powders. I have had great results with IMR4350, H4350, IMR4831, H4831, Norma MRP, Vihtavuori N165, IMR7828, Reloder22, H450, WC852 [slow lot] and H1000. Eagleye.

mb*go3 said: My Win 70 Classic SS FWT could care less about powder as long as it's a 130gr at 3000fps rips one ragged hole.................this one will be buried with me...............have used RE22.....IMR 4831.........IMR 4350 ..............Win 760.................Harold

J*hnn Peterson said: Probably one of the powders I would classify as a favorite is IMR 4350. I've had great accuracy results with in in a number of calibers. Until fairly recently, a caliber I've never owned was the 270Win. I'm sure I've got quite a few years of shooting and hunting left but the years are creeping up so I thought I'd best correct that caliber deficiency. To that end, I purchased a very nice model 3000 Husqvarna from Why not? . I had a good supply of IMR 4350 on hand and thought that's what I'd go with. Before getting started and doing a bit of reading on reloading for and powder choices for the 270 and, taking into account the experiences and comments of those who've already been down that road, I 'decided' and made a trip to WSS in Naniamo and picked up a few pounds of H4831. I also have a couple of pounds of IMR 4831 so I may do some comparisson testing. It's been 'suggested' the difference between those two is like a Chev PU compared to a GMC PU. It'll give me something more to play with, once the weather improves.

H4831 said: H4831: according to Layne Simpson, gunwriter, the first load from O'connor was [B]62gr[B]of h4831, but due to Lawyers or whatever, Lore brought the load Down to 60gr. Simpson has written that he found 62gr to be agreeable and never a problem in ANY 270win he has ever shot. one if these days, I might get time to work up a load of H4831 and a 130gr Sierra. I'm afraid I have to disagree with Layne Simpson, gunwriter. My first question would be if Layne Simpson personally read the original piece at the time by O'Connor, when he said how to load 4350 data powder (later H4831) in a 270. I was there and followed all of his writings. Also, I have a very good memory. Jack gave the 60 grain load, singing it's praises. Sometime later, I think on the order of a year, or maybe longer, Jack O'Connor wrote in his column in Outdoor Life Magazine, that he had been playing around with the load, and discovered that 62 grains worked even better than did 60 grains. This new load never caught on, not because of lawyers, or threats of law suits, but because 60 grains fills the 270 case. Just put your 270 case under the measure with H4831 in it, pull the handle and the case comes out on the verge of, or maybe, over flowing. You can compress it with the bullet, right from the completely filled case, but most of us like to tap the case, or in some other way, compress the powder a bit, before compressing with the bullet. It is possible to tap the case enough to get 62 grains in, then compress it with the bullet, but there were too many complaints coming in to O'connor, so he gave up on convincing people to use 62 grains. And that is the true story on the O'Connor loads of 4350 data powder, later named H4831 by Hodgdon's, in the 270.

M*on said: I'm afraid I have to disagree with Layne Simpson, gunwriter. My first question would be if Layne Simpson personally read the original piece at the time by O'Connor, when he said how to load 4350 data powder (later H4831) in a 270. I was there and followed all of his writings. Also, I have a very good memory. Jack gave the 60 grain load, singing it's praises. Sometime later, I think on the order of a year, or maybe longer, Jack O'Connor wrote in his column in Outdoor Life Magazine, that he had been playing around with the load, and discovered that 62 grains worked even better than did 60 grains. This new load never caught on, not because of lawyers, or threats of law suits, but because 60 grains fills the 270 case. Just put your 270 case under the measure with H4831 in it, pull the handle and the case comes out on the verge of, or maybe, over flowing. You can compress it with the bullet, right from the completely filled case, but most of us like to tap the case, or in some other way, compress the powder a bit, before compressing with the bullet. It is possible to tap the case enough to get 62 grains in, then compress it with the bullet, but there were too many complaints coming in to O'connor, so he gave up on convincing people to use 62 grains. And that is the true story on the O'Connor loads of 4350 data powder, later named H4831 by Hodgdon's, in the 270. I'm going by memory here so please don't be too harsh. I remember reading an article on O'Connor's load and there was some discussion that his reloading scale was off by two grains. The article suggested that his "62" grain load was in fact a "60" grain load. ETA - I tried to find the article on-line and it appears that the change may have been a result of the powder being used rather than an error with the scale. It seemed kind of strange to me.

N*ilm said: You should also bear in mind that H4831 has a different burning rate than it did years ago. That is the prime reason that I have favoered IMR as it seemed more consistent lot to lot. Neil

mb*go3 said: Years ago I read somewhere that Jack O'Conner's scale was out a grain or so?Perhaps that is why his load has been backed off a tad? Could be hooey ,don't rightly know?Are the IMR line of powders as temperature tolerant as Hodgon's?Harold

b*retta boy said: I tried the H4831 recipe in two different 270's, a factory pre-'64 model 70 and a '98 Mauser custom with a Peterson barrel. Both shot 130 Sierra & Hornadys most accurately with 59 gr. of H4831 than they did with anything from 55 through 62 gr. - and I check my scale regularly with a set of RCBS check weights.

R*n AKA said: I prefer Hodgdon powder (made by ADI in Australia) over IMR (made in Canada) due to the temperature insensitivity of the Hodgdon branded ADI. So H4831 would be my choice for the 270. That said, I see IMR now have two powders which are said to be temperature insensitive - the 4198 and the 8082 XBR. Perhaps they are moving to make all their powders temperature insensitive... IMR Rifle Powders (http://www.imrpowder.com/rifle.html) While I have shot a lot of the 4831 army surplus powder, I no longer have any. I do still have some of the H4831 that was made in Scotland. I would say the Scottish H4831 develops a little more pressure for the same load, compared to the Australian ADI. I've measured increased velocity with the older powder.

H4831 said: You should also bear in mind that H4831 has a different burning rate than it did years ago. That is the prime reason that I have favoered IMR as it seemed more consistent lot to lot. Neil I used mostly the old, original war surplus H4831. When Hodgdon's acquired new H4831 and sold it in the regular one pound cannisters, they stated the same loading data for the surplus powder could be used with the new powder. I tested the new powder against the old, using a Oehler 33 chronograph. I loaded six rounds, 270, 130 grain bullet and 60 grains of war surplus H4831. I then l oaded another six, everything the same, only 60 grains of their new H4831. Here are the results, right from my notes. The old war surplus---average 3078, with an es of 33. The new H4831 ------average 2960, with an es of 45. I guess that was why they stated you could use the old loading data with the new powder, they knew the new powder was slower burning=less pressure, less velocity.

H4831 said: Years ago I read somewhere that Jack O'Conner's scale was out a grain or so?Perhaps that is why his load has been backed off a tad? Could be hooey ,don't rightly know?Are the IMR line of powders as temperature tolerant as Hodgon's?Harold O'Connor's scale was not off a grain or two. He worked close with other big names in the industry, like Vernon Speer, Hodgdon's, Barnes, etc, as well as with his shooting buddies, such as Parker Ackley. In a former posting I stated how the original load was 60 grains, later he said 62 grains was great, but it never went over because it over filled the case. In some publication that I have, somewhere, Bruce Hodgdon states that when they tested their surplus H4831 powder for making loading charts, they never even tested the 270, because O'Connor's loads were so widely accepted, they just added his figures to their loading charts! I suppose there were many reloaders in north america who tried 62 grains, I know I did, and I never heard anyone talk about excessive pressure. Bruce

*agleye said: Here's another guy who used 62 grains of H4831 in, not 1 but at least 4 - 270 rifles. All digested the load without complaint, and all were quite accurate using this recipe. I found that it was easier to put 62 grains of H4831 in a Winchester case than it was to put it in a Federal case, however. [I'm not a fan of Federal brass anyway, so no tears shed there, lol] Eagleye.

d*zzy dan 1 said: If you have H4831 on hand, there is no use getting 4350, as it is not as good for the 270, as is H4831. For the last about sixty years, the classic load has been 60 grains of H4831 with 130 grain bullets. x2 Same load here in my #1.DAN>>>

RCBS Reloading Dies

RCBS Dies, reloading press kits and more

RCBS 2-FL DIE SET 7MM MAUSER
RCBS 2-FL DIE SET 7MM MAUSER
   $24.99
See More like this...
RCBS dies, .270 Winchester, Full Length
RCBS dies, .270 Winchester, Full Length
   $16.99
See More like this...
RCBS 7mm-08 Dies
RCBS 7mm-08 Dies
   $24.95
See More like this...



Related information