Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,685

    Default Best 30-06 powder?

    I’ve been looking around to see what powder the reloaders use on other forums and here’s a list of what I found is the most popular powder. The number to the right is the burn rate rank as indicated on the attached Hodgdon data sheet. Lower is faster.

    https://www.hodgdon.com/wp-content/u...rate-color.pdf

    H 4895 89. (Faster)
    IMR 4064. 96
    Varget. 102
    BL-C (2). 105
    W 760. 111
    H 414. 112
    IMR 4350. 115
    RL 19. 123
    H 4831. 128. (Slower)

    So, the most used powders for reloading 30-06 cases are in the slower burn rate end of the scale. The BL-C (2) that I use is sorta in the middle of the group. Is there any reason that I should switch to a faster or slower burn rate to fire a 150 gr M2 bullet?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beach Va, not Va Beach
    Posts
    10,848
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    out of a Garand or 1903(and A3) I use mostly 4064, but I am pushing 168's,
    I have a bit of 4895 that does good too,


    I have used 24oo for a short line load,, that works amazingly well in a 1903 at 100

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Houston Metro
    Posts
    3,220

    Default

    I say whatever you can find that works for your rifle. I've used AA2520 for decades.
    To Error Is Human To Forgive Is Not SAC Policy

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,685

    Default

    Alliant 2400 57
    IMR 4895 89
    IMR 4064 96
    AA 2520 99

    These are all faster burning than BL-C (2) 105. Which powder would be the best for a 150 gr bullet?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beach Va, not Va Beach
    Posts
    10,848
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    4985 or 4064, I would try first, both will likely have a sweet spot load for them,

    the 2400 is a reduced load, reduced course load I got from an older high power shooter,
    you can find a similar load in some old lyman\ideal manuals, but not in any modern manual,
    it will group well at 100, but not made for a semi, bolt gun only

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lyman View Post
    4985 or 4064, I would try first, both will likely have a sweet spot load for them,

    the 2400 is a reduced load, reduced course load I got from an older high power shooter,
    you can find a similar load in some old lyman\ideal manuals, but not in any modern manual,
    it will group well at 100, but not made for a semi, bolt gun only
    Thanks for the info.

    Just wondering - I initially decided on the BL-C (2) because of its military origins, but there was never any indication that it was kind of powder that was used in 30-06 bolt action rifles like the M1917, M1903 and 03A3. AND, I seem to be the only reloader that uses it. What was the original WW1 and WW2 powder and what’s it’s equivalent today? I will say that my M1917 shoots accurately with 150 gr BT bullets and a mid-load of BL-C (2) but I seem to struggle with the ‘03 and ‘A3 with both BTs and FBs and BL-C (2).
    Last edited by Merc; 08-19-2019 at 11:37.

  7. #7

    Default

    IMR 4895 is the powder used by the government for all 30-06 M2 and from what I have found the M1 loads during WW2. According to Hodgdon 4064 and Varget are the same basic powder but with Varget having become a non temperature sensitive powder. In general military rifles till the M14, would and do shoot flat based bullets more accurately. Step away from the BL-C 2 for the 30-06. There are better powders then that for accuracy.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    My current in order of use. I pretty much use them interchangeably for precision loads.

    1. Varget
    2. BL-C 2
    3. RL 15

    For generic loading both 4895 and 4064 have worked well.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beach Va, not Va Beach
    Posts
    10,848
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuna View Post
    IMR 4895 is the powder used by the government for all 30-06 M2 and from what I have found the M1 loads during WW2. According to Hodgdon 4064 and Varget are the same basic powder but with Varget having become a non temperature sensitive powder. In general military rifles till the M14, would and do shoot flat based bullets more accurately. Step away from the BL-C 2 for the 30-06. There are better powders then that for accuracy.
    yep,


    BL-C2 may be good for 308, not so much 30.06

    I have used 748 in 30.06 thru a 1903, just to check for accuracy,

    accuracy was OK, but the rifle turned into a flamethrower, (big ball of fire out the end)

    I went back to 4895 or 4064 (4064 give me the best accuracy out of my M1's and 1903's/A3's

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    3,251

    Default

    You tryin' ta start a riot? snicker. That's like asking what PU truck is best(currently not any Ford as they quit making any standard transmissions. Only girly automatics now because ya'll weren't buying proper standard transmissions.).
    "...to fire a 150 gr M2 bullet..." Out of what? Aside from .30 M2 using a 152 grain bullet using IMR4895. A 150 is close enough. You really need to try a bunch of powders to find the load your rifle likes. If it's an M1 Rifle
    I've found IMR4064 gives more consistent accuracy than either 4895 with all bullet weights. Never bothered with any other powder after the group out of my '03A4 was under an inch with 168 grain match bullets. There was no such thing as Varget when I worked up that load.
    2400 is a cast bullet load, as I recall.
    BL-C2 exists because of the .308/7.62 x 51. It was developed for the 7.62. The only issue is that with a 150, the Start load runs 2759 FPS and goes up to 2962 FPS out of a 24" barrel. .30 M2 Ball ran at 2800 FPS. IMR4895, according to Hodgdon's site, runs a bit higher. Hodgdon's site has been kind of suspicious of late.
    Spelling and grammar count!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •