-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Re: powder....
Going out again this morning, conditions permitting. Some facts omitted from my previous post concerning the load: Fed brass, Fed match primer, COAL= 2.835. I will be testing accuracy & velocity starting at 40.2 & working up to 40.8 or 41gr IMR3031, in .2gr increments.
Going out again this morning, conditions permitting. Some facts omitted from my previous post concerning the load: Fed brass, Fed match primer, COAL= 2.835. I will be testing accuracy & velocity starting at 40.2 & working up to 40.8 or 41gr IMR3031, in .2gr increments.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
I load my M118LR with data from D.D. at 5th SFG SOTIC:
Win 748 43.8 gr
Federal 210M primers
LC LR Brass
Sierra 175gr MK BTHP
I am consistently getting 2650 FPS +- 35 fps out of my M24 SWS
I load my M118LR with data from D.D. at 5th SFG SOTIC:
Win 748 43.8 gr
Federal 210M primers
LC LR Brass
Sierra 175gr MK BTHP
I am consistently getting 2650 FPS +- 35 fps out of my M24 SWS
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The91Bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I load my M118LR with data from D.D. at 5th SFG SOTIC:
Win 748 43.8 gr
Federal 210M primers
LC LR Brass
Sierra 175gr MK BTHP
I am consistently getting 2650 FPS +- 35 fps out of my M24 SWS </div></div>
Interesting. Why Win 748 in particular?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The91Bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I load my M118LR with data from D.D. at 5th SFG SOTIC:
Win 748 43.8 gr
Federal 210M primers
LC LR Brass
Sierra 175gr MK BTHP
I am consistently getting 2650 FPS +- 35 fps out of my M24 SWS </div></div>
Interesting. Why Win 748 in particular?
Re: powder....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AlcoholicusRex</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Going out again this morning, conditions permitting. Some facts omitted from my previous post concerning the load: Fed brass, Fed match primer, COAL= 2.835. I will be testing accuracy & velocity starting at 40.2 & working up to 40.8 or 41gr IMR3031, in .2gr increments. </div></div>
Update???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AlcoholicusRex</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Going out again this morning, conditions permitting. Some facts omitted from my previous post concerning the load: Fed brass, Fed match primer, COAL= 2.835. I will be testing accuracy & velocity starting at 40.2 & working up to 40.8 or 41gr IMR3031, in .2gr increments. </div></div>
Update???
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK I have a question. The M118 loaded with 4895 pushing the mil 173 bullet dosnt home have a muzzle flash at night out of a M21/14/MIA which was great in the M21s. How about R-15 pushing the 175 SMKs out of a M14/M1A. The no-flash would indicate to me a I'm geting a perfect powder burn.
I've always loaded 4895 in my 308s, saving my R-15 for my AR Service Rifle.
I'm wondering if I can go to one powder for both. I suppse I could try it my self but that would require pinning up my horses if I'm gonna shoot at night, plus Id have to hope I didnt end up poaching some deer. </div></div>
I have done quite a bit of research and testing of my own on making M118 white box match ammo.
I had on a good source that white box M118 was loaded with IMR4895 in LC match brass.
I still have a thousand rounds or so of M118 173gr FMJBT lake city match ammo from back in the day so, I had something to test against also.
To reproduce that load with SMK 175s, trim LAKE CITY brass to 2.005, load 41.5gr of IMR 4895 and seat to 2.81 and you've created M118 ( to to be confused with M118LR )
Velocity matches on the crono and it makes 2600fps at the muzzle of my supermatch M1A ( so does M118 white box )
Shoots REALLY well... a LOT better than the M118 because of the better bullets. It does not *ring* the op-rod so, it's been safe for me to shoot and, it will make the 1000yd line supersonic. It shoots better than FGMM in my own rifle so, that's what I load for that rifle.
It goes without saying but, I'll say it anyway... this recipe must be used with LC brass or, you're not making the same load. LC brass is thicker and requires less powder than a commercial case.
I really don't have any data for M118LR, however. I know they used a different powder. The reason I wanted to duplicate the M118 white box is because I still have a couple of 400 round cans of it here and, I wanted to be able to have similar dope for both loads and, the M118 shoots pretty will in my supermatch anyway.
The only other thing I'd add is that I ended up having to SB size the cases to get them to feed in my supermatch. I hear that some of the match grade M1As and M14s have this issue since they're so tightly headspaced. I tried only FL sizing the cases and, the rounds were going to the VERY bottom of the case gauge and, about 1 or 2 in 10 would not eject until I started small base sizing the brass, FWIW.
Also, you can use the same recipe 41.5gr of IMR 4895 with the SMK 168gr bullet and, you've created M852 white box match... velocity is the same at the barrel etc. ( I know this for the same reason ) I still have a couple of cans of that too. LOL
These are GREAT loadings for an M1A since you have to use medium burning powders to keep from destroying your op-rod and, after all of my testing, these two loads will be all I ever load for that rifle. If it were a bolt gun, that would be completely different, however.
I'm not sure M118LR would even be safe to shoot in an M1A, it's designed to be shot in a bolt gun. You just can't hotrod an M1A and have it hold together.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK I have a question. The M118 loaded with 4895 pushing the mil 173 bullet dosnt home have a muzzle flash at night out of a M21/14/MIA which was great in the M21s. How about R-15 pushing the 175 SMKs out of a M14/M1A. The no-flash would indicate to me a I'm geting a perfect powder burn.
I've always loaded 4895 in my 308s, saving my R-15 for my AR Service Rifle.
I'm wondering if I can go to one powder for both. I suppse I could try it my self but that would require pinning up my horses if I'm gonna shoot at night, plus Id have to hope I didnt end up poaching some deer. </div></div>
I have done quite a bit of research and testing of my own on making M118 white box match ammo.
I had on a good source that white box M118 was loaded with IMR4895 in LC match brass.
I still have a thousand rounds or so of M118 173gr FMJBT lake city match ammo from back in the day so, I had something to test against also.
To reproduce that load with SMK 175s, trim LAKE CITY brass to 2.005, load 41.5gr of IMR 4895 and seat to 2.81 and you've created M118 ( to to be confused with M118LR )
Velocity matches on the crono and it makes 2600fps at the muzzle of my supermatch M1A ( so does M118 white box )
Shoots REALLY well... a LOT better than the M118 because of the better bullets. It does not *ring* the op-rod so, it's been safe for me to shoot and, it will make the 1000yd line supersonic. It shoots better than FGMM in my own rifle so, that's what I load for that rifle.
It goes without saying but, I'll say it anyway... this recipe must be used with LC brass or, you're not making the same load. LC brass is thicker and requires less powder than a commercial case.
I really don't have any data for M118LR, however. I know they used a different powder. The reason I wanted to duplicate the M118 white box is because I still have a couple of 400 round cans of it here and, I wanted to be able to have similar dope for both loads and, the M118 shoots pretty will in my supermatch anyway.
The only other thing I'd add is that I ended up having to SB size the cases to get them to feed in my supermatch. I hear that some of the match grade M1As and M14s have this issue since they're so tightly headspaced. I tried only FL sizing the cases and, the rounds were going to the VERY bottom of the case gauge and, about 1 or 2 in 10 would not eject until I started small base sizing the brass, FWIW.
Also, you can use the same recipe 41.5gr of IMR 4895 with the SMK 168gr bullet and, you've created M852 white box match... velocity is the same at the barrel etc. ( I know this for the same reason ) I still have a couple of cans of that too. LOL
These are GREAT loadings for an M1A since you have to use medium burning powders to keep from destroying your op-rod and, after all of my testing, these two loads will be all I ever load for that rifle. If it were a bolt gun, that would be completely different, however.
I'm not sure M118LR would even be safe to shoot in an M1A, it's designed to be shot in a bolt gun. You just can't hotrod an M1A and have it hold together.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
I'm with JWoolf on this - save I prefer Varget.
If you want to use Varget - and your results will vary as I have a factory tube -
I chrono'd an older M118LR at 2680, and I loaded 45.0 gr of Varget with FED 210M - BHA brass of course not LC - as Woolf says - you will need less powder - This is with a 175SMK.
My load is exactly the same as the older M118LR so powder type really doesn't matter as long as velocities match - that's my concern.
And Varget is far more temperature stable than 4064 is, by a long shot - you won't be needing that ammunition cooler with Varget LOL
Curious about 3031 tho, actually never heard of it till this morning.
Now with my LC brass I loaded up 135 rds and fired 4 of them - I want to say I used 42gr of Varget - and Chrono'd approximately (Best you can with 4 rds) at 2670 or so.
I'm with JWoolf on this - save I prefer Varget.
If you want to use Varget - and your results will vary as I have a factory tube -
I chrono'd an older M118LR at 2680, and I loaded 45.0 gr of Varget with FED 210M - BHA brass of course not LC - as Woolf says - you will need less powder - This is with a 175SMK.
My load is exactly the same as the older M118LR so powder type really doesn't matter as long as velocities match - that's my concern.
And Varget is far more temperature stable than 4064 is, by a long shot - you won't be needing that ammunition cooler with Varget LOL
Curious about 3031 tho, actually never heard of it till this morning.
Now with my LC brass I loaded up 135 rds and fired 4 of them - I want to say I used 42gr of Varget - and Chrono'd approximately (Best you can with 4 rds) at 2670 or so.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stonewall2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reading between the lines I believe that this is the powder used.
Now that my computer is O.K. again I will email a few people that should know something on the subject.
Any confirmed information that I find I will post it here.
An observation - H-1000 is being used in the new .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1 .
I rather enjoyed the rest of the posts in this thread.
If nothing else a good time was had and some new stuff learned.
Glenn
</div></div>
On the 300wm military loading... someone here posted the military spec on the ammo you're talking about. It does specify 220gr SMK and H1000 with OAL 3.50 down to 3.45, I believe??? Muzzle velocity had to be around 2850fps.
I decided before I saw that, I wanted to try 220gr SMK and H1000 ( for the temp insensitivity ) and work some loads.... come to find out the military is using 220gr SMK and H1000.... LOL I picked the SMK 220s because of how they carry downrange based on JBM's tables.
Well, I loaded about .010 off the lands and found a good load for the rifle to shoot pretty well and, velocity worked out to about 2860fps.... the military loading specifies 2850fps LOL
So, my load ended up being new win brass ( my first loadings ), 75.7gr of H1000 under 220gr SMK with Rem 9 1/2M primers with COAL about 3.49 or so.... If anyone cares. LOL
I wasn't trying to duplicate the military loading but, I ended up pretty damned close on accident after printing some groups.
26" 1:10 twist LW barrel on a rem 700 action. A the 1000yd line my elevation was 27.0 but, I came down to 26.75 as the barrel heated ( from a 100yd zero ) At about 500ft elevation above sea level.
If you try to use this load data, work up to it.... it's a pretty snappy load.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stonewall2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reading between the lines I believe that this is the powder used.
Now that my computer is O.K. again I will email a few people that should know something on the subject.
Any confirmed information that I find I will post it here.
An observation - H-1000 is being used in the new .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1 .
I rather enjoyed the rest of the posts in this thread.
If nothing else a good time was had and some new stuff learned.
Glenn
</div></div>
On the 300wm military loading... someone here posted the military spec on the ammo you're talking about. It does specify 220gr SMK and H1000 with OAL 3.50 down to 3.45, I believe??? Muzzle velocity had to be around 2850fps.
I decided before I saw that, I wanted to try 220gr SMK and H1000 ( for the temp insensitivity ) and work some loads.... come to find out the military is using 220gr SMK and H1000.... LOL I picked the SMK 220s because of how they carry downrange based on JBM's tables.
Well, I loaded about .010 off the lands and found a good load for the rifle to shoot pretty well and, velocity worked out to about 2860fps.... the military loading specifies 2850fps LOL
So, my load ended up being new win brass ( my first loadings ), 75.7gr of H1000 under 220gr SMK with Rem 9 1/2M primers with COAL about 3.49 or so.... If anyone cares. LOL
I wasn't trying to duplicate the military loading but, I ended up pretty damned close on accident after printing some groups.
26" 1:10 twist LW barrel on a rem 700 action. A the 1000yd line my elevation was 27.0 but, I came down to 26.75 as the barrel heated ( from a 100yd zero ) At about 500ft elevation above sea level.
If you try to use this load data, work up to it.... it's a pretty snappy load.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
43.5 GRAINS OF VARGET / LC BRASS (07) /210M PRIMMER /OAL 2.800/ 175SMK.
OUT OF 22" M-24 = 2785FPS (VERY HOT) DOPE ON WEAPON IS 34.1MOA @ 1K 60DEG / 1246 ALT
DONT KWOW IF THIS HELPS ANYONE, HOPE SO.
BY MATH 36.8/37.2 GRAINS OF VARGET OUT OF LC BRASS WILL BE AROUND 2660-2685FPS , I WILL TEST THIS LOAD OUT THIS WEEKEND & POST MY FINDINGS.
43.5 GRAINS OF VARGET / LC BRASS (07) /210M PRIMMER /OAL 2.800/ 175SMK.
OUT OF 22" M-24 = 2785FPS (VERY HOT) DOPE ON WEAPON IS 34.1MOA @ 1K 60DEG / 1246 ALT
DONT KWOW IF THIS HELPS ANYONE, HOPE SO.
BY MATH 36.8/37.2 GRAINS OF VARGET OUT OF LC BRASS WILL BE AROUND 2660-2685FPS , I WILL TEST THIS LOAD OUT THIS WEEKEND & POST MY FINDINGS.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Posting in all capital letters is a violation of forum rules. Please don't do that.
Posting in all capital letters is a violation of forum rules. Please don't do that.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
are yall saying that new m118lr has different performance parameters than older m118lr? doesnt that cause inherrent error probabilities for our guys in the field going back and forth betweeen the lots?
are yall saying that new m118lr has different performance parameters than older m118lr? doesnt that cause inherrent error probabilities for our guys in the field going back and forth betweeen the lots?
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">are yall saying that new m118lr has different performance parameters than older m118lr? doesnt that cause inherrent error probabilities for our guys in the field going back and forth betweeen the lots? </div></div>
No because we arent talking about M118LR, we are talking about mk316-mod0
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">are yall saying that new m118lr has different performance parameters than older m118lr? doesnt that cause inherrent error probabilities for our guys in the field going back and forth betweeen the lots? </div></div>
No because we arent talking about M118LR, we are talking about mk316-mod0
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
M118LR is not the same load as M118 white box match. They are different loadings all together.
M118 white box match used to be line issued ammo for competition. It was a 173gr FMJBT lake city bullet and was ok to shoot in M14/M1A match rifles. M118LR is a long range version using 175gr SMK bullets with different powder designed to be shot in a bolt gun. Although I don't know what powder it's loaded with, I'd assume it's using a slower burning powder than IMR 4895 to maximize velocity.
The problem with M1A/M14 and M1 Garands are that you are kind of stuck with medium burning powders that don't slap your op-rod till it flies apart. Loading for a bolt rifle, you can use slower powders that give a lot better performance to get that last bit of ummmmph out of the round.
I personally wouldn't shoot the M118LR in my supermatch.... for that matter, I would not shoot any commercial 308win out of it either.... you simply don't know what it was loaded with and, I like my op-rod the way it is right now ( in one piece ) LOL
M118LR is not the same load as M118 white box match. They are different loadings all together.
M118 white box match used to be line issued ammo for competition. It was a 173gr FMJBT lake city bullet and was ok to shoot in M14/M1A match rifles. M118LR is a long range version using 175gr SMK bullets with different powder designed to be shot in a bolt gun. Although I don't know what powder it's loaded with, I'd assume it's using a slower burning powder than IMR 4895 to maximize velocity.
The problem with M1A/M14 and M1 Garands are that you are kind of stuck with medium burning powders that don't slap your op-rod till it flies apart. Loading for a bolt rifle, you can use slower powders that give a lot better performance to get that last bit of ummmmph out of the round.
I personally wouldn't shoot the M118LR in my supermatch.... for that matter, I would not shoot any commercial 308win out of it either.... you simply don't know what it was loaded with and, I like my op-rod the way it is right now ( in one piece ) LOL
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
M1A is designed to shoot commercial .308. M1 Garand is not. Totally different gas system.
Now back to the subject.
Good luck
Jerry
M1A is designed to shoot commercial .308. M1 Garand is not. Totally different gas system.
Now back to the subject.
Good luck
Jerry
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jerry M</div><div class="ubbcode-body">M1A is designed to shoot commercial .308. M1 Garand is not. Totally different gas system.
Now back to the subject.
Good luck
Jerry </div></div>
It may shoot 308 and, springfield may tell you it's ok to shoot but, depending on what you buy, you could be damaging your op-rod with commercial hot ammo. If you ever hear a ring when shooting an M1A, that's your op-rod slamming into something and, it's never a good thing.
I'll never load a powder slower than IMR 4895 although people do it all the time and, don't have issues.
I'm happy getting 2600fps from a SMK 175 from that rifle so, that's my recipe but, it's easy to hot rod an M1A into the armoror if you're not aware of slow burning powders and this rifle, IMHO.
If you're buying commercial, you simply don't know what powder they loaded in most situations.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jerry M</div><div class="ubbcode-body">M1A is designed to shoot commercial .308. M1 Garand is not. Totally different gas system.
Now back to the subject.
Good luck
Jerry </div></div>
It may shoot 308 and, springfield may tell you it's ok to shoot but, depending on what you buy, you could be damaging your op-rod with commercial hot ammo. If you ever hear a ring when shooting an M1A, that's your op-rod slamming into something and, it's never a good thing.
I'll never load a powder slower than IMR 4895 although people do it all the time and, don't have issues.
I'm happy getting 2600fps from a SMK 175 from that rifle so, that's my recipe but, it's easy to hot rod an M1A into the armoror if you're not aware of slow burning powders and this rifle, IMHO.
If you're buying commercial, you simply don't know what powder they loaded in most situations.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The powder is IMR 4064, according to a guy at Federal who should know. Along with some changes to the case, this should rollover to GMM loads fairly soon. </div></div>
Maybe someone needs to point out that this is the OP of this thread...
IMR3031 does not appear to be the right powder. IMR4064 is really the only other powder that meets the physical description given. The charge weight seems low for it, but that was also mentioned. If people want to spend more time on this, they should probably test this powder.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The powder is IMR 4064, according to a guy at Federal who should know. Along with some changes to the case, this should rollover to GMM loads fairly soon. </div></div>
Maybe someone needs to point out that this is the OP of this thread...
IMR3031 does not appear to be the right powder. IMR4064 is really the only other powder that meets the physical description given. The charge weight seems low for it, but that was also mentioned. If people want to spend more time on this, they should probably test this powder.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
With the different case spec. the lower charge weight would make be required.
Per usual military standard (IE Lake City Brass) the new brass is probably thicker. That would require the lower powder charge to reduce pressure, but able to still get the required velocity.
Expansion ratio stuff.
With the different case spec. the lower charge weight would make be required.
Per usual military standard (IE Lake City Brass) the new brass is probably thicker. That would require the lower powder charge to reduce pressure, but able to still get the required velocity.
Expansion ratio stuff.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The powder is IMR 4064, according to a guy at Federal who should know. Along with some changes to the case, this should rollover to GMM loads fairly soon. </div></div>
Maybe someone needs to point out that this is the OP of this thread...
IMR3031 does not appear to be the right powder. IMR4064 is really the only other powder that meets the physical description given. The charge weight seems low for it, but that was also mentioned. If people want to spend more time on this, they should probably test this powder. </div></div>
I'm several months into testing 4064, and used it for years in an M1 Garand in '06, too. Unless there is some recent change in the mix, it just doesn't do what is claimed in the performance described in the OP and other posts in this thread.
As to case differences, Varget went a whopping 30.47 fps faster on average in FA cases compared to FC commercial when I was testing some 155-gr A-Maxes at the 2733-2790 fps range out of a 22-inch barrel. Don't know that I have similar notes with the 175s and 4064, but I can look.
What I am sure of is that in FC cases, 42.0 of 4064 is getting me only 2550 using CCI primers, 2562 using FC primers, and 2580 using WLRs, all at about 60 F. I'll re-test in a few weeks when I can get an 80-degree day, but don't be surprised if I get a 1 fps per degree-F velocity change.
I just don't expect 4064 to be as temp-resistant as the "new" load is described as being.
I also recall that 4064 USED to be used by Federal in FGMM, it was reputedly switched to RL-15, and the jury is still out on the new stuff. Please correct me if I missed something or mis-read something (or both).
I also thought that the physical description of the powder now being used included granule structure shorter than 4064. RL-15 will dribble out of the flash hole if you accidentally use a decapped case to recharge the powder trickler, but 4064 usually jams up and ALL stays inside.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Until proven otherwise.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The powder is IMR 4064, according to a guy at Federal who should know. Along with some changes to the case, this should rollover to GMM loads fairly soon. </div></div>
Maybe someone needs to point out that this is the OP of this thread...
IMR3031 does not appear to be the right powder. IMR4064 is really the only other powder that meets the physical description given. The charge weight seems low for it, but that was also mentioned. If people want to spend more time on this, they should probably test this powder. </div></div>
I'm several months into testing 4064, and used it for years in an M1 Garand in '06, too. Unless there is some recent change in the mix, it just doesn't do what is claimed in the performance described in the OP and other posts in this thread.
As to case differences, Varget went a whopping 30.47 fps faster on average in FA cases compared to FC commercial when I was testing some 155-gr A-Maxes at the 2733-2790 fps range out of a 22-inch barrel. Don't know that I have similar notes with the 175s and 4064, but I can look.
What I am sure of is that in FC cases, 42.0 of 4064 is getting me only 2550 using CCI primers, 2562 using FC primers, and 2580 using WLRs, all at about 60 F. I'll re-test in a few weeks when I can get an 80-degree day, but don't be surprised if I get a 1 fps per degree-F velocity change.
I just don't expect 4064 to be as temp-resistant as the "new" load is described as being.
I also recall that 4064 USED to be used by Federal in FGMM, it was reputedly switched to RL-15, and the jury is still out on the new stuff. Please correct me if I missed something or mis-read something (or both).
I also thought that the physical description of the powder now being used included granule structure shorter than 4064. RL-15 will dribble out of the flash hole if you accidentally use a decapped case to recharge the powder trickler, but 4064 usually jams up and ALL stays inside.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Until proven otherwise.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
The photo of the box of ammo here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf
on page two appears to show headstamps of FC XX (year). I believe our brethren are correct in saying MK 316 MOD 0 is FGMM 175s loaded for the military.
The photo of the box of ammo here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf
on page two appears to show headstamps of FC XX (year). I believe our brethren are correct in saying MK 316 MOD 0 is FGMM 175s loaded for the military.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Just a thought. As this propellant was MODIFIED as described we could load the load, but would not have the temperature insensitivity. I think 8208XBR may give us a close approximation to this. It shoots a 175gr SMK @ 2660fps at 42.5gr out of my 24" 5R Milspec, and 2600fps with just 42.0. Bugholes at the FGGM velocity and still about .75" 5 shot group with the higher charge. Need to get my hands on more before further testing can verify temps. "Borrowed" a dealer sample can from a friend for this test-thanks Markwell. No clue what the flash will be like, but as it burns fast relative to RE 15 IIRC it should be low. Cases were Win 2x fired, 210M primers. OAL=2.815" Follow ALL recomended directions in your load manual and start 10% lower than max listed charge. This load was safe in MY rifle only. ES was around 20, SD was <15 though. Also a borrowed scale was used to load with. Think it will do better.
*Follow ALL recomended directions in your load manual and start 10% lower than max listed charge. This load was safe in MY rifle only.*
Just a thought. As this propellant was MODIFIED as described we could load the load, but would not have the temperature insensitivity. I think 8208XBR may give us a close approximation to this. It shoots a 175gr SMK @ 2660fps at 42.5gr out of my 24" 5R Milspec, and 2600fps with just 42.0. Bugholes at the FGGM velocity and still about .75" 5 shot group with the higher charge. Need to get my hands on more before further testing can verify temps. "Borrowed" a dealer sample can from a friend for this test-thanks Markwell. No clue what the flash will be like, but as it burns fast relative to RE 15 IIRC it should be low. Cases were Win 2x fired, 210M primers. OAL=2.815" Follow ALL recomended directions in your load manual and start 10% lower than max listed charge. This load was safe in MY rifle only. ES was around 20, SD was <15 though. Also a borrowed scale was used to load with. Think it will do better.
*Follow ALL recomended directions in your load manual and start 10% lower than max listed charge. This load was safe in MY rifle only.*
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Fed 210M's for that load. I usually run 210's after load developement though, because I am almost out of the "M"'s. Also let me add that this load showed no pressure signs at all at listed max load. At this velocity RE-15, and H-4895 flatten my primers. There is still a good radius on the spent primer after firing.
Fed 210M's for that load. I usually run 210's after load developement though, because I am almost out of the "M"'s. Also let me add that this load showed no pressure signs at all at listed max load. At this velocity RE-15, and H-4895 flatten my primers. There is still a good radius on the spent primer after firing.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Thanks. And thank John for the greater good for the loan of the powder to test.
Jerry
Thanks. And thank John for the greater good for the loan of the powder to test.
Jerry
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jwoolf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I personally wouldn't shoot the M118LR in my supermatch.... for that matter, I would not shoot any commercial 308win out of it either.... you simply don't know what it was loaded with and, I like my op-rod the way it is right now ( in one piece ) LOL </div></div>
What is the problem shooting the M118LRs in the M1As? Is this something proven by anyone that the load bends op rods? The reason I am asking I've shot a couple of Ks of 185 Bergers at 2530-2550 through my number one M1A with no issue and I can still shoot HM scores with it at 600, 59 year old eyes permitting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jwoolf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I personally wouldn't shoot the M118LR in my supermatch.... for that matter, I would not shoot any commercial 308win out of it either.... you simply don't know what it was loaded with and, I like my op-rod the way it is right now ( in one piece ) LOL </div></div>
What is the problem shooting the M118LRs in the M1As? Is this something proven by anyone that the load bends op rods? The reason I am asking I've shot a couple of Ks of 185 Bergers at 2530-2550 through my number one M1A with no issue and I can still shoot HM scores with it at 600, 59 year old eyes permitting.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Now back to the new M118 load, what is the powder used?
Sinister,
Please tell us.
I don't think it is 4064, I've shot probably close to 64 pounds of 4064 through my M1As, bolt guns, AR-10s the last two years, I don't think you can get the velocity advertised with the powder charge quoted. The barrels on these rigs range from tight bore 13 twist to 10, 11, 11.25 , and 12 twists.
Now back to the new M118 load, what is the powder used?
Sinister,
Please tell us.
I don't think it is 4064, I've shot probably close to 64 pounds of 4064 through my M1As, bolt guns, AR-10s the last two years, I don't think you can get the velocity advertised with the powder charge quoted. The barrels on these rigs range from tight bore 13 twist to 10, 11, 11.25 , and 12 twists.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
I still don't understand where all the hype over the M14 OP rod is coming from. The rifle is designed to shoot bullets from 147 to 173/175 grain. The only op rod issue I ever heard of was the H&R rods that were manufactured with flawed forgings, they broke at the stress point where the arm meets the tube. The gas sytem is a short stroke pistol that only allows a limited amount of gas in the sytem and then it cuts off. The short op rod does not have the flex that the long M1 rod had and that I belive is where the fears are coming from.
I know the AMU for years shot their M14's at 1000 using Sierra 190's no problems
I still don't understand where all the hype over the M14 OP rod is coming from. The rifle is designed to shoot bullets from 147 to 173/175 grain. The only op rod issue I ever heard of was the H&R rods that were manufactured with flawed forgings, they broke at the stress point where the arm meets the tube. The gas sytem is a short stroke pistol that only allows a limited amount of gas in the sytem and then it cuts off. The short op rod does not have the flex that the long M1 rod had and that I belive is where the fears are coming from.
I know the AMU for years shot their M14's at 1000 using Sierra 190's no problems
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Lord, if I knew I'd buy a bunch of cans. Ken (1smalljohnson) works for the guys who make the powder and he ain't sayin'.
The AMU's M14s had a 1/64th inch hole drilled into the end of the gas cylinder plug to vent gas (especially when shooting high-charge 180 and 190 Match Kings, both in their NM M14s and M21s) -- that mod is still included in the CMP National Match rule book.
Although the short piston does cut off gas after a certain amount of travel the velocity the piston is pushed back can be really quick -- 45 of Varget will shoot a 175 out of an M14 at pretty good speed, but the case can lock the system shut -- you'll have to pull back on the op rod handle to extract and eject like a bolt gun.
Lord, if I knew I'd buy a bunch of cans. Ken (1smalljohnson) works for the guys who make the powder and he ain't sayin'.
The AMU's M14s had a 1/64th inch hole drilled into the end of the gas cylinder plug to vent gas (especially when shooting high-charge 180 and 190 Match Kings, both in their NM M14s and M21s) -- that mod is still included in the CMP National Match rule book.
Although the short piston does cut off gas after a certain amount of travel the velocity the piston is pushed back can be really quick -- 45 of Varget will shoot a 175 out of an M14 at pretty good speed, but the case can lock the system shut -- you'll have to pull back on the op rod handle to extract and eject like a bolt gun.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: M25BeastShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still don't understand where all the hype over the M14 OP rod is coming from. The rifle is designed to shoot bullets from 147 to 173/175 grain. The only op rod issue I ever heard of was the H&R rods that were manufactured with flawed forgings, they broke at the stress point where the arm meets the tube. The gas sytem is a short stroke pistol that only allows a limited amount of gas in the sytem and then it cuts off. The short op rod does not have the flex that the long M1 rod had and that I belive is where the fears are coming from.
I know the AMU for years shot their M14's at 1000 using Sierra 190's no problems </div></div>
You can probably shoot the 190s but, like the other poster said, the AMU changed the gas system specs to do this. The AMU also has a nice van parked on or next to the range with a van full of spare parts when they do fly apart.
I'm not saying that anyone can't shoot whatever they want to but, it's a LOT harder on your rifle to do so and, for God's sake, if you ever hear that op-rod make a ringing sound, just know that is your op-rod slamming into something and, you may as well just go and get a hammer and finish the job with that... it's cheaper than ammo these days.
Apparently the port pressure achieved in the M1A/M14 is the critical issue for the op-rod. ( that is the level of pressure that exists when the majority of pressure reaches the barrel port ) This condition doesn't exist in a bolt gun, obviously. That is why the powder burn rate is so important and slow burning powders raise the port pressure and are harder on your op-rod. So, a standard, non-modified gas system to bleed off the excess pressue M1A/M14 isn't going to like really slow powders or really heavy bullets.
This article explains a lot of it ( as well as the difference between M118 white box, M852 white box and M118LR ): http://www.zediker.com/downloads/m14.html
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: M25BeastShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still don't understand where all the hype over the M14 OP rod is coming from. The rifle is designed to shoot bullets from 147 to 173/175 grain. The only op rod issue I ever heard of was the H&R rods that were manufactured with flawed forgings, they broke at the stress point where the arm meets the tube. The gas sytem is a short stroke pistol that only allows a limited amount of gas in the sytem and then it cuts off. The short op rod does not have the flex that the long M1 rod had and that I belive is where the fears are coming from.
I know the AMU for years shot their M14's at 1000 using Sierra 190's no problems </div></div>
You can probably shoot the 190s but, like the other poster said, the AMU changed the gas system specs to do this. The AMU also has a nice van parked on or next to the range with a van full of spare parts when they do fly apart.
I'm not saying that anyone can't shoot whatever they want to but, it's a LOT harder on your rifle to do so and, for God's sake, if you ever hear that op-rod make a ringing sound, just know that is your op-rod slamming into something and, you may as well just go and get a hammer and finish the job with that... it's cheaper than ammo these days.
Apparently the port pressure achieved in the M1A/M14 is the critical issue for the op-rod. ( that is the level of pressure that exists when the majority of pressure reaches the barrel port ) This condition doesn't exist in a bolt gun, obviously. That is why the powder burn rate is so important and slow burning powders raise the port pressure and are harder on your op-rod. So, a standard, non-modified gas system to bleed off the excess pressue M1A/M14 isn't going to like really slow powders or really heavy bullets.
This article explains a lot of it ( as well as the difference between M118 white box, M852 white box and M118LR ): http://www.zediker.com/downloads/m14.html
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
LC Match Brass
42.7 GR 4064
FED 210M
175 SMK
2.218 OG (approx COAL 2.820)
AV: 2633 at 70F
ES: 24
SD: 7
O, NT of .003 with a Redding Bushing Die. Low flash at night too.
Velocity is out of 24" factory Sav bbl as well.
LC Match Brass
42.7 GR 4064
FED 210M
175 SMK
2.218 OG (approx COAL 2.820)
AV: 2633 at 70F
ES: 24
SD: 7
O, NT of .003 with a Redding Bushing Die. Low flash at night too.
Velocity is out of 24" factory Sav bbl as well.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
The powder used in MK316 has already been mentioned several times in this thread. I suggest that the speculation ends with the post above.
The powder used in MK316 has already been mentioned several times in this thread. I suggest that the speculation ends with the post above.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The powder used in MK316 has already been mentioned several times in this thread. I suggest that the speculation ends with the post above. </div></div>
To quote the original poster on page 1 of this thread. He must have disassembled rounds and verified the powder charge, not 42.7. But then again he is also the one, if I remember, who quoted someone from Federal that it is 4064. It does not really matter, we all can get to where we want to go with our own loads. It is just a puzzle and thrill of the hunt.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The load is approx. 40.2 grains of an IMR type powder, the kernel is about 1/3 longer than a kernel of Varget. It certainly shares the temperature insensetivity of the Hodgdon Extreme type powders, but that's all I know about it. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The powder used in MK316 has already been mentioned several times in this thread. I suggest that the speculation ends with the post above. </div></div>
To quote the original poster on page 1 of this thread. He must have disassembled rounds and verified the powder charge, not 42.7. But then again he is also the one, if I remember, who quoted someone from Federal that it is 4064. It does not really matter, we all can get to where we want to go with our own loads. It is just a puzzle and thrill of the hunt.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The load is approx. 40.2 grains of an IMR type powder, the kernel is about 1/3 longer than a kernel of Varget. It certainly shares the temperature insensetivity of the Hodgdon Extreme type powders, but that's all I know about it. </div></div>
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 81STFACP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The powder used in MK316 has already been mentioned several times in this thread. I suggest that the speculation ends with the post above. </div></div>
To quote the original poster on page 1 of this thread. He must have disassembled rounds and verified the powder charge, not 42.7. But then again he is also the one, if I remember, who quoted someone from Federal that it is 4064. It does not really matter, we all can get to where we want to go with our own loads. It is just a puzzle and thrill of the hunt.
</div></div>
If that's how you get your kicks have at it. The smart ones send a FIA request and get it straight from the horses mouth. Once again, savy the post above.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 81STFACP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The powder used in MK316 has already been mentioned several times in this thread. I suggest that the speculation ends with the post above. </div></div>
To quote the original poster on page 1 of this thread. He must have disassembled rounds and verified the powder charge, not 42.7. But then again he is also the one, if I remember, who quoted someone from Federal that it is 4064. It does not really matter, we all can get to where we want to go with our own loads. It is just a puzzle and thrill of the hunt.
</div></div>
If that's how you get your kicks have at it. The smart ones send a FIA request and get it straight from the horses mouth. Once again, savy the post above.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Well, maybe we're getting lot-to-lot variations with 4064 now, too. The 4lbs I'm finishing up get between 2530 and 2580 at 10 feet at 60 degrees from an M1A, with 42.0 grains, in GI and new FC cases that have within .1 grain the same internal water capacity. WLRs, of course, shoot faster, my CCIs shoot about 30 fps slower
My load is not much more than what's indicated on that sheet. I tend to doubt that a temp-stabilizing additive would increase velocities, but who knows?
The prior batch of 4064 I had shot noticeably faster with equivalent powder charges.
The ONLY powder/bullet combo I've run through QuickLOAD that predicted port pressures above the max spec of 14,500 psi was RL-15 with the, you guessed it, 175-gr SMK. To get beyond M14 specs, you have to be driving it about 2700 fps or more. The predicted chamber pressures are still sane, though.
Of course, those cases Federal are using might be even heavier than the stuff I got last year. I posted a question about that in Reloading but don't have any replies. The old FC brass I have holds about 2 full grains less of water, good in most of my loads for 1 full grain more of powder to get the same speeds.
Well, maybe we're getting lot-to-lot variations with 4064 now, too. The 4lbs I'm finishing up get between 2530 and 2580 at 10 feet at 60 degrees from an M1A, with 42.0 grains, in GI and new FC cases that have within .1 grain the same internal water capacity. WLRs, of course, shoot faster, my CCIs shoot about 30 fps slower
My load is not much more than what's indicated on that sheet. I tend to doubt that a temp-stabilizing additive would increase velocities, but who knows?
The prior batch of 4064 I had shot noticeably faster with equivalent powder charges.
The ONLY powder/bullet combo I've run through QuickLOAD that predicted port pressures above the max spec of 14,500 psi was RL-15 with the, you guessed it, 175-gr SMK. To get beyond M14 specs, you have to be driving it about 2700 fps or more. The predicted chamber pressures are still sane, though.
Of course, those cases Federal are using might be even heavier than the stuff I got last year. I posted a question about that in Reloading but don't have any replies. The old FC brass I have holds about 2 full grains less of water, good in most of my loads for 1 full grain more of powder to get the same speeds.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Food for thought.
Mathematically speaking,
If the load were 40.2 gr, then they ordered 33 lbs more pounds of powder than they need.
Qua of cartridges listed = 149,040
Qua of powder listed = 889 lbs
1 lb = 7,000 gr
40.2 gr X 149,040 = 5,991,408 gr
5,991,408 gr = 855.9 lbs
if load were 41.75 gr
41.75 gr X 149,040 = 6,222,420 gr
6,222,420 gr = 888.9 lbs
Of course charge tolerances need to be taken into account here, but all the other numbers listed on the data sheet were NET.
Food for thought.
Mathematically speaking,
If the load were 40.2 gr, then they ordered 33 lbs more pounds of powder than they need.
Qua of cartridges listed = 149,040
Qua of powder listed = 889 lbs
1 lb = 7,000 gr
40.2 gr X 149,040 = 5,991,408 gr
5,991,408 gr = 855.9 lbs
if load were 41.75 gr
41.75 gr X 149,040 = 6,222,420 gr
6,222,420 gr = 888.9 lbs
Of course charge tolerances need to be taken into account here, but all the other numbers listed on the data sheet were NET.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
manufacture will toss 33# to avoid running dry during a run.IMHO
looking at the original docs batchs 456 were missing.IIRC
I would be pissed if 149,020th round was empty and I had to start over.
manufacture will toss 33# to avoid running dry during a run.IMHO
looking at the original docs batchs 456 were missing.IIRC
I would be pissed if 149,020th round was empty and I had to start over.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
I would agree, but the document lists exact NET values.
The would also order extra cases, bullets and primers if that were the case.
I would agree, but the document lists exact NET values.
The would also order extra cases, bullets and primers if that were the case.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Of course, those cases Federal are using might be even heavier than the stuff I got last year.
<span style="font-weight: bold">I posted a question about that in Reloading but don't have any replies.</span> The old FC brass I have holds about 2 full grains less of water, good in most of my loads for 1 full grain more of powder to get the same speeds. </div></div>
Case lots vary. This is why in the old days people wanted as many of the same case lot as they could get. There were less variables.
Two lots of brass from the same manufacturer made 6 months apart will have a different expansion rate given the hardness of the case, no matter if they have the same internal dimension / water volume.
This will affect velocity when the harder case does not expand as much when fired and pressure is higher than the case that expands rapidly and more.
This is why YOU can break down different lot numbers of M118LR and you can find differences in powder charges even though it is the same powder. You will find different charges with the same powder, but a different cannister lot.
As your once fired brass is worked, it hardens and will not be the same as when it was fired X1. You may have a SD of 7 on round one and then 14 on firing #2 because of the brass work hardening and just plain old shit happens.
This is another reason the military does not reload fired cases.
Those odd variances mentioned above are why some lots of newly manufactured ammunition are rejected for service.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Of course, those cases Federal are using might be even heavier than the stuff I got last year.
<span style="font-weight: bold">I posted a question about that in Reloading but don't have any replies.</span> The old FC brass I have holds about 2 full grains less of water, good in most of my loads for 1 full grain more of powder to get the same speeds. </div></div>
Case lots vary. This is why in the old days people wanted as many of the same case lot as they could get. There were less variables.
Two lots of brass from the same manufacturer made 6 months apart will have a different expansion rate given the hardness of the case, no matter if they have the same internal dimension / water volume.
This will affect velocity when the harder case does not expand as much when fired and pressure is higher than the case that expands rapidly and more.
This is why YOU can break down different lot numbers of M118LR and you can find differences in powder charges even though it is the same powder. You will find different charges with the same powder, but a different cannister lot.
As your once fired brass is worked, it hardens and will not be the same as when it was fired X1. You may have a SD of 7 on round one and then 14 on firing #2 because of the brass work hardening and just plain old shit happens.
This is another reason the military does not reload fired cases.
Those odd variances mentioned above are why some lots of newly manufactured ammunition are rejected for service.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
wow i think i developed this load on my own 6 months ago without all this info. i ended up with an accuracy load for that rifle of 175smk over 41.5 grains of imr 4064 in lake city cases and was printing pretty consistent .5 moa. maybe this validates the eficacy of my load developement.
wow i think i developed this load on my own 6 months ago without all this info. i ended up with an accuracy load for that rifle of 175smk over 41.5 grains of imr 4064 in lake city cases and was printing pretty consistent .5 moa. maybe this validates the eficacy of my load developement.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">wow i think i developed this load on my own 6 months ago without all this info. i ended up with an accuracy load for that rifle of 175smk over 41.5 grains of imr 4064 in lake city cases and was printing pretty consistent .5 moa. maybe this validates the eficacy of my load developement. </div></div>
What velocity, what barrel length, what primer, and what temperature(s)?
4064 just keeps proving itself.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marduk185</div><div class="ubbcode-body">wow i think i developed this load on my own 6 months ago without all this info. i ended up with an accuracy load for that rifle of 175smk over 41.5 grains of imr 4064 in lake city cases and was printing pretty consistent .5 moa. maybe this validates the eficacy of my load developement. </div></div>
What velocity, what barrel length, what primer, and what temperature(s)?
4064 just keeps proving itself.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
ill have to look up my data it was awhile back but think it was a bit under the 2715 i get with m118lr. was using 26 inch bbl using cci benchrest primer and 40-60 degrees. had yet to test at long range.
ill have to look up my data it was awhile back but think it was a bit under the 2715 i get with m118lr. was using 26 inch bbl using cci benchrest primer and 40-60 degrees. had yet to test at long range.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
looked at my load book and looked like 41.5 4064 was yielding only 2638fps on average out of 26" barrel back in the fall. it took 42.5 to get up around 2700ish like m118lr runs out of same stick. this all from lake city cases but just for fun some were fired out of prvi match brass and results were similar, think that stuff may be lower volume as well. any thoughts?
looked at my load book and looked like 41.5 4064 was yielding only 2638fps on average out of 26" barrel back in the fall. it took 42.5 to get up around 2700ish like m118lr runs out of same stick. this all from lake city cases but just for fun some were fired out of prvi match brass and results were similar, think that stuff may be lower volume as well. any thoughts?
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: elkhuntinguide</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the slow crowd... </div></div>
To me, the printout clearly shows the load is 41.745 grains of IMR 4064 per cartridge. If you multiply the load per cartridge by the total number of cartridges you get the net amount of powder. I'm going to run some QuickLoad calculations as see what I get for a 25" barrel. QL input parameters will be:
* "41.745" grains IMR 4064
* 175SMK
* 210M primer
* 2.800" COAL
* Case volume TBD (will measure the water volume of a fired case from my M40A3)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: elkhuntinguide</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the slow crowd... </div></div>
To me, the printout clearly shows the load is 41.745 grains of IMR 4064 per cartridge. If you multiply the load per cartridge by the total number of cartridges you get the net amount of powder. I'm going to run some QuickLoad calculations as see what I get for a 25" barrel. QL input parameters will be:
* "41.745" grains IMR 4064
* 175SMK
* 210M primer
* 2.800" COAL
* Case volume TBD (will measure the water volume of a fired case from my M40A3)
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
I ran a QuickLoad calculation for my M40A3 and got a <span style="font-weight: bold">MV of 2600 fps </span>with modest peak pressure.
<span style="font-style: italic">* 25" barrel length
* 55.3 grains of water case volume (fired FGMM brass in a GAP match chamber)
* 41.75 grains of IMR 4064 (slightly compressed load according to QL)
* 175SMK
* 2.800" COAL</span>
This MV is just barely enough to get to 1kyd at sea level, depending on whether you use the G1 or G7 ballistic coefficient. I think I will try this load and check it for accuracy, I still have some IMR 4064 in the "bunker".
I ran a QuickLoad calculation for my M40A3 and got a <span style="font-weight: bold">MV of 2600 fps </span>with modest peak pressure.
<span style="font-style: italic">* 25" barrel length
* 55.3 grains of water case volume (fired FGMM brass in a GAP match chamber)
* 41.75 grains of IMR 4064 (slightly compressed load according to QL)
* 175SMK
* 2.800" COAL</span>
This MV is just barely enough to get to 1kyd at sea level, depending on whether you use the G1 or G7 ballistic coefficient. I think I will try this load and check it for accuracy, I still have some IMR 4064 in the "bunker".
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
Check the pressure curve on QL at 14.1 inches and you'll get the port pressure for an M14 type.
UNLESS that thing about bullet travel on the graph means you have to go about 12.5 inches before exposing the port...I just noticed that last week.
What I've found is that the bolt gun loads I used to think had to be insanely over-pressure are mathematically modeling out to be only at max pressure, but port pressures are predicted at 4,000 PSI or more over spec for the M14. That also means that MY loads pushing 175s to 2600 or so (like the old original M118, BTW) have peak chamber pressures comfortably below max.
Check the pressure curve on QL at 14.1 inches and you'll get the port pressure for an M14 type.
UNLESS that thing about bullet travel on the graph means you have to go about 12.5 inches before exposing the port...I just noticed that last week.
What I've found is that the bolt gun loads I used to think had to be insanely over-pressure are mathematically modeling out to be only at max pressure, but port pressures are predicted at 4,000 PSI or more over spec for the M14. That also means that MY loads pushing 175s to 2600 or so (like the old original M118, BTW) have peak chamber pressures comfortably below max.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
One Eye Jack try FC case and 42.2gr of 4064 see what you get it should be about 2650fps, if you use LC cases and 41.8gr you will get approx the same mv of 2650 out of a 25" barrel.
One Eye Jack try FC case and 42.2gr of 4064 see what you get it should be about 2650fps, if you use LC cases and 41.8gr you will get approx the same mv of 2650 out of a 25" barrel.
Re: New M118LR loading from Federal
ok fellas i can confirm 41.7 grains of imr4064 out of lake city brass from a 26" bbl yields a 2650fps avg but same stick groups better with 42.5 grains running about 2690ish fps which incidentally nearly dupes m118lr. this all at about 80 degrees. hope this may be useful for someone.
ok fellas i can confirm 41.7 grains of imr4064 out of lake city brass from a 26" bbl yields a 2650fps avg but same stick groups better with 42.5 grains running about 2690ish fps which incidentally nearly dupes m118lr. this all at about 80 degrees. hope this may be useful for someone.
