W748 loads for .308 - 175 SMK's

[Winny]

I'm in the process of trying to find a back up load for my 308's. I currently run Varget with 175 SMK's with either Lapua or Federal Brass as my go to load. With the current reloading world and shortages I'm want to develop a secondary load. I currently have on hand a decent quantity of W748. I know W748 was a regular used powder for 308 in the early 90's before 4064 and Varget came around. I've searched this forum and other online sources for info and most loads I see are for 168's. I have also found some older info on other sites for 748 with 175's in the 42.5 - 43.5 range. I have also consulted several reloading manuals and found useful info.

My question, has anyone here played with or established a decent load with the same powder & bullet combo and what were your thoughts on it?

Appreciate the help gents.

B.

 

[rustyinbend]

I'm in the process of trying to find a back up load for my 308's. I currently run Varget with 175 SMK's with either Lapua or Federal Brass as my go to load. With the current reloading world and shortages I'm want to develop a secondary load. I currently have on hand a decent quantity of W748. I know W748 was a regular used powder for 308 in the early 90's before 4064 and Varget came around. I've searched this forum and other online sources for info and most loads I see are for 168's. I have also found some older info on other sites for 748 with 175's in the 42.5 - 43.5 range. I have also consulted several reloading manuals and found useful info.

My question, has anyone here played with or established a decent load with the same powder & bullet combo and what were your thoughts on it?

Appreciate the help gents.

B.

I can run a load chart for you in QuickLOAD if you give me the details: Barrel Length, Case/Caliber, Bullet, Powder.

 

[Winny]

Thanks! I'll shoot you a PM.

 

[rweaver00geo]

W748 and 43g with a 168 in lc or pmc brass is my goto plinking load for my m1a & ar platform. This site has this data available http://www.provenreloads-handloads.com/articles/2016/9/18/old-school-308-winchester-match-loads 175 gr. SMK, 45.5 gr. (44.0 to 45.5 gr.) Win 748, Remington or Federal Brass, Fed 210 Primer
BUT www.bearblain.com lists max at 41.8
IMO I think 41.8 is a little on the low side and 45.5 is a little high, and I never had much luck pushing w748 to the max.

 

[Winny]

Yeah, what I was finding was kinda scattered with what is max or not. Thanks for the link!

 

[918v]

W748 and 43g with a 168 in lc or pmc brass is my goto plinking load for my m1a & ar platform. This site has this data available http://www.provenreloads-handloads.com/articles/2016/9/18/old-school-308-winchester-match-loads 175 gr. SMK, 45.5 gr. (44.0 to 45.5 gr.) Win 748, Remington or Federal Brass, Fed 210 Primer
BUT www.bearblain.com lists max at 41.8
IMO I think 41.8 is a little on the low side and 45.5 is a little high, and I never had much luck pushing w748 to the max.

I’m pretty sure he meant old FC brass and not current FC brass. Current FC brass is heavy and has the case volume as LC. Old FC brass was like Remington.

 

[rustyinbend]

Thanks! I'll shoot you a PM.

Load charts sent for both barrel lengths via PM. Hope it helps.

 

[Winny]

Awesome. Just looked at them. Very interesting. Thought the velocity would be a tad better but it is what it is running shorter barrel rifles. Thank you.

 

[918v]

You can’t rely on the data he gave you

 

[rweaver00geo]

Im curious on what you settle on and your results keep us posted. I too have a lot of 748 and Im trying to ration my varget supply.

 

[Winny]

Will do. I grabbed an 8lb jug of 748 to load 223 for and figured it would be a fair powder to use as a backup 308 powder when I do run out of Varget. I'm in the same boat with the rationing. My kids love shooting my suppressed 308's so I bought a 223 bolt gun for them to run since I can do it with a different powder and load it cheaper.

 

[rustyinbend]

You can’t rely on the data he gave you

Interesting perspective. Point #1 ... I test everything and rely on only what I verify. Point #2 ... I've found the QL tables to be at least "close" - especially for deciding where to start, and what to stay away from. Point #3 ... Companies like Berger, Sierra and Hornady frequently pass along QL data when they don't have independently tested load data.

I had a good conversation with the Berger guy about this when inquiring about a recommended load. That conversation prompted me to get the program. When he said "I can only give you the QuickLoad numbers" ... it gave me the chance to ask some good questions about how they come up with the load data they recommend and eventually publish.

So ... thanks for that helpful suggestion. It's always good advice to accumulate recommendations from multiple sources, and then use experience and intuition to determine safe starting points.

 

[918v]

In order for QL to be anywhere close to accurate you have to adjust the parameters to your rifle. The most important are fired case volume, barrel length, coal, and the burning rate of the powder. If you don’t do this the data will be off by 200-300 FPS. Why? Because chambers vary, powder burning rates vary, barrel friction varies, etc.

 

[rustyinbend]

In order for QL to be anywhere close to accurate you have to adjust the parameters to your rifle. The most important are fired case volume, barrel length, coal, and the burning rate of the powder. If you don’t do this the data will be off by 200-300 FPS. Why? Because chambers vary, powder burning rates vary, barrel friction varies, etc.

Couldn't agree more. Actual tested velocity compared to the velocity in the table ... is last on my list of things I care about when I use QL.

But using standard settings like case, bullet, barrel length, and powder will usually get you in the ballpark (plus-or-minus maybe 2-or-3%), and provide suggestions on where to start. What are you suggesting as an alternative? What works better for you to determine a starting point? How do you get a sense of where you might start seeing pressure signs on the high end? I've found the bullet manufacturer's min/max recommendations track pretty closely to the tables QL provides when using the standard settings noted above. Refining with things like case H2O volume and other entering arguments helps, but I've found it usually doesn't material impact the larger ranges.

My personal experiences using QL over the past month has convinced me the numbers are close enough to provide great starting points for ladder and velocity-node testing. This forum is all about "sharing experiences" ... so that's all I'm trying to do.

A lot of guys ask "What load works for 'so-and-so' components.

How best can we help this guy? Or should somebody just tell him to start with a half-full case, and burn a bunch of supplies shooting dozens of rounds to see when he gets a good group or a flat velocity node?

I'm interested in your alternative suggestion to the help that I provided. I seriously want to learn better ways to contribute to this community.

Bottom line ... I've found the program to be very helpful as I search for starting points, pressure-limits, and velocity nodes to give me guidance for where I want to build 3-to-5 shot group tests.

You can argue with anything I say ... except ... "It works well for me."

 

[918v]

I don’t want to conflate the two threads. In the context of this thread, the reason the op is disappointed in the velocity QL spat out is because QL is wrong more often than not when used with its default settings.

308 chambers are numerous as are 308 cases. The h2o volume difference between the lightest and the heaviest brass is in excess of 3 grains. Powder burning rate varies plus minus 3%, and there is the moisture content. I have 3 lots of Varget that are 100 FPS apart using the same powder charge, for example.

In this thread the best way to help the OP, I think, is to share our personal experience with the particular combination of 175SMK and 748. My experience with this combo is limited. I tried it and wasn’t impressed with the accuracy. Maybe I didn’t spend enough time with it. But I remember going to varget afterwards and immediately shooting half moa. So my Remmy is partially responsible for my dislike of this combo.

In regards to the previous thread, due to the aforementioned factors, when no lab data exists, I wouldn’t rely on QL even for a start load. I guessed 28 grains without even looking at your printout, and posted it before scrolling up and going oh shit.

You have to understand that powder behaves differently in different applications. Often, powders have broad applications but sometimes you don’t see data for particular cartridges. It’s not because the manufacturers didn’t test that particular application, but because they encountered problems. Could have been pressure spikes, poor load density, hang fires, etc. could be the shape of the powder column in one application causes problems but not in another.

You have to be extra careful when doing load development from scratch. It’s better to use a few extra bullets than to etch pits in your bolt face from leaking primers or destroy hard to replace brass.

 

[rustyinbend]

I don’t want to conflate the two threads. In the context of this thread, the reason the op is disappointed in the velocity QL spat out is because QL is wrong more often than not when used with its default settings.

308 chambers are numerous as are 308 cases. The h2o volume difference between the lightest and the heaviest brass is in excess of 3 grains. Powder burning rate varies plus minus 3%, and there is the moisture content. I have 3 lots of Varget that are 100 FPS apart using the same powder charge, for example.

In this thread the best way to help the OP, I think, is to share our personal experience with the particular combination of 175SMK and 748. My experience with this combo is limited. I tried it and wasn’t impressed with the accuracy. Maybe I didn’t spend enough time with it. But I remember going to varget afterwards and immediately shooting half moa. So my Remmy is partially responsible for my dislike of this combo.

In regards to the previous thread, due to the aforementioned factors, when no lab data exists, I wouldn’t rely on QL even for a start load. I guessed 28 grains without even looking at your printout, and posted it before scrolling up and going oh shit.

You have to understand that powder behaves differently in different applications. Often, powders have broad applications but sometimes you don’t see data for particular cartridges. It’s not because the manufacturers didn’t test that particular application, but because they encountered problems. Could have been pressure spikes, poor load density, hang fires, etc. could be the shape of the powder column in one application causes problems but not in another.

You have to be extra careful when doing load development from scratch. It’s better to use a few extra bullets than to etch pits in your bolt face from leaking primers or destroy hard to replace brass.

All great info. Thanks for sharing the details behind your perspective.

 

[Winny]

Didn't say I was disappointed in the velocity numbers, just thought they'd show a tad higher with that powder. I agree with what has been pointed out. I have been reloading for close to 18 years now and understand the data from a program can't be relied on a gospel, just like the data in a book can't be relied on like gospel. But they both give a good baseline of where to set your expectations and starting points.

For me, both my 308's are shorter barrel guns, one at 16.5 and one at 18.5, both suppressed and one near the end of its barrel life. Velocity is really irrelevant in my case when it comes down to the grand scheme of things. Rusty graciously ran the same for me using Varget and the numbers in QL for my go to load are about 75-100 fps slower than what I'm actually getting at the muzzle. What QL has shown me is a safe place to start experimenting with 748 and most importantly where not to go with it.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Been researching the web for this question. I'm looking for a W748 load for 308 with 147gr (Mag-Tech) bullets (new from RMR, not pulled). I've had good relations with RMR in the recent past.

So far I've found a weight range of 44.0gr to 47.0gr, and intend to do my testing work in a very narrow range of 45.5gr-46.0gr. I'm looking to produce a conservative load with moderately desirable performance, similar in intent to the M80, using components onhand. These are once fired Mil Brass, CCI-400 CCI 200 Primers, W748 and W760, and Mag-Tech 147gr FMJBT bullets. Another of my incrementing Oops, and a big thanks to Craig in WA (Dibbs) for his nice catch.

The brass is bagged and "Fully Prepared". Needless to say, I will be doing full prep on every case; RCBS F/L resize, pocket uniforming, flash hole reaming, little crow neck trim, and priming. Charges will be individually weighed with an RCBS Chargemaster Lite. If you're gonna make it and shoot it yourself, might as well do it right; I never have and never will make ammo for others.

I also have some 168gr HDY Match, 165gr SRA Pro-Hunter, 125gr SRA Pro Hunter, and 168gr Speer Gold Dot. Test rifles will be a 24" Savage 11VT, and a PSA Gen 3 lower with an AR Stoner 20" Gen II Upper.

Just trying for a GP type round; nothing spectacular.

Greg

PS, the main point of this post is to get some experience and/or recommendations from others regarding 7.62x51 NATO cases with W748 and W760, using 147gr FMJ's and 168gr Match/168gr Gold Dot projectiles. Barrel lengths will be 20", and 24". Your serious help would be greatly appreciated. Yes, there are better propellants for this project, but this is what I have.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Limiting my search to USGI 7.62x51 military brass (in my personal case Mag-Tech), 147gr FMJBT bullets, W748, and government publications, I'm seeing the same numbers in most places. Following nearly a complete day of net surfing, I found:

147gr FMJBT 45.5gr W748
168gr HPBT Match bullets 43.0gr W748
173gr FMJBT Match(LC) 42.5gr W748.

1. These are old numbers, going back several decades; and many factors can have migrated over the years.
2. Some of them may or may not still be valid according to current load data manuals.
3. These are Official historical USGI ammunition loads.
4. They are not intended to be used without start low/work up cautions, and I am only going to take some advantage of them with the above components. USGI 7.62x51cases can accommodate 1gr and up to 2gr of additional case capacity over commercial .308 Winchester cases, which can also vary somewhat in capacity.

I put them here as somewhat of a guide to what the older practices were, and how they relate to each other. Use them at your own risk, I assume no responsibility for outcomes resulting from their use.

Note, my research strongly suggests that W748 was the original propellant used in the initial M-80 round, and was a carry-over from its use in the Government .30-'06 round. IMR-4895 and IMR-4064 are reputed to produce better accuracy, and W748 meters more precisely and is often available when the IMR propellants are not. Best I can tell from the research, the accuracy difference between the W748 and the IMR Propellants is not reputedly a great one.

As of this moment I have neither assembled nor tested any of these loads.

Greg

 

[max1840]

Good info. Thanks for the legwork

 

[RTH1800]

IMR 4064 has been around since at least

I currently have on hand a decent quantity of W748. I know W748 was a regular used powder for 308 in the early 90's before 4064 and Varget came around.

the 1940's. Not really relevant to conversation but someone might want to know.

 

[Old Corps 8541]

Limiting my search to USGI 7.62x51 military brass (in my personal case Mag-Tech), 147gr FMJBT bullets, W748, and government publications, I'm seeing the same numbers in most places. Following nearly a complete day of net surfing, I found:

147gr FMJBT 45.5gr W748
168gr HPBT Match bullets 43.0gr W748
173gr FMJBT Match(LC) 42.5gr W748.

1. These are old numbers, going back several decades; and many factors can have migrated over the years.
2. Some of them may or may not still be valid according to current load data manuals.
3. These are Official historical USGI ammunition loads.
4. They are not intended to be used without start low/work up cautions, and I am only going to take some advantage of them with the above components. USGI 7.62x51cases can accommodate 1gr and up to 2gr of additional case capacity over commercial .308 Winchester cases, which can also vary somewhat in capacity.

I put them here as somewhat of a guide to what the older practices were, and how they relate to each other. Use them at your own risk, I assume no responsibility for outcomes resulting from their use.

Note, my research strongly suggests that W748 was the original propellant used in the initial M-80 round, and was a carry-over from its use in the Government .30-'06 round. IMR-4895 and IMR-4064 are reputed to produce better accuracy, and W748 meters more precisely and is often available when the IMR propellants are not. Best I can tell from the research, the accuracy difference between the W748 and the IMR Propellants is not reputedly a great one.

As of this moment I have neither assembled nor tested any of these loads.

Greg

Thanks for the info, while waiting , I checked two different old manuals ; Hornady's 3rd. {no change in H's 4th.} and Speer's 10 th. Hornady shows 45.8 gn. of 748 with their 168 BTHP. no 178's at the time ??
Speer didn't show / have ? a 168 or 175 at the time of publish , but did show 47.5 gn. of 748 with their 165's , and 47.0 with their 180's
The Hodgdon online manuals doesn't list 748 with either a 168 or 175 ??

 

[DstRflMn645]

Don 't know if it's relevant to this older thread or not, however I use QL and found it to be very close (within 15-25 fps) of stated velocities. The other point is that QL has updates to the original program that need to be applied as powder burn rates do change. Varget, for example, used to be all over the place, lately it has become a lot more uniform. Also parameters can be changed to account for different chamber dimensions and throat as well as throat length. You can also change water volume of case to account for different brass.

Latest QL update was, I believe, August of 2022.

John

 

[Greg Langelius *]

The brass I've chosen is Top Brass brand, available at CAL Ranch here in Southern AZ.

The packaging indicates that it's all military brass, fully prepped and ready for reloading. My research into individual reviews appears to be universally negative in those respects.

But at $100 for 500 cases, I'm willing to give it a try with doing all the prep steps myself. Looking individually at the brass, that may work. I've already found one case with the primer still installed.

As this project develops, I'll keep the forum posted.

Greg

 

[RTH1800]

Greg,
Great to see you posting.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Yeah; about that...

I've been a bit (lot) down since Celia's passing, and my temper tends to be way too short. So I stay off the forums, and shield the rest of you good folks from my current stupidity. I figured I'd get past the event, and pick up somewhere coming out the other side. But there does not currently appear to be an other side.

For now, my coping strategy involves handloading, Netflix, and Prime Video. At least I can manage the videos better than 'live TV'. I also read a lot on my Kindle. My health is not especially tolerant of the cold, so I stay indoors nearly all the time, and my only time out of the house is usually spent at the local VFW. The folks there are mostly all of my friends, and they're helping me get past the bigger parts of the bump.

My Daughter has moved in and she's helping a lot. There's still a bit of adjusting to do, but we'll get it done. I'm putting some weight back on for he first time since Covid and that's a big plus.

The handloading has to wait until I can work out in the unheated garage, temps in here seldom get past 50 these days, and everyone here says this is an 'unusually cold' Spring. Yes, we live in the desert, but it also a 4350ft elevation. I say it's a nonexistent Spring, but I can't change that, so....

Despite the bad reviews on the brass, I'm going to pick out a random bunch and try doing what the labels says I can do, load it without any further prep.

I appreciate the compliment and thank you for thinking of me.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

IMR-4895 has also been around since WWII, it was shipped in bulk to Russia, and undoubtedly used in the 7.62x54R.

Gotta wonder how many GI's got sniped with it in Korea and 'Nam.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Judging from what I'm reading above I would like to stress that folks pay close attention to 308/7.62x51 vs .30-'06 load data.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Having bought two 500pc lots of brass cases in clear plastic jugs (on different outings) labelled Top Brass, I noted that their intent is to sell brass that has been pretty fully prepped, and can be produced into completed cartridges by simply adding primers, powder, and projectiles.

So, I yesterday plunked every one of a jug full through my Wilson Case Gauge. I can report that each and every one of them appear to have been properly resized and trimmed. The contents are largely IMI 2010, with about 100 LC 2020, and an assortment of 10 various orphans, including four commercial cases, and six of various NATO producers. These ten will be used as culls, mainly to get rough zeros. and will be loaded in a manner intended to compensate for the varying case capacities.

Reading my Glen Zediker reprints on fired military cases, and loading for the M-14; his (and my) overall impression is that the IMI and LC differ only in what head stamps the cases bear, and that they perform virtually identically. Vague recollections of mine suggest that all of the IMI cases are virtually identical, including the ones headstamped as Match. I believe this, but I am not quite ready to bet the farm on it. I consider the IMI comparable, if not preferable, to the LC; and I've been buying up and shooting the 150gr IMI ammo to get my brass. I like it. Mr. Zediker states that the M-14 has the fastest and most violent extraction/ejection process among MilSurp Rifles, and that the cases should be used for no more than 4 firings, meaning 3 reloadings, period. I'll be using the PA-10 for my research/testing, and carefully examining my fired cases to find if there are credible reasons to extend that maximum number of firings. I suspect that there will be, but I will also be scrupulous in what I report.

One load will be developed, and used in both rifles. I can already predict that due to shorter throat dimensions in the chamber of my 11VT (and several other Savage 308 rifles I've owned and shot, and/or shot beside) the bullets will be seated a tad shorter than is normal.

These rounds are intended as fodder for the 24" Savage 11VT and a 20" PA-10. If results are acceptable, I will continue to post on the project. Somewhere in here, a small percentage will be loaded with Speer 150gr and 168gr Gold Dot Rifle projectiles for comparison testing purposes.

On an aside, I went into this project with low expectations, but this brass has rather pleased me up to this initial point.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

When I did my project on the .30-'06 M-2 for my Garand, I came to terms with my standards.

Like military ammo, the load will be what's considered optimal for the majority of the firearms employing them. In my case that means researching historical info on the M-2's being used in wartime. My loads will be closely based on historical published data, modified as/if needed according to case marks following firing.

Unlike military ammo, charge weight deviations will be kept to as very small a margin as possible. my own experience with the Garand involves Marine Corps Infantry Training (ITR), and quite a bit of National Match Course competition (200yd/300yd).

Accuracy and charge weight deviations can appear to be counterintuitive. If acuracy/dispersion can be enlarged somewhat, this serves to condition the Opfor to hide in place, since no direction of flight holds any predictable degree of safety. It is important that ball ammunition not be Sniper accurate, since this tight targeting spec changes the Opfor's mindset into seeking a direction of flight. If the attacking force can hit you reliably, the best strategy is to move, and keep moving; not what the doctrine advances. For the fire and maneuver warfare doctrine to most effective, it is critical that suppressive fire contains the Opfor tightly within a desired locale, where they can be defeated without requiring any wily chase components.

A quip about Fire and Advance Doctrine: the four "F"s: Find 'em, Fix 'em (in place), Fight 'em, Finish 'em.

That's why Snipers use different, more highly accurate ammunition. Being neither a Sniper nor an Infantryman, I have the choice, and mine is to seek the best accuracy.

My load will be weighed to a very tight tolerance, employing my RCBS Chargemaster Lite. In essence, this dispenser/scale is mostly an enlarged trickler. Using the W748 and W760 ball powders aids in this strategy since they are ball powders; and can be weighed with better consistency. The W748 labeling also claims a lower combustion temperature, which might mean better bore life, assuming a proper firing cadence. Plus, I have found the W748 and W760 powders to be more available (from the distributor; I buy direct from the Hodgdon site).

Somewhere in the above paragraphs, a switched from discussing the M-2 to the M-80 cartridge.

Also FWIW, the W760 falls neatly into the selections that can be used for the .260 Rem, another old friend of mine.

Greg