Anyone know what powder is used in the Hornady Var Exp 204 Ruger loads?

[jepp2]

I have typically shot the factory loaded Hornady Varmint Express 32 grain VMAX 204 Ruger loads when I need additional brass. I wind up paying about $0.08 additional for loaded ammo ($26.99) vs the cost of the new brass ($22.99). Just wondered if anyone ever broke any down to try to find out the powder they use?

 

[varmintshooter]

I don't know what they use but IMR8208 is hard to beat in a 204.

 

[B23]

I have typically shot the factory loaded Hornady Varmint Express 32 grain VMAX 204 Ruger loads when I need additional brass. I wind up paying about $0.08 additional for loaded ammo ($26.99) vs the cost of the new brass ($22.99). Just wondered if anyone ever broke any down to try to find out the powder they use?

It's usually a proprietary blend they use in factory ammo. There's lots of great powders that work well in the 204 w/32gr bullets so finding a good won't be a problem. H322, H4895, H335, IMR8208, are just a few of a very long list of powders that'll work well

 

[jepp2]

H322, H4895, H335, IMR8208, are just a few of a very long list of powders that'll work well

Appreciate the input. I have tried all those and: Ramshot X-Term, Benchmark, Accurate 2015, WC 844, Ramshot TAC, IMR 4198, Varget, CFE 223, N133, Reloader 10X, IMR 3031, and IMR 4895.

 

[stacy]

I THINK I READ ON HORNADY WEBSITE THAT THEY USED SUPERFORMANNCE POWDER IN THOSE

 

[TheOtherZilla]

I don't know what they use but IMR8208 is hard to beat in a 204.

Yup. That was my goto. IMR 3031 worked great too.. The powder in the factory ammo is nothing you can buy.

 

[Laurie]

It was originally CFE223 (or its bulk / military equivalent) and adopted before it was released as a canister powder. CFE with its anti-coppering additive was a key element in Hornady introducing the cartridge and the marketing claim of 'fastest factory load'. The company was very mindful of the fate of the 1970s .17 Remington launched on a similar platform and whilst initially lauded for its MVs, it was soon slated and its sales killed because of claims of excessive copper fouling and the alleged need to clean the barrel every few rounds.

It may not be CFE now of course as the ways things are going, a powder without anti-coppering additives will soon be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[JSH]

It was originally CFE223 (or its bulk / military equivalent) and adopted before it was released as a canister powder. CFE with its anti-coppering additive was a key element in Hornady introducing the cartridge and the marketing claim of 'fastest factory load'. The company was very mindful of the fate of the 1970s .17 Remington launched on a similar platform and whilst initially lauded for its MVs, it was soon slated and its sales killed because of claims of excessive copper fouling and the alleged need to clean the barrel every few rounds.

It may not be CFE now of course as the ways things are going, a powder without anti-coppering additives will soon be the exception rather than the rule.

Hmmm, curious as to how you came by that info. Or is this an assumption.

 

[Clancy]

Definitely not an assumption. It was printed in several places that they used CFE 223 in the original 204 Ruger loads, and maybe they still do. I don’t know.

 

[Laurie]

Definitely not an assumption. It was printed in several places that they used CFE 223 in the original 204 Ruger loads, and maybe they still do. I don’t know.

Yes, exactly so. It's always hard to remember where you read these things years after the event, but it was as Clancy says in print in several publications in the aftermath of its introduction (as opposed to the Internet despite the 100% verity of posts on this august site ). It's probable Hodgdon actually said so in one of its printed magazine format Annual Manuals as it featured CFE223 on the cover of the edition for the year of its release and contained a write-up in its news and handloading features section, but I can't find my copy of that particular issue to check.

 

[jepp2]

With the leads provided (thank you very much!!), I pulled down one of the factory loaded rounds. The picture below shows what I found.

About all I can conclude is they are somewhat similar in appearance and the loading in the Var Exp factory load (called Superformance) is within the loading range listed for CFE 223 on the Hodgdon on-line load data.

 

[varmintshooter]

I called Hornady several years ago and asked about this same question. I was told that I couldn't use superformance powder in a 204 or 223. I don't recall the whole conversation but the bottom line was that I couldn't buy the powder they were using in a 204.

 

[Laurie]

I called Hornady several years ago and asked about this same question. I was told that I couldn't use superformance powder in a 204 or 223. I don't recall the whole conversation but the bottom line was that I couldn't buy the powder they were using in a 204.

It's necessary to differentiate between Hornady 'Superformance' brand ammunition and the same name Hodgdon 'spherical' high-energy powder. The former is what Hornady used to brand as 'Light Magnum' loads where a combination of blended high-energy powders and pushing MAPs to the SAAMI limit added another 100 or so fps to previous top loadings of many common cartridges. Superformance and Leverevolution powder grades were developed in conjunction with Hornady as part of the Superformance ammunition development, but may or may not be what are used in individual cartridges depending on how much customisation is done for individual loadings.

Here's what Hodgdon says about its product in its FAQs:

What calibers can I hand load or reload with Hodgdon Superformance powder?
Hornady started loading the Superformance line of ammunition in 2010. Hodgdon followed up with the introduction of a Superformance powder available for hand loaders. However, the one Superformance powder that Hodgdon sells is not usable in all rifle calibers. Like all powders, it has a particular burn rate and will work great in some cases, OK in others and should not be used in the rest. A hand loader wouldn't think of using Varget or Retumbo in all their calibers from 17 Hornet to 375 H&H. Neither should they think of Superformance in that way.

Hornady uses commercial-grade Superformance powders of varying burn rates and also blends powders to offer a full line of Superformance cartridges. The Superformance powder that Hodgdon sells is one particular burn rate that does well in some short magnum cartridges along with some others, which are listed in their load data and also in the latest editions of the Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading.

FWIW, Hodgdon 'Reloading Center' facility data don't include either powder for the 204 Ruger. Without going into it closely, I'd suspect Superformance is too slow burning for this application. CFE223 usually gives the highest MVs in the cartridge of all the Hodgdon range in these tables.

 

[jepp2]

FWIW, Hodgdon 'Reloading Center' facility data don't include either powder for the 204 Ruger.

When I have searched the "smallest" case capacity caliber I have ever found recommending Superformance powder in is 22-250 with a minimum 60 gr bullets.

 

[1raggedhole]

CFE223 was documented as the Hornady 204 powder in Handloader magazine pet loads a few months ago.

 

[SBS]

We should all keep in mind that ammunition manufacturers (and the military) generally use non-canister powders that have a much wider burning rate range than the canister powders that reloaders use. So it's not as simple as identifying the powder used in a factory round, weighing it and then duplicating the load. The powder they are using may be faster or slower than what we have and considerably so. I'm sure most handloaders are familiar with this, but thought I'd throw it out there for those who are not. This is why many of the military surplus powders vary considerably in burning rate by lot number. I've had surplus H335 that varied considerably from lot to lot; same with H380 surplus and others. Ammunition mfgs. and the military have their own pressure testing equipment and can adjust the powder weight as needed. Canister powders have to be pretty consistent on burning rate from lot to lot so that reloaders can safely use loading manuals as their guide -- probably not as consistent as match shooters would like, but far better than non-canister powder.

 

[JSH]

Definitely not an assumption. It was printed in several places that they used CFE 223 in the original 204 Ruger loads, and maybe they still do. I don’t know.

Clancy and Laurie, been over a year and this thread got bumped. Thanks for the input.
I have ran several hundred rounds through three 204’s since. I am running CFE223 with good results. I see others trying to “thread the needle” so to speak. I tried a wide variety of powders, overall I kept going back to CFE and Benchmark, with CFE winning out overall in these three rifles.
I am off some on speed of the Hornady ammo of coarse, but still plenty for acrobatic dogs;-).

I have no idea on what Fiocchi uses for powder. If all I shot was factory it would be Fiocchi. The accuracy I have found with it is excellent.
Jeff