Canadian "IVI" ammo

[blackburn_wrx_2005]

hi folks, about a year ago i bought some canadian 7.62 ammo produced in 2003. after having tons of issues with it grouping, i've decided to pull the bullets and do some investigating. it is loaded with what looks (and weighs) like sierra 175gr BTHPs. after carefully pulling and retaining as much powder as i could, i get an average load of about 45 grains of powder. my question though, is what kind of powder is being used? i would like to know so that i can get some load charts for it and see if a different charge will prove more accurate. i've reloaded 20 rounds after keeping the powder to exactly 45 grains, along with seating the bullets more shallow. i have a rem 700 sps .308 with a 26" heavy barrell btw. the bullet makes contact with the rifling at about 2.88" so that first 20 rounds i seated them at 2.85". now on to more about the powder. it looks like it's some kind of mixed powder. some grains look spherical and some look flat, like a disk. if anyone has any info on this powder i would greatly appreciate it!

 

[Laurie]

In practice, you'll never find out what the powder was in this situation. If nothing else, ammunition factories buy bulk powder lots and tune charge weights to suit their actual characteristics on loading the ammunition. So, it could be equivalent of anything from IMR-3031 to 4320 if that's where it originated, or Viht N133 to N140 if that was the supplier, but none of those names would likely be used by either supplier or user.

In any event, it's looking at things through the wrong end of the telescope to try and get poorly performing milspec ammo to shoot well by changing the powder. The bullet provides ~80% of the input of a load's precision performance and if it doesn't shoot well, that usually means it's a cr*p bullet rather than a bad powder. The much more common practice is to pull the bullets and replace them with something decent, dumping the originals or (for those unscrupulous enough) to sell them on to some innocent who thinks he's getting a bargain. For many years, this was the norm with .30-06 ball ammo issued to US cadet and National Guard units, so-called Mexican handloads done in bulk with the 'cooking' 173gn or 150gn FMJ replaced by a 168gn Sierra MK, and it was sometimes done too with 7.62mm after that appeared. In this case, if the bullet is 175gn or thereabouts, try replacing it with the same weight Sierra.

Prudence also suggests dropping the original powder charge a couple of grains and loading a few in small steps back up to the original charge weight to shoot them first purely to check on functioning and ensure there are no signs of excessive pressures.

 

[blackburn_wrx_2005]

In practice, you'll never find out what the powder was in this situation. If nothing else, ammunition factories buy bulk powder lots and tune charge weights to suit their actual characteristics on loading the ammunition. So, it could be equivalent of anything from IMR-3031 to 4320 if that's where it originated, or Viht N133 to N140 if that was the supplier, but none of those names would likely be used by either supplier or user.

In any event, it's looking at things through the wrong end of the telescope to try and get poorly performing milspec ammo to shoot well by changing the powder. The bullet provides ~80% of the input of a load's precision performance and if it doesn't shoot well, that usually means it's a cr*p bullet rather than a bad powder. The much more common practice is to pull the bullets and replace them with something decent, dumping the originals or (for those unscrupulous enough) to sell them on to some innocent who thinks he's getting a bargain. For many years, this was the norm with .30-06 ball ammo issued to US cadet and National Guard units, so-called Mexican handloads done in bulk with the 'cooking' 173gn or 150gn FMJ replaced by a 168gn Sierra MK, and it was sometimes done too with 7.62mm after that appeared. In this case, if the bullet is 175gn or thereabouts, try replacing it with the same weight Sierra.

Prudence also suggests dropping the original powder charge a couple of grains and loading a few in small steps back up to the original charge weight to shoot them first purely to check on functioning and ensure there are no signs of excessive pressures.

thanks for the input! i've already pulled a few bullets and reloaded them in .2gr increments from 44.9 down to 44.1. i'm a bit nervous to try and go too low with it, not knowing very much about the characteristics of the powder. if i had a chronograph i would feel more secure about going lower with the charges. as for the bullets themselves, there's no 100% for-sure way to tell who made them, but they weigh in at 175gr. the main goal for all this remaining canadian ammo is to just get it to produce better than 4" groups @ 100yds (not even kidding). i've got about 240 rounds of this stuff left and would hate to see it go to waste without exhausting every possible means of improving it as-is. worst case scenario, i can always dump the powder and try some of what i have. either way, it is a fun project for me

 

[Laurie]

Canadian forum members can no doubt say much more about IVI and its products, but it is well known that in the closing years of the last century, the then still state owned IVI's 7.62mm ammo went way downhill after the Canadian armed forces switched to 5.56mm. DCRA affiliated clubs still got subsidised or I think even free milspec ammo from the government in those days so there was a strong incentive to use IVI, but 7.62mm TR shooters jokingly referred to the ammo maker's initials as an abbreviation of 'Impact Varies Indeterminately'. (Its 5.56mm product was far better, hence one reason for many Canadians shooting 223 in TR and F/TR even today, long after IVI was sold and free ammunition stopped.)

If you're interested in this ammo, see if there is any mention on the Canadiangunnutz forum, or register and start a topic asking for information.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

IVI is Industries Valcartier Inc, located north of Quebec city, IIRC and was created early in WWII as a crown corporation. They became privately-owned after the war and in the 70s, they bought out C-I-L, Canadian Industries Limited, a long time (turn of last century) maker of ammo and explosives. I believe IVI are now part of General Dynamics and they are one of only a few extruded powder manufacturers in North America.

I used to shoot their 7.62 stuff in the early 1980s at Connaught and it was headstamped even older than I was. That ancient stuff was iffy but the more recent ammo, at that time, was decent. I've never fired their 5.56 ammo but I hear it's quite good.

 

[bigedp51]

blackburn_wrx_2005

I second the motion to ask at the Canadiangunnutz forum.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/79-Reloading

I would just like to expound a little further than Laurie and make it a little more clear. The majority of 7.62 ammunition used in the U.S. and Canada is made for machine gun use and "sprayed" at targets. Special purpose sniping ammunition is made for the M14 and M24 rifles and is made to much higher standards and accuracy.

Examples of Special purpose 7.62 ammunition

Cartridge, Caliber 7.62mm, NATO, Ball, Special, M118 (United States): 173-grain (11.2 g) 7.62×51mm NATO Full Metal Jacket Boat Tail round specifically designed for match purposes. Produced by Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.

Cartridge, Caliber 7.62mm, NATO, Ball, Special, M118LR (United States): 175-grain (11.3 g) 7.62×51mm NATO Match-grade round specifically designed for long-range sniping. It uses a 175-grain (11.3 g) Sierra Match King Hollow Point Boat Tail bullet. Produced at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The propellant's noticeable muzzle flash and temperature sensitivity led to the development of the MK 316 MOD 0 for Special Operations use.

(My comment, this ammunition above was loaded with RL-15 powder a double base powder but was found to be heat sensitive when used in Iraq and Afghanistan. As you can see below the powder was changed to IMR-4064 to achieve greater accuracy)

Cartridge, Caliber 7.62mm Special Ball, Long Range, MK 316 MOD 0 (United States): A 175-grain (11.3 g) round specifically designed for long-range sniping consisting of Sierra MatchKing Hollow Point Boat Tail projectiles, Federal Cartridge Company match cartridge cases and Gold Medal Match primers. The Propellant has been verified as IMR 4064 (per NSN 1305-01-567-6944 and Federal Cartridge Company Contract/Order Number N0016408DJN28 and has a charge weight per the specs of 41.745-grains

As you can see above our present sniping ammunition is loaded with Sierra bullets and IMR-4064 powder. The ammunition you have is designed for spraying and hosing large areas and not loaded to shoot bug hole groups.

 

[CatShooter]

The Propellant has been verified as IMR 4064 (per NSN 1305-01-567-6944 and Federal Cartridge Company Contract/Order Number N0016408DJN28 and has a charge weight per the specs of 41.745-grains

"... and has a charge weight per the specs of 41.745-grains."

Good morning Ed...

Any idea of what Fed/ATK/Lake City uses for a powder measure to get down to XX.745 (a half a hundredth of a grain) - especially with 4064, which is very close to string cordite when it comes to throwing through a measure??

I love government specifications

 

[Laurie]

As you can see above our present sniping ammunition is loaded with Sierra bullets and IMR-4064 powder. [bigedp51]

I've noticed a few comments like yours Ed noting the recent powder change which made me smile a little. I know from personal experience that Re15 is temperature sensitive (even in a match 1,000 ft up in the Scottish Highlands a couple of summers back, not exactly a tropical region!), but I've always understood that 4064 is more than a bit inclined that way too. Is this a case of government procurement replacing bad with not quite so bad, or am I doing IMR-4064 an unfair disservice?

I love government specifications [CatShooter]

That one's a doozey! to misquote the insurance salesman in Groundhog Day.

Talking rebulleting 7.62 machinegun spray quality ammo, a North of England dealer got in hundreds of thousands (maybe even a million or ten) of rounds of 7.62 a year or two after Gulf War One. They came in disintegrating MG links (obviously 5+1 ball / tracer with the tracer removed), were dirty, oily, and gritty and had Farsi headstamps. Former property of one Saddam Hussein seemed likely. They cost £10 / 100 (maybe $15 USD), cheap even at that time, even for military surplus. People went mad buying thousands because of the price, then complained they didn't shoot accurately! (Well, whaddaya know?)

I bought 1,000 and got a further price reduction with a view to Mexican reloads as I had plenty of the old Lapua B400 something 150gn Lock-Base Match FMJBTs spare. This was the hardest saving I ever made pulling this lot (TIGHT !!), cleaning the asphalt sealants off the inside of the necks, neck-sizing / trueing-up etc. Just to make life even more fun, there were two different grades of ball powder and one stick with very different charge weights that had to be kept separate, They did shoot well though (eventually!) with the Lapuas and the original 155gn Sierra MK.

However ... you should have seen the pulled bullets. You didn't need to weigh them or mike them to see there were problems - split jackets at the rear, almost square bases on some and every bullet manufacturing fault known to man. Out of the thousand, there were maybe 10 or 15 cases that I wouldn't reload as there were serious flaws in the case walls, or the case was obviously badly out of true or suchlike.

Looking back this was a seriously bad, stupid idea for all sorts of reasons (like my personal safety!). What always remained with me though was how such abysmally made ammo would shoot as well as it did to 600 yards just by putting a good bullet up front. When I say 'well' this was in an early 308 Win Ruger 77V and was pre F-Class when we shot on nice big 2-MOA 'Bull' targets, so all things are relative.

 

[bigedp51]

What the OP has is standard grade Canadian 7.62 machine gun ammo, that would be used as an example for defending the Stargate in Vancouver.

And thus assuring that Major Carter can safely return to SG1 Headquarters and take off her fatigues and slip into something more comfortable.

 

[bigedp51]

The Propellant has been verified as IMR 4064 (per NSN 1305-01-567-6944 and Federal Cartridge Company Contract/Order Number N0016408DJN28 and has a charge weight per the specs of 41.745-grains

"... and has a charge weight per the specs of 41.745-grains."

Good morning Ed...

Any idea of what Fed/ATK/Lake City uses for a powder measure to get down to XX.745 (a half a hundredth of a grain) - especially with 4064, which is very close to string cordite when it comes to throwing through a measure??

I love government specifications

CatShooter

After getting out of the Air Force in 1973, I worked for our Government for 38 years. So just remember this............. “An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications”.

 

[bigedp51]

As you can see above our present sniping ammunition is loaded with Sierra bullets and IMR-4064 powder. [bigedp51]

I've noticed a few comments like yours Ed noting the recent powder change which made me smile a little. I know from personal experience that Re15 is temperature sensitive (even in a match 1,000 ft up in the Scottish Highlands a couple of summers back, not exactly a tropical region!), but I've always understood that 4064 is more than a bit inclined that way too. Is this a case of government procurement replacing bad with not quite so bad, or am I doing IMR-4064 an unfair disservice?

Thats because the U.S. won't buy Varget, a extreme powder from the Australians because they cheat at Rugby. :

 

[stool]

your mixing apples with oranges.
this has been said before.
it is NOT a case of imr 4064 being better than rl15.
rl15 was excellent in the ORIGINAL m118 lr load.
but in the end the load was COMPROMISED to allow it to be used in the m14.
the results were a slow round that was only average in accuracy.....and so now with the decision to stay with a COMPROMISE load that works "ok" in all guns, they went back and looked at the best accuracy they could get at the COMPROMISE velocity.
if you do not have an m14 or m1a..there is not reason to not stick with the original m118lr load and rl15.
none.

go read the spec documents for the imr4064/sie 175 load....it was about best accuracy at a significantly reduced velocity.

there is nothing wrong with imr4064.....but rl15 provides more velocity without pressure issues .
I've noticed a few comments like yours Ed noting the recent powder change which made me smile a little. I know from personal experience that Re15 is temperature sensitive (even in a match 1,000 ft up in the Scottish Highlands a couple of summers back, not exactly a tropical region!), but I've always understood that 4064 is more than a bit inclined that way too. Is this a case of government procurement replacing bad with not quite so bad, or am I doing IMR-4064 an unfair disservice?
[/quote]