Varget vs Benchmark

[Wellington]

Why is Varget the favored powder in 6br. According to the Hodgdon loading resource site Benchmark does more with less in the three bullet weights I checked. 70, 80 and 105. Faster with less powder, am I missing something?

 

[Straightshooter1]

Why is Varget the favored powder in 6br. According to the Hodgdon loading resource site Benchmark does more with less in the three bullet weights I checked. 70, 80 and 105. Faster with less powder, am I missing something?

I would guess that, in part, it might have something to do with filling the case to capacity (along with keeping the pressure down) in order to achieve better consistency with ignition. . .??? With Varget you can fill to capacity and not have pressure too high where Benchmark will produce pressure above recommended max when filling to the case capacity. I suppose if velocity is of primary importance, then Benchmark seems to be a good choice. . . ???

 

[WyleWD]

Why is Varget the favored powder in 6br. According to the Hodgdon loading resource site Benchmark does more with less in the three bullet weights I checked. 70, 80 and 105. Faster with less powder, am I missing something?

About everyone that I know personally that shoot 90 grain and lighter bullets from a 6br do not use Varget. They use something between LT32 to 4895 on the burn rate chart. JME.WD

 

[Rtheurer]

Why is Varget the favored powder in 6br. According to the Hodgdon loading resource site Benchmark does more with less in the three bullet weights I checked. 70, 80 and 105. Faster with less powder, am I missing something?

Hey... Dont be letting this Cat out of the Bag... Come on Man!! Shhhhhhhh!!!

 

[Wellington]

I would guess that, in part, it might have something to do with filling the case to capacity (along with keeping the pressure down) in order to achieve better consistency with ignition. . .??? With Varget you can fill to capacity and not have pressure too high where Benchmark will produce pressure above recommended max when filling to the case capacity. I suppose if velocity is of primary importance, then Benchmark seems to be a good choice. . . ???

I never considered the filling the case angle. Is it desirable in a Bench Rest rifle?

 

[Straightshooter1]

I never considered the filling the case angle. Is it desirable in a Bench Rest rifle?

It's an important issue for many bench rest shooters. I've read about it in several places, including the Precision Rifle Blog and in the book by Bryan Litz "Modern Advancements In Long Range Shooting" (see attached from the book):

 

[Wellington]

It's an important issue for many bench rest shooters. I've read about is in several places, including the Precision Rifle Blog and in the book by Bryan Litz "Modern Advancements In Long Range Shooting" (see attached from the book):

Interesting, thanks for that.

 

[Loudenboomer]

Favored Powder?? XBR 8208 with 60 Gr bullets is fantastic in my 1-14 Krieger.

 

[Dgd6mm]

Why is Varget the favored powder in 6br. According to the Hodgdon loading resource site Benchmark does more with less in the three bullet weights I checked. 70, 80 and 105. Faster with less powder, am I missing something?

I believe it is accuracy. For me I want a little more speed for banging steel with my 6br and 105 bullet so I use IMR4895. 1/2 moa load.

 

[762willdo]

Temp sensitivity, lot to lot consistency,.......

 

[boltfluter]

Temp sensitivity, lot to lot consistency,.......

While temperature sensitivity is great, lot to lot can be terrible with Varget. In my personal experience.

Paul

 

[David Milisock]

While temperature sensitivity is great, lot to lot can be terrible with Varget. In my personal experience.

Paul

I can attest to that. You should always work loads with a new lot of powder with Varget I've seen the change to be such the I reduce my old load by 4 grains.

 

[urbanrifleman]

Varget is popular because it's old (it was the first temp insensitive powder) and has been readily available (at least until recently).

 

[johara1]

I sure would bet that it's temperature insensitive, it may be a little better but it sure moves around like the rest. Kind of a lot marketing hype...... jim

 

[jelenko]

I saw a chart showing the change in velocity vs temperature for several powders. 'Temperature insensitive' really means 'less temperature sensitive'. IIRC, the change in velocity of the 'temperature insensitive' powders was about 1/2 of the ones not called temperature insensitive.
So, much better but far from 'insensitive'.

 

[urbanrifleman]

I saw a chart showing the change in velocity vs temperature for several powders. 'Temperature insensitive' really means 'less temperature sensitive'. IIRC, the change in velocity of the 'temperature insensitive' powders was about 1/2 of the ones not called temperature insensitive.
So, much better but far from 'insensitive'.

There are completely temperature insensitive powders now. There are also powders that are crazy temperature sensitive.

The problem is that people correlate velocity with weather changes and call that "temperature" and say that all powders are "temperature sensitive" because they see bullet velocities change with density altitude (which is independent from temperature although related). Thicker air goes slower, thinner air goes faster. Seems pretty obvious to anyone who has ever flown a plane.

The original temperature insensitive powders are 20 times more sensitive than many of the new ones, but the people are still using the old powders because they bought 80 lbs of powder 10 years ago and "why switch"?

Or at least I've been told here....

 

[urbanrifleman]

Varget typically tests using the military test at 0.22 fps/F ish. By comparison R15 is closer to 1.25 fps/F. So, the total movement for velocity would be the temp sensitivity combined with density altitude effects. Ar Comp is closer to .1 fps/F.

 

[Laurie]

Varget typically tests using the military test at 0.22 fps/F ish. By comparison R15 is closer to 1.25 fps/F. So, the total movement for velocity would be the temp sensitivity combined with density altitude effects. Ar Comp is closer to .1 fps/F.

Interesting figures! I'm not surprised by Re15's sensitivity - the only powder I've used in the temperate British Isles where a hot (by our standards) day would worry me. (Max 223 load with the 90gn Berger VLD.)

0.1 fps / deg F for AR-Comp is something though! I knew the Bofors / Alliant TZ powders were good, but hadn't realised there is that much improvement.

 

[Straightshooter1]

Thicker air goes slower, thinner air goes faster. Seems pretty obvious to anyone who has ever flown a plane.

As a former airframe mechanic and having flown aircraft, you're right . . . that's pretty obvious to us. With a gun the air density has very little, if any, effect on actual MV's of a projectile as it doe on the the projectile's velocity somewhere down range. Isn't that why one has to account for the actual MV when measured velocity using a chronograph that's set up 10 or 12 ft from the muzzle (when one wants to be really technical )?

 

[urbanrifleman]

Interesting figures! I'm not surprised by Re15's sensitivity - the only powder I've used in the temperate British Isles where a hot (by our standards) day would worry me. (Max 223 load with the 90gn Berger VLD.)

0.1 fps / deg F for AR-Comp is something though! I knew the Bofors / Alliant TZ powders were good, but hadn't realised there is that much improvement.

I really want to test the new Vit