Varget vs IMR4064

[MrEd333]

As supplies of varget have dried up, I decided to try IMR4064. In my .308, I have nodes at 43, 44.5 and 45.5 grains of Varget. I'm planning on doing load testing tomorrow. I was thinking of starting at 44 grains of 4064 and working my way up, but I can't remember if 4064 runs hotter or colder than Varget. Can anyone chime in on this subject? (I'm running 175 SMK's by the way)

 

[markr]

Might want to look in a good reloading manual, that removes most doubts.
Mark

 

[JRS]

You might take a look at N140 8)

 

[kelbro]

Check a manual.

Start at 42. Work in small increments (.2gr) Probably won't need to go past 43.

 

[NateHaler]

Consult a manual. Doing otherwise is imprudent. FWIW, I've had excellent results with both powders in a .308. For me it's a coin flip.

 

[MrMajestic]

FWIW, I've had excellent results with both powders in a .308. For me it's a coin flip.

Same here, Varget advertises temperature stability but can honestly state I've never noticed any with IMR4064 either.

 

[bheadboy]

Sierra max is 42.8 so i would start a tad lower and work up.
Bob

 

[K22]

According to Hodgdon's Burning rate table, IMR 4064 is faster burning than Varget. I've used both in the 308 with excellent results. Almost every loading manual lists recommended starting and max loads for each. I would follow those recommended loads rather than guessing.

Another outstanding powder for the 308 is IMR 4895 and H4895 especially with the lighter bullets.

 

[markr]

That slightly faster burning rate is the very reason that many in the know about M1A's turn their backs to Varget. That slightly slower burn rate of Varget and been causing some op-rod damage.

 

[Leaddog]

4064 has been one of the best powders for the 168's, but for the 175's you might give Reloader 15 a try if you can't get any Varget.

In these times of scarce supply, many folks will be trying powders they previously have not considered. I highly recommend obtaining the manufacturers load data before using. Quickload is also a good compliment to using that data. Be safe.

 

[ballpowder]

Will give you something to ponder here. I have been load testing this range of powders to made a load manual of sorts for the 22 CHeetah MK I.

The powders I will compare, is because refer to these powders as the Five Amigos. These loads will be my stopping point as of now, not to be take as hard maximum. Still velocities per gr of powder shows much.

This rifle is a Cooper M22 with Pacnor 1-15" barrel. All bullets watson's 52gr FB. Primers Rem 7 1/2.

AA2520 43gr. Velo 4131 fps

IMR 4320 42.1gr Velo 4121 fps

W748 43gr Velo 4097 fps

IMR 4064 43gr. Velo 4181 fps

Varget 43.5gr. Velo 4117 fps


As a bonus:
H380 46gr Velo 4110 fps.


So I have determined that the five amigos could easily be counted on to fetch a starting load from the others. Common sense applies concerning really radical cases that buy some chance use a powder that you had wished for.

Hard to ignore the block of powders that this same charge-same Velo in which this occurs. There are others that may have fit as well ???

I think the 4350's and perhaps IMR 4831 and AA3100 will do similar things when tested with the H380. Also include h414, and W760. I could go on and on so I better just go to bed.

I want feedback on this rambling please


Tim

 

[ballpowder]

I am quite fascinated with powders and their sport populatiry ranking amoungst like competing powders. I think follow the leader is to blame for most of it. Not alway, 4064 is a bitch to load for for example and 2520 has lot variation issues so they are not innocent either, but looking at the stats I posted I hope some begin to convince them selves that the socalled "other" one can perform at high level in many roles.
If they don't get used up the manufacture will give them a case of the "bottom lines". Good nite


Tim