VV N140 vs. N150 for .223 and .308

[mtncwru]

Short version: What powder would give me optimal results with 155 SMKs in a 30" .308 barrel, including around ~3000 fps muzzle velocity, while still yielding acceptable results with 75-80 grainers in a 30" barrel .223?

Long & detailed version:
I've been using Varget for my .223 an .308 loads up until this point, but my stash is running low. I'd like to re-up sooner rather than later, since it's a Presidential election year, but of course Varget and H4895 have moved to the "Unobtanium" column. VV N140 and N150, however, have not, and are in the same price bracket as Varget. So which one would you go for? I've always just used Varget, since both the .308 and .223 liked it well enough that I wasn't being held back. I like prefer the convenience of just one powder as well as the safety factor: hard to load with the wrong powder when you only have one in the shop.

The .308 is my MR/LR/Palma gun. I would be shipping a 155 SMK (2156 model) out of Lapua large primer brass. Current load on that one is 45.8 gr. of Varget which gets me 2980 fps at the muzzle out of a 30" barrel. This is my primary accuracy gun, and would be the one I care the most about being dead-nuts accurate if I have to choose when it comes to prioritizing my load development time.

The .223 is my general purpose rifle (Remington 700 in an RTS chassis), so it would be for loaning to friends at the monthly 300 yard match, the occasional PRS shindig, or maybe a day of XTC if I wanted to get frisky. It also has a 30" barrel with an ISSF chamber, and I'd be looking at 75 gr. Hornadys or 77 gr. SMKs, and probably work up a Berger 80.5 load that stays supersonic at 1000 if I can. As this is more of a all-'rounder, I'm less concerned about finding the very best load. "Good enough" is plenty, and I'm happy to compromise to get the best powder for the .308.

 

[mgdietrich]

N140 is the easy button, essentially a grain for grain drop in for Varget in both cases. N150 will work for both, but will need a drop tube to get enough in the case for a 155 to be 3000+

 

[XTR]

I'd go with N140. I shoot N150 in my F-TR 308s rifles behind 200gr bullets, but I'd think it would be darned hard to get enough in there to push a 155 to potential. It's a bulky powder. I'm at pretty much 100% of what I can run.

Never tried it in my 223, I've heard that the Brits have, but again, I think that N140 would be a better choice.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Another vote for N140 here. Be a little cautious when setting up a charge weight test with heavy bullets in the .223. In my hands, N140 generates comparable velocity to Varget, but with higher pressure.

 

[Jdne5b]

Another vote for N140.

 

[Hohn]

I've not used either, but it would be N140 for me also.

 

[Killick]

N140 for .223, N150 for .308. I would run the Berger 155gr. VLD Target pills though. You don't have to get them up to 3,000 fps, they will tell you what they like (13 twist, 30-32", '95 Palma chamber)

 

[Kracken McGraw]

I’m kind of in the same boat, as I use H4895 for .223 and .308. Does anyone have any experience also with IMR 4166 or IMR 4895 as replacements? Anyone in the know of when H4895 will return? Thanks.

 

[Kracken McGraw]

Short version: What powder would give me optimal results with 155 SMKs in a 30" .308 barrel, including around ~3000 fps muzzle velocity, while still yielding acceptable results with 75-80 grainers in a 30" barrel .223?

Long & detailed version:
I've been using Varget for my .223 an .308 loads up until this point, but my stash is running low. I'd like to re-up sooner rather than later, since it's a Presidential election year, but of course Varget and H4895 have moved to the "Unobtanium" column. VV N140 and N150, however, have not, and are in the same price bracket as Varget. So which one would you go for? I've always just used Varget, since both the .308 and .223 liked it well enough that I wasn't being held back. I like prefer the convenience of just one powder as well as the safety factor: hard to load with the wrong powder when you only have one in the shop.

The .308 is my MR/LR/Palma gun. I would be shipping a 155 SMK (2156 model) out of Lapua large primer brass. Current load on that one is 45.8 gr. of Varget which gets me 2980 fps at the muzzle out of a 30" barrel. This is my primary accuracy gun, and would be the one I care the most about being dead-nuts accurate if I have to choose when it comes to prioritizing my load development time.

The .223 is my general purpose rifle (Remington 700 in an RTS chassis), so it would be for loaning to friends at the monthly 300 yard match, the occasional PRS shindig, or maybe a day of XTC if I wanted to get frisky. It also has a 30" barrel with an ISSF chamber, and I'd be looking at 75 gr. Hornadys or 77 gr. SMKs, and probably work up a Berger 80.5 load that stays supersonic at 1000 if I can. As this is more of a all-'rounder, I'm less concerned about finding the very best load. "Good enough" is plenty, and I'm happy to compromise to get the best powder for the .308.

After reading your post, I looked up N140 in Sierra’s manuals. N140 was the accuracy load for their bullets in both 308-155 gr and 223-77gr, both at medium fast speeds though.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I’m kind of in the same boat, as I use H4895 for .223 and .308. Does anyone have any experience also with IMR 4166 or IMR 4895 as replacements? Anyone in the know of when H4895 will return? Thanks.

I've used both IMR4166 and IMR4895 in the .223 with 90 VLDs. The IMR4166 tuned in noticeably slower than H4895, and the kernels were approximately twice as heavy [large], so I didn't pursue it any further. To be honest, I've never found a powder better than H4895 for pushing heavies in the .223 Rem

In my hands, IMR4895 loads with 90s typically tuned in about 20-25 fps faster than H4895. However, I was running a load with the 90s moving at ~2850 fps with H4895 from a 30" barrel at the time. That load was already pretty hard on the brass and jacket failure with the 90s can be a potential concern, so my idea of pushing the 90s to ~2875 fps with IMR4895 didn't last very long. That load certainly shot well enough, I just didn't continue using for any significant length of time.

I also have a slightly reduced fire-forming load with H4895 that runs the 90s at about 2775 fps from a 30" barrel. I'd imagine that the comparable IMR4895 node might tune in at around 2800 fps, which would actually be a very good combination of reasonable brass life and a lessened chance of jacket failure, without giving up much in the way of performance. However, I never tried to work up a load to the next slower node with IMR4895. It might be worth a look.

 

[Hohn]

Ned, please advise when you get some AR comp data. It seems to be bang on h4895 burn speed but way more temp stable and has decoppering

 

[Laurie]

N140 is the easy button, essentially a grain for grain drop in for Varget in both cases. N150 will work for both, but will need a drop tube to get enough in the case for a 155 to be 3000+

That's the straightforward answer.

Having said that. I preferred N150 over N140 in 308 win for many years even though my view at the time was that possible MVs were reduced by >100 fps. It just performed so well for me in more than one rifle. Since that time, I have seen some staggering 308/155gn MVs produced by N150, way above what I ever imagined you a) could get into the case and b) achievable MVs. I can only assume a very long drop tube was used with the funnel. A friend who shoots F/TR at international level worked up such a load for his wife's F/TR rifle and she did very well with it indeed. He told me it wouldn't perform 'for toffee' in his rifle though when he gave it a try.

(Incidentally, both members of this marriage are now members of a UK F/TR team sponsored by Nammo Vihtavuori / Lapua using their components where possible. They and the rest of the team have obtained excellent scores up to 900 yards with the relatively low BC 175gn Lapua Scenar-L, although he reports it's a bit short of performance in the wind at 1,000. Lapua has a big gap in its bullet line to compete with the 185/200s from Berger and others unfortunately. When team members shoot the 175 'L', it's invariably small primer Lapua brass and N150.)

In 223, I found N150 excellent with 90s, but too slow burning for 75s and even marginally for 80s. Groups were good, but MVs too low.

 

[argrendel]

N-140 is excellent in my 308. Good for 223 also, just watch out for powder bridging. I’ve had that several times.

 

[mtncwru]

Another vote for N140 here. Be a little cautious when setting up a charge weight test with heavy bullets in the .223. In my hands, N140 generates comparable velocity to Varget, but with higher pressure.

Thank you for the note on watching pressure! I like to think I'm careful on that front, but it never hurts to be reminded.

Lapua has a big gap in its bullet line to compete with the 185/200s from Berger and others unfortunately.

Thank you for the detailed note! Also, I recall that Nammo acquired Berger Bullets a year or three back: wonder if that was a motivating factor.

N140 for .223, N150 for .308. I would run the Berger 155gr. VLD Target pills though. You don't have to get them up to 3,000 fps, they will tell you what they like (13 twist, 30-32", '95 Palma chamber)

While I appreciate the suggestion I would strongly prefer to stick with one powder instead of two, as I mentioned in my original post. In addition, I have plenty of 155 SMK 2156s, so don't plan to switch bullets anytime soon.

Thanks to all who replied: sounds like N140 is the better general purpose powder for what I'm looking to do.

 

[Laurie]

Thank you for the detailed note! Also, I recall that Nammo acquired Berger Bullets a year or three back: wonder if that was a motivating factor.

Yes, Nammo owns Berger and its US operations. Lapua has always had a very strange mix of bullets in its catalogue IMO. There is a very good performer (in drag / BC terms) in every calibre, sometimes two such, but everything else is pretty pedestrian. Some of the better models like the .308 155gn Scenar are very old now. Unlike Berger which marches out multiple new designs every month (it seems), tests them the following week, and has them in production the week after that, the Finns rarely introduce new designs. What they do make is superbly made, especially the Scenar-Ls though. So, I think that Berger's design and testing skills had to figure heavily in their purchase. (the $64,000 question then must be whether it is worthwhile for Lapua to actually design any new models from here on in to be made in Finland and marketed under the Lapua name, or just let its Berger arm take on the new bullet design / manufacture / market role completely.)

With Lapua so highly thought of in Europe and well entrenched in continent wide supply networks, many European shooters buy a lot of boxes of its existing bullet range, especially as they are very attractively priced given their production quality. However, where competitors are serious players in high-level precision disciplines, Berger has taken the lead here just as in the US with Sierra and Hornady partially succeeding in catch-ups, so we see Lapua trailing as an also-ran in the high-tech, state of the art match bullet field.

Equally important though must have been to rationalise and expand their US marketing and distribution systems. The latest round of US reloading manuals (likewise online data) have precious few Viht powders listed and some have none for key cartridges. This has to be a reflection of the bullet manufacturers noting how few retailers were carrying the marque in the years running up to publication. Buying Berger and setting up the Capstone Precision outfit with new purpose made warehousing and ordering systems has been I'd assume vital to rectifying this situation in the vast US market. Buying Berger's expertise in distributing and selling product to American shooters has to be central to its recent improvements here alongside the value of the Berger bullet range. We have to hope this is succeeding as like all propellant manufacturers Vihtavuori Oy had seen a huge drop-off in orders from smallarms military ammunition suppliers some years back. The French based Eurenco consortium bought Vihtavuori at just the wrong time and then found the plant surplus to its needs and geographically remote from its other facilities, so the Finnish plant was within weeks of closing only a short time ago. Nammo came in at the last minute as a white knight to buy and save the plant and start investing there again, so fingers crossed this policy is working.

 

[esromvre1]

140 is the best ticket for what your looking for

 

[NZ_Fclass]

That's the straightforward answer.

Having said that. I preferred N150 over N140 in 308 win for many years even though my view at the time was that possible MVs were reduced by >100 fps. It just performed so well for me in more than one rifle. Since that time, I have seen some staggering 308/155gn MVs produced by N150, way above what I ever imagined you a) could get into the case and b) achievable MVs. I can only assume a very long drop tube was used with the funnel. A friend who shoots F/TR at international level worked up such a load for his wife's F/TR rifle and she did very well with it indeed. He told me it wouldn't perform 'for toffee' in his rifle though when he gave it a try.

(Incidentally, both members of this marriage are now members of a UK F/TR team sponsored by Nammo Vihtavuori / Lapua using their components where possible. They and the rest of the team have obtained excellent scores up to 900 yards with the relatively low BC 175gn Lapua Scenar-L, although he reports it's a bit short of performance in the wind at 1,000. Lapua has a big gap in its bullet line to compete with the 185/200s from Berger and others unfortunately. When team members shoot the 175 'L', it's invariably small primer Lapua brass and N150.)

In 223, I found N150 excellent with 90s, but too slow burning for 75s and even marginally for 80s. Groups were good, but MVs too low.

Laurie, has N550 been trialed to any extent? I did play with it in 223 a while ago, but ran out at a time that it was not available in NZ. There were reports of 550 being used for 308 in Australia, at a time that most were using 748, but ADI 2208 became the standard ( Varget for the ex-colonials) and we all moved on!

I have also had some success with Benchmark and 8208 in 223, more work needed here before a reliable match load appears.

 

[Laurie]

Laurie, has N550 been trialed to any extent?

We used it pretty widely in 308 F/TR with the Berger 185 and 210gn LRBTs in the UK some years ago with good results. This was in Lapua LP brass. When the SP 'Palma' variety appeared, people found they got as good MVs and precision with N150, so 550 largely went out of favour. A friend who has been a top GB F/TR competitor from day one of the discipline until recently (he now shoots Practical Shotgun much more than F/TR) has AFAIK shot the old Berger 210gn LRBT over N550 in both types of brass from pretty early on and maybe disproves the need for any change. It was probably the old worry about 'double-based' powders that caused the switch to N150. However, as current 200-20X over N150 barrel life is pretty awful, I'm not sure that there is much of a difference - take pressures up to high enough psi to produce the MVs many are running and barrel life is bad with any powder. (My friend's N550/210 barrel life was a LOT better than today's N150/200 - around 3,500 rounds v 2,000 give or take, but he ran the load at 'only' the low 2,600s IIRC from a 32-inch barrel.

In 223, I tried N550 with 80s pre F/TR and decided it was a bit too slow burning, in any case there were better alternatives. When the 90s appeared and gave the cartridge a leg-up in F/TR, N550 was the powder choice of the Canadian TR and F/TR uber-heavy bullet 223 pioneers, but I never got it to shoot that well for me and pretty well discarded it. MVs were fine, in fact great, but groups never got better than barely OK IME. N150 I found can give excellent groups in 223 with 90s, but at lower MVs than most will want. I used an N150 / 90gn Berger LRBT load for short-range F/TR for a while and was very pleased with it, but H. VarGet and Re15 gave higher MVs for mid-range and long-range shooting.

 

[stacy]

CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE 308 BUT N-540 WILL HIT THE TICKET IN THE 223 WITH 75 THUR 90 GR BULLET OR IT HAS FOR ME

 

[Laurie]

Back in Year One of F/TR when we nearly all shot 155gn bullets in 308 Win, several UK competitors (myself included) chose N540 as we believed we needed it to get high enough MVs. (N140 had previously been the UK norm, and it is still a very popular grade here for 308 outside of F/TR use.) Charges that gave 3,075 fps for me, maybe 50 fps higher for a couple of friends (30-inch barrels) wore the barrels out in 1,100-1,300 rounds for all three of us. Remember, we pair-shoot here in cool conditions, so wear would have been worse in the US or Australia with string-shooting and higher temperatures!

Nowadays, 3,100 fps give or take is regarded as a relatively slow result by F/TR shooters who use this bullet weight, but barrel life is nevertheless considerably better despite higher MVs. I (and other N540 'victims') have been extremely wary of this powder ever since. I've not seen this phenomenon with other N500 series Vihtavuori powders and continue to feel comfortable with N550 for instance.

Incidentally, talking N500s, the UK distributor just received our first shipments of the new N555 grade which I think could be a 'winner' with some cartridges. A friend came up with this interesting comment on it: "N555? - the N500 powder that thinks it's an N100!" How so? Have a look at Nammo Vihtavuori's product descriptions for its 500 series:

https://www.vihtavuori.com/powders/n500-powders/

and again, its N100s

https://www.vihtavuori.com/powders/n100-powders/

So, if accurate N555 has a lower specific energy rating than its N150 base. (Also, N540 is shown as 4,000 J/g, but I'm sure that Viht rated it at 4,100 for many years making it probably the hottest powder grade on the market!)