Combining two different powders in 270 Win.

  • 3.3K Views
  • Last Post 07 June 2012
jpiehl posted this 30 April 2012

Gentlemen - I ran across an article in the July 1949 American Rifleman (pg. 39) listing three different loads for the 270 Win. using 109 grain cast bullets (Bond-Loverin GC bullet # 280780) and combining two different powders. I'll cite two examples: 1) 3 grains of “Bullseye” and 19 to 19 grains of “4895” (I'm certain this is NOT H4895, but I do not know whether it is actually IMR4895 or one of its predecessors); 2) 12 to 13 grains of “No. 2400” and 24 grains of “IMR 3031"

Does anyone have any experience with these two specific loads; or does anyone have any experience combining various such powders?

I have always found the American Rifleman to be a good source of information, but I have never seen powders combine in this manner.

Any responses from those who have actual experience with these two, or similar, loads would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

John Piehl

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
onondaga posted this 30 April 2012

I worked with some duplex loaded destructive devices some years ago.

Call IMR and ask them why these kind of loads from 1949 aren't listed anymore. They will explain this to you better than I can.  One good reason is the variable way two different powders will have their combined and /or composite burn rate changed depending upon particle arrangement within the cartridge case.

It has gotten popular on and off over the years to use a pinch of  fast pistol powder over the primer to light a case full of inexpensive slow burning Military surplus “big gun"  powder in sporting rifle cartridges. I'd really have to hurt feelings to discuss how insane I think that is and how the direction of the probability of detonation will change , but it would fall on deaf ears of the shooters who like to do that anyway. Call a powder manufacturer, like I suggested. Sometimes you should just believe the scientists, especially the ones that develop firearm propellants and explosives before you decide to experiment with the stuff they designed.

Gary 

Attached Files

galenaholic posted this 30 April 2012

"(I'm certain this is NOT H4895, but I do not know whether it is actually IMR4895 or one of its predecessors)"

I'd be more than willing to bet it's milsurp H4895. That stuff had weird burning rates. You could buy it through the NRA and it literally ame in paper bags if you bought it from your local gun store. My gun shop back then would buy it in 50 pound barrels and would scoop it out, weigh it and put it in a paper bag. Then he's tell me to use data for another powder. I've seen use data for IMR3031, or 4320 and even 4064. Frankly, even though that data was found in the American Rifleman, I don't think I'd touch then with a 10 foot pole. That 2400/3031 load sounds like a diaster waiting to happen. Paul B.

Attached Files

jpiehl posted this 30 April 2012

Gary & Paul - Thank each of you for your reply. I bought the Winchester M-70 270 in 1962 or 1963 from an old German gentleman who was an avid target shooter. In addition to the rifle he provided me with two American Rifleman articles (Jul 1949 & Oct 1955), his favorite Ideal bullet mould (280468), a box of gas checks, and his notes for some of his favorite loads.

In his notes he listed a couple of “duplex” loads and remarked that one was “very good".

The American Rifleman articles & his notes have deteriorated somewhat over the year, but I keep them anyway.

Not being a “brave type” I have never used any of the “duplex” loads, but was curious why I had never read anything about them other than the Oct. '59 American Rifleman article.

As to “just believe the scientists” may not be always be such a hot idea. The loads were actually tested by the NRA's technical staff and H.P. White Company (now the H.P. White Laboratory, Inc.). They have a fairly decent reputation in the ballistics science community.

Thanks again to both of you for replying.

Sincerely,

John Piehl

Attached Files

galenaholic posted this 30 April 2012

"Not being a “brave type” I have never used any of the “duplex” loads, but was curious why I had never read anything about them other than the Oct. '59 American Rifleman article."

There was some confusion on duplex loads back then. Elmer Keith was talking about them and many people thought he was using two different powders like in that 1949 article. The truth of the matter is he used a tube inside the cartridge casie do direct the primer flash to the front of the charge rather than the normal ignition at the rear. At the time he was doing this, our country as at war and he as trying to convince the government to use his idea. When he worked at, IIRC the Ogden Utah arsenal, he experimented with his duplex ignition using 50. caliber BMG ammo and the M2 mauchine gun. While his idea is supposed to have done what he claimed, the government didn't use it as they felt it was a bit too complicated and they needed .50 BMG ammo in a hurry. You can read about Elmer's experiments in either “Keith, an Autobiography” or “Hell! I was there” Elmer didn't like “Keith” as he felt they didn't show how he spoke so he did “Hell” From what I understand, when that titled “Hell” Keith got quite angry. Apparently he never tolerated swearing of any kind, even commenting on a woman who fell of a horse and came up cussing a blue streak. Either book is a good read BTW so if you haven't read them, do so. I have both copies of the American Rifleman you mentioned and later today, I'll look up that cast bullet article. Paul B.

Attached Files

Duane Mellenbruch posted this 30 April 2012

galenaholic wrote: I have both copies of the American Rifleman you mentioned and later today, I'll look up that cast bullet article. Paul B.

=========

Paul, et al, I have looked at the article in the October 1955 American Rifleman, page 47 titled Loads for the .270.  Written by M D Waite and Ballistic Data Supplied by H P White Laboratory.  There is no mention of any cast bullet used, or duplex data discussed in this article. 

I do not own the earlier reference.

Duane

Attached Files

jpiehl posted this 30 April 2012

Duane - You are correct about the Oct 1955 American Rifleman .270 article (pg.47) not containing any discussion regarding “duplex” (my term, not one used by the American Rifleman article author).

The “duplex” (I'm not certain as to the correctness of that term, as the American Rifleman article didn't use that term) or two different combined powder loads were discussed in the article in the July 1949 (pg. 39) issue.

Paul B - Thanks for the info regarding Elmer Keith and his work on the “duplex ignition” system. I'll look for more on that as I'm a hopeless history buff & trivia collector. He was/is an interesting character. His book “Hell, I was there” was surely an interesting read. A man of strong opinions & convictions, if a little on the rough side.

Thanks again to all for your replies. I'm sure I'll not be brave enough to try any such loads, but I would still appreciate hearing from anyone with personal experience using/combining two different powders in the .270 Winchester.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 30 April 2012

back in the early '50 s  there was only less than a dozen rifle powders commonly available,  and so some tinkering was done.trying to gain a miracle.  

with god's gift to shooters .,...hodgdons  4831, about 1958 or so,  the first miracle arrived at your local gun store.

and now there are so many powders that it is hard to get them sorted as to purpose........ i dought there is much reason to trick up smokeless handloads now, mixed-powder wise.

i dont shoot black powder now but would think about using a  ....priming  ...  pinch of fast smokeless under a black powder charge.

just some thoughts,  ken

Attached Files

delmarskid1 posted this 01 May 2012

I shoot duplex in back powder loads and love them. I did put 3g of red dot under a full case of some 20mm cannon powder for a while and got away with it. I won't do it again. I got no signs of excess pressure but the barrel would stay cool to the touch for a foot after 20 shots and then would blister my hand near the muzzle. Weird stuff like that makes me nervous. I would consider your articles a quaint curiosity and keep your health intact by using sensible loading techniques. Hell, I was there too!

Attached Files

galenaholic posted this 01 May 2012

"The “duplex” (I'm not certain as to the correctness of that term, as the American Rifleman article didn't use that term) or two different combined powder loads were discussed in the article in the July 1949 (pg. 39) issue."

No, you were corect in using the term “duplex". Do some research on the very first loads fpor the .454 Casull when in was in the early stages of development. Those loase loads cared te holy living bejabbers out of me just reading about them. They were triplex loads first with some Bullseye, then Unique on top of that and finally a csae full of 2400 IIRC. :shock: Apparently they worked but no way would I ever shoot one of those loads. I'll be honest, I do load much of my ammo hot but I try to be careful when doing so. .> Paul B.

Attached Files

jpiehl posted this 01 May 2012

Paul - Although I live in rural Alaska about 6-8 months out of the year I don't have any desire to shoot a .454 Casull. I keep a .35 Whelen by the door.

The thought of actually shooting a “duplex” load in “virtual reality” sounds like an interesting mental exercise, that's why the question was asked to begin with. However, I'm a little older now & the ol' noggin doesn't easily deal with more than a couple of ingredients at a time.

After reading your post I “googled” the .454 & read the entry in Wikipedia. I know I have more important things to do, but dog-gone-it my obsessive - compulsive nature won't let me just walk away from learning new trivia information.

Paul B., thanks for your response, but I wish you hadn't brought up the .454 triplex load. You've pointed me toward a new direction. Distractions, distractions! By-the-way, my wife said to tell you “Thanks Paul” I'm intentionally NOT included the whole quote!

Attached Files

galenaholic posted this 01 May 2012

"I keep a .35 Whelen by the door."

Now that's where great minds think alike.

:dude: I have three rifles chambered to the Whelen although I may sell one as a favor to a friend who wants to get into that game. My pet is a custom build on an Oberndorf Mauser action with a 1 in 14” twist. Spotted it at a gun show where they were selling off the guns from someone's estate. Asking price was $900. When I put that rifle to my shoulder it adopted me. Usually I haggle like mad but on this one I just paid the price and have never regetted it. My pet load, as it turns out is the 225 gr. Barnes TSX over 60.4 gr. of RL15, Remington brass and Winchester WLR primer. Velocity is 2700 FPS and groups average .50 to .75” when I do my part. (CAUTION:That load is hotter than anything I've seen in any manual and I consider it safe only in my rifle.) What I can say is it drops elk like nothing I've seen before. You can bet it's what I'll be packing come my elk hunt this December. :cool: The last elk I shot was a badly spooked cow running away, slightly quartering to the left. The bullet hit just behind the short ribs and exited between the neck and right shoulder. Internal damage was massive. Range at impact was adout 150 yards. What's not to like. The other two are a Remington M700 Classic and a Ruger M77. It's the Ruger that will be sold if the guy wants it. Paul B.

Attached Files

jpiehl posted this 02 May 2012

Paul - I like your .35 Whelen load. That's a right healthy dose of R-15. I keep 250 gr. HDY RN Interlocks with 53 gr.s of H4895 (Extreme) in my Rem. 750 carbine. This rifle & load are strictly short range predator control at the cabin & while berry picking. I do the “guarding” & my wife does the picking - She makes the jam & I'm the official taster. I've got a good racket going!

I use an EOTech 512 holographic sight on the 750 & it shoots quite well at 100yds. & it sure is a fast sight to acquire. But that's another story. Just a word of warning - Don't take your wife to look at sights - I ended up buying one for her too.

I got rid of a Ruger 77 .35 Whelen a while back & now wish I hadn't. To remedy the situation I picked up an Interarms Mark X 30'06 about a month ago and plan to have it rebored or rebarreled to .35 Whelen. I've got a gunsmith I trust in Fairbanks & I'm going to ask him to do the work.

John Piehl

Attached Files

delmarskid1 posted this 03 May 2012

 Take a peek at the .375 Whelen. I have one and love it. I've had three .35 Whelens and they were dandies as well. I like that 3/8” bullet cast of sweetened wheel weights at about 1800 fps. Plenty of authority and not much pain. If I had pressure testing gear I would be tempted to play with the duplex loads again just to see. I shot up 8# of that WCC870 in my '06's that way and they grouped well. The cases were loaded  mildly compressed. to keep the powders from mixing.  

Attached Files

TonyT posted this 06 June 2012

The only place where I know this was used successfully was in igniting the main powder charge of the 16 inch guns on US battleships.

Attached Files

Brodie posted this 07 June 2012

Back when The pistol silhouette (chickens , pigs, rams, turkeys) game first showed up in Ca. I knew a fellow who used a triplex load in 44 mag.  I think it was; 3 gr. bullseye, 27 gr. H110,, and 5gr. unique on top.  He claimed to have blown up a model 29 with it, and would only use it in his ruger  flat top.  He isn't around any more.  I don't know if his reloading killed him or he died of other “natural” causes. Brodie

Please do not try that load unless you pull the trigger with a very long string.

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close