I was on Amazon.com and found some Vihtavuori powders for sale. But they were listed as not made in Finland like I thought. No they were listed as made in......China. Wonder if it's just some of the powders or are all of them now made there?
Printable View
I was on Amazon.com and found some Vihtavuori powders for sale. But they were listed as not made in Finland like I thought. No they were listed as made in......China. Wonder if it's just some of the powders or are all of them now made there?
A friend bought one, expensive and overall not really appropriate for what he wanted to use his reloads in. Said the quality was excellent however he wasted his money for the cal/rifle he wanted to use it with.
I left him a message to call me as I would like to post what the issue was if he used it.
The N140 he bought is too slow burning to use in a gas piston system.
It worked well in his AR .223 as it is direct impingement. He did say accuracy with this powder was slightly improved.
Apparently N140 is too slow burning to use in a M14/M1 Garand/M1a1 as it will pound the crap out of the piston. The powder pulse it too long and pounds the piston which in turn drives the action rod too hard and too fast.
He told me the Hornady reloading book recommends it as the best for accuracy. This issue had is not a reflection on the powder you just must buy the proper powder for what you are reloading.
I use N140 for my Garand in .308. Works well. With a 147 grs FMJBT I have good accuracy, good primers (no overpressure) and perfect cycling.
Normally I prefer Lovex S060-2 because it works as well and costs 40% less. But N140 is absolutely ok for me.
Read that Vihtavuori was now owned by Nammo, the parent co of Lapua.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce McAskill
I agree 100% with Ovidio, but mine is a 1943 Garand in 30-06. I tried reducing the load to see if I could provoke a cycling error. Result - it functioned flawlessly right down the minimum recommended load for a 30-06 caliber.
It seems that in the Garand, the reduced pressure from a reduced powder charge is pretty well compensated by a longer time from the bullet passing the gas take-off hole to exiting the muzzle. In other words, the impetus given to the piston remains within a range that maintains reliable cycling.
However, this only applies to the Garand, NOT the M14/M1A1 or whatever that unsatisfactory successor was called, with its gas vent much further back from the muzzle. Garand got it right first time. What followed was IMOH, what in Germany is called "Verschlimmbesserung".
Verschlimmbesserung.... I haven’t heard this one in eons.
Thank you for reminding me!!!:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Can I take a guess ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovidio
Tried to make better..........
But Failed to do so, making it Worse ? :runaway:
Yes. It is almost impossible to translate. I would dare a "downgrading upgrade".
Talked to my friend again about N140 and believe me he takes being anal in reloading to levels I wouldn't consider. It should not be used in the rifles I listed in post #2. I know many will disagree however he does research and development that boggles my mind. A once fired case to finished reload is 21 steps IIRC.
He told me after much research N140 will damage the OP rod and you probably won't notice till it is too late. Those rifles need a powder that burns at the same rate as H4895 or faster and N140 does not do that. ( I just called him and left a message as I think I remember what the powder is but not positive and will correct the XX when I hear back) N140's burn rate is too slow and this is evident from any burn rate chart. He is going to try N135 as he believes it may be OK.
When it comes to reloading I listen to people who are diligent in what they do as they have experienced the good, bad and ugly. I am going to the range today with a friend who is head and shoulders above most people in handgun cal. reloading. I listen to him as for years shot over 40,000 rounds of handgun all reloaded so knows what he is doing.
I know one of those types. After a bore-scope investigation, he told me that my original Winchester 94 in 3240 was only fit for a display cabinet, not for shooting. But my WIN94 doesn't understand German and therefore continues to shoot as well as I can point it (well OK, perhaps that's not so good any more).Quote:
Originally Posted by enfield303t
So in which competitions does your friend participate, and how well does he place? I'm not being sarcastic, but there are some shooters who are so wrapped up in load fiddling, that they lose contact with actual shooting performance. I have a 6mm BR that will produce an 0.2 MOA group at 100 meters. Unfortunately, my PWF is larger than that. In other words, I am the limiting factor, and even if the rifle could produce 0.1MOA mounted on a lead sledge, that would hardly produce any visible improvement in my scores.
Twice as much time spent in practice under competition conditions would help me more than twice as many steps in producing "perfect" ammo. There is an old saying " a bad workman always blames his tools". Certainly, some spend more time optimizing their tools that actually learning to use them to best effect. OK, I'm old-fashioned.
Getting back to the 30-06 (or .308 for more modern types), I think it is not correct to conflate the Garand with its .308 successor, as the distance between the muzzle and the gas port on the Garand is much shorter than on the M1A. So where the Garand op-rod receives a short "puff", the MIA gets a comparatively "slow blow". Still, I appreciate the warning and will seriously consider N135 - which, by the way, is the fastest powder in the Vihtavuori loading tables for 30-06 with 130gn or heavier bullets.
The assertion that N140 is unsuitable for the M1 rifle appears unfounded. Explanation follows -
One of the problems with the internet is that erroneous or incomplete information sometimes gets circulated and accepted to the point that it overwhelms the truth.
In the case of M1 rifle port pressure, the erroneous information is that port pressure is primarily related to powder burning rate and bullet weight. The truth is that these are merely secondary factors. M1 port pressure is most closely related to gas volume (technically, mass and temperature), which is directly related to powder charge weight. Burning rate and bullet weight of course have a direct influence on PEAK pressure, but this occurs long before the bullet gets to the gas port.
With light bullets, we normally use faster powders for best performance since the relative ease with which the bullet starts to move means we can use a fairly large charge of fast powder without excessive peak pressure. With heavy bullets that take longer to accelerate, charge tables tell us the slower powders will give the highest velocity with the lowest peak pressure.
The M1 rifle's gas system was designed for the port pressures generated by the volume of gas produced by a charge of about 44 to 50 grains of powder behind a 173-grain bullet at 2640 fps (M1 Ball). It also happened to work just fine with about the same charge using 150-grain bullets at about 2800 fps (M2 Ball). The burning rate that gives these velocities to these bullets is about that we find in IMR 4895 and 4064. If we use a slower powder, say 4350, we find the appropriate charge for these velocities is heavier - about 55 grains for the 173 and 58 for the 150. Such heavier charges naturally generate a larger volume of gas, but at a slower rate that keeps peak pressure in normal limits. Given that the volume of the cartridge case and bore (up to the gas port) is a fixed quantity, the larger volume of gas necessarily translates to higher pressure at the gas port.
Conversely, if we stick with 4895 but change to a 110-grain bullet, we can stuff in some 54 grains of powder at normal pressure, for a much higher velocity. Again, the heavier charge generates more volume of gas and gives high port pressure. With 200-grain bullets, on the other hand, we can get good performance with 45-50 grain charges of slightly slower powders like 4320 or 4350, giving the same gas volume and consequently appropriate port pressure.
A lot of people who haven't well understood the role of gas volume have focused on burning rate or bullet weight instead - and that's what gets them into logical difficulty. It's very true that an optimum load of the slow powders with 150-180 grain bullets will give excessive M1 port pressure, and also true that the usual best bolt-gun loads of the really slow numbers (like 4831) with 200+ grain bullets will also give excess port pressure. What's missing in the logic is that it's neither the powder burning rate nor the bullet weight that's the problem's root cause - but rather the charge weight (mass, to be more accurate) and consequent gas volume.
It's unfortunate this mistaken (or just incomplete) logic has been so widely publicized, since knowing the whole story really makes powder selection much easier. Regardless of bullet weight, powder charges below 50 grains will generally give appropriate M1 port pressure (or less). Between 50 and 52 grains is marginal. Over 52 grains we may begin to see risk of damage to the operating rod. Of course powders must be chosen that will also yield acceptable peak pressure and velocity. (50 grains of 4198 will still make a mess - thanks to excessive peak pressure - but the port pressure would be near normal.)
There are certainly exceptions to this basic rule. Different powder compositions give off different volumes of gas for a given charge weight. But if we stick to the commonly-available rifle powders now on the market, there is surprisingly little variation in the mass/gas relationship and we're not likely to get in trouble with excess port pressure if we choose a published load using less than 50 grains of a powder that gives acceptable performance with our chosen bullet weight.
I urge anyone finding this concept difficult to stick to their existing guidelines. After all, there's little to be lost by limiting one's bullet and powder choices to the accepted standards - 150-180 grain bullets and powders close to 4895's burning rate.
In the estimates below, "P.Muzz" for a 23" barrel corresponds to the pressure behind the bullet at the M1 gas port, related to port pressure but not exactly the same.
Cartridge : .30-06 Spring.
Bullet : .308, 150, Hornady SP 3031
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.340 inch or 84.84 mm
Barrel Length : 23.0 inch or 584.2 mm
Predicted Data for Indicated Charges of the Following Powders.
Matching Muzzle Velocity: 2700 fps or 822 m/s
These calculations refer to your specified settings in QuickLOAD 'Cartridge Dimensions' window.
C A U T I O N : any load listed can result in a powder charge that falls below minimum suggested
loads or exceeds maximum suggested loads as presented in current handloading manuals. Understand
that all of the listed powders can be unsuitable for the given combination of cartridge, bullet
and gun. Actual load order can vary, depending upon lot-to-lot powder and component variations.
USE ONLY FOR COMPARISON !
Powder.type..........Filling/Loading.Ratio..Charge.....Vel..Prop.Burnt.P.max..P .muzz
......................................%.....Grains ....fps.....%.......psi.....psi..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMR.4895............................84.5.....48.5. ....2700....98.4....40668...10587
Accurate.2700.......................91.8.....56.3. ....2700....92.8....46789...10574
Hodgdon.VARGET......................87.6.....50.3. ....2700....96.8....43595...10573
Accurate.4064.......................90.6.....50.3. ....2700....99.9....42289...10535
Vihtavuori.N540.....................87.7.....52.7. ....2700....97.9....44964...10526
Accurate.2520.......................82.3.....50.3. ....2700....99.5....42340...10495
Ramshot.TAC.........................79.0.....49.2. ....2700....98.6....43064...10451
IMR.4064............................88.4.....49.6. ....2700....97.1....43783...10451
Vihtavuori.N150.....................93.6.....52.5. ....2700....99.3....43787...10355
Vihtavuori.N530.....................79.1.....47.2. ....2700....98.7....43334...10315
Hodgdon.H4895.......................87.1.....50.0. ....2700....99.2....42732...10300
Accurate.2460.......................78.0.....49.7. ....2700....99.3....44230...10242
Hodgdon.H335........................74.5.....48.3. ....2700....99.8....43352...10108
Accurate.2230.......................77.0.....49.0. ....2700....99.3....44666...10088
IMR.3031............................83.4.....46.3. ....2700...100.0....41236...10055
Accurate.2495.......................84.5.....47.5. ....2700...100.0....42846...10037
Vihtavuori.N140.....................87.2.....49.8. ....2700...100.0....44444....9860
JUST WANT TO SAY...YOUR ATTITUDE STINKS...HE ISN'T ONE OF THOSE GUYS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
Wasn't trying to start a internet war. I guarantee he is beyond anal about accuracy and has developed a load for a M1a1 that rivals the majority of bolt guns he competes against. I have been at military matches (I shoot in a different discipline) and he does amazing in open sniper. He usually places in the top 3 and competes against custom built rifles with his Springfield.
Last competition there were 11 shooters in "open sniper" and he placed 2nd. Considering the fact a .223 has an distinct advantage over a .308 in recoil alone I personally know his efforts pay off time after time.
He is a Canadian who joined the US Army and served as a forward observer in Vietnam. He is in his early 70's and considering the 15 shots at 200m are prone off elbows with no part of the gun touching the ground. The other two distances are timed/prone and a bipod is used. He competes against some custom built AR style .223's and up to Sako TRG22's so very formidable competition for a Springfield MIA1.
Yes practice is important and he does a lot of that however every other single thing about reloading the very best round counts. Everything from neck tension to uniforming the primer pocket has a bearing on accuracy...ask the F Class shooter! His objective was to prove to us he could give the best bolt guns a serious run in competition at 200m/300m and 400m... for anyone not familiar with the metric system that is 217 yds/328 yds and 437 yds.
Do me a favour, don't accept anything he says as having merit, I could care less.
My friend just called and had excellent results today with N135 and 168 gr.Sierra Match King projectiles.
Five shot group...4 shots in 5/8 inch and one flyer (his issue) opened the group up to 2.08 inches which is more than acceptable at 200 yards.
The last 3 powders is what you really want 100% burn as anything less than that your wasting money and throwing unburnt powder out the muzzle I have dabbled around with a few loads in my 6.5 x 284 over the last 6 years or so and had some interesting experiences to say the least including a S.E which I never want to experience again the result is in the picture (#1) only discovered later by the bolt knocking the safety on each time I opened the bolt on my Savage 110 LLRE.
So I have come pretty close to taking my head off by trying a load of WIN760 ball powder with a 215Mag primer which resulted in the whole charge pretty much detonating the over pressure was so great apart from a pretty much stuck bolt that required a nylon mallet to open the primer just fell out of the case thankfully it came out alright I was trying to use a light load to get full burn for a reasonable velocity.
I've played with lots of stuff and have after all this time settled on 4 powders & loads that work in the rifle due to shortages of powders that happen in this state from time to time also I cannot get anywhere near what Shehanne does out of his 6.5x284 without pressure signs and believe me I have all the bells and whistle but allot of whistles have been put away as in reality it was just wasting my time because I have a PWF & Flinch that I cannot cure.
Due to a burst blood vessel I suffered in my Rt shoulder shooting clays but I kept going making it worse, owning a 444 Marlin for a number of years and just by shooting heavy kicking rifles even firing a 460WM from the benchrest position with a good max load I know when its gunna happen but release the shot anyway so I drop points big deal I am having fun but boy the cartridge loves barrels as I am just about to screw in my 4th one.
I have done all that could be done in trying to get the best reloaded round possible each time like doing the following the meplats, runout to .0000 - .0000.5, ogive each projectile & batch them, weigh every projectile & batch them, weigh every case & batch them, TTL all cases to 2.161 exactly, uniform the pockets, AMP anneal them after every firing, de burr in & outside, precisely seat each bullet winding up the seater 5 thou each time then measuring it till it reads exactly the same for each one, plus the usual tumbling, I also sonic clean the cases after 3 firings also using same Lot cases batched any more you say nah stuff that.........(I forgot I neck turned as well for a while.)
The upshot of it was whilst I finish near the top usually in the top 15 in Open F class I now after cutting the process to the barest of my standards have more time to spend with my wife with pretty much the same results.
My APRS .308 I use at times shoots really well the Fig 12 (#2) was 100 yds off bi-pod, prone on the grass with no rear bag 5 rounds, its a very accurate rifle and I have not changed the load given to me by Lightforce since I brought the gun from them 10 years ago its just that good infact I won the Billy Singh sniper match shoot at Swanbourne 2 years ago with it dropping 1 point 49/50 at 600yds at a fig 11 in a field of 40 shooters.
Well, neither was I.Quote:
Originally Posted by enfield303t
Thanks, you answered my question - the guy is a serious shooter, and not an "armchair expert".
Maybe I could have phrased it more sensitively, and I'm sorry you took it badly. But if you know a lot of shooters, then you have surely come across the types who are permanently fiddling about with microsopic load variations - in effect blaming their performance on the less-than-perfect load.
If your friend was offended, he has my unreserved apologies.
I wholeheartedly appreciate this post!
Thanks!
I too use N140 for my Garand (30-06). I've been using that for around 20 years and it works well with a 168 grn HPBT. I recently replaced the op rod spring and carried out the tip test at the same time. Passed no problems, so 20 years of N140 do not appear to have had a negative affect on the op rod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovidio
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.