Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 9/15/2009 12:42:53 PM EDT
Any one have some reliable load data for these bullets?
Link Posted: 9/15/2009 2:00:20 PM EDT
[#1]
You didn't specify a powder but here is some 130 grain data using both H-4831, which is a good choice in the SC (short cut) version and is quite temperature insensitive - and I also listed data for one of my favorite go-to powders for this type of application - Alliant ReLoder 22:

Hornady lists H-4831as a good powder choice.  start is 55.5 gr and max is 62.9 gr with the 130 SST at 3200 fps.
I have found Hornady data in their latest edition a bit lower than I experience in real life and lower than other sources.  

Nosler lists also lists H-4831sc as a good choice.  start is 62.5 gr and max is 66.5 gr at 3239 fps.
RL-22 start is 61.0 gr and max is 65.0 gr at 3396 fps.

Speer lists H-4831sc as well.  start is 59.0 and max is 63.0 for 3173 fps.
RL-22 start is 62.0 gr and max is 66.0 gr for 3228 fps.

Hodgdon - H-4831.  start 63.0 gr and max is 67.0 gr for 3228 fps.

Alliant - RL-22.  start gr (none listed) and max 66.0 gr for 3228 fps.




Link Posted: 9/16/2009 8:41:43 PM EDT
[#2]
My experience:

I use the 130gr SST in .270 as my primary deer/mulie hunting load.   I usually load for accuracy, not max velocity.  

I have tried several powders with the SST: Accurate 4350, IMR 4350, Accurate 3100 and H 4831 & H4831sc.   I really wanted to use the 4831, but it was just not as accurate for me as 4350 (both IMR and Accurate).  

I used RL19 (and RL22) up until about 15 years ago with Nosler BTs - they both worked great but I didn't try them with the SST.   The RL19 & 130 Nosler BT provided fantastic accuracy, but the bullets separated (SSTs are much better).  I would try RL19 for the 130gr. SST 270 load first.  YRMV.  

With 53.5gr of IMR4350, I get about 2875fps, little standard deviation... and .5 inch at 100 yards/ 1.5 inches at 200 yards.   Accurate 4350 is almost as "accurate" with a little more velocity with the same load.  

Be sure to work up any loads for your rifle...

Link Posted: 9/20/2009 12:55:04 PM EDT
[#3]
These seem to be loads for the original .270 Winchester - NOT the new 270 Win SHORT MAGNUM.

Powders and loads for the larger capacity WSM round would be different from its smaller capacity brother of the same caliber.
I think it is quite easy to confuse Win with WSM after the ".270".
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 2:32:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
These seem to be loads for the original .270 Winchester - NOT the new 270 Win SHORT MAGNUM.

Powders and loads for the larger capacity WSM round would be different from its smaller capacity brother of the same caliber.
I think it is quite easy to confuse Win with WSM after the ".270".


Yes... I should have made it very clear... this is my experience with .270, not .270wsm.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top