8 lbs. Hodgdon 870 powder discovered, what to do with it?

I just bought the 1970 Hodgdon Manual on line for $11.99. I'll see what recipes they might have and get back to all with the test shooting results from my early Win .264.
 
us869 and aa 8700 are about the same burn rate... All were developed for the 50bmg to start with... I have a keg of wc867 and a half keg of aa 8700 around now. Any of the loading data for these powders will work, if you start 10% down and work her up to full boil.
 
I had a few pounds in the early 2000's and played with it in a 264. I can't seem to find the loads that I used but I have this in my load data. I haven't checked to see if these are still listed on the sites I pulled it from but it was "published" at one point in time.

100's
H 870 81 3550 David Anseth

125's
H 870 72.5 - 76.5 Steves Reloading Pages

140's
H 870 74 3270 David Anseth
H 870 65.2 - 78.3 Steves Reloading Pages
H 870 73 3163 54,200 CUP Hodgdon
H 870 69 - 73 2944 - 3130 Speer 13
 
Was the Weatherby 30-368 factory available Mr.Coyle or was this back in wild cat days?

100% wildcat. I dumped that one for a much smaller wildcat: 7-.300 Weatherby. Better ballistics with less recoil. Shot five days a week and learned offhand really well. Best three shot group at 100 yards was 1 1/4". 2 1/2" would have been considered very large with rifle and combo. From the bench it regularly was 5/8" and under. It was the most consistently accurate rifle I owned up till that time. In fact I still have it. A K14 Klienguenther on its forth barrel. Now it is a .375-.416 Rem Mag.
 
Parshal,
I'm waiting for the delivery of the 1970 Hodgdon manual from on-line. If it doesn't have any .264 loads I will certainly give some of your's a try.
 
Magic powder for overbore cartridges, as N133 is for underbore cartridges.
It was very cool burning. Great for reasonable accurate barrel life, where you would not have it otherwise.
It seemed dropped without a replacement, as I do not consider H1000 a replacement for 870.
 
20190911_080057.jpg
20190911_080044.jpg
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top