Win 748 / 6.5creedmore
- Thread starter MASH
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Frank in the Laurels
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,753
Never ball powder in any rifle that you intend to hunt different temperatures with, NEVER I was driven nuts a few times before coming to my conclusion, it'll shoot great groups but is way to temperature sensitive for my liking...
Without a doubt it will work. That being said, there are multiple powders that will yield more stable results. Don't waste your time playing around with a powder that is rapidly approaching irrelevance. Order yourself 8# of H4350, Norma URP, or Superformance and don't look back, you won't regret it.
Jerry M
Well-Known Member
H4350 would be a better choice for the Creedmore. Keep/use the W748 for .223 Rem in prairie dog ammo.
Good luck
Jerry
Good luck
Jerry
Darkker
Well-Known Member
Yes 748 works brilliantly with light bullets.
Don't listen to the nonsense about ball powder. do yourself a favor and read some of the Naval Warfare Testing Centers work on temp stable powders. General Dynamics ball powders make the Extremes look like play toys. There is a reason why 95+% of all the military small arms ammo is loaded with it. The day Hodgdon actually starts doing all their own testing on the powder they resell, and gets out of the stone age of crushers, I MIGHT listen to what they have to say.
For those curious, here is a quick lesson about stability.
It is TOTALLY about design conditions. There is no universal, magic, Jesus-fearing powder that resists all evils. They are "stable" when used within design parameters, or within similar circumstances. Dr. Denton Bramwell's has done lots of testing on this. Take what you call Varget. Designed by Thales for ball ammo in the 7.62 NATO. As many who've tried know, it gives great groups with 55gr bullets in the 223. However, H335 absolutely shames it for temp stability, in that application.
So.... Does that mean those groups with Varget aren't real?! Of course not! It means the whole temp stability idea is largely overblown, by people who want to sell powder. WC846 has its patent date in the mid 1930's. With the identical recipe, segregating the final product ONLY upon a 0.25% difference in avid stabilizers, which don't affect the burning rates or overall properties BTW; we get a voluntary segregation named WC844.
Still think H335 was "designed" for the 223, with a 1930's patent? What about is identical twin Bl-c(2)? Still think they are "different"? Do you really believe then that Hodgdon told you the truth about US military technology for copper fouling?? Re-read Hatcher's Notebook. That's Tin & Bismuth compounds discovered by the French around 1900. Those compounds have been in 748 & 760 for their lifetime as well, just not in quite the same quantities.
The issue that gets blamed on powder is heat soak into the primer, from the barrel. Causing either a more energetic, or less energetic ignition event. In fact the powder acts the same. If using a temp stabile powder for that application, what you will find is that the powder acts quite unstable. It will constantly speed up, or slow down to compensate.
Most of the extreme powders aren't statistically any different anyway. Any powder can be prenominal, or a steaming pile of Dookie. Just depends on where you use it, and what it was designed for. Since Hodgdon doesn't make crap, just resell surplus, don't count on getting that from them.
Don't listen to the nonsense about ball powder. do yourself a favor and read some of the Naval Warfare Testing Centers work on temp stable powders. General Dynamics ball powders make the Extremes look like play toys. There is a reason why 95+% of all the military small arms ammo is loaded with it. The day Hodgdon actually starts doing all their own testing on the powder they resell, and gets out of the stone age of crushers, I MIGHT listen to what they have to say.
For those curious, here is a quick lesson about stability.
It is TOTALLY about design conditions. There is no universal, magic, Jesus-fearing powder that resists all evils. They are "stable" when used within design parameters, or within similar circumstances. Dr. Denton Bramwell's has done lots of testing on this. Take what you call Varget. Designed by Thales for ball ammo in the 7.62 NATO. As many who've tried know, it gives great groups with 55gr bullets in the 223. However, H335 absolutely shames it for temp stability, in that application.
So.... Does that mean those groups with Varget aren't real?! Of course not! It means the whole temp stability idea is largely overblown, by people who want to sell powder. WC846 has its patent date in the mid 1930's. With the identical recipe, segregating the final product ONLY upon a 0.25% difference in avid stabilizers, which don't affect the burning rates or overall properties BTW; we get a voluntary segregation named WC844.
Still think H335 was "designed" for the 223, with a 1930's patent? What about is identical twin Bl-c(2)? Still think they are "different"? Do you really believe then that Hodgdon told you the truth about US military technology for copper fouling?? Re-read Hatcher's Notebook. That's Tin & Bismuth compounds discovered by the French around 1900. Those compounds have been in 748 & 760 for their lifetime as well, just not in quite the same quantities.
The issue that gets blamed on powder is heat soak into the primer, from the barrel. Causing either a more energetic, or less energetic ignition event. In fact the powder acts the same. If using a temp stabile powder for that application, what you will find is that the powder acts quite unstable. It will constantly speed up, or slow down to compensate.
Most of the extreme powders aren't statistically any different anyway. Any powder can be prenominal, or a steaming pile of Dookie. Just depends on where you use it, and what it was designed for. Since Hodgdon doesn't make crap, just resell surplus, don't count on getting that from them.
WildRose
Well-Known Member
This isn't true, Hodgdon both manufactures their own powders as well as being a distributor of surplus powders and powders manufactured for them by others.
About Us – Hodgdon
Darkker
Well-Known Member
Nope, that's clever marketing and half truths.
Hodgdon to date, has NEVER manufactured a single ounce of smokeless powder. The triple seven and perhaps a similar product, as those in unfamiliar with, being the only thing they "manufacture". They do/have blended lots of purchased powders, but never have manufactured them.
The names they "purchased" are a brand name only, and came with zero production capability.
ALL rifle ball powder they resell under any name is manufactured by General Dynamics in Florida; the former Olin facility. Olin owned the name Winchester prior then selling off all manufacturing facilities (powder, cases). The Extremes come from French Contractor Thales, out of Thales ADI powder plant in Australia. They recently (few years ago) did a J.V. with General Dynamics for some powder tech help. The rest of the Extruded powders they resell come from General Dynamics in Quebec. That plant was formerly owned by IMR, and GD completely revamped it a summer ago; which is why you are now seeing "Enduron" tech able to come from it. The exception to this, is late last fall, Hodgdon once again swapped a supplier. So far it's only in the 8# jugs, but IMR 4064 was being bought from German Defense Contractor Rhinemetal.
As I pointed out in a few examples in the previous post, there is a whole slough of, at best, half truths in marketing that Hodgdon claims. Superformance is listed in Hornady's manual many many more places than Hodgdon has data for. Why? Because Dave Emary was a powder developer at General Dynamics prior to moving to Hornady. He knows what that powder is capable of, even if Hodgdon doesn't.
Rather than reading the in-house marketing hype, use their link to actually read the SDS, or MSDS if you prefer. They do not make any rifle powder, never have.
As far as the pistol/Shotgun powders go, that one I'm lost on currently. ATK, another defense contractor, used to build them based out of the Radford Arsenal. They lost that contract to British Aerospace. Couple that with the massive Spin-off's to get the merger with Orbital past the G, I'm not sure about them. That last bit aside, Hodgdon does not have, nor has had, any smokeless rifle powder manufacturing facilities.
Hodgdon to date, has NEVER manufactured a single ounce of smokeless powder. The triple seven and perhaps a similar product, as those in unfamiliar with, being the only thing they "manufacture". They do/have blended lots of purchased powders, but never have manufactured them.
The names they "purchased" are a brand name only, and came with zero production capability.
ALL rifle ball powder they resell under any name is manufactured by General Dynamics in Florida; the former Olin facility. Olin owned the name Winchester prior then selling off all manufacturing facilities (powder, cases). The Extremes come from French Contractor Thales, out of Thales ADI powder plant in Australia. They recently (few years ago) did a J.V. with General Dynamics for some powder tech help. The rest of the Extruded powders they resell come from General Dynamics in Quebec. That plant was formerly owned by IMR, and GD completely revamped it a summer ago; which is why you are now seeing "Enduron" tech able to come from it. The exception to this, is late last fall, Hodgdon once again swapped a supplier. So far it's only in the 8# jugs, but IMR 4064 was being bought from German Defense Contractor Rhinemetal.
As I pointed out in a few examples in the previous post, there is a whole slough of, at best, half truths in marketing that Hodgdon claims. Superformance is listed in Hornady's manual many many more places than Hodgdon has data for. Why? Because Dave Emary was a powder developer at General Dynamics prior to moving to Hornady. He knows what that powder is capable of, even if Hodgdon doesn't.
Rather than reading the in-house marketing hype, use their link to actually read the SDS, or MSDS if you prefer. They do not make any rifle powder, never have.
As far as the pistol/Shotgun powders go, that one I'm lost on currently. ATK, another defense contractor, used to build them based out of the Radford Arsenal. They lost that contract to British Aerospace. Couple that with the massive Spin-off's to get the merger with Orbital past the G, I'm not sure about them. That last bit aside, Hodgdon does not have, nor has had, any smokeless rifle powder manufacturing facilities.
Last edited:
I have a difficult time seeing how any if this is Germaine to the OP or his question. Start another thread, or contribute material that is relavent to the topic at hand.
