|
|
|
| |
|
#1
02-06-2013, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
22 K hornet powder
Have a couple of lbs. of Winchester 680BR. Does anyone know if there is any difference between it and the standard WW680. I assume its the same but would like to know for sure. Have used WW680 in standard hornets and for fire forming but have been unable to locate any information regarding use in the "K". Could of course start with the standard hornet and work up but I'm certain some on the forum has this info or access to an older reloading manual.
Any assistance will be appreciated. 
|
|
#2
02-09-2013, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob
I load a lot of Hornet but we don't use any Winchester powder as it is off and on hard to get. If you have lots to burn, I would start with a Hornet load and work up. My old Paper Winchester Load books from both 74 and 85 show 11.8 grains as the max load in a Hornet with a 45 grain pill. There is no K data in it, but if I remember right, I believe if someone has a Speer #9 it had K hornet data. If you start a bit below the 11.8 and work up I don't think you will run into any problems with that method.
|
|
#3
02-09-2013, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dean
That's exactly what I was thinking. I used the 11.8 load in the standard hornet for years until it became unavailable. Later on I came upon several pounds of 680 and figured it would work in the K but have been unable to locate any load info. Used the 11.8 load, which I knew was safe, for fire forming and it worked just fine. As you suggested, and I believe to be correct, I'll start there and carefully work up. If powder hadn't become so expensive, and now hard to get, I might not bother. Several pounds will also go a long ways in hornet size cases. Appreciate the advice.
|
|
#4
02-10-2013, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some differences between 680BR and 680 were described in an article on WW-680 by Layne Simpson in Handloader No.109 in 1984. The older version, 680BR, had a problem with accuracy deterioration due to fouling caused by the calcium carbonate in 680BR. Olin eliminated carbonate from the powder and renamed it. Simpson was enthusiastic about 680's accuracy and velocity in his Kimber 82 Hornet.
John Wootters wrote about 680BR in Handloader No.30 in 1971. The Hornet load recommended by WW was 11.4 grains of 680BR with a 46-grain WW bullet, producing 2625 fps. Wootters states that 680BR is a single-base propellant. Simpson wrote that 680 is a double-base propellant. None of the early Speer manuals, Nos. 1 through 6, show any Hornet or K-Hornet loads with WW powders. I have no personal experience with either powder. --Bob
|
|
#5
02-10-2013, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob
Based upon your research I believe I will use the remaining WW680 for fireforming and forget the powder with the BR designation. It's probably ok, but I don't think it's worth taking a chance on. Fortunately, since I picked it up at a gun show several years go, I won't be out much if it goes unused. Better safe than sorry. Thank you very much for your response and great research. Bob A.
|
|
#6
02-11-2013, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob, if you have access to a copy of "Cartridges of the World", you might want to take a look at the 22 Hornet and 22 K-Hornet entries. I have an old edition, but it shows some load data for both using 2400 and IMR 4227. They show about a 2 grain difference in loads between the two cases.
|
|
#7
03-05-2013, 11:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
G'Day Bob,
You may want to try Hodgdons Lill Gun powder, although its a shot gun powder its a gem, I use it in my K Hornet and the velocity and accuracy is outstanding, you will get at least 100fps more any other powder out there, I get 3000fps with the 40 grain V Max in a 22 inch barrel, your cases will last for ever, and never blow primers, I use Federal 205's. Good Luck, George
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
