SR 4759

[9.3X62AL]

Rick, there is a lot of misinformation out there in police and fire rank-and-file and administration. I stood by and watched a CDF fire captain ream out a homeowner over 2 pounds of Red Dot on his workbench (he had a MEC 600 Jr. bolted to it) at the scene of a kitchen fire that the occupants controlled before the engine got on scene. Outside the garage were 6-7 five gallon dirt bike gas cans at varying levels of fill-up......about which nothing was said. Ridiculous.

 

[Ian]

Jeff, start up a thread if you fancy, that's why we're here and I for one would like to hear more.

 

[Charles Graff]

I have asked this at other places but responses tended to get off track. I don't mean to come across as harsh, just straight forward.
I am curious as what to do on a replacement for SR 4759. I know that AA5744 is about as close as there is. But across the board it has come up sub par in the accuracy department. I have put a big dent in an 8 lb jug in the past few years trying to find the point it performs. This was in about 12-15 guns of various calibers, pistols and rifles.
No sense in hashing out the why of it being discontinued.
Unique is a closer swap in various calibers and guns than 5744 for me in the accuracy department. Getting the speeds up has been my major problem. Most of my shooting involved ranges from 50-200 meters. I do dislike the small amount of powder in the case with unique. But, hey, if it's not broke..........
I think the small following of 4759 users is small because of its metering issues through a powder measure. I use an old Belding&Mull for all my 4759 loading. It is slow but true for measuring.
I believe that is its major down fall, folks traded convenience for better results.
I have played with very little R7. Initial results were ok but nothing to write home about. It does deserve a better look.
Reduced loads of 4895, I just plain gave up.
One thing I tried that gave exceptional speeds and accuracy was out of the Lyman manuals. I used their accuracy powder for said case and similar bullet weight, only I used a start load of that powder. I may have gotten lucky, but it has worked exceptionally well for several military rifles I like to shoot.
Problem being with the above is I am back to a large assortment of powders again.
Fillers aren't option for me either. I have tinkered with them a little. I am of the mind anything I put in the case I want it to either burn, or strike the target .
Jeff

 

[Charles Graff]

4759, 4227 and 2400 although different in bulk have very similar burning rates. all of them are excellent cast bullet powders and while charge weights are not interchangeable, they are quite close.

 

[Brad]

4227 and 4759 are just powders I never used much. Can't say why?
Now 2400, that is something I use a bunch. In rifles for loads under 1800 fps it works quite well for me. Above 1800 fps I go to something slower. I do like the way it meters.

 

[Charles Graff]

Back when I started cast bullet shooting 4759 was "the cast bullet powder" due to it's bulk. It was developed for military use in frangible 30-06 ammo. This stuff used a lead composite bullet that broke on impact and was fired at lower velocity. It was used for aerial gunnery practice. It was suppose to break up on the skin of an airplane if one was struck, however more than one was shot down with this stuff.

 

[Rick]

Interesting, I knew it started as surplus powder but that's all I knew.

Finally I got it right and have enough to not worry about a replacement powder. I've heard many times to just use 5744 but I haven't had nearly the same results as with 4759. A big part of it's versatility is as Charles mentioned, it's bulk.

 

[Brad]

Never heard the frangible bullet story. Amazing what people tried at times.

 

[45 2.1]

Interesting, I knew it started as surplus powder but that's all I knew.

Here is the story, as related in the older Lyman manuals:
DuPont SR 4759 was designed to replace S.R. No. 80 in 1941. 4759 developed slightly higher velocities with lower pressures than No. 80.

If you read Keith's articles, he mentions using No. 80 in several cartridges. As far as I'm concerned, 4759 is a unique powder, with a large range of usefulness..... and would be very difficult to find something that did as well. So, I would recommend buying all you can get if you use it.

 

[KHornet]

Here is the story, as related in the older Lyman manuals:
DuPont SR 4759 was designed to replace S.R. No. 80 in 1941. 4759 developed slightly higher velocities with lower pressures than No. 80.

If you read Keith's articles, he mentions using No. 80 in several cartridges. As far as I'm concerned, 4759 is a unique powder, with a large range of usefulness..... and would be very difficult to find something that did as well. So, I would recommend buying all you can get if you use it.

 

[KHornet]

Wish I could find some! Would sure like a couple of 8 pounders.

 

[Charles Graff]

4759 first showed in in Ideal No. 34 Handbook. It did superseded Dupont No. 80. Handbook 34 has a page of data from J. Bushnell Smith that arrived to late to be incorporated in the regular tables. He (Smith) even included some hangun loads, i.e. 38 Special (158 cast) 9 grains for 800 fps and the 357 Mag. (158 cast) 12.5 grains for 1,148 fps.

Some years back in an email exchange with Paco Kelley, he was working on loads for the 44 Magnum and 45 Colt with 4759 and he reported very good results, but the data never made it to print.

 

[waco]

I have just recently started a love affair with SR4759. It has worked well for me so far in 30-30 45-70 and 308. I'm sure it has many more applications. I'm glad I bought what I did when I could find it.

 

[Ben]

I concur, it is a wonderful powder for cast bullets in .30 cal. cartridges. ( The powder works very well in a fairly wide variety of other rifle cartridges also )

Just sad to see it sink off into the abyss by the company making it.

Ben

 

[Brad]

I love to see a guy who identified a problem and planned accordingly.

 

[Rick]

It has been discontinued before, couple of times I believe. Maybe it will be resurrected once again. Hard to believe it didn't sell, seems to be a lot of people that use it. I use it in many cartridges from 30 Carbine to 308 and I'm down to 20 pounds of it.

 

[Ben]

SR-4759 offers a bit more of a gentle push on a .30 cal. cast bullet than the same charge of 2400 ( one of my all time favorite powders ). This could be one of the reasons that 4759 performs so well with cast rifle bullets ?

I have 3 or 4 friends who use fairly large quantities of 4759, as you can imagine, none of them are happy about the announcement to stop the production and sale of 4759.

The powder company has in the past year introduced several new powders ( IMR 4166 , IMR 4451, IMR 7977 ) that I really do wonder if there is even a market for ?

We already had a pretty diverse and wide array of powders that covered the burn rate chart from the alpha to the omega before the addition of all these latest new powders.

I'm wondering if in a few years, they won't come out with a big marketing splash in shooting magazines and reintroduce 4759 again ?

MAYBE ! ! !

Ben

 

[KHornet]

Am down to my last pound or so! Will miss it!

 

[450AK]

4759 had some application in 45 colt and 500 Linebaugh for medium loads. Burns a little hot if you push the loads. Load density is low and accuracy is good. But we can buy copper cleaning powder so who needs the old crap...... How much copper is in my sixgun barrels that only shoot cast Keith bullets??? Arghhh

 

[Rick]

4759 had some application in 45 colt and 500 Linebaugh for medium loads. Burns a little hot if you push the loads. Load density is low and accuracy is good. But we can buy copper cleaning powder so who needs the old crap...... How much copper is in my sixgun barrels that only shoot cast Keith bullets??? Arghhh

I'm always willing to learn something new so maybe you could help educate me.

4759 isn't new so who needs it? Hhmmm, very confusing. Is it just that it's been around for awhile or just that it isn't new? Please explain. Is it because it's not new that it couldn't possibly be useful?

Copper in your revolvers from only shooting cast. Again confusing, would you please explain where the copper is coming from? I have revolvers with many, many thousands of cast through them and I can assure you there is no copper in the bore. I use a 25X borescope and know exactly what is or isn't in my bores & there is no copper. Not in any of them.

So please help me out.