IMR Target

[CZ93X62]

Good point. That's pretty much what I started doing with the new Clays series, first try it out by replacing existing loads and tweaking it to get where I wanted, then giving it a go all on its own. You find some things better, some the same, some just different. The only powders I have no use for really are IMR 4320, Accurate 1680 and 5744, H110/WW296, Hodgdon Lil'Gun and all the Lever/Superformance garbage, and Alliant 20/28. Even then, given only those, I could build up whatever I needed to get the job done.

This post contains more heresy per square millimeter than any I have seen to date on this site. I am appalled, I tell you--APPALLED! IMR 4320 is Magic Fairy Dust in 30-06 and 9.3 x 62. 22 Hornet and 25/20 would be lost without 680/1680. Time for my safe space.

 

[RBHarter]

Bah!!
4350 , something in the middle , and Unique are all you need .

(Too bad the purple font is smarter than me)

 

[Joshua]

My brother just put an order in at powder valley. He bought an eight pounder of Universal and four pounds of Target to try out. We will be doing some side by side comparison with Bullseye.
Any of you guys tried this stuff yet?

I just saw someone asking about this powder on “the site that shall not be named”. How did it work out for you two?

Josh

 

[Glaciers]

This post contains more heresy per square millimeter than any I have seen to date on this site. I am appalled, I tell you--APPALLED! IMR 4320 is Magic Fairy Dust in 30-06 and 9.3 x 62. 22 Hornet and 25/20 would be lost without 680/1680. Time for my safe space.

I'm wanting to know about 680/1680. I just remembered I have 3 round Winchester tins of the 680 that there seems to be little info for. IIRC I bought it for use in the 44mag. So is 1680 just updated/renamed 680? So I hoping for some inside here, can 1680 info be used with 680?

 

[CZ93X62]

I have no experience with W-W's 680, which has been out-of-print for a while. I have used Accurate 1680 in 22 Hornet with jacketed bullets, and it does good work in that role. In looking at old W-W data in comparison to AA-1680, they seem very close in both applications and charge weights within those applications. I won't make that "Leap of faith" and call them "identical", but they seem similar on paper. I don't know enough about either powder to do free-lancing with 1680; I stick to AA data closely.

 

[waco]

I just saw someone asking about this powder on “the site that shall not be named”. How did it work out for you two?

Josh

Haven’t got around to trying it yet. I need to cast up some wadcutters. I bought 1K .38 WC brass awhile back. I thought the K38 would be as good of place to test that powder in than any.

 

[fiver]

680 and 1680 are oh so close.
when I was starting with 1680 I used 680 data to get going.
iirc 1680 is just a scoch faster, but that could have also been attributed to me using magnum primers.

 

[CZ93X62]

Urny encouraged me to use the AA-1680 in 22 Hornet. He also mentioned the use of Rem #6-1/2 primers in 22 Hornet and other small rifle cases of similar size, and both info bits worked very well. In combination in 22 Hornet I got some of the most accurate jacketed results in that caliber in all of my years of messing around with it. Just the use of the less-intense rifle primers reduced group sizes significantly in 25/20, 30 Carbine, and 32/20 as well.

I haven't tested this head-to-head yet, but I suspect the use of small pistol magnum primers might duplicate the outcomes had with the Rem #6-1/2s. Think "heat range" in automotive spark plugs for finding the best possible ignition environment in carbuerated engines.