204Ruger

Anyone using WC-842 powder for .204 Ruger ?

Bert

Are you sure you mean WC-842, or are you talking about SMP 842(made at St. Marks)

SMP-842 is around the same burning rate as WC844, which Hodgdon calls H335.
It(SMP842) has the same tin dioxide compound that has been in Win 748 & Win 760 for(according to my MSDS) at least 20 years.
Anyway, it's not clear to me if SMP 842 IS WC 844, but with the Tin compound; or if there is actually a difference.

According to my supplier (who has recently bought several tons of the stuff), WC-842 & SMP 842 are both the same powder, and indeed made by St. Marks.

They are not WC-844 (H335), My understanding, is CFE-223 data is applied to WC842.

And again, according to my supplier, WC-842 (at least current production) from St. Marks does include the Copper Fouling Eraser (CFE) coumpound.

I am picking up a 8 lb jug of St. Mark's 842 tomorrow, and will talk more about it with the supplier.

SMP = St. Marks Powder. WC = Western Cannon.
Generally a distinction for "Canister Grade" powder, Vs. Surplus. A little bit of semantics, I know.

I know it has the de-coppering agent, I'm just not exactly clear that there is a "real" difference other than that; Difficult to get 100% accurate info thus far.
SMP842 was spawned from the military's switch to "no-lead" bullets. As lead free bullets tend to be softer and leave more material in the bore. Notice I only said TENDS, in case there are some die-hard Barnes fans

842 is the replacement powder(replacing WC844) for the M855 round. It is now called M855A1 EPR.

You can read a bit about it here:
http://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2010/ ... 201004.pdf

Or here:
http://www.aschq.army.mil/ac/aais/ioc/L ... 343750.pdf

Interesting info on some of the powders here:
http://www.223reloads.com/home/223-5-56 ... -846-loads

Darkker wrote:SMP = St. Marks Powder. WC = Western Cannon.
Generally a distinction for "Canister Grade" powder, Vs. Surplus. A little bit of semantics, I know.

I know it has the de-coppering agent, I'm just not exactly clear that there is a "real" difference other than that; Difficult to get 100% accurate info thus far.
SMP842 was spawned from the military's switch to "no-lead" bullets. As lead free bullets tend to be softer and leave more material in the bore. Notice I only said TENDS, in case there are some die-hard Barnes fans

842 is the replacement powder(replacing WC844) for the M855 round. It is now called M855A1 EPR.

You can read a bit about it here:
http://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2010/ ... 201004.pdf

Or here:
http://www.aschq.army.mil/ac/aais/ioc/L ... 343750.pdf

Interesting info on some of the powders here:
http://www.223reloads.com/home/223-5-56 ... -846-loads

I am not an expert on the powder, but spent 4 hours with one today.

I have a 8 lb jug marked WC 842 Military Surplus Powder, with a label underneath (relabled powder) that says SMP 842, and this powder came from St. Marks from a larger barrel labeled 842 that had the CFE-223 data sheet inside.

Thus, I have been assured, yet again, today, that they all are one and the same, and have been advised to use the CFE-223 data.

I will report back later in the year my results loading with this powder using CFE-223 data.

BTW, there is a major run on primers and brass right now. Get it cheap while you can.

That's all I know.

B.

Hey Bert,
Your TN dealer got a website??

Darkker wrote:Hey Bert,
Your TN dealer got a website??

I know this is a really late response, but my powder vendor is David Mosley and can be reached at dlm37015@bellsouth.net or (615) 497-4205. He is located near Nashville, TN. He has a huge stock of reloading supplies at very good prices.

Since my earlier posts, I have tested the SMP-842 powder on the Barnes 26 gr Varmint Grenade 20426, Berger 35 gr Varmint 20303, 32 gr Hornady 22004, 40 gr Hornady 22006, as well as the 34 gr Dogtowns.

Initially I was under the impression that SMP-842 was an analog to CFE-223. This is not correct.

While I am still working on these loads, there is a linear relationship across all 5 projectiles I have tested for velocity & pressure, and all of them are ~15% hotter in SMP-842 vs CFE-223. If you use the Hogdon CFE-223 website data like I did, it will be necessary to reduce your SMP-842 load by at least 15-20%.

Other folks have also noticed with other calibers that SMP-842 (also found as WC-842) is hotter than CFE-223: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/49004-smp-842/

I would b interested in knowing if anyone else is working on SMP-842 for .204 Ruger. So far, the Dogtowns are marginal with it, best to date ~1 MOA at 3800 fps (~2 MOA at 3600 fps). Will be checking accuracy on the others later this fall.

Few things to remember with the notion of whether or not it is, or isn't the same.
Even if it IS the same, it isn't EXACTLY the same.

Remember premise #1
Hodgdon HAS NOT/DOES NOT make ANY smokeless powder. They started as a surplus powder reseller, the evidence points to them very much still being in that same business model.

WHO makes what they sell has also changed fairly recently. When the original surplus of various powders ran out, they bought "new production" of the old powders. While I can't promise either way, it isn't likely that they EXACT formula is identical. Much like the "Winchester" line. Winchester/Ohlin spun-off Primex to try and stop the bleeding, Primex then shortly went broke. Now General Dynamics owns/operates that plant. Are the formulas IDENTICAL, or are they very close?? I know Hodgdon had a fairly large "supplier" line-up change around 5-10 years ago, again what changed?

Also, what is "Original build" is not what Hodgy sells(not currently anyway), it gets blended and made to conform to "Canister Grade". Military powder does not have NEARLY as tight a tollerance as Canister Grade stuff. Given how old SMP-842 is, and how it came to be; makes me wonder if what is currently being sold as "Surplus" was done so for a good reason/formula change.
General Dynamics has been working on that new propellant for a bit over a decade. Only they know how many variations it had along it's birth. What point along that journey did Hodgdon buy it at, or what PointS, and what role has the blending to Canister played? Why was that powder surplus'd?

My personal experience with Dogtowns, showed that while inexpensive to shoot; may not be the best choice for any form of "precision" shooting.
FWIW

I have found that the Dogtown and Varmint Extreme bullets are good to me for around MOA and a little under in my 223 and 204 cal. For general shooting, rabbits, etc. they work just fine. Nosler makes them and they are a basic cup/core bullet. As for precision/benchrest probably not. Go to a couple of the premium bullets. But if you burn bullets, as I do, for rabbit and little varmints in the sage and woods, the other two work just fine, for the price. Bill K

Given how old SMP-842 is, and how it came to be; makes me wonder if what is currently being sold as "Surplus" was done so for a good reason/formula change.

good point. I had not thought about this. I figured it was just an overrun or something.

I have found that the Dogtown and Varmint Extreme bullets are good to me for around MOA and a little under in my 223 and 204 cal. For general shooting, rabbits, etc. they work just fine. Nosler makes them and they are a basic cup/core bullet. As for precision/benchrest probably not. Go to a couple of the premium bullets. But if you burn bullets, as I do, for rabbit and little varmints in the sage and woods, the other two work just fine, for the price. Bill K

Bill, I feel much better about my Dogtowns ! I am getting 0.5 MOA using H4895 in my Howa 1500 and Thompson Encore.

In addition to the Dogtowns, I am also testing WC-842 on other projectiles (round 3 on Barnes 26, Hornady 32 & 40, Berger 35 so far with Sierra 32 & 39 in the queue) and will report on progress later this year. Round 1 - oh $***!!! , Round 2 - tamed velocity & pressure signs, Round 3 - first set of groups.

Darkker wrote:http://www.gd-ots.com/2011%20Brochures/ ... llants.pdf

This is useful, and makes sense with what I have experienced. Per the chart the 842 powder is (nominally ??) faster than 844 (an analog to H335). My numbers have indeed been closer to H335 than CFE-223 figures.

I will post this table on the TGO site also.

SO.....

Considering Sierra Blitzkings in 32 & 39 grains...

Where should I start my test loads?

I am thinking OAL of 2.250" (to keep it simple) and 24.0 gr (Sierra 32) & 23.5 gr (Sierra 40) respectively of 842. Primers will be Tula SRP for now (they are playing pretty good on the other tests).

The test gun is a T/C Encore

Thoughts ?

Sounds like you have a plan.
Tula primers IME are interchangeble with Win or CCI primers.

Can't recall the source positivly at the moment, but I believe it was a discussion by Litz...
Anyway, discharge and duration were the same as the two mentioned.