In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
AA1680 same as W680?
litetrigger
Member Posts: 320 ✭✭
I can't get W680 anymore, wonder if AA1680 is the same?
Comments
What are you reloading? It may pay to move to a different powder altogether anyways.
I will disagree with the IMR 4227 being close to AA1680. It is faster burning and is not double based. Two powders with the same burn speed, but one being double based isn't a good way to find the place to start load work up. find a comparable double base powder in relative speed to compare to AA1680.
Buying a one pound can is really the simplest way to guarantee the right load safely.
I think we are missing the mark here. Litetrigger is looking for a replacement for W680, not AA1680. Litetrigger I have looked through all my reference books and cannot find W680 on any of the burn rate charts. What cartridge are you loading, maybe we can find a replacement for you.
My other post answered the question about if AA1680 was the same.
If you are loading 221 Fireball, I load an improved Fireball with a 30 degree shoulder; the following powders have performed great for me. AA1680, N120, and H4198. I am shooting a Cooper too, all three will put three shots into 1/4 inch at 100 yards.
"wonder if AA1680 is the same?"
In this day and age, it's extremely difficult to make a statement that one certain powder is exactly the same as another powder. Besides the fact that all powders are different in subtle ways, the current manufacturing processes don't allow for absolutes in matching previous burn rates or an established burn rate from lot to lot. We've seen in several instances where a company can be significantly off in getting close to range let alone an match to an existing burn rate.
The only way to know what burn rate a powder corresponds to is to test it and then compare it to other powders you have tested. They will vary from batch or lot to lot. When a powder is listed as being slightly above or below another powder on a burn rate list, it's impossible to say one is absolutely faster than the other until it's tested. There are too may variances.
This is a section off a longer list:
122 - SR-4759 (IMR)
123 - N120 (Vihtavuori)
124 - 4227 (IMR)
125 - RP1 (Bofors)
126 - R901 (Rottweil)
127 - H4227 (Hodgdon)
128 - 5744 XMR (Accurate)
129 - 410 (Alliant)
130 - RIF-3 (Nobel)
131 - N130 (Vihtavuori)
132 - SP-3 (Vectan)
133 - 680 (Winchester)
134 - N200 (Norma)
135 - PCL 508 (PB Clermont)
136 - 1680 (Accurate)
137 - TU2000 (Vectan)
138 - AR2207 (ADI)
139 - H4198 (Hodgdon)
140 - N133 (Vihtavuori)
141 - 4198 (IMR)
Best.
My 221 is a CZ 527. Here is what my 12 year old son can do with his Fireball and 2400 at 100 yards.
way to go Jason! what scope do you use?
Iron sites!
Just kidding, it has a cheap Bushnell Trophy 6-18x40.
To the OP, Accurate developed 1680 to be a general replacement for the by-then publicly discontinued W680. (Winchester still makes 680, but in non-canister form, to load their Hornet rounds and perhaps others.) Accurate 1680 is close to 680 in some - but not all - production lots. You should not simply substitute it for 680 without working up as though it were a wholly different powder - because it is.
Finally, the fallacy of most burn rate charts is that the interval between adjacent numbers can be no change at all (as with truly identical powders), a tiny gap or a huge change in burn rate. You cannot tell in any way whether the gap between (purely for example) #125 and #126 is the same, smaller or larger than the gap between #126 and #127. Worse, depending on the source and the testing involved, powders can and do change many places on different charts!
And steve4102: I've tried your load of 15/2400 only with a 40 gr. Berger bullet. It does shoot good in my rifle but no better than the RL7 load and those Bergers are a bit costly.
I just loaded 10 rounds with the LEE .329 bullets and 19.5 grains of AA1680 (3.1cc with LEE dipper). Now I just need a warm day to try them. They fed through the Steyr wonderfully. Just a note: I did not load them blithely, I loaded them slowly and carefully[:D]. I will report back when I try them (if I am still able). It may be a week or two until I report.
I shot them yesterday @ 50yds. For 5 shots, 3 shots in 2", spread 6". 5 more shots, 4 shots in 2", spread 3.5". Primers were still rounded, flattened slightly near crater. Cases had small amount of soot on outside. Recoil was about 35 Rem level so I would estimate pressure at about 30,000 to 35,000 CUP. There was no delayed ignition or other undesirable effects. I did tip them up before loading so the powder was against the primer but then fed them in horizontal and shot. The loading density for these loads was about 30% so I would not buy AA1680 to use in the 8X56R, but it works OK. I will continue to use these as a moderate plinking load. For deer hunting , maybe I will try to increase in 0.5 grain increments until primers are significantly flattened or my shoulder tells me to stop, whichever comes first.
Thanks, Travis