M14 Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I had a happy but unexpected situation occur today. I had occasion to go by a gun shop a long ways from home yesterday and picked up some TAC to try out in my Fulton Armory M14. Simultaneously, a friend who knew I was interested in also trying out Varget thoughtfully found and picked up a couple pounds of Varget for me. Okay, now I have powder to burn so to speak.

I need a few recommendations for Varget loads using 168 grain SMKs in LC cases. Looking for accuracy, not max velocity. Yes I know each rifle is unique. Looking for input on what has worked for you with the above components.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
The best I could get out of Varget for my M1A:

168 A-Max, Varget 40.5 grs, CCI #34, LC 07, 2.800", 2523 avg fps, Es=55.61, and Sd=19.07.

That load shot 2 MOA from my rifle to 200 yds. I run Varget exclusively in my .308 bolt guns to great success, but for my M1A I am finding both IMR 4895 and H4895 run better.

Good shooting!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
Varget

I have had great results with Varget.
Hornday Service rifle manual shows 42.7gr as the max load.
I am running 42gr under 168 Amax and like it allot.DI5
This pic was taken when I was working up loads.
100 yd off a bench with scope.
.75 inches that is pretty good in my book.
I started at 41.3 grains and went up to the max.
I shot 5 round groups of each working up in .5 grain intervals.
Crono showed it to be very consistent.
AV 2635/ ES21/ SD7
Happy Shooting.DI5
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,171 Posts
I have found best results in both of my rifles with a load of Varget at 41.0grs in a military case(LC, RA, WCC) with 168's M/V just a tad over 2600fps SD/ES very low.

With 175's a bump 41.5grs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,577 Posts
I am finding both IMR 4895 and H4895 run better.
Any idea how to tell the difference between the two if you don't know which it is? I inherited 3 or 4 paper canisters of "4895" and I don't know which.

It's a stick powder, if that matters.

Of this type of container... also "4831" see below. Any idea?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,142 Posts
Any idea how to tell the difference between the two if you don't know which it is? I inherited 3 or 4 paper canisters of "4895" and I don't know which.
IMR powders seem to be more 'black,' Hodgdon powders are slightly 'brownish.' I think it has to do with the amount of graphite they use.

I understand this is an extraordinarily technical explanation, maybe someone will be along that can offer a better way... GI5

...ah! The link:

http://m14tfl.com/upload/showthread.php?t=94124&highlight=graphite
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
Varget

I really like VARGET. I load in several bolt guns for Prairie Dogs. I load 42.5 grains - 175grain Sierra bullet (moly-coated).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Varget and 168 BTHP

I loaded up a series of 15 rounds each with LC '06 brass, WIN LR primers, LOA 2.800" with 40.5, 41 and 41.5 grains of Varget. The 41.5 just about maxed out the case... not compressed but there isn't but a fraction of a grain's worth of space left in it.

Why only 15 rounds each? Because I've got a pot load of the exact same loads except with various loads of TAC. If the rain/sleet/snow holds off this could be a FUN and enlightening weekend!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
I am with footsoldier. I could not get Varget to do as well as imr4895 in my M1A's. Maybe I did not play with it enough but in the end I don't stock it on the bench anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Varget and TAC Range Report

Had the chance to test out my loads this weekend all the while dodging rain, cold fronts and trudging through mud. Still worth it.

Tested 9 different loads in my FA M14, and the results were somewhat surprising, at least to me. All loads used LC 06 1x-fired cases, WIN LR primers and LOA 2.800" with Hornady 168 BTHP bullets, 5-shot groups for each round, iron sights. I tried:
TAC 39, 39.5, 40, 40.5, 41 grains;
Varget 40.5, 41, 41.5 grains;
AA2520 39 grains (old standby)

Overall, the TAC really did the best for me, 39-40.5 grains gave <1.5" groups at 100 yds, but in most groups 3 shots were almost touching with 2 flyers. I suspect this is the fault of my sight picture more than the load. The sun was ducking in and out of the clouds, the temperature dropped 15 degrees during the afternoon, the wind was changing a lot. Really like the 39 grain TAC load. Easy on the rifle and a great grouper. Started getting traces of primer flattening at 40.5-41 grains of TAC. I also noticed some of the primers beginning to back out in some rounds. I'll have to keep an eye on this. Added bonus... the TAC burns very clean. Really like this powder.P_G

I had high expectations for the Varget, but it was a disappointment. The rifle consistently gave me groups slightly larger and more scattered than the TAC, typically 2-2.5" groups. Started getting slight primer flattening at 41-41.5 grains. Best I can say is the rifle seemed indifferent to the Varget... acceptable but not respectable. It burned cleanly, but the perceived recoil was greater than the TAC.

The AA2520 is a tested load, it grouped like the TAC with <2" groups at 100 yds, with several holes touching, only it burns a little dirtier.

Overall I had a great time despite the weather. The Varget purchase is not a loss at all as my M1 prefers Varget, with AA2520 a close second. My load development over the last few months has been instructive, as I learned my rifle prefers powder charges at the lower end of published ranges.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top