Reduced load for 308

• Jul 30, 2014

• #1

Mattval

Senior Member

Hey yall I would like to Load a reduced 308 load. I was thinking that I could use the bullets I have for my 30-30. 125 and 150 hollow points.
Can anyone give me any advice on loading this please?

And before anyone says anything I want a reduced load just because. I want to use my 30-30 bullets because I have them.

Thanks
Matthew
Gooseneck, GA

 

• Jul 30, 2014

• #2

T

The Longhunter

Banned

For slightly reduced loads, look up loads for the .300 Savage. Same basic case as the .308, just a little shorter. You won't have to worry about load density with these.

 

• Jul 30, 2014

• #3

E

Early-14

Member

Yes, light loads work and works better in some rifles than others. I have used light loads in both the .308 Win. and in the .338 Win Mag. while hunting with my Ruger MK ll SS rifles. All rifles are are not the same so you have to work the loads a little until hit the right one for you need. I WILL NOT give the the loads that I used. However, if you call or contact HODGDON POWDER COMPANY phone number, 913 362 9455. They will help you with the formula to figure the powder, the powder charge, and the bullet weight to fit your needs. Please follow Hodgdons instructions, be safe, shoot well, enjoy life. GOD is good.

 

• Jul 30, 2014

• #4

fishtail

Senior Member

You can't hardly call it a reduced load but I thought I had a good one using 45.0gr of BL-C(2) with a 150gr SP Core-Lokt and a 150gr PSP Core-Lokt, each exiting the barrel at 2465fps. I swear it kicked less than a 30/30.
Both bullets even maintained a 3/4" group at 100 yards, problem was the semi auto wouldn't readily cycle till I got the velocities up to 2625fps with 48.0gr of BL-C(2).
You will need to take into consideration the ogive of the bullets you intend to use and not the overall length when seating the hollow point or round nose bullets.
The bottom bullet is a factory 150gr Remington PSPCL with an OAL of 2.710".
The middle one is a 150gr Remington PSPCL pushed with 48.0gr of BL-C(2), OAL 2.790".
The top one is a 150gr Remington SPCL also with 48.0gr of BL-C(2) OAL 2.640".
Both the top and middle one were barely off the rifling.

 

• Jul 30, 2014

• #5

fishtail

Senior Member

Now if you want some stuff close to sub sonic look at some Trail Boss data.
Their load data ranges from 1176 to 1417fps with a 150gr Nosler bullet.

 

• Jul 30, 2014

• #6

chuckdog

Senior Member

Look no further than H4895. Read the 60% rule, and use only H4895.

I've use SR4759 for even further reduction. It's bulky so it yields good density. It does max out quickly though!

As always, be careful!

https://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/H4895 Reduced Rifle Loads.pdf

 

• Jul 30, 2014

• #7

B

bevills1

Senior Member

Once I loaded some Remington CoreLokt 150 grain round nose 30-30 bullets in my 30-06 using the starting load in my Speer manual, and they performed well on deer. Doing the same for the 308 should work equally well. FYI according to Speer manual #14 starting load for 150 grain 308 load using BLC2 is 40 grains giving muzzle velocity of 2372 fps which is only 50 fps faster than the max 30-30 load for that bullet.

 

• Jul 30, 2014

• #8

Mattval

Senior Member

Thanks for all the good info yall. This is such a good forum. I googled the question on light loads and was sent to a bunch of other forums. I do not know those people. Oddly I trust yall more...

 

• Jul 30, 2014

• #9

Mattval

Senior Member

So what I am thinking of doing is getting one of those Ruger American rifles. I want the compact one with the 18" barrel. Light, handy and I want to shoot reduced 308 loads out of it.

 

• Jul 30, 2014

• #10

Mattval

Senior Member

Thanks for that link and info Chuckdog. You are always reliable.

 

• Jul 31, 2014

• #11

JustUs4All

Slow Mod

Staff member

Interesting load here using Red Dot, good read too.

http://members.shaw.ca/cronhelm/TheLoad.html

 

• Jul 31, 2014

• #12

Big7

The Oracle

Can't go wrong with a Ruger. Even the "American".

They were designed to compete with Savage, Rem, Mossberg
etc..

Having said that: I have posted before a way UNDERLOAD is
worse than an overload.

With an overload, you have a chance of burning excess out of the muzzle.

With an "under load" there is a good possibility of a detonation,
instead of a burn. You don't want that unless you need a face full of rifle parts.

Do some serious research on "detonation" and what is AKA
"flash-over" before you go to low.

I load a lot and have posted some published data on here
NOT any of my personal load data. I can't be responsible.

One thing I will say is this: STAY AWAY from ball and flake powders if you are trying to go low.
To much surface area.

Have to disagree with previous post.

No RED DOT!...

Has it been done? Probably.
Would I do it? NO WAY!

If you are shooting from a bench, might be OK.

If you are in a deer stand and shooting down with
ALL the powder forward, you are going to have a bad day.

Larger cases need a little slower burning powder.

If you are a "newbie", stick with published data.

 

• Jul 31, 2014

• #13

Mattval

Senior Member

I am a newbie. Thanks brotha

 

• Aug 1, 2014

• #14

fishtail

Senior Member

There is a lot of data published by Lyman using Red Dot, Green Dot, Unique, 2400 and other pistol powders in rifle cartridges but for use with cast bullets with gas checks.
Just to pick on Red Dot, the minimum charge of 10.0gr has over a 50% case fill capacity. For a 151gr bullet it spits it out at 1466fps, a 13.0gr charge gets it up to 1730fps. Chamber pressure is 27,600 and 40,700 CUP respectively which is at least 10,000 below the same bullet weight and minimum - maximum charges with "regular" rifle powders.
The reason I've not considered the reduced loads is I'm not yet interested in casting center fire rifle bullets or the jacketed stuff might not perform well at a given impact velocity or I prefer a sub sonic projectile.

 

• Aug 1, 2014

• #15

JustUs4All

Slow Mod

Staff member

Big7 said:

Have to disagree with previous post.

No RED DOT!...

Click to expand...

There is no recommendation in the post previous to yours to either agree or disagree with. There is only a cite to an article that is an interesting read. Do you disagree that the article is where the cite says it is?

 

• Aug 2, 2014

• #16

Big7

The Oracle

Run that again by me in English.

Just stated MY opinion on loading reduced loads for people
new to hand loading.

Hold on, I didn't "cite" anything.

I don't need to. I wrote the book.

Just for fun, "cite" us on about how many rounds YOU have loaded.

That's what I thought.

Get with chuckdog or Buzz and see if they would recommend a way underload with a fast burning
powder to a person new to hand loading?

 

• Aug 2, 2014

• #17

JustUs4All

Slow Mod

Staff member

You need to try to read it all again for comprehension.

 

• Aug 3, 2014

• #18

chuckdog

Senior Member

JustUs4All said:

You need to try to read it all again for comprehension.

Click to expand...

I reckon I need help with your post too.

You may be too smart for many here to understand?
I'm sure Mom's proud and all, but please be mindful of the rest of us.

Maybe dumb it down so's we hicks may comprehend...

 

• Aug 3, 2014

• #19

LittleDrummerBoy

Senior Member

chuckdog said:

Look no further than H4895. Read the 60% rule, and use only H4895.

I've use SR4759 for even further reduction. It's bulky so it yields good density. It does max out quickly though!

As always, be careful!

https://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/H4895 Reduced Rifle Loads.pdf

Click to expand...

Yep, and TrailBoss if you need to go even slower. You can safely get all the way to subsonic with TrailBoss.

I would not recommend Red Dot or other pistol powders with jacketed bullets unless or until they are tried and tested and published by a reliable source with a pressure barrel.

 

• Aug 3, 2014

• #20

JustUs4All

Slow Mod

Staff member

chuckdog said:

I reckon I need help with your post too.

You may be too smart for many here to understand?
I'm sure Mom's proud and all, but please be mindful of the rest of us.

Maybe dumb it down so's we hicks may comprehend...

Click to expand...

OK, no problem.
I posted a link to an article and said that it was an interesting read on a reduced load for .308.
I did not recommend that load and I did not recommend against that load.
The next poster appears to think the load is not a safe one and states that he disagrees with "the post above", that is, mine.
I was pointing out to him that there was nothing in my post to agree or disagree with unless he thought the article was not where I said it was.

I guess he could have been saying that he disagreed that the article was not interesting, but since he discussed it that was obviously not the case.

If he disagrees with the load data suggested in the article, he would need to take that up with the author of it, Mr. C.E. (Ed) Harris. I believe he first published it in the 10th. edition of Handloader's Digest.
I do not consider myself an expert. I loaded my first case in the 1980s and I am not much of an experimenter. Mr. Harris, however, could probably be called an expert as he is widely published and generally respected, but I will leave that to Big7 to argue.

 

Last edited: Aug 3, 2014