I finally put in an order for 2,000 pulled MagTech 147 grain ball bullets, now I'm figuring out which other components I should get with all these free Hazmat offers on the net. I've got a growing pile of Korean 7.62 NATO brass I'm going to start processing, so I was curious what everyone uses to replicate/improve upon a standard M80 ball style load. The main use is cheap practice rounds for my three battle rifles, nothing to special. I like to keep CCI primers and IMR 4350 around for other loads and purposes, is there any particular things worth getting besides?

Do a search for .308/ 7.62 NATO you will find 20+ powders that will cycle any semi auto rifle, take your pick. Need more?

I use 4 or 5 different powders in the same gun. Can't feel much of a difference.

Another alternative you might try is the 155gr PALAMA load I use match brass so you may need to fiddle with the charge a little. 47.0 gr Varget Federal 210M primer and Sierra 155gr Palma bullet (product #2156). This is a safe 2900fps in a 26" bolt action and I get 1.5 to 2" groups at 500 yards (1/4" or usually way less at 100yds). It has BC's like a 175 and recoil like a 147! (The load data is from Hodgdon, but it really works!) I shoot from a detachable magazine, so my OAL is as long as 1/16" (1.5mm) clearance allows!

Ivan

IMO, 4350 is too slow for most gas systems. You want something a bit faster like 4895. Just a note on pulled bullets, mic them. They are often swaged down &/or over crimped in the original bullet seating. This makes for an inaccurate bullet.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

I'm old so I like the older powders.
First I would go with IMR-4064, then IMR or H4895. BL-C(2) is also a good choice for bulk loading of 7.62 NATO ammo since it meters so well.

Of course if you are going to load a lot of ammo you will probably want to buy powder in bulk. I suggest WC 846 Surplus powder, but 2X or 4X 8lb jugs, mix them well and work up a few loads you won't have to change for a good while. It will save you a good bit of money.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Screw the pulled bullets . You can find new 147 - 150gr FMJ for not much more like the Hornady 147 FMJ & if you buy in bulk they're even cheaper . I use them & Ramshot TAC or H4895 in all my 7.62 battle rifles .

These are the official Lake City AAP loads for the M80 (7.62x51mm NATO) with the 147(-3) grain bullet:

Early load = 41 grains of IMR 4475 (equivalent ballistically to IMR 3031, but IMR 4475 granules are smaller)
Current load = 46 grains of WC846 (BL-C(2) is the equivalent canister propellant to WC846). WC846 also is available as surplus propellant.

M80 mean MV = 2750 +/-30 ft/sec at 78 feet. CCI 7.62mm NATO-Spec #34 Military Primers are recommended.
COAL = 2.80"-0.03"

Like said above,4350 is a little too slow for 7.62X51.Some even report damage to the piston done on some type of guns altough I don't remember which model they were referring to.
4895 ,4064,Varget and quite a few others are best suited for the job.

My data matches DWalt's but I also have 41.5 gr of IMR8138 and 149gr FMJ for a third variation of M80.

I think M80A1 is loaded with SMP842 powder but don't quote me on that.

When I was shooting matches I used H4895. 147 grain Winchester
overrruns, LG rifle primers (CCI first and then Remingtons) and Lake
City 68 cases. Chronograph checked velocity was 2660 fps. Ran the M1A fine and was accurate.

I miss NRA Highpower Matches. If my chronic diseases were to
disappear overnight, I'd be shooting them again this spring. I'd be
creaking my way to the line and the targets, but I'd do it.

I bought my lot at a price of 13 cents per bullet including shipping. But as I've been warned, I better measure my bullets when they come to see if they aren't that super cheap for a reason. I'm either stumbling into a great deal or I'm going to be taught a tough lesson in the nature of greed.

I was thinking IMR 4895, so I'm going to restock on some and try it out. Good recommendations here and elsewhere on forums I've checked, and its an old military powder. Plus I like the old IMR series anyhow. I've never heard of 4350 being too slow for autoloaders, I'll remember that and avoid it. Might have to mull getting some of that ball powder for a try sometime, do some real testing when the bench is out and the snow melts. The nearest store is 80 miles by road so I better get a list of this and that I want to try before I end up taking a trip.

If the bullets are swaged and smooshed, I'll come back to complain about it here where nobody is at fault.

My Springfield M1A likes BLC-2 or H335, which I use pretty much interchangeably (as available during the availability drought of recent years), at 47.0 grains with the 147 FMJ-BT. Same point of aim and point of impact as GI ball ammo. No functioning problems.

This is a moderate load, not maximum as shown in my manuals, but you will want to start off at 44.0 or so and work up for your rifle, brass, bullets, etc.

Most likely your pulled bullets will be just fine for what you intend to do. I have shot thousands of pulled bullets in various calibers, weights, etc. for general shooting. If I am building match or precision long range, I use the best bullet I can buy.
4895, 748 or RL 15 is what I use to replicate M80 ball, buying 147 fmj’s in bulk. Cranked out 5,000 308 ball loads recently on my Dillon 650. Got a batch of 223 ball to load and then, I will be ready for spring.

I have also had good results with pulled bullets. Can't tell the difference in function or accuracy.

Would have helped if the OP had specified what gas systems were in play. M1, best stick with the loads listed in post #3. 4350 by any maker will bend the op rod. I'm surprised 3031 didn't make that list (39 gr with 150 gr bullet) , but the data is still good.

The FN FAL/SLR has an infinitely adjustable gas system, should be able to make almost anything work, but 4350 is still best avoided.

The explanation of the vented revolver barrel in post 3 is a bit strange. Basically, the test barrel is vented by a gas port to provide the equivalent of a cylinder gap, the barrel doesn't have an actual gap.

Good info and thanks for posting it. My DPMS 24" Bull loves this stuff. I chrono'd with LabRadar and at 30yds, average velocity was 2808, so your info looks to be spot on.

Do you have the BC for the 149gr? I've only been able to find it for the 147.

I run an M1a, SA58 FAL, and a PTR91/G3. The M1a is always the issue with potential damage to the gas system with its preferred range, the FAL does indeed have a nice ability to adjust but a standard M80ish round will keep it on the same setting for laziness, and the G3 is just plain tough as nails and no gas system to worry about. The purpose, especially at this time of year with the snow, is simple offhand rapid fire. Doesn't need super accuracy, just needs to work and not hurt anything. Gotten into the practice of shooting a little 22lr pistol and rifle as well as at least 5 rounds of centerfire combat rifle every day off the front porch to keep proficiency.

I feed cheap steel through my AKM and C93 on their days of selection, factory new brass ammo through my M-16 clone. But at a minimum of 20 rounds a week of 7.62 NATO the savings in reloading are worth it. Cheap reloads will work just fine, and avoid any potential issues with steel cases and mostly premature barrel wear doing these types of rapid fire drills with cheap steel jacket bullets.

An article by P.G. Wrighter in EAGLE magazine, June, 1982, "SHORT CUTS FOR SURVIVAL HANDLOADING" has a lot of good info. The roller locked bolt of the German G3/HK91 works best with a faster suitable powder, like Reloder 7 or H335. Powders slower than IMR-4895 have more residual chamber pressure, which causes more case expansion. I used 43.0 grs. H335 with any bullet 150grs. or less in military brass in my Hecker & Koch HK91 with no issues. This works well in all rifles I have tried it in.

Just as a follow up, I pulled a couple 1980 M118LR rounds and checked the powder charge. 42.5 gr of a stick powder with grains ever so slightly shorter than IMR 4064. Never having seen Varget, it might be that, but the velocity out of my 26 inch barrel is significantly faster than the chart above shows.

BTW, all the sources I've ever seen show the load with the 175 gr SMK always identified as M118LR. Special Ball doesn't appear in /the labels and apparently was applied to the 168 gr M118 load before it was designated as M852.

Now then, the 173 gr match bullet started out with the .30-06. It's easily identified by a pronounced meplat. It also became the standard military match bullet when the DOD converted to 7.62 x 51 mm. Published load M118 data back in them thar days was 40 gr of IMR 4895 at an OAL of 2.800 inches, plus 0.010 inches tolerance.

My Lake City information says that the M118 LR uses approximately 44 grains of a propellant called WC750. I didn't try to look up WC750 to see if there is an equivalent canister powder. But I would guess that is something like Reloader 15 or 4064. Bullet is 175 grains +/- 0.5 grains, with a stated V of 2580 ft/sec +/- 30 ft/sec at 78 feet. But the test barrel length is unstated. Probably the same length as the M40 or M24 rifles it's used in, 24"

The above powder charge weights are just nominal charges. The critical standard is the velocity at 78 ft.

For more practical chronograph purposes, with the 147 gr bullet in question, that works out to a velocity of 2800 fps at 5 yards.

I'd start with BL-C(2) at 45.5 grains and work up to the specified velocity.


It's complicated but M118 Special Ball was just late production M118 Match after M852 Match was introduced as the new Match load.

There was also an M118 Match load using the 168gr SMK, but it was an unofficial load where the 173 gr FMJBT was pulled and replaced with a 168 gr SMK, and it was called "Mexican Match".

-----

The complicated version of the story and the evolution of M118:

The original XM118 Match load used a match grade military case produced by Lake City, the No. 43 primer, a nominal charge of 42 grains of IMR 4895, with the same 173 gr FMJBT used in M72 match ammo and a velocity of 2550 fps (100 fps slower than .30-06 M72 Match). XM118 Match was introduced at the 1964 National Matches, the first time match grade M14s competed against Match grade M1 Garands.

The subsequent M118 Match load used either a nominal charge of 44 grains of WC 846 powder or a nominal charge of 42 grains of IMR 4895, with IMR 4895 being used exclusively by 1970. M118 Match was well regarded in terms of accuracy and was used with great success in Vietnam in M40 and M21 sniper rifles.

The problem with M118 was three fold. By the early 1970s the tooling used to make the 173 gr FMBT was getting worn and the bullet weight varied by as much as 2 grains. Lake City also started loading it in a standard case rather than match case, and started using the No 34 and No 36 primers rather than the No 43. The end result is that the accuracy of M118 Match degraded to around 2 MOA.

Back when I shot service rifle competition, I found that the issued M852 shot quite well in my M1A (1 MOA), while issued M118 Match would hold 1 MOA with a good lot and as much as 3 MOA if you got a bad lot - when you needed at least 1.5 MOA to be competitive. Ironically enough I also found that the M72 Match was consistently accurate, mostly due to being made before the bullet tooling was excessively worn. The newest M72 Match I ever saw was made in 1969. Operationally speaking, as M118 Match quality degraded sniper units needed to test and select more accurate lots of M118 Match , which could shoot 1 MOA or a bit better in an M40 or M24.

The USMC maintained a sniper program after Vietnam while the Army did not, so the US Army Marksmanship unit had to carry the Army's weight in rifle and ammo development. They also found the M118 Match ammo to be lacking and also found that pulling the 173 gr FMJBT bullet and seating a 168gr Sierra Match King produced much better results back down around 1 MOA again in an M14 or M1A, and this was called "Mexican Match". This led to the development and adoption of M852 Match ammo using the 168gr SMK in a match case with the No 43 primer in the early 1980s.

The problem was that the 168gr SMK used a hollow point bullet, and while not designed to expand, the legal opinion at the time was that M852 Match violated the Hague Accords and could not be used in combat.

Since M852 was the new match load, M118 Match was renamed M118 Special Ball. However it had the same quality problems as the late production M118 Match but it soldiered on until M852 was approved to sniper use in the early 1990s. Even then, M852 wasn't ideal as the 168gr SMK was designed for 300 meter international competition and had a 13 degree boat tail that didn't transition well to sub sonic velocities, and at the M852s rather low 2550 fps velocity, it wasn't all that accurate past 700 yards at a time when the effective range of an M24 or M40 was considered to be 800.

This led to the development by the USMC in 1993 of a new sniper round. This used a 175 gr bullet developed by Sierra using the same 9 degree boat tail as the 173 gr FMJBT. They also increased the velocity to 2,580 fps. It was a new round, but calling it a new round would require a new type classification and acceptance trials that would cost more time and money than the USMC wanted to spend, so it was called the M118 Special Ball Long Range, or M118LR. The round used what became the 175 gr SMK, a match case, a No 43 primer, and a nominal charge of 44 grains of WC 750 and it went into full production in 1998. M118LR pushed the effective range of the M40 and M24 variants out to 1000 yards.

M118LR was accurate but the propellant proved to be too temperature sensitive. The result was the US Navy SPecial Warfare Center started developing a replacement, testing 15 different bullets and 20 different powders, before selecting the same 175 gr SMK. They also farmed production out to Federal, which uses a Gold Medal Match case, and a Federal Match primer, with a powder that I strongly suspect is RL-15 or a close copy.

The new round then got a new twist on the old name for the same reason the USMC stuck with the M118 classification - M118 Special Ball Long Range Mk 316 Mod 0, or just plain Mk 316 for short. It's half MOA accurate and is temperature stable with a change in velocity of only 21 fps from -25 F to 165 F, compared to 227 fps with M118LR.

The 1980 M118LR I mentioned is LC production, in match cases. I expect the powder is subject to change for a variety of reasons. Weight of the charge is going to vary by burning rate of the lot of powder in use.

I use IMR 4064 in my 7.62 loads and you exceed pressure limits with 44 grains in a mil-spec case with the 175 gr SMK. At least judging by WW LR primers.

I have an alleged spec for RL/RE 15, it's boringly consistent at 2631 f/s @ 15 feet, but the (commercial) primers are flat. One lot of brass produced excessive case head expansion. I don't use it anymore. OTOH, AR Comp is interesting. By 7.62 load data, faster than 4064, very close to 4895.

Got my first batches of rounds ready, after all the pocket reaming and straightening out mangled case mouths from the G3 and carefully measuring powder for the first tests with IMR 4895. I've been hoping the snow melts so I can set up my 100 yard paper to be scientific as possible, and while I wait I'm getting an order with a Lee factory crimp die in case I start trying lead bullets. Which leads me to one more question....

When making mil style ammunition, should one consider crimping these rounds too? May decrease accuracy, but is it a consideration with the rounds being slammed in a combat rifle action, especially with the cannelure already in the bullet? If so, to what extent should i crimp it? When I crimp lead rifle bullets I try my best to simply take out enough belling to help them chamber nicely, but for this would putting some pressure on it be a good or bad idea?