duPont 700-X Powder

[DWalt]

This evening, I ran across a pound can of duPont 700-X, the original stuff. It was something I used for shotshell loading almost 30 years ago when I did a lot of trap shooting. I have a little reloading data from some older handbooks for its use in various handgun cartridges, but I have personally used it only for shotshells. It looks good, no signs of deterioration.

From what I see, it appears to be ballistically similar to Red Dot and 231, and I think I'll probably just treat it much like 231, since I almost always load to the lower end of the range. I'll start off by loading my usual light .44 Special loads - 180 grain lead flat point with 6 grains of 700-X. Any problems anticipated with that?

 

[muddocktor]

DWalt, I would go with the Hodgdon data on the 700-X powder off their reloading data site. Since Hodgdon is the distributor for all IMR, Winchester and Hodgdon branded products, it seems they have moved some powders around to different company names. But I would think powder still labeled as 700-X to be at the same basic burn rate and powder charges, no matter the company name on the bottle.

With that said, the Hodgdon data tables show 44 Special loads ranging from 4.8-5.4 grains for 185 grain LRNFP bullets to 4.3-4.9 grains for 240 grain LSWC bullets. So 6 grains might be on the hot side for 44 Special.

 

[RobertJ.]

I've only shot it in the .38 Special. A couple years ago, it was the only fast-burning handgun powder I could find. I had lots of Unique, but wanted the classic target load, 2.8/BE with a 148 gr. HBWC. I settled for 700X. I hadn't used it before, but now, I'd rate it along side Bullseye and Red Dot for a .38 Special target powder. In fact, I stocked up on that, and have BE and RD as my back-up target powders.

I tried 800X also, and now that's my main .44 target load powder.

 

[MichiganScott]

I've used it for years in .38 Special and light .357 loads. I used to use it primarily for skeet and light hunting loads and have burned untold pounds of it.

Like Muddocktor said, your proposed load needs to be backed off a bit.

 

[DWalt]

"So 6 grains might be on the hot side for 44 Special. "

I use it in a Model 29, so hotness is not an issue. My typical .44 load is 6 grains of Bullseye which is mild in a M29, my old CAS load in a Ruger Blackhawk. I did find some 700-X loading data for .45 ACP, will use some for that also. Just trying to use up some of the old stuff I didn't know I had. I even found some old Hodgdon H240, which I'll use up somehow. That's really old stuff.

 

[rwsmith]

The web site is the best bet...

But I do see some 700-x load data in my Lyman 49th.

 

[OKFC05]

I don't know why you are guessing at 44 Special data with 700-X
when it is here:
Set your sights on pistol reloading data | Hodgdon Reloading

 

[alwslate]

I've used 700X in 12 ga Trap loads and 38 spl handgun loads. Burn
rate seems much closer to Bullseye and Red Dot than 231 in my
experience. Your load of 6 grs with a 180 gr cast bullet in the 44 spl is
very mild. Speer #13 goes to 6.4 grs Bullseye, 6.2 grs 700X and 6.0
grs Red Dot with a 200 gr cast FN bullet and 6.3 grs Bullseye and 700X
with a 200 gr JHP in the 44 spl. They state that all loads are within
the pressure limits of 15,500 psi for 44 spl. 700X was one of the IMR
powders that Hogdon now markets. I very seriously doubt that Hogdon
has done any load development on their own with 700X.

 

[Wise_A]

But I would think powder still labeled as 700-X to be at the same basic burn rate and powder charges, no matter the company name on the bottle.

I would not, unless I had some paper verification that the formula didn't change.

There are a few powders out there with the same name. IMR and Accurate come to mind--4350 and 4064, iirc.

Long story short, assume nothing.

 

[Beemer-mark]

Why not give Hodgdon a call and ask them if it's the same.

 

[Ed Fowler]

I used to buy it is 7 lb cans, it is one powder the is easy to get in my area and as good as any, have been using it for years. I doubt there have been any significant changes but as always start out low and find the load that your pistol likes. 3.5 g in my 9mms with 122 gr TC cast lead is my most accurate load.

 

[flintsghost]

excellent powder in 45ACP and Auto Rimmed. I used it for target loads for years. I only switched to 452AA later when it came out but I keep 700X for a backup since 452AA has long since been discontinued. I'm fortunate enough to have several pounds left. 5.2 grains of either does the job with a 200 grain H&G 68.

 

[AveragEd]

Back in the 1970s when I started shooting trap competitively, I used 700X. It was horribly smoky - on a calm night under the lights, we often had to stop shooting if three of the five persons on the squad were using it. But as I recall, later lots of it weren't as smoky.

I stopped using it when three eight-pound cans of it had pieces of wood in with the powder. They sometimes would block the charge bar of my loader from moving and result in soft loads as there would a lower amount of powder in the hulls.

Ed

 

[Skeet 028]

I sold but did not use much 700X mainly because it was terribly smoky. The predecessor was Hi Skor. and before that P-5066. Dupont changed the formula of 700X way back in the 70s to get rid of the smoke and the burning speed ramped up a little as it was able to be used in the 20 and even the 28 ga. in the original formula. Hasn't been a 28 ga powder since. Some light 20 ga loads If the powder is only 30 yrs old it is the newer formula. Use it with new Hodgdon data.. Or even easier just call Hodgdon on Monday.

BTW if you have the can and it has the lot number on it..It may have A lot such as P86JU22A with a 4 or 5 digit number after. Meaning in this case Packaged 1986 June 22 A shift with the lot. This was told to me by an engineer for the Dupont Powder Co way back in the 80s They had different numbering before the later 70s IIRC

 

[DWalt]

Looking through a pile of old stuff, I found an old (10/1990) IMR (post-duPont) reloading guide (51 pages) with many recipes for using 700-X (and other IMR powders such as 800-X, SR7625, SR4756, etc.) in handgun loads. Most 700-X charge weights appear to be very similar to Bullseye loads for the same cartridges and bullets. So I assume Bullseye and 700-X are very similar ballistically. And in some cases, a little lower charge weights than Bullseye. Anyway, there is enough data to allow me to interpolate to get some reasonable loads for anything between .38 Special and .45 Colt. The bulk of the booklet (about 80%) concerns shotshell loads, much less rifle and handgun loads.

 

[Wise_A]

I wouldn't be comfortable doing that at all, but you'll be standing a lot closer than me.

The issue I'd have isn't with finding book data for 700-X, it's being certain that nothing changed in between du Pont and IMR.

I've used 700-X, more or less successfully, in .38 Spl and .45 ACP. It's usually worked adequately--aside from trying to get it to cycle a 1911 with 185-gr plated HBRNs, which was odd. It's never been the best powder for anything, but it's never been bad.

One of these days I'll have to throw it into .44 Magnum and see. But I don't have any straight data on 180/185s, so it'll have to go under the 240s I currently push with Unique.

 

[DWalt]

I took some of my 700-X loads out to shoot over the 4th of July weekend. All following results used a 180 grain flat-point Cowboy bullet from Missouri Bullet Co. and 6.0 grains of duPont 700-X (the old stuff). All were 10 shots each in a .44 Magnum Model 94 Trapper carbine (16" barrel) and also in a .44 Magnum Ruger Super Blackhawk (4-3/4" barrel - shortened). All loads were made up in .44 Special cases.

M94 Carbine: Average MV = 1117 ft/sec, SD = 19 ft/sec
Ruger S. Blackhawk: Average MV = 924 ft/sec, SD = 16 ft/sec

Regarding smoke, there was very little observed. Grouping was very good at 25 yards, but I did not measure it. For many years my standard SASS Cowboy load was identical, but using 6.0 grains of Bullseye rather than 700-X in these same guns. As near as I can remember, MVs were pretty close.

 

[Ed Fowler]

Sounds like performance was excellent, thanks for the report.