308 thick ADI brass!

[Vince24]

Hi mates

So I was looking into reloading for a Lee No 4 in 308w.

I have tons of ADI 308w brass following a deal where I could get that factory ammo at $85c. (FMJ 147gn).

Problem, I have heard this brass has limited internal capacity.

And indeed, I have measured 6 cases and they range from 53.2gn to 54.4gn with an average of 54gn,
Way below average of other brands, often in the 56 or + zone.
The ADI brass weighted an average of 189.1 grains, compared to some PPU brass which weighted 179 grains.

With that case capacity, GRT, the reloading software, swears I am going to blow my face up if I go to the upper range of the ADI reloading data for 2208 and a 150gn bullet, being 47 grains.

I plan to use the Hornady 3037 FMJ 150gn projectile, seated at 2.8', probably testing loads from 42 to 44 grains. That sounds very low compared to usual 308w loads on the net, but I have a family and need to keep my face in one piece;)

Any experience, or advice you may have?

Cheers
Vincent

[bladeracer]

Hi mates

So I was looking into reloading for a Lee No 4 in 308w.

I have tons of ADI 308w brass following a deal where I could get that factory ammo at $85c. (FMJ 147gn).

Problem, I have heard this brass has limited internal capacity.

And indeed, I have measured 6 cases and they range from 53.2gn to 54.4gn with an average of 54gn,
Way below average of other brands, often in the 56 or + zone.
The ADI brass weighted an average of 189.1 grains, compared to some PPU brass which weighted 179 grains.

With that case capacity, GRT, the reloading software, swears I am going to blow my face up if I go to the upper range of the ADI reloading data for 2208 and a 150gn bullet, being 47 grains.

I plan to use the Hornady 3037 FMJ 150gn projectile, seated at 2.8', probably testing loads from 42 to 44 grains. That sounds very low compared to usual 308w loads on the net, but I have a family and need to keep my face in one piece;)

Any experience, or advice you may have?

Cheers
Vincent

Just start nearer the start loads, and measure velocity if you have a chronograph, then work up if you need to. Does the No.4 action let you load longer than the 2.800" standard?

147gn M80 NATO should run around 2800fps in a 22" barrel. No.4 Rifle should be a 25" barrel so you should see higher than that at mil spec if you want to push it that high.

[Vince24]

I will need to check the maximum OAL but normally the Hornady 3037 is a 2.7' in a 308w case so I suspect 2.8' will already be above the groove.
But yes, if I can make it longer I will - I suspect the land is far anyway (need to get the bloody OAL gauge).

The more I get into reloading, the more complicated it seems;) now I have to weight or measure cases! Bloody ADI brass. And I have 1000 of them Well once I will have shot those anyway. I should dismantle one of those rounds and see what's the powder load. Any way to know which powder is ADI using??

No chrony but GRT gives 2.820 feet/s with the 44 grain load - which remains well under max pressure even if my smallest capacity case, but this is 102% full case.

Quite fascinating this software - or would be if I could be sure of its reliability.

[wanneroo]

Possibly what it is, is 7.62 NATO brass. 7.62 NATO has about 1.5g less case capacity than 308.

[No1Mk3]

G'day Vince24,
All military 7.62x51 NATO brass has thicker cases around the web to ensure reliability in full automatic weapons under all conditions, as such they have smaller capacity than commercial 308W brass. Depending on age, F4 would be loaded with AR2206 but modern ADI such as sold by Aus Outdoors would be similar to AR2206H with CCI or Federal primers. You should load at 10% below listed start loads to use in a converted Lee Enfield, they are not as strong an action as a Mauser style and should not be used with full power 308W load data. In all my 7.62 Enfields I try to keep just under F4/M80 performance so load 43.5 of AR2208 or 42.5 of 2206H.

[straightshooter]

Vince24
I second No1Mk3's comments.
From memory, Lithgow proof tested and stamped #4 to 308 conversions had plenty of freebore to moderate peak pressures. However a substantial freebore is not conducive to accuracy as many owners found and some may even admit.
If your 308 #4 is a made up fake or has been rebarreled with a target type chamber then caution is in order.
Stick with 2208 at around 44 grains or less if it improves accuracy.
Just how much extra velocity do you need to make a hole in a target?

[in2anity]

As outlined by previous two comments; DO NOT SHOOT FULLBORE LOADS THROUGH A NO4-762 ACTION.

42.5gr 06H under a 150gr is pushing the envelope, I certainly would not be going north of here, unless you like scrapping (stretching) No4 actions...

42.5gr 06H will fit very comfortably inside any era ADI case...

I personally know two old timers who went counter to this advice, and ran their No4-762s hot, and guess what, over time their actions stretched, go figure. Off to the tip for those particular rifles...

I usually recommend 42gr 06H under a 155gr as a maximum in a No4-762, to give yourself a nice margin of error in the case of an oily chamber. Use whatever case you like.

END.

[bladeracer]

I will need to check the maximum OAL but normally the Hornady 3037 is a 2.7' in a 308w case so I suspect 2.8' will already be above the groove.
But yes, if I can make it longer I will - I suspect the land is far anyway (need to get the bloody OAL gauge).

The more I get into reloading, the more complicated it seems;) now I have to weight or measure cases! Bloody ADI brass. And I have 1000 of them Well once I will have shot those anyway. I should dismantle one of those rounds and see what's the powder load. Any way to know which powder is ADI using??

No chrony but GRT gives 2.820 feet/s with the 44 grain load - which remains well under max pressure even if my smallest capacity case, but this is 102% full case.

Quite fascinating this software - or would be if I could be sure of its reliability.

Ignore the crimp groove if you aren't going to crimp anyway. If you can seat long it will increase the case volume, reducing the pressure and/or allowing more powder.

You don't need an OAL gauge. Drop a bullet into the throat and hold it against the rifling with a pencil or something. Drop a rod (6mm aluminium rod form Bunnings works very well) down the bore onto the point of the bullet, mark the rod level with the muzzle. Remove the bullet, close the bolt (cocked so the striker doesn't stick through the bolt face), drop the rod down onto the bolt face, mark the rod at the muzzle again. Cut a piece of insulation tape an inch long, hold it vertical with the edge against the muzzle and press it sideways against the rod, then fold it around - this easily gives you a measurement accurate to .001" or less. Measurement between the two pieces of tape is the length you can seat a bullet and have it touch the rifling - load shorter than this length with that bullet. You'll have to do this with each different bullet type you use. I'd be very surprised if you can get any 150gn bullet to reach the rifling in the .308.

You don't need to weigh or measure the brass, but you can for peace of mind. I have found no consistent correlation with brass weight and volume so I wouldn't bother weighing them. If you want to measure their water volume use brass already fired in your chamber, neck-sized, and trimmed to length. If you measure new brass it's likely to vary significantly. I think all that you really need is a rough ballpark figure for reference - .308Win is generally considered to hold 56gn of H2O. Donnelly's Handloader's Manual of Cartridge Conversions lists it at 54.07gn H20. Everybody's results will vary depending on their technique and the specific brass they're using. Lots of people use ADI brass with no issues.

Nobody will be able to tell you what powder the manufacturer uses. It'll most likely be one of ADI's own products, and most likely AR2208, but that's only my own guess. AR2206H or AR2208 are good versatile powder choices.

Take the software with a grain of salt, shoot it over a chronograph to confirm the numbers.

[bladeracer]

I have tons of ADI 308w brass following a deal where I could get that factory ammo at $85c. (FMJ 147gn).

If this FMJ stuff is 7.62x51mm rather than .308 then it will have less capacity. And the primers will be crimped. Is the case head stamped "308 Win"?

[in2anity]

I have tons of ADI 308w brass following a deal where I could get that factory ammo at $85c. (FMJ 147gn).

If this FMJ stuff is 7.62x51mm rather than .308 then it will have less capacity. And the primers will be crimped. Is the case head stamped "308 Win"?

I've been using 92 and 93 headstamped ADI brass for SR (save my good Lappy stuff for TR), but it only has "ADI 93" on it. Indeed it's crimped pockets, so you gotta deal with that (fiddly), and also need to use soft primers like Winchester or CCI. The volume is very similar to Lapua 308w brass. The volume is not the limiting factor with No4-762 loads - pressure is the limiting factor.

[No1Mk3]

Just to clarify, and support in2anity's comments, the loads I listed for my Enfields (L39, Sterling Conversions and Ishy 2A1 etc) are the MAX I have worked up to for any of my rifles using original ADI 9.4gr (145g) FMJ. What I load in my Ruger 77 hunting rifle or my TX1200 Parker Hale is another story.

[Vince24]

Thanks for all the good comments, the beginner in reloading much appreciate it!!!

Here is the ammo in question, headstamp is only "16".

IMG_4395.jpg (82.99 KiB) Viewed 3369 times

Haven't dismantled but the load seems to be around 42gn of an unknown powder (weighting the full round minus case weight and projectile). I can hear there is very little space remaining inside! OAL of the ADI round is 2.775. Cases lenght between 2.001 and 2.005 after 1 shot, not neck-seized yet.

The rifle is an LB Lee No4 from 1942, no idea who made the conversion, it has a Sterling mag, feeds very well and shoots well enough at 100m, here below a quick attempt at a 10 shot groups at 100m with the ADI shots. Could be better with a few more attempts I am sure.
The barrel is slightly shorter than a regular 303 barrel.

unnamed (6).jpg (447.05 KiB) Viewed 3369 times

IMG_4396.jpg (92.16 KiB) Viewed 3369 times

10s PPU 174 100m 93-100.jpg (292.12 KiB) Viewed 3369 times

I also gave a quick attempt at 200m, with that same 20cm target which I could barely see at 200m !!

PPU 200m hausse 200m.jpg (566.12 KiB) Viewed 3369 times

(picture title says PPU, but those are actually the ADI, am just too used to always using PPU;)

I'd be happy to reproduce that consistently with my reloads. Planning to shoot at 200m with the club. Not 300m because I find the mag very unconfortable in the prone position - the 303 mag is nice and thick, you can put your hand under it to support the rifle - the 7.62 mag is thin, less comfortable for my shooting style.

On all the points raised

- N1Mk3: yes thank you for confirming: 43.5gn of 2208 is where I was thinking/hoping to settle, doing the ladder test from 42gn to max 44gn for curiosity. So the military rounds were loaded possibly with 2206, but I guess many military barrels would be quite short. My No4 on the other hand has a long barrel, so 2208 makes more sense, right? Plus, I have lot more 2208 than 2206H, so I keep my precious 2206H for the lighter/shorter riflles.

- Straightshooter: you raise a good point about the rebarrelling, maybe the rifle has a tigher tolerance to seating bullets out, than my older military rifles. Will check the point with the OAL gauge.

- Bladeracer: yes for the alternative methodology, but given my in-law has the said OAL gauge, I want to try it! No 308w headstamp on the round. Yes will hot hesitate to seat above (or under) the crimp groove if I can, with the mag. The ADI round at 2.775 seems a perfect fit. Thanks for confirming a 150gn should not hit the land though I'll see that with the OAL gauge hopefully. I never weight my cases in the other calibres. I just did it for those ADI cases because I had read - on that very forum - that there was possibly an issue with their small capacity. I am glad to have investigated, I would have prepared rounds up to 47gn otherwise, just based on teh ADI loading data!!

- Insanity: not planning to shoot 2206H, rather 2208, what's your recommendation? was thinking 43/43.5. On the pressure point, with 43.5gn of 2208, a 53.2gn case (smallest I have measured), and a 2.75 OAL, GRT gives me a pressure of 51,437 psi. That outcome is extremely volatile if I move the parameters. Max pressure for 308w is 60,000. Max pressure for 303 Brit 52,939 psi. Are you saying I should be looking at the latter as a reference? Actually did not think of that.

THANKS EVERYONE AGAIN !!!!

[Vince24]

Actually I have done a quick test (instead of working on my exams lol), I have seated my scapegoat bullet in my scapegoat case at OAL 2.938 (with no powder of course), placed in the mag (it fitted in) closed the bolt, extracted the round. It came out at 2.882. So anything between 2.8' and 2.850 will fit easily in the mag.

with 2.85 OAL and capacity of 53.20, GRT is relaxed till 44.5 grains.

It just warns me: "Guided seating depth of the bullet is too small!"

A warning that disappears under 2.850'.

Really a nice dude, GRT

[bladeracer]

Actually I have done a quick test (instead of working on my exams lol), I have seated my scapegoat bullet in my scapegoat case at OAL 2.938 (with no powder of course), placed in the mag (it fitted in) closed the bolt, extracted the round. It came out at 2.882. So anything between 2.8' and 2.850 will fit easily in the mag.

with 2.85 OAL and capacity of 53.20, GRT is relaxed till 44.5 grains.

It just warns me: "Guided seating depth of the bullet is too small!"

A warning that disappears under 2.850'.

Really a nice dude, GRT

Does GRT know the bearing surface length of the bullet? 150gn .308" bullets are going to vary in length from about .900" up to about 1.350" or so depending on design and material.

[Vince24]

well GRT knows that it's an Hornady 3037, it has the specs of that bullet. It has a pretty impressive database of bullets!
For instance if you select the SST 150gn, it will give the seatinf depth warning only from 2.995 (vs 2.850 with the Hornady 3037).
And it gives higher pressures with the SST.

[in2anity]

- Insanity: not planning to shoot 2206H, rather 2208, what's your recommendation? was thinking 43/43.5. On the pressure point, with 43.5gn of 2208, a 53.2gn case (smallest I have measured), and a 2.75 OAL, GRT gives me a pressure of 51,437 psi. That outcome is extremely volatile if I move the parameters. Max pressure for 308w is 60,000. Max pressure for 303 Brit 52,939 psi. Are you saying I should be looking at the latter as a reference? Actually did not think of that.

Vince, overwhelmingly, NRAA shooters running No4-762 converts will use AR2208. The reason being that it's inherently lower risk than the AR2206H option - i.e. lower density, lower pressure; the window for error is greater. Consider a wet or oily chamber, or a thrower that's slightly out... Put more simply, an accidental full case of 06H will stretch a No4 action, whereas a full case of 08 may not (big maybe; don't do this!).

Consider this; seating your OAL to 2.8" is going to reduce your pressure by a couple of thousand PSI. I tend to err on the longer side to reduce pressure. 2.8" is a popular 7.62x51mm OAL in SR shooting. The magazine wells are nice and long.

Absolutely you should be looking at the 303 spec for your No4-762, NOT 308W. They are not designed to run near 60kpsi. In fact even 50kpsi is scary for me - the anecdotal rule for No4-762 handloads within our association is 45kpsi or lower, which is around 42gr08 or 41gr06H. Some may run a little hotter than this, but considering the sighting system and mechanical accuracy of these old girls, I fail to see the point.

As issued, if she can consistently put x10 into 3moa at 100m in 80 seconds (from a cold bore), then it's a very good shooting rife (for what it is), that will win you a Queens if you are doing your bit.

Hope this helps,
In2.

[bladeracer]

But these rifles were originally put together to be fed commercial or miltary ammo? They weren't built on the proviso you could only feed them reduced handloads were they? Personally I wouldn't be loading it anywhere near full-power factory loads anyway, it's just not necessary for putting holes in paper and banging gongs, or for hunting. They already had long service careers, they're in retirement now, treat them that way.

Vince, overwhelmingly, NRAA shooters running No4-762 converts will use AR2208. The reason being that it's inherently lower risk than the AR2206H option - i.e. lower density, lower pressure; the window for error is greater. Consider a wet or oily chamber, or a thrower that's slightly out... Put more simply, an accidental full case of 06H will stretch a No4 action, whereas a full case of 08 may not (big maybe; don't do this!).

Consider this; seating your OAL to 2.8" is going to reduce your pressure by a couple of thousand PSI. I tend to err on the longer side to reduce pressure. 2.8" is a popular 7.62x51mm OAL in SR shooting. The magazine wells are nice and long.

Absolutely you should be looking at the 303 spec for your No4-762, NOT 308W. They are not designed to run near 60kpsi. In fact even 50kpsi is scary for me - the anecdotal rule for No4-762 handloads within our association is 45kpsi or lower, which is around 42gr08 or 41gr06H. Some may run a little hotter than this, but considering the sighting system and mechanical accuracy of these old girls, I fail to see the point.

As issued, if she can consistently put x10 into 3moa at 100m in 80 seconds, then it's a very good shooting rife, that will win you a Queens if you are doing your bit.

Hope this helps,
In2.

[in2anity]

But these rifles were originally put together to be fed commercial or miltary ammo? They weren't built on the proviso you could only feed them reduced handloads were they?

Can you be more specific Blade? Are you simply implying that handloads can be up to 53kpsi, per the 303 CIP spec?

[in2anity]

Also, the appropriateness of 308w in a 303 action should not be measured purely upon pressures. The critical metric here is bolt thrust. And the 308 has almost 20% more back thrust than 303. By that argument, an average 308w load at 53kpsi is probably equivalent to a 303 load at around 60kpsi, which is more that 10kpsi over the SAAMI spec for 303...

[bladeracer]

But these rifles were originally put together to be fed commercial or military ammo? They weren't built on the proviso you could only feed them reduced handloads were they?

Can you be more specific Blade? Are you simply implying that handloads can be up to 53kpsi, per the 303 CIP spec?

I'm saying that the rifles were built with the intention of using commercial .308 and 7.62x51mm ammo, thus they should be fine with those pressures.

Handloads can go as high or as low as you want to, and most of us don't have any means of measuring chamber pressures.
Some people run their hunting and target rifles above standard ammo pressures for their own reasons, regardless of the damage to their brass and rifles.

[bladeracer]

Also, the appropriateness of 308w in a 303 action should not be measured purely upon pressures as well. The critical metric here is bolt thrust. And the 308 has almost 20% more back thrust than 303. By that argument, an average 308w load at 53kpsi is probably equivalent to a 303 load at around 60kpsi, which is more that 10kpsi over the SAAMI spec for 303...

For sure, but surely they already did all the calculations before they built the rifles?

[in2anity]

For sure, but surely they already did all the calculations before they built the rifles?

Could be wrong, but weren't they were originally converted for 144gr fmj nato ammo? Which i guarantee isn't 53kpsi. OP discovered himself that it's 42gr of powder, even in a 2016 headstamped cartridge. If this is 06H from the factory, I doubt it'll be north of 50kpsi. If it's 08, it'll be south of 50kpsi.

[Vince24]

In any case, my rifle is a wartime Long Branch, so I will not exceed 43.5, starting from 41.5.

Cheers

[Vince24]

In any case, my rifle is a wartime Long Branch, so I will not exceed 43.5, starting from 41.5.

Cheers

[in2anity]

I'm saying that the rifles were built with the intention of using commercial .308 and 7.62x51mm ammo, thus they should be fine with those pressures.

Handloads can go as high or as low as you want to, and most of us don't have any means of measuring chamber pressures.
Some people run their hunting and target rifles above standard ammo pressures for their own reasons, regardless of the damage to their brass and rifles.

We are talking the No4 here? The No4 was not "built" for 308w. They were converted. I'm confused.

[bladeracer]

I'm saying that the rifles were built with the intention of using commercial .308 and 7.62x51mm ammo, thus they should be fine with those pressures.

Handloads can go as high or as low as you want to, and most of us don't have any means of measuring chamber pressures.
Some people run their hunting and target rifles above standard ammo pressures for their own reasons, regardless of the damage to their brass and rifles.

We are talking the No4 here? The No4 was not "built" for 308w. They were converted. I'm confused.

Yes, they were converted by professionals weren't they, people that would've done the calculations and determined that they would work just fine?

[bladeracer]

For sure, but surely they already did all the calculations before they built the rifles?

Could be wrong, but weren't they were originally converted for 144gr fmj nato ammo? Which i guarantee isn't 53kpsi. OP discovered himself that it's 42gr of powder, even in a 2016 headstamped cartridge. If this is 06H from the factory, I doubt it'll be north of 50kpsi. If it's 08, it'll be south of 50kpsi.

No idea, but whatever they were expected to shoot was commercially manufactured somewhere to comply with a standard, right?
They were not converted on the proviso that you only use handloaded reduced load ammo, right?

7.62x51mm NATO is rated at just over 60,000psi, regardless of the bullet weight or velocity. Proof rounds are 75,500psi. Are these actions proofed? If so, to what standard?

The No.4 Rifles were converted to the L8A1 to use _this_ cartridge, not a reduced load. I'm guessing they discovered fairly quickly that this ammo was a bit hot for them so the Ishapore and the AIA designs were strengthened.

The .308Win is rated at 62,000psi - I think .308Win actions are proofed at 82,000psi.

It's probably a safe bet that while they were in service they only ever used NATO ammunition, with perhaps the occasional batch of .308 ammo. But, as with all my milsurps that lived exclusively on full-spec ammo for decades, I don't feed any of them that sort of ammo - there is no reason to. I recommend everybody take it easy on these old rifles, they're not being made any more.

[in2anity]

Yes, they were converted by professionals weren't they, people that would've done the calculations and determined that they would work just fine?

My understanding is they were converted with consideration to the commonwealth 762 NATO ammo available in that era, i.e. 144gr. Not just any 308w available.

[bladeracer]

In any case, my rifle is a wartime Long Branch, so I will not exceed 43.5, starting from 41.5.

Cheers

My No.4 Mk1* is a 1943 Longbranch.
My standard load with the 150gn bullets is 36gn of AR2206H.
I'm using S&B brass for this rifle. Filled to the top it holds 48.9gn of AR2206H.

[bladeracer]

Yes, they were converted by professionals weren't they, people that would've done the calculations and determined that they would work just fine?

My understanding is they were converted with consideration to the commonwealth 762 NATO ammo available in that era, i.e. 144gr. Not just any 308w available.

Yes, that's what I said. 144gn NATO is rated at 60,000psi and proofed at 75,000psi.
Was the NATO rating lower in 1954?
I had a quick Google and didn't find anything to indicate that.