TAC vs. H4895 for 223

[mshootnit]

I just pulled a bunch of 64 gr. Power Point bullets and going to load these up with either TAC or H4895. These will be shot through both a 16" AR and a Ruger M77. Which of these two powders would you recomend in this situation? These are huntung loads, If I could hit a blue rock at 220 yds three times in a row I would be happy.

 

[Charlie98]

That's very nearly a 'pick 'em' choice. If you will be hunting in very cold weather, I'd probably be more inclined to pick the H4895, for it's temperature stability.

 

[rfwobbly]

I shot IMR 4895 side by side with TAC in my AR testing some years ago. The IMR 4895 was far superior in its ability to group. So much so that I sold my 8 lb keg of TAC shortly thereafter. TAC at 100 yards looked like a shotgun pattern board.

But that does not say that H4895 is anything like IMR 4895.

 

[Palladan44]

TAC at 100 yards looked like a shotgun pattern board.

Geeze Louise, that's bad. Was velocity spread all over to cause that?

 

[MarshallDodge]

I shot IMR 4895 side by side with TAC in my AR testing some years ago. The IMR 4895 was far superior in its ability to group. So much so that I sold my 8 lb keg of TAC shortly thereafter. TAC at 100 yards looked like a shotgun pattern board.

But that does not say that H4895 is anything like IMR 4895.

I've never seen a powder change cause something that drastic. I would have confirmed load data before continuing.

I've had great success with both TAC and H4895. As mentioned, H4895 is an extreme powder and is going to be less sensitive to temperature changes, but inside of 300 yards, the average shooter won't see the difference.

 

[Charlie98]

I've had great success with both TAC

I have too... it's my new favorite rifle powder, and I've been doing a fair amount of testing with it to see if it really delivers. It is currently giving IMR4064 a run for it's money, accuracy wise, in my .308 Savage 10TAC with the 168grn SMK, something IMR4895 couldn't keep up with. I'll be finalizing those tests this next week, then likely moving on to 5.56mm.

 

[DMW1116]

With respect to TAC, it seems good for lighter bullets. I haven’t tried heavier ones. I did a retest with it and a 52 grain Barnes Match Burner. 6 shots over 3 charge weights landed just under 1.2”. I’ll use it until I run out and the decide if I need more. The IMR powders generally seem good but are real $$$ now.

 

[MarshallDodge]

With respect to TAC, it seems good for lighter bullets. I haven’t tried heavier ones. I did a retest with it and a 52 grain Barnes Match Burner. 6 shots over 3 charge weights landed just under 1.2”. I’ll use it until I run out and the decide if I need more. The IMR powders generally seem good but are real $$$ now.

TAC works well with heavy bullets in 223.

I have had really good success with 69 grain bullets and a friend has with 77 grain.

 

[Triggernosis]

TAC is pretty doggone temperature stable, in my experience.

 

[Blue68f100]

Here is a couple of my targets using 52gr SMK and 26.1-26.2gr TAC, 2.225" OAL, LC-15 and Lapula brass, shot groups at 100 yrds.

The black dot is 1/2" next ring 1", 2" outer Sillen barrel

The white diamond is 1" square

Kreiger Barrel


TAC is a very good powder for light bullets.

 

[GW Staar]

I shot IMR 4895 side by side with TAC in my AR testing some years ago. The IMR 4895 was far superior in its ability to group. So much so that I sold my 8 lb keg of TAC shortly thereafter. TAC at 100 yards looked like a shotgun pattern board.

But that does not say that H4895 is anything like IMR 4895.

I wish I was the lucky guy who got the 8 lb keg of TAC. I have 4 lbs and wish I had bought 50 back when it was cheap as dirt.....iMR 4895 too for that matter....