4759 vs 5744

  • 493 Views
  • Last Post 2 weeks ago
Qc Pistolero posted this 4 weeks ago

My stash of 4759 is quickly melting down from extensive use in my 45-70.Since I can have some 5744 by the 5 pounder at a bargain price,I was wondering if anybody replaced the former by the latter and what is your commentary about it.

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
45 2.1 posted this 4 weeks ago

I never had as good of groups with 5744 then I have with 4759. The last time they discontinued 4759, I got caught with 16 pounds and couldn't find anymore....... when they started making it on this go around I solved that little problem.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Bud Hyett
Tom Acheson posted this 4 weeks ago

I had a friend I shot with at NRA BPCR silhouette matches. He was sensitive to recoil. His rifle was a C. Sharps Model 74 in .38-55. He swore by 18.0 of 5744.

As I began my recent journey with a Rolling Block in 38-55, I focused on 5744. But then I stumbled on a .38-55 thread on the ASSRA forum where 300MP was preferred for that chambering. That got me thinking so I first tried it in my Savage bolt action in .308 Winch at a CBA match and it worked great. Then I started messing around with it in my Roller. 17 grains with a 335 grain bullet shoots well. But...be sure to use magnum rifle primers. 

300MP meters very well and is currently available. Some call it a slow version of H-110. 

Might be worth a try......have fun!

Tom

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Bud Hyett posted this 4 weeks ago

My experience with SR 4759 was good in calibers from .308 to .45-70. The problem was they would quit producing it. When we beat on the manufacturer and finally got SR 4759 back in production, the powder was the same for loading and accuracy. 

My experience with 5744 was lot-to-lot variation. There was an original formulation that varied greatly lot-to-lot, then they ceased production. When they reintroduced the powder, it was a different formulation with the same burning rate and energy content. This formulation was better for lot-to-lot variance.

Neither formulation shot as well as SR 4759. 

Not to be a heretic, but in frustration, I dropped both and went to Reloder #7 for medium-bore and large-bore loading. Even with mid-range loads, there was the same accuracy and it was available. I load the .45-70 for several rifles from 1100 fps to 1800 fps with this powder and get good accuracy. When I had a .38-55, Reloder #7 was a good powder there, but the powder burned dirty when breech-seated.

Country boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

Wineman posted this 4 weeks ago

I tried 5744 about a year ago against Alliant 2400 and Varget in 30-06. In the recommend range, it threw keyholes and flyers. I was told that it now needs serious pressure to burn correctly. I believe I have the third production plant product (Czech?). SR 4759 was like an old friend. Sometimes you did not see them for years, but when you did it was like you saw each other yesterday. RIP my so useful pal. I too have some Rx7 and need to see where it falls in the pantheon of powders.

Dave

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
  • RicinYakima
lotech posted this 4 weeks ago

A quick glance through my notes shows me that I've developed about as many accurate loads with 5744 as I have with SR4759 over many years of loading for .30-40 Krag, .308, and .30-06. I did not review data for the other cast bullet rifle cartridges I load for but don't shoot often - .32-40, .38-55, and .45-70. 

I'll agree that SR4759 may be the single best powder for many rifle cartridges using cast bullets. However, with judicious load development, I'm pretty sure SR4759 results can be duplicated with other powders including 5744, Reloder7, and H4895.

Exceptions have to be taken into account. I did come across an instance recently where a load that used the Eagan MX3-30ARD bullet and 5744 powder gave mediocre accuracy in a reasonably accurate Ruger 77V .308. Being very familiar with the history of this rifle and its accuracy potential, the results surprised me. The same load shoots very well in a Remington 700 VS. I'll have to keep at it as I think this bullet will shoot in the Ruger, just not with the powder and/ or charge I originally selected. Still, I'll keep 5744 handy. 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
Dale53 posted this 4 weeks ago

Years ago I was VERY active with the Black Powder Cartridge Silhouette crowd. When I needed a smokeless or duplex load, RL-7 became my powder of choice. It has the burning rate of 4198 but measures much better and burns well. I shot 40/65 and 45/70.

FWIW

Dale53

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • M3 Mitch
cfp4570 posted this 4 weeks ago

I have no experience with 5744 or 4759, so there's that, but I've used quite a bit of RL-7 over the years and have been totally satisfied. Now, I'm a die hard plinker and informal shooter and don't do a lot of the hard work of chasing accuracy and load development, so my two cents here is worth just that. I will say that it was the most accurate powder I tried for my 357 maximum Contender with a factory barrel.

Attached Files

Qc Pistolero posted this 2 weeks ago

Well,like blondes vs redheads,some prefer the former while others will go with the latter(I prefer blackhair but married an auburn...go figure!!?!).

Since the price was irresistible and one never has enough powder,lead and primers,I got myself a 5 pounder.If my 2 45-70 don't like it,I can always use it in my 38-55 and if not in one of my 30-30 and if not...........

Thanks to you all who took time to tell me about your experience with it.

Attached Files

Close