32 gr blitz king

jason · Post by **jason** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:02 pm

looking for a accurate handload using the sierra 32 blitzking and benchmark powder. thanks

Keith in Ga · Post by **Keith in Ga** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:20 pm

I'm loading 27.3 grs of Benchmark with the 32 gr Blitzking for my Cooper. It shoots very good in my rifle, don't remember the exact fps, but will check my book if you need it.

Lee C. · Post by **Lee C.** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:47 am

jason, Sorry i can't help you out i've only been useing the 35gr. berger so fare in my 204. But welcome to the forum any ways.

glenn asher · Post by **glenn asher** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:12 pm

I'm using the same load as Keith, in my Savage with a 26" barrel, it gets 3950fps or so, but it shoots well. It still kills PDs, even if it is slow

.

WHISTLEPIG · Post by **WHISTLEPIG** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:51 pm

Funny how we think of 3950 as slow.

NHS · Post by **NHS** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:26 pm

WHISTLEPIG wrote:Funny how we think of 3950 as slow.

That is funny. I took my old muzzle loader out the other day. I haven't shot it since the end of last September. I have only been shooting my .204 all winter and man...talk about slow. It seemed like it took that old slug forever to get the the target compared to the .204. I guess I just started to take 3900 fps for granted.

NHS

willyp19 · Post by **willyp19** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:30 pm

I have had great luck with 32 gr BK and H4895 (28.1), shooting just under 4000 fps with .300" groups.

acloco · Post by **acloco** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:19 pm

NHS wrote:
WHISTLEPIG wrote:Funny how we think of 3950 as slow.
That is funny. I took my old muzzle loader out the other day. I haven't shot it since the end of last September. I have only been shooting my .204 all winter and man...talk about slow. It seemed like it took that old slug forever to get the the target compared to the .204. I guess I just started to take 3900 fps for granted.

NHS

NHS - how true. But, answer this, if you had to pic, which round would you want to be accidently hit with?

"I will take the 204 in the arm for $50 Alex."

"Excellent choice, that leaves the .54 caliber in the torso for $100 to finish out that category".

janneuf · Post by **janneuf** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:26 pm

I reported my success the other day so I thought I'd back it up with a target photo. All groups are at 100 yards, groups 1 and 2 are before I adjusted for POI change. Group 3, I adjusted windage and 4 I adjusted elevation to get where I want to be at 100 yards.

Load is 26.5 of H4895 with Sierra 39 grain BK

MrPillow · Post by **MrPillow** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:38 pm

Use IMG tags around the direct URL -

Code: Select all

[IMG]http://www.blabla.jpg[/IMG]

NHS · Post by **NHS** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:49 pm

acloco wrote:
NHS wrote:
WHISTLEPIG wrote:Funny how we think of 3950 as slow.
That is funny. I took my old muzzle loader out the other day. I haven't shot it since the end of last September. I have only been shooting my .204 all winter and man...talk about slow. It seemed like it took that old slug forever to get the the target compared to the .204. I guess I just started to take 3900 fps for granted.

NHS
NHS - how true. But, answer this, if you had to pic, which round would you want to be accidently hit with?

"I will take the 204 in the arm for $50 Alex."

"Excellent choice, that leaves the .54 caliber in the torso for $100 to finish out that category".

I guess if I had to choose, I'd take my chances with a blistering fast 32 grainer over a 375 gr maxiball going 1400 fps. You know that sucker is going to penetrate no matter where it hits you!

I'll take the category:

"Do everything possible to prevent accidental shootings for $1000"

NHS

janneuf · Post by **janneuf** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:50 pm

Thanks Mr Pillow....funny I thought I tried that first time.

acloco · Post by **acloco** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:24 pm