|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,270 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,270 Likes: 7 |
Just recently tested a couple of different powders in looking for the best 6.5CM/120g BT in my 20", suppressed, CTR. Settled on a very accurate, compressed load of 49gr of Ramshot Hunter with a COAL of 2.80", 2944 avg fps.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,183 Likes: 20
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,183 Likes: 20 |
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,270 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,270 Likes: 7 |
Nice rec on that RS Hunter BTW.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3,116 Likes: 5
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3,116 Likes: 5 |
Neither do I.
Have had the pressure-lab guys at two major powder companies flatly state that compressed loads generally result in more consistent velocities, which means the potential for finer accuracy. Would assume a more consistent flame front. Compressed loads - remove the air gap on the top of the powder, which can run the full length of the case when the cartridge is on its side, exposing more or less powder, depending. And by forcing the powder to burn through, instead of along, the charge, it should also burn a bit slower, as well as more consistently. GR
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,464 Likes: 4
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,464 Likes: 4 |
As of my last Chrony tested loads for my .35 Whelen, RL-17 is having an argument with CFE 223 as to which is better behind the 225 AB. In the Hornady Handbook of Reloading, 9th Edition, pg 38, CFE is listed in 99th place and RL-17 in 116th, with a substantial number of powders between. Yet a compressed load of RL-17 (67 grains) gives slightly higher MV, better consistency and accuracy than 68 grains of CFE 223. Rl-17 is compressed at a 3.45" COL and CFE 223 at 68 grains is "full" but not compressed at 3.45" COL. So, now, I've loaded 69 of CFE 223 behind the 225 AB at the same COL in hopes of better performance. That last try (the 5th) with the same Rem cases showed no increase in CHE and the same case length as new. As several know, I've used RL-17 exclusively for a decade in my 9.3 x 62 without issues, giving best accuracy and consistency (compressed loads) knowing it would work well in my .35 Whelen, even though considered "too slow" in burn rate for either the 9.3 x 62 or .35 Whelen. Bob www.bigbores.ca
"What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul" - Jesus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,662 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,662 Likes: 1 |
It is always nice to have a burn rate chart..........BUT this chart was made before Hodgdon acquired Accurate and many of the Accurate powders are way off on this chart
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,183 Likes: 20
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,183 Likes: 20 |
Have mentioned this before, but most handloading powders will vary up to 3% in burn-rate from lot to lot. With vast increase in new powders over the past decade or so, this means there's considerable cross-over in burn-rate charts--which are only an approximation in the first place.
Which is yet another reason I long ago quit using computer programs that supposedly compare various powders in a certain application.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
424 members (264mag, 1badf350, 163bc, 257 mag, 10ring1, 2500HD, 39 invisible),
2,133
guests, and
1,079
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,335
Posts18,506,048
Members74,000
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
