Working up loads without data
- Thread starter Groverino
- Start date
You can make a safe plinker load with that powder, but N-135 is much too fast to be an appropriate powder.
You should be using a powder in the range of 4831. A powder a bit faster than 4895 is ok for making gravel pit plinker ammo, but a waster of a good 140 gr bullet.
You should be using a powder in the range of 4831. A powder a bit faster than 4895 is ok for making gravel pit plinker ammo, but a waster of a good 140 gr bullet.
The thing is I tried RL22 and Imr 4831. They used to work fine in my M96, but in the M38 I couldn't get a nice group to save my life. I tried the accuracy load from Lyman which is 36.5 gr of Imr 4895 and the thing is shooting the lights out. I'm amazed at the accuracy.
I was ready to give up on the rifle. I tried RL22, Imr 4831, and win 760. I was getting shotgun patterns. Went to Imr 4895 and got one ragged hole at 50 yards. Went out to 100 and put one dead center in the 10 ring, and another right next to it. Called it a day and left the range smiling. It's my deer rifle this fall. 1941 Husqvarna M38.
Accuracy trumps velocity, every time.
If you are hunting, I would suggest a 160 gr round nose. It tends to be accurate in non-match barrels and you could get more velocity with a slow powder.
But for deer, what you have will work just fine.
If you are hunting, I would suggest a 160 gr round nose. It tends to be accurate in non-match barrels and you could get more velocity with a slow powder.
But for deer, what you have will work just fine.
Back in the day when International was offering their bulk packs of bullets/powder/cases of cartridges loaded with wooden bullets to pull down and reload the powder they sent with the packs was Nobel #44, which was as close to IMR 3031 as it gets. I really liked that powder so bought a bunch of it from Tom Higginson. More than I should have because it bulked up and went bad. The flake powder used for those wooden loads was and still is a great pistol powder for large bores with heavy bullets.
Back to the OP. As Ganderite suggests for most applications N135 is to fast IMHO in the 6.5x55. The thing is, the 6.5x55 was developed in a time when the slower powders we have available today just weren't available. Yes, 4831 type powders have been around for a long time but not in 1895. The earlier powders were also bulkier such as the Rotweil flake types. At the time, when #44 came out it was considered to be fairly slow and less bulky than its predecessors.
I am not surprised that your M38 Swede really likes the quicker powders such as 4895. That powder is an old standby and well noted for its consistency of burn rate. The thing is, it is temperature sensitive. You may find your groups about 4-6 inches lower at two hundred yards in November. The shorter sight radius of the M38 in comparison to the M96 could have some effect as well but from your report on your groups with the faster powder I doubt it.
The fast twist rate allows pressures to build up quickly. Couple that with a long/heavy for caliber bullet and all sorts of changes will occur in that shorter barrel.
As Ganderite says, accuracy within safe pressure limits trumps it all. Many folks think that 4 in groups at 100 yards are perfectly acceptable for hunting medium to large game animals. Well, up to 150 yards they are correct as long as that four minute of angle group prints at point of aim. We all know how easily that can change under different conditions.
One thing the OP really needs to do now that he has established the load with 4895 and now wants to do with N135. He definitely needs to check velocities and trajectory. If you have an adequately long range to do so, you don't need a chronograph to do this. Take a target and shoot it at 100yds then take the same target and shoot it at 200yds and again at 300yds. The point of impact below the point of aim will give you a pretty accurate estimation of your velocity by measuring bullet drop to point of impact from point of aim. Of course, make sure you mark each group at those ranges and from a cold bore.
Back to the OP. As Ganderite suggests for most applications N135 is to fast IMHO in the 6.5x55. The thing is, the 6.5x55 was developed in a time when the slower powders we have available today just weren't available. Yes, 4831 type powders have been around for a long time but not in 1895. The earlier powders were also bulkier such as the Rotweil flake types. At the time, when #44 came out it was considered to be fairly slow and less bulky than its predecessors.
I am not surprised that your M38 Swede really likes the quicker powders such as 4895. That powder is an old standby and well noted for its consistency of burn rate. The thing is, it is temperature sensitive. You may find your groups about 4-6 inches lower at two hundred yards in November. The shorter sight radius of the M38 in comparison to the M96 could have some effect as well but from your report on your groups with the faster powder I doubt it.
The fast twist rate allows pressures to build up quickly. Couple that with a long/heavy for caliber bullet and all sorts of changes will occur in that shorter barrel.
As Ganderite says, accuracy within safe pressure limits trumps it all. Many folks think that 4 in groups at 100 yards are perfectly acceptable for hunting medium to large game animals. Well, up to 150 yards they are correct as long as that four minute of angle group prints at point of aim. We all know how easily that can change under different conditions.
One thing the OP really needs to do now that he has established the load with 4895 and now wants to do with N135. He definitely needs to check velocities and trajectory. If you have an adequately long range to do so, you don't need a chronograph to do this. Take a target and shoot it at 100yds then take the same target and shoot it at 200yds and again at 300yds. The point of impact below the point of aim will give you a pretty accurate estimation of your velocity by measuring bullet drop to point of impact from point of aim. Of course, make sure you mark each group at those ranges and from a cold bore.
Thank you (and Ganderite as well) for the excellent information. I wasn't aware if the temperature sensitivity of the Imr 4895. At what sort of temperatures does this come into play? It's usually pretty mild here in NS in the fall. I wish I could get this thing to shoot well with RL22. I have about a pound and a half of it.
If the temp dropped to -30, you would see the difference. I doubt it will be cold/hot enough to matter, and in my experience, you shot will more likely be at 50 yards than 150 yards.
The 160 gr bullet is a flat base. If you are going to try 4831 or RL22, try a flat base bullet (in any weight). If your 140s are boat tail, that might be the problem.
The 160 gr bullet is a flat base. If you are going to try 4831 or RL22, try a flat base bullet (in any weight). If your 140s are boat tail, that might be the problem.
I was thinking the same re: distance. The bullets were flatbased. I don't understand why the rl22 didn't work in this M38. Works great in my other one. I have some of the 160 RN. I expected great things from them but didn't have much success in the M96 or M38. No doubt I was doing something wrong but I don't know what.
Although not "optimal" as suggested, if you want to use the N-135 with a 140 gr bullet, you can develop "safe" loads, but you'll need a Chronograph. I and others have done this kind of thing many times with both known and unknown (surplus or pulled) powders.
N-135 is consistently shown to be comparable to the 4895's, so make up five rounds of 4895 and N-135 with the published starting load for the lower of the 4895's, in this case H4895, and that would be 32.5 grs (max is 35.8). You compare the average MV's and that's an indication of the "quickness" of the N-135 relative to the H4895 you used. If the average MV of the N-135 was higher, then it's faster, if lower, then it's slower.
As a sanity check, you should look at what loads are published for N-135 for other bullet weights. They do exist for the 120 gr bullet, and the published range is 32.1 - 35.6 grs. This overlaps published H4895 loads, on the slower side, so N-135 shows as slightly faster than H4895 for the 120 gr bullet, and would generally behave the same for the heavier 140. I interpret that to mean that I would anticipate that the 32.5 gr load of N-135 would give a higher MV than the H4895 load, and if so, that 32.5 grs of N-135 would be near to a Max Load with a 140 gr bullet.
This question is posed frequently, but almost without exception, the OP does not have a Chronograph and does not intend to purchase one. That makes it a non-starter.
N-135 is consistently shown to be comparable to the 4895's, so make up five rounds of 4895 and N-135 with the published starting load for the lower of the 4895's, in this case H4895, and that would be 32.5 grs (max is 35.8). You compare the average MV's and that's an indication of the "quickness" of the N-135 relative to the H4895 you used. If the average MV of the N-135 was higher, then it's faster, if lower, then it's slower.
As a sanity check, you should look at what loads are published for N-135 for other bullet weights. They do exist for the 120 gr bullet, and the published range is 32.1 - 35.6 grs. This overlaps published H4895 loads, on the slower side, so N-135 shows as slightly faster than H4895 for the 120 gr bullet, and would generally behave the same for the heavier 140. I interpret that to mean that I would anticipate that the 32.5 gr load of N-135 would give a higher MV than the H4895 load, and if so, that 32.5 grs of N-135 would be near to a Max Load with a 140 gr bullet.
This question is posed frequently, but almost without exception, the OP does not have a Chronograph and does not intend to purchase one. That makes it a non-starter.
Last edited:
Ganderite is right as usual. I do get such temperature swings and more in the areas I hunt. That's why I refuse to work up a hunting load when the temps are over 25C. The difference can mean shooting low at a couple of hundred yards and wounding an animal or shooting underneath it.
That 160 grain bullet is hard to beat under 200 yards and is adequate for any big game in North America. The penetration with that bullet can be phenomenal depending on its construction. I really miss the old bullets with the exposed lead base. I found them to be much more accurate than the cup style we have today which covers the base. Finding 160 grain 6.5 bullets can be extremely difficult at times.
I have about 50 of the 160 gr bullets. What oal do you usually find best?
There is no VV in Hodgdon's Reloading Data Center that I've ever seen. I just checked and there is no data for 6.5x55 that uses any VV powders.
There is a link on the Hodgdon site to the VV website where you can find VV data.
Here is the 6.5x55 data they have on their site:
http://www.vihtavuori.com/en/reloading-data/rifle-reloading/6-5-x-55-swedish-mauser--skan.html
No published data for N-135 except for 120gr bullets.
The method Andy described is what I have done in the past. As he mentioned you must have a chronograph to do it though.
Ok should have said there's a link. So here is a load from my Vihtavuori load manual that should get the OP real close. Manual published 1995.
Case- Lapua
Primer-Vihtivuori # 68- or large rifle
Bullet- 139GR. FMJ Norma
O.A.L.-2.990"
Powder- N-135 no start load, max load 34.7 Gr Velocity-2530 fps, pressure 45000 psi
SAAMI max length 3.150" max pressure CIP 47800PSI or 46000 CUP
OP should be able to back down 10% and go from there.
Case- Lapua
Primer-Vihtivuori # 68- or large rifle
Bullet- 139GR. FMJ Norma
O.A.L.-2.990"
Powder- N-135 no start load, max load 34.7 Gr Velocity-2530 fps, pressure 45000 psi
SAAMI max length 3.150" max pressure CIP 47800PSI or 46000 CUP
OP should be able to back down 10% and go from there.
Last edited:
I use to load. Reloaded 22 in my swede with 140 grain
Bullets, also found H414 worked gd
Not. To say N135 won't work, but honestly if it's not.published
In a.manual, or on an online data chart, I'd opt for.some other powder
To.use,. .
Bullets, also found H414 worked gd
Not. To say N135 won't work, but honestly if it's not.published
In a.manual, or on an online data chart, I'd opt for.some other powder
To.use,. .
As I have said, each rifle is different. And when you get bullet with long bearing surfaces, the differences are magnified. The only thing I can think of for the RL22 is that you did not use enough of it, but without a Chrony (best $100 I ever spent). Did you load up the RL22 until you got pressure signs?
