Why Not? and his RL17 loads....

bigborefan said:
H414 is somewhat slower than RL-17 in my 9.3 X 62, though it's a very good powder in the 9 - 3 with the heavies. But my vote is for RL-17 for the 286 Nos. Partitions. RL-15 doesn't come close in MV.

Ted should give it a try in his 9.3s... an unbiased one that is <smile>.

I'm getting at least 100 fps more MV with RL-17 than with RL-15, with better psi signals.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca
Click to expand...

I didn't mention that I use in in my 35 Whelen as well. I haven't compared it to H4350 and H414 though, but to RL-15.

Under a 250 gr bullet, 60.0 grs of RL-15 gives me an accurate 2550 fps out of a 24" barrel, and 66.0 grs (compressed) of RL-17 gives me an accurate 2600 fps. The RL-15 load is a max load (I use a very long OAL - 3.400" and I'm still 0.125" from the rifling!), but I just can't fit enough RL-17 in to get a max load with it.

All said, RL-15 is "the powder" for the 35 Whelen with a 250 gr bullet and I'm sticking with it.
 
Last edited:
I was shooting sub moa with my 30-06 and RL22. The best group was 5 shots @ .6" with 180 NABs. max load off the Nosler site. Aslo shot .7" with my .375 H&H with RL15 and 260NAB's. Both loads off the nosler site at max.
 
manitou210 said:
There is some pitfalls using RL 17 2 very good F class shooters in Ottawa where using it in there 284 win with 32" barrels speed was good but they both dropped Rl17 and went back to H4831
in the heat last summer the blew primers, and the other problem Rl 17 eats the throats much quicker than other non double base powders like Rl17
manitou
Click to expand...

That jogs my memory- very hot day and while I didn't have any blown primers, velocity was off the charts and the bolt was sticky.
 
manitou210 said:
There is some pitfalls using RL 17 2 very good F class shooters in Ottawa where using it in there 284 win with 32" barrels speed was good but they both dropped Rl17 and went back to H4831
in the heat last summer the blew primers, and the other problem Rl 17 eats the throats much quicker than other non double base powders like Rl17
manitou
Click to expand...
I have been shooting RL17 with 110 gr TTSX in the .270. I found on the very hot days I was getting very erratic velocity with the max load, but no traditional pressure signs.
I have read on other forums that this is characteristic of this powder . Others have indicated that they got erratic velocity with max loads at temperatures over 90 F.
I also found the CCI bench rest primers I tried gave groups 3 times the size of standard CCI large rifle for some reason.
 
I'm going to bring this thread back because Barnes has finally published load data for the 175gr LRX in the .30-06. The loads I tried and posted in my original post are ABOVE maximum.

According to Barnes the max load is 54.2gr of RL17 with the 175gr LRX. That load is listed as giving 2762fps and is shown as a compressed load in W-W cases.


http://barnesbullets.com/files/2014/11/30-06SpringfieldBRM5V9.pdf

I loaded up some more of these +1 year ago but I never got around to shooting/chronographing them.
 
:redface: Perhaps it just me but in rifle reolads I've 'tried' a few RL powders in some of the items I reload for. However, I could never seem to quite get the level of accuracy punching paper I was able to obtain using a selection of my 'stand by' powders. As example, the three main 'stand bys' I speak of are, IMR 4350, IMR 4320 and IMR 4064.
 
Johnn Peterson said:
:redface: Perhaps it just me but in rifle reolads I've 'tried' a few RL powders in some of the items I reload for. However, I could never seem to quite get the level of accuracy punching paper I was able to obtain using a selection of my 'stand by' powders. As example, the three main 'stand bys' I speak of are, IMR 4350, IMR 4320 and IMR 4064.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that has been my findings too.
The three you mention might lack in terms of velocity with respect to certain cartridges compared to the " new wave " of powders but I doubt very much if the intended target be it Moose, Deer or other will actually notice ...
 
Kevan said:
Exactly, that has been my findings too.
The three you mention might lack in terms of velocity with respect to certain cartridges compared to the " new wave " of powders but I doubt very much if the intended target be it Moose, Deer or other will actually notice ...
Click to expand...

Those I've listed have worked well for me over the years. Not only on paper, but also on game. I don't mind 'trying' new, but after some testing, if the results aren't a clear improvement, I'll let 'new' pass. Also, I try and make some attempts towards flexibility in powder choices to minimize storing a great variety and save space.









My reloading room and storage options, while great for the day years ago, with latter year firearms acquisitions, 'things' and space are a little:redface: 'crowded' today.
 
In my 30-06 22" barrel I got 2800 using RL22 & 180 grn accubond Accuracy was as good as I need. Would not want to push an 06 any harder. I tried RL17 in my 300 wsm. Load data was hard to find so I started around 56 grns with 180 grn accubond. I got 3200 fps on first 2 shots with lots of extractor marks. So far I've backed off to 62.8 getting 3125 fps. Still getting slight extractor marks but no other signs Am probably going to back down to 62.0 and call it a day. Best I could do with rl22 was 2850. So far I'm pleased with rl17 but time will tell on pressure. Heck even at 3000fps that is lots. Just too bad the rl powders are so difficult to find.
 
When there's no load data, I use published H414 Start Loads as Re17 Start Loads, and H4350 Start Loads as Re17 Max Loads.
 
Kevan said:
Beautiful pictures as always Johnn, I do not dare take any of my set-up let alone show the rest of the world what an incredible mess I make magic in...
Click to expand...

Especially in posts of firearms, rather than going through a lengthy session of descriptive dialogue, I'd rather go by the old adage of;) 'a picture is worth a thousand words'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom