Bad Chronograph reading or reality check??

Almost every time I've chrono'd loads, I was always well below what the published data said it should be. The worst, of course, was the mfr. data for factory loads. But the error rates you mention do seem high, though. Give it another try. Also, what was the weather like? Some powders are very temp sensitive. (BL-C2 comes to mind)
 
1899 said:
I was thinking the same thing. I was using a bit more than that with a "regular" .270 Win and 130 TSX. I chrono'd at well over 3100fps out of a 22" barrel.

I can't remember my charges and loads, but the 160gr Partition was ~2800fps.

Edit - Ted, I was just looking at the Barnes Manual and they are showing 60.5gr of RL22 for the .270 Winchester with 150gr TSX for 3000fps. Man that good old .270 is still as good as it ever was - or even better!
Click to expand...

Yep, and I load 60 gr of Re22 with the 150 Partition to get a tad less than 2900. No wonder 61 gr in a 270 WSM is almost 200 fps slower.

Ted
 
It's been a while since i used Re22,but I always had the impression that it's lot to
lot uniformity wasn't that great. In my old .270 Win one lot 57.3gr gave 3020fps with
a 150gr partition(stupid hot) and a later lot gave 2950 with 57gr.
56.7 shot way better and the brass lasted quite a while.
 
jeff270 said:
It's been a while since i used Re22,but I always had the impression that it's lot to
lot uniformity wasn't that great. In my old .270 Win one lot 57.3gr gave 3020fps with
a 150gr partition(stupid hot) and a later lot gave 2950 with 57gr.
56.7 shot way better and the brass lasted quite a while.
Click to expand...

Really? 0.3 grains was the difference between stupid hot and brass lasting?
 
Actually thats .6 grains from two different lots of powder.
I checked the log book before I typed it.
It's a good idea to check your loads when you change any components.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom