RL-17, 105gr amax, 243 win

I'm running RL17 under 87gr Vmax's at 3250 fps. Thats with 43.0 grains in an IVI case that I resized. I was getting similar results at 43.4 grains in Win. brass.
 
I have no experience with this and I am assuming you are looking for some data.

My Hornady Vol 9 shows

105gr A-max
COL-2.630"

Alliant RL-17
Min 35.9gr(2500fps)
Max 41.5gr(2900)
 
Johnny_Zanni said:
I have no experience with this and I am assuming you are looking for some data.

My Hornady Vol 9 shows

105gr A-max
COL-2.630"

Alliant RL-17
Min 35.9gr(2500fps)
Max 41.5gr(2900)
Click to expand...

I know these are manual numbers but you should be able to get up to about 43 or so grains of RL 17 with the .243. I am building a 6 slr which uses at .243 Win parent casing and there are a few guys using 43 grains of RL 17 with a 105 grain bullet *** This may be on the hot side but you can always work up with a ladder test ***
 
crout said:
Thankyou.
I was hoping with rl-17 I would be able to reach 3000fps. I guess not:)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't quit just yet - the newer Hornady manuals are the most heavily 'lawyerized" I've seen.

I would not be surprised at all if you could go well past their data (in terms of powder charge) for this load; you certainly can with many other cartridge/bullet combinations they list.
 
I have never used the Aliant powders, but it seems to me you should use a slower version than RL17, for a 105 grain bullet in a 243.
The 77 Ruger I had wouldn't stablize 105 bullets, but I did quite a bit of experimenting with 100 grain, usually Sierra, bullets and I haven't tried 105s in the Marlin I now have.
I notice that Hodgdon on line show, for a 243 Winchester, 42 grains of H4831, for a published velocity of 2924.
Then I look in my records and I see that on Nov. 14, 1990, with the temperature at 45 degrees F, I was checking velocities of my Ruger 77, 243, with 22 inch barrel.
I was using an Oehler 33 chronograph and 47 grains of H4831, with a 100 grain Sierra bullet shot a 5 shot group, with a low of 3065 and a high of 3093.
Damn, we didn't have computers then, so how was I to know that one day Hodgdon's would show on the computer the maximum load was 42 grains?
The same day I tested the same 100 grain bullets with the same load, 47 grains, of Norma 205 and read a low of 3069 and a high of 3112, for an average of 3094.
I think you could get 3,000 fps in your 243 with 105 grain bullets.
 
Last edited:
While looking through my records to make the last posting, I came across an old Norma loading chart.
You will note above, that 47 grains of Norma 205 gave me an average of 3094. I have said many times that Norma was the only charts that gave true velocities.
Look at the picture of their loading chart for 243 Win. and note on the bottom listing, they show 48.3 grains of Norma 205 with a 100 grain bullet, for a velocity of 3179 fps.
This would be very close to my results, 47 grains for 3094, with a 22 inch barrel.
It also shows that my load was certainly not over loaded, as they show another 1.3 grains of the same powder, as their standard load.
This chart is typical of all charts of by gone years, in that they never showed a starting load, or a maximum load, but simply the charge of powder to be used for any given load.
Getting back to the OP wondering about getting 3,000 fps with 105 grain bullets, it should be easy, if you go by loading charts that were developed with the shooter in mind, instead of trying to be liability proof.
As a point of interest, those of us who have used both H4831 and Norma 205, considered the two powders to be interchangeable, with Norma giving slightly more velocity. The big difference was Norma 205 was much denser than H4831, meaning the cartridge case would hold more weight of the Norma variety.
 
I would be using nothing but the older manuals if it wasn't for worrying about changes in the powder itself. Meaning its possible that powder X might have a different composition and burn rate today than it did 30 years ago. I have no proof of this, but it's something I consider.

I use the published data as a guideline and load for my rifle, it might turn out to be 4 grains over the listed max, or 2 grains under, when it hit a max load.
 
Cleftwynd said:
I would be using nothing but the older manuals if it wasn't for worrying about changes in the powder itself. Meaning its possible that powder X might have a different composition and burn rate today than it did 30 years ago. I have no proof of this, but it's something I consider.

I use the published data as a guideline and load for my rifle, it might turn out to be 4 grains over the listed max, or 2 grains under, when it hit a max load.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much my practice as well, that and having multiple manuals to refer to. It's just nice to see some, published, NOT watered-down loads.

The other thing is, if someone posted here, saying they were getting 3150+ fps from their 22" bbl .243 from a "pet load" they developed, you'd have guys all over him for being full of crap or pushing his rifle way too hard. Well, apparently NOT.

Not trying to sound like the grumpy fellow, BTW, just kind of calling it like I see it.
 
Last edited:
Cleftwynd said:
Forgive my ignorance, denser air requires more RPM to stabilize longer bullets?
Click to expand...

It's some thing like that. The 1-10" twist is marginal at best for the long 95gr+ vlds. My buddy's 240 didn't cut it in the cold as well with the 105 amax. My hart barreled 1-10"243ai can't shoot the 105s but slings the 95 gr Berger in all temps good. I guy just never knows when walking on the edge of stability.
 
Since I don't play at extreme elevation differences I have never encountered this. Now I am curious and will see what I can find on the subject.
 
Cleftwynd said:
I would be using nothing but the older manuals if it wasn't for worrying about changes in the powder itself. Meaning its possible that powder X might have a different composition and burn rate today than it did 30 years ago. I have no proof of this, but it's something I consider.

We have thought of this also, and did some testing on some of it. But first a word about the Hodgdon surplus powders.
After WW2 Bruce Hodgdon made a deal with the US, to buy all their surplus military powder. He had great amounts of the powder that would later be named 4831. (all his powders have the letter H in front of their designation letters.)
He was in such a rush to get all this really low priced powder into the hands of the hordes of shooters who appeared like magic after the war, that he put this one slow burning powder out there, before he had fully tested it. He knew it was slower than 4350, thus it would be safe to use it in place of 4350. So he put this slow powder on the market, calling it "4350 data powder." In other words use it like you would 4350.
Before too long Jack O'Connor, in his monthly column as shooting editor of Outdoor Life Magazine, came out stating he had developed a great load for the 270 Winchester. He said put 60 grains of this new Hodgdon powder called 4350 data powder in a 270 Win case, which will fill it right to the top rim of the neck, sometimes requiring some tapping of the case, to prevent it from over flowing, and force a 130 grain bullet into the case.
Soon masses of handloaders were singing the praises of this 270 load, using the new surplus Hodgdon powder.
When I started handloading I have stated it was Norma components I started with, but one of my first purchases of other powder, was a 50 pound keg of the surplus Hodgdon powder, by then named H4831.
In a Bruce Hodgdon memoir, he states that when they did their scientific testing on their surplus powders and published the ratings and loads for them, they never even bothered checking the famous Jack O'Connor 270 load! He said many thousands of happy handloaders couldn't be wrong, so they simply entered, 60 grains of H4831 in a 270, with a 130 grain bullet, into their loading charts!
I think it was in the 1980s that Hodgdon's were running low on 4831 surplus powder, so they newly manufactured it (or had some other firm make it for them.) They stated to just use the same loading data for the new powder, as they showed for the old surplus powder.
On Aug. 20, 1991, I got around to testing if there was any difference between the two powders. I took ten 270 cases and used the same standard large rifle primers in all ten. With five I loaded 60 grains of the old surplus powder and the other five I put in 60 grains of the new manufactured H4831, topped each case with a 130 grain Herters bullet, and shot them in my 270 Sako.
Here are the readings from the Oehler 33 chronograph.
War surplus H4831 powder, average speed 3078, with es of 33.
Newly manufactured H4831 powder, average speed 2960, with a es of 45.

As stated previously, I used my Ruger 77 in 243 with 47 grains of either Norma 205 or the old H4831 powder with a 100 grain bullet.
Last year I got a new Marlin XS7 in 243. To start a load for it, I looked at Hodgdon's loading chart. Not the one on line, which shows a 243 with 100 grain bullet as a max load of 42 grains of H4831, for a velocity of 2924, but the Hodgdon loading chart in the 1964/65 Ellwood Epps catalogue. It shows 243 Win, 100 grain bullet with 46 grains of the old war surplus H4831, for a velocity of 3009 fps.
I had no qualms about loading this load into my new Marlin, because the load was a full grain under my standrd load in the Ruger 243, of 47 grains. Plus, I had already shot other loads with lighter bullets and found nothing wrong with the new Marlin.
I still have some original war surplus H4831 which I purchased in the mid 1960s. I loaded 46 grains of this old powder into 243 cases, topped with a 100 grain Sierra bullet and shot them over a "chrony."
No sign, whatsoever, of excess pressure and the Chrony showed a velocity of 3073.
If I test the same load, only with new Hodgdon's H4831, I will let you know the results.
Best wishes, Bruce
Click to expand...
 
That's some valuable info, definitely something for me to consider. So at least in the case of 4831 the newer powder appears to be slightly slower, which suggests using the older data would be safe with H4831. What about other powders though? If it was to be the other way around it could push a load over the top if it was already at max. However working up loads pretty much eliminates any danger.
 
Cleftwynd said:
That's some valuable info, definitely something for me to consider. So at least in the case of 4831 the newer powder appears to be slightly slower, which suggests using the older data would be safe with H4831. What about other powders though? If it was to be the other way around it could push a load over the top if it was already at max. However working up loads pretty much eliminates any danger.
Click to expand...

Also to note, is the case of the 243, H4831 powder, Hodgdon's on line charts and their velocities that I have shown, is a great exception.
Generally, their on line chart shows hotter loads than many modern loading books.
For the 243 and 75 grain bullets, Hodgdon on line show 46 grains of H414, for a velocity of 3447.
I loaded that same charge in Federal 243 cases, 46 grains of H414 and used 75 grain Sierra HP bullets.
Hodgdon shows the velocity as being 3447.
Amazingly, that load in my Marlin 243 showed 3468 fps!
And yes, you are right. Working up the loads in your own rifle is the way to go.
 
Thanks for all the great info. Barrel is a 22" and for that reason I thought r-17 would be a good option. I first thought h4831 might be too slow. I do have a couple lbs that I have no use for anymore, I may just test it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom