7mm-08 non toxic using RS52

DCG

Well-Known Member
Evening all,
I’m contemplating developing a non toxic load for my 7mm-08.
I’ve been looking at the Fox bullets, they do either a 130gn or 145gn version.
The powder of choice will probably be RS52 ignited by a BR2 primer, mainly because that’s what I’ve got in stock for my ordinary 139gn loads.
I’d appreciate anyone’s thoughts or experiences.
Regards in advance.
Dcg
 
Well it looks like I’m on my own here, so not having had any replies, I’ve gone for the 130’s. It’ll be interesting to see how they seat, as compared to the 139gn SST the ogives in a completely different place.
Theoretically the following quick load results look quite promising, seated at 2.800” OAL, above 42 grains of Rs52, ignited by a BR2, predicts peak pressure of 45647psi out of a possible max pressure of 60191psi, which should achieve a velocity of 2805fps out of a 24”barrel and a propellant burn of 99%
just about perfect eh.
Back to reality, I’m aware that quickload results for RS52 are notoriously understated, and I’m shooting this out of a 20” barrel, so I’ll be starting quite a bit lower than that and working up. My previous load using the same components with the SST’s in testing achieved 3,050 and flat lined without showing any increase in velocity with anything over 41.8gn, so I’m guessing that anything over 41.8gn’s was just being burned outside of the barrel (no signs of over pressure observed). Settled on 40.1gn’s which gave a velocity of 2855fps.
We’ll see how I get on and report back.
 

Attachments

  • 4A679750-B3C3-41AE-AC47-8E31CB8AA532.webp
    4A679750-B3C3-41AE-AC47-8E31CB8AA532.webp
    167.8 KB · Views: 15
Last edited:
Well it looks like I’m on my own here, so not having had any replies, I’ve gone for the 130’s. It’ll be interesting to see how they seat, as compared to the 139gn SST the ogives in a completely different place.
Theoretically the following quick load results look quite promising, seated at 2.800” OAL, above 42 grains of Rs52, ignited by a BR2, predicts peak pressure of 45647psi out of a possible max pressure of 60191psi, which should achieve a velocity of 2805fps out of a 24”barrel and a propellant burn of 99%
just about perfect eh.
Back to reality, I’m aware that quickload results for RS52 are notoriously understated, and I’m shooting this out of a 20” barrel, so I’ll be starting quite a bit lower than that and working up. My previous load using the same components with the SST’s in testing achieved 3,050 and flat lined without showing any increase in velocity with anything over 41.8gn, so I’m guessing that anything over 41.8gn’s was just being burned outside of the barrel (no signs of over pressure observed). Settled on 40.1gn’s which gave a velocity of 2855fps.
We’ll see how I get on and report back.
I’ve just bought some fox factory ammo 130’s for my 7mm08. I’ve not tried them yet, but if I’m happy with them I’m going to have to start reloading - the Fox factory ammo in 7mm08 is painfully expensive at the moment.

Very interested to hear how you get on.
 
I’ve just bought some fox factory ammo 130’s for my 7mm08. I’ve not tried them yet, but if I’m happy with them I’m going to have to start reloading - the Fox factory ammo in 7mm08 is painfully expensive at the moment.

Very interested to hear how you get on.
Easily solved by using lead ppu is less than £20 a box 👍 shoots great in both my 7-08s
 
Last edited:
That’s exactly what I use now and have been using for ages. But game dealer taking non lead so looking to change.
I was very pleasantly surprised to see how well the ppu stuff shot ! So much so I packed in reloading at that price it’s not worth it
 
I was very pleasantly surprised to see how well the ppu stuff shot ! So much so I packed in reloading at that price it’s not worth it
I’ve never reloaded and not considered starting until very recently - ppu is great through my 7mm08 and cheaper than the cheapest .243 ammo I used with my old rifle. So I agree 100% with you on that. Finding another dealer close by who is actually taking deer isn’t likely. I’m genuinely interested to try this fox ammo anyway - I’ve heard good things. If it’s not any better for me I’ll most likely not stick with it. But yes - PPU is great!
 
Theoretically the following quick load results look quite promising, seated at 2.800” OAL, above 42 grains of Rs52, ignited by a BR2, predicts peak pressure of 45647psi out of a possible max pressure of 60191psi, which should achieve a velocity of 2805fps out of a 24”barrel and a propellant burn of 99%
Interestingly, P-Max internal ballistics comes up with almost identical results - assuming a usable case capacity of 49.5 grains H2O.
Back to reality, I’m aware that quickload results for RS52 are notoriously understated,
I found that the vivacity curves for RS52 actually indicate a slower powder than RS60, which is probably why QL 'notoriously' understate this powder. The error then is with RS. However the RS load data would seem to tell the true story. The fact that P-Max agrees with QL so well would indicate that QL has now modified its burning rates - from which I assume you are using an up-to-date version of QL...?
 
Interestingly, P-Max internal ballistics comes up with almost identical results - assuming a usable case capacity of 49.5 grains H2O.

I found that the vivacity curves for RS52 actually indicate a slower powder than RS60, which is probably why QL 'notoriously' understate this powder. The error then is with RS. However the RS load data would seem to tell the true story. The fact that P-Max agrees with QL so well would indicate that QL has now modified its burning rates - from which I assume you are using an up-to-date version of QL...?
Not sure about useable capacity but quick load measures capacity to overflow of 55gns H2O, which is how I measure my cases, which are near enough in this instance starting from scratch with a new load. It was Laurie Holland who alerted me to the quick load data being out with RS52. His take was that the vivacity / burn characteristics were a lot closer to Varget than quickload was predicting. It’ s possible that RS might have modified its Data by now, but my previous experience would suggest that the results might be quite different. The achieved velocity, etc were a lot higher than predicted, so I’ll still take a cautious approach. It doesn’t cost anything except a couple of extra rounds and a bit of time. But it’ll be interesting to see where we end up. It may be that the heavier bullet might have been a better bet with this powder. We’ll see!
 
Easily solved by using lead ppu is less than £20 a box 👍 shoots great in both my 7-08s
Couldn’t agree more if PPU works in your gun youll not find a cheaper way to shoot.
However, I’m firmly of the opinion, that the time will come, probably sooner than later, that it’ll be a requirement, that any food going into the food chain will have to be shot with non lead ammunition, agree or disagree, like it or lump it, it’ll not matter and the price of factory non toxic cartridge is enough to make my eyes water and my wallet squeal.
So working on the principal of the seven P’s ( prior planning and preparation, prevents **** poor performance) I’m going to be ahead of the game. 😁
 
Couldn’t agree more if PPU works in your gun youll not find a cheaper way to shoot.
However, I’m firmly of the opinion, that the time will come, probably sooner than later, that it’ll be a requirement, that any food going into the food chain will have to be shot with non lead ammunition, agree or disagree, like it or lump it, it’ll not matter and the price of factory non toxic cartridge is enough to make my eyes water and my wallet squeal.
So working on the principal of the seven P’s ( prior planning and preparation, prevents **** poor performance) I’m going to be ahead of the game. 😁
Or we could all refuse and leave them snookered instead of giving up 🤔
 
  • Like
Reactions: JTO
No it will come to all dealers at some point in the not too distant future I’m sure. It’s only a matter of time. I was anti copper for some time but I’ve been using it for the last 2 months (again out of a requirement from the dealer). It’s not legislation that will force the issue but market forces.
I’ve come to terms with it and so far I’ve shot 44 deer with it in the last 6 weeks and I’m quite pleased with the results. My only gripe is the cost of bullets as I’m still old school in that regard and can’t help compare them to prices of conventional cup and core.

Mentally I’ve lost interest in lead now and I’m only interested in hearing about non toxic options such that I am convinced it will be the only option when putting it into the public food chain. Ofcourse for your own consumption you can use what you want as long as other terms of usage don’t come into play.

I still think the argument about lead harming you is way way over stated but it doesn’t alter the fact I’m sure it will be forced on us all universally in the not too distant future. One thing I will say is that the Barnes Ttsx that I have been using in my rifle are very accurate.
 
Last edited:
It’ s possible that RS might have modified its Data by now, but my previous experience would suggest that the results might be quite different.
You should not conflate the closed bomb vivacity data which Hartmut Broemel used in the QL program, and the reloading manual data which gives actual results shooting the stuff in a test gun. The closed bomb vivacity data are clearly too slow to give the velocity and pressure results as given in the manual, and in your rifle. That - in essence - is what Laurie was saying.
 
You should not conflate the closed bomb vivacity data which Hartmut Broemel used in the QL program, and the reloading manual data which gives actual results shooting the stuff in a test gun. The closed bomb vivacity data are clearly too slow to give the velocity and pressure results as given in the manual, and in your rifle. That - in essence - is what Laurie was saying.
If you say so.
However what he actually said was

”I don't trust QuickLOAD an inch re RS52 as IME in three or four cartridges the program seriously underestimates pressures and can be 'wrong way out' by as much as two grains in a 308 / 7-08 size cartridge.

Do a cross-check for what you've been given against Hodgdon's data for VarGet or any published load for Alliant Re15. The three invariably end up using very similar charge weights.”

My subsequent tests and loads seemed to bear that out !
 
We offer the fox 7-08 in 130gr only at present
The step up to 145gr offer no terminal advantage in the ever popular shorter rifle barrels
Run the 130s and drop me a line if you need load data
Watch the length
All fox projectiles have cone point olive that engages the rifling sooner than a secant
They need to be loaded shorter for overall length as a result
Another reason to go for the shorter, lighter bullet and get more powder volume for more velocity for more energy for more knockdown!
 
Cheers Edd,
I purchased these from your establishment after a very helpful chat with your man, I think Roger, who talked through one or two options on quickload as we chatted and included the print off with the parcel, excellent service I must say !
It wasn’t untill later when reading those results and looking at the bullet ogive that I realised I’d forgotten to mention the 20” barrel. However in the past I’ve found that RS52 is quite a bit “more lively” than quickload would suggest, so I’m fairly confident we’ll be fine.
kind regrds
dcg
 
Going back to my original post in January, motivated by an impending outing to the Highlands, I've finally found the time to run a load development on the Fox 130gn classic hunters, which I acquired, to develop a non toxic load for the 7mm-08.

Some of the delay was due to waiting for the arrival of some neck turning components as I’d decided to go down that route as a bit of an experiment ( playing about, just fancied seeing if it made much difference) as regards case prep.

So for those that showed interest here are my findings, along with the usual caveats, that this info is from my rifle and shouldn’t be replicated without the usual safe reloading procedures being followed.

Case, new Lapua 7mm-08 once fired, full length sized, bumping the shoulder back by .002”, turned to clean up and uniform the neck, then expanded using a mandrel to give .002” of neck tension.

The Quickload data I’d acquired suggested that 42 grains of RS 52 loaded at 2.800” coal (head to tip), ignited by a BR2 primer, predicts peak pressure of 45647psi out of a possible max pressure of 60191psi, which should achieve a velocity of 2805fps out of a 24”barrel and a propellant burn of 99%.

My rifle has a 20” barrel so realistically you could probably knock 25fps/ inch off that, so I was expecting around about 2700fps.

The first problem I ran into as highlighted by Ed at Edinburgh rifles, the supplier of the Fox bullets, was that because of the shape of the ogive of the bullet, they’d have to be seated quite a bit deeper than usual. So running a seating depth check showed that the bullet was engaging the lands with the bullet seated at COAL 2.697”(head to tip), using that as a datum, I elected to use an initial seating depth of .035” off, as with various loads in the past, I’ve had good success in and around the .030” off area.

I loaded up a range of powder weights, which I’ll give in a table later, from 38gns to 42gns, the first three at .5 grain increments just to verify safe pressures and from 39.2 grains onwards at .2 grain increments.

The principal is to shoot these over a chronograph to observe where at least three adjacent loads, give the least amount of variation in velocity, therefore indicating a load which will ultimately give a low ES, being tolerant to slight variation in load weight. Also if shot at a paper target, classically, you can usually see each shot gradually print higher on the target as the velocity increases, with hopefully, the shots, with the closest velocity, printing closest together on paper ( that’s the theory anyway) and it works more often than not.

The problem was that this first ladder produced a target where the bulk of the shots produced a group of a little over 1 1/2” @ 100m, with the higher velocity loadings, regularly printing lower than higher. The velocity’s achieved ranged from 2682fps from 38grains to 2919fps from 42grains.

I settled on a load of 40.8 grains which gave an average 2862fps and after a bit of messing about with different seating depths showed no improvement and gave a group of just under 3/4” @ 100m.

No pressure signs whatsoever were observed throughout the whole series of loadings.

I’ll try all of this again later with standard cases to see if the prep made any difference and I’ll probably do a better seating depth ladder as well. But this loads good enough to take stalking, so I’ll see how it performs on the beasties.

The main observations.

RS52 yet again shows to be more lively than Quickload predicts, Laurie's absolutely spot on, as per usual.

The Fox bullets appear to give very good accuracy and aren’t very fussy about velocity variation. They need to be seated about 0.150” deeper than the average lead bullets of an equivalent weight (up to the bottom of the last cannelure)

Hopefully they’ll do the business !!!

1621076341040.webp

LOAD DEVELOPMENT OCW POWDER TEST
Date:
RIFLE:Sako 75
CALIBER:7mm-08
CASE:Lapua new
BULLET:Fox 130gn
SEATING DEPTH:2.800 oal (2.200)
POWDER:RS 52
POWDER WEIGHTVELOCITY ACHEIVED
1382682
238.52709
3392737
439.22764
539.42774
639.62795
739.82782
8402784
940.22798
1040.42824
1140.62849
1240.82842
13412858
1441.22861
1541.42901
1641.62892
1741.82904
18422919
19
9DD97B59-C90A-48A8-B482-9104BC0BF700.jpegEC3DACCC-9D36-4B30-BC7A-AFEB7A625805.jpeg
121589A0-1206-4A66-90D3-C042C55DF1D9.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top