Best available powder for 6.5 Creedmoor

[Laurie]

Thanks for telling me you know better than 3 respected physical modelling programs

A word of warning. These are relatively simple modelling tools. They are NOT real life and frequently produce very misleading results as they depend entirely on the various powder characteristics' values provided by the factory to the model's compiler, especially for burn rates. Great for identifying potentially suitable propellant grades, but often 'iffy' on maximum loads. My experience with QuickLOAD and RS powders, especially the high-energy / 'EI' deterrent technology grades which includes RS70, is that the program frequently underestimates pressures / overstates usable maximum charges.

I'm not saying that that applies to your 6.5 Creedmoor RS70 load, rather to counsel against relying on 'respected physical modelling programs' to support a view. (Where's the 'physical' bit in any case? They're relatively simple theoretical models whose results only gain authority when predictions are matched against actual physical results on a reliable chronograph.)

The question I'd ask you is did you run an incremental charge weight vs PMax/MVs table and where do the actual chronograph results fit into that table? If 2,900 fps is shown against a safe pressure (which it may well do with RS70's 'EI' technology), well and good. If it matches up against an over-pressure load to achieve the MV, it's almost certain your top charge is actually producing that, or something close to it. As an example, have a look here

THE HANDLOADING BENCH REACH-OUT 8 (EU COMPLIANT POWDERS)

and scroll down to Figure 3 which compares QL v.3.9. predictions and actuals for Viht N135 in heavy bullet 223 in a long-throat match chamber. The actual MV from the Labradar indicates peak pressure over 60,000 psi whilst the predicted pressure was 55,814 psi.

 

[Meateater69]

why not just send a couple to the proof house for pressure testing?

you'll have actual proof rather than feelings to see off the nay sayers thats got to be worth the effort surely?

I'm just giving people my experience. Im not here to sell RS70. As I said earlier, you can do what you feel happy with, and with your own goals in mind. I have no burning desire to convert the board to RS70, so I have no desire to spend time and money proofing it, for internet bragging points as if that is the most important thing in the world. It passes 5 tests of being OK, and fails none. If you want to experiment on your own with it and see for yourself, great. If you think Im a snake oil salesman, I really dont GAF. My point is to share what I found. If people with no experience of it want to tell me Im wrong, then it says more about them than me

 

[25 Sharps]

funny story , i walked up on a known big head on the range once , you know the type i'm sure the kind that if you told him you had been run over by a bus he would have been run over by a double decker bus or your car does 80mph he'd have a mate with one that did 90 - you know the type i'm sure

anyway , his new 180gr 308 win load was doing 3000fps (alledgedly)out of his 20'' accuracy international (rem700 in a stock) quick as a flash i said thats great let me get my chrono out of my boot and we will check it as that is an astounding safe load for that gun so good in fact i am sure ammo manufacturers will want to know about it , what do you know he had to clear up and leave right then so sadly not enough time but next time for sure ! I asked a few times i saw him and he never had that ammo or rifle again and left the club after a short while

300 win mag performance from a 308 win , what a load !

i guess he is busy inventing a rounder wheel ?

That is quite some load, from a 20" barrel too.

My gripe is people claiming their pet wonder load, which is generally well over published max, is safely below pressure limits when they have no way of actually knowing without sending rounds for proof.

When creedmoor became popular there was a chap on UKV telling everyone how he could safely under the pressure limit reach 3000 fps with a 140 gr bullet, he was encouraged to submit rounds for proof which he did and then all went quiet!!

Lapua SRP brass is known to be stronger and therefore take the pressure better with no obvious signs, that doesn't mean the pressure is not there!

 

[tackb]

I'm just giving people my experience. Im not here to sell RS70. As I said earlier, you can do what you feel happy with, and with your own goals in mind. I have no burning desire to convert the board to RS70, so I have no desire to spend time and money proofing it, for internet bragging points as if that is the most important thing in the world. It passes 5 tests of being OK, and fails none. If you want to experiment on your own with it and see for yourself, great. If you think Im a snake oil salesman, I really dont GAF. My point is to share what I found. If people with no experience of it want to tell me Im wrong, then it says more about them than me

ok bud , no need to have a go at me it was just a suggestion to quiet down the nay sayers

i'm sure your load is perfectly safe and well within pressure and it will soon be released by ammo manufacturers since it exceeds all current loadings by a significant bit.

 

[25 Sharps]

I'm just giving people my experience. Im not here to sell RS70. As I said earlier, you can do what you feel happy with, and with your own goals in mind. I have no burning desire to convert the board to RS70, so I have no desire to spend time and money proofing it, for internet bragging points as if that is the most important thing in the world. It passes 5 tests of being OK, and fails none. If you want to experiment on your own with it and see for yourself, great. If you think Im a snake oil salesman, I really dont GAF. My point is to share what I found. If people with no experience of it want to tell me Im wrong, then it says more about them than me

You are saying a load is safely under the higher pressure limit without actually knowing it, all I said is you have no way of knowing - that fact you got your knickers in a twist says more about you than anybody else my friend...

I tell you what, I'll pay for proof test, as I am genuinely interested, how does that sound?

 

[tackb]

That is quite some load, from a 20" barrel too. almost unbelievable.........

My gripe is people claiming their pet wonder load, which is generally well over published max, is safely below pressure limits when they have no way of actually knowing without sending rounds for proof. i was taught that if your velocities far exceed the published data there is likely something wrong and stop using the load and do some more research because ammo manufacturers would use the data if it was safe as it would be quite a selling point

When creedmoor became popular there was a chap on UKV telling everyone how he could safely under the pressure limit reach 3000 fps with a 140 gr bullet, he was encouraged to submit rounds for proof which he did and then all went quiet!! pretty sure i remember that!

Lapua SRP brass is known to be stronger and therefore take the pressure better with no obvious signs, that doesn't mean the pressure is not there! and many reloaders will just use the data suggested without proper checking.

 

[Meateater69]

A word of warning. These are relatively simple modelling tools. They are NOT real life and frequently produce very misleading results as they depend entirely on the various powder characteristics' values provided by the factory to the model's compiler, especially for burn rates. Great for identifying potentially suitable propellant grades, but often 'iffy' on maximum loads. My experience with QuickLOAD and RS powders, especially the high-energy / 'EI' deterrent technology grades which includes RS70, is that the program frequently underestimates pressures / overstates usable maximum charges.

I'm not saying that that applies to your 6.5 Creedmoor RS70 load, rather to counsel against relying on 'respected physical modelling programs' to support a view. (Where's the 'physical' bit in any case? They're relatively simple theoretical models whose results only gain authority when predictions are matched against actual physical results on a reliable chronograph.)

The question I'd ask you is did you run an incremental charge weight vs PMax/MVs table and where do the actual chronograph results fit into that table? If 2,900 fps is shown against a safe pressure (which it may well do with RS70's 'EI' technology), well and good. If it matches up against an over-pressure load to achieve the MV, it's almost certain your top charge is actually producing that, or something close to it. As an example, have a look here

THE HANDLOADING BENCH REACH-OUT 8 (EU COMPLIANT POWDERS)

and scroll down to Figure 3 which compares QL v.3.9. predictions and actuals for Viht N135 in heavy bullet 223 in a long-throat match chamber. The actual MV from the Labradar indicates peak pressure over 60,000 psi whilst the predicted pressure was 55,814 psi.

Sure they are modelling tools. And their efficacy is how well they predict reality. In this case they predicted MV very well. Yes the 2900 was against a safe pressure (given in a previous post) Measured with a Garmin. Yes I ran a ladder test, and indeed the load I selected was not the top load.

The physical bit is that it is software modelling a physical system

Yes I have been using QL for about 5 years, and yes I have seen discrepancies between predicted and actual MV and hence pressure, although your example is quite extreme. I would have stopped at the first ladder charge if I had seen it was that far out, and double checked all parameters. Whenever Ive seen that much difference its usually down to me entering a value wrong. Smaller differences though is commonly down to the case volume or the energy of the powder value. QL have updated energy values/burn rates in the past to closer match peoples experience/ give more accurate predictions

 

[Meateater69]

ok bud , no need to have a go at me it was just a suggestion to quiet down the nay sayers

i'm sure your load is perfectly safe and well within pressure and it will soon be released by ammo manufacturers since it exceeds all current loadings by a significant bit.

No worries, it wasnt actually directed at you, just a general comment.

Ammo manufacturers have other issues to consider though, such as it must work safely in all rifles with all sorts of tolerances etc. Getting max velocity is one of many priorities, e.g cost and availability say. Recently there was the whole Hornady 7PRC fiasco with ammo suddenly being 100fps slower than box value, but thats another story

 

[Meateater69]

You are saying a load is safely under the higher pressure limit without actually knowing it, all I said is you have no way of knowing - that fact you got your knickers in a twist says more about you than anybody else my friend...

I tell you what, I'll pay for proof test, as I am genuinely interested, how does that sound?

Well I wouldn't say we've progressed to friendship, my friends approach disagreements differently. The fact that I push back on your opinion and am described as getting my knickers in a twist being an example. To repeat, I am simply passing on my experience. If you dont want to even consider this powder then thats fine. If you are intrigued to test it yourself, thats fine. Once again, you do what floats your boat. But until you have tested it, you actually dont know what youre talking about in this case, you only have opinion. It may be valid, it may not, but its still just opinion.

 

[tackb]

Well I wouldn't say we've progressed to friendship, my friends approach disagreements differently. The fact that I push back on your opinion and am described as getting my knickers in a twist being an example. To repeat, I am simply passing on my experience. If you dont want to even consider this powder then thats fine. If you are intrigued to test it yourself, thats fine. Once again, you do what floats your boat. But until you have tested it, you actually dont know what youre talking about in this case, you only have opinion. It may be valid, it may not, but its still just opinion.

to be fair to him you made the claim of performance well in excess of normally seen figures so to be honest the onus is on you to prove your claims.

i would take him up on his generous offer to pay to have your loads tested then we can put all this to bed , if you are confident in your claims ?

 

[tackb]

You are saying a load is safely under the higher pressure limit without actually knowing it, all I said is you have no way of knowing - that fact you got your knickers in a twist says more about you than anybody else my friend...

I tell you what, I'll pay for proof test, as I am genuinely interested, how does that sound?

tell you what i will go halfs with you on the proof test as i'm genuinely interested now !

 

[25 Sharps]

Well I wouldn't say we've progressed to friendship, my friends approach disagreements differently. The fact that I push back on your opinion and am described as getting my knickers in a twist being an example. To repeat, I am simply passing on my experience. If you dont want to even consider this powder then thats fine. If you are intrigued to test it yourself, thats fine. Once again, you do what floats your boat. But until you have tested it, you actually dont know what youre talking about in this case, you only have opinion. It may be valid, it may not, but its still just opinion.

I was talking about the post where you insulted my intelligence, based on a very brief exchange on an internet forum.

Me saying you don't know the pressure of your load is not opinion, it is a fact, you clearly don't know the difference between the two (that is an opinion ).

 

[Meateater69]

There you go, all details are there....

 

[tackb]

There you go, all details are there....
View attachment 377838

have you actually loaded and verified this load in your rifle?

 

[25 Sharps]

There you go, all details are there....
View attachment 377838

That is a theoretical model.

You have also exceeded the SAAMI length for the cartridge.

 

[Laurie]

Yes the 2900 was against a safe pressure (given in a previous post) Measured with a Garmin. Yes I ran a ladder test, and indeed the load I selected was not the top load.

Fair enough. In your situation I'd be happy with the results and relaxed about them.

although your example is quite extreme. I would have stopped at the first ladder charge if I had seen it was that far out, and double checked all parameters.

If I did that, I'd not get far with my efforts to find H4895 and VarGet alternatives using the 223 as the test vehicle, or for that matter undertake match load development. I take the incremental load printout to the range when testing and constantly compare actuals against predictions and stop before actual MVs match possible dangerous pressures. Despite the constant moans that Viht published loads are way, way too low, (described as 'a joke' in recent post in another topic in SD), I've found that Viht's recent loads maxima are much closer to usable top loads than QL predictions in the 223, so with a 'fiddle factor' added in for my long-freebore match chambers they are always my backstop. Take it to the bank that I'm very careful what I do in these tests. In those 500 rounds, I've brought only two lots home to be pulled, whilst conversely I've done multiple follow-up tests where the first series produced lower loads / pressures than expected.

I also carefully cross-check fired primers and brass conditions against known over-pressure indicators. As a general rule I place very limited reliance on primer condition, but in this instance using a particular Savage PTA action which has a poor firing pin to bolt-face aperture fit allied to use of one single primer model from a single production lot, I get a very good indication of pressures after firing well over 5,000 rounds in this rig with this primer over the three barrels so far in its life. In the REACH-OUT 223 Rem test series, some 14 extruded powders have been tested including the VarGet and H4895 benchmark grades (another four or five ball powders still to follow). In getting on for 500 rounds total, not a single case has been scrapped or shown over-pressure symptoms, no primer blown or even blanked (and believe me this particular action will blank primers very readily indeed).

The cartridge variables have all been measured and input to QuickLOAD- ie, fireformed brass water capacity and the same batched lots of cases used throughout; input COAL is with the bullet ca. 20 thou' short of touching the rifling in this chamber.

although your example is quite extreme

Not at all, especially in small capacity cartridges. If you go through the series of reports, you'll see it is very common with some powder makes. Viht serially produces over-slow burn-rate values across most of its range - this also shows up in printed burn-rate charts which are based on the same data from the manufacturer. Lovex on the other hand serially shows burn rates as too 'fast' so that MVs don't just fall short of predictions, but sometimes three figures short. Hodgdon with its ADI manufactured tubular grades seems to be generally very good in this respect.

(If you want to see 'extreme' variations compare QL predicted to actuals for N550 in Creedmoor / 308 Win sized 6 to 7mm calibre cartridges! For this reason I don't use QL for this powder. I could change the default Ba value to make it 'quicker', but prefer to leave this variable untouched for various reasons.) Look here and scroll down to the section headed 'Bonus 4th' which looked at N550 in a long-throated 260 Rem rifle.

FROM THE HAND-LOADING BENCH BY LAURIE HOLLAND

QL may have changed this value since in its upgrades. It has changed N160 for instance between versions 3.6 and 3.9 to make it considerably 'quicker' in its default values.

 

[Meateater69]

have you actually loaded and verified this load in your rifle?

Yes, this is the load I was talking about that started this whole conversation.

 

[Meateater69]

That is a theoretical model.

You have also exceeded the SAAMI length for the cartridge.

Its so you can recreate what I tested and send it to proof since you are so keen

 

[Meateater69]

Fair enough. In your situation I'd be happy with the results and relaxed about them.

If I did that, I'd not get far with my efforts to find H4895 and VarGet alternatives using the 223 as the test vehicle, ....

I also carefully cross-check fired primers and brass conditions against known over-pressure indicators.....

The cartridge variables have all been measured and input to QuickLOAD- ie, fireformed brass water capacity and the same batched lots of cases used throughout; input COAL is with the bullet ca. 20 thou' short of touching the rifling in this chamber.


Not at all, especially in small capacity cartridges.

(If you want to see 'extreme' variations compare QL predicted to actuals for N550 in Creedmoor / 308 Win sized 6 to 7mm calibre cartridges! For this reason I don't use QL for this powder. I could change the default Ba value to make it 'quicker', but prefer to leave this variable untouched for various reasons.) Look here and scroll down to the section headed 'Bonus 4th' which looked at N550 in a long-throated 260 Rem rifle.

FROM THE HAND-LOADING BENCH BY LAURIE HOLLAND

QL may have changed this value since in its upgrades. It has changed N160 for instance between versions 3.6 and 3.9 to make it considerably 'quicker' in its default values.

Yep thx

Ah OK different circumstances. I was just testing one new powder with two bullets, so much more focused.

Yep me too

Yep, same here. If it still isnt matching experiment, then I do tweak the powder variables

Ah again, 6.5 is the smallest I have used so have no experience with smaller calibres. I guess I assumed that if the programs are good for 6.5, they would be good for all, but clearly not!

Yes in the changelog, I can see RS14/Vit140/160 and Staball6.5 all changed in the last 3 years

 

[25 Sharps]

Its so you can recreate what I tested and send it to proof since you are so keen

I don’t have the powder, but as I say I will cover the cost with @tackb for the proof if you were to submit them.