Sorry I was talking to @LongRangeAggie about n570 loads. That said if you have RL26 you want to sell me… I’m open ears
300 PRC
- Thread starter TripleBull
- Start date
Sorry I was talking to @LongRangeAggie about n570 loads. That said if you have RL26 you want to sell me… I’m open ears
Rifle reloading data | Handloading | Rifle calibers | Centerfire Rifle bullets | Reload your own ammo - Vihtavuori
Vihtavuori offers rifle reloading data for numerous calibers and bullets for match and hunting purposes. Never exceed maximum loads.
www.vihtavuori.com
I'm running 78.0 grs with ADG and getting an avg. of 2840 out of a 26" barrel.
Interested in hearing more of your various tests/results... as you're one of very few 24" setups...
I have a 24" on a HOWA1500 on the way, with plans to re barrel to 28" ASAP.
G
whats the "experience" around twist rates, seems 24" they're 8.5 ... but on the 26" and 28" they seem to drop to 9 ?
G
G
curious to know what you shooting, sounds like we into the same ideas.
G
ps: where you from?
shall we assume the heavy be 250gr, or you simply even the 230gr ATips?
I'm looking at re-barreling to a 28" but in the mean time will be shooting most probably 225ELDM or 230ATips in 24"
be interesting what others experience are with N565 - I'm asking as I can get some locally at a decent price, Powder is scares here... so it will be about picking one, doing load development and trying to stick with it.
My options (availability) are
N565
Hodgdon Retumbo
Hodgdon H1000
for now, 24" - ELDM225 or Tips 230
for later, 28" - ATip 250 - but might totally powder swop then, Could also end with Berger 245 's Hybrids.... never know.
G
Retumbo might be a little slow, even for the heavier bullets. I relegated my remaining Retumbo to an emergency powder for both my 300 PRC and 37XC. I haven't used 565 - can't get any to play - but I've tried both Retumbo and H1000 in a 28" barrel. Ultimately, I chose neither. RL26 continues to be my favorite, but H1000 tested pretty well when I shot it. 565 should be similar to H1000. Now, all my H1000 is designated for my 37XC - and I need it. The damn thing goes through powder!
With the 250 ATips I just haven’t been able to work up a load that will give me better performance inside 2,600 yards.
With the a 230 ATip using RL26 I can get 2940 with an SD around 8. The best I can get out of the 250 is 2860 using LRT powder, giving me SDs around 25. I just haven’t had luck with that powder.
At these speeds the drops on the 230 equals the 250 out to 2,600.
Additionally, the bearing surface of the 250 sticks well below the shoulder / neck junction. Maybe in a barrel with some free bore the 250s would work better.
H1000 worked well in my 300WM shooting 235 ELDMs.
I couldn't max out the load and get the velocity I wanted.
Caveat: my chamber is a little small, so that obviously impacts this a bit, but I was getting compressed loads (even using a drop tube) before reaching pressure.
I think i meant, I
but getting the impression from research it's all good in a 28" barrel.
Although I'm getting idea H1000 and N565 is better options.
G
can understand from what I've been hearing the Retumbo is to slow in a 24" barrel for a heavy 250gr ATip.
but getting the impression from research it's all good in a 28" barrel.
Although I'm getting idea H1000 and N565 is better options.
G
I've found h1000 to be the best at keeping single digit ES and SD from day to day. N565 gives a bit more velocity but I'm only interested in the lowest of variations. Current barrel is 31.5" Bart running 230 atips 2820 fps.
My 300-PRC (Barrett MRAD 26" barrel) absolutely LOVES Retumbo (77.4 gn) and Berger 220's. Consistent SD's in the single-digit 5's, and no problem with 1-mile shots. I save my H1000 for my 300-NM and 338-LM.
No, I meant that looks slow from what I've read... if you want or need faster, yes now, your choice, just surprised by speed considering the barrel length.
Also surprised as the other threads imply H1000 Fastest... then N565 slower and Retumbo even slower, implying for me in 24" I should go H1000, with a edge case of N565, Been advise Retumbo is to slow for my 24" and will just be blowing unburned powder out the front.
G
still playing with these ideas in head...
been seriously thinking of N565, but then noticed the Vihtavuori numbers listed for N570... and wondering why not rather. Although their numbers are down a 26" barrel, might it be that for my 24" N565 will be better, and for a 26" N570 would be better, moving 28" then I'd look at Retumbo rather.
for now bullet will be 225 ELDM or 230gr A-Tips.
G
been seriously thinking of N565, but then noticed the Vihtavuori numbers listed for N570... and wondering why not rather. Although their numbers are down a 26" barrel, might it be that for my 24" N565 will be better, and for a 26" N570 would be better, moving 28" then I'd look at Retumbo rather.
for now bullet will be 225 ELDM or 230gr A-Tips.
G
Maybe you should try 25" and N568....
if anyone has access to Quickload, would be keen to see what it spits out... just having heard about it...
300 PRC
ADG Brass (93.2 gr internal volume/water)
Federal Magnum 215 Large Rifle
Hornady 230gr ATip
24" barrel
Option #1 Vihtavuori N565
Option #2 Hodgson H1000
G
300 PRC
ADG Brass (93.2 gr internal volume/water)
Federal Magnum 215 Large Rifle
Hornady 230gr ATip
24" barrel
Option #1 Vihtavuori N565
Option #2 Hodgson H1000
G
Have you ever tried GRT: https://grtools.de/doku.php
A free piece of software similar to quickloads.
You Can Now Run VirtualBox on Apple Silicon (M1 / M2)
Mac VirtualBox users will be happy to know that VirtualBox now runs natively on Apple Silicon ARM processors, including the M1 and M2. VirtualBox is virtualization software that allows you to run o…
osxdaily.com
This! OR run it on Linux. That’s what I do.You Can Now Run VirtualBox on Apple Silicon (M1 / M2)
Mac VirtualBox users will be happy to know that VirtualBox now runs natively on Apple Silicon ARM processors, including the M1 and M2. VirtualBox is virtualization software that allows you to run o…
Great to hear they’ve eventually ported it, but what it runs is a Linux or windows based version for the arm chip.
The GRT has been compiled for intel platform.
I’m in discussions with the GRT guys on their Discord server.
G
The GRT has been compiled for intel platform.
I’m in discussions with the GRT guys on their Discord server.
G
I received unpublished load data from Berger's Tech Support guy Bob Blaine (really nice guy) regarding their 220 LRHT & 230 HT using Reloder 26 today.
Hope it's helpful.
Hope it's helpful.
Reading through this thread and the other 100 page one, I noticed not many people use the 230g SMK. Any specific reason?
They had always done well in my .260 and 6.5. 225’s are obtainable, 230 Bergers are hit and miss, and don’t really want to pay for a-tips.
They had always done well in my .260 and 6.5. 225’s are obtainable, 230 Bergers are hit and miss, and don’t really want to pay for a-tips.
I can't speak for the others here, but A-Tips and Bergers have been available locally, and they have shot well for me, so that's my excuse. The A-Tip has a slightly higher published BC than the SMK, but if you're curious, go for it and report back.
I’d like to find the 230 Bergers but I have been un successful. If I don’t find them I might just get some to run the first 100 through the barrel and see what they do.
What were you getting for velocity with the Berger 220s in your MRAD with Retumbo?
It gives me plenty of neck tension ... here's my last seating force curve from my AMP Press. I've observed that terminal force of around 60-ish pounds is just about perfect. I anneal everything, shrink with the bushing, and expand with the mandrel that gives me the spring-back I need for the seating force (AKA neck tension) I'm looking for. It's a myth that a .308 mandrel will give you a .308 inside diameter. Well-annealed brass will always spring back ... and for me that .308 mandrel springs back to just the neck tension I'm looking for. Make sense? Others may do it differently, but this is what works for me.
20's and 30's ... I worry about the rifle recoil impacting my seating depth in the magazine.
80's and 90's ... I worry that seating force is high enough to impact bullet release.
50's and 60's ... I don't worry about seating force or neck tension and that frees me up to worry about lots of other things.
graph looks good, as long as it works for your application. I only single feed. Did you try different neck tensions to see how do they affect the vertical?
I did tests with larger and smaller mandrels for all of my competition calibers. The results for literally all of them indicated that this profile (50's and 60's) gave me the tightest seating curve, and the best SD's. Never got around to testing down to "Group Size" granularity. Zero'd in on my best SD's, declared "Victory", and moved on.
This is very interesting. What is your process to ensure your getting spring back the correct way? Ie. If your brass wants to spring back to a larger diameter than the bullet (like from a fired case matching chamber diameter) when using the 308 mandrel vs a smaller diameter so it will hold your bullet and maintain that 50-60 psi?
First ... just for accuracy, the AMP Press measures "pounds of force" ... not PSI (pounds per square inch). That said, I'm not sure I understand the question. But let me try answering it by saying I've got the full set of 21st Century mandrels, and a bunch of different bushings, so I've been able to test combination to derive the right seating force. Smaller bushing means tighter neck and more ram pressure to open up to a larger mandrel size. Larger mandrel sizes mean looser neck tension. And so on and so forth. Bottom line, I've learned that the .333 SAC Bushing used with the .3080 21st Century Mandrel ... gives me the seating force curve I'm looking for, single-digit SD's, and good accuracy at distance. Once I hit that "sweet spot", I stopped testing and locked it in as what I call my "Reference Load". Does that help?
Yes it does help. My question wasn't very clear though. Let me try to ask it in a better way-
If your getting spring back what is the required status of the brass to ensure it gives you spring back that makes it spring smaller rather than larger. For example, you have to resize it a certain amount forst first and then mandrel to the .308 diameter. Does the bushing size in your sizing die matter in relation to your end result of 50-60 lbs?
I get it (maybe). You're looking for "the answer" and I'm talking about "the process". First point is that I've never experienced "spring back" making anything spring in the same direction as the force. For me, when you stretch (or compress) something ... like my .3080 mandrel stretching a smaller case neck ... the result is always adjustment in the opposite direction of the force. In this case, the force is to enlarge the case neck, so the spring-back would, on a properly annealed case, tend to move to an opening smaller than the mandrel once the mandrel is removed. Now I could use a bigger bushing and not use a mandrel. I could also skip the bushing and only use the mandrel ... but that second one would require different dies than the Redding Type-S FL Bushing dies I use, and either of those would likely damage my concentricity, which is almost always sub-one-thousandth on the finished necks (and "NO" I don't neck-turn and I don't let my friends neck-turn). The bottom line here is that for each of my long-range calibers (6.5-CM, 300-WM, 300-PRC, 300-NM, and 338-LM) I have a bushing that shrinks the neck slightly below what I want for my final neck size, and a mandrel that takes me slightly (very slightly) larger than my final neck size so that my well-annealed brass, in its final act of mutual cooperation, springs back to slightly less than the .3080 opening and gives me the end-state seating force I'm looking for. It's just by coincidence that for 300-PRC, I get this result with a .3080 mandrel. That's not the case for all of them, and for my 338-LM, I have to open the neck quite a bit more than I would with a .3380 mandrel. The bottom line is that "seating force" on my bullet seating (measured on my AMP Press during bullet seating) is the end-state that gives me the best and most consistent velocity, SD, groups, and accuracy at distance ... so I start with that, and work backwards to get the properly-tuned bushing/mandrel combination that gives me the seating force I want.
Caveat ... this is how "I" do it, and what works for "me". I'm sure there are at least 837 people reading this that believe I haven't seen the ball since the kickoff, and that I'm doing it all wrong. They may be right, but as long as I can hit a mile target with my hand-loads ... they can kiss my fat hairy ass and just watch the red light pop on the target as they heckle me from the cheap seats. LOL
Very fine, sir. Very fine.I get it (maybe). You're looking for "the answer" and I'm talking about "the process". First point is that I've never experienced "spring back" making anything spring in the same direction as the force. For me, when you stretch (or compress) something ... like my .3080 mandrel stretching a smaller case neck ... the result is always adjustment in the opposite direction of the force. In this case, the force is to enlarge the case neck, so the spring-back would, on a properly annealed case, tend to move to an opening smaller than the mandrel once the mandrel is removed. Now I could use a bigger bushing and not use a mandrel. I could also skip the bushing and only use the mandrel ... but that second one would require different dies than the Redding Type-S FL Bushing dies I use, and either of those would likely damage my concentricity, which is almost always sub-one-thousandth on the finished necks (and "NO" I don't neck-turn and I don't let my friends neck-turn). The bottom line here is that for each of my long-range calibers (6.5-CM, 300-WM, 300-PRC, 300-NM, and 338-LM) I have a bushing that shrinks the neck slightly below what I want for my final neck size, and a mandrel that takes me slightly (very slightly) larger than my final neck size so that my well-annealed brass, in its final act of mutual cooperation, springs back to slightly less than the .3080 opening and gives me the end-state seating force I'm looking for. It's just by coincidence that for 300-PRC, I get this result with a .3080 mandrel. That's not the case for all of them, and for my 338-LM, I have to open the neck quite a bit more than I would with a .3380 mandrel. The bottom line is that "seating force" on my bullet seating (measured on my AMP Press during bullet seating) is the end-state that gives me the best and most consistent velocity, SD, groups, and accuracy at distance ... so I start with that, and work backwards to get the properly-tuned bushing/mandrel combination that gives me the seating force I want.
Caveat ... this is how "I" do it, and what works for "me". I'm sure there are at least 837 people reading this that believe I haven't seen the ball since the kickoff, and that I'm doing it all wrong. They may be right, but as long as I can hit a mile target with my hand-loads ... they can kiss my fat hairy ass and just watch the red light pop on the target as they heckle me from the cheap seats. LOL
It seems as if you have to tune your process with the type-s neck bushings just as much as with the mandrel sizes before you have it the way you've found works the best
True statement. The question I always wanted to answer was ... "I have this used case with a big neck ... what's the least I have to size down (with a bushing) to give myself the least I have to expand (with a mandrel) ... to give me the seating force I want for the bullets I prefer?"
I know ... it's a complicated question ... but it works for me.
