I use R15 in several cartridges and have been very satisfied with it. I am now running out and haven't been able to find any more. Yesterday I was in our LGS and found a good supply of Varget on the shelf. Pricy but available.

I have used the R15 in rounds from the .220 Swift to .338 Win. Mag. Have any of you done comparisons of these two powders and, if so, what were your conclusions?

Normally I don't like switching powders if I do not have to because of the amount of work up involved in finding satisfactory new loads. Any information will be helpful.

Jim

I tend to use Varget more because it's reported to be more temperature stable. RL15 has been reported to be pretty temperature sensitive in the past but it's been reformulated several times. I don't know how the new stuff handles temp swings.

In my case am not worried about temperature stability.

Jim

Varget and RL 15 are very similar in both burn speed and velocity results. I find that accuracy does vary, though not always. Example: in 308, Varget produces the best accuracy in my rifle, but in 7mm-08 that honor goes to RL 15. Let your rifle decide.

As for temperature stability, there doesn't seem to be a problem with either powder.

They are almost interchageable grain for grain. Certainly close enough that if I'd worked up an accuracy load with RL15, Varget would be my first choice as a replacement powder and odds are you can knock a few grains of your RL15 load, and work up to the load and will likely find it produces the same accuracy and velocity.

I've never loaded RL15, but I do have sub-MOA loads for most of my calibers using VARGET. I would say you are safe using it in a pinch.

I've used both in 308. I can get 20-25 fps more speed with RL-15. Accuracy is about the same, which means very good. Temperature sensitivity may never be an issue, but I prefer Varget because of it.

It can be 110 here in August when shooting at the range, I've hunted in single digits in December. That can be 150-200 fps difference with some powders. From my reading Varget would probably only see 50 fps or so difference with the same temperature swings. I'm actually more concerned with a safe load developed in the winter being over pressure in August. Temperature sensitivity works both ways.

While it's slightly faster than Reloder 15 or Varget, overall I've found H4895 to be about as useful as either.

As noted, six of one and a half dozen of another whether velocity or accuracy.

I've used both and prefer RL 15....

I've used both and prefer Varget...

In my -20F tests I found Varget lost half the velocity that RL15 lost (100 vs 50 fps) and is generally as or more accurate. When I did the test five or six years ago it was enough to cause me to switch when I'd run out of RL15.

However, I'd still chose whichever your rifle liked best, 50 fps be darned...

Have you considered Norma 203B as an alternative to Reloder 15? Just checked and Norma 203B is currently readily available

I have a fair quantity of Reloder 15 as well as a fair quantity of Varget. I've not bothered with comparisons much because whichever I started with based on loading data or suggestions has invariably done well enough. I've got enough H4895 as well.

I've sometimes thought I could stock far fewer powders that share the same applications than I do but it pleases me to have a fair quantity in reserve and confidence that I could find a satisfactory load some place.

Pretty tough to beat old4895

Havent used R15 but found H4895 to be more accurate than Varget in a couple of 308s.

If you have Varget, RL15 and H4895 it would take care of most reloading needs!

I, for one, would definitely be interested in how 203B compares - in real experience, not the charts

I would bet it's the same powder as RL-15, but have an assignment for magazine that involves shooting various powders to find out how they vary from lot-to-lot, or in various forms over the years, or to find out whether rumors of some powders being the same under different names are true or not.

Among the powders that will be tested are RL-15 and 203B, and I have two different lots of 203B from several years apart to see how they vary as well. Norma admits some of their powders are "very similar" to Alliant powders, but also claims they're more consistent.

Lot-to-lot variation can be considerble. Just look at data for H414 and W760 over the years. They're the same powder and have been for a long time (Hodgdon confirmed as much after they acquired the rights to the "Winchester" powders), but loading data from other companies will differ because of lot variation.

203B continues in stock currently at Powder Valley which I think is still the best answer to the OP.

I am reminded of an interesting conversation some years ago on a related subject - definitely NOT RL-15/Norma 203B.

Dealing with two different OEM type vendors with very similar product lines - neither company made everything sold under its own name and actively cross licensed and filled their lines with their competitor's production.

In fact a salesman for company B suggested in some seriousness or at least kidding on the square that we should buy company A's production under the Company B label (where we could) for about the same cost to us.

The rationale was that in this era of statistical process control Company B's deal was for only from the better half of the production so that Company B would not eternally get the inferior half of the production by Company A.

I've long understood going back to Phil Sharpe and others that powder as produced varies and some is sold to consumers as meeting tests for canister grade and some is sold to loading companies as needing and getting adjustments. Mostly first you make the powder then you test it and label it after testing the final product.

I can only interpret statements by Norma that what they sell themselves is the best as their own canister grade is maybe down the middle of the statistical process control or maybe more attention is paid to contaminants or storage condition or something. I doubt the claims are baseless but in a world where leaving the powder exposed to the air for a few day's of lab work changes the result by weight I'd have real trouble designing an experiment to refute the null hypothesis that they are the same. Sadly I'd have real trouble trying to refute the null hypothesis they are different.

I'd expect to punt and say the same but not identical under rigorous testing but that's why the tests. I'll be more interested in the procedure than the result I think.

I use and like both. Buy it, you won't regret it.