1. Do you find it faster or slower that say 760-4350's.
2. Any excess pressure excursions?
3. How has accuracy been?
4. Footnotes?

1. About the same
2. Nope; ES has never been over 25.
3. Under 3/4 for 5 shots from a sporter, one holers from a bench gun. Always consistent, even going from match bullets to TSX's.
4. Only have used it in one chambering; data was started from IMR 4350 starting loads and worked up. Fouling isn't bad, no issues but have never ran it at any temp extremes, either.

I'm just playing with it now. My 7-08 got about the same (good) speeds with initial loads. It's too early to say for sure about it in that caliber regarding accuracy, etc. I have some 270 win loads done that I'll run in my newly rebarreled mod 721 once it's painted.

I've tried it in several rifles and cartridges, as the opportunity arose while writing various articles. It's performed well in some, not so well in others, but haven't seen any of the magic reported when it first appeared and loading data was just about non-existent.

I have noted that conventional pressure signed do not seem to appear as soon as some other powders in the 4350 burn range.

However I don't believe conventional signs are a reliable indicator of pressure.

My take is that because of the properties of reloader 17 the powder is applying the pressure to the brass over a longer duration there may be some benefits of extended brass life when loaded to equal pressures of other 4350 powders.

I haven't done any testing to confirm as I leave that sort of stuff to gun writers.

1. Do you find it faster or slower that say 760-4350's.
I would say slightly faster than 4350 and I have no baseline for 760. I have used it in 257 roberts, 6.5x284, 270, and 280AI.

2. Any excess pressure excursions?
I had one instance were a neck cracked and caused a sticky bolt in a 280AI. Brass was on its 6th loading from that load.

3. How has accuracy been?
Accuracy is on par with 4350 IME, when I have tried 4350 and 17 in the same cartridge I always ended up going with 17.
4. Footnotes?
Stays relatively temp stable until temps drop in the low 20's starts to fall off after that, not a concern for where I hunt.

That's good info. I only use it in one load, which is a 120 gr bullet in my 260. Shoots great, but some negative comments about the temp stability of the powder had me lightly concerned.

I would agree , kind of like the same pressure put with a press or a hammer , the impact with a hammer will tear something up far quicker.
I have several loads with 17 that are great , maybe I'm lucky. Ill post the data I have later

I got some velocities that were unbelievable in my 300WSM and 180 grain Nozler BTs.Accuracy was pretty good also.

Use it in the 300 WSM and the 6.5-284.
After trying it along side h and IMR-4350 it seems to be faster and the groups are better at longer ranges.

Been playing with in the 25-06 with 115 grain Berger bullets and so far am pleased.
Just need to shoot more of it in some other calibers.

I've had very low spreads with it in many carts. It edges out the 4350s for me in the speed dept. Accuracy between the 4350s and R17 has been gun and load dependent, sort of a toss up.

I did see the magical speeds in a few loads, but think Alliants data is a bit generous. Never saw the common pressure signs, but the chrono was telling me to back off.

In my .243 (all I've used it in):

1. It has a few fps on 4350 with lighter bullets.
2. No.
3. Accuracy has been excellent with the 80 grain TTSX.

The velocity difference between it and H4350 is such that if the H4350 had been more accurate, it would be used instead. The RL17 did show a slight accuracy edge, though. I'd rather have the smaller group than 20 to 30 fps, but if I can get both...

I seem to recall Dober have pretty impressive results with it in the 338-06.

I have used it in a 300wsm, and an old mod 70 '06. Excellent accuracy in both and good velocity.

I am shooting RL17, with the 155 Scenar in the above mentioned '06...right at 3k.

Tony

This has been my observation in the 7mm RM, .338 and .30/06.
John

I went all the way to 2840 fps in a 338/06 with 225 accubond,no conventional pressure signs. I backed off 2 full grains and left it alone. Spread was about 40 fps

Seen the same results in an 8 mm mouser a friend has. With Ramshot Hunter he was getting sticky bolt at 55 gr for 2500 fps 220 gr sierra.

Reloader 17 he cronoed 2650 no sticky bolt sierra 220.
The spread on a Ramshot load of 54 gr was 8 fps. Reloader 17 not so great.

Shod

I go through about 16# a year. I find it one of the best powders ever made. Christer Larssen at Norma agrees with me.

Cartridges that it works extremely well in are: 6.5-284. 260AI. 260 Remington, 340 Wby and 7WSM. These are the ones I have used it in successfully. I can easily get at least 100 fps more velocity than 4350 in any of these chamberings. I find it can be used where, normally, a faster powder would be indicated. I use it with 250 Bergers in the 340 Wby. I can hit 3200 fps but reduce to 3000. At 3200 fps I am sure the pressure is high but I can get 5 loads and still have tight primer pockets. I can only get 3000 fps with one other powder and that is MagPro.

I can get 3000 fps with 140s in the 6.5-284 with a 25" barrel. With 4350 you 30" to do that.

Would I use it in a 1000 yd BR match, no. I can get lower SDs with 4350 and that will win you points in a BR match where group size is so critical. In HP where the rings are bigger and circular, it isn't a handicap and the extra velocity helps.

I use it with 130s in my 6.5 to get 3200 fps. I use MagPro with the 140s as it shoot better for me. The velocity is there. Is it magic? I don't think so but it does an amazing job of lengthening the pressure curve so that you can squeeze a little more out of it.

How does it work in sub-freezing temperatures? I have no idea- I live in Arizona

It works fine when it is 100� out though. And it works fine when it is 35� too.

In the 260AI it is simply amazing. It is supposedly amazing in the 6XC and a few others but I have never worked with these.

I don't have any pressure testing equipment but I can shoot loads over a chronograph with several different powders and carefully inspect and observed the fired brass to determine when I have like pressures- whatever they may be.

It gave me my best speeds and good accuracy in my 300 Saum.

dennisinaz, do you mind sharing some of your loads with RL17 in the 7mm WSM? I have a 7WSM and rl17 but never really got into trying it. Thanks!!!

Tried it further today in the .338.
225gn TSX's easily met 2950fps which is about 75fps less than my .340 loads in a 2" shorter barrel.

265gn TTSX's ran just under 2700fps. The interesting point is that if I use the 4350's as the equivalent powder starting charges, then I do get 100fps+ more velocity and with round primers and easy extraction, which has been the standard for handloaders for nearly a century.

Technically inadequate though it may be in today's world, it still served the better part of all of our reloading practices for decades and before that.

What is most interesting is that the above loads are backed off a couple of grains, not the top end loads I worked up to, and the reason I really backed off, was that I never got any top end loading signs.

Because I am using the chrongraph as the measuring tool, it defeats the purpose of determining whether the powder is superior to the 4350's as we are in effect, holding it back.

This is where the loading recommendations are useless to the handloader. "Not my gun" references are of little value.

Still interested, but very uncomfortable in not knowing what is really going on here.

As a hunter, none of this matters as we have all proven at some point, that 100fps here and there does not matter in the field. How loonie is that? )All due respects to JB)

John

What I've seen with RL-17 from the beginning is claims of magical velocities when there wasn't any published data.

I never could get my hands on any powder until after Alliant had posted pressure-tested data. I analyzed their data and found that while in a very few cartridge/bullet combinations 100 fps could be gained, that's true of almost any powder with certain combinations. In most instances where RL-17 some of Alliant's other powders got the same velocity, or higher.

Now, this thread more claims of excellent velocity in several cartridges such as the 6.5/284, .338-06 and .340 Weatherby. I looked on Alliant�s website and there is no data for those cartridges, which means the loads are being worked up with all the usual pressure signs, just like the magic RL-17 loads before Alliant published any data.

There is data for other cartridges mentioned in this thread, such as the .260 Remington, 7mm WSM and .338 Winchester, but in each of those another Alliant powders resulted in the same or even more velocity. In the .260, for instance, RL-19 and RL-22 are shown as getting more zip out of 140�s, and in the 7mm WSM 4000-MR gets more out of 160�s. I don�t know how long the barrel is on John�s (AGW�s) .338, but the top velocity listed for 225�s and RL-17 is over 100 fps slower than what he�s getting with 225 TSX�s. Granted the Alliant data uses the 225 Speer boattail, but like the TSX that�s another bullet that doesn�t generate as much pressure as most others.

Apparently, the reason RL-17 gets compared to the 4350�s so much is the maximum powder charges are about the same. But RL-17 is a double-based powder, while all the 4350�s are single-based. We expect double-based powders to generate more velocity, because they contain more potential energy. So that isn�t revolutionary.

When I work on handloading profiles of various cartridges, I first go through all the recently published data, and pick out the powder/bullet combos that provide the highest velocities. Reloder 17 shows up here and there, but not anymore than other powders, and when I try it sometimes it provides the highest velocity for a certain cartridge/bullet combo, and sometimes it doesn�t. So far, WITH PRESSURE-TESTED DATA, it hasn�t shown itself to be much different than a bunch of other powders.

Unfortunately, as a gun writer I�m pretty much limited to pressure-tested loads, because magazines refuse to run �handloader work-ups� anymore, relying on primer appearance, case life, bolt lift, etc. I can get away with one once in a while, such as in instances where published data suddenly dropped several grains of powder for no apparent reason (this happened with RL-15 and 250�s in the .35 Whelen a few years ago), but I have to publish a disclaimer explaining why.

But so far, when using Alliant�s data, I simply haven�t seen the RL-17 magic. And I�ve done enough experimenting with handloader �pressure signs� in various ballistic labs to know they aren�t reliable, and can cite many instances showing exactly that.

John,

Could it be that a lot of folks are just trying to apply the somewhat linear fashion of increased pressures and signs they see with single based powders to powders like 17 (and 22 or 25)?

I'd like someone to tell me where the danger lies in a load that clocks 100 to 200 fps faster than "conventional " powders, shows no sticky bolt lift, case extraction is easy, primers aren't flat and aren't filling the primer pocket, brass life on par with other loads, etc....

it's like lifting a load weighing 100 tons with rigging rated for 90 tons and working under it. you are using up the safety margin.

Mule Deer,
Are you running a strain gauge with an Oehler 43/83/85 or do you have access to a Piezoelectric pressure system to come up with your actual "PRESSURE-TESTED DATA"?

Regards, Matt.

Excellent question, I believe it is a question that can be answered.

As an example....if you take cast iron and put a slower increased pressure the lbs of force required to break it are much higher than if a quick sharp blow occurs.

I believe this is exactly the reason ones are running higher pressures with a powder such as reloader 17 and not seeing the stressed brass. If the brass is seeing less stress per psi isn't it possible the chamber is also seeing less stress per psi.

If this can be confirmed it would seem to me that reading conventional signs of brass stress may be a good indicator of a safe load.

Shod

Exactly

JB,
Very good points and I am glad you chimed in here.

To answer a couple of your queries, my .338 is Weatherby Mark V with 24 inch barrel. My comparisons against my loads in the .340 were done using another Mark V with 26 inch barrel where I stopped at 3050fps with good accuracy.

The mention of the 225gn Speer BT is very interesting, as I did a lot of tests with that bullet 20 years or so back and yes indeed, it did get 100fps more than anything else so it is not the R 17 necessarily that is achieving that. Without that prior experience, it could be assumed the powder is developing these increased velocities.

In fact, that bullet was out of "whack" with every other 225gn I tried at that time because of its very short bearing surface so the charges I developed for it in reviews, were not interchangeable at all with other bullets of the same weight.

Rel 17 is interesting to be because I cannot trust my own assessment any more where as I still know what my rifles will do and how they will behave with other powders and bullets.

In the end, my continued use would rely on more proven criteria such as:
1. Will if generate factory spec's for the preferred bullet weight?
2. Does is have acceptable accuracy?
3. Does it give uniform performance in the temperature ranges I will hunt and with consistent reliability?
4. Is the above supported with 7-10 plus reloads in the cases at a minimum.
Sounds simple enough but also realistic with almost any powder that is considered useable or ideal for any cartridge.

I suppose this has all made the 4350's what they are and have been for so long now as they cover a lot of brass sizes and shapes and have a predictability we have all come to take for granted.

If a cartridge that utilizes a 4350 well is supplemented with any similar burning powder, it isn't necessarily a better powder, it may be just be confirming the aforementioned 4350's are still the go to powders we all thought they were.

In the end, I am glad I tried it but not necessarily convinced I would include it in my regular inventory. Like Varget and Rel 15 is has a place, but that is up to the given rifle and user. It works well and is a viable substitute, that is about all we can expect.

John

my way of thinking also , as I hinted early on in this thread . I know some data is computer generated , I'd love to see real pressure test to the point of a real problem using similar burn rate powder both single and double base

Rick,

The organizations of firearms and ammunition manufacturers in both the U.S. and Europe keep average maximum pressures at no more than about 65,000 PSI. I don't know exactly what all their reasons are, but do know they're at least partly due to being careful about variations in pressures that can occur, that might push things pass the safe point. Those variations can be a number of things, including temperature, bore condition, bore/throat dimensions, etc.

It's been proven over and over again that "a load that shows no sticky bolt lift, case extraction is easy, primers aren't flat and aren't filling the primer pocket, brass life on par with other loads" can produce 70,000+ PSI, even up to 75,000 PSI, when tested under the controlled conditions standardized by SAAMI and CIP. I'm not as familiar with CIP standards as SAAMI, but SAAMI's are 70 degrees F. for standard pressure testing.

Apparently 70-75,000 psi isn't dangerous in modern rifles, but no powder I�m aware of has produced the same pressures at above 70 degrees as when tested at 70. The people who make rifles, ammo and components don�t even like 70,000 PSI, because it doesn�t leave enough margin for extra pressures, however they occur. Apparently they have good reason, because every pressure lab I�ve ever visited has at least one firearms that has blown up, even when testing under very controlled conditions. They�ve included a wide variety of rifle actions, and are prominently displayed to remind people what can happen.

I know a lot of shooters like to develop their own data, and most get away with it for a long time. But the professionals who develop data for a living are much more careful about the process, including firing their test actions without their face right down behind the action, or from behind some sort of protective barrier�or both.

Matt,

I thought it was plain my pressure-tested data was provided by Alliant Powder's laboratory.

Whenever one of these threads gets into minutia about factors affecting pressure, and my brain gets tied in knots, I always go back to John Barsness' excellent essay "Pressure Points" which seems to have been deliberately written for the relative lay-man.

Well put together and with self-evident technical data to back up the opinions and views set out in the article.

I think it is a truth, that the consumer will continue to develop their own loads the traditional way and the only additive that is growing is the use of a chronograph in conjunction with those traditional methods.

There is right, wrong and reality.
John

In my 6.5-284, 26" Kreiger M-70, Vv-165 had been my "go to" powder, as it was the favorite of certain high profile LR shooters at the time I built the rifle. Using 140 gr. VLD's, I had gone to some trouble to find accuracy nodes and optimal COAL. I used the fastest node at around 2,950 fps. Those accuracy nodes were quite specific and sensitive to certain charges of 165.

I then tried RL-17. To me the accuracy was consistently good, but without hard accuracy nodes like with 165. It wasn't as finicky as 165 and seemed to shoot about the same sized groups as I moved the loads up. I got to 3,000 fps with low SD's, still with half MOA groups at a hundred. 3K was about tops without pressure signs and groups opening up. I actually had slightly smaller groups at a hundred with Vv165 at specific accuracy nodes than I did with RL-17, but both powders shot 1/2 MOA at 400 yds.; I couldn't tell any difference at that range.

I'm now using RL-17 for the slight advantage in velocity and what seems to me to be greater flexibility than Vv165. And it's a real clean burning powder, very consistent in this gun. I don't know of a powder that will out perform RL-17 in the 6.5-284, velocity plus accuracy.

DF

John,
I was unaware that all of your pressure data came from the powder company. I supposed, clearly wrongly, that at least part of your oft repeated pressure commentaries would have come from personal experience and testing. Working to a firm number so to speak. Granted one can't sand the blueing off of a loaner rifle for a strain gauge, however, it would add a bit more breadth for cartridges that the powder companies don't provide information on. If a writer, of your caliber, that specializes in handloading doesn't have use for one of the old Oehler 43s and pressure testing gear then who does? Not intended to question your findings in the least... Alliant's Powder Laboratory would seem a safe basis to write upon... Literally and figuratively.

Regards, Matt.

Yes I agree. We'll all open the bolt when testing a new load, and take note of the bolt lift and we'll all look at the primers to see what they look like!

Would be interested to know if those that pressure test in labs, do or don't look at primer shoulders? I bet they do, if only out of curiosity....

Hi Matt,

I have used strain gauge set-ups, but part of the problem is not having any reference ammo, especially for wildcat cartridges. Plus, one a big piezo lab will test my handloads any time I need help, and yes, I have taken them up on that offer several times. It's one reason I know "traditional" pressure signs don't have any strong correlation of actual pressures, and sometimes don't occur until pressures are well over 70,000 psi.

Then there's the problem of not being able to standardize testing conditions, since I don't have an indoor range. This is yet another factor most handloaders with Oehler or Pressure Trace equipment almost totally ignore.

The techs at the two biggest pressure labs I know of in the U.S. also tend to be skeptical of any strain-gauge results, even when from a supposedly professional lab. I know of one such strain-gauge lab that has reported two Ackley Improved rounds showing higher velocities at the same or lower pressures than larger-capacity cartridges. The techs at the piezo labs have NEVER seen anything like that, and attribute the results from the strain-gauge lab as being due to a lack of reference ammo, as well as other possible factors.

Exactly my experience; I am not using it any anything as a result.

Gave it extensive trials in 270, 280, '06 & 25-06.

MM

In my 6.5-06 with a 140gr. vld and 50gr. H4350 I got 2950fps and pressure signs.
Went to 50gr. RL-17 and also got 2950fps with no pressure signs and good brass life.
Problem solved!
Use RL-17 in 260 REm., 30-06 w/200PT, 243 and 22-250 w/75gr amax, I love the stuff.
In most cases I get the same velocity as my old stand bye powders.

The 30-06 w/200gr and the 260 seem to be exceptions and I get maybe 100fps extra with those two.

Adding 100fps to a 200gn bullet in the .30/06 would be of huge interest to many. It would be essentially offering a 200gn bullet at the same velocity as 180gn factory ammo.

If done honestly, it ain't gonna happen at safe pressures.

MM

I would be interested in hearing what powder charge is used.

Alliant's data lists 51.0 grains as maximum with the 200-grain Speer Hot-Cor, for a muzzle velocity of 2552 fps. This isn't the highest velocity listed for the bullet in Alliant's data. That's 2595 fps, with 55.0 grains of 4000-MR.

The powder I've been using with 200 Partitions for years is H4831, either the short-cut or "long-cut" version. Hodgdon lists 59.0 grains as maximum with the 200-grain AccuBond, for 2586 fps. I've pushed that somewhat in my rifles, though not by much, and depending on the rifle and others components, 59 grains sometimes gets more velocity. In my NULA's 24-inch barrel, for instance, 59.0 grains of H4831SC gets anywhere from around 2625 to 2675, depending on the bullet, case and primer.

My experience has been limited to 3 guns .
A long barreled .260
a 21" barreled .243
and a 22" barreled 7x57


It has provided to be very fast and accurate in the .260 with 130 gr bergers with a nosler published load for the 129 ablr.
I have not seen temp. sensitivity that others have seen, sd in the single digits every time checked....

In the .243 it was very fast with 95 gr. bergers and as accurate as any other powder in that gun....


In the 7x57 with limited work it was slower then H414 (ww760) ,with 140 gr bullets ,but just as accurate....

woods uses RL-17 in the '06 with the 200 grain Accubond because of the velocity gain. Someone should PM him.

1. Do you find it faster or slower that say 760-4350's.
Haven't really compared it much, but I got better velocity out of my .338 RCM with 20" barrel than I could achieve with H4350.
2. Any excess pressure excursions? No
3. How has accuracy been? Fantastic. Shot a few sub-1/2" groups when working up load in my .338 RCM. Worst group was still less than an inch. ES has been below 20 with all loads tested.
4. Footnotes? With 200gr SST's and AB's, was able to equal the velocity of the Hornady Superformance factory loads. With 225's, I was able to get to within 25 to 40 fps of Hornady Superformance factory loads.

So far, I've only tried it in my .338 RCM. Will try more calibers this spring probably.

With its smooth pressure curve, I've read that when you do see pressure signs with RL-17, you're probably WAY over SAAMI limits.

DF

Does SAAMI set there limits of pressure for powders that have a smooth pressure curve or a sharp pressure curve as the stresses incurred per psi are different?

In other words a sharp curve powder will induce more stress at an equal pressure.

This is exactly the reason we see brass of the same exact make loaded in the same rifle ( Loaded To Equal Pressures) with different powders exhibit differing signs such as flattened primers etc.

Perhaps it would be a much more (Accurate) assessment if SAAMI set limits based on overall stress exhibited by each individual powder rather than pressure.

Of course it is much easier to just set pressure limits for the worst possible powders that induce the highest possible stress at the lowest possible pressure.

It makes for a minimum setting at best.

Awhile ago I read an excellent thread on reading conventional signs of brass to determine pressure. It is noted that it is not a reliable indicator of pressure.

However perhaps it is a very reliable way of indicating a more accurate term of what may or may not be a safe load .(Induced STRESS)

Shod

I think that's true with many double based powders.

I think I have read John mention something in this regard, versus single based powders.

I think he's also been pretty adamant that having "traditional" pressure signs can mean you're WAY over with most any powder.

There are actually three parts to SAAMI's maximum pressure standards, and maximum average pressure is only one. You can read about them on their website. It's not secret information, and there would be a LOT less discussion about pressure standards on the Campfire if more people read what SAAMI is all about.

Double-based powders (those that contain nitroglycerin) have more energy than single-based powders, but that doesn't necessarily mean the pressure peak is further down the bore, which is what we've been told is the case with RL-17.

Would there be any actual way to test whether the pressure curve is "spread out" with a powder like RL-17? What would the test be?

That's exactly how an electronic test works. It provides a precise look at the pressure rise and drop as the bullet travels through the barrel.

Here is my RL-17 expirence
.260 22" barrel
44gr 2850 fps
45gr 2950 fps
46gr 3050 fps*

all with 120 TTSX
Different gun 24" barrel
38gr 2600fps 123a-max *
38gr 2565fps 140a-max
40gr 2760fps 140a-max *

7-08 24" barrel
42gr 2574fps 162 horn. btsp
43gr 2645 fps "
44gr 2685 fps "
46gr 2850 fps " *
44gr 2680 fps 139gr horn. btsp *
.25-06 24" barrel
51.5gr 3220fps 100gr TTSX *
55.5gr 3650fps 85gr NBT *
58.5gr 3870fps 75gr V-MAX
None of these loads showed traditional pressure signs , thought the chrono and common sense said stop* Rl-17 has proven very accurate in the loads I was , the ones with *'s some I know are below published data. others there is no data that I can find for the cartridge and bullet. I have played with 17 in a .243 but it was not working too well for me

This is getting interesting as we are starting to cover some ground here.

The Alliant web site mostly favors Speer bullets which is not much use to the majority of us, as our mostly preferred premium bullet choices are in uncharted territory.

I was loading 265gn TTSX's in a .338 last weekend and a Speer bullet is of no relevance whatsoever. Is 2700fps too much? No pressure signs whatsoever. Is 2600 or 2650fps a realistic goal? Again, I don't know but I will use accuracy and case reloads to tell me more on this as any of those velocities is more than enough for anything a .338 gets pointed at.

I do know that I can't use 4350 loads as a comparison, as R17 appears faster, so I tended to drop 2 grains in a range on cartridges to obtain the same velocities as the 4350's and that can still be a flawed theory if my powder lots are on the slow end for 4350 and fast end for R17.

None on this is intended as criticism, just recommendation for caution and common sense in digesting what you are seeing, chronographing and above all, document all your findings.
John

B I N G O !

Also how does any company's test rifle or pressure test 'barrel' compare to factory 'off the shelf' rifles (guns) ?

How much do we 'really' know from someone else's tests????

That is the whole problem here. Unless we are EXACTLY duplicating the lab's test (same bullet, same lot of powder, same primer and identical barrel) we don't know if our loads are the same pressure as their's or not. That is why we are always subject to the 'start low and work up'- work up to what? The factory load or the load that shows something in the way of pressure and then back off. Even when the lab states that they found so and so's pet load was excessively hot in their test rifle doesn't necessarily mean it was in the original rifle.

There are some powders that WILL give you more velocity at a given pressure than any others in certain cartridges. I have found two that you an ultimately depend on; R17 and R33.

As I stated in my first post, I don't know what my pressures are but I know they are similar to another load with another powder and they are considerably faster. Are they over 65KSI? Possibly but then so are the loads with the other powders. The trend here seems to be comparing R17 to 4350. There is no comparison when it comes to velocity. IF you wait until you get the classic sign of ejector marks (which I know is way high) you will find that the R17 load in several cartridges is going to be 100-200 fps faster.

Where 4350 comes into its own is with lower ES and better cold weather resistance to those of you who hunt when it's 40 below. Since about the coldest it get here during any rifle hunting season is 10 above, I am not too worried as R17 seems to work fine in that range.

Another mystery powder is Superformance. Hogdons will tell you that it is good in some cases and average in others.

With the exception of the 340 Wby, I have not found R17 to have significant advantages in long powder columns. In my 260AI it is so much better than any other powder I have tried that I won't even try anything else anymore with any bullet. I use it with the 108 Lapuas and the 140 Sierras and everything in between.

I tried it in the 340 on a whim and was dazzled.

Oh, come on. You mean the ONLY criteria for handloading is our individual rifles? That the expensive pressure equipment used by various manufacturers is far less accurate in determinging than primer appearance and bolt lift?

As for the difference in pressures from various bullets, yes, TSX's do tend to create less pressure than many other bullets. In fact the head tech at a major ballistics lab says he's found light-for-caliber TSX's (with the minimum number of rings) create about the least pressure of all of today's hunting bullets.

But that doesn't mean they create a LOT less pressure. Right behind is the array of lead-cored boattails of various brands, because they have relatively little bore contact. This is exactly why for a number of years the fastest velocity listed in any data for the .338 Winchester Magnum and a 225-grain bullet was 2944 fps, which appeared in Speer data with their 225 boattail and Reloder 19 powder. (And yes, the barrel was the standard 24" long.)

Eventually this data also included the 225 Grand Slam, which also has a short bearing surface. It's still listed in Alliant's data today, and is over 100 fps HIGHER than the top velocity listed (with the 225 Speer BTSP) with Reloder 17 today.

Yeah, we don't have Reloder 17 data for the 225 TSX, but we do have pressure-tested data showing Reloder 19 gets more velocity with the Speer 225-grain BTSP than Reloder 17.

Yeah, we're all free to work up our loads any way we want, and if we prefer to work them up the old-fashioned way, by looking for "pressure signs," we can sure do that. Nobody's going to throw us in jail.

But an old-fashioned handloader getting higher velocities in his rifle doesn't prove anything about pressures. That's been proven too many times over the decades. The first "magic" powder was probably IMR4350, and then H4831, but both appeared in the days before most shooters had chronographs. The first magic powder I recall, after some shooters started buying home chronographs, was Norma 205. Handloaders were getting all sorts of super-velocities, many as high or higher than those reported from RL-17 today. One guy I know used it to get over 3100 fps with 140-grain bullets in his 22" barreled 7x57, and he reported the load "appeared safe"--at least back then. Years later he said he'd grown wiser, after the load didn't appear quite as safe in warmer weather. And then Norma 205 disappeared from the market.

All the scientific proof of Reloder 17 pressures indicates that while its a good, modern, double-based powder, it isn't magic. If somebody prefers to believe otherwise, due their home-developed evidence, why they're following an old handloading tradition, and we all know how important tradition is to the shooting sports.

MD,
Do you have, or have seen pressure charts from a major lab comparing Rel 17 and 4350 with the only variable being the powder?

First off, no I'm not saying our rifles are the only/most important criteria. They are only part of the equation and I know that you understand that. We don't have the SAME brass, powder, primers or bullets for that matter. The combination of THEIR components is not the SAME as our combination ERGO we can NOT deduce that our pressures are the same.

Secondly, I certainly respect their technically advanced equipment, but that doesn't translate across the board to EQUAL pressures in our components. I also confess their results ARE/SHOULD be more accurate than ours, just not the same.

Thirdly, primer appearance is not a reliable indicator of more/less pressure because of variation in primer cup hardness
Bolt lift CAN indicate too much pressure but IF your cases aren't correctly sized you can have stiff bolt closure and lift. However, if cases are properly sized and you have stiff/difficult bolt lift then you have case 'expansion' and/or extrusion, which as has been mentioned more than once, indicates excessive (way too high) pressures.

Fourthly, I honestly don't consider ANY powder to be 'magical'. I'd say that I am easy to please. When a powder gives satisfactory accuracy with the velocity I want ALONG WITH good case life, I'm happy.

My point was/is we do NOT KNOW that we are getting the same pressures as any company.

The pressure test equipment is extremely precise in measuring pressure.

It would appear however that a pressure reading in itself has shown to be a poor indicator of stresses that are received by the brass.

Why?

What is the difference between applied pressure or received stress?

SAAMI is very well educated and yes saami does have the answer to these questions. If I were Saami I would have approached from exactly the same angle.

Now a bridge engineer, a skyscraper engineer, or even someone educated in the field of construction explosives understand the vast difference between pressure and stress.

During the learning curve of miscalculation numerous bridges, dams, scyscrapers, etc. reached the point of failure baffling engineers that were basing calculations on pressures. In some instances pressure calculations designed to hold double the weight were failing.

Much was learned. As a result engineers of large expensive objects have moved from the stone ages to more reliable, and accurate methods of determining stress. Does Saami know this? Absolutely. Is Saami still useing stone age technology. Yes

Is Saami SAFE! YES! Saami understands the technology that is being used and account for the over the board swings by setting pressure ratings at the minimum. The responsible thing to do.

Saami does have the technology however there is no saving cost in reloading a firearm and the technology is time consuming and expensive. Worth seeing for a million dollar object however a bit impractical for firearms.

It is much easier to determine one standard and walk. Than to determine an individual standard for each powder, bullet, load,etc.

If an individual determination was done the results would be all over the board.

I made a phone call to and engineer friend and he confirmed for me that in using pressure to determine received stress the computation is all over the board.

Yes! I used my phone a friend.

The way around this is to figure in just how unreliable the pressure figures are at indicating received stress and then set the pressure rating low enough to cover the range of inconsistency.

Are Saami methods a best indicator of received stress? No, the stress that is received by the object is the finality in that conclusion.

One thing for sure, there is absolutely nothing wrong with The way Saami approached the issue. In all regards it is no doubt the safest method and safety is after all the most important aspect of hand loading.

For myself Saami is very useful in that I use the information in determining starting loads and work up.

Would I prefer a max Saami load that shows flattened primers vs a over max load that doesn't. ( Useing primers of same make) Nope!

Shod

Why would you need to see it? The results are penned down in a number of reload Manuel's. They dont lie! Pressure for pressure you will not see any magic in reloader 17.

Shod

I think our conversation has under emphasized the fact that most of us are using chronographs to confirm the territory we are in and secondly, our uniform culture, conditioning and recognized practice of reducing loads "suspected" or noted at "excessive" in powder charge.

There is no deliberate attempt to make R17 or any other powder.something beyond its intended use.

My point in this thread was to see if there was any uniform experience in where this powder performed in relation to what I was finding after trying it in belted and unbelted cases which include .25/06, .30/06, 7mm Rem Mag and .338 Winchester, 4 cases that traditionally do well with the 4350's and a little either side of that.
John

Shodd,

Because the pressure curve can show us both peak pressure and total pressure (stress) exerted on the metal.

Exactly what you just explained.

IF I were relegated to using one powder for the rest of my days it would be R17. I haven't found a down side to it yet.

Sounds like it isn't perfect in the 338 Win Mag and I have never tried it in that. But saying that R17 doesn't give higher velocities than most if not all other powders in certain cartridges with the same pressure is like saying that factory ammo like Light Magnum or High Energy loads are no faster than standard grade ammo.

I've give my loads and experience with17 . I do not have quickloads , can someone tell me if the quickloads seems to do an accurate job with17 ?

Your opinion is most welcome but I did not say that nor made any attempt to imply it. R17 looks like a very good option for some applications including the .338 or for that matter, anywhere the 4350's would be considered.

It seems about where 760 is in burning rate, so it has a lot of useful application for the handloader. Like othrs on this web site, I am exploring performance against my usual or historical data.
John

QL is pretty accurate with RE17 loads for me, in 7mm-08, .338 WM, and .375 AI.

It is a good powder with lots of applications.

I haven't started sprinkling it on my Kellogg's Raisin Bran, not yet at least...

DF

+1

I've been quite impressed with the predictive velocities of QL with R17 in numerous handloads for a couple of 7-08s, 6.5 Creedmoor, couple of 243s, and a couple of 308s. And it goes without saying that input parameters need to reflective of the handload specifics.

Por favor. Talking about RL-17 and QL,can someone with QL run it for predicted max pressure for a 6mm/.22-250 using RL-17? The version is the .22-.250 parent case with the neck expanded to .243 cal and no other changes. The specifics are:

Powder: 39.0 gr RL-17
Brass: necked up RP .22-.250 case
Primer: CCI 200 LR primer
Bullet: 85 gr TSX
COAL: 2.56X"
FPS: measured at 10 ft in front of a 24 inch barrel averages 3130 fps
Temp: 56 F.
Elevation: 200 ft above sea level

This is a 'worked up to' load that has been very consistent over the past several years with no pressure signs.

Thanks in advance.