Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles 270 Win, Re 26, 150 NPT - who needs a 7 mag?

"my 270 is running the 150 at 3050 using 61 grains of powder."

Then tell us what is the average pressure of that load.

When you can do that AND it's within SAMMI specs then I'll believe another "wonder powder" is available. Until then, you're just riding the top of the "velocity bubble" common to most double based powders.

Sometimes, things are exactly as they appear.....

Alliant lists 3022 and I cannot imagine them not pressure testing:

http://www.alliantpowder.com/reload...ight=150&shellid=63&bulletid=367

Norma shows 3002 with 56.7gr of MRP. That 20 fps can simply be due to the barrel and nothing else.

Possibly you could do a little google-fu before you reply.....

For the record, I called them on the load data - let me quote for you "All load data is within SAAMI pressure limits." To help you out a bit more, their velocities with various 150gr bullets: 150 Sierra, 60.2 gr 3037, 150 NPT, 60.8 gr 3022, 150 Speer, 60.4 3024. My load clocks 3040 with 61.0.

Likely you could look up Alliant website on Re26 and call them yourself. You still shooting Cordite?

Just a couple of comments.

A. There is no pressure guessing. I called Alliant - all loads posted are within SAAMI.

B. I've always found Noslers load data a bit optimistic.

C. Still not my point as to running same bullets faster. If I want to run them faster I'd buy a larger case. BTDT. I can assure you 70+ grains of powder under a 160 recoils more than 60-61 grains undera 150 in a 270. The only scope burn I've ever gotten has been with various 7 mags through the years running 160s at 3000.

D. I'm not exactly a 270 virgin. Bought my first in 1979 or 80, shot various deer and similar creatures with it including a couple of mule deer and antelope in 1982/83 around Thermopolis.

At the end of the day, I'm not throwing dirt on the 7 mags. I thought I'd share my loads with others and I've been accused of pressure guessing and somehow running the ragged edge of sanity. I don't get it.

You misconstrue.... LOL!

Tell me the exact pressure being generated in YOUR rifle with that load. You can't do it of course. You have to run to Aliant for an answer....... so "yes' you are guessing....



I said we ALL "pressure guess" because we really have no idea what pressures are for THAT LOAD IN OUR RIFLES at the time we fire it because we are not hooked up to a ballistic lab to measure those pressures as we watch the velocities. We tend to go by velocity and case life.


Load that same case 8-10 times and if your primer pockets stay tight you may very well have a safe maximum load FOR YOUR RIFLE. If not the quest for the other 50-100 fps is a waste of time. Buy a bigger cartridge.

We can "surmise"; we can run to other sources like Alliant and call them up and they can tell you THEIR loads in THEIR barrels are within SAAMI spec. But they CANNOT tell you what the actual pressures are for their loads and data in your riflebecause of the differences in bullets, powder lots, barrels and chambers. Just because the data is safe n their barrels does NOT mean it is safe in yours. It MIGHT be but you can't prove it.

So, yes....you are guessing....I am guessing...most everyone here is guessing when they do load workup as to the pressures being generated in theirrifle with their components.

The only ones NOT guessing is Alliant in their pressure barrels.

Why do you think every manual out there has disclaimers about approaching maximum charges with CAUTION? Because they cannot guarantee their data will be safe in YOUR rifle.....if you blow up your 270 using their data and sue them for damages, you will LOSE. Because you were were "pressure guessing".

You're an experienced shooter...spare me the tales of the hard kicking 7 mags. I don't know a single soul who can handle a 270 and can't handle a 7 mag....ridiculous. Stop crawling stocks and you won't get bit by scopes.

I find it funny that Nosler data is somehow "optimistic" when it doesn't show a single 270 load that moves a 150 gr bullet over 3000 fps; yet Aliant data is "OK" and perfectly safe at 3050 with the same bullet....don't you see any inconsistency there?


As to the title of the thread..."who needs a 7 Mag"? the obvious intent of the thread was not to simply report results in the 270; it was to set up the argument that RL26 makes the 270 into a 7 RemMag....which of course is BS. It does not do any such thing.

If you have as much experience with both cartridges as you say you do, you'd know that.

Remember the good old days when a shiny new green box of CorLokts was cool?

Good times.....

I could write a real smart ass series of retorts on your posts but chose not to. I'm fairly comfortable with who I am; your erroneous 'observations' aside. Plus I respect your opinion. I don't agree with your latest posts and don't feel compelled to get into a pissing match with you. People can read this and deduce whatever they want. I'm allowing that we can have different observations on the same phenomena without resorting to a pissing contest. I'd like to think that extends both ways............

Life was simpler in those days. I'm not sure how we ever killed anything <G>
My life with a rifle is paralleling my life with archery. I started my archery life with a simple recurve in the early 1970s. I 'discovered' the compound was a much better mousetrap and bought one. Moved through progressively better compounds and arrived at the top end in the early 1990s. I also shot at some big tournaments. In Detroit in ~ 1992 or 3, I completely missed a target. On camera. In front of 1000 people. Missing a target at that level guarantees you won't place. That episode ruined it for me. I bought a recurve and started shooting recurves, then started building them. I hunted almost exclusively with a bow for 10-12 years. Then came a torn labrum on my right sholder. SLAP type 2 with bone spurs and arthritis ended my archery days. All of that to say, I'm moving back to gentler cartridges and trying to simplify things abit. Heck I even bought some green box Remington's recently to shoot for fun because they were cheap. I fear I'm in danger of losing my rifle Looney patch.

I packed mine with the reloading press when I sold it. Best day ever....

Longtime 270 user here. One thing I know for sure, a 7mm mag shooting 160s at speed kicks noticeably more than a similarly stocked 270 shooting 150s (or anything else for that matter). Many can shoot both, but there is a noticeable difference! Reducing bullet weight on a 7 mm mag helps in the recoil department but I always felt that the real point of shooting a 7mm mag was in using the heavier bullets.
Just an observation from the sidelines!

Possibly you could read AND comprehend. I asked what the pressure was in YOUR rifle, not what Alliant recorded during their testing. The fact is that you simply do not know what the pressure actually is in your rifle.

There are many loads in all the manuals that do not show the "typical pressure signs" that are over pressure in some of my rifles.

That was my point. That extra 100 fps you gained will make all the difference.

Wipe the tears from your cheeks....goodness, how could someone dare question your load and hurt your feelers......

You're obviously still wearing panties.

Running the load in QL, I get the velocity described (or close enough) with a SAAMI-legal pressure and a few KPSI to spare. If your rifle or reloads have some quirk that make them over-pressure, they will also be over velocity - you can't push harder on the bullet with the same pressure curve shape and not have it move faster.

This is not a hot-rod load. It's just a RL-26 load.

As to the comparison to 7mag, I think it's a valid one and I hunt primarily with a 7mag. I prefer the 175 partition @ 2950 out of the 7mag due to the slightly higher SD, BC and diameter but we're talking subtle differences. The cartridges are very similar in capability. I also don't mind 7-mag recoil.

I do however tend to look at RL-17 and RL-26 loads with a grain of salt. They may be accurate and fast, but they tend to be temperature sensitive. For my taste I'd rather slow down 50-100 ft/s, use a Hodgdon extreme powder, and get more stability but I can see the other point of view.

As our own Dogzapper said a couple of years back,

"Capacity equals Velocity"

The point of RL26 is that it's supposed to be more temp insensitive than RL25... agree on RL17 though. And I am, in general, a fan of H-Extreme powders first before others.

Name calling aside, this is all I'll say on the pressure issue: pinning your argument on 'pressure in your gun', I find it obtuse and more than a bit inane. Apparently we shouldn't trust the data put out by the powder and bullet manufacturers and only use pressure tested data specific to our individual rifles. I trust the ludicrousness of that argument is apparent.

Hey Brad - when I called Alliant on the Re 26 loads, I asked about temperature sensitivity. They said the chemical formula is not designed specifically to be temp insensitive but the powder behaved that way in many/most of their testing. I didn't ask any further on temperature conditions they tested just took them at their word. I'll run it this winter and see for myself. I tried Re 25 when it first came out and it didnt do any better than Re 22 when it got cold.

If you look at the detail on the powder description you'll notice a difference in description on a couple of their powders. They call it their TZ technology. Look at Re16. Looks promising but we'll know when it get cold.

I'd love to see some testing of RL-26 temp sensitivity. In general powders with that high an energy to space ratio are not good in that regard.

They drive bullets really fast though if the burn profile matches the case

Ooooooh, Yeah.

Been using 150 NPT's with '22 or MRP at 2950 for a very long time & killed lotsa stuff with it...........'26 seems to just be more of a good thing.

MM

bwinters,

Yeah, I'm going to test 26 for cold sensitivity ASAP in my own rifle this fall. So far it's performed as consistently in temps from around to the high 80's as the Extremes--which do gain some velocity above 70, though not as much as "conventional" powders.

I'm also a little puzzled by the skepticism of some other people about the velocity/pressure 26 produces with 150's in the .270, when so many handloaders have been posting they're getting basically the same velocities as Alliant lists.

This wasn't the case when RL-17 suddenly became the Wonder Powder a few years ago, because handloaders started working up loads BEFORE the publication of pressure-tested data. Any powder will show higher velocities when loads are "worked up" with old-time pressure signs, because such signs don't usually appear until around 70,000 PSI.

But that didn't happen with RL-26, because the data appeared before the powder became available. In fact, I deliberately loaded a few rounds with over a grain more RL-26 than Alliant lists, getting a muzzle velocity of right at 3100 fps from a 22" barrel without the slightest "tradiational" pressure sign. In fact I could lift the bolt handle using my little finger.

Also, Alliant's data often seem to be quite cautious. As an example, the maximum charge they list for RL-22 and 150's in the .270 is 54.0 grains for 2769 fps, both consiberably less than any other major source except Speer's 14th manual (which lists Alliant's 22 data because, at the time, they were both part of the same company). Nosler lists 56.5 of RL-22 for 2913 fps, Hornady 58.7 for 2900, and Barnes 60.0 grains for 3000. Alliant's data for RL-26 may be similarly cautious.

In my own rifle, a new Model 70 with a 22" barrel, I settled on 60.5 grains of 26 with 150-grain Partitions, using the same primer as Alliant, Federal 210's. The only difference is the case: I'm using Winchesters, while Alliant used Federals--which are usually heavier than Winchester .270 cases so produce a little MORE pressure and velocity. The powder charge is .3 grains under Alliant's maximum and gets slightly over 3000 fps in the M70.

It doesn't appear that the load results in any more pressure than those of several other handloaders who've reported similar results with 26. Why would it? We're all using the same information, from a company that appears to be conservative in its published data.