Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 6.5 Creed 120 TTSX Elk

A lot of powders attain better velocities when we work up loads with no pressure-tested data. In the .270 I deliberately exceeded Alliant's data with RL-26 and 150-grain bullets, just to see where "pressure signs" might show up. They didn't even with loads up to 1.5 grains above listed max--and velocities were right around Alliant's, indicating similar pressure levels in my rifle.

When Reloder 17 appeared, it was released before much Alliant data was available. It did the same thing, getting much higher velocities than handloaders believed possible--until Alliant released more data, and they found they were well over max. The same thing occurred back when Speer used "pressure signs" to work up their data, back in the 1950's--especially with with powders with a long pressure-curve.

Mule Deer, thanks for the input. No doubt, I will be trying RL16 first, I have alot of H4350, Varget & RL26 as well so it should not be hard to find the right powder. I hear what you are saying about R26, even with 147's but I have read of surprising velocities, thou I don't know about their pressures or if their chronos were optimistic. Hopefully I will start testing the TTSX's in a couple of weeks & then on to the 140NP if the accuracy is an issue. So far thou, the RAP is not picky and far more accurate than I expected.

The Barnes Rep I talked to said the bullet would expand down to 1,900, that did not sound bad if shots are kept under 400.

Yes sir, didn't mean to sound contrary at all MD, just that it easily met the speeds 7828SSC did without breathing hard as far as "traditional PSI signs". Again, all I had is QL to take a guess on starter loads. I did run some 120 Northforks as well and those seemed to shoot pretty well too. It will be cool to see where 26 goes to. It is really darned good in the WSM's so far.

And I totally agree about RL17 initially.. I saw some crazy numbers when it first came out and scratched my head a bunch on it with fellas reaching speeds that usually much slower powders would struggle to get in the same case. I sorta figured it was starry eyed handloading.

I'm in the process of loading a number of different bullets with RL-16.

BTW, I weighed 47 gr. RL-26, dropped it in a 6.5 Creed case, came up to the shoulder, none in the neck. So, maybe some of the stories about RL-26 in the CM aren't that bizarre. That powder must be really dense, allowing a full charge to fit in a smaller case. 143 and 147 ELD's are long bullets, would compress that charge somewhat. I have RL-23 also, so who knows what combos I may come up with.

DF

I would.
Finding an elk is a more difficult task than worrying about a bullet like the 120gn TTSX. I started using 6.5's in the 80's so have a lot of trust in the caliber and TTSX's are a proven bullet so I see no issue here.

Rl-16 gets me 2812 fps average in my 6.5 creedmoor while RL-26 gets me 2853 fps.....both from my 24" barrel. Verified using both a magento-speed and Labradar.

Which bullet ?

Sorry 143 ELDX

I would prefer an AccuBond LR 6.5mm 142 Grain. Just because it has more mass.

I think 23 is actually a touch bulkier than 26 DF, at least in the few cartridges I've loaded to compare it to.

My Swede lets me seat 140's out pretty long but I will report back with what the 147's look like. I wouldn't suspect I'd have much trouble getting enough in there to make it sing though.

I use 62 grains of Reloader 22 with the 120 Barnes TTSX in my 264’s. I don’t know anything about Elk, but that knock fire out of deer and pigs.