Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles Ticked off at CCI-Speer (Deep Curl)

So, I just finished working up a load for my Kimber 280 Ackley with IMR-7828ssc, CCI BR2, and the 160 grain Deep Curl. Speer has very little published load data for this bullet--only a handful of calibers. In the interest of full disclosure, I'd read that they've had some trouble with unexpected pressure spikes.

I started low with my load workup, watched carefully for pressure signs, and made it up to 60 grains without any obvious pressure signs. My best results were at 59.5 grains, 2933 fps average, standard deviation of 5 fps (5 shot groups). I saw no flattened primers, no sticky bolt lifts, nothing. Accuracy was outstanding. These groups were better than any I have seen in this rifle.

Today, I called Speer to see when they'd be publishing load data for the 280 Rem or 280 AI. I mentioned that I'd had good luck with the 160 Deep Curl in the Ackley, and the guy about dropped the phone. He said...and I quote..."Don't do that. You're likely to wind up with pieces and parts of your rifle!" Incredulous, I told him that I was seeing no pressure signs and had worked up carefully, and he wouldn't hear it. He all but declared the bullet dangerous.

I asked him why in the hell Speer had released the bullet to reloaders before it had been tested in a better selection of calibers, and, of course, he had no answer. I probably won't use it, but what the hell?

I'm not exactly a novice. If I'm seeing no signs of high pressure, and I'm well within acceptable velocity ranges, what could be going on with the pressure curve that would make the bullet dangerous otherwise? I understand that this bullet is constructed differently, but he wasn't saying that 59.5 grains was a dangerous load; rather, he was insisting that I do no load development whatsoever until there was published data for that caliber.

If your comphy with your knowlege, the velocity fis powder charge is resonable and it is very near that listed for for the 280 with other simliar bullets of a like weight, I'd shoot it . the rep won't say a thing for liabilaty reasons . I dont like lots of new products with out data to back them up either. to me it seems companies would want lots of data out there to support their new products

as someone new to reloading it is a bit scary to think that a company would let a bullet on the market that still needs more testing to be done.

what was his reasoning for why your rifle would blow up? their website has it listed with loads for a 7mag so no reason for it not to work in a 280ai


as far as the liability issue, they are pretty good at declaring no liability for the published loads let alone unpublished

Richardca99, I have sent you a pm.
AB

Replied to it...thank you!

Tim, he didn't speak to this load at all (we didn't even discuss charges). His point was that because the DC had exhibited unusual pressure transients during factory testing, it was a fools game to try untested powders without access to pressure-testing equipment.

With regard to comparing the 280 AI and the 7mm, it's sort of apples and oranges, as they have different pressure curves, max pressures, etc. I don't have access to Speer's data, so I have no way of determining (short of pressure testing) whether the load is truly high pressure. He said that this bullet had proven unbelievably impressive in terms of both low-speed expansion and high-speed structural integrity, but it was giving them fits with regard to pressure spikes. He said they had no idea which powders in what calibers were going to exhibit problems, so they had to go very slowly and test each one.

Frustrating...I think they're being conservative, but I can only guess.

Just taking a punt here, but I think the bloke you spoke to at Speer is probably an idiot.

People work up loads every day in the manner you have described. You are working with powder and other components in exactly the right bracket and are proceeding slowly, while using a chrony.

If he's not an idiot, Speer has just admitted to you that they are selling an unsafe product in the thousands.

Hmmm. In that case they'd have to be idiots wouldn't they?

I got the same information a couple of weeks ago when I called them. I wanted to try some of the 180 DCs in my .30-40 Ruger No.3 and inquired if I could safely use the start data from the .308. Noooooo, was the response! Pressure spikes the reason. He elaborated that this bullet is not to be used except for their printed data.
The tech said that everything could be going fine in the lab, then all of a sudden a pressure spike. Simply changing the primer could make everything right again.
After our talk, I sectioned one of the 180s and found it does have a very thick plating but, still find it hard to believe it's as fickle as reported.

Those are unexpected stories to say the least.
I wonder if some of the problems could be related to the fact that deep curls are usually somewhat oversized.
They are usually. 0005-.001 thicker than caliber width.
Some of the smaller deep curls have slippery coating but I don't think the 30 Cal's do

That guy needs to move from tech to sales. He could pull down some serious incentive!

liability concerns im guessing..

No flies on the Hot Cors. This all may explain why deepcurls are hard to find. I've had good luck getting Hot Cors to shoot well out of my rifles.