Quantcast

RL-19 in 7mm-08. VERY slow velocities?

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by Newtosavage, Dec 29, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Newtosavage

    Newtosavage Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,526
    Working on loads for my 7mm-08's. So far, H4350 has been spot-on with published load data. Usually my velocities in 22" barrels are 50-100 fps. behind published data, but not with H4350, and especially not with 139-grain SST's. They are always above published velocities.

    Wanting to test heavier bullets, I opted to try some RL-19. Published velocities for RL-19 with heavier bullets is often the highest of any powder. I was expecting to approach 2700 fps. with the 160-grain Nosler Partitions and Accubonds I tested. However, it was not anywhere close. Published max load of RL-19 is 47.5 grains, and despite the data showing 2710 fps., my loads maxed out at only 2470.

    The same bullet at a max load of H4350 was giving me 2580 fps., just like the Hodgdon data shows.

    Anyone else experienced this with RL-19? Did I just get a bad can?
     
  2. DanTheFarmer

    DanTheFarmer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    391
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Hello Again Newtosavage!

    I too looked at the great numbers published for RL-19 when working up loads for heavy bullets for my 7mm-08's. Unfortunately, my experience was similar to yours. I got poor accuracy and much lower than published velocities.

    Based on my experience, you did not get a bad can of RL-19. I chimed in on another of your threads concerning the slow twist of your Savage 7mm-08. The poor accuracy I found with RL-19 also included another rifle with a faster twist that proved very accurate other powders.

    My best velocities for heavy bullets was with H414 and Ramshot's Hunter. Hunter was slightly faster but I had to deviate from published loads to get where I wanted. I did check my load with Ramshot and they said it was safe but it is still on the hot side so I'm saving those rounds for a moose hunt. Try H414/W760 (they're the same powder).

    One other note. I got the Speer 145 grain Hot Core to work in the Savage that has the slow twist like yours. I used 2000-MR powder. It had some unusual, but ultimately favorable results. Using Alliant's published data and working up it got more and more accurate, with the best accuracy at max load. Also the speed was well below the published number. The velocity I got was on the low end acceptable, the accuracy was great, and I'm hunting in heavy woods where 75 yards would be an unusually long shot. I decided low (but o.k.) speed and great accuracy was fine for my circumstances.

    Keep asking questions. I hope I can help some more.

    Dan
     
  3. Newtosavage

    Newtosavage Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,526
    I have no idea how Reloder, and Nosler, can publish those velocities.

    Re: the slow twist, I now have a 2nd 7mm-08 with a faster twist. I found an excellent load for my slower twist Stevens that I am very happy with (already took a deer with it, with excellent terminal performance), so I'm set for that gun. (139 SST's over H4350 are amazing from that Stevens)

    Now looking for a heavy bullet load for my faster twist Tikka so I can chase elk with it next fall.

    Was advised to try RL-17, but I'm also familiar with W760/H414. I used it with excellent results in a 7x57 Ruger I used to own.

    Thanks for the advice. Keep it coming!
     
    LoonWulf likes this.
  4. 243winxb

    243winxb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    11,168
    Location:
    Hopewell Big Woods
    Was this a compressed load in your brass? What brass are you loading?
     
  5. GooseGestapo

    GooseGestapo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    4,188
    I've had similar results as yours with two lot#'s of RL19.
    I've only gotten good results with RL19 in two applications.
    1. .260Re. Accurate, but still slightly slow, but expected from 20"bbl.
    2. .338/06 w/225-250gr bullets. Velocity met data, accuracy very good.
    I've heard that there is significant lot to lot variations with RL19. Most lot #'s are slower than RL22. RL22 is my favorite in .260Rem, followed by H4350. RL17 can be substituted for H4350 in most applications.

    For the 7mm-08, I've gotten best results with RL17. 139-170gr. Top velocities (identical to H4350), combined with best accuracy of IMR4350. IMO best of both.
    My favorite 7mm-08 load is 46.0gr of RL17 under a 150gr Nosler BT or Accubond. Nudges 2,800fps, VERY accurate (best my rifle- Rem M7, 20"bbl).
    Killed two deer with it this year. Both bang flops! No bullets recovered.

    If using a flat base bullet like 150gr Nosler Partition, Winchester 150 PP, 150gr Rem Corlokt, or 154 Hornady, drop to 45.0gr.
    Second favorite is 139gr BtSpt Hornady over 48.0gr RL17. Accurate and gets 2,900+ fps. Some guns will tolerate 49.0 for 3,000fps.
    My all time favorite rifle/cartridge combo. Light, powerful, adequately accurate, light and ergonomic. Besides, it's a "lucky" rifle...
     
    LoonWulf likes this.
  6. Newtosavage

    Newtosavage Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,526
    Yes, compressed particularly due to the length of the 160's and having to squeeze them into my 2.80" magazine (for now at least).

    Loading Starline 7mm-08 brass.
     
  7. Newtosavage

    Newtosavage Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,526
    That is outstanding advice. Thank you so much.

    I guess I reached for the wrong can of powder at Cabelas yesterday... :( The RL-17 sat right next to the 19 that I grabbed.

    If I can get 2800 with a 150 Accubond, I'm done. That will be more than enough to meet my goal.
     
  8. 243winxb

    243winxb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    11,168
    Location:
    Hopewell Big Woods
    If Nosler brass is different in capacity, volume and weight, this may account for the low velocity?

    Nosler holds 47.6 grs of water. https://load-data.nosler.com/load-data/7mm-08-remington/

    Update-
    See LoonWulf post below.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2017
    Newtosavage and 1stmarine like this.
  9. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    On the road again
    The R19 is on the slow side. Will work best with the heaviest bullets and longest barrels.
    The thing with reloading manuals is that they are not accurate. Things like type of rifling,
    temperature, freebore, length of barrel and finishing of the bore, all variables play a role.
    Many are calculated not actually tested. The books are full of errors and inconsistencies like the Lymans
    reloading manual so better go to the online tables from all manufacturers and also take that
    as reference.

    Here is something you mind find useful when looking for new powders...

    http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/BurnRates.pdf

    Always compare to other burn rates and verify with powder and bullet manufacturer data.
     
    LoonWulf likes this.
  10. LoonWulf
    • Contributing Member

    LoonWulf Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2010
    Messages:
    9,649
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I agree with the guys above that RL19s probably on the slow side. Ive seen some issues with similarly slow powders for cartridges. They dont build pressure fast enough to produce similar performance from the shorter barrels as powders closer to optimum for a cartridges burn rate.
    I LIKE slow for cartridge powders, and long barrels so have some experience with similar situation. In long barrels, especially if you have just that little extra room for powder in a case, you can often exceed any of the faster powders before pressure signs become apparent, BUT the advantages are lost sooner in shorter barrels than more optimal powders.

    From the looks of it Nosler is giving the USEABLE water capacity of a case with the bullet seated. I missed that when i looked at their data a while back, just thought id point that out as others might compare that to the standard 54-55grn "water capacity" that gets quoted for the .308 fam of cartridges like i did.

    Also according to nosler their cases holds more water than QL thinks it should with the same bullets seated at the same lengths SO, its possible that nosler cases DO hold more water than average....take that with the normal QL grain of salt tho.
     
    1stmarine and 243winxb like this.
  11. Newtosavage

    Newtosavage Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,526
    I see a QL purchase in my future now. :D
     
    LoonWulf and 1stmarine like this.
  12. 243winxb

    243winxb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    11,168
    Location:
    Hopewell Big Woods
    The Alliant data uses Remington brass. So i guess its not a case volume issue?
    Screenshot_20171230-073930.jpg
     
  13. Newtosavage

    Newtosavage Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,526
    2710 with 160's... LOL Pipe dream if you ask me. Even 47.5 grains in my 22" barrel only gave me 2469 fps.
     
  14. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    On the road again
    At the risk of sounding redundant let me repeat this:

    - Books and manuals are a reference and load data is not accurate. Many are not even tested just estimated plus it looks they are written by lawyers vs. ballistics experts.
    They take the safe, less liability route. Accurate arms data seems a bit more realistic than the average.
    - Reloading books are a waste of money. I guess having one to start with the most basic concepts and safety but then lots of specific information is going to be
    obsolete since paper books cannot be updated like online resources do. The best books I have seen are at the public library here, read them and then move on.
    - That is why is also a good idea to cross check with bullet makers bullet and reloading data. Look for consistency and convergence of data.
    - Barrels lengths are not always available or otherwise they are estimated not always tested. We also need to know how the barrel is measured from the breach or
    from the tenon/recoil lug, bore length, or whatever else...
    - We don't know what barrel, type of rifling, twist and/or finishing
    - Sometimes we don't know what primer
    - The min COAL and max LOAD do not help neither if we don't have the precise brass and bullet used.
    - We don't have barrel, powder or environment temperature
    - We don't have the precise capacity of the brass used for testing, if testing was ever conducted.

    So many variables and each variable has an impact. That is why we have a reloading plan and we test and we consider some of these things even before we buy a rifle, choosing bullets
    and/or reloading.

    I don't know star line but some winchester brass and black hills (same brass) will give you some of the highest capacity up to 1.5 to 2 extra grains difference (mine formed from 308 Winchester vs. other brass) that might translate into 20-40 fps
    for the same 22" rifle. Then for every .10" you add to your COAL you can add 1 to 1.5gr of powder that translates into another 30fps extra. A small variation of 1" in barrel depending
    on how the barrel has been measured might also translate into another 20fps-25fps gained or lost. The force the bullet needs to be swagged through the barrel also has an impact
    that depends on the type of rifling, twist, bullet material/construction, etc...

    So very quickly by very small variations one might find a load that is 100-150fps slower or faster than expected compared to other reference data.

    keep in mind the example above is just a gross estimations based on my observations with this type of caliber and powders around 4350, R17 burn rates.

    So do not assume anything. I would start by measuring the true brass capacity and taking note of the spreads.
    I have been very lucky with Winchester but also see Hornady 308 has some potential when necked down to 7mm that is as easy as pie.
    None will give you the life and consistency of lapua but winchester is strong, pretty consistent too and reasonably durable with up to 7 or 8 reloads depending on how hot one goes.
    I know you need to fix the magazine situation so I would just single feed for now since you are looking for a more modern type of magazine anyway.

    But I hope all this makes sense and good luck brother. Those tikka rifles are awesome and I know you will get there with the right formula.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2017
    Newtosavage likes this.
  15. hdwhit

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,708
    Location:
    Salem, AR
    Do you have any source for this assertion?

    In what caliber? Is that specific to 7mm-08?
     
  16. hdwhit

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,708
    Location:
    Salem, AR
    The odds of you getting a "bad can" of canister powder are astronomical. Put it, along with "bad primers" at the bottom of your list of likely suspects.

    Before you start chasing the reasons for why you are not duplicating "book velocities", make sure you have the same set-up as was used when the publisher of the data conducted the test. If they used a rifle (or universal receiver) with a 26 inch barrel and you have a rifle with a 22 inch barrel, you can't expect to get the same results. Alliant makes this a little harder to determine since they don't include details of their test rig with their load data. You will need to call or e-mail them.

    Also, how are you determining the velocities of the rounds you are shooting? If it is a light-sensing chronograph, understand that since they don't have a provision for outside calibration, the velocity numbers, while generally able to deliver repeatable results, are not necessarily "accurate".
     
    Newtosavage likes this.
  17. hdwhit

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,708
    Location:
    Salem, AR
    Burn rate charts can provide useful "treetop level" information, but it should be kept in mind when using them that there is no industry standard method for determining powder burn rates, so differences will appear.

    For example, if you compare the burn rate chart published by Hodgdon (http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/) with the one from Vihta Vuori (https://vihtavuori.pressmaterialbox...=ancestorPaths:"\Vihtavuori® Press Materials") you would see Hodgdon says the fastest powder is Norma R1 while Vihta says it is Titewad. Neither is "wrong"; they were just compiled using different test protocols, but the thing is you have no idea which test protocol is closer to what is going on inside your loaded case. This is why it is a good idea to stick to published data for loading information.
     
  18. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    On the road again
    No specific source but over the years it has been posted in several forums by ex-employees of powder companies along with other answers to various questions about powders.
    Also it explains why the inconsistencies between popular loads and other loads including the bullet manufacturer data for the same bullet.

    The Winchester is specific to 7mm-08 made from 308 brass. Thanks for asking I forgot to mention that detail.
     
  19. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    On the road again
    I agree. The ranking is different for different makers that is quite confusing so the best thing would be to converge information and the
    asses corroborating with the other resources. This is a source for huge confusion and why going to the different sources is always a good idea.
    That is why I say compare to other charts to see where the powder might be but in the end one is going to follow the recipes with starting
    loads. Always take these rates as relative as you well explained. I wish there was a standard but we don't have it.
     
  20. Newtosavage

    Newtosavage Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,526
    All great points. I have a science degree, so I understand the process and how much each variable can contribute to different results. My setup is pretty low-tech as I only hunt with my rifles and a 300 yard shot at a whitetail is a VERY long shot to me. My Chrono is inexpensive but at least I have one. I do run a "base load" over it every session to see what comes up, just in case. A crude type of calibration, but a calibration nonetheless.
     
  21. GTS Dean

    GTS Dean Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    Texas
    I haven't shot any heavier than 140gr Accubonds from my 24" 7-08, 1:9.25 twist. It shot OK with IMR-4350, but was a STELLAR performer with RL-15. However, during the second Obummer term, that powder became "unobtainium." I looked in Nosler's book and found a RL-19 recommendation, but all are shown to be compressed loads. I started from the bottom (45.0) and came up about 0.4gr at a time. It kept getting better all the way up to 48.2gr but I had to stop because the bullets wouldn't stay seated where I set them any higher than that. I've never clocked them, but it is an outstanding whitetail round.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice