Annealed brass opinion

[Ex E6]

Sorry - should have specified. Those were dry tumbled with corn cob.

So case polishing ,as corncob smooths brass effectively would account for more consistent release .

Have any of you ever tired BAM ?. It's coefficient of friction is less than half that of PTFE .
The “ceramic alloy” is created by combining a metal alloy of boron, aluminium and magnesium (AlMgB14) with titanium boride (TiB2). It is the hardest material after diamond and cubic boron nitride.

I've been working for several years with a couple of research and commercial companies ,trying to get a PLVD inside vacuum chamber deposition in Dies and eventually inside a barrel . Mere microns in thickness less than half the friction of PTFE ,with Diamond like hardness . SUPERIOR METALLURGY and Ledes which wouldn't fissure ,not to mention bores which could go 200K- 500K rounds ?.
Doing external coating IS and has been being done for a number of years . Getting the laser pulsed vapor evenly dispersed inside a small cylinder is proving DIFFICULT to say the least . Cutting edges ,tools, parts , firing pins , BCG piece of cake .

What’s almost as hard as diamond, slicker than Teflon and “green” enough to reduce the United States’ industrial energy consumption by trillions of BTUs a year? The answer is BAM – a ceramic alloy created by combining a mix of boron, aluminum and magnesium with titanium diboride. The world’s third hardest material, next to diamond and cubic boron nitride, BAM is as slippery as it is strong. With a 0.02 coefficient of friction, it is substantially slicker than Teflon (0.05) and lubricated steel (0.16). Discovered accidentally in 1999 by two researchers at DOE’s Ames Laboratory, BAM has now grown into the nanocoating superstar of a four-year, $3-million project designed to lower industrial energy usage by reducing machine friction.


Description of AlMgB14 Powder


Aluminum boride or Al3Mg3B56, commonly known as BAM, is a compound of aluminum, magnesium, and boron. Although its nominal formula is AlMgB14, its chemical composition is closer to Al0.75Mg0.75B14. It is a highly wear-resistant ceramic alloy with an extremely low sliding friction coefficient, reaching a record value of 0.04 in the unlubricated AlMgB14-TiB2 composite material, and a record value of 0.02 in the lubricated AlMgB14-TiB2 composite material. BAM was first reported in 1970. It has an orthogonal structure and each unit cell has four icosahedral B12 units. The thermal expansion coefficient of this super hard material is comparable to other widely used materials such as steel and concrete. TRUNNANO is a trusted global Aluminum-Magnesium Boride BAM AlMgB14 Powder supplier. Feel free to send an inquiry about the latest price of AlMgB14 at any time.

 

[Holliday]

Have you had a chance to test it yet?

I loaded those cases today and was disappointed to find that I had to keep adjusting the die to maintain cbto. Fingers crossed, the results will be better when I shoot them.

 

[straightshooter1]

I loaded those cases today and was disappointed to find that I had to keep adjusting the die to maintain cbto. Fingers crossed, the results will be better when I shoot them.

Hmmm???

It's can be hard to "maintain CBTO" when there's a variation from bullet to bullet in the distance between where the seating stem makes contact and where the comparator makes contact.

I don't pay much attention to CBTO as measured by a standard comparator because of this issue and why I sort bullets by CBTO as measured to where my seating stem makes contact. This way I know seating depth (how far the base of the bullet is into the case) is very consistent. Of course, not having too much interference in the neck helps with consistent seating.

 

[Holliday]

Hmmm???

It's can be hard to "maintain CBTO" when there's a variation from bullet to bullet in the distance between where the seating stem makes contact and where the comparator makes contact.

I don't pay much attention to CBTO as measured by a standard comparator because of this issue and why I sort bullets by CBTO as measured to where my seating stem makes contact. This way I know seating depth (how far the base of the bullet is into the case) is very consistent. Of course, not having too much interference in the neck helps with consistent seating.

I use a SAC comparator. I have grown vary accustomed to this pressure variance over the years. When I’ve gotten my annealing just right, the lube‘s working out everything‘s working out, I set the die once and I’m done. I’m generally getting within half thousands variance. I have found things such as a dirty die, dirty shell holder, rubber plug under shell holder too high, compressed load or a cracked stem etc. to cause this variance. Then of course there are variances in friction and tension.

I will see how they shoot, and this will be the corroborate my concerns or not. If I get a great SD and decent groups I’m home. Otherwise I may also consider putting some lube on the bullet ends as well.

When I decided to use this lube, I had not realized that Moly was also in his procedure. I thought the only thing he used was this neo lube. So perhaps that’s where the issue lies.

 

[Holliday]

Have you had a chance to test it yet?

As an aside, I tested powdered moly, powdered graphite, HBN, and neolube. With the exception of HBN, which I found to yield the most inconsistent seating forces (by a long shot), the rest were pretty close, but neolube won out. What I saw was that the spread in seating force was similar, but that neolube's spread was due to one or two "flyers" with the rest grouped very tightly.

I'll see if I can find some of the old plots. Honestly, though, the difference between any of them (with the exception of HBN) is so small that any would work. I find neolube, being liquid, quicker and cleaner to apply. Some people "paint" the inside of the necks - I dip the cases.

Follow up.

Interesting results.

Parameters:
Same 50 rnd box and times fired brass
Same batch that was just annealed
Same powder can H4831 (temp stable)
Same box of primers
Same box of bullets
20 loaded w/ Imperial wax on bullets: fired 5/29/25
20 loaded w/ Neo Lube #2 necks dipped: fired 6/19/25
Bench setup exactly the same and ammo temp were within 10°f

As you can see, with Neo Lube the avg fps jumped by 12 fps which I suspect pushed me out of my node, as my groups were not as good.

The ES and SD both did improve though.

 

[Rocketmandb]

Follow up.

Interesting results.

Parameters:
Same 50 rnd box and times fired brass
Same batch that was just annealed
Same powder can H4831 (temp stable)
Same box of primers
Same box of bullets
20 loaded w/ Imperial wax on bullets: fired 5/29/25
20 loaded w/ Neo Lube #2 necks dipped: fired 6/19/25
Bench setup exactly the same and ammo temp were within 10°f

As you can see, with Neo Lube the avg fps jumped by 12 fps which I suspect pushed me out of my node, as my groups were not as good.

The ES and SD both did improve though.


View attachment 8712934

Interesting results. My first guess, and it's only a guess, is that Imperial Wax is yielding a lower coefficient of friction, which is translating to a slightly lower pressure than when using NeoLube.

I wish you had an AMP Press to measure the seating forces - that would confirm this.

It would be interesting to play with your load and seating a bit while using Neolube to see if can reign in the group size change you experienced.

Also, can you post your process and all your components?

Thanks

 

[Holliday]

Interesting results. My first guess, and it's only a guess, is that Imperial Wax is yielding a lower coefficient of friction, which is translating to a slightly lower pressure than when using NeoLube.

Interesting, so more friction with the neo lube but more consistently?

I wish you had an AMP Press to measure the seating forces - that would confirm this.

You and me both.

It would be interesting to play with your load and seating a bit while using Neolube to see if can reign in the group size change you experienced.

I will be playing with it further.

Also, can you post your process and all your components?

Thanks

On this run of 50 brass

ETA: Decapped
Tumbled
Annealed
Sized w/ Redding FL bushing die
Mandrel-ed dry with titanium nitride mandrel
Tumbled to remove sizing wax
Trimmed
Chamfered with vld chamfer, deburred and pockets brushed
Brushed necks as has some media stuck in some
*Dipped Neo lubed ones and let dry over night
Primed
Charged w/ powder
*Lube bullet ends w/ imperial wax -on cases using wax.
Seat bullets
Check for cbto and adjust as needed

6.5 PRC
ADG brass 7x fired
CCI Benchrest LR Primers
H4831 54.1 grains
143 BondStrike bullets
Seekins PH2 24” Barrel w/ tbac Ultra 7 can

 

[Rocketmandb]

Interesting, so more friction with the neo lube but more consistently?

Yeah, friction and consistency are mutually exclusive. Consistency is the main reason I use NeoLube and do the dip method since it applies so evenly. Interestingly, I found a difference in how I dry the cases with NeoLube. Drying them neck up is slightly more consistent than neck down. I think this is because neck down, the excess NeoLube will sort of pool around the case mouth and that slight variance in thickness causes a slight difference in interference fit/seating force.

ADG brass 7x fired

The reason I asked about your process and components was that you should be able to get better than 8.4 fps SDs. It's not bad, but if you're doing everything correctly, and it looks like you are, you should be able to beat it.

When I first got my 300 PRC, the only brass I could get was Hornady, and it was crap. It was so bad, that I went the route of using RWS 8x68S brass and heavily modifying it to fire form it into 300 PRC. This was the best brass, by far, I've ever shot in that caliber. The problems with using it were two-fold:

- The rim was slightly smaller, so it required a different, somewhat esoteric shell holder. Not too much of an issue, but it causes problems with US-made equipment that only operates off of the four main rim sizes we use (many trimmers, priming tools, etc.).

- The process to modify the brass was somewhat extensive and time consuming.

The point of all this?

When ADG came out, I was like, "Great! Quality brass that I don't need to muck with!" The issue was my SDs went from consistently low 6s to mid-high 7s. It wasn't until I did a slight neck turn that I could get them back into line with what I had with RWS. So, I was mucking with brass again. As soon as Lapua came out, I switched and immediately saw a drop back down into the mid-6s.

Food for thought since Lapua makes 6.5 PRC brass.

 

[Holliday]

The reason I asked about your process and components was that you should be able to get better than 8.4 fps SDs. It's not bad, but if you're doing everything correctly, and it looks like you are, you should be able to beat it.

Food for thought since Lapua makes 6.5 PRC brass.

Interesting, my struggle with SDs has been ongoing with the 6.5 prc and the 6.5 CM. I think that is my best SD in a while.

Well for now I have to make do with the ADG with Hunting season around the corner. I may switch to Lapua next year though.

Thanks for your help.

 

[straightshooter1]

Interesting, my struggle with SDs has been ongoing with the 6.5 prc and the 6.5 CM. I think that is my best SD in a while.

Well for now I have to make do with the ADG with Hunting season around the corner. I may switch to Lapua next year though.

Thanks for your help.

Interesting, my struggle with SDs has been ongoing with the 6.5 prc and the 6.5 CM. I think that is my best SD in a while.

Well for now I have to make do with the ADG with Hunting season around the corner. I may switch to Lapua next year though.

Thanks for your help.

Hmmmm???? I really don't think that switching to Lapua from ADG is the thing that'll get your SD's lower. I typically use Lapua for my 6.5 PRC and recently got to ADG to try (just because I like to shoot and experiment with different things, since my old body just isn't up to the rigors of hunting anymore) and they've performed just as well for me. For my 6.5 PRC I've used Hornady, Peterson, Lapua and now ADG brass and they all have given me SD's between 4 and 7 (depending on other components I'm using). So, I'm inclined to think that a particular brand of brass is not an issue in terms of SD's. I'm convinced is a great deal about process.

I think your process is just fine. But I do think it'd be a little better if you'd do your first cleaning after you do your annealing (to mitigate any effects of that abrasive oxidation deposit before sizing). Also, you might try mandreling after you tumbled to remove sizing wax. If you haven't tried it yet, just try it and switch these things up and see what you get???

I tend to get SD's in the 4's (whether it's my .308 or 6.5 PRC) when I've sort primers by weight and use bullets sorted by BTO to where the seating stem makes contact with the ogive for consistent seating depth. Other than that, just as an comparison, here's my process:

*Deprime
*Clean primer pockets (pockets have been uniformed and cleaning with same uniformer)
*Anneal (flame heat to red glow for between 1and 2 seconds on an Annealeez machine)
*Clean necks on outside using steel wool to remove annealing oxidation layer
*FL size (non-bushing die with no expander ball) using Imperial Sizing Die Wax; case dwells in die for ~ 4-5 seconds while I lube the next case to be sized
*Check for signs of any body stretching/case head separation using bent paper clip
*Dry Tumble to remove lube with medium grain rice for my media
*Remove media from interior of case, checking for any flash hole obstructions
*Mandrel neck to desired size
*3 way trim to desired length
*Prime cases (seating with Lee ACP for consistent seating depths, sometimes with 21 Century hand primer)
*Charge cases with powder (weighing charges with FX-120i)
*Seat bullets to desired seating depth (using Wilson inline seating die with small hand arbor press from Sinclair); no neck lube necessary due to cleaning process. Seating is very smooth and consistent.

My 6.5 PRC has a Preferred Barrel Blanks barrel that replaced the factory barrel and has over 2,000 rounds on it and have a Krieger barrel waiting to replace it. My .308 has a Krieger 26" 1:10 barrel with 3,200 rounds on it (it's my 3rd barrel on this gun) and a new one like it waiting in the closet.

 

[Holliday]

Hmmmm???? I really don't think that switching to Lapua from ADG is the thing that'll get your SD's lower. I typically use Lapua for my 6.5 PRC and recently got to ADG to try (just because I like to shoot and experiment with different things, since my old body just isn't up to the rigors of hunting anymore) and they've performed just as well for me. For my 6.5 PRC I've used Hornady, Peterson, Lapua and now ADG brass and they all have given me SD's between 4 and 7 (depending on other components I'm using). So, I'm inclined to think that a particular brand of brass is not an issue in terms of SD's. I'm convinced is a great deal about process.

I think your process is just fine. But I do think it'd be a little better if you'd do your first cleaning after you do your annealing (to mitigate any effects of that abrasive oxidation deposit before sizing). Also, you might try mandreling after you tumbled to remove sizing wax. If you haven't tried it yet, just try it and switch these things up and see what you get???

I tend to get SD's in the 4's (whether it's my .308 or 6.5 PRC) when I've sort primers by weight and use bullets sorted by BTO to where the seating stem makes contact with the ogive for consistent seating depth. Other than that, just as an comparison, here's my process:

*Deprime
*Clean primer pockets (pockets have been uniformed and cleaning with same uniformer)
*Anneal (flame heat to red glow for between 1and 2 seconds on an Annealeez machine)
*Clean necks on outside using steel wool to remove annealing oxidation layer
*FL size (non-bushing die with no expander ball) using Imperial Sizing Die Wax; case dwells in die for ~ 4-5 seconds while I lube the next case to be sized
*Check for signs of any body stretching/case head separation using bent paper clip
*Dry Tumble to remove lube with medium grain rice for my media
*Remove media from interior of case, checking for any flash hole obstructions
*Mandrel neck to desired size
*3 way trim to desired length
*Prime cases (seating with Lee ACP for consistent seating depths, sometimes with 21 Century hand primer)
*Charge cases with powder (weighing charges with FX-120i)
*Seat bullets to desired seating depth (using Wilson inline seating die with small hand arbor press from Sinclair); no neck lube necessary due to cleaning process. Seating is very smooth and consistent.

My 6.5 PRC has a Preferred Barrel Blanks barrel that replaced the factory barrel and has over 2,000 rounds on it and have a Krieger barrel waiting to replace it. My .308 has a Krieger 26" 1:10 barrel with 3,200 rounds on it (it's my 3rd barrel on this gun) and a new one like it waiting in the closet.

One reason I decap (forgot that) and tumble before flame annealing is to remove some of the lead residue.

I use a 21 Century primer

I also use a Chargemaster Supreme. Probably my biggest gain would come from moving to a better changing system like the FX-120i but it is not in the budget right now.

I already spend far too much time reloading. I’m trying to be very careful about what I add to the mix. I don’t weight sort my bullets or cases much less primers, so there is that too.

 

[straightshooter1]

One reason I decap (forgot that) and tumble before flame annealing is to remove some of the lead residue.

I use a 21 Century primer

I also use a Chargemaster Supreme. Probably my biggest gain would come from moving to a better changing system like the FX-120i but it is not in the budget right now.

I already spend far too much time reloading. I’m trying to be very careful about what I add to the mix. I don’t weight sort my bullets or cases much less primers, so there is that too.

I don't worry about the lead residue as I minimize contact with the small amounts of lead wearing gloves when I clean the necks with steel wool. And I really don't want to remove any or just remove very little residue on the inside of the necks. The order of my cleaning takes care of the inside of the necks very well, minimizing interference to where running a mandrel through the neck and seating is quite smooth and consistent. But, I can understand one's caution about contact with lead contaminated things. Maybe I should wear a respirator when reloading or even when shooting??? I like the different smells of burnt gunpowder.

Yeah, I'm sure upgrading to a better scale would produce a significant gain in SD's for you. It did for me when I move from my ChargeMaster to the FX-120i.

BTW: Besides sort primers and bullets, I also tested sorting cases by weight and found that too really does help, where one simply removes the outliers and just using them as fouling shots. I took the sorted cases and fired them in groups having either the same or close to the same weight in a series of shots. I also compared 5 cases from each end of the sorting to see what kind of difference there might be and found it was significant. I did this with my .308 fire formed Lapua cases uniformed before weight sorting.

 

[Mean_Man]

I don't worry about the lead residue as I minimize contact with the small amounts of lead wearing gloves when I clean the necks with steel wool. And I really don't want to remove any or just remove very little residue on the inside of the necks. The order of my cleaning takes care of the inside of the necks very well, minimizing interference to where running a mandrel through the neck and seating is quite smooth and consistent. But, I can understand one's caution about contact with lead contaminated things. Maybe I should wear a respirator when reloading or even when shooting??? I like the different smells of burnt gunpowder.

Yeah, I'm sure upgrading to a better scale would produce a significant gain in SD's for you. It did for me when I move from my ChargeMaster to the FX-120i.

BTW: Besides sort primers and bullets, I also tested sorting cases by weight and found that too really does help, where one simply removes the outliers and just using them as fouling shots. I took the sorted cases and fired them in groups having either the same or close to the same weight in a series of shots. I also compared 5 cases from each end of the sorting to see what kind of difference there might be and found it was significant. I did this with my .308 fire formed Lapua cases uniformed before weight sorting.
View attachment 8714480

Has anyone actually tested and documented heavier cases having lower H20 capacity? It would make sense and the expected result, but I just haven't ever seen anyone post having done so. I have checked a few cases when I was making custom 9mm sabot ammo that went 2,417fps a few years ago since that's a ugh, not well documented process... But haven't seen anyone pull say 20-30 cases that are close in weight and of the same brand and caliber etc. and then another 20-30 that are heavy by comparison and H20 capacity test them to actually see what the statistically relevant results are.

 

[straightshooter1]

Has anyone actually tested and documented heavier cases having lower H20 capacity? It would make sense and the expected result, but I just haven't ever seen anyone post having done so. I have checked a few cases when I was making custom 9mm sabot ammo that went 2,417fps a few years ago since that's a ugh, not well documented process... But haven't seen anyone pull say 20-30 cases that are close in weight and of the same brand and caliber etc. and then another 20-30 that are heavy by comparison and H20 capacity test them to actually see what the statistically relevant results are.

Yes, quite a few people have done so actually, and I'm just one of them. It can be very obvious when comparing the likes of Winchester .308 brass to LC .308 brass. Winchester brass is quite a bit lighter with much more case volume than other brass. For example, when I weighted 10 random Winchester .308 brass I have, the average was 158 grs with 57.3 grs H2O of volume. For 10 of my Lapua .308 brass, the average was 172 grs in weight with a an average case volume of 55.9 grs H2O. If one takes the individual weights and volumes and graphs them, you can see the correlation, though there not a direct correlation from case to case given variations in web thickness. The same relationship for weight and case volume can be seen even from one lot of brass to another as can be see in data that came from Peterson Cartridge Co. here:

In my own testing I've seen enough difference within a single lot for weight and volume where I weighed my Lapua brass (see below) and took 5 of the heaviest and 5 of the lightest and compared case volume, loaded and fired them to see the difference in velocities. Interesting to me, there was enough difference in velocity between the two sets to make a significant difference in vertical dispersion at distance. When I fired the other cases of the same weight, I got really good SD's and ES's and groups on target were excellent. . . and each of those two sets of outliers were different, they too performed well. Though those two sets were only 5 shots each, they were loaded and shot a second time to get a little more confirmation on the results.

So, based on what other's have found for sorting cases and what I've found in my own experience, that it does pay to weigh cases and cull out the outliers. AND. . . BTW, I also found this to be helpful for weighing primers when I did the same kind of test.

 

[Mean_Man]

Yes, quite a few people have done so actually, and I'm just one of them. It can be very obvious when comparing the likes of Winchester .308 brass to LC .308 brass. Winchester brass is quite a bit lighter with much more case volume than other brass. For example, when I weighted 10 random Winchester .308 brass I have, the average was 158 grs with 57.3 grs H2O of volume. For 10 of my Lapua .308 brass, the average was 172 grs in weight with a an average case volume of 55.9 grs H2O. If one takes the individual weights and volumes and graphs them, you can see the correlation, though there not a direct correlation from case to case given variations in web thickness. The same relationship for weight and case volume can be seen even from one lot of brass to another as can be see in data that came from Peterson Cartridge Co. here:
View attachment 8717246

In my own testing I've seen enough difference within a single lot for weight and volume where I weighed my Lapua brass (see below) and took 5 of the heaviest and 5 of the lightest and compared case volume, loaded and fired them to see the difference in velocities. Interesting to me, there was enough difference in velocity between the two sets to make a significant difference in vertical dispersion at distance. When I fired the other cases of the same weight, I got really good SD's and ES's and groups on target were excellent. . . and each of those two sets of outliers were different, they too performed well. Though those two sets were only 5 shots each, they were loaded and shot a second time to get a little more confirmation on the results.

So, based on what other's have found for sorting cases and what I've found in my own experience, that it does pay to weigh cases and cull out the outliers. AND. . . BTW, I also found this to be helpful for weighing and primers when I did the same kind of test.
View attachment 8717254
View attachment 8717271

Excellent! thank you for that!

Now to start weighing my M118 LC cases... annnd probaby take 10 or so and see what their capacity is. I was wondering why my SD's might be say 6-8 fps and then a few shots later they'd be 10-10.7fps... like dang that one or two really threw the SD average up.

I'm also just using CCi 200 LR primers, as at the time I bought the brick it was the best I could find.

 

[straightshooter1]

Excellent! thank you for that!

Now to start weighing my M118 LC cases... annnd probaby take 10 or so and see what their capacity is. I was wondering why my SD's might be say 6-8 fps and then a few shots later they'd be 10-10.7fps... like dang that one or two really threw the SD average up.

I'm also just using CCi 200 LR primers, as at the time I bought the brick it was the best I could find.

To find case volume, I find doing 10 is enough. Just be sure you're measuring fired brass, not sized or virgin brass. And having cases with the same OAL as variation is trim length can make quite a difference. And as you can tell in that Peterson Cartridge data, it's a good idea to do this every time a new lot is acquired that the load might have to be adjusted accordingly.

Yup, it just takes a couple outliers to throw SD's and ES's out of whack and can show up on targets at long distances.

 

[Mean_Man]

Well, M118LC brass is heavy…

Strike through have been culled.

The “not trimmed” is once fired cases, the trimmed cases were already once fired and prepped once so they were all, already trimmed, deburred and VLD chamfered. The weights were all post primer pocket cleaning.

Ended up putting all this in excell and identifying the cases heavier than 181.5 amor lighter than 179.5 which yeah I could have done on paper but… average was like 180.49

 

[Holliday]

Yeah, friction and consistency are mutually exclusive. Consistency is the main reason I use NeoLube and do the dip method since it applies so evenly. Interestingly, I found a difference in how I dry the cases with NeoLube. Drying them neck up is slightly more consistent than neck down. I think this is because neck down, the excess NeoLube will sort of pool around the case mouth and that slight variance in thickness causes a slight difference in interference fit/seating force.



The reason I asked about your process and components was that you should be able to get better than 8.4 fps SDs. It's not bad, but if you're doing everything correctly, and it looks like you are, you should be able to beat it.

When I first got my 300 PRC, the only brass I could get was Hornady, and it was crap. It was so bad, that I went the route of using RWS 8x68S brass and heavily modifying it to fire form it into 300 PRC. This was the best brass, by far, I've ever shot in that caliber. The problems with using it were two-fold:

- The rim was slightly smaller, so it required a different, somewhat esoteric shell holder. Not too much of an issue, but it causes problems with US-made equipment that only operates off of the four main rim sizes we use (many trimmers, priming tools, etc.).

- The process to modify the brass was somewhat extensive and time consuming.

The point of all this?

When ADG came out, I was like, "Great! Quality brass that I don't need to muck with!" The issue was my SDs went from consistently low 6s to mid-high 7s. It wasn't until I did a slight neck turn that I could get them back into line with what I had with RWS. So, I was mucking with brass again. As soon as Lapua came out, I switched and immediately saw a drop back down into the mid-6s.

Food for thought since Lapua makes 6.5 PRC brass.

One thing I forgot to mention in my struggle with SDs is that this 6.5 PRC H4831 load is 92% case fill with 100% burn according to Quick load.

Eta : 4831sc

 

[Rocketmandb]

One thing I forgot to mention in my struggle with SDs is that this 6.5 PRC H4831 load is 92% case fill with 100% burn according to Quick load.

That's not a horrid case fill. I will say that in my 300 PRC I just went to N568, which yields about 100fps lower velocity, but much higher case fill than the RL26 I was using. It's giving good results.

 

[Holliday]

That's not a horrid case fill. I will say that in my 300 PRC I just went to N568, which yields about 100fps lower velocity, but much higher case fill than the RL26 I was using. It's giving good results.

Funny I just switched to some N560 which is giving me another 80 fps close to max with the same case fill. Initial testing shows the groups to be tighter. Will be testing more to see and determine how SDs do.

 

[straightshooter1]

One thing I forgot to mention in my struggle with SDs is that this 6.5 PRC H4831 load is 92% case fill with 100% burn according to Quick load.

Since I tend to load long and hand feed my 6.5 PRC cartridges for target shooting, my case fill is just a little less than that. Having used 3 different bullets (Berger 140 Hybrid, 142 SMK and Berger 153.5's) with H4831 SC, I've surprisingly got some very good SD's (like in the mid single digits). I didn't expect that given such a low fill, but I think the way I handled the cases when chambering them probably helped.

I imagine if I were using the larger kernels, my case fill would be a little more.

 

[Holliday]

Since I tend to load long and hand feed my 6.5 PRC cartridges for target shooting, my case fill is just a little less than that. Having used 3 different bullets (Berger 140 Hybrid, 142 SMK and Berger 153.5's) with H4831 SC, I've surprisingly got some very good SD's (like in the mid single digits). I didn't expect that given such a low fill, but I think the way I handled the cases when chambering them probably helped.

I imagine if I were using the larger kernels, my case fill would be a little more.

Yes the normal H4831 is higher fill but MIA. I meant type 4831sc