- Thread starter hunter966
- Start date
Re: 260 Remington and R17
Start at 38 gr. for the 130's and 40 gr. for the 123's 42 gr. for the 100's and work up from there. That is with RE-17.
One of the characteristics of RE-17 is that with the better 'heat sensitivity' (burn retardant mixed with powder, not sprayed on) process in manufacturing, this powder will give super velocities without giving pressure signs. You will see this when you go from hot barrel to cold barrel and get large velocity changes. If you don't have a chrono this will show up shooting @300 or more. It doesn't tend to show up @ 100-200 so much, as drops aren't that different at those higher velocities.
So, my advice when using this powder is to work up to where you have a good accuracy node, the barrel isn't getting hot too fast, and you're not seeing erratic accuracy downrange, and of course, high pressure signs on your cases.
This stuff is great powder if you use it right. And FWIW, someone said it works great in the short/super short mags, it doesn't. It does work outstanding in .308, Mauser and 30-06 based cases.
Start at 38 gr. for the 130's and 40 gr. for the 123's 42 gr. for the 100's and work up from there. That is with RE-17.
One of the characteristics of RE-17 is that with the better 'heat sensitivity' (burn retardant mixed with powder, not sprayed on) process in manufacturing, this powder will give super velocities without giving pressure signs. You will see this when you go from hot barrel to cold barrel and get large velocity changes. If you don't have a chrono this will show up shooting @300 or more. It doesn't tend to show up @ 100-200 so much, as drops aren't that different at those higher velocities.
So, my advice when using this powder is to work up to where you have a good accuracy node, the barrel isn't getting hot too fast, and you're not seeing erratic accuracy downrange, and of course, high pressure signs on your cases.
This stuff is great powder if you use it right. And FWIW, someone said it works great in the short/super short mags, it doesn't. It does work outstanding in .308, Mauser and 30-06 based cases.
Re: 260 Remington and R17
17 worked well for me in x47 semi.
17 worked well for me in x47 semi.
Re: 260 Remington and R17
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
One of the characteristics of RE-17 is that with the better 'heat sensitivity' (burn retardant mixed with powder, not sprayed on) process in manufacturing, this powder will give super velocities without giving pressure signs. You will see this when you go from hot barrel to cold barrel and get large velocity changes. </div></div>
Sandwarrior,
Not challenging your statement. I'm wondering where you turn up this info. It would be good to have this info in print or some link, etc.
Thanks,
Alan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
One of the characteristics of RE-17 is that with the better 'heat sensitivity' (burn retardant mixed with powder, not sprayed on) process in manufacturing, this powder will give super velocities without giving pressure signs. You will see this when you go from hot barrel to cold barrel and get large velocity changes. </div></div>
Sandwarrior,
Not challenging your statement. I'm wondering where you turn up this info. It would be good to have this info in print or some link, etc.
Thanks,
Alan
Re: 260 Remington and R17
Hmmmm. It would seem to me that having a burn retardant mixed with the powder would allow for more variation instead of less. There would be no way to get an equal amount of retardant in each charge.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying RL17 is bad. In fact, I use it in my 6.5CM with great success with the 142 SMK.
I always found great numbers/consistency with H4831SC and the 142 SMK in the 260.
Hmmmm. It would seem to me that having a burn retardant mixed with the powder would allow for more variation instead of less. There would be no way to get an equal amount of retardant in each charge.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying RL17 is bad. In fact, I use it in my 6.5CM with great success with the 142 SMK.
I always found great numbers/consistency with H4831SC and the 142 SMK in the 260.
Re: 260 Remington and R17
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GSSP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
One of the characteristics of RE-17 is that with the better 'heat sensitivity' (burn retardant mixed with powder, not sprayed on) process in manufacturing, this powder will give super velocities without giving pressure signs. You will see this when you go from hot barrel to cold barrel and get large velocity changes. </div></div>
Sandwarrior,
Not challenging your statement. I'm wondering where you turn up this info. It would be good to have this info in print or some link, etc.
Thanks,
Alan</div></div>
Here's a start for you:
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2008/02/alliant-releases-new-reloder-17-powder/
Here's another explanation of it...from another board:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.p...7-updated-11-17
Which includes this write up by German Salazaar:
http://www.6mmbr.com/reloder17.html
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GSSP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
One of the characteristics of RE-17 is that with the better 'heat sensitivity' (burn retardant mixed with powder, not sprayed on) process in manufacturing, this powder will give super velocities without giving pressure signs. You will see this when you go from hot barrel to cold barrel and get large velocity changes. </div></div>
Sandwarrior,
Not challenging your statement. I'm wondering where you turn up this info. It would be good to have this info in print or some link, etc.
Thanks,
Alan</div></div>
Here's a start for you:
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2008/02/alliant-releases-new-reloder-17-powder/
Here's another explanation of it...from another board:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.p...7-updated-11-17
Which includes this write up by German Salazaar:
http://www.6mmbr.com/reloder17.html
Re: 260 Remington and R17
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shoot4fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmmm. It would seem to me that having a burn retardant mixed with the powder would allow for more variation instead of less. There would be no way to get an equal amount of retardant in each charge.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying RL17 is bad. In fact, I use it in my 6.5CM with great success with the 142 SMK.
I always found great numbers/consistency with H4831SC and the 142 SMK in the 260.</div></div>
No, it's actually very, very precise. So is the spray on method. But the spray on method only coats the outside of the kernels. Once the powder is ignited and turns to plasma the retardant then becomes less effective.
Hopefully, to clarify things a bit if I can, (and I'm not the chief chemist at NitroChemie) the retardant is a compound of chemicals/elements added in one way or another to the smokeless powder. They create a stable solution or precipitant that can, with smokeless gunpowder, still remain stable even during ignition. Up to a point that is. Once a pressure/temperature is reached, these compunds break up into free molecules. They then want to combine with the elements with the optimal opposite number of electrons, i.e. like hydrogen and Oxygen always find each other and without much energy combine to make H2O. Except these are a little more complex.
Bottom line, with less retardant mixed throughout the kernel there is more chance of it continually working. With it only sprayed on the outside, it only works for a relative time (miliseconds). The precision with which either can be applied is amazing.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shoot4fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmmm. It would seem to me that having a burn retardant mixed with the powder would allow for more variation instead of less. There would be no way to get an equal amount of retardant in each charge.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying RL17 is bad. In fact, I use it in my 6.5CM with great success with the 142 SMK.
I always found great numbers/consistency with H4831SC and the 142 SMK in the 260.</div></div>
No, it's actually very, very precise. So is the spray on method. But the spray on method only coats the outside of the kernels. Once the powder is ignited and turns to plasma the retardant then becomes less effective.
Hopefully, to clarify things a bit if I can, (and I'm not the chief chemist at NitroChemie) the retardant is a compound of chemicals/elements added in one way or another to the smokeless powder. They create a stable solution or precipitant that can, with smokeless gunpowder, still remain stable even during ignition. Up to a point that is. Once a pressure/temperature is reached, these compunds break up into free molecules. They then want to combine with the elements with the optimal opposite number of electrons, i.e. like hydrogen and Oxygen always find each other and without much energy combine to make H2O. Except these are a little more complex.
Bottom line, with less retardant mixed throughout the kernel there is more chance of it continually working. With it only sprayed on the outside, it only works for a relative time (miliseconds). The precision with which either can be applied is amazing.
Re: 260 Remington and R17
i got single digit var in speed with it in my 260
wouldnt group for shit though
now in my 7saum/matrix 190vld awesome results
4831sc or h4350 or even varget work well for my 260
i got single digit var in speed with it in my 260
wouldnt group for shit though
now in my 7saum/matrix 190vld awesome results
4831sc or h4350 or even varget work well for my 260
Re: 260 Remington and R17
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bkster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i got single digit var in speed with it in my 260
wouldnt group for shit though
now in my 7saum/matrix 190vld awesome results
4831sc or h4350 or even varget work well for my 260</div></div>
Did you run a ladder with it?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bkster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i got single digit var in speed with it in my 260
wouldnt group for shit though
now in my 7saum/matrix 190vld awesome results
4831sc or h4350 or even varget work well for my 260</div></div>
Did you run a ladder with it?
Re: 260 Remington and R17
Hey Sandwarrior:
Any experience with R 17 and the 6.5 X 284 ?
Hey Sandwarrior:
Any experience with R 17 and the 6.5 X 284 ?
Re: 260 Remington and R17
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bkster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i got single digit var in speed with it in my 260
wouldnt group for shit though </div></div>
I got single digits also with my 260 and groups were OK but I found fairly pronounced temp stability problems. I got great velocity and will continue working with it this spring but I will need to find a mid sort of load that works the the temp spreads here in Montana and allows for my DOPE to actually be usable.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bkster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i got single digit var in speed with it in my 260
wouldnt group for shit though </div></div>
I got single digits also with my 260 and groups were OK but I found fairly pronounced temp stability problems. I got great velocity and will continue working with it this spring but I will need to find a mid sort of load that works the the temp spreads here in Montana and allows for my DOPE to actually be usable.
Re: 260 Remington and R17
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mtn grizzly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey Sandwarrior:
Any experience with R 17 and the 6.5 X 284 ?</div></div>
No, but I did work with the 6mm-.284. It's a smidge fast for the cartridge. But very useable nonetheless. It seems like I was getting 3450-ish from that powder and a 87 gr. spitzer.
As you gain in bullet diameter a slower powder becomes more useable. Since it worked best with 85-100 gr. bullets in my rifle, I'm thinking that 85-120gr. would be the best weight range to stay in with it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mtn grizzly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey Sandwarrior:
Any experience with R 17 and the 6.5 X 284 ?</div></div>
No, but I did work with the 6mm-.284. It's a smidge fast for the cartridge. But very useable nonetheless. It seems like I was getting 3450-ish from that powder and a 87 gr. spitzer.
As you gain in bullet diameter a slower powder becomes more useable. Since it worked best with 85-100 gr. bullets in my rifle, I'm thinking that 85-120gr. would be the best weight range to stay in with it.
Tag for later
Sandwarrior;
I shoot a .308 w 20" heavy barrel (AAC-SD model). Have had very good accuracy with FC MK 319 Mod0 rounds (130 gr OTM Barrier Blind) out to 750 yds. I like them so much i just bought 400 pulls to try and clone them. Would RE 17 be a good powder to use to try and reach the velocity needed to get similar performance? Will be using the FC cases i have from shooting this factory load as well as LC LR. Thanks...
Infidel45,
It works good with .308 with heavier bullets. The 130's are a little light to maximize this powder with. It's really more in the realm of 175's and up.
It works good with .308 with heavier bullets. The 130's are a little light to maximize this powder with. It's really more in the realm of 175's and up.
It gives outstanding velocity, accuracy, and consistency in my 300WSM.
What bullet?
Added: That powder generally runs a little fast for that case. Unless using lighter bullets. But, if it works keep using it.
Last edited:
What are you getting for velocity? I was running H1000 and getting 3050, conservatively with mine. That was about .050" off the lands.
