I’ve researched and heard so many opinions about this, but which is less sensitive or more stable. RL-15 or Varget….Just checking with the masses. One thing I don’t like about Varget is the way it meters in my RCBS chargemaster at 44.3.
RL-15 vs Varget
- Thread starter avidflyer
- Start date
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
Varget is the more temperature stable. However RL15 tends to generate a bit more velocity.
Varget is the more temperature stable. However RL15 tends to generate a bit more velocity.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
Casey -- you think so .. When I tried it I was not that impressed. Even after I worked up a load. You really can not go wrong with Varget or 8208, with respect to RL-15 Varget and 8208 are not affected by Temperature.
Casey -- you think so .. When I tried it I was not that impressed. Even after I worked up a load. You really can not go wrong with Varget or 8208, with respect to RL-15 Varget and 8208 are not affected by Temperature.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
Varget is the first of Hodgdon's "Extreme" line in which they reduced the size of the kernels and increased and changed the burn retardant they spray on them. Due to that process Varget is going to be more stable from high temps to low temps....and more importantly, vice-versa. Work a load up in Winter and not have to worry about blowing primers while sighting in for the big hunt in August.
RE-15 is a double base powder. It has a burn retardant coating, but not the level that Varget does. Because of it being a double base, (nitro glycerin added) it will produce more pressure than varget will for an equal amount of powder. But, it is going to be more temp sensitive.
8208 was a formulation by DuPont back in the early 80's. I don't know if it ever got loaded in military 5.56, but that was what it was intended for. It has very small extruded kernels, but with a healthy dose of a different burn retardant formulation that actually slows down the powder burn when it reaches a maximum pressure. Hodgdon reproduced DuPont 8208, which was all surplus powder until it ran out.
Hodgdon's 'Extreme' line predates it's purchase of IMR (DuPont) by about 5 years. So, I'm thinking there is a little different formulation for the burn retardant between 8208 and the rest of the 'Extreme' line of powders.
For those who don't understand powder burn, it's pretty much a mechanical thing with the size of the powder kernel controlling the speed of the burn. Large kernels burn slower because there is less total surface area of all the kernels burning at the same time. Having a larger kernel is like having a longer fuse, except it's still burning at around 18-22k fps.
What burn retardant does, is kill off the burn when a certain pressure or temperature is reached. How this is done is chemicals are used that at those high pressure/temps combine and either steal the oxygen used in the burn or combine with hydrogen or carbon to keep those from combining with free radicals. One example of a retardant is chemicals combined under heat/pressure that release about two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen...which as you know would combine to make water, except at high temps it's vapor. But, it cools the burn. That is an example, not how smokeless powder burn retardants actually work. But you get the idea?
Varget is the first of Hodgdon's "Extreme" line in which they reduced the size of the kernels and increased and changed the burn retardant they spray on them. Due to that process Varget is going to be more stable from high temps to low temps....and more importantly, vice-versa. Work a load up in Winter and not have to worry about blowing primers while sighting in for the big hunt in August.
RE-15 is a double base powder. It has a burn retardant coating, but not the level that Varget does. Because of it being a double base, (nitro glycerin added) it will produce more pressure than varget will for an equal amount of powder. But, it is going to be more temp sensitive.
8208 was a formulation by DuPont back in the early 80's. I don't know if it ever got loaded in military 5.56, but that was what it was intended for. It has very small extruded kernels, but with a healthy dose of a different burn retardant formulation that actually slows down the powder burn when it reaches a maximum pressure. Hodgdon reproduced DuPont 8208, which was all surplus powder until it ran out.
Hodgdon's 'Extreme' line predates it's purchase of IMR (DuPont) by about 5 years. So, I'm thinking there is a little different formulation for the burn retardant between 8208 and the rest of the 'Extreme' line of powders.
For those who don't understand powder burn, it's pretty much a mechanical thing with the size of the powder kernel controlling the speed of the burn. Large kernels burn slower because there is less total surface area of all the kernels burning at the same time. Having a larger kernel is like having a longer fuse, except it's still burning at around 18-22k fps.
What burn retardant does, is kill off the burn when a certain pressure or temperature is reached. How this is done is chemicals are used that at those high pressure/temps combine and either steal the oxygen used in the burn or combine with hydrogen or carbon to keep those from combining with free radicals. One example of a retardant is chemicals combined under heat/pressure that release about two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen...which as you know would combine to make water, except at high temps it's vapor. But, it cools the burn. That is an example, not how smokeless powder burn retardants actually work. But you get the idea?
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
Slightly off topic, but AR-Comp powder is a reformulated R-15 that has a burn rate similar to Varget and supposedly is temp stable:
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/?s=ar-comp&submit=Search
Slightly off topic, but AR-Comp powder is a reformulated R-15 that has a burn rate similar to Varget and supposedly is temp stable:
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/?s=ar-comp&submit=Search
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
Varget will be more temp stable. From the teens to over 100 degrees I get around 10-15fps difference. Same with the other Hodgdon Extreme line powders. When I got my .243 I had to work up a load in January in New England in the teens and have it be safe and close in velocity for March down in south TX at 70-80 degrees. H4350 worked great for me.
Varget is not the best metering powder but gives good velocity that remains stable over a large temp range, which is more important to me than how it meters.
Varget will be more temp stable. From the teens to over 100 degrees I get around 10-15fps difference. Same with the other Hodgdon Extreme line powders. When I got my .243 I had to work up a load in January in New England in the teens and have it be safe and close in velocity for March down in south TX at 70-80 degrees. H4350 worked great for me.
Varget is not the best metering powder but gives good velocity that remains stable over a large temp range, which is more important to me than how it meters.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
1. 8208 velocities deviate <span style="text-decoration: underline">less</span> in changing ambient environments.
2. 8208 meters <span style="text-decoration: underline">smoother</span> than V or 15 in manual powder meters.
3. Hodgon burn rate chart rates the powders thus:
Scale of 1 to 144, larger number being slower burn rate.
8208: 85
RL15: 97
Varg: 99
For comparison: 4895: 87
VVN530: 88
*Note: My tests convince me Optimal Charge Weight load development makes this this concern moot. In large measure, anymore, chasing a powder that is temperature insensitive is obsolete once finding THE optimal charge weight.
1. 8208 velocities deviate <span style="text-decoration: underline">less</span> in changing ambient environments.
2. 8208 meters <span style="text-decoration: underline">smoother</span> than V or 15 in manual powder meters.
3. Hodgon burn rate chart rates the powders thus:
Scale of 1 to 144, larger number being slower burn rate.
8208: 85
RL15: 97
Varg: 99
For comparison: 4895: 87
VVN530: 88
*Note: My tests convince me Optimal Charge Weight load development makes this this concern moot. In large measure, anymore, chasing a powder that is temperature insensitive is obsolete once finding THE optimal charge weight.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
Horrible. Bullets exit sideways or otherwise unstable about the vertical, and sometimes the lateral, axis.
Works like Varget and 4895 and RL15 except better......for me.
How a powder might "do" depends largely on the gun.
Horrible. Bullets exit sideways or otherwise unstable about the vertical, and sometimes the lateral, axis.
Works like Varget and 4895 and RL15 except better......for me.
How a powder might "do" depends largely on the gun.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
I've never had metering problems with varget but then I'm a dinosaur as I still use a uniflow + beam scale.
I've never had metering problems with varget but then I'm a dinosaur as I still use a uniflow + beam scale.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
1. 8208 velocities deviate <span style="text-decoration: underline">less</span> in changing ambient environments.
2. 8208 meters <span style="text-decoration: underline">smoother</span> than V or 15 in manual powder meters.
3. Hodgon burn rate chart rates the powders thus:
Scale of 1 to 144, larger number being slower burn rate.
8208: 85
RL15: 97
Varg: 99
For comparison: 4895: 87
VVN530: 88
<span style="font-weight: bold">*Note: My tests convince me Optimal Charge Weight load development makes this this concern moot. In large measure, anymore, chasing a powder that is temperature insensitive is obsolete once finding THE optimal charge weight.</span>
</div></div>
Casey,
I have to ask, since I don't do it that way. Can you give me a breakdown of how load workups are done by 'optimal charge weight'. I use the 'ladder' method. So, I'm usually trying to tune the load to the rifle.
However, I'm sure there is a stoichiometric optimum given to each type powder in each case. And, of those, there is a 'best' powder for each case too. Can you give the fundamentals of how you do it?
Also, I'm not finding any data on whether or not 8208 XBR is single or double based. But, here is where I would really say amount of pressure doesn't matter as long as the powder load fits the case well.
And, I won't say finding a temp sensitive powder is obsolete. I test powders from as high as 100 F. annually to as low as -18 F. I find the biggest changes are from 32 F down to however cold I can shoot that year below zero. I shot as cold as -26 but only tested as low as -18. <span style="text-decoration: underline">I haven't tested 8208 XBR</span>, but have tested most all the 'Extremes' AA, and the Reloader powders. I can tell you 2230, 2460, 2520, Win 748, BL-C2, Win 760 and the RE-powders drop significantly in those cold temps. With the exception of RE-17. That's a whole 'nuther cat unto itself too. A good one, I can tell you. As long as people don't abuse it for what it gives them.
<span style="color: #3333FF">Edit:
Just so you guys don't think I'm just tossing around big words here. It does have a valuable meaning in this discussion. I had to look it up the first time I heard it too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry
It amounts to fuel(any)/oxygen ratio.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
1. 8208 velocities deviate <span style="text-decoration: underline">less</span> in changing ambient environments.
2. 8208 meters <span style="text-decoration: underline">smoother</span> than V or 15 in manual powder meters.
3. Hodgon burn rate chart rates the powders thus:
Scale of 1 to 144, larger number being slower burn rate.
8208: 85
RL15: 97
Varg: 99
For comparison: 4895: 87
VVN530: 88
<span style="font-weight: bold">*Note: My tests convince me Optimal Charge Weight load development makes this this concern moot. In large measure, anymore, chasing a powder that is temperature insensitive is obsolete once finding THE optimal charge weight.</span>
</div></div>
Casey,
I have to ask, since I don't do it that way. Can you give me a breakdown of how load workups are done by 'optimal charge weight'. I use the 'ladder' method. So, I'm usually trying to tune the load to the rifle.
However, I'm sure there is a stoichiometric optimum given to each type powder in each case. And, of those, there is a 'best' powder for each case too. Can you give the fundamentals of how you do it?
Also, I'm not finding any data on whether or not 8208 XBR is single or double based. But, here is where I would really say amount of pressure doesn't matter as long as the powder load fits the case well.
And, I won't say finding a temp sensitive powder is obsolete. I test powders from as high as 100 F. annually to as low as -18 F. I find the biggest changes are from 32 F down to however cold I can shoot that year below zero. I shot as cold as -26 but only tested as low as -18. <span style="text-decoration: underline">I haven't tested 8208 XBR</span>, but have tested most all the 'Extremes' AA, and the Reloader powders. I can tell you 2230, 2460, 2520, Win 748, BL-C2, Win 760 and the RE-powders drop significantly in those cold temps. With the exception of RE-17. That's a whole 'nuther cat unto itself too. A good one, I can tell you. As long as people don't abuse it for what it gives them.
<span style="color: #3333FF">Edit:
Just so you guys don't think I'm just tossing around big words here. It does have a valuable meaning in this discussion. I had to look it up the first time I heard it too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry
It amounts to fuel(any)/oxygen ratio.</span>
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Can you give me a breakdown of how load workups are done by 'optimal charge weight'.
</div></div>
http://optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com/
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Can you give me a breakdown of how load workups are done by 'optimal charge weight'.
</div></div>
http://optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com/
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
I use RL15 and get great velocities, but I very greatly with the changing of the temps.
I use RL15 and get great velocities, but I very greatly with the changing of the temps.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but 8208xbr is superior to both in both ways </div></div>
My buddy talked with somebody at Hodgdon about 3 months back and was told that 8208xbr doesn't exactly mimic the original and once the initial batch of 20,000# (?) is sold, they're going to reformulate it to more closely resemble the original specs, at least that's how I think he explained it.
Somebody might want to check into it.
I see a pound, or two, at Bass Pro here in Miami, but I haven't bought any yet.
Chris
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but 8208xbr is superior to both in both ways </div></div>
My buddy talked with somebody at Hodgdon about 3 months back and was told that 8208xbr doesn't exactly mimic the original and once the initial batch of 20,000# (?) is sold, they're going to reformulate it to more closely resemble the original specs, at least that's how I think he explained it.
Somebody might want to check into it.
I see a pound, or two, at Bass Pro here in Miami, but I haven't bought any yet.
Chris
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There you go, Warrior, Drifter gotcha.
</div></div>
Thanks. I've heard the term a lot but usually put it to someone using a computer to determine 'best load'. I never thought it to be a process. I'll give it a read.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There you go, Warrior, Drifter gotcha.
</div></div>
Thanks. I've heard the term a lot but usually put it to someone using a computer to determine 'best load'. I never thought it to be a process. I'll give it a read.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
I overanalyze this stuff like everything else I do and OCW, of the other ways I've tried, makes the most sense in theory, and actually works best in the field in my experience.
I overanalyze this stuff like everything else I do and OCW, of the other ways I've tried, makes the most sense in theory, and actually works best in the field in my experience.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
I have to agree with Casey. I have run Varget for some time and recently went to 8028 XBR. Both meter great in the Chargemaster but the XBR is delivering more velocity and lower ES & SD's.
My hunting load (168 Amax) is with Varget & my accuracy load (168 SMK) is with XBR and have run both bullets with both powders. The XBR has been more stable and consistent across the board.
I have to agree with Casey. I have run Varget for some time and recently went to 8028 XBR. Both meter great in the Chargemaster but the XBR is delivering more velocity and lower ES & SD's.
My hunting load (168 Amax) is with Varget & my accuracy load (168 SMK) is with XBR and have run both bullets with both powders. The XBR has been more stable and consistent across the board.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
Okay, so I read it. I've been loading like that for close to 20 years for some powders and cases. I just never called it that. We called it the round robin groups. I usually only use it with VERY good metering powders when I just dumping powder not weighing each charge, i.e. ball powders and AA2015. By what you are saying 8208 XBR would be an excellent powder to do this with.
When I heard OCW, I was thinking it was a computer generated load. Probably figured by taking a case shape constant, a given powder charge constant/volume, some barrel vibration factor... And I thought how in the hell can a computer generate all that stuff, It must be really amazing what they can do now
. Well, I have a computer, it's just old and slow....my mind.
Thanks for the info and good read. Like I said I've graduated into using most of the stuff he describes. I don't shoot round robins all that much anymore as when I do a load workup I'm usually starting at a very fine tuning point. And, I'm looking for a lot better than MOA accuracy. What he is saying in that piece is important though. Especially when going from rifle to rifle. Being able to get two rifles to shoot moa or better with the same load is pretty amazing.
Okay, so I read it. I've been loading like that for close to 20 years for some powders and cases. I just never called it that. We called it the round robin groups. I usually only use it with VERY good metering powders when I just dumping powder not weighing each charge, i.e. ball powders and AA2015. By what you are saying 8208 XBR would be an excellent powder to do this with.
When I heard OCW, I was thinking it was a computer generated load. Probably figured by taking a case shape constant, a given powder charge constant/volume, some barrel vibration factor... And I thought how in the hell can a computer generate all that stuff, It must be really amazing what they can do now
Thanks for the info and good read. Like I said I've graduated into using most of the stuff he describes. I don't shoot round robins all that much anymore as when I do a load workup I'm usually starting at a very fine tuning point. And, I'm looking for a lot better than MOA accuracy. What he is saying in that piece is important though. Especially when going from rifle to rifle. Being able to get two rifles to shoot moa or better with the same load is pretty amazing.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
Me too, Warrior. I fine tune the load with seating depth down to say .2 on a 30-338, and about the same on a 6Rat. Newberry is saying that method will likely get a truck gun to shoot moa. A good one will shoot as good as and the shooter will shoot. 1MOA <span style="color: #CC33CC">is</span> the starting point.
30-338 200yds square is 1"
6Rat 400yds square is 1"
Just sayn'.
Me too, Warrior. I fine tune the load with seating depth down to say .2 on a 30-338, and about the same on a 6Rat. Newberry is saying that method will likely get a truck gun to shoot moa. A good one will shoot as good as and the shooter will shoot. 1MOA <span style="color: #CC33CC">is</span> the starting point.
30-338 200yds square is 1"
6Rat 400yds square is 1"
Just sayn'.
Re: RL-15 vs Varget
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Me too, Warrior. I fine tune the load with seating depth down to say .2 on a 30-338, and about the same on a 6Rat. Newberry is saying that method will likely get a truck gun to shoot moa. A good one will shoot as good as and the shooter will shoot. 1MOA <span style="color: #CC33CC">is</span> the starting point.
30-338 200yds square is 1"
6Rat 400yds square is 1"
<span style="font-weight: bold">Just sayn</span>'.</div></div>
Well said! It boggles my mind sometimes what I base my doings on only to realize I've done it for so long I forgot that those things were once taught to me too.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Me too, Warrior. I fine tune the load with seating depth down to say .2 on a 30-338, and about the same on a 6Rat. Newberry is saying that method will likely get a truck gun to shoot moa. A good one will shoot as good as and the shooter will shoot. 1MOA <span style="color: #CC33CC">is</span> the starting point.
30-338 200yds square is 1"
6Rat 400yds square is 1"
<span style="font-weight: bold">Just sayn</span>'.</div></div>
Well said! It boggles my mind sometimes what I base my doings on only to realize I've done it for so long I forgot that those things were once taught to me too.
Similar threads
