280 loads with rl-22

[DaveA37]

I am starting to develope my first loads for my 280.

Not too long ago I inquired about a variety of loads for the 280 with 140 BT's using 4831, 4350, and RL-22. I really appreciated the many responses and several loads were recommended using either 4350 or 4831. No mention of anyone using RL-22.

The powder recommendation (majority) for 150 gr BT's was 4350 while the recommendation (majority) for 140 BT's was 4831. From my readings, RL-22 has the same burn rate as 4350" so I wondered why no one had addressed that particular powder.
(NOTE: I have since corrected this statement and changed it from 4350 to 4831. That was my mistake.) Anyone care to comment of the RL-22.

I already have some 140 BT's with 54 and 54.5 grains loaded and ready for test firing purposes. However, winter here in Wisconsin doesn't always allow for range time with some snow depths above your knees so I am holding off till things outside get a little better. I've still got time for more test loads and currently await some heavier bullets from Cabela's. :mrgreen:

 

[Titleist]

I have tested loads with both RL 19 and RL 22 in my 280's pushing 140 and 160 grain pills, and had a bit too much velocity variation with outside temperature changes (summer vs winter). RL 19 gave me the better result of the two (lower SD), but both 4350 and 4831 gave lower SDs and smaller temperature variations in my rifles. I used 3 rifles when I was developing most of my loads (lightweight with a 22" Douglas barrel, standard weight with a 22" factory barrel, and a standard weight with a 24" Douglas barrel) and all of them liked 4350 and 4831 the best. But as each rifle is different, your rifle may like RL22.

 

[DrMike]

Al,

I've used RL19 on occasion with 150 grain Sierra BTSP and with the 140 grain BST. The few times I've used RL22 were not impressive enough to continue pursuing tests. One powder that has popped up repeatedly over the years is VihtaVuori N165, which has given me excellent results with a variety of bullets.

 

[ROVERT]

I think Reloader 22's burn rate is quite a bit slower than IMR 4350. In terms of burn rate I believe 4831 comes in somewhere between 4350 and RL22. I've considered trying RL 22 in my .280 after getting some pretty impressive velocities in my .270. I've got a good load with IMR 4350 though that is no slouch (154's at 2950) so I'm in no hurry to do so. My .280 only has a 22" barrel, so I'm not sure if I would be able to take advantage of a powder much slower than 4350.

 

[SJB358]

I am a huge fan of RL22, and would imagine it would work pretty well in the 280 with heavier bullet weights. Same as the 7WSM and 7RM.. With lighter bullets, the 4350's probably will perform a little better. When I need something in the 4350 range, I usually try RL19.. Again, every rifle is different and I bought some IMR4350 to try in my 338, but I just haven't gotten past RL19 yet!

 

[Wincheringen]

Rovert is right, RL22 is quite a bit slower than 4350. My .280 really likes RL22 and the 150 ETip, but its pretty slow, around 2600 FPS. This works well because the ETip can't be driven as hard as a BT, AB, or Partition. 4350 or 4831 (or their respective equivalents) would serve better for higher velocities in the .280.