ES Reduction

[.300winmag]

I had my load with the 215 Berger Hybrids dialed in, 76.0grs. H-1000 using Remington brass, 2,885 appox 10fps ES, however, when I went to nosler brass, ES went to 30+ FPS. By weight, Nosler is significantly lighter, thus, has more capacity, I notice this when I seat bullets as well. Accuracy seems to be the same at 100 yards and 600 yards, but at 820, vertical was horrendous, 1.5 MOA. I'm thinking a grain more powder will bring that ES down. But, I am also using Fed. 215M primers, and have read CCI250's are lowering ES. Opinions on what to be done are appreciated. For this rifle, I want a minimum of 1MOA at 1000 yards for five shots. I've got a week to prepare for our F-classs shoot (shot with the 6BR), but after that (same day), we're having a steel shoot out to 1,900 yards, any-any style. It's set up like HORSE in basketball, you call a shot and make it, everybody else has to or they get a letter.

Our "horse rules" state the longest firing line of the match earlier that day is the minimum range for the steel shoots. So, for this match, 1,000 yards is minimum. But, from 1,000 yards you can shoot to just under 1,500 yards, they have steel out to about 1,480. But, if you move back, you can get 1,900 to the pits and who knows on the steel targets. It'll be a blast for sure. I'll get to shoot my 6mm BR for F-class and play with my .300 for my dad's Buck tag at all sorts of ranges! Good dope gauge if nothing else!

Overall, I'm going to up the powder charge to fill the case, but, is it worth it to try a different primer?

 

[Darkhorse]

Did your velocity change when you loaded the lighter cases? How much lighter were they?

 

[Dr. Vette]

Better yet, have you actually measured and compared the capacity of the cases?

 

[Dwh7271]

I seem to agree with a lot of what Barsness writes and heres one of his on primers, might help with your CCI question:

Really huge rifle cases such as the biggest Weatherbys, Remington Ultra Mags, and older British African cartridges require a lot of very slow-burning powder to operate at all. Slower-burning powders are normally more difficult to ignite, and a bigger flame of longer duration helps, especially in cooler weather. The first “magnum” primer, the Federal 215 was designed for this very purpose. Many handloaders think the 215 is still the hottest commercial rifle primer, but the CCI and Winchester magnum rifle primers are just as hot, if not a little hotter.

Here's where it came from if that helps.
http://ingunowners.com/forums/ammunition-reloading/174704-choosing-right-primer.html

 

[.300winmag]

Better yet, have you actually measured and compared the capacity of the cases?

Sorry for the delayed repines, been very busy with work.

Dr. Vette, this would seem redundant to me if weighing once fired Nosler cases to once fired Remington cases, which was done. The external dimensions should be the same in both, thus, leaving the difference in weight to be the difference in volume. Actual measurements of volume confirmed this true to less than a tenth of a percent.

The case volume did increase, as expected, and was measured at 94.80grs, H2O. Velocity dropped about 50 FPS, but ES was wayyyy too high (50+fps) by my standards, I believe too much air space in the case was the cause.

Would someone be willing to run this in QL with the following? Still can't find 210 ABLR's to try out in this rifle! I want some!

.300 Win. Mag.
215 Berger Hybrid
Retumbo and H-1000 powders
28" Barrel
94.80grs H2O
Cartridge OAL 3.680"

I

 

[DrMike]

Cartridge : .300 Win. Mag.(W)
Bullet : .308, 215, Berger Hybrid G7 #30423
Useable Case Capaci: 86.064 grain H2O = 5.588 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.680 inch = 93.47 mm
Barrel Length : 28.0 inch = 711.2 mm
Powder : Hodgdon Retumbo

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-20.0 86 68.56 2417 2789 30444 9985 97.8 1.846
-18.0 88 70.27 2480 2936 32610 10224 98.6 1.797
-16.0 90 71.99 2543 3086 34941 10434 99.3 1.750
-14.0 92 73.70 2605 3239 37449 10612 99.7 1.700
-12.0 95 75.42 2666 3394 40150 10758 100.0 1.645
-10.0 97 77.13 2728 3552 43061 10872 100.0 1.591
-08.0 99 78.84 2788 3710 46203 10974 100.0 1.540
-06.0 101 80.56 2847 3870 49600 11073 100.0 1.491
-04.0 103 82.27 2906 4032 53272 11168 100.0 1.443 ! Near Maximum !
-02.0 105 83.99 2965 4196 57249 11259 100.0 1.397 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 107 85.70 3022 4361 61561 11346 100.0 1.353 ! Near Maximum !
+02.0 110 87.41 3080 4529 66243 11428 100.0 1.311 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.0 112 89.13 3137 4698 71336 11506 100.0 1.270 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+06.0 114 90.84 3194 4870 76886 11579 100.0 1.230 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+08.0 116 92.56 3251 5045 82948 11647 100.0 1.192 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0 118 94.27 3307 5222 89576 11710 100.0 1.155 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 107 85.70 3133 4686 77020 10902 100.0 1.247 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 107 85.70 2850 3878 48617 11962 99.7 1.495

Cartridge : .300 Win. Mag.(W)
Bullet : .308, 215, Berger Hybrid G7 #30423
Useable Case Capaci: 86.064 grain H2O = 5.588 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.680 inch = 93.47 mm
Barrel Length : 28.0 inch = 711.2 mm
Powder : Hodgdon H1000

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-20.0 83 65.20 2361 2661 30641 9214 94.3 1.840
-18.0 85 66.83 2422 2800 32779 9482 95.4 1.792
-16.0 87 68.46 2483 2942 35078 9734 96.5 1.745
-14.0 89 70.09 2543 3088 37546 9967 97.4 1.694
-12.0 91 71.72 2604 3237 40199 10180 98.2 1.640
-10.0 93 73.35 2665 3390 43054 10371 98.8 1.588
-08.0 96 74.98 2725 3545 46127 10540 99.3 1.537
-06.0 98 76.61 2785 3703 49440 10685 99.7 1.489
-04.0 100 78.24 2845 3863 53017 10804 99.9 1.442 ! Near Maximum !
-02.0 102 79.87 2904 4026 56883 10897 100.0 1.397 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 104 81.50 2963 4190 61068 10972 100.0 1.354 ! Near Maximum !
+02.0 106 83.13 3021 4356 65603 11042 100.0 1.312 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+04.0 108 84.76 3078 4524 70526 11107 100.0 1.271 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+06.0 110 86.39 3136 4695 75882 11168 100.0 1.232 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+08.0 112 88.02 3193 4868 81722 11224 100.0 1.194 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0 114 89.65 3250 5043 88086 11275 100.0 1.158 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 104 81.50 3077 4520 74747 10501 100.0 1.253 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 104 81.50 2787 3708 49189 11234 97.5 1.486

 

[Dr. Vette]

Better yet, have you actually measured and compared the capacity of the cases?

Sorry for the delayed repines, been very busy with work.

Dr. Vette, this would seem redundant to me if weighing once fired Nosler cases to once fired Remington cases, which was done. The external dimensions should be the same in both, thus, leaving the difference in weight to be the difference in volume.

Ah, but you see, that's an assumption, and you know what assume means...

Personally, I never assume that brass that is heavier has less capacity, especially within the same brand of brass. I would not even assume that when going between brands, especially when it takes less than a minute to check both on a scale and know for sure. Yes, it's a good generalization but having been taught enough science and being always a bit skeptical, I'd need to check it for sure. Once I have the number I can then give DrMike a true volume reading and we're good to go.

Actual measurements of volume confirmed this true to less than a tenth of a percent.

In any event, you did measure it so apparently you weren't about to assume it either. :mrgreen:

 

[.300winmag]

Thank you Dr. Mike, I appreciate it immensely!

I had to measure it, Dr. Vette, the engineer in me told me not to make assumptions and measure them... I do know what assumptions will do to you... :mrgreen:

 

[Darkhorse]

FWIW, I turn the excess off my case necks. Once the cutter is set and locked, I turn all the cases of that caliber I have. I try to average 85% but while some are cleaned up more, in reality the equal amount of excess is turned off each one.
I also chamfer the case necks and clean the internal burr of the flash hole and uniform the primer pocket.
I almost forgot to mention they are all trimmed to the same length.
After all this I weigh the cases for important work and feel as confident as possible the weight differences at this point reflect varying internal capacity.
I don't know how to remove anymore variables.

 

[.300winmag]

I filled the case with a grain more of powder to reduce air space, as I was not seeing any pressure signs. Shot them today at 1,000 and chronographed them. Vel. was 2,903, ES 15, and gave about 6.5" of Vertical. Wind destroyed me, with 16.5" horizontal, but in todays conditions, I am happy! Thanks a lot fella's!