DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 38,189
- 8,283
I do like N570; I use a lot in quite a variety of cartridges. In the WSMs, I find that N560 may be a better powder for a variety of reasons.
wildgene
Handloader
- Jul 4, 2011
- 1,597
- 3
...I shoot a lot of RL-17 & wonder if anyone else has noticed that QL data for that particular powder seems "conservative"??? I generally get better velocities w/ the .25 WSSM, .300 WSM, & .325 WSM than the QL predictions for the loads, wondering if it has anything to do w/ the faster "burn profile" of RL-17. Curious 'cause RL-33 is manufactured in the same way as RL-17, w/ the buffers actually impregnated into the powder, instead of coated on afterwards...
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 38,189
- 8,283
Gene,
In my situation, the QL projections are quite close on RL17. I suspect we have different lots of powder, which don't match the burn rate given for the test lot provided Harmut Broemel. The other factor to bear in mind is that burn rate changes, sometimes dramatically, in different cartridges due to compaction, bullet weight, primer brisance, etc. In short, I suspect that there is a degree of instability in RL17 due to the impregnation. It is a good powder, but we are still learning quite a bit about it as we shoot it. Undoubtedly, the same will be true for RL33. I will not be surprised to hear similar variable reports for CFE, the various Powder Pro loads, etc. That is one thing that keeps hand loading so interesting.
In my situation, the QL projections are quite close on RL17. I suspect we have different lots of powder, which don't match the burn rate given for the test lot provided Harmut Broemel. The other factor to bear in mind is that burn rate changes, sometimes dramatically, in different cartridges due to compaction, bullet weight, primer brisance, etc. In short, I suspect that there is a degree of instability in RL17 due to the impregnation. It is a good powder, but we are still learning quite a bit about it as we shoot it. Undoubtedly, the same will be true for RL33. I will not be surprised to hear similar variable reports for CFE, the various Powder Pro loads, etc. That is one thing that keeps hand loading so interesting.
wildgene
Handloader
- Jul 4, 2011
- 1,597
- 3
...hmmm, I was thinkin' impregnation would be more consistent than coating...
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 38,189
- 8,283
I think the jury is still out on many features of these new processes. There are some obvious advantages; however, there are situations that demand further study. As information is garnered and shared, undoubtedly we will work through the details of how to extract the maximum advantage of these new propellants. I've read some claims from people using RL17 that were not supported by careful study. On the other hand, there are some uses where it is becoming the propellant of choice. The same is true with almost any new powder. Hodgdon SuperFormance, for instance, has some great potential; but it is not a panacea for a broad range of bullet weights and cartridges.
wildgene
Handloader
- Jul 4, 2011
- 1,597
- 3
...I used over 10# of RL-17 last year, was consistently better MV in all cartridges (.25 WSSM, .300 WSM, .325 WSM), where it works it works well. Attempted loads w/ Superformance w/ high expectations & was "disappointed" to say the least, pretty fair accuracy, but never came anywhere close to advertised MV's...
