Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Lazzeroni Warbird
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Swamplord" data-source="post: 754111" data-attributes="member: 2460"><p>here's a post of mine from the 24 campfire forums from 2004</p><p>might have some info of value, you decide !</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Loc: Alaska</p><p> I've been working up loads with both the 180 and 200 grn. 30 cal. Accubonds in recent months, the accuracy of these bullets have generated a lot of respect from me. The best groups I've ever accomplished was with the 180's, with the 200's right behind.</p><p></p><p>One thing I did notice when the seating die was set for the 180's to be just of the rifling, the 200's seat to the exact same OAL based on the ogive of the bullet without readjusting the die, kinda neat that way, I can load both without having to fiddle with the die.</p><p></p><p>As for using the same seating depth and powder charge from data used for the BTips, I'd approach that with caution, the BTips use a softer lead alloy and a thinner jacket than the Accubonds, also the Accu's are bonded and bullet engraving might be a little tougher and can raise pressures in some rifles. My experience with Partitions vs Swift A-Frames in several calibers has shown that the Swift reached high pressures sooner than the Partition. I figured that the bonded and tougher Swift was harder on the rifling and raised pressures as opposed to the softer lead Partition.</p><p>Some say that the Swifts have a softer jacket and are "stickier" in the bore than the Partitions.</p><p></p><p>I'm sure this is old news,but I'll repeat it anyway,</p><p>This is just a comparison to show that It's always a good Idea to back off a little to be on the safe side. What works in other rifles could change dramatically in others.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Cartridge OAL 3.691"</p><p>Ogive OAL 3.047"</p><p> I'm using 106 grns of RL 25 for the 180 grn. Accubonds for a velocity of 3520 fps.</p><p>For the 200 Grn Accubonds I'm stuffing the cases with 102 grns. of rl 25 for 3300 fps. Did load up to a 10 shot ave. of 3385 fps but ran into slightly flattened primers and groups started to suck too opening to a lousy 1 inch from the normal 1/2 " with 3300 fps.</p><p></p><p>in the pics below ..the 180 gr coated Accubonds on left and 200 gr coated Accubonds on right </p><p></p><p>**Note**</p><p>You will not be able to use this load data unless you coat your bullets with Tungsten Disulfide, which is what I do to all my bullets.. Follow John Lazzeroni's load data from his web page for uncoated bullets.</p><p></p><p>.....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Swamplord, post: 754111, member: 2460"] here's a post of mine from the 24 campfire forums from 2004 might have some info of value, you decide ! Loc: Alaska I've been working up loads with both the 180 and 200 grn. 30 cal. Accubonds in recent months, the accuracy of these bullets have generated a lot of respect from me. The best groups I've ever accomplished was with the 180's, with the 200's right behind. One thing I did notice when the seating die was set for the 180's to be just of the rifling, the 200's seat to the exact same OAL based on the ogive of the bullet without readjusting the die, kinda neat that way, I can load both without having to fiddle with the die. As for using the same seating depth and powder charge from data used for the BTips, I'd approach that with caution, the BTips use a softer lead alloy and a thinner jacket than the Accubonds, also the Accu's are bonded and bullet engraving might be a little tougher and can raise pressures in some rifles. My experience with Partitions vs Swift A-Frames in several calibers has shown that the Swift reached high pressures sooner than the Partition. I figured that the bonded and tougher Swift was harder on the rifling and raised pressures as opposed to the softer lead Partition. Some say that the Swifts have a softer jacket and are "stickier" in the bore than the Partitions. I'm sure this is old news,but I'll repeat it anyway, This is just a comparison to show that It's always a good Idea to back off a little to be on the safe side. What works in other rifles could change dramatically in others. Cartridge OAL 3.691" Ogive OAL 3.047" I'm using 106 grns of RL 25 for the 180 grn. Accubonds for a velocity of 3520 fps. For the 200 Grn Accubonds I'm stuffing the cases with 102 grns. of rl 25 for 3300 fps. Did load up to a 10 shot ave. of 3385 fps but ran into slightly flattened primers and groups started to suck too opening to a lousy 1 inch from the normal 1/2 " with 3300 fps. in the pics below ..the 180 gr coated Accubonds on left and 200 gr coated Accubonds on right **Note** You will not be able to use this load data unless you coat your bullets with Tungsten Disulfide, which is what I do to all my bullets.. Follow John Lazzeroni's load data from his web page for uncoated bullets. ..... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Lazzeroni Warbird
Top