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
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
H1000 vs. RL33 vs. IMR 7977
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="benchracer" data-source="post: 1081137" data-attributes="member: 22069"><p>Yes, RL-33 is dense, and allows heavier charges than other powders for a given case volume. However, QL underestimates load density by 5-7% with RL-33. I encountered that data discrepancy during recent load development, using Retumbo and RL-33, in my .264 Win Mag. There was enough overall case capacity that RL-33 could still easily be used, but I was getting compressed loads with powder charges that QL was predicting would yield less than 100% load density, even using a drop tube. When going with the smaller capacity "more efficient" cases, there may not be enough space in the case for RL-33 to be utilized, even though QL says it will work. </p><p> </p><p>Before committing to RL-33 in the smaller cases, it would be wise to fill the case to the base of the neck, using a drop tube, then physically measure the amount of powder in the case, and compare that to the predicted max charge. Even using a drop tube, you will find that you reach higher load densities at lower powder charges, using RL-33, than predicted by QL. </p><p> </p><p>That load density difference can force powder charges to be lowered enough to erase the potential advantage of using RL-33. In such a situation, I agree that RL-26 may well prove to be the better choice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="benchracer, post: 1081137, member: 22069"] Yes, RL-33 is dense, and allows heavier charges than other powders for a given case volume. However, QL underestimates load density by 5-7% with RL-33. I encountered that data discrepancy during recent load development, using Retumbo and RL-33, in my .264 Win Mag. There was enough overall case capacity that RL-33 could still easily be used, but I was getting compressed loads with powder charges that QL was predicting would yield less than 100% load density, even using a drop tube. When going with the smaller capacity "more efficient" cases, there may not be enough space in the case for RL-33 to be utilized, even though QL says it will work. Before committing to RL-33 in the smaller cases, it would be wise to fill the case to the base of the neck, using a drop tube, then physically measure the amount of powder in the case, and compare that to the predicted max charge. Even using a drop tube, you will find that you reach higher load densities at lower powder charges, using RL-33, than predicted by QL. That load density difference can force powder charges to be lowered enough to erase the potential advantage of using RL-33. In such a situation, I agree that RL-26 may well prove to be the better choice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
H1000 vs. RL33 vs. IMR 7977
Top