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
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Replacement for Retumbo - 28 Nosler
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="Calvin45" data-source="post: 1674948" data-attributes="member: 109862"><p>Now you do <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> I've never used a measure, so I don't care about metering. I do it by hand. </p><p></p><p>I understand it is the exact same powder just cut shorter. But the physical dimensions will have an influence on the burn characteristics. A really ridiculous extreme example: logs and sawdust are the exact same thing, one's just cut shorter, but they sure don't burn the same way. I know ssc works in its place, I've done that. But there are some differences in behaviour I've observed that I maintain go beyond what could rightly be attributed to lot to lot variance (I know about that too, rl-22 gave me a real "surprise" when I was new to this). One reason someone might prefer the original is load density compared to ssc. You can fit more of the super short cut into a given volume, which is often a good thing, but if a full case load of 7828 is giving the best velocity, consistency, etc, then it might not be replicable with the ssc powder as it won't fill the case quite as full with equal charge weights. I always observe best es and sd numbers when the powder can't shake around. This is getting nit picky and academic perhaps but I'm just saying there are real considerations here. I've listened to your perspective and understand it, I hope this is reciprocated and not dismissed. Congrats on the 156 berger load. Sounds like a best of both worlds low recoil long range hammer.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Calvin45, post: 1674948, member: 109862"] Now you do :) I’ve never used a measure, so I don’t care about metering. I do it by hand. I understand it is the exact same powder just cut shorter. But the physical dimensions will have an influence on the burn characteristics. A really ridiculous extreme example: logs and sawdust are the exact same thing, one’s just cut shorter, but they sure don’t burn the same way. I know ssc works in its place, I’ve done that. But there are some differences in behaviour I’ve observed that I maintain go beyond what could rightly be attributed to lot to lot variance (I know about that too, rl-22 gave me a real “surprise” when I was new to this). One reason someone might prefer the original is load density compared to ssc. You can fit more of the super short cut into a given volume, which is often a good thing, but if a full case load of 7828 is giving the best velocity, consistency, etc, then it might not be replicable with the ssc powder as it won’t fill the case quite as full with equal charge weights. I always observe best es and sd numbers when the powder can’t shake around. This is getting nit picky and academic perhaps but I’m just saying there are real considerations here. I’ve listened to your perspective and understand it, I hope this is reciprocated and not dismissed. Congrats on the 156 berger load. Sounds like a best of both worlds low recoil long range hammer. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Replacement for Retumbo - 28 Nosler
Top