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
RL-26 and 6.5-284
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="Greyfox" data-source="post: 1560755" data-attributes="member: 10291"><p>Having become intrigued with the reported results of R26, I purchased about 8 pounds of R26 to do some testing in a couple my 26" 6.5x284's, comparing it to Retumbo for velocity, accuracy, ES, and temperature stability. Retumbo has been my go-to powder for several years with well proven results. Muzzle velocity of approximately 3000FPS was achieved using 57-58gr of Retumbo compared to 53-54gr of R26. With both powders, velocity increase/decrease within a 50FPS range was about 5FPS/.1gr charge weight change. Both powders indicated pressure signs starting to develope in the 3040-3050FPS range. Retumbo seems to be a slower burning powder with greater bulk then the R26. ES/SD was generally a bit better with R26, while 200 yard, 5 shot groups were a bit better with Retumbo....in my rifles. Both powders were capable of SD's in the 5-10 range, and accuracy in the .5MOA range. Accuracy nodes with both powders occurred at 2975-3000FPS, and at 3040-3050 with my rifles. I didn't bother to spend much time with velocities below 2975FPS. Temperature stability between the two powders were comparable at approximately 1FPS per .5 degrees F change......however, pressure/velocity spikes occurred with R26 when temperatures were above 80F, or cartridges were exposed to direct sun at lower temps and subject to heat build up. My loads in 6.5x284 used Lapua brass, and both Berger 140 HVLD's and Hornady 143 ELD-x's. While I don't have nearly the same time working with the Hornady's, I see better accuracy at both short and long range with the Berger's in my rifles, often in the .25MOA range. Primers used were Federal 210M and CCI BR2's. While both primers performed very similarly, the choice could be used to fine tune for optimum accuracy and ES, depending on the particular rifle and/or specific load as a final step. The optimum bullet seating depth established for a particular rifle seemed to make little difference between using either of the two powders. Beacuae Retumbo was a slower burner, using more powder to produce comparable velocities, charge weights became slightly compressed(crunching) at the higher charge weights, while R26 seemed to produce velocity pressure signs before loads were compressed. </p><p>IMO, with the exception of the concern high temperature stability effects encountered, R26 can be a viable alternative for a high velocity powder in the 6.5x284. For use in the cooler climates/seasons, the high temperature stability question would be moot. </p><p>IMPORTANT POINT! As is the case with ANY load recommendations, results are for my chambers/barrels. While they are very close to the dimensions and the .188" freebore of the NORMA spec, you should still start your load development a couple of grains lower with either powder as a safety precaution!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Greyfox, post: 1560755, member: 10291"] Having become intrigued with the reported results of R26, I purchased about 8 pounds of R26 to do some testing in a couple my 26” 6.5x284’s, comparing it to Retumbo for velocity, accuracy, ES, and temperature stability. Retumbo has been my go-to powder for several years with well proven results. Muzzle velocity of approximately 3000FPS was achieved using 57-58gr of Retumbo compared to 53-54gr of R26. With both powders, velocity increase/decrease within a 50FPS range was about 5FPS/.1gr charge weight change. Both powders indicated pressure signs starting to develope in the 3040-3050FPS range. Retumbo seems to be a slower burning powder with greater bulk then the R26. ES/SD was generally a bit better with R26, while 200 yard, 5 shot groups were a bit better with Retumbo....in my rifles. Both powders were capable of SD’s in the 5-10 range, and accuracy in the .5MOA range. Accuracy nodes with both powders occurred at 2975-3000FPS, and at 3040-3050 with my rifles. I didn’t bother to spend much time with velocities below 2975FPS. Temperature stability between the two powders were comparable at approximately 1FPS per .5 degrees F change......however, pressure/velocity spikes occurred with R26 when temperatures were above 80F, or cartridges were exposed to direct sun at lower temps and subject to heat build up. My loads in 6.5x284 used Lapua brass, and both Berger 140 HVLD’s and Hornady 143 ELD-x’s. While I don’t have nearly the same time working with the Hornady’s, I see better accuracy at both short and long range with the Berger’s in my rifles, often in the .25MOA range. Primers used were Federal 210M and CCI BR2’s. While both primers performed very similarly, the choice could be used to fine tune for optimum accuracy and ES, depending on the particular rifle and/or specific load as a final step. The optimum bullet seating depth established for a particular rifle seemed to make little difference between using either of the two powders. Beacuae Retumbo was a slower burner, using more powder to produce comparable velocities, charge weights became slightly compressed(crunching) at the higher charge weights, while R26 seemed to produce velocity pressure signs before loads were compressed. IMO, with the exception of the concern high temperature stability effects encountered, R26 can be a viable alternative for a high velocity powder in the 6.5x284. For use in the cooler climates/seasons, the high temperature stability question would be moot. IMPORTANT POINT! As is the case with ANY load recommendations, results are for my chambers/barrels. While they are very close to the dimensions and the .188” freebore of the NORMA spec, you should still start your load development a couple of grains lower with either powder as a safety precaution! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
RL-26 and 6.5-284
Top