Savage 111 LRH 6.5-284 Loading Questions

[RichR]

Thanks Joe!

My initial thought was to go with Retumbo, but can't seem to find any near here to try out. Looks like Superformance should fall close to Retumbo for speed though.

I have the initial cartridges loaded up for pressure testing on the 4350, thinking about making up some superformance for pressure testing as well, just to come back from the range with knowlege of how both powders perform. Will be using a portable loading setup, so most loads will be built / modified based on range results.

Ever compare the Superformance and Retumbo?

 

[JoeS1044]

Thanks Joe!

My initial thought was to go with Retumbo, but can't seem to find any near here to try out. Looks like Superformance should fall close to Retumbo for speed though.

I have the initial cartridges loaded up for pressure testing on the 4350, thinking about making up some superformance for pressure testing as well, just to come back from the range with knowlege of how both powders perform. Will be using a portable loading setup, so most loads will be built / modified based on range results.

Ever compare the Superformance and Retumbo?

No i havent messed with the superformance powder yet. I only tried IMR 4350, IMR 4831 and Retumbo. IMR 4831 shot really good but was slower then I wanted.

 

[tbrice23]

Retumbo ,H1000, Rl22 will get you good velocity with 140s.
I just loaded some 140 vld with 7828ssc for the next range trip.
We'll see.

 

[RichR]

Well, you all have me rethinking the 4350...

I think the plan may shift to using the 4350 (have two containers) for initial break in, and first pressure testing. Then keep looking for some Retumbo or 1000 to work on final load development for hunting.

This is my first "wildcat" cartridge, so it will be a learning experience for me!

So glad you all have paved the way on this cartridge/ rifle combination and are willing to share all this good information and learning!

 

[tbrice23]

7828ssc was ok. Loaded up to 55gr but ran out of time. These shots at 200 yards and were rushed a bit so the 24" barrel stayed warm. Velocity was OK however.

 

[Nimrodmar10]

I'm a little surprised, that after reading 81 pages of this forum, that you didn't give serious consideration to the Berger 140 gr. VLD seated very near to the lands, with a charge real close to the neighborhood of 57.5 grains of Retumbo, and a Federal 210M primer.
But that's just my wondering. Half the fun of a new gun is trying out a bunch of different loads.

 

[tbrice23]

I'm a little surprised, that after reading 81 pages of this forum, that you didn't give serious consideration to the Berger 140 gr. VLD seated very near to the lands, with a charge real close to the neighborhood of 57.5 grains of Retumbo, and a Federal 210M primer.
But that's just my wondering. Half the fun of a new gun is trying out a bunch of different loads.

Here you go.

 

[RichR]

Not sure if you meant the question for tbrice or myself, but for me the answer was simple... I had picked up some of the Hornady bullets before finding this forum. It will be interesting to see if they perform, but if not, time to change-up!

I do like the potential of the 123 AMax. .510 BC and lighter weight could be effective on coyote to deer size game under 600 yards.

 

[RichR]

Picked up the new rifle today!

Always a fun way to spend part of a day...

Cleaned up the stock
Gave a good scrubbing to the bore
Cleaned out all the threads
Set the accutrigger (love this feature!)
dremel'ed the fore end (why don't they do this at the factory...)
Cleaned the bolt (still kind of stiff)
Checked with my cartidges
Realized I needed a Modified case... OK, I give in, ordered from Amazon.

All checks look good so far with the Modified case exception and the bolt still being stiff... Anyone know a good cure for this on the Savage?

 

[RichR]

Forgot...

Borescoped before and after.

How though, do I add a photo?

 

[Nimrodmar10]

Oops, double post.

 

[Nimrodmar10]

To add a photo, click the paper clip just to the right of the smiley face above the dialogue entry box. That will open a "Manage Attachments" area where you can upload your photos.

 

[RichR]

Thanks Nimrodmar!

Just to let others know, Cabelas has Retumbo in stock right now. I ordered some today, and they have free shipping (still a hazmat fee) for the rest of today at least.

Happy to have found some Retumbo!

 

[RichR]

Guys,

I have some observations, possible misinterpretations, and questions regarding Ladder testing vs OCW. Yes, this has been discussed in great detain in other threads, just looking for quick opinions as it applies to this particular precision loading thread for the 6.5

I'd also like to call-out a thank-you to Brent for all his help on this issue with me in PMs!

That was/ is my plan, do the vertical stringing testing first, then focus on seating depth to tighten things up. Thanks to Brent for his help with this one!

The difference between the Ladder and OCW, it seems to me the only difference is in the format.

My understanding is:
Stage 1:
Both test for the same thing - the node whereby the vertical flight path demonstrates a "grouping" that is consistent and repeatable over varied conditions.
Ladder, is a vertical view with 1-3 shots fired for each load value to determine vertical stringing.
OCW, is a series of small aim points with 1-5 shots fired at each point to then view vertical stringing by comparing the proximity/ location of each group to each other.

To me, it would seem they do the same thing with the same number of shots, but are just being represented by a different format. Ladder more vertical orientation, and OCW arranged more horizontal, to compare the vertical allignments. Hope this makes sense?

Stage 2:
Testing the Seating depth:
Ladder testing would be 1-3 shots fired at each seating depth - These shots fired at the same aim point.
OCW testing would be 1-5 shots fired at each seating depth - These shots fired at different aim points to be compared against each other grouping.

Seems like Ladder would be simpler/ less confusing to do Round-Robin testing
Seems like OCW would be simpler / less confusing to compare grouping results

Thoughts?