THis may sound silly to you reloading experts

Talk about your 450b reloading experience, ask questions, etc...

Moderator: MudBug

Forum rules
Please try and keep it safe!

This information is the responsibility of the community, not the forum. 450bushmaster.net is not responsible if you blow yourselves up.

THis may sound silly to you reloading experts

Postby MudBug » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:00 am

Any one tried or thought of trying Reloader 7 for the 450b?

The reason I asked it that I was looking for some Reloader 15 for some 223 stuff and I saw that the Reloader 7 description said it was "Great in .45-70 and .450 Marlin."
Eric

"A coward is much more disposed to quarrels than a man of spirit." - Thomas Jefferson

"War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd
User avatar
MudBug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:38 pm
Location: AZ

Re: THis may sound silly to you reloading experts

Postby Siringo » Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:55 am

RL 7 is a medium burn rate. Between 4198 and 3031.
Siringo
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:15 pm

Re: THis may sound silly to you reloading experts

Postby wildcatter » Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:42 am

MudBug wrote:Any one tried or thought of trying Reloader 7 for the 450b?

The reason I asked it that I was looking for some Reloader 15 for some 223 stuff and I saw that the Reloader 7 description said it was "Great in .45-70 and .450 Marlin."


Not silly at all, you-all just keep right on ah thunk'en, we need it..

RX7 is much slower than 1680 and in the 45 Professional it slowed the bullet on average 500fps, making 1680 was the powder of choice. Now however, 1680 is doing nearly the same thing in the 450b. It looks like we'll end up with powders in the lil-gun to 296 area, that is, if total Hi-Performance is the goal. RX7 might be handy for squib loads and it might even function the action, but case sealing could become a problem. I bet that before we are done all these powders and many more will be totally rung-out. I myself will sacrifice a little accuracy for Taylor Knock-Down, in other words, I prefer the powders that meter through the equiptment a whole lot better than say, stick powders do. So, I tend to use the ball types, even if they are not the most accurate. Of course this is not true for me if paper groups are more important for me, then anything goes for me.
Safety First..t
User avatar
wildcatter
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: In the Middle of Deer Central Station or better known as, in the Thumb of Beautiful Michigan

Re: THis may sound silly to you reloading experts

Postby BD1 » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:30 am

I'm not sure you could get enough RL7 in the case to make it efficient. My question on the slower powders is, "what happens with the unburned powder granules as they pass the gas port". Part of the issue with the adoption of the M-16 was the original loadings using deterent coated ball powders which led to a lot of reliability issues in the field due to crud build up in the gas system. I have some WC 680, (surplus 1680) on hand, and I'm hoping to try some this weekend. Quickload is telling me to expect about 87% combustion at best. For a "sporting" rifle, if I could get 30 rounds without issues, I'd call it usable.
I'll load it under some cast boolits which wil definately make any crud issues obvious.
BD
BD1
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:38 pm
Location: Northern Maine, Working on the coast, but home is still Moosehead Lake.

Re: THis may sound silly to you reloading experts

Postby MudBug » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:16 am

Hmmm, doing a little research it seems that RL7 is recomended by alliant for the 458 SOCOM.

Also, another powder suggested for the 45-70 is RL 10X.

I see I'm gonna have to start paying attention to those powder burn rate charts.
Eric

"A coward is much more disposed to quarrels than a man of spirit." - Thomas Jefferson

"War is less costly than servitude. The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd
User avatar
MudBug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:38 pm
Location: AZ

Re: THis may sound silly to you reloading experts

Postby wildcatter » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:17 pm

BD1 wrote:I'm not sure you could get enough RL7 in the case to make it efficient. My question on the slower powders is, "what happens with the unburned powder granules as they pass the gas port". Part of the issue with the adoption of the M-16 was the original loadings using deterent coated ball powders which led to a lot of reliability issues in the field due to crud build up in the gas system. I have some WC 680, (surplus 1680) on hand, and I'm hoping to try some this weekend. Quickload is telling me to expect about 87% combustion at best. For a "sporting" rifle, if I could get 30 rounds without issues, I'd call it usable.
I'll load it under some cast boolits which wil definately make any crud issues obvious.
BD


Should be "Ok"? The reliability issues were from calcium carbonate in the powder, used to reduce muzzle flash, it's been since the late 1960, since anyone has used it..Buuttt..
Safety First..t
User avatar
wildcatter
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: In the Middle of Deer Central Station or better known as, in the Thumb of Beautiful Michigan


Return to Reloading for the 450b

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests