Discussion in 'Reloading Forum (All Calibers)' started by rebs, Oct 1, 2019.
Has anyone compared thee two powders ?
Yes, RL16 is slower more compared to H4350 and is stable.
I have with two 6Dasher barrels.
RL16 is a bit slower burning, closer and similar to 4350 in burn rate.
RL16 is far less temperature sensitive.
Accuracy was fairly equal, a little better in one barrel, a little worse in the other, but both relatively the same.
Everything Donovan said^^^ It also makes more speed, or the same w less pressure. It's my go to in the BRX and Dasher.
Completely different powders, with different formulations. Both marketed by Alliant, but they are totally different.
Reloder 15, is a medium burn rate powder that has worked well for 6BR and Dasher shooters in BR game. It likes to run up near max, but it can be temp sensitive.
Reloder 16 is in the H4350 burn range. Works great for mid-sized 6mm cartridge and even .284 Win. It is very accurate, may give a little more FPS than H4350, and is formulated to be very NON-sensitive to temperature changes.
I hate to correct the Boss, but... (sorry Paul) Reloder(R) 15 and Reloder 16 are both produced in the Bofors Karlskoga facility in Sweden. The Swiss Reloders are 17/26/33/50.
Other than that, the Boss' descriptions are good, [Regarding] Norma 203B and Reloder 15 ... They are both produced with the same base material, but our Reloder 15 is accepted to a much more demanding procedure/specification.
Thank you for the interest in Alliant's rifle powders.
I really like Alliant powder. I have used it for years. 16 is a great powder, but I have also done well with 15.
Paul, I am still waiting for R26 to show up.
Paul, would you say RL16 is more similar to RL17, but in a more temp stable form, than any of the other RL powders?
Sorry for the inconvenience rogina, but our supplier was over a month late, and it has not yet cleared customs.
You will see it in distribution within the next few weeks.
B23, yes, the burn speed of Reloder 16 is close to Reloder 17, but very temp stable. The design of 16 is slightly faster than 17, but I have seen them invert due to lot-to-lot differences, and different responses in different applications.
Regarding your question on temp stability of Reloder 16, it is different from most of our Reloder powders other than the two other TZ types, namely AR-Comp(TM) and Reloder 23. They are from the same product family and respond similarly at temps in their respective appropriate applications.
I know I am not the guy you were asking, but here is my experience with RL16, so far:
I would put RL16 in a similar class with H100V and RL17.
It is more temp stable than both of these.
Of the three, RL17 is the most dense, meaning it requires the least case volume to work.
RL16 is bulkier than RL17 and requires more case volume.
RL16 yields slightly lower muzzle velocity than RL17.
In development for a friend's F-Class rifle in .260 Rem (Lapua brass, 147 ELD-M's), RL16 produced both higher velocity and better accuracy than H4350.
Is RL17 a better cold weather powder? Does it maintain speed even when it's 0, 10, or 20 outside? I just tested RL16 and it fell on its face at 30F.
In real world rifle applications (not just manufacturing processes and design), RL17 is an entirely different animal than RL16.
I have tested RL17 very extensively in 6.5x47L, 6mm Remington, 6XC, 6.5 Swede, 6.5 Rem Mag, 300 Win Mag, 358 Norma Mag, 338-375 Ruger, and I'm sure a couple others I'm probably forgetting. It works very well for a wide range of cartridges that prefer slightly fast to even slow burn rates. It will work for decent speeds in cases that generally prefer a little faster RL15 burn rates to giving great speeds in middle of the road H4350 burn rates, but then also work very well for obtaining excellent speeds in cases that prefer RL25/26 to H1000 and even Retumbo burn rates. Very odd and peculiar behavior for a powder. The massive range of burn rate applications it works with is unequalled by any other powder I have ever tried...
RL16 basically only works for cases that work well with H4350 burn rate preferences. Nothing else. You can take load data for H4350 and load RL16 using the same charge weights. Although the charge weight data can be matched grain for grain with H4350, you might see a small speed gain with RL16 over H4350. Maybe around 30 fps.
No doubt RL16 is much more temp stable than RL17 and RL15
I don't think Paul says anywhere that they come from different sources, but that they are very different formulations, which on the basis of your own Alliant product information I'd say too. Re15 is a 'traditional' Bofors propellant, works very well, but is well known for its temperature sensitivity. (Even here in the chilly northern British Isles a maximum load can see problems on a hot-by-our-standards summer day.)
Re16 is significantly slower burning than Re15 as Paul points out allowing it to be used optimally in a different set of applications even though there remains overlap. Then, crucially, it has your 'TZ' treatment to reduce temperature sensitivity, apparently making it one of the least temperature sensitive propellants currently available from any manufacturer. That's a 'different formulation' to me.
Incidentally, what is the nitroglycerin % in Re16?
AR COMP is probably closer to RL15 than RL16 is. If you are working with a case that has enough capacity to effectively use H4350, RL16 will also work well. If not, AR COMP can yield similar performance to RL15, with better temp stability (though AR COMP is a bit faster burning than RL15).
My experience with RL17 has shown it indeed "is an entirely different animal". RL17 is an interesting powder and for the lack of better words, seems to have a lot of energy for a powder of its burn rate because love it or hate, it usually out paces all other powders, with regard to velocity, that are in its burn rate realm. The one thing I've had to learn about using it is it didn't seem to give much warning with regard to pressure. In load workup it would go along and not really show much in the way of pressure, then all of a sudden, show a lot of pressure so I have to keep that in mind when doing load workups and to some degree let my chronograph be my pressure meter. I have to remind myself there's no free lunches and when the chronograph is reading velocities that seem to be to good to be true, maybe they are and it's time to stop or even back things down a bit.
I've shot a fair amount of RL17 in 6.5x47 Lapua & several straight 284s, and have yet to find anything else that would give as much velocity in either of these cases. However, the 30" Bartlein 1-8tw medium Palma bbl I had on my BAT 3L prone rifle in 6.5x47 shot craps accuracy-wise after around 1200rds of Berger 130 VLDs running just over 2900fps. Accuracy was very fine from 600 to 1000yds with this load. I've heard comments on how hard RL17 is on barrels from quite a few sources - my experience tends to support that view.
Sounds like RL23 vs RL22. I have not tested it but 23 might be bulkier than 26.
Separate names with a comma.