6mm pp[c

[WyleWD]

I don't know about others results, but a friend who tests a lot has two different lots of 133, one that is several years old and a second that is very recent. The older lot gives velocities per weight that are consistent with my experience (and the posts in this thread), given that all of my 133 is older lots, BUT his recent lot takes about a grain less to make the same velocity. The charge weight required to hit a given velocity is about the same as his LT32. The new stuff is also denser than the old. I mention this because I believe that far too many shooter who read forums may try to get by without doing a full charge range load workup.

^^^ interesting. I've heard and read a couple of accounts of that about N133.

A year ago I tried the last of a circa 2012(?) lot of 133 that about wore me out chasing tune on . I was never happy with it and literally gave up on it. Then early last year I received some 133 that was made post 2017, and went through or tested 3 lots that were dated after 2017 and as late as 2022. Bottom line on the newer 133 was far more predictable, temp stable, and barrels cleaned up noticeably easier. As far as the extra speed and density.... from the new I won't comment on either as each rifle is different. These observations of mine were done in 6ppc and 6 Grendel. JME WD

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

^^^ interesting. I've heard and read a couple of accounts of that about N133.

A year ago I tried the last of a circa 2012(?) lot of 133 that about wore me out chasing tune on . I was never happy with it and literally gave up on it. Then early last year I received some 133 that was made post 2017, and went through or tested 3 lots that were dated after 2017 and as late as 2022. Bottom line on the newer 133 was far more predictable, temp stable, and barrels cleaned up noticeably easier. As far as the extra speed and density.... from the new I won't comment on either as each rifle is different. These observations of mine were done in 6ppc and 6 Grendel. JME WD

I noticed some changes in it and some other N powders that go back a few years earlier, like 2015ish. N120 is still a wonderful powder but it went through significant lot variations too for a while. The old stuff was perfection in every way. Then it got too fast...then too slow and now..it's close but not quite like the old stuff. If anything, it seems a tad slower now than say 2010ish lots and leaves more carbon like fouling than the old.

 

[Eric Leonard]

I tried to use 133 but evidently I’m not smart enough for that stuff ,,reminded me of a redhead I knew in the 80s

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I tried to use 133 but evidently I’m not smart enough for that stuff ,,reminded me of a redhead I knew in the 80s

He he! Before me then!?!

 

[Eric Leonard]

He he! Before me then!?!

I may have just been lucky last year but I shot the same load of LT32 all year and I don’t remember it blowing up on me

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I may have just been lucky last year but I shot the same load of LT32 all year and I don’t remember it blowing up on me

I agree that it seems way less finicky around here. I'll use whatever shoots best and keep it there with a (whisper)...tuner.

 

[maddysdad]

thank you all.i had some 322 but that was in the easrly 80s.all i see now is mostly 133.

 

[Chris Covell]

Any thoughts on 2007 lot of 133?

 

[Shooter13]

I may have just been lucky last year but I shot the same load of LT32 all year and I don’t remember it blowing up on me

I did the same.