VV equivalent to Varget

[Mulligan]

That's weird because I have found that N150 has been a great replacement for H4895 in my BRA. It would be interesting to try N135, N140, and N150 back to back in a test to see the differences.

In my experiences, 140 is accurate (very accurate in both a BRA and Dasher), but will hit pressure well before the other two.
CW

 

[JFrank]

In my experiences, 140 is accurate (very accurate in both a BRA and Dasher), but will hit pressure well before the other two.
CW

What I find interesting in the comparison of 135 to H4895 on quick load, is noting the speed is down and fill ratio compressed.

 

[Murray Brook]

In my 6br I can't compare any VV powder to Varget. I never used it much because I wasn't able to source it when I began load dev in the 6 br. What I used was AR-Comp with 64 gr Stinger bullet and it worked great. My load was 31.5 gr for a vel of 3470 ft/sec with great accuracy ( high1's low 2's). Lately in an effort to rid myself of all Alliant powders due to price and sourcing I tried N-135 and found it to be great. As good as AR-Comp in my rifle. My load is 32.2 grs for a velocity of 3459 ft/sec with accuracy as good as AR-Comp. From this I would assume it to appx 1 gr slower than AR-Comp. JME

 

[Jeff Porter]

In the small sample test:

I shot 7 rounds of my standard 29.8gr H4895 with 105 Berger and got 2849.2 fps SD4.0 Spread 10 fps. 0.30" 100 yard group.

10 rounds with same 29.8gr. N135, same bullet brass primer - 2849.4 fps SD4.3, ES12.5 0.45" 100 yard group. No pressure signs.

I am running a jump test if it stops raining to see if I can squeezes these back down to the 0.25"-0.3" I usually see in this rifle.

In my .223 Palma rifle shooting the 90 VLD. 24.0 H4895 is about 2825 - N135 clocked at 2814 fps.

 

[JFrank]

Thanks
I always prefer personal experience over predictions. I wonder why there’s so much difference.

 

[Ned Ludd]

What I find interesting in the comparison of 135 to H4895 on quick load, is noting the speed is down and fill ratio compressed.

FWIW - in my hands, something with the VV powder data files in QL seems to be off. I recently compared loads with the exact same charge weight of H4895 or VV N135 with Ginex primers, Norma brass, and Hornady 73 ELDMs in a .223 Rem Sig 556 piston gun with an 18" barrel. The N135 load chrono'd over 80 fps faster than the same charge weight of H4895, all else being identical. Quickload did not "predict" anything like that using the factory preset burn rate. I have had similar experience with the VV N140 and N150 powder files in QL.

 

[Jeff Porter]

FWIW - in my hands, something with the VV powder data files in QL seems to be off. I recently compared loads with the exact same charge weight of H4895 or VV N135 with Ginex primers, Norma brass, and Hornady 73 ELDMs in a .223 Rem Sig 556 piston gun with an 18" barrel. The N135 load chrono'd over 80 fps faster than the same charge weight of H4895, all else being identical. Quickload did not "predict" anything like that using the factory preset burn rate. I have had similar experience with the VV N140 and N150 powder files in QL.

I am guessing that is related to the gas gun and the gas volume generated. Be curious what difference you would see with your bolt gun 90 VLD loads.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I am guessing that is related to the gas gun and the gas volume generated. Be curious what difference you would see with your bolt gun 90 VLD loads.

I don't think the velocity difference had anyhting to do with the rifle being a gas gun, but that is only my feeling. I will try the N135/H4895 comparison in a bolt rifle shortly.

 

[gnatmm]

try 135 you will be happy
CW

Can I dare to ask a starting weight charge of 135 able to push a 105/109 at 2750/2800 fps?

 

[Mulligan]

Can I dare to ask a starting weight charge of 135 able to push a 105/109 at 2750/2800 fps?

There is also a really good node around 31.4gr

Matter of fact, 31.4 is what I shot in our 600 yard BR match a week ago.



CW
Edit

Ladder test shot at 600 yards, Western Colorado 4800’

 

[Mulligan]

Single shot ladder test, exploring N-150 in a dasher at 600.
CW

 

[Mulligan]

For comparison
The info below was gathered shooting a 30” 1.250” straight Krieger 4 groove in a large rail gun. All shot at 600 yards.






All 4 powders tested in a single shot ladder , really just collecting data.

In my experience, powder burn rate charts, wind flags on 20’ poles, and car salesman have a lot in common. Damn misleading!
We have to test for ourselves.

This info is shared in it’s mostly raw form, some of these are likely NOT safe in all rifles. You can see my notes when I hit pressure (which is what I was looking for). Please do not assume these are safe in your rig. Start lower and work up.

With all the powders, I should have started a touch lower myself. This was a sturdy lot of Alpha brass…… I state this as we all have to contend with variations in lots.



CW
Merry Christmas everyone

Edit
The action on this rail did NOT show pressure well at all. I have actually pulled it off this testing rail because of that. It’s a great action, but hiding pressure was not helping data collection.

 

[gnatmm]

For comparison
The info below was gathered shooting a 30” 1.250” straight Krieger 4 groove in a large rail gun. All shot at 600 yards.






All 4 powders tested in a single shot ladder , really just collecting data.

In my experience, powder burn rate charts, wind flags on 20’ poles, and car salesman have a lot in common. Damn misleading!
We have to test for ourselves.

This info is shared in it’s mostly raw form, some of these are likely NOT safe in all rifles. You can see my notes when I hit pressure (which is what I was looking for). Please do not assume these are safe in your rig. Start lower and work up
With all the powders, I should have started a touch lower myself. This was a sturdy lot of Alpha brass…… I state this as we all have to contend with variations in lots.



CW
Merry Christmas everyone

Edit
The action on this rail did NOT show pressure well at all. I have actually pulled it off this testing rail because of that. It’s a great action, but hiding pressure was not helping data collection.

There is also a really good node around 31.4gr

Matter of fact, 31.4 is what I shot in our 600 yard BR match a week ago.



CW
Edit

Ladder test shot at 600 yards, Western Colorado 480

Clay, thank you much appreciated. I will most likely start at 30 gn and work up.Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones too

 

[Laurie]

In my experience, powder burn rate charts, wind flags on 20’ poles, and car salesman have a lot in common. Damn misleading!
We have to test for ourselves.

Absolutely - and your N135 results are precisely what I'd expect. It is faster burning in actual application than burn rate charts or QuickLOAD suggest, likewise 'quicker' than N140 or H4895. A warning - this is NOT a forgiving powder if you push it only a modest step too far. Very well behaved up to a certain point, then small load increments can produce serious pressure increases.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Absolutely - and your N135 results are precisely what I'd expect. It is faster burning in actual application than burn rate charts or QuickLOAD suggest, likewise 'quicker' than N140 or H4895. A warning - this is NOT a forgiving powder if you push it only a modest step too far. Very well behaved up to a certain point, then small load increments can produce serious pressure increases.

Laurie - based on the above, would you then suggest not running the "high" node with N135/90 VLDs in F-TR loads? In my hands, N140 produces velocities almost identical with Varget on a weight basis. However, N140 seems very twitchy at the high end and over-pressure issues can develop very abruptly. If N135 behaves similarly, it seems like it might be a better idea not to push 90s into the 2850 fps realm from a 30" barrel. What say you? I ask because I have only recently delved into the N135 game while searching for viable alternatives to H4895 (if such a thing really even exists ).

 

[Monday shooter40]

I just started using N150 in my dasher this weekend, and my results were not what I was expecting. I was using 32.6 gr of Varget to push a 105 hybrid @ ~ 2900fps. I was expecting to have to use more of N150 to achieve the same speeds, as I have done a fair amount of testing with slower powders in my dasher. My lot of N150 produced 2825 FPS with 30.5 grains. Then at 31.0 grains I was at 2860 FPS. I am still in my infancy of using the VV powders, but so far so good.

 

[Laurie]

Laurie - based on the above, would you then suggest not running the "high" node with N135/90 VLDs in F-TR loads? In my hands, N140 produces velocities almost identical with Varget on a weight basis. However, N140 seems very twitchy at the high end and over-pressure issues can develop very abruptly. If N135 behaves similarly, it seems like it might be a better idea not to push 90s into the 2850 fps realm from a 30" barrel. What say you? I ask because I have only recently delved into the N135 game while searching for viable alternatives to H4895 (if such a thing really even exists ).

Ned, it's a bit of a suck it & see game. My experience of N135 predates the arrival of 0.224 90s, but I decided years ago that whilst it works in 223 Rem with 80s, it's pushing the envelope with that bullet weight never mind anything heavier, and I'd always use N140, 540, Re15 or H4895/VarGet for preference. And I shoot year round in cool temperatures by North American standards. (That's how I just got away with Re15 with the 90gn Bergers.)

My experience with the N100s is that they're all 'twitchy' (read 'unforgiving') if you push them too far, and the transition from 'nice doggy' to having your hand bitten off can be very fast indeed.

On N135, Glenn Zediker writing many years ago (The Competitive AR15: The Mouse that Roared) of loads for the 223 in US XTC was very much in line with my own views. That is, XTC shooters seized upon N135 as the ideal all stages / all bullet weights powder when Viht was first imported into the US, but changed to slower burners for the 600 yard stage shooting 80s after rifle malfunctions caused by overpressures in some conditions, blown primers dropping into the trigger assembly and so on.

It was our version of the AR that first made me very wary of the powder. This was a full-house ambidextrous side-handle match build for shooting prone off a bipod - everything that a good US competition black rifle incorporated 20 odd years ago, bar a gas port, gas pipe or provision for gas rings on the bolt body and with a heavier/longer barrel. It was a superb shooter, and I used it in the early days of F-Class with 80s up to 1,000 yards. (That was Year One when we still used the standard 2-MOA Bull sling shooters' targets.) Since you had to yank on a handle to open the bolt, it was an excellent instructor on chamber pressures though. I knew exactly when charge weights started to produce actual pressures that were on the high side, and in the light of experience with this rifle, N135 remained an excellent choice for 69s, but not for 80s.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Ned, it's a bit of a suck it & see game. My experience of N135 predates the arrival of 0.224 90s, but I decided years ago that whilst it works in 223 Rem with 80s, it's pushing the envelope with that bullet weight never mind anything heavier, and I'd always use N140, 540, Re15 or H4895/VarGet for preference. And I shoot year round in cool temperatures by North American standards. (That's how I just got away with Re15 with the 90gn Bergers.)

My experience with the N100s is that they're all 'twitchy' (read 'unforgiving') if you push them too far, and the transition from 'nice doggy' to having your hand bitten off can be very fast indeed.

On N135, Glenn Zediker writing many years ago (The Competitive AR15: The Mouse that Roared) of loads for the 223 in US XTC was very much in line with my own views. That is, XTC shooters seized upon N135 as the ideal all stages / all bullet weights powder when Viht was first imported into the US, but changed to slower burners for the 600 yard stage shooting 80s after rifle malfunctions caused by overpressures in some conditions, blown primers dropping into the trigger assembly and so on.

It was our version of the AR that first made me very wary of the powder. This was a full-house ambidextrous side-handle match build for shooting prone off a bipod - everything that a good US competition black rifle incorporated 20 odd years ago, bar a gas port, gas pipe or provision for gas rings on the bolt body and with a heavier/longer barrel. It was a superb shooter, and I used it in the early days of F-Class with 80s up to 1,000 yards. (That was Year One when we still used the standard 2-MOA Bull sling shooters' targets.) Since you had to yank on a handle to open the bolt, it was an excellent instructor on chamber pressures though. I knew exactly when charge weights started to produce actual pressures that were on the high side, and in the light of experience with this rifle, N135 remained an excellent choice for 69s, but not for 80s.

Laurie - thanks for the detailed reply! I'll just have to work with it and see how it performs. I know at least one very high-level Highpower competitor that swears by N135 with heavies, but I'll test it myself in my F-TR bolt rifles. I have yet to find a powder that equals H4895 for this role in my hands, but the recent availability issues with H4895 has me searching for an alternative for .223 Rem/F-TR loads with 88s/90s/95s and I have never really liked Varget in that capacity. Thanks again for the info!

 

[Murray Brook]

@Laurie
Glad to know that about N-135. I've been using it in my 6BR Norma. Will keep an eye out for pressure. The way you describe it , makes me think of how I find StaBal 6.5 work.

 

[nakneker]

I’m using VV a lot now days. I still have a stash of Hodgdon powders but I’m definitely gravitating to VV more and more. I’m using a lot of N100 powders in small and medium cartridges, N150, N140, N135, N133, using N120 and N110 is the really small case like the hornet and some pistols, using the N500s in anything 6.5 PRC and bigger, N570, N565, N555.

It might just be me but I think they are very consistent powders, load development seems to go faster. Lot to lot variance seems to be less than most brands of powder.

Over the last shortage they were easier to get than Hodgdon and Alliant, that’s what steered me this way. I still have a good amount of H4198, H4895, Varget, H4350, H1000, H4831 to go through but I’m not replacing those powders as they get used, many of which aren’t available to replace anyways. v use to be too expensive compared to others, that certainly has changed too.