Check me -- Load data for Superformance powder, in 6.5 Creedmoor

[BlueWater]

Am considering doing up a load for a Savage 12 LRP in 6.5 Creedmoor, using the Hodgdon Superformance powder. But I've noticed that the Sierra 6th Ed. manual has a significantly higher max powder charge listed.

No listings for the Nosler RDF bullet with Superformance, but here are the closest examples I can find:

• 40.0 - 44.5gr max, 2797 fps max -- Sierra MK HPBT 140gr, LRP, 24" bbl @ Lyman LR Precision handbook (2018)
• 42.0 - 44.0gr max, 2680 fps max -- Hornady A-Max BT 140gr, LRP, 24" bbl @ Lyman 50th Ed. (2021)
• 38.2 - 44.7gr max, 2800 fps max -- Hornady ELD-M BT 140gr, LRP, 24" bbl @ Hodgdon 11th Ed. (2021)
• 44.7 - 47.4gr max, 2900 fps max -- Sierra MK HPBT 140gr, LRP 24" bbl @ Sierra 6th Ed. 3rd printing

Question: Has anyone gone that high with the Superformance powder, in the 6.5 Creedmoor caliber? I'm questioning why the max charge is so high, with the Sierra load, as compared to all other such loads.

I'd certainly use standard load development steps, gradually approaching the higher powder ranges. But, still, that 47.4gr max powder charge seems strange, given all other references I've found (with VLD/HPBT type bullets) are in the ~44.5gr range for max charge.

Caliber: 6.5 Creedmoor
Rifle: Savage 12 Long Range Precision
Barrel: Shilen Stainless Select Match 8-twist, 28" length (newly broken-in)
Case: Lapua 6.5 Creedmoor SRP (twice-fired cases, to be dedicated to this rifle's use)
Primer: CCI 450 SRP magnum
Bullet: Nosler RDF 140gr (VLD)
Powder: we'll see; Hodgdon Superformance ball, for starters

Thoughts?

 

[tsyarnall]

Good luck. I have 3lbs of Superformance, 140 gr Balistic Tips and CCI small mag rifle primers to work up a hunting load. I hope both of us find that the powder is a good performer.

 

[acloco]

www.hodgdon.com click on "Reloading Data"

 

[358WCF]

The only Superformance load I've tried in 6.5 CM was with 120 Ballistic Tips. Working upward in 1/2 gr increments, the smallest groups were with Hornady's book max of 48.5 gr. in Hornady brass with 210Ms. The load is getting c.50fps more speed than the book says, with 2" less barrel on my rifle.

All of your data from the manuals listed was shot using Hornady brass. How does Lapua brass compare capacity-wise to Hornady? Yeah, I dont know either. The lower start charges (40gr ?) may be a good place to start, loading 1 or 2 at each increment to fire for velocity & function moving upward as possible.

Sierra has a toll free hotline for questions. The couple of times I've used it they were very helpful.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

If its hard to find data, perhaps its not the right powder. Its too fast for that heavy of a bullet

 

[BlueWater]

If its hard to find data, perhaps its not the right powder. Its too fast for that heavy of a bullet

I'm not questioning the paucity of data.

I'm questioning how Sierra could have a powder charge listed that's 3gr over what everybody else is listing, for a similar load. (A few tenths of grains I can understand, but Sierra at 47.x grains while everybody else is at 44.x grains seems odd. Am simply asking if anybody has gone as high as Sierra's 47.x grain charge, when loading this type of 6.5CM load.)

Haven't directly contacted Sierra. Wanted to hear from people's actual experiences with this powder in 6.5CM.

 

[6MMsteve]

superform is a slow burning powder close to slower than 4831 and faster than H1000 I would run 4831 load data in a creed, with light 120 gr bullets go with the sierra manual, look at your burn rate chart, it's grouped in with the top 1/8th of slow burn powders,

 

[6MMsteve]

superform would be ideal for the heavy bullets in 65creed from 140 up to 153

 

[6MMsteve]

I have looked through several reloading books and come to a consensus that several times in each manual they make no sense at all, one say's for example 140 gr bullet use 52 grs of this then with a 162 gr bullet same test gun use 57.8 grs of the same powder, if you start looking at diff wt bullets in the same cartridge you will find what I have found,loads that make no sense

 

[Jager]

I'm not questioning the paucity of data.

I'm questioning how Sierra could have a powder charge listed that's 3gr over what everybody else is listing, for a similar load. (A few tenths of grains I can understand, but Sierra at 47.x grains while everybody else is at 44.x grains seems odd. Am simply asking if anybody has gone as high as Sierra's 47.x grain charge, when loading this type of 6.5CM load.)

Haven't directly contacted Sierra. Wanted to hear from people's actual experiences with this powder in 6.5CM.

When perusing load data, having an outlier - either significantly less or significantly more than its peers - is very common. Although ballistics labs typically have very stringent controls over their load process... they inevitably come up against the same widely varying factors that we in the field experience. All it takes is a test chamber that's unusually sloppy or tight. Or a set of brass that has notably more or less capacity. Or a lot of powder that is on the upper or lower end of the manufacturer's spec.

Sometimes we can divine why the load data from a particular source differs from its peers. Maybe they're using a test platform with a notably longer barrel. Or are using brass with a meaningfully different capacity. Or maybe it's just the tolerance stacking of a number of different things.

Sometimes we simply don't have enough information to figure why the difference exists.

Which is why having multiple load sources is so invaluable. When you see consensus, there's a high likelihood that your own personal experience will line up somewhere along that line. Pinning your hat to a single piece of data, especially if it lies distant from its peers, is a good way to experience some things you, maybe, don't want to experience.

In the end, each rifle - along with the brass, powder, primers, and bullets that we feed it - is its own truth. Which is much of why handloading is such a rich and rewarding enterprise.

 

[cdgaydos]

When I see conflicting load data that makes me question my starting point for load development (especially with a new barrel) I load up two different charges at the low - middle range and get chronograph data…. Then I can see which data set is most reflective of what I’ll see…. A screening before proper load development…

I found (with limited testing) that Sierra data for 6.5 CM calls for more powder for any velocity and pushes the velocities higher than Hodgdon, Berger and Hornady. My gun (with IMR445) is tracking Sierra perfectly. Quickload tracks the others even when I adjust for case capacity. I have to adjust Ba for Quickload…

If you have the time and a chronograph, load 3-5 of two charges (1+ grain difference) and see which data makes more sense and use that one for development… just a thought.

 

[BlueWater]

When perusing load data, having an outlier - either significantly less or significantly more than its peers - is very common. Although ballistics labs typically have very stringent controls over their load process... they inevitably come up against the same widely varying factors that we in the field experience. All it takes is a test chamber that's unusually sloppy or tight. Or a set of brass that has notably more or less capacity. Or a lot of powder that is on the upper or lower end of the manufacturer's spec.

Yes, I know that variations can make differences. Was just surprised that the one instance of test data was so extremely above the norm for max powder charge in that type of load. I'm assuming it's an error, or an extreme "stacking" of variations that just went sideways in that one test load.

... Which is why having multiple load sources is so invaluable. When you see consensus, there's a high likelihood that your own personal experience will line up somewhere along that line. Pinning your hat to a single piece of data, especially if it lies distant from its peers, is a good way to experience some things you, maybe, don't want to experience.

In the end, each rifle - along with the brass, powder, primers, and bullets that we feed it - is its own truth. Which is much of why handloading is such a rich and rewarding enterprise.

Wasn't about to pin my hopes on that one max load, no. But it's the first way out in left field max charge that I've come across.

Haven't begun the load development yet, but will shortly. I've got good Lapua brass, a variety of bullets, and several powders to try. The new barrel's performing quite well, so far. Just finished break-in of the Shilen barrel, and it's under 0.5 MOA accuracy. Hoping it'll settle within the next 100+ rounds to be a really accurate barrel. Time will tell.

 

[BlueWater]

When I see conflicting load data that makes me question my starting point for load development (especially with a new barrel) I load up two different charges at the low - middle range and get chronograph data…. Then I can see which data set is most reflective of what I’ll see….

Superformance loads aren't as prevalent (in the manuals and online sources) as, say, H4350 or StaBall or 4895, from what I've seen. But I've gathered all that I've found. I will certainly be looking for consensus and starting on the low-middle zone, then work up slowly.

So far, a bunch of factory Hornady American Gunner 140gr cartridges have been exceptionally accurate. I'm looking forward to finding an accuracy node or two in my own loads.

 

[Ringostar]

When Superformance came out about 12 years ago, I tried it in a 260. I don’t remember how high I went, but it was up a ways. There wasn’t any load data anywhere for a 260. I looked at 243 loads for it from Hodgdon. Then took a different powder H4350 loads for each and compared the difference from 243 to 260. I used the difference from those loads and took it for the Superformance. Then started low and worked up shooting over a chrono just for speeds while watching for pressure the entire way. I never got any pressure signs, but stopped when I pushed a 140 over 3000fps from a 30” barrel. Then I played with high loads, but couldn’t get accuracy that I was hoping for. Somewhere back in a search here, I’m sure that I posted the charge weight that I stopped at.

 

[CNC-Dude]

I load 44.8g Superformance in the Hornady 147g ELD-M's and 45.4g with Berger 144g. Its been a while since i've shot any 140g, but that load is more than I load for either the 144g or 147g. never any issues though.

 

[Laurie]

Then I played with high loads, but couldn’t get accuracy that I was hoping for.

Superformance's leitmotif! Super-high MVs, but so-so precision and usually inconsistency over a series of outings / matches. It does what it says on the tin very well - a substantial increase in MVs/MEs for deerhunters in selected cartridges.

 

[Ray123]

Am considering doing up a load for a Savage 12 LRP in 6.5 Creedmoor, using the Hodgdon Superformance powder. But I've noticed that the Sierra 6th Ed. manual has a significantly higher max powder charge listed.

No listings for the Nosler RDF bullet with Superformance, but here are the closest examples I can find:

• 40.0 - 44.5gr max, 2797 fps max -- Sierra MK HPBT 140gr, LRP, 24" bbl @ Lyman LR Precision handbook (2018)
• 42.0 - 44.0gr max, 2680 fps max -- Hornady A-Max BT 140gr, LRP, 24" bbl @ Lyman 50th Ed. (2021)
• 38.2 - 44.7gr max, 2800 fps max -- Hornady ELD-M BT 140gr, LRP, 24" bbl @ Hodgdon 11th Ed. (2021)
• 44.7 - 47.4gr max, 2900 fps max -- Sierra MK HPBT 140gr, LRP 24" bbl @ Sierra 6th Ed. 3rd printing

Question: Has anyone gone that high with the Superformance powder, in the 6.5 Creedmoor caliber? I'm questioning why the max charge is so high, with the Sierra load, as compared to all other such loads.

I'd certainly use standard load development steps, gradually approaching the higher powder ranges. But, still, that 47.4gr max powder charge seems strange, given all other references I've found (with VLD/HPBT type bullets) are in the ~44.5gr range for max charge.

Caliber: 6.5 Creedmoor
Rifle: Savage 12 Long Range Precision
Barrel: Shilen Stainless Select Match 8-twist, 28" length (newly broken-in)
Case: Lapua 6.5 Creedmoor SRP (twice-fired cases, to be dedicated to this rifle's use)
Primer: CCI 450 SRP magnum
Bullet: Nosler RDF 140gr (VLD)
Powder: we'll see; Hodgdon Superformance ball, for starters

Thoughts?

I use Superformance in 6.5 Creedmoor AR 10 24" barrel..funny I hardly shoot my bolt gun in 6.5 Creedmoor, I prefer the 308 there.
I prefer the 147 gr ELDM and 150 gr SMK.
AR 10 24" barrel adjustable gas block.
46.2 gr Superformance 140gr Nosler =2842 fps
5 shots into .698" recorded from the AR 10
46.2 Superformance 150 gr SMK =2842 fps 10.1 S/D 2.830" COAL 5 shots .546" recorded.
147 ELDM 45.2 gr Superformance =2790 fps 10.7 S/D 2.820" COAL notes say hovering around 5 into half inch.
The real speed deamon was RL 26. AR 10
RL 26 49 gr 140 gr Nosler RDF = 2962 fps
2.815" COAL.
RL 26 48.0 gr 147 gr ELDM = 2832 fps
2.820" accuracy not recorded, and it takes more time to load RL 26, with its high case fill and needed more experimentation for accuracy and S/D, so I went back to Superformance, the 150 SMK at 2842 fps as a standard load,
as it's fast accurate lower S/D and .5" 5 shot groups out of the AR10...All Lapua cases.

 

[BlueWater]

I use Superformance in 6.5 Creedmoor AR 10 24" barrel..funny I hardly shoot my bolt gun in 6.5 Creedmoor, I prefer the 308 there.
I prefer the 147 gr ELDM and 150 gr SMK.
AR 10 24" barrel adjustable gas block.
46.2 gr Superformance 140gr Nosler =2842 fps
5 shots into .698" recorded from the AR 10
46.2 Superformance 150 gr SMK =2842 fps 10.1 S/D 2.830" COAL 5 shots .546" recorded.
147 ELDM 45.2 gr Superformance =2790 fps 10.7 S/D 2.820" COAL notes say hovering around 5 into half inch.
The real speed deamon was RL 26. AR 10
RL 26 49 gr 140 gr Nosler RDF = 2962 fps
2.815" COAL.
RL 26 48.0 gr 147 gr ELDM = 2832 fps
2.820" accuracy not recorded, and it takes more time to load RL 26, with its high case fill and needed more experimentation for accuracy and S/D, so I went back to Superformance, the 150 SMK at 2842 fps as a standard load,
as it's fast accurate lower S/D and .5" 5 shot groups out of the AR10...All Lapua cases.

Useful, thank you.

 

[Austin Oneshot]

All I know is that there are so many variables that go into it that I would work up your own test…it’s the only way…barrel length, powder and primer lot, bullet length, brass trim, case capacity, seating depth, throat erosion all impact results. On all of my rifles, I take careful measurements, find the estimated node loads using quick load and use the lowest fps node as a starting point. I adjust from there based on what the paper and chronograph are telling me. I can dial it in from there.

 

[RBean]

Looking for decent 6.5 CM loads. Had a good one using 140gr Sierra MK, 42gr R-17. Sub MOA about 2790 fps. Now can't get R-17. Had a load using R-16. About 2700 fps, sub moa, SD of 11.2. Now can't find R-16.

So tried Superformance powder. Started with 40.5 Then 41, finally 41.5grs. About 2,625 fps, half minute accuracy. SD of 2 and spread of 5.1 fps. 140 gr Sierra MK. Great. Thought I needed more velocity. So upped power to 42 grs.

Accuracy went to 3/4 to 1 moa, velocity to 2,673 fps. SD to 13.8. Spread 47 fps. Hard to believe half a grain made that much difference. Maybe data for the 41.5 gr load was a fluke. But that is from three strings. ??? Rifle 40x with varmint weight barrel, 24."

Planning on using rifle as NRA Match Rifle, 600 yd prone.