H4350/RL17 Quickload pressure comparison

[Yellow11]

Playing with Quickload's data for 6x47 Lapua (H2o 47), I was surpised to see that load-for-load the RL17 was showing higher pressures.

For example Berger 115g x 36.8g powder:
H4350 generates 58,370 pressure and 2,936 fpc (99.4 filling)
RL17 generates 63,528 pressure and 2,992 fps (94.2 filling)

Anyone care to offer their own in put to this statement... seems I read somewhere that Quickload data for RL17 was being questioned.

Or am I missing something very obvious?

 

[Steve Blair]

My experience is that H4350 is slower than RL17 and they are not clsoe to interchangeable. RL17 has worked very well for me in 6mm BR with Sierra 107 MK from 32.5 to 33.4 grains. H4350 is not even a candidate for that application. It has also worked well in .22-250 with 53g Sierra MK. Again, H4350 would be too slow. In 6mm Remington with 95 Sierra MK, H4350 delivers excellent velocity and accuracy. RL17 would be too fast for this application.

I have read in several places, including this product description on Alliant's website, that it is almost equivalent to H4350. My experience says that it is not. YMMV

 

[cliffy]

New powders frighten me because the older ones work so well, yet we must never stop experimenting lest we miss out on something great. I have great success with RL-10x and RL-15 and RL-22 during various applications. Do we need RL-17? Cliffy

 

[MattKubic]

Yellow,
That pressure on the RE-17 seems really high. I tried some in a 6.5x284 where I normally use H4350. I shoot 48.3 gr of H4350 and tried that charge in RE-17 and it was quite a bit faster. My velocity went from 2970fps with Sierra 142 to around 3100fps with the RE-17. I worked up some more just for giggles until I smoked a couple of primers around 3150fps. The felt recoil with the RE-17 is a lot softer than the H4350. I'm sure the RE-17 has higher pressure, but I think the pressure curve is a lot slower. On target on a hot day at Oak Ridge, TN, the RE-17 load shot 4 minutes higher than the H4350. The only reason I did this in a registered match was because I dumped my last bit of H4350 on the floor trying to get it into the dang funnel and I had to shoot my last string on Sunday with the RE-17 load that I half ass worked up the week before. It merits some more testing though. Maybe in a slightly smaller case than a 284.

 

[kapac]

I have been wanting to try R-17 in my 243wssm for the 107-108 bergers I have been using H4350 along with R-22. I am curious since sleepygator said it would not be any good for 6mm, I am wondering if the wssm case will work? Does anyone have any experience with this round.

Kapac

 

[fivering]

I find that H-4350 and Re-17 can be loaded at the same charge density in a 6mmx22-250AI (very close to an XC), with the Re-17 giving about 75 fps more velocity, behind a 108 molyed Berger, or a 107 molyed Sierra. The amount of primer flattening seems about the same for both powders.

 

[Steve Blair]

Kapac: Sorry if I was not clear. What I meant was that RL17 was too fast for 95 grain bullets in 6mm Remington, as a comparison to H4350. RL17 would be very good for lighter bullets in 6mm. Varget has performed very well for me with Hornady 58g V-Max, providing over 4000 fps.

RL17 should perform well with bullets from 55-80 grains in 6mm Remington. H4350 really starts to perform with 80 grains and heavier.

 

[Rust]

Over the years I've found Quickload to be a useful tool. But like all other loading sources, it isn't gospel for a given rifle/cartridge/bullet combination. Some of the calculated load data for several of my rifles is entirely too hot, some right on the money, and some a little soft. That's why the 10% rule holds in reloading, back off 10% from maximum and work up.

Regarding the pressures. It may be that Quickload does not entirely take into account the manner in which the deterrent is mixed throughout the powder kernels rather than just surface coated.

At any rate, the only way to get truly accurate pressure numbers is by using actual pressure testing equipment on a given rifle, not by calculation.