Jeff Porter
Gold $$ Contributor
I am guessing that is related to the gas gun and the gas volume generated. Be curious what difference you would see with your bolt gun 90 VLD loads.
VV equivalent to Varget
- Thread starter boltfluter
- Start date
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
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.
Can I dare to ask a starting weight charge of 135 able to push a 105/109 at 2750/2800 fps?
Mulligan
Silver $$ Contributor
There is also a really good node around 31.4gr
Matter of fact, 31.4 is what I shot in our 600 yard BR match a week ago.
CW
Edit
Ladder test shot at 600 yards, Western Colorado 4800’
Last edited:
Mulligan
Silver $$ Contributor
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
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
Silver $$ Contributor
Laurie - based on the above, would you then suggest not running the "high" node with N135/90 VLDs in F-TR loads? In my hands, N140 produces velocities almost identical with Varget on a weight basis. However, N140 seems very twitchy at the high end and over-pressure issues can develop very abruptly. If N135 behaves similarly, it seems like it might be a better idea not to push 90s into the 2850 fps realm from a 30" barrel. What say you? I ask because I have only recently delved into the N135 game while searching for viable alternatives to H4895 (if such a thing really even exists
).Monday shooter40
Gold $$ Contributor
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.
Last edited:
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
Silver $$ Contributor
Laurie - thanks for the detailed reply! I'll just have to work with it and see how it performs. I know at least one very high-level Highpower competitor that swears by N135 with heavies, but I'll test it myself in my F-TR bolt rifles. I have yet to find a powder that equals H4895 for this role in my hands, but the recent availability issues with H4895 has me searching for an alternative for .223 Rem/F-TR loads with 88s/90s/95s and I have never really liked Varget in that capacity. Thanks again for the info!
Murray Brook
Silver $$ Contributor
nakneker
Gold $$ Contributor
I’m using VV a lot now days. I still have a stash of Hodgdon powders but I’m definitely gravitating to VV more and more. I’m using a lot of N100 powders in small and medium cartridges, N150, N140, N135, N133, using N120 and N110 is the really small case like the hornet and some pistols, using the N500s in anything 6.5 PRC and bigger, N570, N565, N555.
It might just be me but I think they are very consistent powders, load development seems to go faster. Lot to lot variance seems to be less than most brands of powder.
Over the last shortage they were easier to get than Hodgdon and Alliant, that’s what steered me this way. I still have a good amount of H4198, H4895, Varget, H4350, H1000, H4831 to go through but I’m not replacing those powders as they get used, many of which aren’t available to replace anyways. v use to be too expensive compared to others, that certainly has changed too.
It might just be me but I think they are very consistent powders, load development seems to go faster. Lot to lot variance seems to be less than most brands of powder.
Over the last shortage they were easier to get than Hodgdon and Alliant, that’s what steered me this way. I still have a good amount of H4198, H4895, Varget, H4350, H1000, H4831 to go through but I’m not replacing those powders as they get used, many of which aren’t available to replace anyways. v use to be too expensive compared to others, that certainly has changed too.
Ya might want to try N150 in the 6 mm. Agree with Mr nakneker post above also.
That always has been one of these powders' strengths.
nakneker
Gold $$ Contributor
I always enjoy your input Laurie, I don’t know your back ground but your knowledge about powders is impressive.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.