Reloader 22

28 November 2001, 02:29

RSY

Let me preface my response by saying that one should never substitute data of one powder for another. Hopefully, that's a no-brainer. Even if one "thinks" it is the same powder.

I believe, though, that one of the Vhitavouri powders is the same, or very close, to Re-22. Doesn't Bofors make both powders? Also, I have heard rumblings that Winchester's WXR is Re-22 with a different suit of clothes.

Check a reliable burn-rate chart for further comparison.

RSY

28 November 2001, 02:56

<phurley>

I use RL-22 as the principle powder in my .257 Wby, .300 Win, .358 STA. For me it is the Super Powder. I keep it exclusively in my Lyman Autoscale, simply set the beam and punch the button. Coupled with the Federal 215 Match Primer it is unbeatable for the above mentioned chamberings for me. I also use RL-19, H-1000, and IMR-7828 considerably for other chamberings. Good shooting.

------------------

[This message has been edited by phurley (edited 11-27-2001).]

28 November 2001, 05:34

<Don Krakenberger>

H4831 is so very close to it too--check the data and much is interchangeable--BUT PLEASE CHECK THE DATA.

28 November 2001, 09:56

<TGWoody>

some one just told me that Big-Game was similar but it was a ball powder.

Big-Game , Big-Boy something like that. ..

28 November 2001, 11:17

John S

Don-
H4831 is nowhere close to R22 in burning speed, in my experience. If I load each to the same charge weights I get lots more pressure from the 4831, plus a lot less velocity. Maybe I've had a fast batch of one and a slow batch of the other, but I would rate H4831 a full step faster, maybe more.

28 November 2001, 17:43

Saeed

According to Vihtavuori, it goes like this, from fast to slow:

IMR 4831
H 4831
Accurate Arms 3100
Norma MRP
Vihtavuori N 165
Reloader 22
IMR 7828
Accurate Arms 8700
Vihtavuori N 170
H 1000
H 870

According to Hodgdon:

H 4831 and H 4831 SC
Norma MRP
Reloader 22
Vhtavuori N 165
IMR 7828
Vhtavuori N 170
H 1000
Accurate Arms 8700
H 870

28 November 2001, 18:15

<TGWoody>

Saeed,

That was great info, I'll have to keep it handy for future use, I just picked up a lb. of Big Game by Ramshot to tryout. It's a ball powder and looks like it will measure well.

I'll be scratching my almost bald head prior to doing any test loads. planning on starting a little low from Ramshots recommendations then work up 1 grain each time.

Reloader-22 works so well for what I'm doing, but I just have to try other options to be sure I'm not missing anything.

Any last words would be helpful :~}

The Vihtavuori N 165 would appear a good choice ???????? I have no experience with Vihtavuori.

Thanks for the input.

TGW

28 November 2001, 18:17

<Don Krakenberger>

John--Quickload actually sometimes says that h4831 is slower than re 22. A quick check of my barnes manual and my lyman manual show many duplicate "max" charges in 270 win, 7 mm mag, 30-06 and others. Also all the way up to the big 30-378 they are only 2 grains apart on loads as strong as 107 grains. In my book that rates as very "close". Again I stress
PLEASE CHECK THE DATA as I said in my original post. I should add "work up carefully!" Good luck

28 November 2001, 19:12

LE270

quote:
Originally posted by Don Krakenberger:
Quickload actually sometimes says that h4831 is slower than re 22. A quick check of my barnes manual and my lyman manual show many duplicate "max" charges in 270 win, 7 mm mag, 30-06 and others.

I wonder whether today's H4831 may not be faster burning than the H4831 of about three decades ago, when many of the tests for some of the loading manuals were done.

I did not load for rifles then, but I do remember that the "4831" powder that Jack O'Connor wrote about, and that seems to have been used in the data for the first (1972) Hornady loading manual, seems to have been slower than today's H4831 because the charges they (O'Connor and Hornady) recommended then would often be too heavy if used in most rifles with today's H4831.

(Note that at that time there was no need to specify anything other than the number 4831 because IMR 4831 did not appear until a number of years later. So in those older loading books and articles you will see the powder referred to only as "4831"; it was a Hodgdon supplied powder.)

If my hunch is right, that could make the H4831 of the past nearer to the burning rate of today's RL22, while today's H4831 is noticably faster burning.

[This message has been edited by LE270 (edited 11-29-2001).]

28 November 2001, 19:45

<Herb D>

You might very well be on the right track!
Back then I loaded 58 gr. in my 25-06 with 100 gr. Sierra's. If I'm correct today's books recommend 56 gr. max.

I've often wondered if the differences in max loads was due to differences in powder or due to manufacturers becoming more conservative.

I've got some H4831 from over three decades ago and as soon as I get finished with my household move I'm going to check into this further.

29 November 2001, 01:53

<Dave>

For the applications that RE 22 is good for, nothing can outperform it.

------------------
Davis Chase

29 November 2001, 01:59

John S

The 4831 JOC wrote about was a mil-surp powder, and good stuff it was! I defintely think it was slower as I had some years ago and when the "newly manufactured" H4831 appeared it became obvious there was a difference. Nothing wrong with the new powder but I think Saeed's listings show it faster by a few steps than R22, which is what I have found.
R22 is my best overall powder, followed closely by R15. Their metering and consistency have made them my favorites.

29 November 2001, 02:47

<TGWoody>

Last July at the shootout in S.D someone was trying to convince me to use Reloader-25???
Then another person said it would require more powder, burn slower.

Reloader-15, were does it stack to Saeed's listing? What do you us it in?

Again, so far it's been hard to beat the R22 for what using it for, And I'm glad to hear that their metering and consistency has given it a great representation.

TGW

29 November 2001, 03:16

<phurley>

I have shot H-4831 for years, I never liked the way it metered, still used it and got good results with .300 Wby etc. I like the H-4831SC much better, but I still cannot get the speed with accuracy the RL-22 will get. The RL-25 is slower, however in my chamberings I am already at max on case capacity and even if I wanted to get more powder in the case I don't have the extra room. I have always stayed with less powder for the same speeds if possible. It doesn't make since to me to burn 5 to 10 grains more powder for the same results, considering recoil etc. Good shooting.

------------------

29 November 2001, 03:20

<Don Krakenberger>

I don't have it but someone said that in the latest hodgdon manual they are listing 62.0 of h 4831 as a "new" max for the 130 grain 270--thus legitamizing the old Jack o'Conner load. MOst data I've seen from Hodgdon is getting "weaker" but for some reason they must have stepped that up. I think John has it right when he said lot to lot variations can make a difference.

29 November 2001, 04:00

John S

TGW-
I use R15 in several chamberings, from my 6mm Rem up to my 450 Dakota and 460G&A. It is especially good in 375H&H, possibly the best overall for that cartridge. Burn speed is about like that of IMR4064.

29 November 2001, 13:11

Atkinson

O'Connor used a different 4831 powder than what is available today...Todays powder is bulkier and you cannot get 62.5 grs in a 270 or 06 case...The load was 62 grs. BTW and you cannot get that in a 270 case either, unless you have a very sloppy chamber indeed....What loading book suggest that load?

I still have about 50 lbs of that old stuff and it is pretty close to RL-22 and MRP and thats where the confusion above comes from I suspect...

I load 60 to 62 grs of the old stuff with a 130 or 150 gr. bullets, the 150 is compacted a little too much..

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

29 November 2001, 13:53

KuduKing

quote:
Originally posted by Atkinson:
\...The load was 62 grs. BTW and you cannot get that in a 270 case either, unless you have a very sloppy chamber indeed....

I, and most other reloaders I know, have no problem getting 62.0 grains of H4831SC into a Winchester case. A little tapping, and slow pour is all it takes. In the Remington case it is a tight fit, and well-compressed charge over the 130 grain bullet that I wouldn't care for.

RL-22 has never done anything for accuracy in any of the several .270s I've owned, nor in the .300 WinMag. Just goes to show that rifles are all different.

But on top of that, I've found that lot to lot variations in RL-22 are excessive, with large swings in velocity and accuracy; and the temperature/velocity curve is about 3 fps per degree F.: too much for my zeros. Whereas H4831 has proven very consistent and reliable.

After the RL-22 recall earlier this year, I've given up on it. Alliant was very cagey about the recall, and didn't publicize it well enough. I don't need to be blowing myself up next time Norma screws up.

While I agree that Hodgdon has substantailly wimped-out over the past few years on their loading data, so have ALL the publishers. They all are afraid of lawsuits and old-grandpappy Joe's beat-on clunker rifle. So now even data for modern magnums (.300, 7mm ,etc) in guns made from modern steels are down-loaded to laughable levels.

This is why a .300 WSM can be made to look as powerful as the .300 Win Mag, since the loading companies watered-down the Win Mag a few years ago. Twenty years from now they will be down-loading the .300 WSM to 2900 fps or less.

Find some old manuals, and they will give you the real dope. Or even better, read the piece by JOC in Speer Reloading Manual Number Ten, "Pressures and the Handloader", and stop worrying. Speer wouldn't dare print that article now, but it is as true now as it was then.

29 November 2001, 17:28

<TGWoody>

KudoKing:

"After the RL-22 recall earlier this year, I've given up on it. Alliant was very cagey about the recall, and didn't publicize it well enough."

By change, do you know what batches they recalled?

I have about 5lbs or better. ..

Thanks for the info.

TGW

------------------
Where ever you go. .. there you are.

30 November 2001, 03:08

RSY

There was never a recall of Re-22 by Alliant. A batch did get out that was a little quick. Here it is from the horse's mouth (the Alliant website):

"Reloading Precaution: It is a standard recommendation to reduce our listed maximum powder charge weights by 10% to establish a starting charge weight. If you have our Reloder 22, lot 25083, it is important that you follow this recommendation."

There you have it. And even though it was not critical enough to recall this batch, I do know that they gladly exchanged, free of charge, any powder from this batch if the buyer so desired. I think they handled it pretty well. The problem (and I have been guilty of this, as well) is that people don't want to follow SOP and take the time to work up from reduced loads when they buy a new batch of powder.

That's just a sign of our times...we're all in such a damned hurry.

RSY

30 November 2001, 06:00

<TGWoody>

RSY,

Thanks for the update, I'll have to check if I have any powder from that batch from that lot.

"The problem (and I have been guilty of this, as well) is that people don't want to follow SOP and take the time to work up from reduced loads when they buy a new batch of powder."

I think we all have been guilty of this one. And I not sure if it is because we are in a hurry. In my case, ,, It's from procedures and education, or the lack of.

This forum has been a great place to gather knowledge. We might disagree with each other, but that's ok.

My dad told me a long time ago, " You don't have to believe everything you read, pick out the things you like and build upon that"

I'll have to start a topic on SOP.

TGW

------------------
Where ever you go. .. there you are.

01 December 2001, 20:08

KuduKing

quote:
Originally posted by RSY:
There was never a recall of Re-22 by Alliant. A batch did get out that was a little quick. "...reduce our listed maximum powder charge weights by 10% to establish a starting charge weight."

You are so WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Let's not deceive the gentle readers.

Here's what Alliant wrote to me in an email when I made inquiry:

"If you have lot 25083, then we do not recommend that you use it. Please
send me your address and I will replace your lb. of powder. Thanks for
contacting us regarding this issue and have a nice day.

Ben Amonette
Consumer Service Manager
Alliant Powder Company
www.alliantpowder.com

And later:

"If you have a good place to bury it, then that would be fine. Let me know
if you have any additional questions concerning this. Thanks again.

Ben Amonette
Consumer Service Manager
Alliant Powder Company
www.alliantpowder.com

Great. It's only a 10% overcharge. If that isn't a defective product, I don't know what is.

What if the tires on your wife's car had a max PSI rating of 10% less than stated? Would you just tell her to fill them with 10% less air?

Would you be OK with it if the rope on your kid's swing set was 10% less strong?

How about 10% less tensile strength on the wing of that 757 your flying in?

Are you on their ad payroll?

02 December 2001, 15:50

<TGWoody>

quote:
Originally posted by KuduKing:
You are so WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Let's not deceive the gentle readers.
Here's what Alliant wrote to me in an email when I made inquiry:
"If you have lot 25083, then we do not recommend that you use it. Please
send me your address and I will replace your lb. of powder. Thanks for
contacting us regarding this issue and have a nice day.
Ben Amonette
Consumer Service Manager
Alliant Powder Company
www.alliantpowder.com
And later:
"If you have a good place to bury it, then that would be fine. Let me know
if you have any additional questions concerning this. Thanks again.
Ben Amonette
Consumer Service Manager
Alliant Powder Company
www.alliantpowder.com
Great. It's only a 10% overcharge. If that isn't a defective product, I don't know what is.
What if the tires on your wife's car had a max PSI rating of 10% less than stated? Would you just tell her to fill them with 10% less air?
Would you be OK with it if the rope on your kid's swing set was 10% less strong?
How about 10% less tensile strength on the wing of that 757 your flying in?
Are you on their ad payroll?

I investigated my Reloader-22 supply, and have 4 lbs. with that lot number, plus about 300 rounds loaded with some.

I e-mailed Ben Amonette for his advise, and I'm sure I'll hear from him soon with his advise.

Thanks for the heads up!!!!

TGW

03 December 2001, 02:48

<ML>

Hi,

I also love MRP/RL22!
Theres nothing better for my .270Win and .300WinMag!
Even the 8x68S with heavy bullets will work great!
Not only fine precision but also max velocity.
What I found very close to MRP is N560.In large cases you can fill about 0.5-0.75 grains more to find the same velocities.

Markus

04 December 2001, 18:48

<TGWoody>

Well, ,, I called Alliant Powder Company and spoke with Ben Amonette today. He seemed very straight forward about the Reloader-22 issue.

Alliant has not issued a recall on the Reloader-22 powder, but has had some people calling with concerns about that batch. They have had some report of some of the powder "running a little fast".

He was very willing to replace my powder and send it to me. I was very impressed how Mr. Amonette handled this issue.

TGW

06 December 2001, 16:30

<Bill>

TGW,

You have got to love thier customer service. Its funny, if you talk to Ben about it he is pretty calm. Talk to the lady who answers the phone and she thinks its the end of the world.

------------------
www.rifleshooter.com

07 December 2001, 17:19

KuduKing

I must admit that Alliant was very prompt and friendly and bent over backwards to help, AFTER I CONTACTED THEM.

Now their website says that charges should be reduced 10% with the lot in question, and doesn't mention replacing and burying the powder.

I think that they realized that they might go broke paying the $17.00 hazmat fee to 50,000 shooters to replace their powder, and the chance of blowing up a gun and having to pay a settlement was less.

Kinda like the auto makers and safety improvements.......