I have a 280 based wildcat. More or less an improved 280 Gibbs. I'm trying some 160Accubonds and RL 25. Only data I have is from Loadtech and it seems a touch optimistic. Could someone run it through Quickload for me.

Case is a 280 Rem. Blown out to hold 75.4grs of water. Length is 2.50" Bullet is the Nosler Accubond Length as I measure it 1.405" OAL is 3.34". Federal, CCI or Rem std primer. I normally limit pressure to around 63,000psi. Barrel is 23"

Let me know if you need anything else.

What do you mean,more or less an improved Gibbs?Either it is or isn,t. Anyway you truely have an odd ball.The closet i can find is the 280JDJ CARTRIDGE.which has 76 grains of water,which is real close to yours. And that(76) is only 10grains less than a 7mm Rem mag. Also talking with about 60,000 psi. bullets seated a minium of .050 from the rifleing. No loads for RL25,nor that grain bullet. This is what i did find. 150gr Nosler,RL22 powder-68.4 grains=2775fps=2565ft/lbs. there are other load with 120,140,and175 bullets in the cartridges of the world. hope i helped some.

Sorry Ramrod, but Quickload 3.2, surprisingly, lacks RL 25 data, but according to Sierra manual #5, RL 25 is between Hodgdon H1000 and Retumbo; the software seems to indicate that it is too slow for your purposes. Of course this is only a guess.

You’re shooting a wildcat round that you have to ask for loading information on the Internet? Without a clue of what to use for powder or powder weight? I find that very interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:
You’re shooting a wildcat round that you have to ask for loading information on the Internet? Without a clue of what to use for powder or powder weight? I find that very interesting.

Mick

He's not the only one. Thanks to some slick talking silver tongued *&%$# ))(&$%## I bought a rifle at a show. Oh theres plenty of data out there he says. There is plenty of data out there,EXCEPT, it doesn't pertain to my rifle.

I have a 6,5x68s Ackley. Can't find squat on it. So I just upped the standard load a red *%^$ hair and loaded with that. I'm not real pleased with the performance though. However it is very accurate. No complaints there.

It is rather refreshing to know I'm not the only one who has gotten the shaft in this manner. It doesn't make me feel any better though.

Best wishes, Bill

Yes I made a big mistake. That was asking if someone with Quickload could make a run for me. How any of that implies I don't know what I have is beyond me.

The case happens to be mine. I designed it back in 1981. I say it is a 280 Gibbs more or less. Unless you own Accuload or I built a rifle for you, you would not have heard of a 280PDK. The Gibbs was a 35deg blown out 06 mine is a 40deg 280 as shown. I gain more capacity than the Gibbs


I have done plenty of testing over the last 20+ years much of it along with pressure readings. I have used the same case from 243-416 and most points in between. Here is the parent 280 and the 280, 340 &416PDKs. The 416 is just a dummy case I had in the desk. The actual rifle, brass etc is in Alaska with a friend so I only have this case handy.

For most loadings in the 280 I ended up with MRP and now RL-22. Believe me I tested plenty and MRP was the hands down winner for the 140-160 range. When I allowed AccuLoad to include the 280&340 in their data base I got a copy of loadtech as a gift. I've found it to be close to both my RL-22 and MRP actual reading. Since the case is my own wildcat I have to start from scratch with any new loads. I use 280, 280AI and even 7rem mag data adjusted for capacity difference as an "in the ball park" starting point. RL-25 data with a 7mm 160 accubond is hard to come by. Loadtech shows using it with a 160 giving a calculated gain over my Rl-22 load. I was going to try it this week and was just curious if quickload gave anything close to the Loadtech data.

The copy of the write up Accuload gave me for review is below. They based pressure and a couple other numbers on the parent 280 case the others and capacity they took from measuring the brass I sent them.

Since the RL-25 data is not in quickload thanks to those of you that took the time to check for me.

Paul D. Kossmann(ramrod340)

I'd say that ramrod made his point quite eloquently. Some folks just seem to thrive on the anonimity of the internet, eh Paul.....
Nice cartridge.
CLINT WALKER

quote:

Paul.....
Nice cartridge.

Thanks Clint. I had fun playing with them and the 280 will be going with me to Namibia this May.
After playing with the case and documenting all my results around 2000 someone pointed out Rocky Gibbs work to me. Yep I had just spent 20 years duplicating his work. Hey I like the longer neck better anyway.

quote:

He's not the only one. Thanks to some slick talking silver tongued *&%$# ))(&$%## I bought a rifle at a show. Oh theres plenty of data out there he says. There is plenty of data out there,EXCEPT, it doesn't pertain to my rifle.

I have a 6,5x68s Ackley. Can't find squat on it. So I just upped the standard load a red *%^$ hair and loaded with that. I'm not real pleased with the performance though. However it is very accurate. No complaints there.

It is rather refreshing to know I'm not the only one who has gotten the shaft in this manner. It doesn't make me feel any better though.

Best wishes, Bill

Darn Bud, I feel for you. I hate lying SOB gun dealers. I apologize for any harsh tone I may have shown in my question.

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:

quote:

He's not the only one. Thanks to some slick talking silver tongued *&%$# ))(&$%## I bought a rifle at a show. Oh theres plenty of data out there he says. There is plenty of data out there,EXCEPT, it doesn't pertain to my rifle.

I have a 6,5x68s Ackley. Can't find squat on it. So I just upped the standard load a red *%^$ hair and loaded with that. I'm not real pleased with the performance though. However it is very accurate. No complaints there.

It is rather refreshing to know I'm not the only one who has gotten the shaft in this manner. It doesn't make me feel any better though.

Best wishes, Bill

Darn Bud, I feel for you. I hate lying SOB gun dealers. I apologize for any harsh tone I may have shown in my question.

Mick

You wouldn't happen to be writer would you?

I was not implying you were impolite, discourteous, harsh or anything else.

what I meant in my statement was it didn't make me feel any better because somone may have gotten the shaft like I did.

I thought ramrod may have picked up his prize at a gun show and wasn't informed either. By the way thats an interesting round.

By the way, got any load data for a 6,5x68 AI? LOL

Best wishes, Bill

quote:

By the way thats an interesting round.

By the way, got any load data for a 6,5x68 AI? LOL

Thanks, I've enjoyed playing with it.

Sorry I have no load data for this round.

Loadtech does list a 6.5x68 case. Capacity 82.3gr of water length 2.65" OAL 3.4" and max pressure 63,800. If this sound like the parent.
Loadtech allows an override of the capacity. So if you could give me capacity, oal, bullet and powder I could email or pm you what it gave.

Paul, QL suggests that with a operating limit of 63,000 psi and a 160 gn bullet, you can get something around 2825 fps. It indicates Re25 will be far too slow, with a full case not equaling the performance of Re19. You might get a bit more from Re22, but it will likely be a compressed charge.

The usual QL cavaets apply: it doesn't consider differences in primers or powder lots, and it certainly isn't accurate enough to predict whether Re19 will outperform either 4350 or 4381. Pressure estimatations for any one powder can be off 10,000 psi. However, the fps prediction is generally good as is the general powder burning speed required.

quote:

Paul, QL suggests that with a operating limit of 63,000 psi and a 160 gn bullet, you can get something around 2825 fps. It indicates Re25 will be far too slow, with a full case not equaling the performance of Re19. You might get a bit more from Re22, but it will likely be a compressed charge.

asdf:

Thanks. That is more like something I would expect. I have two lots of RL22. Ones loads exactly like MRP the other has a mind of it's own. In my rifle super tight chamber, lapped barrel I bump 3000 at a 63,000 (strain guage)using the MRP equivalent. Yes a drop tube is required. Loadtech was saying that RL25 would give another 75-100fps. Yet the same weight charge of each takes up the same volume. And the grs were the same for both the Rl22 & rl25. That just didn't make sense to me. That the same volume and weight of a slower powder would give a higher velocity. I'll test it just to check. They might have wrong rates or volume in the program.

I have never gotten RL19 to group in my rifles.

Thanks for taking the time to make the run for me.

Paul, the 2825 fps estimate was based on a cartridge rating of 63 ksi. QL's author recommends running the calculations at 10 to 15 percent less pressure than the rating (in this case, 55 ksi), since the calculations are not accurate enough to run right at the rating. QL predicts only another 100 fps going to the full 63 ksi. Your 3000 fps would suggest a true pressure (if QL is on the money) at least 6% beyond that, and a strain gauge can certainly be off 6% in true pressure, so all is reasonably square.

I've only used the first release of LoadTech. Some of the predictions were, frankly, scary. I have not purchased any updates. I've summarized my experiences with internal ballistics software here.

Your cartridge scales well to the .270 Win with 150 gn bullets and the .300 H&H with 180 gn bullets. Both of these are shown in Alliant's data to perform best with either Re19 or Re22, suggesting the optimum speed is between the two, just where QL shows it.

Karl

quote:

I've only used the first release of LoadTech. Some of the predictions were, frankly, scary. I have not purchased any updates. I've summarized my experiences with internal ballistics software here.

Karl:

That was some fantastic reading. I need to save it and read it a couple more times. While I have never owned Quickload I had always heard it was better than Loadtech. When Accuload contacted me they said their new system was supposed to use burn factors supplied to them by the manufacturer. In looking at some of the data I agree it is scary. My old boss has a rifle in the 280PDK he used some data from Loadtech for a faster powder. He was several grains below their 60,000 and the bolt would hardly open and the primer all but fell out.

Years ago when I first built my 280PDK I was working with a smith in W Texas. He had a grandson or grandnephew that work for Nosler I believe(memory is going) That actually did some pressure barrel testing for us. Least he claimed to, I sent him money and my reamer We then used that data to help with load development and calibration. I have also always used Norma brass. Many talk about it being uniform but soft. What I found was I would always start to see some head expansion at around 67,000+/-. So as I work up a load I measure each case head. When I get ANY expansion I stop then back off enough powder to give 63,000 or less for most accurate load. If I can't get 4-5 loading from a case it is too hot for me.

Like I said earlier. MRP had always given me best performance in this 280. When I had to switch to RL22 the first batch was real hot and then I got a second batch that loaded within .5grs of MRP with same velocity and accuracy. I stocked up.

Thanks again for the great info.

Paul

When Ken Howell was writing his book on Custom Cartridges (2002), he could state that MRP and Re22 were simply different lots of the same powder. This may not be true today.

You mentioned you were told "their new system was supposed to use burn factors supplied to them by the manufacturer." Their web site doesn't indicate this, so I wonder what they meant. As I have described on my web site, their program acts as if it is a curve fit to published load data. Perhaps that is what they meant by "burn factors supplied." I probably should buy an update. They seem to try hard to please the customer, but that first version I tried was a disaster. What version have you?

Lastly, if you need any QL runs in the future, just PM your request. They only take a minute or two to run. I'll note that if you can invest in a strain gauge, the cost of QL should be within your budget.

Karl

I had heard the same thing about RL22 when I used the last of my MRP I tried Rl22. The first lot was faster enough to have caused a problem if I hadn't backed off. Then I read about lot to lot variations so I tried a different lot. It basically matched the MRP results I had. So I bought about 20#.

What I remember was a conversation with the the Database manager with Accuload. When he was asking to include my cases. I thought he said that they used the burn rates supplied and then cut off at pressure limits or 105% capacity. More or less like the method Hornady talked about in my on Vol 11 manual. I checked the emails from him to see if it was in writing I couldn't find it. It might have been in one of the phone calls. Or it might have been a dream. They owe me the Cartridge Registration so I will email them and ask how they calculate at the same time.

As to which version I'm not sure. I was sent CalcuLoader 1.6. Then the Beta version of LoadTech followed by two sets of software updates. Guess I should check for a new update as well.

Thanks for the offer of running QL. To be honest I have not developed a new load for a wildcat in a couple years until wanting to try the new Accubond 160. Been working on my wifes 7X57 and my 375H&H (just used my Nosler book)

Yes I know QL is far cheaper than my strain guage. But now I know someone with QL Thanks again for your time and the great reading material.

quote:

Mick

You wouldn't happen to be writer would you?

Stinger,

Hell I was born in Oklahoma, I can barely spell my own name let alone be a gun magazine writer.

I did drop out of school in the 8th grade and moved to Texas to teach American literature in high school for 10 years though.