Wonder why more loading data hasn't been published for this powder. I use in for a 284 Winchester and have great results. I have called Alliant & was told to just use IMR 4350 data.

I have found that W760 is "almost" grain-for-grain Re17; thus, I suggest that you consider W760 reloading data as ~equivalent to Re17 data.

This makes some sense, since both are 4350-like powders and both are double-based. W760 is a ball powder, thus don't compress it too much, be gentle. Re17 compresses a bit easier than W760.

W760 is an under-rated powder. I love it.

quote:

W760 is an under-rated powder.

+1

Gives impressive velocity and accuracy in the .280 Remington. Could get 140gr Accubonds moving at 3120 fps from a 22 inch barrel of my Remington Mountain Rifle, with 1/2 to 3/4 MOA accuracy for 3 shots.

(I throttled the 140s back to 3050fps), but goes to show what the .280 is capable of with the right powder.

Very interesting....I emailed Alliant some time back with questions about loading data for RL-17. I asked if I could use IMR4350 data for RL-17 and was told emphatically 'NO!'.

I supposed different day different tech. After looking at the data listed in Alliant's manual and some of my manuals it certainly looks like you couldn't be far off starting at the IMR4350 start loads and working up...and that is what I plan to do with the pile of RL-17 I have.

Zee

While H414 and ww760 are "almost" identical, RL-17 and H/IMR 4350 just fall into the SIMILAR burn rate category and anyone can look that up in any burn rate chart, then let their "horse sense" do the walking.

QL lists the different characteristics of all the 4350's as well as most other powders...RL-17 and the 4350's have some similarities such as bulk density, but I DON'T consider them one to one swaps.

Way to many shooters try to be "ballisticians by proxy" and that is a VERY BAD thing to do.

I use a lot of RL-17, 4350's, H414, etc and they All give different velos at different powder amounts in various calibers when used side by side during load workup.

IMR is ~2-3 gr faster than H4350, or H4350 needs 2-3 gr more powder to match IMR4350 and RL-17 is just a tad slower than H4350...BUT THAT IS CALIBER/RIFLE SPECIFIC...that could change in your rifle/caliber.

Be very careful extrapolating from the internet.

Luck

I guess just trying to lay down more first hand experience, when I first obtained Reloader 17 I contacted Alliant and was told to use IMR-4350 data to start.
It's working well for me in one of our 257 Roberts, 6.5x55 Swede and played with it some in a .284 and .243.

Because the 4350's and RL-17 all fall very close to each other on the burn rate charts and Alliant or someone put that information out on the net, too many assumptions were bandied about that go beyond the expertise of the average reloader...my take from perusing questions on this and other reloading forums.

Example...I'm fire forming some shortened 9.3x62 cases to 375 JDJ using cast lead 264 gr bullets and using up partial cans of H4530 and H322.

These are NOT actual hunting loads...just loads for fire forming cases and using up small amounts of powders at low pressures.

I checked QL for a load for both powders...I also just ran H/IMR/AA 4350 and RL-17 for this post.

Here are the data...you make your own conclusions as to the efficacy of telling ANYONE, ANY KIND ballistics information. I'm not even certain of the legality of my or anyone posting QL data online.

RL-17...100% volume, 52.63 gr/2237 fs/35851 PSI

AA 4350...100%, 50.17 gr/2070/28422

H 4350...100%, 49.08 gr/2026/31179

IMR 4350...100%, 49.9 gr/2067/32916

QL lists the powder density of RL-17 at 1.61 g/cm3, AA at 1.52 g/cm3, and IMR/H at 1.62 g/cm3 so, except for AA, 100% case volume powder amounts SHOULD BE EQUAL (within 0.01 g/cm3) for this case...but the grains of powder needed were all different, the velos were all different and the pressures ranged over ~7500psi.

You can see that RL-17 runs at a higher pressure so using 4350 data is safe...BUT...GOING THE OTHER WAY IS NOT.

There in lies the frozen rat in the ice cream container...how do YOU know how the data is being used...

Just saying...


RL-17 has applications in a wide variety of cases but you need QL or similar software to get into the real meat... or a LOT of shooting/testing with many cartridges. I wish Alliant is a bit less skimpy with it's load data.

RL-17 is very scarce in my area, haven't seen any in 4-5 years. I'm HOARDING my last 2 pounds and using 4350/4831/H414/760 instead.

Luck

Nonagon it's almost impossible to find RL17 here also. As are most powders.
With the lack of loading info available from Alliant but being told by them to use IMR4350 values, I used low starting values in my 338-06AI. By doing that I had no negative surprises working up loads and great success.

I understand...If Alliant, the powder maker, gave you an OK, I have no problem with that...as I stated above RL-17 runs at a higher pressure than the 4350's so using a powder that produces a lower pressure along with recommendations from Alliant (DIRECTLY) and using safe reloading procedure's keeps the loads/process within safe limits, then go for it.

4350/4831/760 and similar powders have been around for how many years???and have been mainstays for many '06 case size cartridges, and they are "stock" powders for my 25-06, 6mm-284, 22-243, 338-06 etc, going way back, because they were the only powders available to give high velos/low pressures in those cases.

When new powders come out there is ALWAYS a learning period that is taken up by experimenters until the powder companies get their testing over with and start producing data. Basically this is what's happening with RL-17.

With the advent of the internet data is being produced and made available that shouldn't be used by the inexperienced, but because "it's on the net" many naïve are using is indiscriminately...that is my point

My concern is and always has been, as indicated by the pressures I posted for just ONE cartridge...you NEVER KNOW HOW online data is being used and WHAT LEVEL OF EXPERTICE the user is playing on.

YOU and I might know "what the hell and why"... but what about all those that breakout in stupid because they are or don't know doodly because they get their information online and NOT from experience and have NO real experience or ballistics knowledge.

Shooters that know me that come by to drink coffee and talk shooting always amaze me because they are ALWAYS coming up with loads they found online. I take a look, run then through a couple of software programs and reloading manuals and give them a qualified "OK I'd use it" or "not in my gun". You won't be surprised how many times I get a "Well that guy used it so am"...or something similar.

The mere fact that this is "the WORLD WIDE WEB" obviates the need to reign in ego's and be cognizant. Every time I post even the most innocuous response I wonder, and how many of my posts get mis-read/mis-interpreted and turn into hoohaw's because my ego and my wish to be understood, gets in the way of clarification.

I put out my nickel's worth in hope a few might stop and take a second look. Problem is, we are human and what I think is just as challengeable as the next persons...through variations in experiences and understanding.

Luck

Alliant site does have reloading data and it does include R-17.

I got new loading data Barnes for my 284 with their LRX bullet and they has some data using R-17. Berger manual also has data using R-17.

I'm using R-17 in 280AI and 284.

NONAGONAGIN
one of us

While H414 and ww760 are "almost" identica,


I called Hodgdon and was told that 414 and 760 are exactly the same stuff and if they are not contaminated I can safely blend them.

That's true for "newer" powders, but I don't know exactly WHEN that occurred...QL shows IDENTICAL specs and my chrono tests using my "new" 375 JDJ with both powders gives statistically identical velos for new cans of powders...

But I don't know if that is true for older lots of H414/WW760...each lot of powder is formulated anew...after I had some pressure excursions with a freshly opened can of 10-15 year old H414 with NO obvious signs of deterioration, I tossed it and haven't used any for that length of time, way to many other powders that can do the same job...I just started using it again because it became available, the powder I was using as a substitute is unavailable and I stocked up...so far..no problems.

I tend to be very conservative when mucking about with "He said, She said" unless I can confirm the information.

LUCK