need load information on 335 or DP844 used on 6.5x55; what might be considered max. with a 140 grain bullet. any other bullet info would also be helpful. roger

Do you mean WC844?

Something in the 30gr range.

But QL is: Garbage in = garbage out

So it's impossible to be more specific with the answer!

YES...WC844 and HODGDONS H335.

FWIW...I would consider those powders too fast for a 140 gr weight bullet sand even for 85-100 gr bullet weights. I ran then through QL and LD but won't post that info as I consider it too great a risk to muck about with them in the Swede with those powders.

Go online using "WC844 vs H335" as a search description, there is quite a bit of info on the comparison. Check to see WHICH powders are actually being used in reloading ,manuals and in online reloading forums like Reloaders Nest, for bullet weights.

My advice is to use powders in the 4350/4831, RL17/19 burn rates for the heavies where you can get 2400-2700 fs relatively easy and CFE223/RL15/H4007/Ram TAC for the light 85-100 gr weights.

Yes QL can be garbage and I squall all the time about QL data results, but it's no different than any reloading book OR online forums...you have to understand the total process to accurately assess the data, the main reason I don't post MY actual reloading data for any of my cannons.

LUCK

Just checked Hodgdons yearly data magazine. They don't list any data for 140 gr. bullets with either powder.

Hip

NONE of my considerable stack of reloading manuals list those powders and none of my software programs show them as desirable powders...too fast, too low of a powder volume and TOO HIGH of a pressure for that data that does give powder amounts...not a good combination to have.

LUCK

quote:

Originally posted by Rapidrob:
Do you mean WC844?

Yes! I call it DP as in data powder.
roger

quote:

Originally posted by NONAGONAGIN:
NONE of my considerable stack of reloading manuals list those powders and none of my software programs show them as desirable powders...too fast, too low of a powder volume and TOO HIGH of a pressure for that data that does give powder amounts...not a good combination to have.

LUCK

I agree that it isn't the greatest powder in the world to use but 3031 is listed in manuals for the 6.5x55 and the .260. The 3031 is a bit faster burning than the 335.

roger

i use 335 in everything from 222 through 550magnum - it was my "keep ONE POWDER" during the really bad lean years --

it isn't likely the best powder, until you hit really efficient big bores, but it makes them go bang with VERY good SDvel --watch for pressure spikes, as it does seem to have a critical pressure when it goes from warm to hot, RIGHT NOW -

Well...yeah...an argument can always be made for using many other fast(er) powders, economics and stretching the dollar and use what you got, but you can gain 100-150 fs more velo by using the slower powders at a 90+% case capacity instead of the 70-80% and WITHOUT those pesky pressure spikes, very possible overloads and/or big air spaces....all the Powley data used 86% case volume as the starting point and L.D. uses 86% also...again with AA, H, and IMR 4350, RL-19, N-204 etc. I think those folks understood a few things about ballistics.

I used to use a lot of H332 and H335 in my 17 Rem, 20 Practical and 222-223's, I've since switched to Benchmark, 2230, 748 and 8208 for the most part because that is what I can find in my area.

AND is my face red...I must have gone cross eyed and luck of the grab...I checked three other manuals...an old OLD 1970 Speer #8 for 3031 and 87 gr bullets and it gave the highest velo at 3238 fs, 4320 was 3222, 4064 was 3218....and compared to todays manuals the old Speer was ~10 gr higher per powder than my Hornady 8th ED...definitely bolt sticking pressures...Hodgdon's #27 and Sierra's 5th that had listings for 85-140 for 3031...and velos 100-250 fs below the highest velo, slower burning powders.

I don't shoot any of my rifles at case capacity volumes much below 90%...all but the odd man out do the highest velo and accuracy between ~90 and 100% volume at very near SAAMI MAP.

The faster powders require lesser amounts and have higher ballistic efficiencies but what you gain in B.E. and being cheep(and I KNOW about being cheep and squeezing the nickel till the buffalo shits)) you loose in velocity and energy, so there is ALWAYS a trade off.

Your shooter, your choice...it's all good.

LUCK

I entirely agree -- that situation, and those tools, you have a set of correct results, and darn good working assumptions.

Though, for some reason, you and I can't seem to have a discussion of other view points and other situations, without at least one, if not both, of us becoming frustrated, i'll leave it here.

Bartsche,
I've recently been playing with 130gr loads in my 308. H335 is the most accurate powder that I have tried but the muzzle blast is horrendous. Don't know if this applies to the 6.5 or your rifle but I am still looking for a different powder. YMMV

Ain't no thang, Bro.

Having all those years of experience, doing all these things coming from differing sets of needs/wants/desires is bound to bring in those expectations from widely diverging paths.

Most arguments/frustrations come from jumping up and down over minutia without much actual meaningfulness. Swearing by or at a particular cal/brand or...is just personal preference and the need to justify, while stomping on some other combination is the same thing. The case FOR and the case AGAINST can use exactly the same arguments. Dance with who you brung and have a good time.

To me hair splitting is a useless waste of time with little or no actual results except maybe to the Ego...even though I get caught up in it some times trying to make meaningful observations.

It boils down to delicious apples and road apples, so to speak, as all the fuss always leaves out or forgets the initial set of criteria and brings in totally extraneous BS.

There is a tremendous amount of very excellent information available from very knowledgeable individuals that too often get stomped on because one person may not have reached the knowledge level of the data, has little or no actual experience, is fed a long line of "stuff" by a poseur, or all the other "stuff" people come up with to "prove" something.

Mis-information, dis-information, BS...or looking at the data from a differing view points...Africa/Australia hunting vs stateside/Europe...recoil sensitivity..."What's good for General Bull Moose is good for...", etc.

In other words the general proclivities of Homo sapiens to spin EVERYTHING. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHumph

Either a person will learn-up or they won't...who's to say which is right/wrong...

For me H335 has TOO many undesirable characteristics compared with other powders for me to use but it might just fit your pistol perfectly.


LUCK

Thanks to all ! It seems that 34gr. with a 140gr. bullet at 2500 ft/sec. is safe and acceptable.

And to think I was instrumental in two of you kissing and making up. Golly , it really makes the heart fell good! roger O'Doul's

You obviously have a specific reason for using those powders.

FYI I did a lot, I mean a real heck of a lot of load development for 2 6.5X55 rifles - a Sako & a Win M70 in that caliber 20 years ago when modern loads were hard to find.

I measured case head expansion for several hundred rounds.

With 139 gr bullets, I ended up using N160, H4350 and Re19 - around 2700-2750. I also got great results with IMR 4831 (2800 fps) but I could not get enough of that powder.

I got very disappointing results with Re22, MRP & H4831 despite all the experts' load recommendations.

I found the 125 gr Nosler Partition to be a great bullet for flat long range shooting - virtually identical to 130 gr 270 Win IMHO.

I also used the Hornady 160gr RN at 2600 fps on big red deer at closer ranges. That is probably the all time great bullet configuration for this cartridge - used on tens of thousands of moose, polar bear etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
You obviously have a specific reason for using those powders.


I also used the Hornady 160gr RN at 2600 fps on big red deer at closer ranges. That is probably the all time great bullet configuration for this cartridge - used on tens of thousands of moose, polar bear etc.

Very definitely a specific reason.
I've successfully used the 180 gr. Hornady in at least 1/2 dozen 6.5s. In fact I still have about 300 left. I don't know if they ever plan make them again. The 156gr Norma functions well.

roger

See...now that's what I mean...how a perceived hoohaw materialized over personal observations, I'll never know...I thought no more about Jeffe's thoughts than I do over beer favorites or six one, half a dozen the other...Just his observations had other implications and applications than mine and NO "I'm right and your wrong" BS.

A major problem with this forum is no one can agree to disagree without wanting/seeing something to take 5 paces, turn and fire...TOTAL BS. There is NOTHING black and white in this game, only shades of differing opinions/experiences.

If you WANT to find angst and controversy it's ALWAYS easy to find it whether it's there in actuality or not.

I have 2 Swedes, a 260 Rem switch barrel for an OLD Ruger Tang and a Creed barrel coming from McGowan for my AR15, and I had, many years ago, a 6.5-06. I don't see anything wrong with the 6.5 cal, but to me it's just another of my many experimental toys...it does it's job as long as I do mine....no more, no less.

Like many others on this forum, I've been doing this so long there are only a few cartridges that I haven't experimented with...NOT just shot for a while, but EXPERIMENTED with in such a manor most hunters/reloaders never think to do. Sorta like the blind men trying to describe an elephant to the deaf man.

LUCK