Anyone got a good RL15 load for the 525 grain bullets? The load data on the reloading page is for 570 and 600 grain bullets with RL15. Since lots of load data for IMR and H with the 525 grain bullets but nothing for RL15.

Harry, weren't you using RL15 in your .505?

Mike,
I used heavier bullets and slower powder and could dig up those loads, but not what you want.

You would do well to start with the maximum Nickudu loads for the heavier bullets and add more Dacron to start, then less Dacron and more powder as you work up.

You are headed in a good direction with the lighter bullet and faster powder.

I would like to run that on QuickLOAD for future reference if I get around to it.

Can you specify the make and length of the .505/525-grain bullets you have, for calculation purposes?

If you really want to fine tune my predictions with QuickLOAD, specify the gross water capacity of your brass, actually measured.
If it is Jamison, I know that one.

RIP,

Bullets are Woodleigh soft points and brass is Jamison. Primers are F215M. Impact on game is priceless.

Quickload information would be interesting.

Forget to include the bullet length, 1.197".

Mike - when RIP, Rich, Jan and a few other guys were toying with the .505 x 558 we made a while back - seems I remember that Rich's VV160 loads were lowest relative recoil and highest velocity. IIRC he got 2612 FPS on the chrono. Of course, if you have a truck load of RL15 on hand ...

Not exactly a truckload, but a fair bit of it. I also like the reduced recoil with RL15, but you may get that with W160 too.

I am not looking for a lot of speed, if I could come up with a RL15 load that would push a 525 grain, .505 diameter bullet at 2300 fps I am thinking I have all the killing power you really need for most things that walk the earth.

Mike,
Start here
http://www.accuratereloading.com/505gibbs.html

if its a safe load with a 570 or 600 gr.......

MJines, according to QL v 3.4, you should get 2300 fps with 111/112 gr of Reloader 15, behind the Woodleigh 525 gr SN Weldcore, assuming a 24" barrel. Of course this is only a guess.

Mike, I don't have a .505, but I have used 111 grains of RL-15 in my .500 A2 behind 600 grain Woodleighs for 2,400+ fps.

112.5 grains of the same stuff behind 570 grain Barnes bullets gets me 2,500 fps.

Given the greater case capacity of the .505, I would think that you could safely start with 109-110 grains behind a 525 grain Woodleigh and work up, using a chronograph, if need be, to get the velocity you are looking for.

As others have said, given that cavernous case, some kind of filler might be a good idea, too.

I will check Any Shot You Want for you when I get home tonight and see whether it lists any .505 loads with RL-15.

quote:

I will check Any Shot You Want for you when I get home tonight and see whether it lists any .505 loads with RL-15.

No Dice ...the only Alliant powder listed is RL-22 ...

Mike, I use a 130 gr load of Rel 15 with the lighter 525 grain 505 bullets and am perfectly happy. OTOH, I loaded some Barnes 600 gr solids with the same 130 gr load with no undue pressure signs, but I don't think Hog Killer has completely forgiven my for letting him shoot one.

I'd start with the 120 gr load and work up. The theory behind Reloader 15 is less powder weight equals less ejecta and therfore less recoil. I think it is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Mike, I use a 130 gr load of Rel 15 with the lighter 525 grain 505 bullets and am perfectly happy. OTOH, I loaded some Barnes 600 gr solids with the same 130 gr load with no undue pressure signs, but I don't think Hog Killer has completely forgiven my for letting him shoot one.

I'd start with the 120 gr load and work up. The theory behind Reloader 15 is less powder weight equals less ejecta and therfore less recoil. I think it is correct.

How much less powder TT ...??

For the 525 gr bullets I also use 130 gr of Rl-15. I needed to add a little Dacron fiber too. Shot pretty well as I remember. -rob

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

quote:

I will check Any Shot You Want for you when I get home tonight and see whether it lists any .505 loads with RL-15.

No Dice ...the only Alliant powder listed is RL-22 ...

Yes. I should have known. Alphin recommends against using fillers and therefore likes a full caseload of powder.

His listed powders for the .505 are RL-22, IMR-7828 and H-4831.

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:


How much less powder TT ...??

I have seen loads for slow powders as high as 155 grains that stay inside practical Gibbs pressures (40,000 psi).

I shot one of Harry's snotkickers!
i think it was in retaliation to my "cast" loads he and Forrest shot in my 500 jeffe a couple years ago

Who, meee????

Actually, I think those were 135 grs. I needed some help to empty the cases and start over. I have two left; who can we invite?

Harry -- Tell them it's rel25, or something!

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Mike, I don't think Hog Killer has completely forgiven my for letting him shoot one.

No problem Harry. It was a blast. I mean, 600gr @ ~2600fps. It was a "bell ringer" though. Glad I did not need a fast follow up shot.

Put the last two rounds in a special place. Save them for that "special" someone.

Keith

I strongly recommend slower and bulkier powders than RE-15.
It is a great powder but not designed for such large case use.
The need for Dacron filler is a clear suggestion that one is working with too fast a powder for the 505 Gibbs' case size.
Suggest that you see the load data from Barnes Bullets on their web page...
http://www.barnesbullets.com/images/505GibbsWeb.pdf
Barnes Bullets suggests use of RE-22 and RE-25 to get less than 2,300 fps with 525 grain bullets. These two powders are slower than RE-15
Personal experience tells me that I want nothing quicker in burn rate than H-4831 with the 525 grain bullets.
See...
http://www.reloadbench.com/gloss/hh4831.html
The H-4831 does work superbly in Large Cases.
The recoil difference in 111-112 grains of RE-15 and a load of 120 grains of H-4831 is not going to knock your socks off, but it will help remove the Dacron from your bench. It also may help you with group size.
Sincerely,

Thanks for the feedback all. I have used 108 grains of RL15 with 600 grain Woodleighs for approximately 2165 fps. Perhaps I just go to, as suggested, something like 115 grains with the 525 grain bullets and see what I get. I have no problem using fillers and do not understand the strong resistence some have to fillers, particularly with a great powder like RL15.

Mike,
Using a COL of 3.850" looks right for the 525-grain Woodleigh RNSN.

Woodleigh recommends impact velocity of 1800 to 2200 fps, so you are wise to limit MV to about 2300 fps.

BC for that bullet is said to be .345, so from MV of 2300 fps it will be down to about 2182 fps at 50 yards, and about 2067 fps at 100 yards.

Pressure max average by CIP is 39,160 psi.
CZ recommends 55,100 psi max for their .505 Gibbs (3800 bar).
I am sure the Jamison brass can handle that.

My once-fired Jamison brass measured 179.8 grains of water gross.
Very close to the "classic estimate" of 180 grains of water so often quoted.
The QuickLOAD default is 181.0 grains of H2O gross.
Maybe I just kept my meniscus flatter than they did.

113.0 grains of RL-15 gave 2311 fps at 38,975 psi, 79.2% fill.
137.0 grains of H4831SC gave 2311 fps at 38,636 psi, 95.0% fill.

For these charges:
RL-15 gave 28.9% ballistic efficiency.
H4831SC gave 24.6% ballistic efficiency.

Nickudu used 4 or 5 grains of Dacron with his heavy bullet loads.

Maybe 5 or 6 grains of dacron would perfect this RL-15 light bullet load.

This will be just like loading the Nitro Express cartridges.
Perfectly safe, accurate, uniform with RL-15 and filler.
Lower recoil than the slow-powder loads.

115 grains of RL-15 with 5 or 6 grains of Dacron might be just right.
Velocities vary from rifle to rifle and you have to chronograph, to be sure of what you get.
Pressures will be no worries, whatever you get with that load in a modern rifle with Jamison brass.

RIP,

Thank you very much for all the information. Sounds like 115 grains would be a good place to start and adjust from using dacron filler. I will post the results after I get to the range. Thanks again for running the QL program for this configuration.

I think with Jamison brass you'll get well over 80% fill which is past the need for filler. My load passes 90% fill. I must have a slow barrel or QL is off on the Gibbs. I barely break 2350 with 130 grains of Rel-15 and the Woodleigh 525 solid.

tiggertate,

Quickload is off on most every powder and cartridge. I hope that doesn't come as a newsflash to you.

Yep QL predicted velocities may be off 100fps in some instances
Reckon they err on the side of high pressure and high velocity to discourage overloads?

However QL cannot take all the variables into account.

QL does not account for variances in chambers, throats, rifling surface inconsistencies, nor rates of twist along every inch of the bore.

We seldom slug our barrels to get an actual groove and land diameter and then use the number of grooves and lands and rifling shape-profile to apply to calculus for an actual bore area.

Rather, we use the default calculation by QL based only on the "nominal" groove diameter.
Consider that in the case of the 404 Jeffery, barrels vary from .4226" measured on a .423" Lothar Walther by Mike Brady, to .424" claimed by Krieger.

And we usually assume the bullets are proper diameter!
They vary as much as barrels or more!

Start-pressures (based on bullet types) and case-shape fudge factors (straight or bottle-neck) are thrown into QL.
You have to specify those from QL guidelines, rarely actually measureable.

And then there is lot-to-lot variation in powders, impossible to account for.
Primer variables are not included in QL.

Effects of filler are not included in QL.
A good tight packing of Dacron on a 75% to 85% fill will raise the velocities and uniform those velocities and improve accuracy.

QL is about as good as we have to start a comparison between powders to be tried in a load.

Take QL data with a grain of saltpeter.
And test it with a chronograph.

QL and LD ballistics programs are both "predictive" programs. Just predictors of pressure/velocity ...NOT the be all/end of load developement...I've crunched numbers where the results are so far off as to keep me wondering just what the HE** happened...so I use at least 3 different software programs and all the manuals and online resources I can find, just to be on the safe side, when I'm working with just about ANY cartridge.

They give a close, CALCULATED from numerical fromulas, ballpark figures as a starting point. The only way to know for a close certainty, what the pressure/velocities are, IN YOUR RIFLE, is to use some kind of pressure sensing/chronograph device, then start at the low end of the predictor and work up.

I ran the 505 Gibbs through my LD using a 535gr Woodleigh PP, 3.85" COAL and it came up with an 85% load of 127.8gr/RL15 at 2518fs/48174CUP...it also predicted a 100% load of 150.3 gr 2961fs/65338CUP. I think the SAMMI pressure for the 505 Gibbs is just over 39KPSI. I have in mind to do a 510 Gibbs using a Savage 110 LA or maybe Ed's 585 HE so I've been compiling all the data I can.

We all know those numbers can be exceeded by a large amount, but the numbers and pressure rise put RL15 off my list for the Gibbs. There are just way to many other much better powders to use that will give you a better pressure/velocity/capacity range.

I'm not dissing RL-15...I like Alliant powders and use lots of RL-15 thru RL-25, but I would definitely go to a slower burning RL powder than RL-15 in this large of a case with these heavy bullets. To me thats like driving a 10" spike with a tack hammer...you can get it done, but I would rather use a 2 lb cross-peen to get the spike to where I want it.

As far as recoil reduction is concerned, you might want to calculate the difference between a 125gr load and a 150 gr load all other things being equal.

Not to put too fine a point on it there are lots of other ways to reduce recoil in this situation and if the slight difference puts you off your feed, you might think of using a slower burning powder and just reducing the velocity a bit, adding some weight to the rifle, use a lighter bullet...or selling out...there ain't enought difference is slap to sweat.

Sometimes I think we gun loonies just loose our heads completely when talking about rifle weight saving, nitpicking and splitting hairs over recoil, velocity, killing power etc. We seem to be to busy pontificating and forget to anal-yze all the facts and look at them from an outsiders/reality check view.

As an aside...AA2700, using the above figures, gave a 100% load with 150 grs at 2550fs/48449CUP. 2295fs/39964CUP, 90% with 135 gr. I would much rather use AA2700 than RL-15 with this cartridge.

I keep seeing post by people using the "wrong" powders in the "wrong" application then swear up and down they just invented biscuits and gravy.

Luck on your projects.

RIP,

You can vary many of the variables you mention with very LITTLE effect on the calculated muzzle velocity. The powder profiles themselves have the largest error in my experience. If you understand how the powder profiles in Quickload are created, and have any knowledge of powder combustion dynamics it becomes immediately apparent why this error is so large. Quickload is typically between 70 and up to 200 fps faster than reality. There are a very small number of powders (and I mean tiny like less than 5 that I know of) for which quickload will be within +/- 10 fps for multiple rifles and cartridges! Quickload does allow you to edit a powder's profile, BUT you need a great deal of data to do this accurately (read safely) and this data amounts to MUCH MUCH more than simply muzzle velocity measurements!!!

By the way, is that the latest version of QL? My copy doesn't produce such nice output files as those you just posted Ron, or is there some function in the software that I am missing?

FOOBAR,

Load from a Disc (I assume that is what you are referring to by LD) is COMPLETELY useless! It's only useful function that I can think of is that it does a good job of calculating case capacities if you are wildcatting.

Enough said, at least from me.

FOOBAR,
You meant 525 not 535 grain Woodleigh .505, eh?
If a load with RL-15 and filler in the .505 Gibbs is a bad thing, you better tell everybody to quit loading the Nitro Express doubles with RL-15 and filler.

ScottS,
That is QuickLoad V.3.5.03
I finally got QL to handle 12GaFH.
AccuLoadIII would not go that big. AEM seems to be defunct now.
QL will do some other printouts besides the load spread I showed.
Pressure v. time down the barrel will print in graphic form, etc.
Choose the printout in the lower half of the page from a toolbar at the top of the data entry screen.
If you have an older version of QL you can get it updated.
I copied that info on the 12GaFH page for Rob.

Just a place to hang the hat, these programs.
I don't know enough to start fiddling with powders.
You are right about the other fudge factors mentioned amounting to a mouse-fart-difference (MFD) in velocities or pressures.
****************************************************************************************************************************
I see that I typo-ed the website address last time I posted it, and nobody noticed, nor cried about it. Corrected below.
That is old. Version 3.4 then.
Apparently V.3.5.03 is more recent.

www.neconos.com/details3.htm
and saw this:


NOTE!! If you have versions 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 CD versions, you can purchase a new data update that will update data and add new powders, cartridges and bullets to your existing version.

If you have 3.0, 3.1 or 3.2 and are planning on using a VISTA machine you must install a VISTA compatible QuickLOAD disk. Send in your old CD and we will replace it with a Vista compatible CD (also works with Windows 98SE, ME, 2000 and XP) for $14.95 plus S & H.

If you have a floppy disk version 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 you can upgrade to a VISTA compatible 3.4 CD for $50.00 plus S & H (usually $7.00 in the USA). Send us the original floppy with serial number on it to the address shown on the left so we can burn a CD for you. This is done in Germany and then sent to us in California. We send the new CD to you. Please allow 2-3 weeks. No need for special packing. Just put the disk in an envelope.
NECO

108 Ardmore Way

Benicia, CA 94510

Ron,

Thanks for the info. I believe my copy is 3.4. I guess I need an update.

RIP...I was thinking of a 0.510" Gibbs over the 0.505" Gibbs...and no....and I didn't say using RL15 was a bad thing, just making a different point and that I prefered a slower burning powders and a near 100% capacity load with heavy bullets and large cases...at lower pressures and a slightly flatter pressure "curve". Heaven forbid going against what "everybody" does in the past/present/furture. Maybe I overstated....????

As always....everything about men and this sport has a built in pecker waving soap box attached to every post.

Scotts...while QL has a lot more bells and whistles, a pretty busy screen and certainly provides a multitude of data, it doesn't necessarily follow that LD is without value, any more than saying the "old" Powley "stuff" is worthless. I've used the QL test program several times for several cartridges, then compared the resulting data to LD, a REAL old command line Basic Powley program, WinLoad and the online Powley program. They all gave different results for the same input data, but they were close enought, IF you followed the disclaimer of an 86% load result, that you were safe enough using the starting loads.

As I said before, ALL of these programs are "predictive" programs and the data is ONLY a calculated/statistically valued approach...I doubt that all the calibers were actually pressure tested, but some probably were and that doesn't really matter all that much because, again, the results are a statistical evaluation...NO one can test each and every gun to see the actual results...even then the data would only be of value for THAT particular gun and NO others...not to put too fine a point on it, and the same informaton is stated in the fine print somewhere in every loading manual I ever bought, and you can bet is in the disclaimer added to EVERY software program in existance today...that information is standard "lawyereez" wiggle words.

QL, LD, and Powley software programs all have their advantages and disadvantages and need to be used along with a pressure testing system to get the best level of information. The data is only valid for the rifle that was used for the procedure and is only extendable to other weapons under specific conditions...all covered by the wiggle words...USE THE DATA UNDER YOUR OWN PERIL...WE WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT'S USE OR MIS-USE.

Again, not to make too fine a point about it.

I've been looking at QL for at least 3 years. I think it provides more than the cost of the program in information/data, but with the exception of wildcatting, so far I'm still in the thinking stage about purchasing it.

LD/WinLoad/Powley programs provide all the information I need to work up any beginning load I want for any wildcat I'm working with or expect to work with in the future. It doesn't take too long of a perusal of those data bases to come up with a similar size/case capacity to use or just input the pertainant data into the custom data base and build from there. That includes the 12GaFH, the 600 OK and the 585 HE which are NOT in the data base, but similar sized and case volume cartridges are. LD provides ALL the data I need...in a different format than QL. QL provides other information that is interesting and informative but is not required by me, for my applications.

I'm not dissing QL by what I just stated. QL is an excellent program for those that want to spend the money for a first predictive software program...so is LD at half the price...and so is the several online powley programs for free. I just have/found less expensive methods to come up with similar information without whizzing on the competition. I would rather spend my money on guns, powder, bullets and primers than software.

I've stated the above on several forums over several years. No one seems to believe and I will bet never bothered to read the fine print. Ah...well...maybe someday.

Luck on your projects.

Gee ScottS- How the hell would you know anything about the predictive value of Quickload? Of course as a total liar you CLAIM to have shot a big bore larger than your imaginary .4548 win. However we know the truth dont we? Ask your Psychiatrist to up your dosage of Prozac again will you? You've built up a tolerance and are still imagining things!-

Report from the range.

I do not have 525 grain bullets yet, but took 600 grain loads loaded with 108 grains of RL15 to the range. Was getting an average of 2144 fps. Used 5 grains of dacron to take up the excess space.

quote:

600 grain loads loaded with 108 grains of RL15 to the range. Was getting an average of 2144 fps

Mike, how did you like them??

Keith

There is no doubt when the the rifle goes off that's for sure, but the recoil is manageable and the accuracy was about an inch/inch and a half at 50 yards. Not bad.

I have never tried fillers in my 505, but I think the threshold is around 125 to 128 grains. Occassionally I got error readings on my chronograph which I think were due to unburned powder particles causing a false trigger on the chronograph. This effect never happened with loads of 129gn or more, so I simply chose a powder that I can load to that level. The ones I have used are AR2209, (equiv H4350), AR2213SC (eguiv H4831SC), and AR2217 (equiv H1000). In the end I settled on 130gn AR2209 behind the 600gn Woodleigh for 2270fps, and 140gn AR2209 behind the 525gn Woodleigh for 2500fps. These are safe in my rifle (I have loaded even more than this during my testing, with no signs of excessive pressure), but I would advise starting lower. I never tried any of the reloader powders, but if you have heaps of RL15, then why not! and I think you are right to use fillers with those low volume loads. However, I did not find a lot of difference in recoil between 142gn AR2217 behind the 600gn Woodleigh for 2159 fps, and 122gn AR2209 behind the same bullet for about the same velocity. I guess the difference in recoil was noticable, but it was not much, and definitely not enough to make me want to mess around with fillers when I am loading. I prefer to just charge the case and with 130gn or more of an appropriate powder and seat the bullet, than take the extra time to mess around with fillers. The main reason I chose AR2209 is because I can buy that in 4 kG containers quite a lot cheaper than any of the others! Just my opinion for what it is worth.

Can I buy 3 pounds of RL-15 from you, Mike?