Hey evyeryone. I'm getting ready to start reloading the 500 NE for the first time. I have Hornady brass, Federal 215's, 450 gr Woodleigh JSP's, RL-15, and 5/8" foam backer rod. Any suggestions? I've seen that Sam and Michael have recommended 86 grs, but the load data I got from Woodleigh recommended 95 grs. I know that all DR's are different, but where should I start? I'm mainly looking for some practice loads, but would like something that might be good enough to hunt with. Thank you in advance for any and all suggestions.

Because you have such a wide difference between
the loads, stop and double check everything
as to me with the limited information you have provided the alarms bells are ringing.


1. Are you sure they are both talking about
the same powder ?
2. Are you sure Sam and Michael didn't give you
the stat load of 10% less, as 86gns is 10% less than 95gns ??????????
3. Why are you using 450gn bullets ?
4. Did you clearly state to Woodleigh that
you are using 450gn bullets and not 570gn bullets - because if all you mentioned was 500 Nitro, they would assume you were using 570gn bullets.


Personally, I prefer a powder where you
fill the case, shove the bullet in and
off you go. No chance of any stuff ups
that way.
That's why people over here in Oz use AR2209.
And I don't like fillers !!!

I'm reluctant to jump in here and offer data because there are so many variables. Michael and Sam have done some great work with the lighter CEB bullets and RL-15 and those are the loads I'm using in my 500NE at this point. I'm shooting the 475gr Non-Con at 2,425fps but I can tell you, the load of RL-15 to do that is well north of 100grs. I've worked up to it carefully however, watching for pressure signs and cross checking Michael's data for both velocity and case head expansion, keeping all components exactly the same.

Your rifle may or may not regulate with the lighter bullets so that'll be another consideration for you as well.

My suggestion would be the following. Since you are loading for the 500NE for the first time, I would stick with the standard bullet weights and attempt to stay within the load data as specified in manufacturers load manuals, at least until you become more familiar with the rifle and loading for it. I doubt you'll need fillers for RL-15 in a 500NE. The 577NE yes, 500NE no. In fact, my load for the 475gr bullets is highly compressed!!

If you insist on staying with the 450gr bullets, I would contact Michael and see if he will provide you with the data he and Sam worked up for the CEB bullets. But do realize, these bullets have shown to produce less barrel strain and pressures than the solid shank Woodlieghs. I'd speak with Michael and get his opinion on those Woodleighs concerning load data as well as I know he has done some extensive work with them.

deleted

Nigel, I know you are a Woodleigh man. Does Woodleigh provide load data for their bullets in the same way as Barnes? If not, what data do you use for loading Woodleigh? I would think that to be a good place for 500NitrEx to start with.

Todd

Yes, Woodleigh will normally provide load data
to end users. Most of it would have been worked
up by people, Geoff the owner and others who know
what they are doing or have shot the loads.
ie the 9.3x64 load data I worked up.
They keep adding to it as they get more info.
Geoff knows what he is doing.

Geoff has a 500 Nitro double.


I agree, he should go back to Woodleigh to check IMHO because of the difference in charges.


I know with AR2209 we just fill the case,
I think everyone uses 100 - 110gns of AR2209
depending on the gun and powder batch.

Does that answer your question ?

500NitrEx

I would listen to Todd, especially the 3rd paragraph.

New gun, start with standard loads, standard bullets / bullet weights, get the thing shooting spot on and go from there.

Then start changing what you want once you
know the gun.

Just my HO.

Do not use any data Michael and I worked up with CEB bullets with any other bullet. Conventional bullets will create higher pressures than the CEBs. Just because the weight is the same the bullet isn't.

Sam

Sam

A classic case of load data being misunderstood
or one of the variables (ie bullet) changed without taking into account other things.

Hence why I am reluctant to post load data
on forums.

Thank you for the feedback thus far. I appreciate the concern with starting out with the normal 570 grn bullet, but I don't have any of those. I only have the 450 grn Woodleighs and probably won't be able to buy any more for a while. I'm in the middle of a kitchen renovation, and want to use what I have. The 86 grns load that I mentioned is no mistake. On Michael's B&M website under the Additional Research, 500 Nitro Reduced Data is the 450 grn Woodleigh SP with 86 grns R-15 with foam rod filler at 1815 fps. The 95 grns of R-15 was from an email from Geoff McDonald of Woodleigh Bullets for the 450 SP and foam filler at 2116 fps. So, should I use the 86 grn load as a starting point, or as a max? Also, I am in fact looking to produce a practice load.

500NitrEx if you do a search on 500 NE and Peter you should find my loads for my Blaser. I settled on 93 grs. RL15 for the 570 gr. bullet (Hornady DGX). No filler! I have no experience with the lighter bullets. You don't say what gun you have. The main thing with a double is to get the thing to "regulate" ie. shoot 2 holes barrel width apart at, say, 50 yards. I would suggest you try the 86 gr. load and see. You will not blow the gun up. Generally, with lighter bullets you can increase the powder charge (the same powder, of course) over that used for the heavier bullet, however, that does not mean that the gun will be regulated for that bullet. If the gun is new to you I would suggest that you get some 570 gr. bullets and at least see what it can do. Someone on this forum can I am sure step up and help you out.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by 500NitrEx:
Thank you for the feedback thus far. I appreciate the concern with starting out with the normal 570 grn bullet, but I don't have any of those. I only have the 450 grn Woodleighs and probably won't be able to buy any more for a while. I'm in the middle of a kitchen renovation, and want to use what I have. The 86 grns load that I mentioned is no mistake. On Michael's B&M website under the Additional Research, 500 Nitro Reduced Data is the 450 grn Woodleigh SP with 86 grns R-15 with foam rod filler at 1815 fps. The 95 grns of R-15 was from an email from Geoff McDonald of Woodleigh Bullets for the 450 SP and foam filler at 2116 fps. So, should I use the 86 grn load as a starting point, or as a max? Also, I am in fact looking to produce a practice load.

Hi Ryan

Cruising around this morning found your thread here. You are correct, the 450 Woodleigh load with 86/RL 15 is one Sam and I worked up for REDUCED loads in 500 NE. At the time it only gave 18000-19000 PSI, and even with a change in different lots of RL 15 you would not have any major pressure issues with it. It is very simply just a REDUCED load that worked well, gave low pressures and easy to shoot.....

The load from Geoff I am sure is a load that pushes the same bullet a little hotter, at 95/RL 15 I don't see where that would be any issue with pressures, even taking into account differences in Lot to Lot. San and I used 95/RL 15 from one of our lots of powder with a 570 Woodleigh and it only gave 35000 PSI or so... Weight equal pressure, so a 450 Woodleigh will be no more than that, and most likely much less.

So the KEY WORD here on the 86/RL 15 is REDUCED LOADS...... For a practice load and play load, of course you can start there pretty easy, and just work until you get regulation that suits you, and I would think you could go to 95/RL 15 with ease, BUT YOU must watch things as you move up, signs of pressure and so forth........

Hope that clears it for you.
Michael

I don't own a 500 but I'd tread lightly with RL-15 and fillers. It was pretty scary with my 450NE.

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
I don't own a 500 but I'd tread lightly with RL-15 and fillers. It was pretty scary with my 450NE.

Jorge....

I hate fillers, Sam hates fillers..... They do scary things when watching them on the pressure traces with definite pressure spikes caused by fillers. Since Sam and I started some of this research, dating back to that firs 470 work, we are both fairly well convinced that fillers and pressure spikes have been responsible for a lot of damage to rifles, yet cannot prove it to be a fact. Seems the foam fillers are the most consistent of them all, and show the best results overall on the pressure traces. This goes for ANY POWDER as well........

Michael

Michael

Thanks, good info. Graeme Wright has a story that put me off fillers right at the start of
my loading for DR's !!!


OK, here is a question for you.

Why do people head towards a low density powder
that requires the use of a filler when plenty of
powders and loads exist which nicely fill the case and don't require fillers.

ie AR2209 and AR2213 or 2213SC but some just
insist on using AR2208 or 2206 ?

It's not like DR people need to extract any velocity gain.

And I know the odd gun might like a certain powder with fillers ?

Look forward to your answer.

No fillers for me-just common sense!

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Why do people head towards a low density powder
that requires the use of a filler when plenty of
powders and loads exist which nicely fill the case and don't require fillers.

Because the faster powders result in significantly less felt recoil than the slower powders.

All this noise about fillers is just that noise. Lots of folks that have forgotten more about double rifles than I will ever know shoot loads with fillers all the time. And with powders faster than RL15. Ask George Caswell and JJ Perodeau whether they shoot loads with fillers. And in rifles that are exponentially more expensive than the VCs, Krieghoffs, Heyms and Merkels that most folks are talking about.

Oh, and by the way, with North Fork bullets in the .500 NE, no filler is required to use RL15 since the bullet length is so long.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Michael

Thanks, good info. Graeme Wright has a story that put me off fillers right at the start of
my loading for DR's !!!


OK, here is a question for you.

Why do people head towards a low density powder
that requires the use of a filler when plenty of
powders and loads exist which nicely fill the case and don't require fillers.

ie AR2209 and AR2213 or 2213SC but some just
insist on using AR2208 or 2206 ?

It's not like DR people need to extract any velocity gain.

And I know the odd gun might like a certain powder with fillers ?

Look forward to your answer.

505G

I have no good answer for you as to why some folks use some powders. I think one of the rushes on RL 15 here, is partly because of some of the work we did with it. But, when we used the full loads, with 570s/ or the new 510/475s, we use no fillers at all with the RL 15. If there is just a tiny bit of space in the case, then I can't see a use for the fillers, I have never used a filler with reduced loads in bolt guns at all, of course most bolt gun cartridges are not as big as the Nitro cases either. But I have shot a hell of a lot of these cartridges with a LOT of airspace, never an issue. ?????

I strive for compressed loads in nearly everything unless its a reduced play load. I am not sure where it comes from, but many guys are scared of compressed loads, falsely thinking it somehow increases pressures? I know some extremely fast handgun powders cannot be compressed and this is true, they do increase pressures, however I really can't think of a rifle powder that is effected this way right off the top of my head. I have been known to compress so much at times I would bulge the damned case, and it would not chamber! LOL.........

I wish I had a better answer for you.......

Michael

quote:

All this noise about fillers is just that noise. Lots of folks that have forgotten more about double rifles than I will ever know shoot loads with fillers all the time. And with powders faster than RL15. Ask George Caswell and JJ Perodeau whether they shoot loads with fillers. And in rifles that are exponentially more expensive than the VCs, Krieghoffs, Heyms and Merkels that most folks are talking about.

Jines, ask those fellows how many times they have hooked the rifles up to pressure equipment and watched the differences in pressure spikes when using fillers.........

And, I agree, they know a hell of a lot more about Double Rifles than I will ever know the rest of my life, but I doubt very seriously they have shot as many rounds as I have shot across pressure trace equipment.

As for fillers use them or not. I am not, I have never, and don't have a need to. I could care less what the rest of you do. I am just telling you the facts, and what the pressure equipment says, and strain gages are not capable of telling lies. Noise? Yep, pressure noise, shows on the traces.

Michael

Michael

Thanks.

Like you I am not scared of compressed loads.

And like you, I'll stay away from fillers.
No need for them with the powders we have
available to us IMHO.

One might want to look at the experiment done blowing up rifles with fast pistol powders on the African and reloading forums.I want nothing to do with fast burning powders in my big bores.The powder that gave me the highest pressure in my 458WM was reloader 7.I want the slowest burning powder that fills the case that gives good accuracy.Also IMO,the Nitro Express cases were not designed for powders that fill only part of the case or to shoot long monometal bullets for that matter.
Also the the thing about felt recoil is all nonsense,IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Michael

Thanks.

Like you I am not scared of compressed loads.

And like you, I'll stay away from fillers.
No need for them with the powders we have
available to us IMHO.

I concur 100%, especially with full power loads. On reduced loads, where your pressures are down to 20000-25000 PSI, then a 5000-10000 PSI spike is just of little consequence. I would have to look back on some of those reduced loads again to see how consistent they were with the foam filler, and look to see what spikes there were if any with those. But one can very easy find full power loads that do not need fillers, and that is where we saw the major issues with pressure spikes and fillers is with full power loads......

At the origin of this thread, once again, I think that load with 86/RL 15 and foam filler is fine as a reduced practice load, and I can't see any issues with something like that.

Michael

Hard to ignore years of real world experience where folks have been using fillers with no issues . . . and using fillers in rifles that are a century old. I am confident the folks I mentioned have not set up the rifles they sell and work on to do pressure traces . . . because they find no need to do so given a long history of successful use of loads with fillers with no issues.

There are trade offs in reloading. All factors being equal, why would someone use a filler, I agree. In fact, I do not in loads with North Fork bullets as I said. On the other hand there are advantages to using faster burning powders -- hence the widespread use of RL15 in big bores -- and some choose to look at the long history of successful use of fillers and conclude that the trade off is worth it. For those that do the calculus another way, God bless them. But for anyone to suggest or create the impression that the use of fillers is a poor or an unacceptable reloading practice is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
No fillers for me-just common sense!

Well it appears you've been scammed. Given the nature of your posting history, your cranial cavity has enough fillers vice greay matter to last a lifetime....

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Why do people head towards a low density powder
that requires the use of a filler when plenty of
powders and loads exist which nicely fill the case and don't require fillers.

Because the faster powders result in significantly less felt recoil than the slower powders.

All this noise about fillers is just that noise. Lots of folks that have forgotten more about double rifles than I will ever know shoot loads with fillers all the time. And with powders faster than RL15. Ask George Caswell and JJ Perodeau whether they shoot loads with fillers. And in rifles that are exponentially more expensive than the VCs, Krieghoffs, Heyms and Merkels that most folks are talking about.

Oh, and by the way, with North Fork bullets in the .500 NE, no filler is required to use RL15 since the bullet length is so long.

Really? I don't know a whole lot but when I meticulously loaded for my two 450s using RL-15 and foam and stuffing fillers, I got incredible velocity excursions (on the order of 120 fps HIGHER) and accuracy all over the place. Did I say NOT to use them? All I said was to tread lightly and Michael's testing validates what I saw.

Currently I don't see this as a "Double Rifle" only subject. These cartridges happen to be in double rifles, but that is neither here, nor there, nor of any consequence in the realm of this particular discussion, and the turn it has taken. The cartridge does not give a rats ass what sort of rifle it is fired in, and will react the same regardless of the rifle action.

Concerning a brief study on the subject of "Fillers" that Sam and I conducted in 470 Nitro, this with several different sorts of fillers that have been used in the past and current, to determine if there was any difference or issues, or problems that might occur with the use of one filler against another filler.

We used a 500 Woodleigh Soft for the study, and we used the same load throughout 87/RL 15. Below are the results of this, and I think self explanatory. With the exact same bullet, same load, same powder we can see a EXTREME SWING in Pressure from bottom to top, very nearly 19000 PSI....... Yeah, Right, Tell me that "Fillers Don't Matter"...... Or, you can continue to tell this to yourself.... Either way, I don't care, I am not in the foam filler business either, and its nothing to me whether someone wishes to use fillers or wishes not to. You are big boys, you can decide for yourselves whether or not to use fillers. MJines, you can call it "noise" all you want, whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over...............





Michael

Thank you everyone for your input. A special thank you to you Michael. You answered my questions perfectly. I feel much more comfortable about this load now. Eventually, I also plan on working up a full power 570grn load, as well as a practice load using Trailboss. Todd's results with the Trailboss look pretty sweet, and the ultra low recoil sound like it'll be a fun time at the range.
I didn't intend on causing any heated debates, so I apologize for that. I was just trying to get all of the information I could for the load that sounded like what I wanted for practice/plinking and saw what I thought to be a discrepancy. So, I asked the question to the only group that I figured would have the answers from hands on experience. Thank you again everyone.

500NitrEX

You did the right thing asking the question
and being cautious.

At least in this case you were able to get the sources to answer directly !!! That's always a good start !

Anyway, good luck.

I used the foam fillers with RL 15 when I had a 470. Also used Dacron filler. I thought the fillers were kind of a pain in the but so I just switched to IMR 4831. Seemed to shoot better without fillers.

quote:

Originally posted by 500NitrEx:
Thank you everyone for your input. A special thank you to you Michael. You answered my questions perfectly. I feel much more comfortable about this load now. Eventually, I also plan on working up a full power 570grn load, as well as a practice load using Trailboss. Todd's results with the Trailboss look pretty sweet, and the ultra low recoil sound like it'll be a fun time at the range.
I didn't intend on causing any heated debates, so I apologize for that. I was just trying to get all of the information I could for the load that sounded like what I wanted for practice/plinking and saw what I thought to be a discrepancy. So, I asked the question to the only group that I figured would have the answers from hands on experience. Thank you again everyone.

Ryan

You are very welcome, anytime I can help more than happy to do so. I think Todd did some good work with the trail boss, I must get some of that to play with sometime......

Hey, You of all folks need not apologize, sometimes threads take a turn no matter what and get off course. No heated debate or issues, Old Jines and I are drinking buddies, but if he keeps this up I may not share my Apple Pie with him at DSC next year.... ... and I believe he still owes me a beer

LOL...................

Michael

Michael:

In your tests, the foam fillers seemed to work pretty well didn't they?

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
No heated debate or issues, Old Jines and I are drinking buddies, but if he keeps this up I may not share my Apple Pie with him at DSC next year.... ... and I believe he still owes me a beer

Damn, and I thought you had had enough of the cranberry hootch or whatever it was that you would not notice I skipped the check for the beer. You are more perceptive than folks give you credit for.

What were the pressure readings with 87 grains of RL15 and the 500 grain Woodleigh without any filler?

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Michael:

In your tests, the foam fillers seemed to work pretty well didn't they?

Yes Dave, they did. Of all the fillers we tested over this period of time, foam always
did very well. I think we tested the Kynoch foam fillers too, and they also did well.

Also of note at the bottom of the 470 tests the IMR 4895, an increase of 7282 PSI with Dacron
over the foam rod, with only a 50 fps increase in velocity. Dacron was 11686 PSI higher than
the same exact load with Foam with little over 100 fps increase, but well above Max PSI in my
opinion.

Michael

Michael

That Spreadsheet of data is very enlightening,
as is your post above this one.

So it could be quite easy to overload a rifle
using certain fillers if you used the wrong one.

Wonder which is worse, a flash over or
a pressure spike from fillers !!!


FYI, a few DR's exist around with bulges in the barrels and a while back quite a bit of discussion had on mistakes made which caused damage to DR's. Wish it had been documented
on the net.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
No heated debate or issues, Old Jines and I are drinking buddies, but if he keeps this up I may not share my Apple Pie with him at DSC next year.... ... and I believe he still owes me a beer

Damn, and I thought you had had enough of the cranberry hootch or whatever it was that you would not notice I skipped the check for the beer. You are more perceptive than folks give you credit for.

What were the pressure readings with 87 grains of RL15 and the 500 grain Woodleigh without any filler?

MJines......

I never forget when someone skips my promised beer.......... I may forget a lot of things, but that ain't one of them!!!!!!! LOL................

I looked for 87/RL 15 no filler, I could not find a test, so I suppose we did not test without filler, we should have!

Michael

Just remember with the Trail Boss, DO NOT COMPRESS IT. No fillers with Trail Boss.

Michael, without a reading that shows what the pressure was without a filler for a load of 87 grains of RL15 and a 500 grain Woodleigh SP, how can an inference be drawn regarding all fillers? For example, if the reading without a filler was the same as the reading with a foam filler, the inference would just be that not all fillers are created equal. On the other hand, if the reading without a filler was 1/2 that of the reading with the foam filler, the inference might be that all fillers result in higher pressure. I guess what I am asking is, without a baseline or benchmark (with no filler) seems tough to make any conclusion other than not all fillers are created equal. What am I missing?

. . . and I promised to make good on that beer, with interest.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Michael

That Spreadsheet of data is very enlightening,
as is your post above this one.

So it could be quite easy to overload a rifle using certain fillers if you used the wrong one.

Wonder which is worse, a flash over or
a pressure spike from fillers !!!


FYI, a few DR's exist around with bulges in the barrels and a while back quite a bit of discussion had on mistakes made which caused damage to DR's. Wish it had been documented
on the net.

505G

Our point about fillers exactly...... Sam and I are both in agreement on this, the "Quaker instant Grit" filler we only fired one round of that after it blowing to 57000 PSI.....

quote:

Michael, without a reading that shows what the pressure was without a filler for a load of 87 grains of RL15 and a 500 grain Woodleigh SP, how can an inference be drawn regarding all fillers? For example, if the reading without a filler was the same as the reading with a foam filler, the inference would just be that not all fillers are created equal. On the other hand, if the reading without a filler was 1/2 that of the reading with the foam filler, the inference might be that all fillers result in higher pressure. I guess what I am asking is, without a baseline or benchmark (with no filler) seems tough to make any conclusion other than not all fillers are created equal. What am I missing?

Mike...... ..... OK, I of course am not "bewildered", but putting some thought into your question.... Without doubt, I concur, there should have been a 87/RL 15 no filler test, but on the other hand, I don't see that as really being a "Benchmark" to go by, since the entire jest of the test was to only test the effects of "Different Fillers", which a "No Filler" test would not have been viable in my opinion, nor of consequence. In this particular test, there really is no "Benchmark" filler, unless you want to call "Dacron" the benchmark, which is what most folks use, or used to use, maybe still do, I don't really know.

We of course did not know what the outcome of the test was going to be either. We really got some surprises when the dacron showed as high as it did. I was amazed at the 1 sheet of toilet paper as well! I don't think you are missing anything, in fact in your statement above you have summed up our particular goal on this test....

not all fillers are created equal

I think the entire reason you guys use fillers in the NE cases is to get a more consistent burn, with powders that don't quite fill the case, more consistent burn equals more consistent velocities, accuracy and so forth. As for the airspace causing higher/lower pressures....???? I think it would be lower, and possibly less consistent, I don't see it going higher than the lowest Foam.

Good Question however.....
Michael

quote:

. . . and I promised to make good on that beer, with interest.

Excuse me? That will be TWO BEERS NOW ... Thank you very much.....

Michael

I thought the Original reason for fillers
was to keep the powder condensed down at the end of the primer so you didn't get into the
situation of a flash over and the horrible consequences of that occurring.

Everything else you mentioned comes after that.

Your thoughts ?