quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
REL 19 or even 15?

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
REL 19 or even 15?

quote:

Originally posted by 500N:
md

I WOULDN'T just substitute the powder while leaving the gns of powder the same.

I'd check with someone who had used all 3 and work out the correct loadings.


Also, remember the 10% rule when reloading, if you change a component - ie change to a different make of primer, then drop the powder by 10% and work up the load again. Otherwise you might be in for a real shock.

.

quote:

Originally posted by 500N:
md

I WOULDN'T just substitute the powder while leaving the gns of powder the same.

I'd check with someone who had used all 3 and work out the correct loadings.


Also, remember the 10% rule when reloading, if you change a component - ie change to a different make of primer, then drop the powder by 10% and work up the load again. Otherwise you might be in for a real shock.

.

quote:

Originally posted by mdstewart:

I've not had much experience with the Reloader powders. I working through the issue with a friend who is much more competent than I in the reloading category. I appreciate any advice members here can give as well. The breadth of knowledge here is enormous. Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Ammoloader:
Mike, Your friend is correct. Something in the 4350 range is needed to reduce the muzzle flash. But I don't think IMR 4350 will have significantly less flash based on a Quickload software simulation. Both RL 22 and RL 19 show 95% to 96% burn in the barrel (about the same as the RL 22). So you need to go faster than those to avoid flame throwing.

I simulated 60.8 grains of IMR 4350 which gives the about same chamber pressure as your RL 22 load (46,589 vs 46,671 psi), the burn was 96%, so that will most likely not be a big improvement either.

I simulated 59.2 grains of RL 17 to achieve a chamber pressure of 46,627 psi and the burn was 99.5% in the barrel. It predicted a slightly lower (2629 vs 2668 fps)projectile velocity compared your RL 22 load.

RL 15 at 55 grains charge weight gave 46,664 psi chamber pressure and 99.3% burn with a projectile velocity of 2575 fps.

I doubt you will find load data for RL 17 in this cartridge. If you choose to try RL 17, I would suggest you start with a charge weight around the minimum suggested for IMR 4350 if you can find that in a load manual.....

Warning: All the above is based on computer simulation that has not been calibrated to your rifle, brass, powder lot, or primer. The above results are most certainly wrong to some unknowable extent. Do not start at the charge weights mentioned above as they might be unsafe. Reduce and work up looking for pressure signs!

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:
Mike,

The muzzle flash is an understandable issue to overcome; as already noted it requires a faster burning powder to overcome.

Working under the presumption that you’ve not reached optimum accuracy with the 200gr Speer load combination, I ran some QL workups using the barrel timing mark of your 68gr RL-22 loading as the starting point.
Here’s the result:
[mp = Muzzle Pressure]
Barrel Timing: 1.269 Mark – [68gr RL-22: 68.0gr – 2687fps – 46671psi – 11231mp – 95.16% burn]
Barrel Length: 23.6” (per Merkel’s website for the Model 160)
Cartridge: 8x75RS [Pmax (MAP): 55114psi / 3800bar
Loadings:
RL-12: 52.9gr – 2548fps – 49103psi – 8203mp (muzzle pressure) – 100%
H322: 50.1gr – 2564fps – 48613psi – 8368mp – 100%
IMR3031: 51.9gr – 2607fps – 49156psi – 8676mp – 100%
N201: 54.1gr – 2603fps – 50123psi – 9033mp – 100%
Ramshot TAC: 54.5gr – 2594fps – 48595psi – 9065mp – 100%
VVN140: 54.7gr – 2564fps – 49293psi – 8366mp – 100%
W748: 55.1gr – 2615fps – 48390psi – 9157mp – 100%

Hopefully this will give you some alternative to identify your most accurate loading.

Edit added: Please note, the RL-22 loading was 100% case fill...all of the faster powder loadings are less than 90% fill, typically down in the +70% fill range, so a case filler is required to keep powder near the primer.