OK AR load-masters...

...What's better for DRs:

RL-15

H-4831

I'm getting all sorts of conflicting advice here..for example:

1) RL-15 has higher pressures than does H-4831 and some guys don't like that. They prefer the lower pressures of the H-4831 citing less recoil, less pressure exerted on the rifle, etc...

2) On the otherhand, all agree that RL-15 has higher pressure, but some are caliming that it burns faster and thus the higher pressure is exerted at the area of the barrels just forward of the chambers where the thickness of the metal is more than sufficient to prevent any damage to the gun.

3) Some have suggested that H-4831 will cause barrel separation / barrel damage.

So, for once and for all, what are you Handloaders using in your DRs????

Please, no textbook, marketing BS. Who has really used both and can make advice based on actual experiences.

Thanks....I'm ready to start loading!

JW

PS - Would have posted this on the "Reloading" page, but figured this venue would get a more focused response.

A lot of guys like Reloader 15, but it necessitates the use of a filler or you could get hangfires or worse.

Some cases, like the 500 NE 3 inch, fill up nicely with IMR4831. H4831 is too bulky for the 500 x 3". H4350 also works well in the 500 x 3".

The 470 NE fills up nicely with H4831.

If using a monolithic bullet, it may protrude into the case more than a lead core bullet. In that case a faster burning powder can be useful to make room for the longer bullet. As an example, I use IMR4831 in the .500 NE with lead core bullets, but I use H4350 in the same cartridge with the same weight copper bullet. Both loads regulate fine.

what caliber?? mine range from 3006 to 470

Field Grade Searcy (Older modern rifle regulated to higher velocity than the most guns):

.470 NE BeLL brass, FED 215 primers, 500 gr Woodleigh SPs

85 gr RL-15 w dacron 2050 fps
87 gr RL-15 w dacron 2125 fps
89 gr RL-15 w dacron 2200 fps

108 gr IMR 4831 2250 fps

The RL-15 loads have significantly less recoil thant the IMR 4831 loads.

I also shoot 500 gr cast FPGC bullets made from wheel weights. XMR 5744 is the propellent and no filler is needed. Ammo shoots roughly to regulations from 40-44 gr. Velocities range from 1500-1800 fps.

This loading information is for a specific heavily built, modern firearm and should not be used in anything but a Searcy Field Grade ... and even then you must work up your own loads using good reloading practice and a chronograph!

Federal ammo has been reported to be loaded with 87 gr of RL-15, FED 216 primers (not available to the public) and 500 grain Woodleigh SPs using no filler. It has been noted to have a fairly high extreme spread in velocity.

butchloc,

My bad...It's for a 500/465 H&H

Thanks,

Jeff

2 cents from a guy who has only loaded for an Evans 470 and a Jeffery 450/400.

4831 regulated well in my 470, RL 15 would not regulate.

Both shoot wide in my 400. I'm having JJ reregulate it for the 4831 because I'd rather not use fillers.

I definately notice more recoil with 4831 in both.

Good Luck with the 500/465, it is a nice looking rifle.

Jim

Actually in my 450 No2 and in my 450/400 evidence seems to indicate that RL 15 has less pressure.

There is definately more recoil with IMR 4831.

I have loaded IMR 4198 [Nitro for Black loads], IMR 3031, IMR 4831, and RL 15.

I have friends that have loaded IMR4064, both 4550's and a few other I cannot recall.

I do not think it makes ANY difference what powder you use, as long as you loads are within pressure specks and the load "regulates" in your rifle, at the proper velocity for the game you are hunting.

I like RL 15 the best in my 450 No2.

I use IMR 4831 and RL 15 in my 450/400 3 1/4", and IMR 4831 in my 9,3x74 R.

When working up in any .400+ double new to me, I always start with RL 15, and only use other powders if RL 15 doesn't produce perfect results. If it doesn't, I'll try IMR 4064, then IMR 4831. I don't have the occasion to use the other powders much. In the .465 I just developed for, RL 15 gave perfect regulation, precisely at standard velocity, with single digit extreme velocity spread. I haven't found slower powders to be as consistent.

RL 15 requires the use of a filler in the large bore nitro expresses, which isn't a big deal. Trying to use it without a filler is a mistake, and that's part of the problem with the Federal ammo. Current Kynoch factory ammo is loaded with a blend of two non-cannister grade propellants in order to match the pressure curve and burn rate of Cordite, and is still loaded with a filler. It isn't something to avoid.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

H4831 with no filler is best in my 470 NE, with most bullets. RL-15 with dacron filler may be just as good with some bullets, like the Woodleigh Weldcore RNSP. Good results can be had with both powders.

H4831 will definitely give lower peak pressures than RL-15 producing the same velocity. This is close to a 32Kpsi vs 40Kpsi comparison. Has to be.

Due to larger volume of propellant gas ejecta, H4831 produces greater recoil at lower peak pressure, and more gradually sloping pressure/time curve. It is not enough difference that I can sense any difference in felt recoil.

This is a GREAT thread. As I'm still trying to work up a load, its all very helpful for me.

Thanks guys!

-Steve

Looks like we're all getting ready to go do something....!

Thanks guys!

Will post results soon.

Jeff

Seyfried praises 3031, anyone here use that?
Just curious...

Rich
DRSS

3031 usually produces rather low velocity in the NE rounds.

That's the word on the street,

JW

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Seyfried praises 3031, anyone here use that?
Just curious...

Rich
DRSS

Rich:

I think you're remembering that wrong. Ross doesn't like 3031 in the large flanged nitros, saying that it can become critial in a very narrow window. He doesn't like 4831 in them either. Ross recommends RL 15.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I load for both .470 and .500 NE. Both of my guns regulate well with RL 15 using the Kynoch foam filler wads, Federal 215M primers, and the RL 15. In my opinion, there is a noticeable increase in recoil when going to the IMR 4831 in the .470 and I would call the increase SIGNIFICANT in the .500 NE. I am no wuss when it comes to recoil, however I see no reason to bear additional recoil in an already hard kicking caliber IF the gun regulates well with that powder. If on the other hand it does not...

Geronimo

It is interesting that people can feel the recoil difference between Re15 and IMR4831. A couple of years ago I worked up a Re15 load for the .500 NE so that I could experience the joys of reduced recoil. But Alas! I could not detect any difference. Perhaps I have been pummeled and pulverized to the point of only being able to very large differences in recoil.

I favor H-4831 in my Searcy 470 for several reasons: lower pressure, shoots tighter groups, regulates better, doesn't require a filler and since it is an Extreme powder, velocity varies less than with IMR-4831 or RL-15 with changing temperatures. Like 500 grains I can't tell any difference in recoil levels between any of these powders. I haven't tried it yet in my 500/465 but I will this summer.

465H&H

It seems that NE 450 No2 came closest to answering your question:

quote:

Actually in my 450 No2 and in my 450/400 evidence seems to indicate that RL 15 has less pressure.

From what I have heard it has only been the use of the hard monolithic bullets that have hurt barrels.

Most doubles are built like Sherman tanks, and if some can shoot high pressure loads like the 375 H&H, worrying about the differences in low pressure loads with 4831 or RL-15 seems like a complete waste of time.

Will,
Since you agree with this faux pas, I can't let it go ignored any longer:

It is totally ridiculous to think a RL-15 load will get a bullet going to same velocity with less peak pressure than an IMR-4831 load, or an H4831 load, the latter having the least peak pressure of these three powders. Elementary.

Temperature sensitivity:
Best: H4831 (and of course H4350) Extreme
Medium: RL-15
Worst: IMR-4831

All those doubles shooting belted .375 H&H ammo at 62,000 psi: Mercenary marketing to ignoramuses whose money is as good as anyone's.

Will, I think you better listen because if I recall correctly RIP has a double in 338 win mag, and he would certainly not make an effort to slander his own rifle.

Yes,
My .338WinMag is an O/U single-trigger Searcy-Ruger Red Label with 20 guage 3" shotgun barrels to go with it: I only shoot it as a shotgun for dove shooting.

I do use it with its rifle barrels installed as an example of the antithesis of a DGR double.

Ignoramuses can learn to stop being ignorant.
Ignorance is not stupidity.

Think of how I am protecting anyone else from acquiring this Searcy. Service to humanity.

Doesn't the duration of the peak pressure have a significant effect on the amount of energy transferred to the bullet (and the rest of the chamber and barrel for that matter)?

The way that we measure this kind of thing in my field (measuring energy of electronic glitches) is to integrate the area underneath the curve. If a peak pressure pulse is only a couple of nano seconds, it's going to have very little effect over another area that has a duration of a milli second or so. Unless of course the peak pressure pulse is several orders of magnitude higher than the average of the entire pulse, which would increase its area.

Peak pressure might make a difference, but I would think that you should look at the total energy applied. If that's the case a slower powder with a long pressure curve might give you a faster muzzle velocity than a faster one that has a higher peak pressure but lower overall duration.

Am I wrong?

-Steve

Steve,
That is a good explanation of the elements of the elementary here, thanks.

Now here comes the pressure-time-curve thing about antique doubles being better off with RL-15 pressure peaking where metal is thicker, closer to the chambers.

Not an issue with modern steel doubles, post WW2.

So then why all the concern?

If the peak pressure is only a nanosecond or so, who among us knows what the transient stress might be on the barrels? What is the strain on a typically thick barrel of some known metallurgy for one nanosecond? Two nanoseconds? Or, three nanoseconds?

All this concern between the effects of RL-15 and 4831 when we don't know what the concern is. Where are the data?

No data? Huh?........ Much to-do about very little.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Now here comes the pressure-time-curve thing about antique doubles being better off with RL-15 pressure peaking where metal is thicker, closer to the chambers.

Not an issue with modern steel doubles, post WW2.

Oh, stop it.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Will,

I wasn't saying that the peak transient was just a nano second. I just used that to make a point. I deal with nano and pico seconds all day long, so it gets into other aspects of my life, sometimes.

And you're right, I certainly don't have any presure over time data so it's all niether here nor there.

But just going off peak pressure seems to me to be possibly misleading when trying to correlate to velocity. That may not have been anyone's point, but I read it that way.

-Steve