Reloader 17 in 30 06

[oldscot3]

Has anyone here run a trial with Reloader 17 in 30 06?

I'm thinking of doing a workup using Sierra 150 gr. Pro Hunters but Alliant's online data shows just one recipe of 58 grains with a Speer 150 grain bullet. Their format doesn't indicate pressure so I have no idea if that charge weight is max, near max, or whatever. It does, however, list a velocity of (get this) 3006 fps.

I'm guessing that must be a max load to deliver that much velocity unless they were perhaps using a 30" test barrel.

Since the label indicates RL 17 was developed for short mags, I would hate to start off too low which brings me back to the original question. Has anyone tied it and what was your safe starting charge?

Edit: After a second look, Alliant's data shows that velocity from a 22" barrel.

[ligonierbill]

All my '06 loads use IMR-4350, but I use Re-17 in 8x57, 8mm-06, and recently 7.5x55 and 9.3x62. I have found the best results in those rounds with Re-17. According to QL, your 58 gr under a 150 Sierra generates 49.7 ksi against a SAAMI spec of 60 ksi. FWIW, I have a 30-06 load with 150 Speer Hot-Cor, CCI 200, and 58 gr IMR-4350 that goes 3,043 from a Remington 1917 and 2,841 from an old National Arms Mauser conversion. For some reason, unknown to me, the Mauser conversion always runs 200 fps slower than the Enfield. Same 23" barrel. That's not a max load, but fine for my purposes. IMR-4350 is closer to Re-19, but I have no doubt Re-17 will do well for you. As you see, QL says you can go a little hotter, but you always have to take computer predictions with a grain of salt. I know you'll work up carefully. Let us know your results.

PS: I edited based on a COL of 3.225 per Sierra's manual. Fills the case to 96.9%, predicted velocity 2,973 fps.

[jmr40]

I've never used it, but read of others doing so, I tried it in my 300 WSM and didn't get good accuracy. It seems more popular with guys shooting 180-200 gr 30-06 loads from what I'm reading. That powder can be pretty temperature sensitive and a max load could be over pressure in hot weather. Just be aware.

I use IMR-4350, but prefer H4350 if available. A max load will get you pretty close to 3050 fps with 150's from a 24" barrel. I've gotten 3025 in my 22" gun. I dropped back just a bit and get excellent accuracy at almost exactly 3000 fps.

For some reason, unknown to me, the Mauser conversion always runs 200 fps slower than the Enfield. Same 23" barrel.

200 fps is a lot, but some difference is normal. The speeds I quoted are from my fastest gun. One of my 30-06's is ALWAYS 60-100 fps slower than my best rifle with every load I've shot. I shot some rounds through a friends rifle and they were 135 fps slower than the same loads in my rifle.

[oldscot3]

Thanks that's a big help. We're due for some cooler air here Texas and I'm eager to get out to the ranch for some shooting. I'll report sometime in the upcoming weeks on my results.

[Doyle]

From everything I've read about it, it seems to work best with heavy-for-caliber bullets which goes along with what jmr40 said.

[oldscot3]

Some months ago, some 6.5 Creedmoor shooters were using RL 17 as a substitute when H4350 was hard to come by. That's when I bought mine. Since then I've been able to acquire H4350 and it works a bit better in my Creedmoor but I'd like to find a good use for the RL17 nevertheless.

Burn rate charts put it in there with IMR and H 4350 (obviously between RL15 and 19) but I'm aware that burn rate charts don't tell the whole story.

[Clark]

If I were in a contest for the highest velocity using the same piece of brass over and over, thus long brass life, I would use Re17.

In 2010 I would have bet money my 22" 270 barrel could not do 3228 fps 130 gr with long brass life, and I would have lost money. Re17 is extraordinary.

But I would not use Re17 for hunting because of the variation with temperature where and when I hunt. Once I make the large Re17 derating for my temperature requirements, it is no higher velocity than other powders and still has temperature swings.

It is not always the air temperature. Bart Bobbitt once wrote that he aimed lower for every few seconds that the cartridge sat unfired in his hot chamber. That was in the days before Hodgdon extreme powders.

[Unclenick]

Oldscot,

If you download the Alliant load manual you will read in it that their "recipe" loads are all maximums and that they want you to reduce them 10% as a starting point load and work up from there. Generally, working up for pressure safety rather than accuracy, charges that are 2% of maximum are small enough steps. I usually just run one charge at each level, so this is just six rounds; -10%, -8%, -6%, -4%, -2%, and maximum, plus I load a couple extra at the -10% level that I shoot first to act as fouling shots and to see where the holes print. I use a chronograph and if the velocity doesn't go up in a fairly straight line or if I get other pressure signs, I stop and call the previous step maximum and try to find an accuracy load at least one more step below that for long bore life.

If you are just starting out and are not accustomed to the powder and what sort of normal velocity variation to expect from it, you should probably use five shots at each step and see how the average velocities of those five shot sets of velocities line up. That's 30 rounds, but it will give you a clearer picture and an education about what is happening and a chance to look for some potential accuracy loads.

[old roper]

oldscot3, Hornady,Berger and Nosler manual has loading data for their bullets using R-17.

This is from Hornady manual using their 150gr bullet.

Start load 50.1gr/R-17 @ 2500fps, max 56.4gr/R-17 @ 2900fps using Win model 70 with 23 3/4" barrel.

[oldscot3]

Thanks men... after reading Clark's post I'm about ready to just take the RL 17 off of the bench and put it back in the cabinet. Perhaps a little more research is in order to select another powder for trial. I have a good selection of powders to choose from but not too many bullets on hand. I may have to order a couple more boxes of the Sierras I want to try.

I've always used factory loaded Winchester Failsafes in this weapon, but the end to them is near. They weren't especially accurate in my rifle, but very consistent with the first shot out of a cold barrel being dead on. For a meat getter it was hard to argue with that but now I'm to the point where I need to have the FSs replacement waiting in the wings. I really just hunt whitetail, axis and the occasional feral hog that wanders in. I value accuracy over velocity but if I can have both I'll take it.

[603Country]

I use R17 behind 120 gr Nosler BTs in my 260. Accuracy is top notch, though that could be partly due to the new high dollar barrel. I do read on various forums that velocity varies widely with temperatures, but the new powder container says "consistent max velocities in extreme weather conditions". The previous container didn't say that, so maybe the problem has been corrected. If a fellow was in to long range target shooting, maybe R17 wouldn't be the first choice, but for hunting at reasonable ranges, it should work just fine. As for me, my accuracy with that powder is so darn good that I'm staying with it.

[RC20]

Hornady lists R17 for 150 and up.

Gives you the full low and high range you want.

While a lot of people have their favorite books, the two that have by far the most bullet types and powder types are Hornady and Sierra. My not so humble opinion is everyone should have those two.

Take those two, any bullet from someone else, match it up, be conservative of course and you have a load for darned near any reasonable powder in that cartridge.

I have shot some great 4 shot groups with it in 30-06 (168 gr)

Got off track with a chamber issue but that's resolved and will go back and try it.

My take is that once I get a good 3 or 4 shot group out of 5, then the flyers are my shooting not the load.

[std7mag]

I loaded some up for my friends 870 pump.
Didn't really get a velocity gain over IMR4350, so I use it.
Accuracy was still decent with the RL17.

[oldscot3]

RC20 - What edition is that manual... newest I guess?

[hooligan1]

I'm testing 150 grain Sierra Game kings, 2125 with H4831sc. I've tried a few powders with 150's but I can't stop until I either run out of primers, brass, powder, because you might just find "The One", which is totally cool man.

[RC20]

RC20 - What edition is that manual... newest I guess? [

Hornady is the only one listing R17 other than Aliant site/

My edition is at least one edition older, maybe two.

I believe its in the latest ones as well.

I am surprised others have not picked up and shown loads for it.

There is also a plastic binder publication out for specific cartridge.

Its not nearly as in depth as the Hornady or Sierra, but it does show some like the Aliants with the R17, 19, 15 etc that some do not publish

Pretty basic data but is a start and does have the Aliant reference that Unlick mention in it as well.

I think its well worth it for cross check and the new powders that come out but don't get into the main book for a bit if at all.

[oldscot3]

So I went with RL19 instead of 17. I found two accuracy nodes at 58 grains and further up at 60.9 which is max in the Sierra manual I have. The 58 grain load shot 1/2 moa while the top load was just under 1 moa. I need to load up again, shoot some more groups then if the preliminary results hold up, break out the chrony.

On an aside, I also shot my 6.5 Creedmoor with the Rl17 and my vintage Nosler 125 grain Partitions. That load did very well, so I will just reserve the 17 for more of those.

[oldscot3]

Shot the 30-06 again today, the top load shot just a bit over 1/2", the lower load 4/10s.

I'm trying to attach pics, have them rezized, attachment winxow says they're on... but where tbe heck are they? This makes me feel like a dummy, but I'm working on it.

[oldscot3]

I guess they were there, just didn't show up on the preview.

I can't really account for the impact shift other than me or the 15 degree temperature difference.

[GeauxTide]

Have tried several powders over the years and always fall back to IMR4064. 52 grains under Hornady, Sierra, or Speer 150s give 2950 in a 24" barrel, with a Standard Deviation of 9.9 and an Extreme Spread of 36fps. BTW, 5/8" groups with all. I've gone 53 grains for over 3000, but not with the SD or ES of 52.

[oldscot3]

You can see in the attachment that the two groups I shot with 59 grains went in a 1/2 inch or less. The Sierra manual shows that load in the 2900 fps range out of their 26" barreled test rifle. My rifle has the common euro 60 cm barrel which is just about 23 11/16". I've reloaded 20 rounds in new Lapua brass and adjusted my scope a tad. I plan on shooting tomorrow, if I get the same 1/2 moa accuracy a third time I'll break out the chrony. If I'm in the 2800 fps range that will likely be the only load that rifle ever sees again so long as I have it.

[Unclenick]

Oldscot,

If you haven't played with statistics you may be unaware of something called Standard Error. In effect, it is the standard deviation of the mean. In other words, its a number that can be used to predict how much the centers of your groups will wander around if the number of shots in each group (sample size) is the same. It turns out to be equal to the population standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size.

Below is a computer-generated 9 shot group with a bias to the left of center due to a simulated steady wind. Otherwise, it uses Excel's random number generator to generate the hole locations on each axis (bivariate normal distribution, meaning the vertical and horizontal are two independent bell curve distributions) and the standard deviations of each axis is the same as the other, so the group tends to be round when you make a big sample. The center of the group (the mean location, where the horizontal and vertical average values cross) is the red X. I then show the locations of the first three and second three and third three shots that made up the nine shot group. Each has its own red X. Notice how that X moves around. It's less than the group sizes change by a factor of the square root of three, but it definitely wanders, and I think that may be all you are seeing on your targets.

Also note the difference in the sizes of the second and third sets of three shots. It illustrates why taking just three shots can fail to reveal the true picture of a gun and load's precision and can fool us into thinking the combination is either better or worse than it actually is on average. The first group of nine makes the real precision of the weapon more apparent. Mind you, two nine-shot groups won't have the same exact size or mean location, either, but the probability is the differences will be much smaller than you see for any random pair of three-shot groups.

[oldscot3]

That's interesting, I may have to read it a few more times to absorb it all, but thanks for sharing it.

When firing this hunting rifle with its' relatively slender barrel, my goal is know where the first shot out of a cold barrel will impact. With that in mind, my three shot groups are really more like three, one shot groups fired at the same target. I spent between thirty and forty-five minutes on each. I shoot at my private setup where no one else is shooting or inconvenienced by me. I take one shot, get up and putter around with little chores, then return and and take another. I guess I could have just as well shot one round at three separate targets. I don't know how shooting nine might effect the results given my process, but I think it would be a good exercise to try. Again, the one target where impacts were a little lower and left, I can't account for given where the others printed, before and after those three, except that maybe statistically I need an even bigger sample. Maybe twenty or thirty rounds. This could take awhile, I better take a snickers with me.

In the meantime, I think I'll overlay three of my targets and see what they look like. Thanks again.