Anybody use Reloader 19?

[ReloadKy]

Has anyone found any good uses for R19? I am wanting to try it in my 7 mag with 150 gr bullets. I cannot find any data to help work up a load. I can find 140 gr and 160 gr but not 150. I’m sure it exists somewhere I just haven’t found it yet. I have found a decent load using R19 and 150 gr in my 30-06 but wanting to try and get some more use out of that powder. Thanks in advance for any info.

[oldscot3]

I love RL19; use it with good results in '06 and 338wm. As for 7 mag, IDK, never loaded for it.

[reynolds357]

I used to use it quite a bit.now RL22 is the only Alliant powder I still use. If you can't find data from Alliant for a particular cartridge and bullet, it probably means its not a great match. You will have to use the 145 data and adjust accordingly.

[ligonierbill]

Another user for .338 Win Mag, also some 6.5x55 and .243 loads. It's close to IMR-4350. I've used it a long time with good results.

PS: I mostly use Re-22 for 7 Mag.

[oldscot3]

I don't know what 150 grain bullets you're using but it appears Swift has some data for RL19 and their Scirocco 150s. Like others here though, I would think something slower would be better for that combo.

[pogson]

They offer data for a variety of bullets except 150 grains.

• 7mm Rem. Magnum Speer 140 gr SP Remington 3.28 24 CCI 250 Reloder 19 67 3,095
• 7mm Rem. Magnum Speer 145 gr SP Remington 3.28 24 CCI 250 Reloder 19 67 3,153 -
• 7mm Rem. Magnum Speer 160 gr SP Remington 3.28 24 CCI 250 Reloder 19 64 2,941

That suggests 5 grain difference in weight of bullet is not significant between 66 and 67 grains of powder, 1 grain difference. You could probably safely use 65 or 66 grains. Sierra's fifth manual lists 150 grain boattailed bullets R-19 charges in the range of 58.6 to 62.8 grains LOA 3.24" in Federal cases. Note that Alliant's recipes are recommended only for the exact components given. Normally, one uses such values as a maximum load and works up from 3 to 10% less to ensure a bad combination does not stress cartridge or rifle excessively. Note the two sets of data are about 5% different. I would follow the more recent data from the manufacturer.

[GeauxTide]

I use RL19 in my .280 under 140s. RL19 is next to IMR4831 burn range, so should be good for 140-160s. Looking at pogson's data above, I'm reminded of the 145gr Speer load I used in the 80's It chrono'd 3169 and it made a terrible mess of anything under 150 yards. Stick with premium bullets if you're gonna charge heavy.

[T. O'Heir]

The 145 and 160 grain data on Alliant's site(very decidedly limited. They want you to buy their book. Max loads only there too. Reduce by 10% for the Start load.). Either will do for a 150. I'd lean towards the 145 data though.

[hooligan1]

I use RL 19 in a few different loads for my 6.5 Creedmoor and 140 grn bullets.
As for my 7's I use N160, H1000, IMR7828, Magpro.

[pogson]

GeauxTide wrote, "I'm reminded of the 145gr Speer load I used in the 80's It chrono'd 3169 and it made a terrible mess of anything under 150 yards. Stick with premium bullets if you're gonna charge heavy. "

I use a different plan. I carry two types of rounds hunting. Walking around or laying in wait where shots are likely to be close, I carry a heavy RN bullet loaded down. I usually have one round like that on the top of the magazine. If I settle in to a place where a long shot is likely, I shuck that RN round and have a fast pointed bullet ready. I zero for the pointed bullet at the longest feasible range, say 300 or 350 yards and the RN has a similar height of trajectory but closer zero, about 200 yards.

[pogson]

T. O'Heir wrote, "The 145 and 160 grain data on Alliant's site(very decidedly limited. They want you to buy their book. Max loads only there too. Reduce by 10% for the Start load.). Either will do for a 150. I'd lean towards the 145 data though."

Actually, I'd lean to the 160 data as charge weights decrease with increasing weight of bullet. Instead of leaning, it's better to use a mathematical process called interpolation. Let's form a linear expression in the weight of bullet for the charge of powder:
c(w) = (c1(w2-w) + c2(w-w1))/(w2-w1)
So, c1 is the charge under the first bullet and c2 is the charge under the second bullet. w1 is the weight of the first bullet and w2 is the weight of the second bullet. When w is equal to w2, the expression comes to c2(w2-w1)/(w2-w1) = c2 because the other term has a factor of zero. So, with w=w1, the expression becomes c1, just what we want. If this seems odd to you, ask a 15 year old maths student.

Plugging in w=150, we get c(150) = (67(160-150) + 64(150-145))/(160-145)
c(150) = (67X10 +64X5)/15 = (670 + 320)/15 = 990/15 = 66 grains of RL-19.

Doing it mathematically doesn't make it right. One still has to use the same brass and LOA of Alliant and hope the chamber and throat are similar so starting 3-10% lower and working up in steps is wise. Starting lower compensates for the possibility of quite different cases, chambers and throats of rifles that are out there. Don't overdo it though. Slow powders usually don't work well in very low charges. I usually find 10% is much too conservative and some slow powders get really dirty or give ragged velocities. I have found 3% is not quite conservative enough as some bullet-jackets and chambers are quite different. I've seen one rifle that would not seat a bullet out as far as SAAMI specs. I've seen variations in lots of primers and powders exceed 1%. I've seen powders whose maker recommends an exact recipe with no deviation. Hate that. It takes experimentation to find what works well with what you have. I tend to use 5% as a compromise.

[std7mag]

Ummm, T.O. Alliant doesn't sell a load manual.
They release a yearly book, like Hodgdon, but is available for free.

I will agree that their data is spotty.
Plenty of data for my 284 Win, as long as i only shoot only 110gr bullets.

I'll run some numbers through QL and get back to you.