Shooters Forum banner

21 - 30 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,240 Posts
Also, if you look at Western's data for Accurate ball powders, they published the only bulk density specs I've ever seen, some of which are up to ±5.6%, or 11.2% extreme spread.
OK, that explains a lot. 55years of handloading, and still learning. (Me BTW).

Many years back, when my first .35 Whelen came home, I snagged a pile of Remington .35 W brass. Still using the same brass, and have lot's of unfired in inventory. Good stuff, but it doesn't hold the amount of powder listed in many sources. Used to wonder why. Old too soon, smart too late :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkker

·
The Shadow
Joined
·
7,948 Posts
The last time I looked (few months ago) Western had kept the same SDS and nominal variances for powder up on the site. Which means a good chunk of then are listed as Eurenco powders. But they flopped everything over to GD, some time ago; possibly in preparation for the buy-out...???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,240 Posts
GD = General Dynamics ??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
I just received my copy of the #9 and while I am happy to have it, I can't figure for the life of me why they decided to drop the .358 Winchester and the .284 Winchester (among others) from this book. Both of those were in the #8 manual. Who says you have to drop an old cartridge to add a new one? One of the things that (IMO) brings value to a manual is its expanse of data - more is better.
Nosler failed (also IMO) to test some powder/cartridge combinations that the last few years have shown to be genuine game-changers. Examples would be 2000-MR with 225 and 250 gr in the 35 Whelen or RL-26 with 140 and 150 gr in the .270 Win. There are probably other examples with which I am unfamiliar. Also, new powders like Superformance and the Enduron series are conspicuously absent. There has been plenty of time since these were introduced, to run these in the cartridges for which they are suited.
They also included a burn rate chart in this manual which is not only in a format that I think is as non-user-friendly as could possibly be designed even if you did so on purpose, but it shows H4350 as a slower powder than IMR4831. Well, I'm no ballistician, but the only three pages I have found so far in the same manual that show both H4350 and IMR4831, both show heavier charges of IMR4831 being needed than H4350. That's part of my pea-brain's definition of "slower."
FWIW, those pages are 30-06 with 165/168 gr bullets, 260 Rem with 129/130 gr bullets, and 6.5CM with 150 gr bullets.
I am a huge Nosler fan and have been my whole adult life (I'm 60) but IMO they really missed a chance to publish a much better manual than what I just received. OK, enough Bah, Humbug...

Merry Christmas all!
Rex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Happens I have some 2000MR and some fireformed 35 Whelen brass.

Hot off the press, here's my RP 35 Whelen with 69 grains of the powder in question.



Getting 71.6 in there would IMO be like trying to fit bowling balls in a marble bag.

Just so we're all "informed" 😉

RJ
I had to do a lot of trickling through a tube and tapping the side of the case to get 70 grains under the 225 TSX in my 35 Whelen AI, but it fit fine. [EDIT: my rifle has a long throat so I load to magazine length of 3.375". THat makes a difference too of course.]
Also, I have found the factory Hornady .35 Whelen brass weighs 19 grains less on average than Remington factory .35 Whelen Brass. I've not used any of my Hornady brass yet but I expect it would be an excellent choice for those looking for more capacity. And I can tell you the performance of this 2000-MR is worth the effort. Here's what the 250 Partition does in my rifle with it (OK, it doesn't always do this, but it is consistently sub-MOA). And 65 gr is pretty easy to fit. I stopped about 50 FPS below the max because this was plenty for me.
35 WAI 250 Part 65 2000-MR.JPG

Merry Christmas,
Rex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,070 Posts
Merry Christmas, TRex! Barnes has some new data for the 35 Whelen if you look, includes the 180 TTSX. Totally ignored at least 3 of the powders that Speer used to generate their new data. Very disappointed. Other than the 180 TTSX, most of it is regurgitated and added a few powders that are not any better than what they used before.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,448 Posts
TrexF16,

Sierra told me their manual leaves out powders they wanted to test and include if it didn't happen to be available off the shelf at the time they were doing the manual testing.

Something similar may happen with old cartridges. It used to be the manual authors just worked up loads by watching for pressure signs, but this lead to a number of manuals having some pretty hot loads in them. These days everything gets pressure tested for legal CYA reasons, and if they don't have a SAAMI test barrel for a cartridge available at the time and the original data was never tested in one, they may drop a cartridge for that reason. I assume Nosler does what Sierra does, and that is to re-fire all rounds for new manuals, even if the data turns out the same. Simply not having a gun available would certainly put a kink in that plan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
It doesn’t include 358 WIN data? Say it ain’t so, I was excited when it was announced hoping it may have some data for new powders in 358. The ultimate source I’ve found so far is the Hornady 10th.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,081 Posts
You can bet your boots all the new Nosler calibers are in there. Why advertise for somebody else.?
 
21 - 30 of 30 Posts
Top