I'm going to drop this here for now because I think we're all interested in powders that claim temp stability and powders designed with the 6.5 caliber in mind.
Tested in my Panda action bench gun on the rest and rear bag.
Loaded two sets of rounds across the same spread.
1st set was shot with the Magneto Speed on and the Labradar on as well.
The whole purpose of the test was to see if the 6.5 Stabal will deliver more velocity and take up less space doing it than H 4350 & RL 16
7-08 improved with a 184 Berger and a BR2 primer.
1st pic is the velocity data, columns 1 & 2 are the same round with the Labradar in the 1st and Magneto Speed in the second column.
Third column is the second set of rounds with only the Labradar shot onto paper at 602 yards to see how they print.
So how did the velocity versus charge compare with H4350 and RL16?
Sorry Dave, I don't see the results spelled out. Or is there a round 2?
I just get the difference between the Labradar and the Magnetospeed, very close.
Did the Stabal shoot faster or slower than the H4350 & RL16
I used both chronos on the first rounds for two reasons, first i wanted all the velocity data with no missed shots and second i wanted to see if they held steady with each other.
I dropped the magspeed and bayonet on the second set because i wanted to see how they printed at 600 yards but left the labradar up to get another set of velocities.
With RL 16 to get to 2700 fps took 44.4 grains and at 44.6 I was at 2720 but crunching powder. No way was I getting in the upper 2700s without compressing and risking disturbing a seating depth set to 1/1000"
Hodgdon data said a max load of 46.0 grains would be 2669 fps and my improved cases will hold just under 60g filled level full with no bullet.
I started at 46.4 as I've always heard max load on a not AI cartridge was a safe place to start on an AI cartridge. I wish I would have started a little lower, even though the bottom loads are slower than I'm looking for that node looks good too.
Overall from a velocity stand point 6.5 Stabal delivered on the velocity and was just starting to pick up very faint ejector marks viewed with a magnifying glass.
Over 2820 is likely going to be leaning on it too hard but the 2770, 2740 and 2700 range are easily obtainable without crunching powder.
48.0 - 48.4 looks very good I think. Those 3 shots measure 1.833" with 1.162" vertical at 600 yards running 2800.
47.2 47.4 47.6 and 47.8 show potential as well i think.
Quote from: Ranger 188 on January 01, 2020, 06:46:44 PMSorry Dave, I don't see the results spelled out. Or is there a round 2?
I just get the difference between the Labradar and the Magnetospeed, very close.
Did the Stabal shoot faster or slower than the H4350 & RL16
The results at this point are it will deliver more speed than RL 16 without without crunching powder, quite a bit more.
The ladder on paper looks real good in my opinion as stated in my post above.
Quote from: jvw2008 on January 01, 2020, 06:40:59 PMSo how did the velocity versus charge compare with H4350 and RL16?
I ran about 20 match rounds left over from the 600 Nationals, 44.4g RL 16 runs about 2700 & 44.6 RL 16 runs about 2720 and I'm crunching powder there. So in the interest of compressed powder not "adjusting" my finely tuned seating depth I'm done there. I've never tested H 4350 because it is generally slower than RL 16 and load data that came with the rifle supported that also my cases will hold about 1.3 more grains of H4350 than RL 16 but I doubt that's enough to overcome it so didn't test it.
It flat outruns RL 16 in getting more velocity out of the powder that will fit in the case even though it takes about 2.5 grains more than RL 16 to break through the 2700 fps range. The point is there is room in the case with Stabal 6.5 to go another 100+ fps than RL 16 before the case is full and it's crunching powder.
Would be worth a look for
@mnbogboy and shorty I think!
Dave, agree with the 48.0-48.4 also 47.4-47.6 looks very "waterline" (47.5).
Will you get a chance to do an extreme temp stability check against a powder like 4350? Or is this dedicated to the 7-08 where you are not using the 4350? Say a -20F velocity check vs a +40 or more?
Be nice to find loads with comparable accuracy to run the test. A good verification for earlier mfg. claims.
May look for some when I get to duluth/superior next time....our local dealers don't have it yet....and hate to pay hazmat for only a pound or two. May be the "magic" that "shorty" needs...lol
Thanks Dave good to know. In case there's another powder shortage
and it might work in the 6-6.5 case size and give more speed than the RL16
Who doesn't like more speed...
Quote from: mnbogboy on January 01, 2020, 07:40:52 PMDave, agree with the 48.0-48.4 also 47.4-47.6 looks very "waterline" (47.5).
Will you get a chance to do an extreme temp stability check against a powder like 4350? Or is this dedicated to the 7-08 where you are not using the 4350? Say a -20F velocity check vs a +40 or more?
Be nice to find loads with comparable accuracy to run the test. A good verification for earlier mfg. claims.
May look for some when I get to duluth/superior next time....our local dealers don't have it yet....and hate to pay hazmat for only a pound or two. May be the "magic" that "shorty" needs...lol
The only thing I'm interested in testing is how it shoots in the Panda for now. If it will deliver the accuracy required I'll be tuning it as I go so it's not necessary for it to be the same from -20 to +120 it just has to like my application.
It's pretty available and reasonably priced around here at $26-28 a pound.
Quote from: Ranger 188 on January 01, 2020, 07:46:47 PMThanks Dave good to know. In case there's another powder shortage
and it might work in the 6-6.5 case size and give more speed than the RL16
Who doesn't like more speed...
To be clear my situation is one of finding a powder that works to a specific case / bullet / seating depth situation and getting in a desired velocity range.
When I ran 180 Hybrids jammed .007" ish I had the room in the case for RL 16 to get to the mid-upper 2700 FPS without any powder compression then I switched over to the 184 Hybrids and found they liked being jumped .030" - .055" so a little bigger bullet and a deeper seating depth had me crunching powder in the 2700 - 2720 FPS range and on a low neck tension / grip situation where I'm seating to a .001" tolerance I was not comfortable crunching powder.
This is a situation where this powder can get to max pressure while having a good case fill ratio but not compress the charge and give more velocity.
A case like the 6.5 Creedmoor where H4350 and RL16 are a good fit might very well come up with a very low case fill ratio with 6.5 Stabal when at max pressure. As dense as 6.5 Stabal is my first concern would be a low case fill ratio in the Creedmoor.
A case like the 6.5x47L with smaller capacity but shooting the same bullets as the Creedmoor may benifit. With certain 130 class bullets I switched to Varget in this round once because I was running into the same charge compression situation.
If I find good accuracy with the 184s in the 7-08 Imp I'll likely take another run at the 180s and see where they want to shoot in the upper 2700 to lower 2800 range.
Will be interesting to test it out.
Got out and tested the 48.0 through 48.4 in .1 grain increments yesterday.
Except for that 2777 at 48.3g which I'm thinking was a fluke the powder was extremely "Stabal" across half a grain ????
I had light ejector marks on several and light swipes on more than a few so the 2800 node is going to be too much. Especially as this was at 22*
I'll be exploring the 47.2 - 47.6 area around 2750 next. These have all been 184s so far but I plan to test the 180s too as soon as I get on a node without pressure.
Thanks for the tests. I have been looking for tests on this but could find only 2 including this one. You are doing a great job.
Quote from: ALL THE WAY on January 06, 2020, 06:12:21 PMThanks for the tests. I have been looking for tests on this but could find only 2 including this one. You are doing a great job.
Sounds like we've got some extended cold weather coming so I'm not sure how quick I'll get back to this but I'll keep it updated as I test.
perfect time to test the stability of it dave :)
Agreed but there's a limit to the amount of discomfort I will endure.
Wind is supposed to lay up to 5-6 S SW tomorrow afternoon with -6 temp and -19 wind chill. If I can sneak away I'll check that 47.2 - 47.6 node at 2740 ish in .1s on the paper at 600 in 3 a shot group ladder.
Tested this afternoon, 2* below and a steady wind from about 8 O'Clock
Labradar immediately quit I'm guessing from the cold.
Tested 47.3 through 47.7 in .1s
Should have been in the 2740 - 2770 range from previous testing but 30* colder today. It sucks I didn't get the velocity numbers but I'm very happy with the ladder and target.
Across .5 grains only 4.5" vertical and 4.2" wind
47.5 - 47.6 is very nice with 2.4" wind and 1.6" vertical. Tuning seating should tighten it more I'd think.
First two pics are the same target. Third pic is this target to the right of the 48.0+ ladder a week ago for comparison.
I was having a paralax / mirage problem through the whole string today. It was very hard to aquire a clear sight picture making this an even better target IMHO
Looks like Sunday afternoon the wind let's off to 6 mph and it will be 13* I'll be shooting ????
Got out today and did a seating depth test.
Labradar worked but I couldn't get it to pick up a shot from behind the muzzle like I've been doing so I put it out in front and it went to working.
With that being said I don't know if I trust the numbers or not.
I expected it to be down around 2740-2750 and was mostly 2760-2780 after I got a little heat in the barrel.
18* today with a light wind from 7 o'clock
After looking at the target I had a strong idea I started out dead on or within a thou of the sweet spot. It started small and even though it held a pretty good POI it got progressively bigger then blew up then started small again. I haven't checked my distance to the lands since the 600 yard Nationals and probably have 150 -200 rounds since. A quick check this evening confirmed my throat moved out .004" so .032" off using the old number is actually .036" off using the new number which is where I shot it at Nationals and where it shot smallest today.
It pays to stay on top of things ????
Dave, your shooting skills are amazing! Love to read your comments.
Mike
Here's a trick of the trade. For some reason this powder while being easy to clean up puts a pretty thick black soot layer on the bullets that makes it hard to sort out the colors painted on the bullets.
You can see the spots around the holes where the color bleeds off after I dab a drop of Heet gas line anti freeze on them. Any high content alcohol will work and make the sharpie colors bleed out.
Good to see some testing with the 65StaBal.
The ease of metering will be great.
Anyone done any testing of this powder in the 6.5 Creedmoor yet ?
I just saw it on Hodgdon's site this evening.
Tested again today then went to fireforming a second set of brass.
I think one node is 47.4 - 47.6 but at 2770+ I'm afraid it's going to be too hot when it warms up.
I think I'll back up to 46.5, .6, .7, .8, .9
The fireforms roll along on 39.1 g RL 15 and a 168 Berger HVLD and a regular 200 primer for the softer cup.
2580 +/- a few but very few. Occasionally you get one a little faster or slower +/- 20 fps but mostly they just hammer in there.
About 35 pieces left out of 200 with maybe 6 I had to recock and hit again. 2 are legit FTF will be interesting to see if there's any powder in them or whiskey tango foxtrot ????
dave on a test like that which one do you pic...
Dave, this may be a dumb questions but here goes. In looking at your target from the prior post, to my eye, 47.2 looked pretty good. Why did you think that the node was at 47.4-47.6? To me, this didn't jump out at me.
Quote from: gman47564 on January 21, 2020, 04:40:01 PMdave on a test like that which one do you pic...
I haven't picked "one" yet.....
47.4 -.6 looks good but again I think it's right up there on the edge of pressure and will surely be over when it warms up. When I played around up there at 48 I loosened 4 primer pockets. Loose enough I'm not going to risk blowing them out. If I had to pick one out of here? Y but only because it grouped kinda small and because P is trying to stay with it but it's getting bigger and leaving.
Quote from: autoxforfun on January 21, 2020, 06:52:59 PMDave, this may be a dumb questions but here goes. In looking at your target from the prior post, to my eye, 47.2 looked pretty good. Why did you think that the node was at 47.4-47.6? To me, this didn't jump out at me.
You have to go back a couple targets. In the pic below the top target is today the bottom is on the 10th.
If you notice today 47.4 had no vertical and on the 10th 47.5 had no vertical and 47.6 was vertical but small and overlapped 47.5
Doesn't necessarily mean anything but it is repeated behavior close to the same spot. The seating depth is adjusted .004" between the two targets from the seating depth test the other day.
47.2 is the best of today's target but nothing is truly staying with it, P is there but moving on back down trying to be with G too.
Need to ladder down again and find the spot where there is some solid overlap preferably with some positive compensation.
Thanks Dave. Reading targets can be a challenge...especially at 600 yards with environmental conditions impacting the result. I agree, it is often looking for repeatability in the results before making a final call. I tend to shoot ladders at 200 or 300 yards and then shoot more than a single group (usually 2) at each load point. It does help to verify a result...but means I shoot more rounds before making a decision.
What I liked about 47.2 was that it looked like the velocity was not changing much between 47.1 and 47.3, there was a good ES for the three shots and the group size was trending down. So that was what caught my eye. But you have a good point about vertical and something I should consider more.
@autoxforfunFor the reasons you listed above 47.2 is the best load on the page. I had wind but it was steady and the fact that the groups went left and up then topped out with the Ys and went down and right says to me wind was not the issue and the colors stayed together. There's no crazy shot that's not with the other two colors.
The whole target is 5" vertical 5" windage about .83 MOA across half a grain of powder. It never settled with 2 or three charges overlapping though it was moving on or starting to move on with every bump.
I think the 184s really like it in the 2720 - 2740 range and I'm just above that so I'll keep laddering down until I find the sweet spot or get back down in the 2690 - 2710 range where RL 16 likes it and seats without crunching powder. There's always 180s to try too.
It's a process!
Here's my take 47.3 & 47.4 combined have 5 out of 6 with about 1/4" of verticle at 600 yards. Assuming the 9-12 mph in the notes meant crosswind. Not knowing if the 6th shot (high one in 47.3) was the slowest or fastest or in between. Pull out the faster or the slower and the SD probably calculates out pretty good, especially for fireforming!
FWIW
Thanks Dave for walking me thru your thought process.....helpful !!!!
Quote from: mnbogboy on January 21, 2020, 10:22:23 PMHere's my take 47.3 & 47.4 combined have 5 out of 6 with about 1/4" of verticle at 600 yards. Assuming the 9-12 mph in the notes meant crosswind. Not knowing if the 6th shot (high one in 47.3) was the slowest or fastest or in between. Pull out the faster or the slower and the SD probably calculates out pretty good, especially for fireforming!
FWIW
It was a cross wind from L to R all the more reason to be confident in the up and left then down and right travel of the groups.
Out here where the trees are miles apart you are always shooting in the wind and after a while you can kind of spot when the wind got a hold of one.
These were not fire forms. I fire formed 200 after shooting this lesser with my other brass that I do most of my testing with.
HufD63,
I just reread the whole thread and it gave me confidence and direction to pursue and better document details. The light went off to fire form new brass using my new practice rifle while running tests that include larger temperature differences (20 deg F at the moment). In my book you have earned the nickname "Tenacious Dave!" Thank you for your efforts and guidance.
I was wondering if you were ever going to get around to looking at temp sensitivity! ????
Quote from: jvw2008 on January 22, 2020, 08:51:41 AMI was wondering if you were ever going to get around to looking at temp sensitivity! ????
It's not really that big of a concern within reason If we are tuning & loading at the range.
I would agree if, it is at least fairly stable and it's not 40 degrees on Saturday and 70 degrees on Sunday. The less I have to tune at the match the happier I am.
Today's effort.
For you guys trying to figure out what I'm looking for here it is.
When you're testing at distance .1 g apart one small group by itself is just a group and usually won't repeat.
When you can get 3 charges to overlap you have a stable node that can take some atmospheric change and stay in tune.
On the R B Y combo I'm not sure why the 1 B came in low. Me maybe I'm not sure but regardless a guy could seating depth tune B or Y and have a good load.
This node is running right where my RL 16 load runs velocity wise so nothing really gained here because the RL 16 load is a little smaller and more "Stabal" I think.
The Stabal could be ran in the cold up to 2770ish and there's a pretty decent node there too but it's too close to pressure I think.
That P group measures .870 and the G group is 2.196 combined they are 2.735" on 6 shots .1g apart.
They are close but don't overlap and could possibly split a grain and have a load but that would be .15 grain from the 47.0 group that was a 5" mess yesterday. Loading here would require constant testing to stay in a small tune.
The R B Y group is 2.788" on 8 of 9 shots. Again I don't know what to say about the low B but this bunch could be tuned into a wider node than the P G group and not require constant attention to keep it in tune. Perhaps the low B was fluke or perhaps it could be loaded to 46.65 and tune seating depth but I believe the better bet is in this bunch.
Dave, let me start by saying 'Nice shooting'. Those are really nice groups for 600 yards.
Thanks again for walking thru your approach. It took awhile for the light to go 'ON" as to what you were doing but when it did, it makes a lot of sense.
Now you understand a ladder. ????
Quote from: autoxforfun on January 22, 2020, 09:10:59 PMDave, let me start by saying 'Nice shooting'. Those are really nice groups for 600 yards.
Thanks again for walking thru your approach. It took awhile for the light to go 'ON" as to what you were doing but when it did, it makes a lot of sense.
Bob I think most of the people on this forum shoot way better than they think they do. Many people blame themselves their equipment the wind etc. etc......when I think mostly it's a failure to completely tune the load for powder and seating depth.
I certainly didn't invent this process but it was shared with me by some of the best shooters in the country so I try to share it with others as well.
Anyone can benefit from testing at a little distance and completely exploring the safe pressure range of the cartridge. I used to be the guy who burnt up hundreds of rounds trying to get one of those tiny groups to repeat that likely never will. We tend to think if it did it once it will do it again and it rarely does in my experience until you put in the work and get in a stable powder and seating node.
This is the same gun that I shot in HG at the 600 yard Nationals and I had a good load worked up but got into a new lot of bullets just before heading out there. The new lot did not enjoy the same seating depth as the old lot so when I got to the range I loaded up a quick seating depth test in .003"s to cover a lot of ground and found it in a 18 shot seating ladder. I wound up in the top 20 in score, overall & 2 gun. The ladders work by letting you see it come in, settle and go away and distance makes them easier to read.
I'll be screwing new barrels on both guns and tuning for the March opener at Deep Creek in the near future and will post both work ups mostly to have them stored here for myself but if anyone else gets anything out of it I'm all for it.
Does anyone happen to have the powder profile of 6.5 staball for quickload?
One thing I'll add that I've noticed over the last 3 work ups is that I like everyone else want to go fast and I usually start with a one shot velocity ladder and try to figure out where I'm encountering pressure.
I usually start laddering back down from there shooting 3 shot groups in .1g increments in sets of five. If there's nothing there I'll load up another .5 grain ladder lower and go again. As soon as I find an interesting area I'll load the center of it to find seating depth then keep working the powder in .1s and then seating in .001"s
Usually it all comes together at a slower speed than hoped for but this is how we truly find where your gun wants to shoot instead of trying to make it shoot where we think it should. I ran my 6 BRA with the 106 Roy Hunters last fall at 6 BR speeds (2850-2870) because that's where I found the stable tune for that combination. It's there you just can't fall in love with the first small group along the way.
Quote from: Denver Steve on January 22, 2020, 10:36:08 PMDoes anyone happen to have the powder profile of 6.5 staball for quickload?
I do not sorry.
I have thought that I was doing a reasonable 'ladder' test but as indicated...there are new elements to be learned. I tend to shoot my load development at 200 yards since it is convenient for me. I take this in two steps.
1) I shoot a 10 shot what I would call a ladder test. I actually do this twice on two different targets and then compare the results. In the example below, this was a 6mm CM with 0.1g variation in powder. I track each hit in my range book so I know where each shot went. They are not indicated on the target but they are each recorded (position and MV). I then look for where there is a natural grouping and select within the range of loads.
2) I then will load 25 of my selected load and shoot 5 5-shot groups. If this goes well, then I will either call it a day or take the next step and adjust the jump. In this case, I reduced the jump from 0.020 to 0.014 and tightened the groups a bit more.
I like Dave's approach in that you have more samples for each of the initial loads and you get to see how each group relates to each other. I don't think this would work too well at 200 yards because you need to get a bit more spread. If it was shot at 200 yards (given how good Dave and others are shooting), there would just be a hole in the paper. So I understand why 600 yards works well for this. I may give it a try at 300 yards since this is also easily available. I do like the approach and appreciate its value.
Color code your bullets so you don't have to chart each shot. Use different color magic marker and paint them from just ahead of the ogive to the tip. Keep the marker off the bearing surface. If you have trouble reading the colors a little bit of alcohol on the hole will bring it out. White butcher paper makes the best target background for the colors. Mark your bullseye on the white paper and adjust your scope so that your bullet holes stay away from the bullseye even though you use it for sighting.
@autoxforfun
Bob there's nothing wrong with what you're doing but you are correct about needing a little more distance to shoot the method in this thread and 300 yards would help.
For a competition tune we are also watching and tuning for positive compensation meaning we've found the combination of powder and seating to get the barrel time where faster bullets are leaving the muzzle on a downward swing and slower bullets leaving on the upward swing. This is something that must be done at the intended distance.
There are a few more reasons for the way I've been taught to do it. To start we are trying to see how 5 charge weights or seating depths react to each other under as close to the same atmospheric / wind condition as possible. So a few sighters and away we go shooting the 15 rounds of 5 three shot testers. This is why the bullets are colored because if we're stopping to plot or make note of every round it takes much longer and conditions change. This is the same reason I see little value in round robin testing.
This is another good reason for having your bullets landing off your point of aim and being far enough away you can't easily see the shots forming up in my opinion. Besides keeping your point of aim clean and intact If you are analysing the shots as you go you are going to start trying influence where the next one lands, if you get a good target going you are going to start getting anxious about "doing your part" and will skew the results one way or the other. I honestly think it's easier to shoot better blind than knowing exactly where each round lands.
On clean white paper at 600 yards I can resolve bullet holes as long as the conditions are decent but if I'm sighted for my shots to land 6" high and 6" right and I'm concentrating on breaking the shot ejecting the round returning the gun to the stop reloading and making sure im dead center on my bull then breaking the next shot and repat that process 15 times as efficiently as I can to try to get all 15 off on as close to the same condition as possible I've got no business distracting myself looking at bullet holes. I'm trying to operate and aim the gun exactly the same 15 times to not skew the test.
All we are trying to determine is what the load will do then what the next 4 loads will do in relation to it and each other. Any analysation, charting or plotting during the test may well skew the outcome of the test. In my opinion a person should not be doing anything but running the rounds as quickly as accurately possible. The only exception to this would be to arrange the brass as it's fired and making sure the chronograph caught the shot so an errant chrono number could be traced to a certain piece of brass. I will say I usually try to do this so when I check the heads and primers for signs of overpressure I can tell what charge it started on but most of the time I get caught up in running the gun and am lucky to get the 3 pieces together and not mix them with the others. Take that low B in the last test, if I knew which piece of brass that was at least I could mark it and see what it did next time. I feel the time and effort to do so would have interrupted the whole test though.
Think of it like a double blind taste test where you don't even know what you like until it's all over and you've had time to analyze it. Sometimes after the string is done I'll relax and let the bullet holes come into focus to get an idea of the shape of the whole group but not very often because I think it's more fun to drive or walk down there and see what you get.
I'm not really trying to convert anybody over to "my" way but I do enjoy discussing it.
This type of testing is also good for training muscle memory and gun handling for the actual match shooting as well. It does no good to test one way and shoot the match another.
Is a chronograph mandatory for load development at 300 yards? We're talking orange box versus 1000 bullets and a custom Krieger barrel. Oh, by the way, I'm old school so I know cheap, fast, and greasy only gets you halfway home. I can hear it now, "How does that tchotchke make you shoot any better? Does the radar kill the deer or what? We need new stemware."
Quote from: lathoto on January 24, 2020, 05:12:18 AMIs a chronograph mandatory for load development at 300 yards? We're talking orange box versus 1000 bullets and a custom Krieger barrel. Oh, by the way, I'm old school so I know cheap, fast, and greasy only gets you halfway home. I can hear it now, "How does that tchotchke make you shoot any better? Does the radar kill the deer or what? We need new stemware."
Absolutely not necessary! I ran it throughout this test but..... The whole purpose of the Stabal testing was to see if more velocity could be obtained over RL 16 because of the bulky composition of RL 16 in this case with a heavy bullet so accuracy and velocity were both of great interest to me.
More velocity was easily obtainable however the same degree of accuracy in a stable node was at the same velocity as RL 16 with a second node up around 2770 that proved to be right on the edge of pressure in cold weather so it would be unusable in warmer weather.
I've been a pretty staunch opponent of using chronographs in load development because I believe a lot of people use them to get to a preconceived speed they want the gun to shoot at instead of letting the gun show them where it wants to shoot at. People also tend to get spun out chasing SD & ES so bad they'll shoot up hundreds of rounds chasing those numbers when a little powder tweak one way or the other with less desirable numbers obviously shoots better.
Dave, do you have conclusions yet regarding the 6.5 Stabal ? Is it a usable alternative to some of the other powders that have proven themselves? Just curious after all of the testing, where you are on it.
Quote from: autoxforfun on January 24, 2020, 04:06:34 PMDave, do you have conclusions yet regarding the 6.5 Stabal ? Is it a usable alternative to some of the other powders that have proven themselves? Just curious after all of the testing, where you are on it.
Bob the accuracy potential is there. I tested it from -2 up to 33 above so even though it seemed stable enough that's hardly an extreme test.
Where I'm at on it at this point is it's accuracy is at 2700 +/- and then again about 2770+
The 2770+ load is hard on brass at anything warmer than 20* not ideal match weather so really no point fine tuning it there.
The 2700 +/- load looks like it is smaller anyway across a wider charge range however at this speed I have a very good load with RL 16 already that is probably smaller and is temp stable tested as well as very easy on the brass so I see no reason to use up anymore barrel life on the Stabal with the 184s
Before I twist the Broughton off and screw the Brux on I may do a few quick ladders with the 180s if time allows. They ran faster (2730-2740) than the 184s with a light jam vs the .036 Jump the 184s like. They should easily be safe up in that upper 2700 maybe even into the low 2800 range but I kinda doubt would be safe in the mythical 2830 range I've heard about. We'll see if I can give them a try.
I was happy with the RL 16 load but was looking to see if the Stabal would get me into a faster node with as good or better accuracy in a load that was not hammering the brass and I'd say it was close but in my gun shooting 184s it it did deliver more speed easily but by the time the accuracy started coming back in I was pressuring up.
Thanks for a good summary !!
Thanks Dave for the summary.
Now we need a 6.5 CM StaBal tester, with 140s !!
(and a QL profile would be really nice )
Quote from: bob_atl on January 24, 2020, 05:36:38 PMThanks Dave for the summary.
Now we need a 6.5 CM StaBal tester, with 140s !!
(and a QL profile would be really nice )
I wonder if the December 31, 2019 quickload update has the powder? I would buy it but it costs 50 usd to buy and ship to Canada.
Quote from: bob_atl on January 24, 2020, 05:36:38 PMThanks Dave for the summary.
Now we need a 6.5 CM StaBal tester, with 140s !!
(and a QL profile would be really nice )
I've got a couple barrels an action and a stock if I get time I'll screw it together and have a go at it but no promises.
Quote from: Denver Steve on January 24, 2020, 06:08:03 PMI wonder if the December 31, 2019 quickload update has the powder? I would buy it but it costs 50 usd to buy and ship to Canada.
Can't help you but looking at 6.5 Creedmoor Hodgdon data with a 142 SMK:
6.5 Stabal max 44.4 @ 2814 fps
Hybrid 100v max 41.5 @ 2737 fps
H4350 max 41.5 @ 2694 fps
These are with a 24" barrel 8 twist Hornady case with a 210M primer. That 2814 fps is where my 28" Shilen Select Match loved to send them on 42.2 g H4350 out of my homemade Palma SP cases just for comparison, pretty impressive if the accuracy is there.
I don't really see myself getting time to try it but someone ought to but it's hard for me to imagine it outshooting my H4350 load but no way to tell without testing.
I cross posted some of this data on a thread on another forum where the OP asked if anyone has tried the Stabal in a straight 284 or Shehane.
After a few posts a gentleman PM'd me thanking me for posting the information and started suggesting certain tweaks to powder and seating. He seems to think I'm right on it at 47.4 or.5 with seating at -.037 jump. The test at -2 below in that charge range were very good and the follow up seating depth test at 47.5 was very good also.
We've had several lengthy PM discussions that have made it obvious he's a very knowledgeable shooter, tuner and reloader so he's convinced me to give it one more go in the mid 47g range at that seating depth. I trashed 4 primer pockets when I ran the 48.0 - 48.4 so I'm at least .5 to more likely 1 full grain away from that pressure and should in all likelihood be able to run there at around 2770 so I've loaded them up and will shoot them as soon as conditions allow.
This whole turn of events proves what I've known all along. If you are willing to "show your work" people are more than willing to share their knowledge. Yes the occasional jack ass with a bad attitude and poor delivery is going to come along and you are going to have to ignore them and people meaning well but have no actual experience will weigh in and they will have to be sifted through also but someone with the knowledge will come along and help you out if you put it out there.
Hopefully tomorrow I'll shoot.
Quote from: Denver Steve on January 24, 2020, 06:08:03 PMI wonder if the December 31, 2019 quickload update has the powder?
Nope, just updated my data (3.9 vs QL) and no Win StaBal.
The update (Jan 2020) was painless - kudos there...
Quote from: bob_atl on January 29, 2020, 03:57:09 PMNope, just updated my data (3.9 vs QL) and no Win StaBal.
The update (Jan 2020) was painless - kudos there...
I haven't updated QL, but I have been toying with Gorden's Reloading Tool, and it has Stabal 6.5 in it's powder selections already.
Had to try out (free) Gordon's Reloading Tool, curious how StaBal would compare to H100V in the 6.5CM.
But then GRT doesn't have H100V, so I used QL (refined by chrono data) at the same max pressure of ~52,460 psi,
for both load sims. ( a moderate load)
Turns out they are very close, and both plop the "Z1" on the "Pm" line !!
41.84 gn of H100V => 2882 fps (QL) and 44.03 gn StaBal => 2841 fps (GRT)
Other parameters included, 123 ELDM, H20=52.41 gn (Starline), COL = 2.810", 26" barrel
Since this is my first day running GRT, can only give a first impression, and would say it is very useful.
Once I figured how to get all the units the way I liked, it was smooth going.
Only downside I see, is considerably less cartridges, powders and projectiles compared to QL.
Was also hoping for Superformance in GRT, but neither have it on their powder list.
A big GRT user convenience is when a edited critical input is entered, the sim automatically updates.
It shows barrel time and a single OBT, not sure how helpful that will be long term.
I wish one of you guys would give the Stabal a try in the Creed. I would have to put some parts together to do it but I may eventually. I've got a large shank barrel for my target action, that would allow me to put it in my Savage F Class stock that would ride the bags good and allow me to shoot it off the rest.
I'm short on time and weather is not cooperating again.
New video on you tube:
https://youtu.be/MgSGI8qPZcE
Pretty sound endorsement there concerning the temperature stability.
Yes I thought so as well.
Johnny's Reloading bench on YouTube did some temperature testing with StaBal and got decent results just shooting some rounds that were chilled in ice vs some heated rounds. It was more stable than RL17, but not as good as H4350.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcy8zqclIns
As George Gardner states in his video, it's not that it's a better powder than H4350 or even RL16, it's that it works in a volumetric powder throw. All factory loaded ammo is loaded using a volumetric throw of some type. Most of us weigh each load and get more accuracy. StaBal could possibility help close the gap between precision hand loads and factory match ammo. There is a big market for precision factory ammo now and this is aimed right at it. Will it also be good for us? I don't know. It might not be as good as other powders when every load is weighed, but it might be great if you want to throw some fast ammo for fire forming and still be able to hit things with it.
George Gardner also stated in that video from 30 in the morning to over 100 in the afternoon shots weren't coming in over or under target.
That's about as temp stable as it gets. I'm sure H4350 & RL 16 are more temp stable but if it's good enough for a 70 degree temp swing in PRS competition some of these folks who are fixing to get gouged hard on H4350 should take a look here. In testing 6.5 Stabal I've shot some sub 1" three shot groups at 600 yards with 1-2" groups being easily attainable so I will say the accuracy potential is definitely there as well.
People who are satisfied with MOA accuracy would never know the difference. People whose skills or equipment not smaller than .75 MOA would be hard pressed to tell as well.
We can speculate and look at other peoples results but without testing in "our" gun in "our" application it truly is speculation!
^ Amen to that!
Quote from: bob_atl on January 30, 2020, 02:44:41 PMHad to try out (free) Gordon's Reloading Tool, curious how StaBal would compare to H100V in the 6.5CM.
But then GRT doesn't have H100V, so I used QL (refined by chrono data) at the same max pressure of ~52,460 psi,
for both load sims. ( a moderate load)
Turns out they are very close, and both plop the "Z1" on the "Pm" line !!
41.84 gn of H100V => 2882 fps (QL) and 44.03 gn StaBal => 2841 fps (GRT)
Other parameters included, 123 ELDM, H20=52.41 gn (Starline), COL = 2.810", 26" barrel
Since this is my first day running GRT, can only give a first impression, and would say it is very useful.
Once I figured how to get all the units the way I liked, it was smooth going.
Only downside I see, is considerably less cartridges, powders and projectiles compared to QL.
Was also hoping for Superformance in GRT, but neither have it on their powder list.
A big GRT user convenience is when a edited critical input is entered, the sim automatically updates.
It shows barrel time and a single OBT, not sure how helpful that will be long term.
Don't mean to hijack this thread but could you explain the significance of Z1 and pm lines in quickloads being close. I have heard this referenced before and never quite understood. I know this is load tuning, but how is it achieved. Is this a load density thing.
Quote from: VLD43 on January 30, 2020, 09:34:50 PM..explain the significance of Z1 and pm lines in quickloads being close. ..
There are better minds on this form to answer that, but I'll give it my 2 cents, anyway.
The Z1 line represents the point in time where the exploding powder has run it course, burned out if you will.
While the Pm line is the resulting pressure peak in the chamber (both simulated of course).
So if the powder fizzles out well before the point of peak pressure(Pm), it is thought to be too fast burning. (Z1 left of PM)
This can lead to higher instantaneous max pressure if the goal is to achieve a given FPS when compared to a better matching powder (Z1 = Pm).
Also, if the powder burns longer than Pm (Z1 right of Pm) there's a potential for unburnt powder, as well as lower FPS, when compared to a better matching powder (Z1 = Pm)
Making a distinction between and knowing the meaning of these two terms goes a long way in understanding burn rates vs pressure.
Both QL and GRT use these terms, they likely mean the same between the two apps.
Great answer bob.
Super imposition of the two indicates an efficient powder burn rate.
Quote from: bob_atl on January 31, 2020, 09:32:45 AMThere are better minds on this form to answer that, but I'll give it my 2 cents, anyway.
The Z1 line represents the point in time where the exploding powder has run it course, burned out if you will.
While the Pm line is the resulting pressure peak in the chamber (both simulated of course).
So if the powder fizzles out well before the point of peak pressure(Pm), it is thought to be too fast burning. (Z1 left of PM)
This can lead to higher instantaneous max pressure if the goal is to achieve a given FPS when compared to a better matching powder (Z1 = Pm).
Also, if the powder burns longer than Pm (Z1 right of Pm) there's a potential for unburnt powder, as well as lower FPS, when compared to a better matching powder (Z1 = Pm)
Making a distinction between and knowing the meaning of these two terms goes a long way in understanding burn rates vs pressure.
Both QL and GRT use these terms, they likely mean the same between the two apps.
Thank you so much for a great explanation. Really appreciate this. I am becoming vey aware that quickloads is going to be an ongoing learning experience.
@bob_atl I haven't downloaded GRT to fiddle with it yet. How would you compare it with QL?
As of two days usage, a couple cartridges, a few loads each, it seems easier to manipulate as a novice GRT user (me).
That opinion may be solely due to the instant results update upon most edited values.
Still learning new features, but have gone far enough to consider it very useful.
Finding how to change: cartridge, projectile, powder, H2O, COL, Ba, etc seemed straight forward.
Haven't looked for the tabular listing of powder stepping results,, finding that may be my next task, I use it a lot.
Also need to do a comparison QL--GRT of say 6.5CM, H4350, 140gn ELDM, to see how well they track.
Having said that, this forum & you in particular (Jerry) have been very helpful to my learning curve on QL. (TKS)
So I'm coming from a moderate QL background of internal ballistic simulation prior to installing GRT.
A true novice may find GRT as overwhelming as QL, but I do appreciate my QL background as a starting point for GRT.
As for the underlying math models, can't give an honest review
- but GRT relies on some user input as well as vendors for powder performance.
So not sure the quality of that user input vs vendor input.
I do believe the math models are drastically different and at some point the answers will differ, no doubt.
GRT units are easy to set to your liking, but I ended up having to set each separately, rather than doing it en-mass.
Probably is a way to do them en-mass, but I was slugging along with little use of help info..(who needs instructions, right ?)
TIP: the units on the results panel are changed by clicking on the value itself, there's no flag like on the left side.
Probably the biggest CON on GRT is the lack of powder selection, and to a lesser degree, lack of projectiles & cartridges.
But if its got what you want (Stabal & 6.5 CM & 140 ELD-M), then you're good to go..
The fact that GRT is free, IMO it worth downloading and checking for the combinations of interest.
So I would recommend it with the above caveat.
There are three principal developers, Gordon is lead, and he makes a means for donations available.
Couple things I played with the Gordon's Reloading Tool yesterday.
I'm not very computer savvy beyond surfing the web and posting pictures but my oldest son got it set up for me on my desktop. It was dead on on my old Creedmoor load at 42.2 with a 142 SMK. Very close on my 6.5x47L load as well.
It had 6.5 Stabal and H4350 Varget and a few RL powders but after that the Powders a lot of us use are not on there.
It's a nice tool and I plan on using it occasionally going forward but mostly for getting an idea of where pressure should be.
I'll still be finding my loads with the old fashioned archaic method of putting them on paper.
After a long break I got back to the Stabal testing.
Another good test at 47.4g exploring seating. There is 5 SD groups in there and a 47.5g and a 47.6g i only caught one 47.6 velocity and it was high. The take away for me is while this mid 47 g load is accurate it's too close to pressure in 20* weather so it will be hard on the brass that requires a fair amount of effort to make.
The safe accurate brass friendly node is at the low 2700 range.
180s may make the difference here but they were more happy around 2730-40 and would throw down a nice group up higher but the real wide nodes were slower too.
Aside from being big this is what we look for in a ladder. The colors are staying with each other and a bump in charge weight moves the POI on the next color.
R & B are together Y is undecided but mostly headed north.
P & G are togetherish and small then N is kinda with them but moving on.
These are 180s jammed .006" where they use to shoot but I think a jump out to .035" might shrink it all up.
Having trouble adapting GRT to my AI Cartridge LOL! It says with my 7-08 case volume adjusted to my AI capacity the B load should run 2499 and seating .045 deeper will bump it to 2500, only about 175 fps off.
Have a set of 180s loaded at 46.8 seated from -.027 up to -.033 in .003s to see what it looks like with a jump. Supposed to ave some 10 mph wind from about 10 o'clock in the morning but it looks like it will get nothing but worse for about a week so I'll probably shoot in the morning.
18* and humidity off the charts with a 8-10 mph west wind coming off the new snow to the SW of here.
But when they want to shoot small they want to shoot small.
I obviously started right on top of a good seating node at -.027" off but the overall takeaway here is the whole target is happier than yesterday's light jam target.
dave I would like to see you take 12 rounds seated at your smallest group there and shoot them... to see if they stay small or if you end up with a group like you have with all your seating depths there on that target...
Perfect example of what I was talking about the other day. -.027 is small then .030 doubles in size going out then .034 starts back in then .036 really tightens.
R is 2"
B is 4.75"
Y is 3.375"
P is 2"
G is 3"
The next step would to ladder seating depth in .001s from .028 back to .024 and .035 up to .039 hunting the sweet spot in the sweet spot.
Then powder could be laddered in .001s off the best seating depth.
I think I know all I need to know at this point and screw on the Brux barrel with a good idea of where to look with both RL 16 and 6.5 Stabal on either the 184s or the 180s and I really think the RL 16 will be a little better. I'll probably run the first few matches with the 180s because I have a 300-400 count lot sorted up.
Quote from: gman47564 on February 09, 2020, 10:38:59 AMdave I would like to see you take 12 rounds seated at your smallest group there and shoot them... to see if they stay small or if you end up with a group like you have with all your seating depths there on that target...
I understand what you're saying Grant but one of the benefits of testing at long distance is there is a much bigger chance of blowing one out of the group than there is of lucking one into the group whether from conditions or bench manners. I can almost guarantee if I were to shoot a 12 shot group I'd find something to try to tune out. 3 shots is test of the load after that you're testing the shooter and the longer the string the more condition change to skew the results.
Once I get honed in on the new barrel I will shoot a few 5 shot groups and a 10 shot group or two but I want to conserve the Brux barrel especially if it's a shooter. I'd like to think my tuning has come along enough that I could screw it on find a load relatively easy and get 2 seasons out of it.
that's kinda what I was wondering is how much the conditions are skewing the results of a test like that.... but I understand you not wanting to put undue rounds down the barrel...
Quote from: gman47564 on February 09, 2020, 10:55:19 AMthat's kinda what I was wondering is how much the conditions are skewing the results of a test like that.... but I understand you not wanting to put undue rounds down the barrel...
I'm not saying this in a smart ass snarky way Grant but I'd like to see you heed your own advice there and not so much rounds on target because I truly think think 3 tells the story. Next time you go to the bottoms set up a piece of steel at 600 for a sighter and a paper target beside it then put 3 three shot groups of some form of ladder. Powder, seating, neck prep or whatever. Anything you are wondering about whether it makes a difference or not and test it at distance on paper.
I'm not challenging you to a contest I'm challenging you to try a different way of collecting data.
There is a TON of information lost on steel in regards to the way a group honestly prints that can only be captured and evaluated accurately on paper. I see it everyday on this forum where people think they "pulled" a shot but it likely went exactly where it was going to go because of the combination of seating and powder and the resulting barrel harmonics of it.
I'm not saying I'm an expert on it but until a person starts capturing "The sequence of events" it all looks random.
Didnt mean to offend you.. my apologies.. wasnt my intentions to question your methods.. just wondered what the effects of the conditions would be at 600 yards.. no more than i know about this and no better than i can see and shoot testing at 600 would be futile for me..
You didn't offend me Grant and there is no harm in questioning our own or each other's methods. I know you meant nothing by it but I'm serious about you doing the 600 yard "experiment" you will fare better than you think but more importantly it will open your eyes to how critical seating and powder tuned to one another become at distance.
@bob_atl Thanks! That was a great over view/comparison. You peaked my interest and now I'm gonna have to go look. ????
I was planning on heading out to the 300 yard range this morning to follow Dave's ladder process. I'm working up a load for the 153g A-Tip in the 6.5CM and figured it would a good time to try it. Got up this morning to some wind.....steady 15 mph with gusts over 25 mph. Decided that I would save the rounds for another day. It could have been good wind practice day but I wasn't comfortable trying to validate a load in those conditions. So I stayed home and spent the afternoon preparing brass. Got about 350 cases cleaned and ready to prime/load.
Thanks
@bob_atl for the pointer to Gordon's software. I try to not use MS Windows very much so I was very pleased to see that it ran on linux....sweet. I took a load that I had from QL and compared to Gordon's....the results were very close.
I am trying something new as a neck lube prior to seating the bullet. I've been using the Hornady case lube successfully but thought I would add a little graphite to the mix. I have a spray can of Graphite that I mixed with Hornady case lube in a plastic cap. I then use a Q-tip to apply the mixture. Haven't set any bullets yet......
Quote from: autoxforfun on February 09, 2020, 06:53:59 PMI was planning on heading out to the 300 yard range this morning to follow Dave's ladder process. I'm working up a load for the 153g A-Tip in the 6.5CM and figured it would a good time to try it. Got up this morning to some wind.....steady 15 mph with gusts over 25 mph. Decided that I would save the rounds for another day. It could have been good wind practice day but I wasn't comfortable trying to validate a load in those conditions. So I stayed home and spent the afternoon preparing brass. Got about 350 cases cleaned and ready to prime/load.
Thanks @bob_atl for the pointer to Gordon's software. I try to not use MS Windows very much so I was very pleased to see that it ran on linux....sweet. I took a load that I had from QL and compared to Gordon's....the results were very close.
I am trying something new as a neck lube prior to seating the bullet. I've been using the Hornady case lube successfully but thought I would add a little graphite to the mix. I have a spray can of Graphite that I mixed with Hornady case lube in a plastic cap. I then use a Q-tip to apply the mixture. Haven't set any bullets yet......
Bob I'm curious if you are still using this neck lube mix and what proportions are you mixing it?
Dave, I've used this now on a couple of my recent loads and have been pleased with how smooth the seating pressure is. I have not shot any over a chrono to verify the MV and ES/SD impact. My process is pretty simple. I take a spray can plastic top (always good for mixing stuff in) and spray a shot of 'one-shot', enough to get a puddle big enough to cover the 50 rounds I'm planning on loading. I have a spray can of graphite lubricant. I give that a shot on top of the 'one-shot' and then use the q-tip to stir. I would say I am using roughly equal shot of both. Not very precise method but not sure it matters.
Another option may be to use the 'one-shot' and then mix in the powder graphite. This would allow a more controlled mixing.