Reloading can be dangerous and scary if you don't do it right

[86thecat]

Forgot to say,
Lee will make custom FCDies for cartridges not normally
stocked, at a reasonable price.

 

[SaintPanzer]

If you have the fired cases before the high pressure round, try seating live primers to see if primer pockets are stretched. If they go in easy, you were already above case pressure limit. Can just pop those primers in th rifle outside to not risk setting one off when decapping.
I am wondering if bullets were seated below the crimp, maybe the taper of the bullet wasn't allowing neck tension to retain bullet and last round pushed the bullet into case when chambering round. You can check with dial caliper to see if bullet diameter changes too quickly in front of the canalure to secure bullet from being set back. I almost always use a Lee Factory Crimp die anymore, they will give a secure crimp without a canalure as long as you aren't running into bullet taper issures in front of the ogiive.
Lots of good points to check in this thread, just thought I'd add a couple more thoughts.

I'd thought about that.

The Woodleigh bullets have no cannelure, and I don't believe they have a taper below the ogive. I'll try and get some photos tomorrow.

There is always a concern re: the feed ramp seating the bullet further. I've jammed dummy rounds, made with the same die settings, over and over and then measured them, I don't think this is the case. It is something to look out for.

The CH4D seating die normally crimps into the cannelure, if there is one (per their instructions). I am using a CH4D taper crimp die, also set to their instructions.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

So, mistakes were made. Others will be blamed.

This is going to get a bit long, so have a beer and kick back.

My first mistake is trying to find a load for a powder that doesn't have a published load for it. Second mistake is using bullets for the load that doesn't have a powder listed for it.

So here's the rest of the story.

Cartridge in question is 6.5X54 Mannlicher Schönauer.

There are few published loads for this, and most revolve around IMR. That's probably the way to go. The main problem with that, however, is when powders are scarce, IMR is one of the first ones to go. So go to the back up plan.

I like Vihta Vouri powders. Not as many people use them, and so they tend to be available when others are out. Additionally, it's temperature stable, and burns very clean. I thought N160 would be the way to go, and contacting the tech guys at VV, they confirmed that they had not tested a load, N160 would probably be their first choice for the cartridge.

I'd also like to try Norma powders, because Norma has published loads for their Oryx bullet, but I can't find Norma 204 or MRP (their recommended) anywhere.

But I do have QuickLoad, right?

I also have four bullets I'd like to try. The Oryx 156 grain would be a good hunting bullet, and I can finally find Hornady 160 grain RNSP locally. I also have in my collection 100 Woodleigh 160 grain RNSP and 50 160 grain Protected Point.

I'd really like to get the Oryx and Protected Point bullets working. The RNSP bullets are awesome out to about 100m or so. But muzzle velocity starts at only around 2200fps. And they lose velocity quickly, because they are not very aerodynamic. A spitzer type bullet would retain velocity much better.

Off topic now, but real world example. When I was in Germany, the requirement for Hochwild was minimum 6.5mm caliber, and 2000 joules of energy at 100m. There is a similar requirement in Poland. An RNSP bullet meets the minimum caliber, but only hits around 1950 joules at 100m. A more ballistically efficient bullet could take 2000 joules out to 150 to 200 meters. There's also a great deal of bullet drop, and you're probably not going to reach out and touch a Gams at 300m, even though that's what the rifle was designed to do. So that's why I'd like to get the Oryx or PP round working.

FWIW, conversations with Woodleigh indicate the load for their RNSP and PP bullets should be similar, but that's not important right now.

I do have Quickload. So I started noodling some loads. Now, YES, I know that's only a start. So what I did was map out the pressures for some published loads from the manuals I have, and compared that to proposed N160 loads to try and stay safe. QuickLoad will tell you when you approach max pressure, and I did NOT want to go there. My initial loads "matched" the plotted initial loads for IMR, Norma 204, and Norma MRP. Nothing crazy. Max pressure (CIP) is about 52,000 psi, and everything I plotted was well short of that.

One point on the different bullets: They all have to be loaded to different lengths to fit in the magazine, but no loads were compressed loads. All my "min" loads were around an 80% case load, and max loads were less than 86%. Burn in the barrel was between 92% and 98%. Not fully efficient, but it is a short barrel, and a hotter powder would have other issues, like a faster pressure spike.

All brass was unfired Norma, primers were Federal Match. Bullets were loaded to a length that fit the magazine, and had a great deal of jump to the lands. Maybe not perfect for accuracy, but no chance of jam.
So first up was the Oryx. I started low, and worked up to 37 grains. Got about 2100 fps (QL predicted 2200), and absolutely no pressure signs. I could probably go higher, but I don't think I need to. QL did say I could go higher, but again, not sure I need. May check for accuracy, and tweak. But that works.

Next up was the Hornady. QL also said 37 grains was safe, and I could probably go higher. QL predicted about 2100 fps, but my Labradar says only 1950 or so. No pressure signs. Hornady has a cannelure, but I was beneath it (a little long, but shorter than the book COAL of 3.063). The reason for long is the MS feed ramp likes a long bullet, and loading at the cannelure is a sure way to jam things up when you work the bolt.

Good so far. A little slow, but good.

Now the Woodleigh RNSPs. They look a lot like the Hornadys. There's a bit more lead at the point, and a bit blunter than the Hornady, and unlike the Hornady, there is no cannelure. All bullets were lightly taper crimped.

QL says a good starting safe load was 34.5 grains. The pressure curve roughly matched the Norma MRP. Labradar reported 2200 fps. NO pressure signs. I checked with my 10X loupe, it was not a casual glance. No bolt marks on the base, primer solidly seated, bolt opened easily.

I should have stopped there, right?

Next up was 34.8 grains. Only 0.3 of a grain increase. Maybe I might get a slightly stiff bolt lift if I was getting too much.

Wrong.

Velocity was a nice 2250 or so.

The bolt was stuck tight. Not "oh, this is a little stiff", but pound on it with a piece of wood to get it open tight. Not only was the primer completely gone, the case itself was totally trashed. To the point where I turned a rimless case into a rimmed case. No ruptures, thank God, and the rifle is fine, though perhaps I can say it was newly proofed. But that 0.3 grains was a huge increase.

I stopped there. I never tried the PP. I'm going to dump powder and start over.

I guess my two choices are to just play with the Oryx, which makes sense because they are certainly more available than Woodleighs, and just abandon the PPs, or back off to 33 grains, and stop before 34.2. For the PPs, go a little lighter, maybe start at 32.5 or 33. The PP bullet is about an eighth of an inch longer than the RNSP bullet, so that's a lot of friction in the barrel.

Truth be told, 2200 fps from the carbine barrel with 160 grains of RNSP should be effective on most things in North America. and I have no plans to do a WDM Bell and go elephant hunting with it. I am concerned about using 270 grain Woodleighs in my 9.5X57, but I have about 300 Hornady bullets to play with first.

The bottom line, if you've made it this far, is 0.3 grains can make a huge difference, even if it's well within what QuickLoad predicts.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

@SaintPanzer
In a case like the 22 Hornet 0.3 grains can make a big big difference
But in the 6.5x54 I should make NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.
I would be looking at other causes and go to a slightly slower powder. Woodleigh uses a pure lead core bonded to the jacket so is softer than some other makes that use a lead alloy core.
Something else has happened in my opinion to cause this pressure spike.
To the best of my knowledge ( which is limited) some VV powders are single based and some are double based. The 100 series is single based and the 500 series is double based. A lot of people don't realise that even tho they have very similar burn rates the composition is entirely different
VV1N160 has a slightly slower burn rate than H4350 . VV 560 is the same burn rate as N160 so I would be trying either H4350 or 560.
Some single based propellants can give pressure excursions in some circumstances but I personally think 0.3 grains in that case would make much difference.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I 100% agree with your thesis that an untrimmed case could cause overpressure. That's why I measured every one out of the bag, noted that they were below max length, but above minimum length, so I trimmed every one for consistency, and measured every one.

The one thing I am sure of is they were all trimmed to proper length.

@SaintPanzer
You said you taper crimped your loads. Is it possible you over crimped one load.
In a case like the 6.5x 54 I can see no logical reason to crimp the projectile as there's enough neck tension to hold the projectile and not enough recoil to set the bullet back in the case or move it first under recoil.
I have tried crimping some of my cases. Sometimes it improves accuracy others it does Diddley squat. None of my rifles recoil enough to move uncrimped projectiles Even the Whelen.
Dang I even stopped my mate crimping his dirty thirty Marlin with no ill effect.
Try not crimping and see what happens.
As I have said elsewhere Woodleigh uses a pure lead core and the jackets aren't that tough. They rely on a secret bonding process to hold them together.
Bob

 

[Huvius]

I’ll throw this little tidbit out here which has me scratching my head.
I have a Charles Lancaster Mauser in 280NE (280 Ross to you and I)
This rifle shot beautifully with the few original Kynoch rounds I had as well as my own reloads to Ross Seyfreid’s recipe.
All good.
Well, when I shot the same rounds, original and reloads in a Gibbs Mauser I got way over pressure and impossible bolt opening.
Why was that?
Both were original 1920s rifles except the restock on the Gibbs.
Both were perfectly original chambers.
The Lancaster, which we still have, was on a standard length action, the Gibbs on a square bridge magnum.
What would cause this extreme difference in performance?
Of course, I wasn’t going to rechamber the Gibbs which was as new.
So what am I to glean from this experience?

 

[SaintPanzer]

@SaintPanzer
In a case like the 22 Hornet 0.3 grains can make a big big difference
But in the 6.5x54 I should make NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.
I would be looking at other causes and go to a slightly slower powder. Woodleigh uses a pure lead core bonded to the jacket so is softer than some other makes that use a lead alloy core.
Something else has happened in my opinion to cause this pressure spike.
To the best of my knowledge ( which is limited) some VV powders are single based and some are double based. The 100 series is single based and the 500 series is double based. A lot of people don't realise that even tho they have very similar burn rates the composition is entirely different
VV1N160 has a slightly slower burn rate than H4350 . VV 560 is the same burn rate as N160 so I would be trying either H4350 or 560.
Some single based propellants can give pressure excursions in some circumstances but I personally think 0.3 grains in that case would make much difference.
Bob

I take your point. VV Tech Support recommended the N160.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I take your point. VV Tech Support recommended the N160.

@SaintPanzer
Just because someone reckoned something doesn't mean it the right fit.
Take my experience when hodgon superformance. Hornady loading manual and Hodgon both recommended it for use with lighter bullets and no load data for heavier projectiles..
They hadn't done the research as yet
Works out it is perfect for heavier bullets.
If'n y'all want I will check load from a disc to see what it says. It hasn't let me down yet or others
Maybe the switch from N160 single based to N560 double based may solve the issue. Same burn rate different composition.
Bob

 

[SaintPanzer]

@SaintPanzer
You said you taper crimped your loads. Is it possible you over crimped one load.
In a case like the 6.5x 54 I can see no logical reason to crimp the projectile as there's enough neck tension to hold the projectile and not enough recoil to set the bullet back in the case or move it first under recoil.
I have tried crimping some of my cases. Sometimes it improves accuracy others it does Diddley squat. None of my rifles recoil enough to move uncrimped projectiles Even the Whelen.
Dang I even stopped my mate crimping his dirty thirty Marlin with no ill effect.
Try not crimping and see what happens.
As I have said elsewhere Woodleigh uses a pure lead core and the jackets aren't that tough. They rely on a secret bonding process to hold them together.
Bob

Noted. As I said, the crimp had much less to do with recoil than it does the way the Schönauer magazine works. I wanted "just enough" to ensure striking the feed ramp does not seat the bullet further into the case as the rotary magazine turns.

As I think more about this, here's the thing: Contra "just making assumptions", I did contact both VV to recommend a powder type, and contacted Woodleigh prior to doing anything else. VV recommended a load for the Hornady 160 grain bullet. Woodleigh also recommended the load listed in the Hornady manual as similar to their bullets, and described a similar load for their bullets as being "safe". What I'm learning is there seems to be a difference, and the Woodleigh pressures and velocities are higher than expected. That in itself is neither surprising or terrible, but it is something to keep in mind. When I get the chance (possibly this weekend, limited to range opening times), I will try a milder load, and publish the results.

 

[GuttormG]

ust because someone reckoned something doesn't mean it the right fit.

I would say that N160 is good fit, it was actually designed for 6,5x55.

The issue her is not the N160 powder, of that I am 100% sure.

The best choice of Vithavouri powder for this cartridge and the heavier bullets would be N150

 

[SaintPanzer]

I would say that N160 is good fit, it was actually designed for 6,5x55.

The issue her is not the N160 powder, of that I am 100% sure.

The best choice of Vithavouri powder for this cartridge and the heavier bullets would be N150

I spent a lot of time going back and forth between the two.

I'll check my notes, but I think what it came down to was burn time related to case capacity. The N160 gave a more efficient burn (i.e. a more full case with less unburned powder leaving the barrel). The N150 was a faster powder, but to keep pressures down there was less powder in the case. My concern was a "half empty" case that could lead to other issues.

I may try N150 after I get through this. Again, I did rely on VV stating "As for the selection of N160, it's ideally suited to this combination, and would have been the choice I made as well." Perhaps that was a bad assumption on my part.

 

[Frederik]

I use N560 in my 6.5x55 with excellent results its not the 6.5x54 but still very close.
I still think a small mistake was made where you went over with the powder charge by mistake and that 0.3gr could have ended up 3 grains more.
Have you dissasembled the other rounds that was loaded wit the woodleigh bullest and measured the bullets weight and size and the powder charge just for interest sake yet???

 

[GuttormG]

The N160 gave a more efficient burn (i.e. a more full case with less unburned powder leaving the barrel).

QL? It doesn't work-it is a simulation, and mostly a toy for playing while drinking coffee and thinking of stuff.
N160 is well known for unburnt powder and soot at reduced charges, it is bulky so a max load requires a very full case (and thats why those chasing max.loads in 6,5x55 are using N15/MRP).

As for VV recommendation, pretty sure that was based on it will work OK, and he will not blow up his gun; IE-no lawyers coming to them

 

[MS 9x56]

I’ll throw this little tidbit out here which has me scratching my head.
I have a Charles Lancaster Mauser in 280NE (280 Ross to you and I)
This rifle shot beautifully with the few original Kynoch rounds I had as well as my own reloads to Ross Seyfreid’s recipe.
All good.
Well, when I shot the same rounds, original and reloads in a Gibbs Mauser I got way over pressure and impossible bolt opening.
Why was that?
Both were original 1920s rifles except the restock on the Gibbs.
Both were perfectly original chambers.
The Lancaster, which we still have, was on a standard length action, the Gibbs on a square bridge magnum.
What would cause this extreme difference in performance?
Of course, I wasn’t going to rechamber the Gibbs which was as new.
So what am I to glean from this experience?

My guess is one of 2 things, either the chamber neck of is smaller or the chamber has a shorter neck causing the bullet to be contacting the rifling before firing. Both these conditions can cause over pressure situations. A chamber cast may reveal the culprit. Just one old hunter who loves using 100+ year old firearms opinion.

 

[SaintPanzer]

I use N560 in my 6.5x55 with excellent results its not the 6.5x54 but still very close.
I still think a small mistake was made where you went over with the powder charge by mistake and that 0.3gr could have ended up 3 grains more.
Have you dissasembled the other rounds that was loaded wit the woodleigh bullest and measured the bullets weight and size and the powder charge just for interest sake yet???

Yes, I pulled them yesterday. All the other rounds were "correct" (i.e. the weight I wrote on the side of the case was the same as the powder I pulled.

Also, I re-measured both shoulder bump and case length. Shoulder bump was correct (about a .004 increase, waiting to be bumped back, and case lengths were all where I trimmed them at the listed "trim to length" in the reloading manuals (2.100).

I also re-measured the safe fired case. Case expansion (assuming that also started correctly) was minimal (2.104) and well within the max case length of 2.110).

All pulled bullets were 0.264, and did weigh 160 grains.

Attached is a photo I took before I started pulling. On the left is the 34.5 grain fired case. Lying next to it showing the new rimmed case. The other unfired bullets are lined up in order, and as a comparison are two NOS rounds on the right, the first a Dominion and the second an RWS. I know you can't tell just by a photo how they measure out, but trust me when I tell you they match.

To explain the loads, remember both VV and Woodleigh indicated 37 grains should be a safe load, and I backed down between 5 and 10% to start. Actually, 5% would have been 35.2, and 10% would have been 33.3, so let's say I backed it down 6.75%, and was stepping up. I still need to try seating a primer in the fired case, but will wait until I resize the case, probably some time this weekend.

PS: Looking at the photo, it looks like the ones on the left have a shorter COAL, but that's an illusion due to perspective. I measured them all and they were all within 0.001 of each other.

 

[SaintPanzer]

QL? It doesn't work-it is a simulation, and mostly a toy for playing while drinking coffee and thinking of stuff.
N160 is well known for unburnt powder and soot at reduced charges, it is bulky so a max load requires a very full case (and thats why those chasing max.loads in 6,5x55 are using N15/MRP).

As for VV recommendation, pretty sure that was based on it will work OK, and he will not blow up his gun; IE-no lawyers coming to them

Yes, a simulation, and an imperfect one at that. I will probably eventually switch to the N150. N160 is marketed as clean burning and temperature stable, which led to me asking VV in the first place.

I really can't stress this point enough. I did not simply plug numbers into QL, I started by talking to the bullet and powder tech support guys. The final sentence in my original post: "even if it is within what QL predicts" was not meant to be a defense, it was meant as a reminder to others NOT to simply rely on QL. I should have been more clear on that as well.