129ablr & h4198 load data

[TXCrow]

Either my googlefu is failing me or my logic is. 12" bbl+ fast for caliber powder= minimal muzzle blast, less barrel erosion, max velocity vs charge weight.
landed on h4198 for the temp stability and the efficacy of the other H-extreme line powders. I found the old Hodgdon data up to 123gn but nothing north of that and that data is dated.

If it is my logic that is lacking, take me to school. If its the googlefu, hook it up with a link or a decent place to start.

Thanks Y'all

[A5BLASTER]

I don't think anyone has ever used that powder with that bullet.

Most use cfe223 or leverevolution with the 129 ablr.

Best I can say is start really low and work up in .2 tenth increments over the chronagrah and stop when you see the spike or dump in velocity.

[lazyengineer]

Very curious how this goes

[jbmarshtx]

I'm probably going to get some leverevolution for 130 bergers when I start reloading. Have you used it on the lighter 100 - 108 range of bullets?

[TXCrow]

Keep in mind I'm talking modest velocities out of a 12" sbr

[centerfire]

That's a very fast powder for that weight bullet. You'll be lucky to get 2000fps with a 12" barrel.

[LR1955]

Either my googlefu is failing me or my logic is. 12" bbl+ fast for caliber powder= minimal muzzle blast, less barrel erosion, max velocity vs charge weight.
landed on h4198 for the temp stability and the efficacy of the other H-extreme line powders. I found the old Hodgdon data up to 123gn but nothing north of that and that data is dated.

If it is my logic that is lacking, take me to school. If its the googlefu, hook it up with a link or a decent place to start.

Thanks Y'all

TX:

Bottom line with a Grendel is this. If the load is in a published load manual from a reputable company, go for it. If there is no data from a reputable company, use a load that is recommended and published by said company. Or risk damage to your rifle and or even you.

The Grendel through an AR-15 is not very forgiving when it comes to experimenting with powders that have no load data. Especially if the company making the powder does not list the specific powder in their load data for the Grendel.

LR55

[grayfox]

I guess my chime-in here will be a short rant..... why o why do new grendaliers (ok I'm assuming new) persist in asking about unheard-of loads with powders not on mfr load data with "logic" that doesn't compute? Guys, it makes more sense to look for loads on the bullet or powder maker's page for the caliber you're planning to shoot. Maybe, MAYBE, after a few thousand rounds down stream you might think about going off-book...
If you don't have the ingredients for the caliber you want to shoot, then by all means buy them or don't shoot that caliber.... there are so many choices out there that are known to be ok.
Stay safe.
Ok, rant over, back to normal programming.

[TXCrow]

LR55

Thanks for the response. I understand the complications of what I'm trying, albeit not as much as the more experienced hand loaders. None of the responses have highlighted any major flaw in my logic(sbr application only) other than the fact that there is no specific load data. The powder has been tested in that chamber and if it weren't for Hodgdon having published load data(up to 123) for this powder I would not attempt it. My goal is a slow reliable load. +/-2000fps . I shoot 20+rds /week(hog and coyote) 200yd max 100yd average depending on the season from the driver window in my truck and since switching to the 12" the excess from the standard grendel(long barrel) powders makes one hell of a mess. Unburned powder blowing back on me, the truck etc.
All I want is optimal powder burn in the 12" barrel with wide temp stability 10* to 130* in the truck. Since all of the load data from all of the reputable companies are for long barrels we're in a grey area of Tested data vs physical knowledge. Yes out of a 18" grendel h4198 is too fast for the 130 class, but we know that.

Being the grey area that it is, I'm going to start with the published data with the same bullet referenced then come around to the 130 class. I'll keep y'all posted barring any new intel.


Another post with similar burn rate powder:

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?19589-129g-Accubond-LR-with-22g-of-4198-and-CCI-AR-Match-in-Hornady-brass&highlight=4198

[lazyengineer]

I don't think it's that dumb of a question - but I guess I'm newish as well.

Most load data is developed around 24" BBLs, and sometimes 20"; And most posted user experience data is around 16"-18" BBLs. The OP's interest is in 12" BBL, of which no manufacture publishes test data for.

If it's a fast powder, will it effectively be the same as a slow powder, if both are given just 12" of BBL to burn? i.e. is the slow powder still burning and being wasted, or is its pressure wave so late that not well taken advantage of in a shorter 12" BBL. And with that, will the fast powder that's a poor choice in a 24" test barrel, result in a cleaner, burn and lower muzzle blast product, for nearly comparable velocity, under such conditions? I don't know. If you asked me a year ago, I would say almost certainly yes. Today, after seeing some of LRRPF55's postings on powder burn behavior science, I'm not so sure anymore, but still curious.

I hope OP tries it. I'd love to see the data, especially if a few controls loads are done using other published load data with slower powders. As to no load data, there's 20" Grendel load data on LT-32 and LT-30; both of which are as fast if not faster than 4198. But only go up to 123 gr. 129 gr Grendel data tends to be quite limited for pretty much any powder.

http://blog.westernpowders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/WPHandloading-Guide-7.0-Web-REV.pdf

[TXCrow]

Grayfox,

Rant understood and appreciated! My thing is this, which part of my "logic" doesnt compute?
I have access to and funds to buy any components that I need locally, there IS published data for this powder, and this theory was posed with a specific application in mind. So, lets leave the published book load side of it be for a sec and talk about my original idea. Which part is lacking? Look in the lyman manual in the T/C contender section for an example of why I looked into this in the first place.

[TXCrow]

Lazyengineer

Exactly my thoughts. If any one has data to support or discount my idea I'm all for it, but I haven't really seen any of the later besides no posted data

[TXCrow]

2012 H data

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2736.html

[lazyengineer]

The only thing to beware of is that pressure indicators on the brass, means your too late. Unlike 5.56, pressure sign are obvious and telling, and you can run a 5.56 with visible pressure signs all day. In Grendel, due to it's larger base size, the pressure has more "square inches" (of the PSI rating) to concentrate up that force on the lugs. So the lugs get more force for the same pressure, compared to 5.56. Exasperated by also being structurally weaker, since the head space cavity in the face of the bolt, is wider and eats into the supporting metallic structure of the bolt face, that support the front half the lugs. So apparently, lugs start breaking in that gap between SAMMI pressure (no visible P sign), and where P sign of flattened primers and brass marks, starts showing up. Which makes reloading outside of book-data flying a little blind, unfortunately. So just beware of that.

[lazyengineer]

And for the above reason, I actually prefer running milder primers in Grendel, like CC400, vs 450 or 41's, as those thinner cups should start deforming more visibly at lower pressure and tell me things. I'm making this up as I go, and can't say that actually works, but it's a thought at least. Thought being if I'm piercing a primer in Grendel, any primer, I'm way too high. I've even wondered if I should go to pistol magnum primers, but haven't gone that far yet. That said, I'm blown away at how Grendel brass apparently wears out by primer pockets getting loose first, usually in 4-5 firings the way people talk, or just 2 or 3 if large primer based (i.e. 7.62x39 brass). For such a low pressure round, that makes no sense to me, so obviously I'm missing something; and with that, my advise about primer piercing etc, may all be bunk!