130 ELD & XBR or AR-Comp

[Happy2Shoot]

According to who?

One of several charts.
Page 120

http://www.ramshot.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WesternPowdersHandloadingGuide8.0_WEB.pdf

This is preposterous, AR-Comp is known to be an excellent performer in the Grendel with 123gr, and I'm my experience it works well with 129gr as well. What's your source for stating it's faster than any other powders in the Hornady book.

Who has the printed, published data, created with pressure measuring instruments?

The Hodgdon burn rate chart has it literally right between 8208 and Tac.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://imrpowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2020-burn-rate-chart.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwihwMmeovTrAhXYGs0KHTLLBhsQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2rqDViaKAb7iGaIBVkTE4_

In Quickload models, AR-Comp is usually one of the higher velocity temp stable options.

We need to have a sticky thread for Quickload. Half the people say it doesn't work well for oddball cartridges, other half don't bother with reloading manuals. The 6.5 Grendel is such a low pressure round that by the time you see any sign of pressure on your brass you are at least 20kpsi over.

OP, I'd work up towards 27gr and see what things look like, you might not get an the way there. I run 27.3gr with 123gr SSTs, 27 gr with 123 ELDs and 26.7gr with 129gr Interlocks.

Is there published AR-COMP data for the 6.5 Grendel cartridge?

[VASCAR2]

https://www.speer.com/reloading/rifle-data.html

[GSPHunter]

https://www.speer.com/reloading/rifle-data.html

Speer's data is one of the reasons I've used 8208XBR maximums (25.4gn with the 120 gold dot) for AR-Comp. Nosler list's 27.0gn of 8208XBR for the 129/130 bullets...and 26.9gn of AR-Comp pushing 129's and 130's seems to be a happy place for my rifle (2370FPS from a 20" barrel)

AR-Comp must have a unique pressure curve to have it placed so differently on different burn rate charts.

[mel]

i will be testing arcomp with 130's today , just as soon as i get motivated to get out of the house anyways lol

[another caliber]

https://www.speer.com/reloading/rifle-data.html

QuickLoad gives me 2421 for their max 120gr GD AR-Comp load from that page using my S-L brass config and 24" barrel. That's spot on to Speer's 2418. That's a super weak load, not sure why they are calling that max.

[Gtscotty]

Quote Originally Posted by Gtscotty View Post

According to who?

One of several charts.
Page 120

http://www.ramshot.com/wp-content/up...ide8.0_WEB.pdf

This is preposterous, AR-Comp is known to be an excellent performer in the Grendel with 123gr, and I'm my experience it works well with 129gr as well. What's your source for stating it's faster than any other powders in the Hornady book.

Who has the printed, published data, created with pressure measuring instruments?

The Hodgdon burn rate chart has it literally right between 8208 and Tac.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...Ab7iGaIBVkTE4_

In Quickload models, AR-Comp is usually one of the higher velocity temp stable options.

We need to have a sticky thread for Quickload. Half the people say it doesn't work well for oddball cartridges, other half don't bother with reloading manuals. The 6.5 Grendel is such a low pressure round that by the time you see any sign of pressure on your brass you are at least 20kpsi over.

OP, I'd work up towards 27gr and see what things look like, you might not get an the way there. I run 27.3gr with 123gr SSTs, 27 gr with 123 ELDs and 26.7gr with 129gr Interlocks.


Is there published AR-COMP data for the 6.5 Grendel cartridge?

There's one (that doesn't show AR-Comp as much different than 8208) where are the other several? Go ahead and post them up. You conveniently ignored Hodgdon's chart that puts AR-Comp right between 8208 and Tac, excellent burn rate for the Grendel.

Someone else already answered your published data question, AR-Comp is the newest of the powders commonly discussed for the Grendel, but Speer has gotten load data out for the 120gr Gold Dot. The specified max is almost the exact same as 8208 for that bullet. If you're not willing to extrapolate to another bullet and work up, don't, but don't chide others for taking this very common load development approach. The last time I called Barnes, the technician recommended I do something very similar for a bullet/powder combo that wasn't in their manual.

A former remington ammunition company employee stated in discussions on another site that in his experience properly setup Quickload was very good at predicting their measured pressures. From some side discussions with him, I don't doubt his expertise, and I think I'll take his word over random internet dude on this.

Also, your assertion that Grendels won't show any pressure until you get to 72ksi is made up BS. Some Hornady factory ammo shows pressure in my rifle, must be running 20ksi over huh?

[Kswhitetails]

Honestly, if you are willing to buy new bolts as needed load 'em up hot and heavy. Your gun is not going to blow up unless you use pistol powder. The 6.5 Grendel case is too small.

Happy2Shoot - Comments like this one are not only wrong, they are dangerous; and I daresay, are unwelcome here. While some clarification may help, at this point I'm wondering why I would read one of your comments and take it seriously from here on.

I can assure you that there are powders available that would shred magazines, mag-wells, upper receivers, bend pivot pins, and shatter bolts all together in one trigger pull. If that's not "blowing your gun up", then I don't know what is. A2460 is one.

Your reading on ARCOMP is sorely lacking; and I'm not sure what you're trying to say about QL at all. If you're such a stickler for only using publised data, I'm curious why you would ever care about QL in the first place...

The QL software is neither a good starting point, nor is it proof of any concept. While it may help someone with a solid foundation in both reloading and the software itself to set some experimental groundwork and guidelines (for themselves), it is far from reliable enough for general consumption. Some may well trust it. It remains however, experimental at best in practical use. (I know this will start a QL debate. My point here is that referencing QL data as evidence of anything has no standing - when compared to actual results, from actual load workup, done by competent loaders. No one would suggest we offer up QL data as equivalent to referenced or published data with which to operate, or as evidence that a particular powder and bullet combination is a go/no-go.)


OP - If you're interested in ARComp, there are plenty of threads and posts from reliable individuals finding good success with it in various loads. Don't load them hot and heavy and experiment... as always, start low and work up as appropriate.

Good luck with your development.

[ih784]

[mel]

i shoot supressed as well but i develop all my loads unsupressed , what ive noticed is , with the supressor ill get some ejector marks , but they go away if i turn down the gas , as far as supressed or unsupressed sometimes ill have to adjust powder charge a tenth up or down to maintian group size supressed vs unsupressed , though with ar comp i have not had to do this if it shoots .3moa unspressed it shoots the same with the same load supressed

[Dr.Phil]

it shoots the same with the same load supressed

FWIW, final load development should be done utilizing the configuration your will be utilizing.
This is due to the difference in barrel harmonics when anything touching the barrel changes.
Suppressors definitely qualify as doing that.

One other thing that will eat your lunch, is doing load development with a Magneto Speed strapped to the barrel.
Seen more than one team mate waste a hundred projectiles due to the change in barrel harmonics.
A well developed load with a wide "Node" will minimize this phenomena to the point where it is not even observable though.

First post on this board, but been here along time.
Some may recognize my username, I'm a fairly well known member on 300BLK Talk, Silencer Talk, & Sniper's Hide though.

[Klaus Von Richter]

9B7E385B-72B0-4D2B-997C-64411B251C8D.jpeg

[ih784]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16789[/ATTACH]

[Klaus Von Richter]

Let me know if you need any other load data.

[another caliber]

Happy2Shoot - Comments like this one are not only wrong, they are dangerous; and I daresay, are unwelcome here. While some clarification may help, at this point I'm wondering why I would read one of your comments and take it seriously from here on.
...
The QL software is neither a good starting point, nor is it proof of any concept. While it may help someone with a solid foundation in both reloading and the software itself to set some experimental groundwork and guidelines (for themselves), it is far from reliable enough for general consumption. Some may well trust it. It remains however, experimental at best in practical use. (I know this will start a QL debate. My point here is that referencing QL data as evidence of anything has no standing - when compared to actual results, from actual load workup, done by competent loaders. No one would suggest we offer up QL data as equivalent to referenced or published data with which to operate, or as evidence that a particular powder and bullet combination is a go/no-go.)

I don't think it's appropriate to claim that a chronograph and fired cases are sufficient to determining load safety. Pressure cannot be determined from velocity. Pressure cannot be determined from brass markings. To claim otherwise is not only wrong but dangerous.

[Klem]

Weighing in on Post #29

Velocity is not pressure but it is a pretty good proxy. In the absence of being able to directly measure pressure (no strain gauge) then a popular choice is to use velocity. QL and manufacturer load tables list both the velocity and pressure for a particular load and barrel length so it is not unreasonable to use this as a guide for one's own loading. With a chronograph shooters can mimic manufacturer and computer simulations and have confidence that their pressures are similar. Again, without a strain gauge you are left with a few choices; computer simulation, manufacturer load tables, fellow shooters on forums, reading spent cases like tea leaves, feeling the recoil in your shoulder, loading until something breaks. or a combination of these.

As far as publishing being more credible than a computer simulation like QL is concerned - anyone can publish. Every time one of us shares a load on this forum they are publishing. A few forum members got together and published a book with loads. Manufacturers publish online and physical books. What decides whether a posted load on this forum is more credible than Hodgdon's manual is the reader. The same goes for a computer program vs. a published loads. I use them all and they complement each other. I've used QL for several years and have come to believe it is as credible and more precise than a manufacturer's website (which list only a few loads and for a particular barrel length).