Imr 3031

[Tikka]

Anyone working with IMR 3031? I'm working with this and 95gr. amax. Starting to look promising. What have you got?

[mseric]

Anyone working with IMR 3031? I'm working with this and 95gr. amax. Starting to look promising. What have you got?

What have you got that looks promising? Where did you get your load data from?

There has been a little discussion about 3031 in the Grendel here.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?1160-3000fps-with-100gr

[sneaky one]

I tried 3031 for the 3k test last month/ 100 gn. short hornady sp's.- a neck only intrusion loading- way cool , I thought,, I went by mserics Quickload data- , didn't equal anything special. = 2770 fps.- (Did you mean 95 V-max?) It's a nice powder-I'm going to load a rack of 5.56 ammo and use it up.-- By way of comparison- RL7 gave me 90-100 fps. more in the few tries I did 2 wks. ago, with 92-3 GMX units,,,, as I did the test with - X-term - Tac - 8208, 3031, RL7. Interestingly enough, I thought today of trying the rl 7 for the 95 v-max's. 3031 seems to be better for light bullets, same as rl 7. Try 29.5 as a start point. Jump by .2's.

[Tikka]

Sorry, I did mean V-max. For a starting point I simply referenced the burn rate charts, started low and worked up. The last load tested was 27.2gr of 3031 which fired a couple five shot groups of 1" or slightly less. I have no velocity info. (no chrono). I haven't seen pressure signs yet and it "feels" mild but I don't want to push things too far.

[LR1955]

Anyone working with IMR 3031? I'm working with this and 95gr. amax. Starting to look promising. What have you got?

Tikka:

Guys on the last forum tried it, along with a bunch of other extruded powders that existed before 8208 XBR. 3031 was too bulky so you couldn't get enough powder into the case to maximize velocity. Also, 3031 does not meter easily.

Sure, it will work safely but the downside is extremely poor measuring, bridging in measures, low velocities compared to the more common powders used in the Grendel.

8208 XBR is a superior extruded powder for the Grendel that will cover a wider range of bullet weights, that won't bridge in measures, and will meter consistently.

LR1955

[bobke]

Since we're talking a variety of burn rate powders, I'd seen something in an issue of Handloader of really excellent results with 10X and light bullets in .223, but since I only shoot 75's in mine, have not tried it in that application. Since Sneaky's mentioned RL7, wondered if anyone's tried 10X in Grendel with any range of bullet weights.

[LR1955]

Since we're talking a variety of burn rate powders, I'd seen something in an issue of Handloader of really excellent results with 10X and light bullets in .223, but since I only shoot 75's in mine, have not tried it in that application. Since Sneaky's mentioned RL7, wondered if anyone's tried 10X in Grendel with any range of bullet weights.

Bobke:

Dangerous powder to use with the Grendel.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?3032-whats-up-with-this-thing

Message # 8.

LR1955

[bobke]

LR
Thanks for head's up-hadn't seen that previously. Have been working with CFE223 and AR Comp with 120gr range in 95 temps last weekend with enough result to steer much further down that path. Threw an ejector roll pin which ended the testing, but pretty good early indications, ARC yielding lower velocities but decent accuracy in a 15+ wind, and the CFE very good velocity and accuracy potential, as others have mentioned. These in both 18" AA 1:8 barrel and 24" Satern 1:8.75 barrel fired within two hours of each other.

[sneaky one]

bobke, I crammed in 31.4 of 3031, and a short Hornady 100 grn. sp.-it was only in the neck intrusion, only hit 2770. it is fine for larger cases. But as LR pointed out, 8208 is a great powder.

[LR1955]

LR
Thanks for head's up-hadn't seen that previously. Have been working with CFE223 and AR Comp with 120gr range in 95 temps last weekend with enough result to steer much further down that path. Threw an ejector roll pin which ended the testing, but pretty good early indications, ARC yielding lower velocities but decent accuracy in a 15+ wind, and the CFE very good velocity and accuracy potential, as others have mentioned. These in both 18" AA 1:8 barrel and 24" Satern 1:8.75 barrel fired within two hours of each other.

Bobke:

If I could put generations on the Grendel, the first generation would have been most of the guys on the last forum. 2/3 of them dropped off the radar screen but a few are on the current forum. The second generation Grendel guys are guys like you on the current forum.

I note this because you guys are experimenting with powders that didn't exist during the first generation forum (CFE-223 and AR Comp), just as we experimented with the more common powders available then. However, I think our goals were far different than yours.

We were very specific about finding an extruded powder that met or exceeded ball powder velocities, with the same or lower pressures, and safe over a wide range of bullets. I think you guys are testing the newer powders more to see if they work than to see if they are better than the ball powders?

We found the fast buring extruded VV powders seemed to be better than the extruded Alliant or IMR powders but we never found any to give the same velocities as the ball powders such as TAC and 2520. I don't think we looked farther into the extruded powders as it seemed we tried everything from Reloader 10X through 4350 and Reloader 17. We figured that the old (and no longer in production) Reloader 12 would probably be OK but in retrospect, I don't think it would have been any better than the others. The problem was that the bulk density of the extruded powders are not as high as the ball powders so we couldn't get enough of the extruded stuff into a Grendel case to give us that magical 95% case fill with the same velocities and pressures as the ball powders. Until 8208 XBR hit the market. That extruded powder seems to have the bulk density to give as good velocity with the same pressures as the ball powders.

It is intersting that you guys are going down the same path as we did with the new powders, using the same methods, reporting choro, accuracy, and function even if you aren't doing it for the same reasons we did. We really wanted a extruded powder to equal or exceed the ball powders in velocity and safety. So far, 8208 XBR has come the closest.

LR1955

[sneaky one]

I agree with LR., on all points-except w/ RL7 -in the 95 grn., and lighter units--it gains not only speed , it was a cleaner fired case, than 8208. Sad tho- r l 7 was as much a dud with any buulet 100 gr. +

[nincomp]

LR1955,
I agree with your previous comment.

However, I believe that one of the big changes the past few years has been the improvements in ball powders. It appears that St. Marks and others have made available ball powders that have less temperature sensitivity and have more progressive burning characteristics than ball powders available to handloaders in the mid 2000’s. In other words, more like the stick powders.

It has become easier to tune the pressure curves to maintain flatter, longer peaks in order to make “designer powders.” We know that Hornady uses this technique in its “Superperformance Ammunition.” Remember the “non canister” powder used by Bill Alexander in the first Alexander Arms ammunition? It drove some members nuts that they could not match the performance of factory ammunition. My guess is that the powder used by Alexander Arms was an early version of what we see on the market today.
What I find confusing is that although St. Marks manufactures many of the new ball powders, these powders are being marketed through several companies. This makes it more difficult to compare and choose the best one for the application. Well, at least it gives the current members new powders to continue the chase for the “best of the best.”

By the way, I wanted to say that I appreciate that you have remained around on the “new” site to provide continuity and help for the “second generation” of Grendel users (as well as for the “first”).

Jim

[bwaites]

LR1955,
I agree with your previous comment.

However, I believe that one of the big changes the past few years has been the improvements in ball powders. It appears that St. Marks and others have made available ball powders that have less temperature sensitivity and have more progressive burning characteristics than ball powders available to handloaders in the mid 2000’s. In other words, more like the stick powders.

It has become easier to tune the pressure curves to maintain flatter, longer peaks in order to make “designer powders.” We know that Hornady uses this technique in its “Superperformance Ammunition.” Remember the “non canister” powder used by Bill Alexander in the first Alexander Arms ammunition? It drove some members nuts that they could not match the performance of factory ammunition. My guess is that the powder used by Alexander Arms was an early version of what we see on the market today.
What I find confusing is that although St. Marks manufactures many of the new ball powders, these powders are being marketed through several companies. This makes it more difficult to compare and choose the best one for the application. Well, at least it gives the current members new powders to continue the chase for the “best of the best.”

By the way, I wanted to say that I appreciate that you have remained around on the “new” site to provide continuity and help for the “second generation” of Grendel users (as well as for the “first”).

Jim

Jim, you are probably 100 percent correct in your belief that the powder used by AA is/was one of those earlier versions of a St. Marks powder. Bill Alexander has tried hard to make that powder available to handloaders so we could match factory results, but St. Marks has no public marketing arm, and no one else has picked up the powder to distribute to reloaders, unless its named something else!

I'm grateful for all the guys who have returned, as well!

[nincomp]

Bwaites,
As I said before, I am still too crippled to shoot and offer first-hand shooting tips. But I have followed this forum since it started. I guess the best I can do is try to be a suppository of knowledge.

[Variable]

Bwaites,
As I said before, I am still too crippled to shoot and offer first-hand shooting tips. But I have followed this forum since it started. I guess the best I can do is try to be a suppository of knowledge.

I'd rather you were a repository instead.... Otherwise folks might not want to learn from you.... LOL!!!