+- (https://6mmarc.com)
+-- Forum: 6MMARC DISCUSSION (https://6mmarc.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6mmARC Ammunition and Reloading (https://6mmarc.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: VV 135 (/showthread.php?tid=74)
VV 135 - mikebin - 08-23-2020
I have several pounds of VV 135 that I have been using for my 6PPC. I have not seen it listed as a powder option for the ARC and want to know if any of you have used it, particularly in the lighter weight, below 80 grain, bullets yet? If none of you have, is there any reason to believe it cannot/should not be used?
RE: VV 135 - Trashy - 08-24-2020
I have never used it, it looks to be between H4895 and accurate 2520 on burn rate. And with Hornady’s published load data it’s going to do as good as anything they have listed except for maybe cfe223 and Leverevolution. I say go for it, the more people testing various powders the faster we will be able to weed out the ones that don’t work for the ARC. Just go slow and be observant.
RE: VV 135 - mikebin - 08-24-2020
Thanks, Trashy; and slow and observant is where I'm coming from. That's why I asked! Looking at the burn rate chart I couldn't see any reason why N-135 wouldn't be right in the wheelhouse for the ARC, but I'm a very cautious reloader, and always remind myself that there's a 50K pound pressure module about 5 inches from my ugly mug every time I pull the trigger.
RE: VV 135 - Trashy - 08-24-2020
No problem! I look forward to seeing your results. Good luck
RE: VV 135 - VASCAR2 - 08-26-2020
I used VV N135 and N133 when there was a shortage of powder. The only downside was using uniflow powder dispenser. I’m sure from crunch the drum was cutting some kernels of powder. I used both powders in 6.5 Grendel and 5.56/223 and got good accuracy.
RE: VV 135 - mikebin - 08-31-2020
That's encouraging, VASCAR2. I've got some loaded up and will be hitting the range on Wednesday, weather permitting.
RE: VV 135 - mikebin - 09-02-2020
(08-24-2020, 12:41 AM)Trashy Wrote: I have never used it, it looks to be between H4895 and accurate 2520 on burn rate. And with Hornady’s published load data it’s going to do as good as anything they have listed except for maybe cfe223 and Leverevolution. I say go for it, the more people testing various powders the faster we will be able to weed out the ones that don’t work for the ARC. Just go slow and be observant.I got out to the range before a weather front blew in with some much needed rain, and ran several loads of N-135 through the ARC and the powder appeared to perform just fine. I started with a very conservative 25 grain load pushing a 108 grain Berger Elite Hunter, and went, in .3 grain increments up to 25.9. No pressure signs, and a 5 shot, one ragged hole group at 25.6.
RE: VV 135 - Trashy - 09-02-2020
That’s great to hear. Were you able to get any velocities by chance? Did the rifle operate properly at the 25 grain loading?
RE: VV 135 - mikebin - 09-03-2020
(09-02-2020, 11:38 PM)Trashy Wrote: That’s great to hear. Were you able to get any velocities by chance? Did the rifle operate properly at the 25 grain loading?At the 25 grain entry level, I had 2 failures to feed which I attributed to short stroking. As I went up the charge scale, the FTF's went away. The rain arrived just as I was ready to 'graph a few rounds from a test batch, and I didn't get a chance to test the N135 batch. I did, however, get to test the H 4598 compared to I 4598, and at the 25 grain level, I got the following results out of my 18" rifle:
I 4895: Average MV=2287; ES=47; SD= 19
H 4895: Average MV=2352; ES=62; SD=25
I found it interesting that I 4895 was not called out as a viable powder by Hornady, but H 4895 was recommended in all but the lightest bullets. And, the estimated MV for 25.2 grains (max load) of H 4895 was 2400fps, and I averaged 2352fps with 25.0.
At the same time I'm working with this new ARC that I built, I've got a new 300 HAM'R that I'm working up loads for! This may be too much fun for me to handle!!
RE: VV 135 - Trashy - 09-04-2020
Sorry about that, that’s why I asked. Kinda figured there would be either FTF’s or bolt fail to lock back.
What velocity were you looking for with the 4895’s?
RE: VV 135 - mikebin - 09-04-2020
I guess I go about load development a bit differently than most folks. I look for accuracy first and foremost, and then once I have a load that stuffs them pretty much in one ragged hole, I 'graph it to find out the speed. From there, I'll play around with COL, increased/decreased powder charges, different primers, and hold everything else the same with each change. So I'd have to say that I was not looking for a particular velocity; you might say I let the velocity find me!
RE: VV 135 - Trashy - 09-05-2020
Ketchup / catsup it’s still squashed tomatoes. There is nothing wrong looking for accuracy first. I say go with what works for you and what you are comfortable with.
RE: VV 135 - mikebin - 09-06-2020
10/4!