Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Reloading equipment, methods, load data, powder and projectile information.

Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Sergeant Hartman » 22 Aug 2018, 11:11 pm

I am slightly confused. Generally the lower weight projectile you go the more powder you need. But in case of ADI they have range of 35.2gr to 39.2gr of 2209.... while 140gr needs 36 to 40gr. Then I looked at nosler data and they reckon h4350 requires 39gr to 43gr.

Can anyone please yell me recommended range or something decent to start around and max they have tested
Sergeant Hartman
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1722
Victoria

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by SCJ429 » 23 Aug 2018, 7:25 am

Different projectiles have different bearing surfaces and create different pressures. You are comparing the Nosler to a Amax. The load data is a guide and you do your own load testing. At what point do you start having a compressed load with 2209 and 4350?
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by marksman » 23 Aug 2018, 12:02 pm

read this and you may get a better handle on it
sierrabulletsblog.com/2016/04/15/why-does-load-data-vary-between-reloading-manuals/
although I do own quite a few reloading books I do not see them as carved in stone information for each individual rifle
I own quickload and use this more for what my individual rifle load will be scientifically :crazy: :allegedly:
“If you do not read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed”. Mark Twain
User avatar
marksman
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3660
Victoria

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Sergeant Hartman » 23 Aug 2018, 12:30 pm

I haven't started the load dev. I am just looking at the data to start from. If I look at adi data the max load weight for a 130gr is basically the same as start load what nosler recommend for their 130gr RDF. I might load up looking at nosler data as that's for their projectile while adi is for a different projectile but keep an eye out for pressure signs
Sergeant Hartman
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1722
Victoria

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by marksman » 23 Aug 2018, 5:13 pm

thats the way I did it before quickload
lots of different things can change a load from light to over
eg... case volume, oal, bore (tight-loose), climate
a good accurate way to check for pressure is written here
http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloadi ... le-reloads
“If you do not read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed”. Mark Twain
User avatar
marksman
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3660
Victoria

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Flyer » 24 Aug 2018, 4:00 pm

The RDFs are a long projectile for their weight, so if you load to mag length - or any other OAL for that matter - the projectile will seat a bit deeper in the case, robbing you of powder volume compared to other projectiles of similar weigh. Consequently, if you want to seat the RDF's just off the lands, they will sit a fair way out of the case, usually providing more powder room - but at a much greater OAL than similar weight projectiles.

As pointed out above, they also have a short bearing surface for their weight, so less pressure build-up (and less friction inside the barrel). All these things need to be considered when reloading.

The main issue I had with RDF's in my 223 is I had to seat them right back from the lands to fit mag length, so they sat quite deep and I reached compressed loads sooner. They're really designed for single shot or long mag-length rifles.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Gaznazdiak » 24 Aug 2018, 4:14 pm

Flyer wrote:The RDFs are a long projectile for their weight, so if you load to mag length - or any other OAL for that matter - the projectile will seat a bit deeper in the case, robbing you of powder volume compared to other projectiles of similar weigh. Consequently, if you want to seat the RDF's just off the lands, they will sit a fair way out of the case, usually providing more powder room - but at a much greater OAL than similar weight projectiles.

As pointed out above, they also have a short bearing surface for their weight, so less pressure build-up (and less friction inside the barrel). All these things need to be considered when reloading.

The main issue I had with RDF's in my 223 is I had to seat them right back from the lands to fit mag length, so they sat quite deep and I reached compressed loads sooner. They're really designed for single shot or long mag-length rifles.


I have used RDF in my 9 twist 223 and found them better than 70gn Berger VLD, as far as wind resistance in particular.

I'm no Carlos Hathcock by any means, but using the 70gn RDF I can achieve a sub 2 inch group at 400m in a 25kph crosswind. For a mediocre shooter like me, that says it all.
fideles usque ad mortem
User avatar
Gaznazdiak
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1379
New South Wales

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Flyer » 24 Aug 2018, 4:27 pm

I haven't had much luck with them. Do you mind sharing your load? I have a 1:8 twist 24" barrel. Cheers.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by bigrich » 24 Aug 2018, 4:50 pm

As stated earlier all rifles can have individual likes and dislikes. Reloading data is a guide really. Start low at loads and carefully work up to suit your application. Look for pressure signs and tailor your loads to suit your rifle. Sometimes things can be a compromise. Is it worth running hot loads to get that extra thousands of an inch accuracy and wearing out your barrel prematurely? Questions only you can answer .I spent a month reading and asking questions of people, slowing accumulating all that I needed before my first load.Above all else be safe , take everything you read or hear with a grain of salt , especially advice on forums :lol: :thumbsup:
Last edited by bigrich on 24 Aug 2018, 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bigrich
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4483
Queensland

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Gaznazdiak » 24 Aug 2018, 4:50 pm

Flyer wrote:I haven't had much luck with them. Do you mind sharing your load? I have a 1:8 twist 24" barrel. Cheers.


This was with 26gn of 2206H and a COAL of 58.58mm in my Howa 1500 24" 9 twist.

Bear in mind that this load was showing pressure signs with slightly cratered primers, so I have since reduced the load by 2gn, but have not had the weather to be able to test this new load beyond 100m.

Treat any other persons load as a vague guide only and work up from minimum, watching for pressire signs.

You only get one head, don't risk removing it by ambitious loading, you have to treat every rifle and every load as completely individual.

I'm still a total neophyte as far as loading goes, but the best advice I can offer from my relative ignorance is caution.

Best of luck.

:drinks:
fideles usque ad mortem
User avatar
Gaznazdiak
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1379
New South Wales

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Sergeant Hartman » 24 Aug 2018, 6:34 pm

Well I am lucky as my mag will allow a longer OAL. I think I'll start on the 140gr rdf load dev and test a couple 130gr ones while there to check pressure signs. From my research the rdf like a jump of 0.3 to 0.5 from the lands will on the 6.5creedmore
Sergeant Hartman
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1722
Victoria

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by bigrich » 24 Aug 2018, 7:05 pm

Ziad wrote:Well I am lucky as my mag will allow a longer OAL. I think I'll start on the 140gr rdf load dev and test a couple 130gr ones while there to check pressure signs. From my research the rdf like a jump of 0.3 to 0.5 from the lands will on the 6.5creedmore


Sometimes the only way is careful experimentation. I’m sure you’ll get there bud
User avatar
bigrich
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4483
Queensland

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Flyer » 24 Aug 2018, 9:52 pm

Gaznazdiak wrote:This was with 26gn of 2206H and a COAL of 58.58mm in my Howa 1500 24" 9 twist.

Bear in mind that this load was showing pressure signs with slightly cratered primers, so I have since reduced the load by 2gn, but have not had the weather to be able to test this new load beyond 100m.

Treat any other persons load as a vague guide only and work up from minimum, watching for pressire signs.

You only get one head, don't risk removing it by ambitious loading, you have to treat every rifle and every load as completely individual.

I'm still a total neophyte as far as loading goes, but the best advice I can offer from my relative ignorance is caution.

Best of luck.

:drinks:

Cheers mate. I was mainly interested in what powder you were using. 23.6gr was my best load for the RDF 70s using 2206H at 2.275". But by "best" I mean a 1.3" 5-shot group at 100m - though the spread was all horizontal (possibly a bit of wind) with consistent vertical height.

Conversely, I tried the same load with Sierra 69gr Tipped Matchkings - 23.6gr of 2206H at 2.275" with ADI brass and CCI primers - and shot a .400" group at 100m. Anything under half an inch at 100m is good for me.

The TMKs are also slightly longer than the RDFs (.980" vs .960" on average), so I don't know how accurate Nosler's BC rating is. Nosler has been caught out telling fibs in the past, and you can go to Bryan Litz's site and compare real-world BCs with claimed BCs here: http://appliedballisticsllc.com/ballistics/

Suffice it to say, Berger and Lapua are the most honest when it comes to quoting BCs, whilst Nosler appears to have the longest nose. Hornady and Sierra don't appear to be entirely truthful, either - though Hornady claims its new ELD bullets are doppler radar tested and are "honest" BCs.

It's a shame I can't get the RDFs to shoot, as they're much cheaper than the Sierras. I've got a one-hole load using Nosler Varmageddon 53gr projectiles with 25.2gr of BM2 in the same ADI cases with CCI primers, so I know Noslers can shoot.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by SCJ429 » 25 Aug 2018, 9:55 am

What makes you think they are telling a fib? In the past the secant ogive has provided better BC than the comparable tangent design. The downside was that secant designs were sensitive to seating depth and needed to be jammed. The new alternative is a hybrid design which gives you the best of both worlds.
To get the Noslers to shoot I would carefully batch the projectiles, when you get them grouping well you can experiment with seating depth to fine tune your load. This is what I do for SMK, I found when I used Bergers that there is almost no need to batch them. They have been the easiest projectiles to get shooting well. That is not to say you will not get the RDF or TMK shooting extremely well if you take your time to tune them properly.
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by marksman » 25 Aug 2018, 11:29 am

bergers have been very easy for me to get shooting as well
some jammed some jumped :unknown:
when I get reamers made I get them throated at 1.5 degree angle, these rifles have all liked jam or touch with bergers
factory rifles that are not well worn I have found to like touch or jump with bergers :unknown:
you need to treat every different rifle as different and try different things, same as every bullet :thumbsup:
if you truly want to check your BC's on the day, you shoot at different distances with a ballistics chart showing your drop
batching your projectiles is very good advise if you are trying to wring out every bit of precision you can get
I have also found the same as SCJ429 that I do not need to batch bergers :thumbsup:
“If you do not read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed”. Mark Twain
User avatar
marksman
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3660
Victoria

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Gaznazdiak » 25 Aug 2018, 11:50 am

Flyer wrote:
Gaznazdiak wrote:This was with 26gn of 2206H and a COAL of 58.58mm in my Howa 1500 24" 9 twist.

Bear in mind that this load was showing pressure signs with slightly cratered primers, so I have since reduced the load by 2gn, but have not had the weather to be able to test this new load beyond 100m.

Treat any other persons load as a vague guide only and work up from minimum, watching for pressire signs.

You only get one head, don't risk removing it by ambitious loading, you have to treat every rifle and every load as completely individual.

I'm still a total neophyte as far as loading goes, but the best advice I can offer from my relative ignorance is caution.

Best of luck.

:drinks:

Cheers mate. I was mainly interested in what powder you were using. 23.6gr was my best load for the RDF 70s using 2206H at 2.275". But by "best" I mean a 1.3" 5-shot group at 100m - though the spread was all horizontal (possibly a bit of wind) with consistent vertical height.

Conversely, I tried the same load with Sierra 69gr Tipped Matchkings - 23.6gr of 2206H at 2.275" with ADI brass and CCI primers - and shot a .400" group at 100m. Anything under half an inch at 100m is good for me.

The TMKs are also slightly longer than the RDFs (.980" vs .960" on average), so I don't know how accurate Nosler's BC rating is. Nosler has been caught out telling fibs in the past, and you can go to Bryan Litz's site and compare real-world BCs with claimed BCs here: http://appliedballisticsllc.com/ballistics/

Suffice it to say, Berger and Lapua are the most honest when it comes to quoting BCs, whilst Nosler appears to have the longest nose. Hornady and Sierra don't appear to be entirely truthful, either - though Hornady claims its new ELD bullets are doppler radar tested and are "honest" BCs.

It's a shame I can't get the RDFs to shoot, as they're much cheaper than the Sierras. I've got a one-hole load using Nosler Varmageddon 53gr projectiles with 25.2gr of BM2 in the same ADI cases with CCI primers, so I know Noslers can shoot.


It's funny how individual different rifles can be.
Mine loves the Nosler 50gn Ballistic Tip Varmints, the best accuracy I've had is with them over 26.6gn, but was getting consistent cratering so I dropped it to 26gn. The groups are only marginally larger but I only hunt at 300 or under so they still do the trick.

I mistyped yesterday(bloody ethanol) the wind of which I spoke was 15 not 25kph.

The thing I found so amazing was the difference between the RDF and the Hornady 68gn Match.

In that quartering cross wind, the Hornadys grouped over 7 inches and were blown almost 8 inches to the right whereas the RDF were dead center.

If I was shooting 3 shot groups I'd have put it down to a momentary drop in the wind, but they were 10 shot groups with cooling time.

The Noslers were also more consistent in their weight as well, though not as close as the Bergers.
fideles usque ad mortem
User avatar
Gaznazdiak
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1379
New South Wales

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Flyer » 25 Aug 2018, 4:11 pm

SCJ429 wrote:What makes you think they are telling a fib?

Nosler 6.5mm
Accubond Long Range 142
Claimed BC: .625
Tested BC: .573

Custom Compettion 123
Claimed BC: .510
Tested BC: .470

Source: http://appliedballisticsllc.com/ballistics/

Just a couple of examples of discrepancies. While I'm not saying the RDF BCs are overstated, I am saying Nosler (and others) have been guilty of overstating their BCs in the past, so may or may not be telling the truth this time. There's a good scientific article on the subject which, unfortunately, can now only be seen in Google cache. But it's still here if anyone cares to read: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... =firefox-b
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Flyer » 25 Aug 2018, 4:29 pm

So the RDFs might be equal or better than stated BC . . . or they might not! LOL! Big old argument about it here. http://forum.accurateshooter.com/thread ... s.3913539/

Anyway, I haven't been able to get mine to shoot, so I'll be staying out of any arguments about BC. I do know Sierra's 69gr TMK shoots well in my rifle, so horses for courses.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by SCJ429 » 25 Aug 2018, 6:56 pm

The G1 bc figures is a bit of smoke and mirrors when G7 model more closely represents modern bullet designs. We as consumers like the big bc numbers so that is what they supply and then some. I am sure Nosler could explain the conditions under which they tested their projectile to arrive at the advertised bc figure. Good work researching this issue and bringing it to our attention. I do like Bryan Linz but understand he is not completely unbiased.

When you used the G1 bc figure in your ballistic table did the resulting drop figures replicate the bullet drop you experienced at the range?
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: Nosler 130gr rdf 6.5 creedence clear water

Post by Flyer » 25 Aug 2018, 9:43 pm

That I couldn't answer for the simple reason I tried various test loads and couldn't get a decent group, so didn't persist with the 70gr RDFs. So I never chronoed them nor even got to the stage of zeroing and consistent load.

Yes, Bryan Litz works for Berger - and that is mentioned in the scientific article I posted, which is why they independently tested the projectiles and then posted their results against Litz and the manufacturers claims. I guess the most interesting thing about the results was that, on average, most projectile BCs are overestimated. However some are underestimated.

I also take onboard that G7 is a better reflection of BC for VLD type bullets, as that's the shaped G7 calculations are based on. I just thought it was interesting that some companies obviously use claimed BC figures as a marketing tool, so aren't always reliable.

I guess the moral of the story is, use the projectile that works best in your rifle for your application.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-


Back to top
 
Return to Reloading ammunition