Quickload request for 6.5x55 please.

[sambar]

Hi Gents,

In order to get me started in developing a load as per Dan Newberry's OCW method would someone who has Quickload be so kind as to crunch the following figures:

 

 

Cartridge : 6.5x55 Winchester

Bullet : .264, 129 Grain, Hornady Interlock 2620

Useable Case Capaci: 55.194 grain H2O = 3.576 cm³

Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.153 inch = 80.1 mm

Barrel Length : 20.0 inch = 508 mm

Powder : Viht N150

Many Thanks in anticipation.

Sambar.

[Andrew]

I gave up on Quick Load some time back so I can't give you the exact info you want, but being from the pre computer era, I am curious as to why you don't go to the Vhit site and use the starting data for the 130 grain bullets listed? ~Andrew

[BlueBoy69]

As requested Sambar,

 

This 39.0 gr (88% load density) load's pressure level sits in the middle of the recommend pressure band, the upper limit is about 42.0 gr (93%).

 

Cartridge : 6.5 x 55 Swedish
Bullet : .264, 129, Hornady SST InterLock 26202
Usable Case Capacity: 51.071 grain H2O = 3.316 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6 : 3.153 inch = 80.09 mm
Barrel Length : 20.0 inch = 508.0 mm
Powder : Vihtavuori N150

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-20.0 70 31.20 2016 1164 25317 8531 93.8 1.545
-18.0 72 31.98 2062 1218 26779 8786 94.8 1.513
-16.0 74 32.76 2108 1273 28320 9034 95.6 1.480
-14.0 76 33.54 2154 1329 29943 9273 96.4 1.449
-12.0 77 34.32 2200 1386 31651 9503 97.1 1.419
-10.0 79 35.10 2246 1444 33448 9724 97.8 1.390
-08.0 81 35.88 2291 1504 35339 9934 98.3 1.361
-06.0 83 36.66 2336 1564 37328 10133 98.8 1.333
-04.0 84 37.44 2381 1624 39419 10321 99.2 1.297
-02.0 86 38.22 2426 1686 41620 10495 99.5 1.262
+00.0 88 39.00 2471 1748 43934 10657 99.8 1.230
+02.0 90 39.78 2515 1811 46368 10804 99.9 1.198
+04.0 91 40.56 2558 1875 48930 10938 100.0 1.168 ! Near Maximum !
+06.0 93 41.34 2602 1939 51626 11059 100.0 1.139 ! Near Maximum !
+08.0 95 42.12 2645 2004 54464 11178 100.0 1.111 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0 97 42.90 2687 2069 57453 11294 100.0 1.083 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 88 39.00 2569 1890 51615 10344 100.0 1.143 ! Near Maximum !
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 88 39.00 2331 1557 36323 10552 96.0 1.342

 

For note, N150 is a bit too fast for 100% load density. You'd be better of with N160 or N560. The former will potentially give lower velocities, but is kinder on the barrel.

 

Andrew, I'm guessing he didn't use Vihtavouri's data as it doesn't exist for this bullet with N150, nor with his specific loading data (OAL). There is some data on the 130 gr Norma HPBT that could have been used as a baseline.

[sambar]

Thank you BlueBoy69. I'm very much obliged.

This is neither the bullet nor the powder I would have chosen, but I had to buy what was available at a time of reportedly worsening shortages, so now I'll try to get the best I can out of what I have. The only thing that concerns me is that if, as reported elsewhere, the 129 Interlocks need pushing up to 2700 fps to perform properly, then I'm going to be struggling. Only chronograph testing and some use in the field will tell.

 

Andrew from Montana: Hi to you, and thanks for taking an interest in my efforts. BlueBoy69 is guessing correctly - I had indeed looked on the Viht site as you suggested, but am too green around the gills to attempt to extrapolate from approximate information. I learned this from an earlier such attempt resulting in clear signs of over-pressure,and wasn't willing to risk another such event.

 

No idea when conditions up here will let me get out to actually try my loads - unless someone knows of a program like Quickload that gives figures for testing under water?

[Andrew]

Thank you BlueBoy69. I'm very much obliged.

This is neither the bullet nor the powder I would have chosen, but I had to buy what was available at a time of reportedly worsening shortages, so now I'll try to get the best I can out of what I have. The only thing that concerns me is that if, as reported elsewhere, the 129 Interlocks need pushing up to 2700 fps to perform properly, then I'm going to be struggling. Only chronograph testing and some use in the field will tell.

 

Andrew from Montana: Hi to you, and thanks for taking an interest in my efforts. BlueBoy69 is guessing correctly - I had indeed looked on the Viht site as you suggested, but am too green around the gills to attempt to extrapolate from approximate information. I learned this from an earlier such attempt resulting in clear signs of over-pressure,and wasn't willing to risk another such event.

 

No idea when conditions up here will let me get out to actually try my loads - unless someone knows of a program like Quickload that gives figures for testing under water?

Greetings in return! Thanks for the reply and not taking offense to an old duffer's question.

There was a time before QuickLoad and even the Internet, when this very same problem would arise. You have a bullet of a given weight and only data for the next highest bullet weight. Then it was taught that you use the minimum starting data for the bullet of the next highest weight. VV does list data fora 130 grain 6.5 bullet or two. Back then, or even today, I would take that data and use it. As to COL, Unless it was a bullet of every radical proportions, I would begin by seating the parallel sides of the bullet to the base of the neck, assuring that they fit the magazine and of course, would chamber.

 

This method actually works and is still taught in loading books. (I've never picked up a loading manual discussing this topic that says, "Check with QuickLoad".) I use it. It's pretty handy when the internet goes out.~Andrew

[sambar]

Well thank Andrew you for that information. That's precisely the kind of knowledge I lacked prior to coming onto this forum - told you I was a bit green.

I do like such "old" methods. They're simple and commonsensical, but do require a certain degree of experience, knowledge and confidence and those only come with time - or from others who are kind enough to give you the benefit of their experience.

I've perused this forum for a while and have always liked it and the kind of people and helpfulness that I have noticed to characterise it. Now I have benefitted from it - so different from other forums I've read that seem to be just bickering grounds.

Long may it continue.

[Andrew]

Well thank Andrew you for that information. That's precisely the kind of knowledge I lacked prior to coming onto this forum - told you I was a bit green.

I do like such "old" methods. They're simple and commonsensical, but do require a certain degree of experience, knowledge and confidence and those only come with time - or from others who are kind enough to give you the benefit of their experience.

I've perused this forum for a while and have always liked it and the kind of people and helpfulness that I have noticed to characterise it. Now I have benefitted from it - so different from other forums I've read that seem to be just bickering grounds.

Long may it continue.

Everyone is so busy these days that's it seems faster to glean info from the Internet. I still think a good book on the subject, carefully read, will save time in the end. I have a small library of books on reloading and ballistics and treasure them. Not that there isn't good info in the Net, but there is some not-so-good as well, and at least if you have a book, you know that the author had enough expertise on the subject to be paid to write about it.~Andrew

[gbal]

 

 

No idea when conditions up here will let me get out to actually try my loads - unless someone knows of a program like Quickload that gives figures for testing under water?

 

Sambar,if you are still waterlogged try:

 

Toadload......the book version "The Wind in the Willows' showed how to shoot the breeze rather well,but nowadays isn't very PC on rats,moles and badgers.

 

I'm with Andrew on the use of books/manufacturer's published data-while these lack the sophistication of "Quickload"-because they do not allow for the raft of input variables 'Quickload' needs,so give only approximate,but useable,data. But since there are so many fewer input variables to enter inaccurately (wrt your rifle/load/etc) ,there are also fewer 'false positive's' in the output (eg you think you know actual pressures etc in your rig,but don't). The downside of "quickload'-any multiple input algorithm-is that the output has all the appearance of detail you wish,but actually may not exactly match your reality....

 

That said,careful use of "Quickload" can by pass some serious reloading errors....it's one of several potentially good guides...but only as good as the fit of input parameters with your actual rig/conditions....ditto any "Wind" guides,willows or no. :-)

 

gbal

[sambar]

Many thanks to both of you, gbal and Andrew. Good,salient and precise information which, even if I'd somehow thought of it myself, I don't have the background of both of you to know to proceed confidently on that path.

Uninformed as I was when starting out on this, I knew not to believe all I found on the internet - even for the uninformed I think it's possible to tell whether a source can be trusted or not.

I now feel happy that I have a good point to start from and a path to follow. The rest will be just a case of adhering to normal, good, careful procedure.

Thanks once more to all three people who have helped me.

I'm open to suggestions as to which authors to consult. As Andrew pointed out they must have been considered at least good enough for someone to pay them to publish. But even then there will some who are better than others, and sure as eggs there'll be someone on this forum who knows the one from the other.

[gbal]

Sambar,

A fair point "in print" can be worth less than the cost of the ink/paper,but how to know?

 

That's one very good reason to be guided by the major manufactures' data books- in a litiginous US society,they know full well that they may be held liable for duff data.

It's standard practice for any suggested increasesfrom there to be cautioned by 'look for pressure signs',may not be safe in your rifle and so on.

All this is sensible advice. Rifles do indeed vary.And you must stay with what is clearly safe for your rifle.

"Pressure signs' are not all agreed upon exactly,and indeed may not always be shown.

Not alarmist,but it is worth also asking what is to be gained by a slight velocity increase (as it usually is) ?

Well,for the less experienced reloader,quite likely nothing-performance gains decline rapidly-and accuracy may well deteriorate.

Experienced reloaders,preferably with strong custom actions,and seeking the known competitive tested performance of other such peers,may well go the extra kernel. But otherwise,most don't need it,compared to precision and accuracy.

 

"Velocity is vanity,accuracy is sanity" bears repeating in this context. Or perhaps "They've all gone though the same hole,so I don't care how slowly". :-)

 

gbal

[sambar]

gbal

 

"Velocity is vanity,accuracy is sanity" - I read that somewhere else on the internet (maybe in an earlier post of your own?), and it rang true then too.

Your point about reloading manuals and the safety net of the fear of litigation stuck me like andrew's remarks about taking confidence in someone that someone else has had sufficient confidence in to pay for their knowledge. You think to yourself "That's so straightforward. Why didn't I already think of that?" Well, it's a case of wood and trees,of course, and that's what I'm sorting now with all the help i'm getting from this forum.

Rest assured that my prime aim is accuracy and not top velocity. I take your point about "If it goes through the same hole...". When I said earlier that I reportedly might need 2700fps, that wasn't a statement of intention, merely an observation of what others had said of the 129 Interlock. I'm looking for a hunting round,but will find an accurate one first,chrono it for the record, then test it for efficacity. Only if it fails on the last criterion will I need to reconsider - And at that point I'll probably be back here on UKV!

[banus02]

just for information ,I use 6.5x55 and 129gr interlocks with n165 these are chronoed at 2655fps and expand really well out to 260 yards on deer and fox,i tend not to shoot deer past that very often though I have never recoved a bullet but a golf ball size hole exit says they did their job,good luck

[sambar]

Thanks banus02. Even more useful info for me.

As I stated earlier, I had to buy what was available when I was gearing up for this, and since I have a full kilogram of powder, finances dictate that I need to at least try to get a working load from it,before considering laying out on another. Just as sod's law dictates, having once bought N150, my subsequent research on th'internet seems to indicate that by far most handloaders are using everything but!

It's encouraging to hear of your success on deer with the Interlocks. All the more so as it's at velocities under what some say are necessary. I was actually also already wondering about their eventual suitability for foxes,as and when I get sorted, so you've pre-empted me there.

I will be shooting from a 20" barrel, for what that's worth. As for range - 260 yds is well beyond what I'd be comfortable with, so no limitations or problems for me in that respect presumably.

[activeviii]

I use n150, CCI primers. El-cheapo ppu cases. 140gn interlocks.

 

Will need to get in the workshop to check but off head in using 33.3 gn and seating to the canalure as it made no difference what so even in the jump.

Shoots 15mm holes all day long @ 2270fps. I don't need to run it fast and have learnt a long time ago that speed smashes the pants off deer. Only down side is 21" drop at 300 meters. I never shoot past 200 on them so that's no bother to me.

 

One thing to watch. I have a five year old vit book and the latest. The latest load data is lighter on powder

[activeviii]

Double post

[sambar]

Thanks for that activev111.

Great how, after an initial request, so much information keeps coming in - and I've finally found someone who uses N150!

I tried to get the 140 Interlocks, but had no choice, so had to buy the 129's. There are good reports about them,so I'm hopeful of developing an effective round.

You're getting good accuracy with yours, and it's particularly interesting to learn your warning about over-high velocities - ties in with all the advice and warnings on that subject given by earlier contributors.

You guys are all taking them at ranges well beyond what I currently feel capable of. However that leaves me hopeful that I will be able to get the round I need at my ranges, even with my 20" barrel, without having to push the powder charge.

Thanks for the warning about the charge being lower in the newer Viht guide.

[Laurie]

6.5X55 data generally are mild basically, because as with the .45-70 Government, we're talking three cartridges in one design. Officially (ie CIP standards), this is the 6.5X55mm SKAN and is rated at 55,000 psi max average chamber pressure. However, there are lots of 100 year old Swedish Mausers and worse Norwegian Krag rifles out there (one of the latter failing destructively on a UK range a year or two back causing some serious injuries). M1896 Mauser Swedish military loads ran at around 42,000 psi and this is a sensible level for the historic arms handloader to aim to achieve - ie 40,000-45,000 psi - with this rifle. If I owned a Krag, I'd be thinking of even lower pressures.

 

However, in a modern sporting or match rifle, using Lapua brass and with careful handloading, the 55,000 psi SKAN loading is actually modest. In these circumstances, the 6.5X55 can run at the same sort of pressures as any other similar modern cartridge and rifle. It's not just an issue of action, barrel, and case strength, as many historic arms offer far less protection to the shooter if the worst happens and metal laced superheated gasses have escaped explosively and are running amok near the shooter's face and eyes!

 

Some of the Viht data is geared specifically to the SKAN pressure limit and is so stated by the company with warnings about using it only in modern firearms in good condition. Some other data, especially the older longstanding loads, appear to produce somewhat lower pressures. Even so, they may produce far more impressive results than most US manufactured sporting ammo whode makers apparently assume it will be fired in the scruffiest, most worn out and weakest example of a 19th century rifle model around. I tried some 140gn PSP deer ammo in 6.5X55 and with a bit of QuickLOAD modelling calculated it was producing under 35,000 psi. This was also probably the reason why it produced a three-figure velocity ES, the load so low and at such inadequate pressure the charge wasn't burning consistently.

 

So, the upshot is that if one is using a good modern rifle as I presume is the case here for deer and foxes, the published maximum data levels leave a good sometimes huge safety margin which likely sees a lot of people loading their 6.5X55s very modestly indeed. This is the opposite situation to 6.5X47 Lapua which has data geared to 63,000 psi plus pressures and where a lot of reported loads in use are probably running rather higher still. Since the old Scandinavian design has got a lot of case capacity, it'll still perform well at lowish pressures and do everything most users want while extending barrel and case life. Short of doing something really careless or unwise though, it's unlikely to cause any pressure problems for most people.

[sambar]

For all the reasons you allude to, Laurie, the 6.5x55 does look like a can of worms when you first look into loading for it. I had indeed picked up that there were a confusing number of variations in action,age, country of origin,CIP vs SAAAMI specs,varying max pressures etc etc etc - shame I hadn't had your more straightforward and concise overview when I first started trying to fathom it all ! Should have come to UKV in the first place rather than finally out of desperate confusion.

Thanks for your time and the benefit of your knowledge.

[Wapinschaw]

6.5X55 data generally are mild basically, because as with the .45-70 Government, we're talking three cartridges in one design. Officially (ie CIP standards), this is the 6.5X55mm SKAN and is rated at 55,000 psi max average chamber pressure. However, there are lots of 100 year old Swedish Mausers and worse Norwegian Krag rifles out there (one of the latter failing destructively on a UK range a year or two back causing some serious injuries). M1896 Mauser Swedish military loads ran at around 42,000 psi and this is a sensible level for the historic arms handloader to aim to achieve - ie 40,000-45,000 psi - with this rifle. If I owned a Krag, I'd be thinking of even lower pressures.

 

However, in a modern sporting or match rifle, using Lapua brass and with careful handloading, the 55,000 psi SKAN loading is actually modest. In these circumstances, the 6.5X55 can run at the same sort of pressures as any other similar modern cartridge and rifle. It's not just an issue of action, barrel, and case strength, as many historic arms offer far less protection to the shooter if the worst happens and metal laced superheated gasses have escaped explosively and are running amok near the shooter's face and eyes!

 

Some of the Viht data is geared specifically to the SKAN pressure limit and is so stated by the company with warnings about using it only in modern firearms in good condition. Some other data, especially the older longstanding loads, appear to produce somewhat lower pressures. Even so, they may produce far more impressive results than most US manufactured sporting ammo whode makers apparently assume it will be fired in the scruffiest, most worn out and weakest example of a 19th century rifle model around. I tried some 140gn PSP deer ammo in 6.5X55 and with a bit of QuickLOAD modelling calculated it was producing under 35,000 psi. This was also probably the reason why it produced a three-figure velocity ES, the load so low and at such inadequate pressure the charge wasn't burning consistently.

 

So, the upshot is that if one is using a good modern rifle as I presume is the case here for deer and foxes, the published maximum data levels leave a good sometimes huge safety margin which likely sees a lot of people loading their 6.5X55s very modestly indeed. This is the opposite situation to 6.5X47 Lapua which has data geared to 63,000 psi plus pressures and where a lot of reported loads in use are probably running rather higher still. Since the old Scandinavian design has got a lot of case capacity, it'll still perform well at lowish pressures and do everything most users want while extending barrel and case life. Short of doing something really careless or unwise though, it's unlikely to cause any pressure problems for most people.

 

I'm aware of the need to treat loads for older 6.5 x 55 Swedish service rifles with caution, but how do the later Swedish Mausers fare? I have a 1942 Husqvarna M38 which is in good condition, and shoots well with 139gr Scenars with 39gr VV N550, COAL 3.112". I use the same load but at a COAL of 2.932" in my Tikka T3 Sporter. This is a mid range powder charge according to http://www.vihtavuori.com/en/reloading-data/rifle-reloading/6-5-x-55-swedish-mauser--skan.html, there are no signs of pressure distress and good accuracy with both rifles. Am I pushing it with the M38, should I be looking for something a bit softer? I must admit that I have not chronographed either rifle.

[Laurie]

The later m/41 139gn military loading apparently produced around 48,000 psi pressures. I've never loaded for an M38, but I imagine the original very long throat designed for the m/94 round with its 156gn RNFMJ bullet was retained, so there will be a vast amount of freebore. If this is the case, the 139gn Scenar even if loaded right out to maximum magazine length will still make a considerable jump before hitting the lands. That reduces pressures considerably.

 

Running your load through QuickLOAD, that's a mild one even if the bullet is just off the rifling producing an estimated Pmax just under 40,000 psi. Personally, I'd prefer something a bit slower (and cooler) burning than N550 for this cartridge that fills up more of the available space in the case, N160 or N165 - but if it shoots well, what the heck!

 

Swedish rifle steel quality was always rated highly, but testing and production control methods made large strides between the 1890s and 1930s, so even if the M38 isn't any stronger per se than the M1896, the chances of a 'bad one' should be reduced adding a bit of safety. It's still a slightly modified Spanish M1893 action though and doesn't have the later M98's large gas ring on the bolt shroud though if anything really nasty happens. I have seen a blown-up M96 rifle (actually a 7.62mm CG63E target rifle) and photos of original M96s that were blown up and they seem pretty good compared to what happened with many of their contemporaries. Most of the escaping gas went downwards through the magazine well and sideways bowing the receiver sides out and splitting the stock. The biggest risk seems to be to the weak hand on the stock forend depending on how far back you hold the rifle with it. Short of your setting the scales 10gn too high though, you're pretty safe here!

[Wapinschaw]

The later m/41 139gn military loading apparently produced around 48,000 psi pressures. I've never loaded for an M38, but I imagine the original very long throat designed for the m/94 round with its 156gn RNFMJ bullet was retained, so there will be a vast amount of freebore. If this is the case, the 139gn Scenar even if loaded right out to maximum magazine length will still make a considerable jump before hitting the lands. That reduces pressures considerably.

 

Running your load through QuickLOAD, that's a mild one even if the bullet is just off the rifling producing an estimated Pmax just under 40,000 psi. Personally, I'd prefer something a bit slower (and cooler) burning than N550 for this cartridge that fills up more of the available space in the case, N160 or N165 - but if it shoots well, what the heck!

 

Swedish rifle steel quality was always rated highly, but testing and production control methods made large strides between the 1890s and 1930s, so even if the M38 isn't any stronger per se than the M1896, the chances of a 'bad one' should be reduced adding a bit of safety. It's still a slightly modified Spanish M1893 action though and doesn't have the later M98's large gas ring on the bolt shroud though if anything really nasty happens. I have seen a blown-up M96 rifle (actually a 7.62mm CG63E target rifle) and photos of original M96s that were blown up and they seem pretty good compared to what happened with many of their contemporaries. Most of the escaping gas went downwards through the magazine well and sideways bowing the receiver sides out and splitting the stock. The biggest risk seems to be to the weak hand on the stock forend depending on how far back you hold the rifle with it. Short of your setting the scales 10gn too high though, you're pretty safe here!

 

Laurie,

 

Thank you for the informative response. You are quite correct about the M38 having a long freebore, as evidenced by the M38 COAL compared to that of the T3. Powder choice for me is limited to what is available locally, sometimes not very much. I went by the online VV guide which gives a maximum load of 42gr for N550 in the 6.5 x 55 SKAN and 40.3gr (annotated A for accuracy) for the older rifles. I'm well inside that but am aware that I don't want to overdo it with a 70 year old ex-military rifle. I will certainly try the N160/N165 suggestion, it may be a bit easier on barrel life, although I have seen cases dented and very sooty due to lack of obturation with FNM target loads of unknown vintage. I'm not getting that with my loads.

[activeviii]

Two boxes for 140 interlocks on the shelf in Dauntsey Guns Monday. Bit late I know bit might be of help.

 

Forgot to add. I run a Tikka T3 in 6.5se. Even with the slow speeds I'm still getting a rather flat primer. I don't know what it is with vihta but all my rifles that I run on the stuff all have the same thing with the CCI primers. Maybe it's the wrong vihta and I need to go to the next one.

[Lashendei]

I'm just about to start reloading for my 1905 M1896, but for the range rather than hunting, and mainly at 300m. I have some 140g S&B FMJ heads to use up, then I think I'd like to try 142 SMKs. Being very aware of the limitations of the M96 action, I'm going to go with this mix:

 

once-fired PPU brass

IMR4350 or maybe? IMR4831

Winchester LR primer

 

I'd be interested to hear opinions as to this proposition. I'll thought I'd work up form 10% under starting load with whichever powder I use. As gbal says, safety and sanity (and my very beautiful face) over max velocity any day.