6.5 Creedmore powder primer combination

[Skid1Gar]

Starting to work up a load for 6.5 Creedmore using Lapua brass and Berger 140 hybrids. What powder/ primer combination is suggested.
Rifle is Savage 12 LRP.

[darkker]

It isn't painting by numbers, there are lots of combinations that can work fantastically. Pick one and start reloading.
We can't tell you what is better in your rifle, without shooting your rifle.

[65Whelen]

It isn't painting by numbers, there are lots of combinations that can work fantastically. Pick one and start reloading.
We can't tell you what is better in your rifle, without shooting your rifle.

Boy that's helpful.

[m12lrs]

H4350 and CCI 450 seems to be most.popular

Personally i use CCI BR primers exclusively

Many opinions out there. Whatever works for you.

[65Whelen]

There's a link on the home page to Sierra's Creedmoor loading data. Here's a link to Nosler's reloading data. https://load-data.nosler.com/load-data/65-creedmoor/

There're a couple starting points. Start low and work up to the hot loads. What rifle do you have?

[Skid1Gar]

There's a link on the home page to Sierra's Creedmoor loading data. Here's a link to Nosler's reloading data. https://load-data.nosler.com/load-data/65-creedmoor/

There're a couple starting points. Start low and work up to the hot loads. What rifle do you have?

Rifle is Savage 12 LRP.

[Skid1Gar]

I can't find CCI 450. I have ~ 500 BR 4's.
How does H 4831 sound?

[Burr]

H4350 and CCI 450 seems to be most.popular

Personally i use CCI BR primers exclusively

Many opinions out there. Whatever works for you.

I'm confused. CCI 450 and CCI BR4 are small rifle primers. But the link posted shows the case using a Large Rifle Primer - Fed 210.

No experience with the 6.5 CM - but which does it have? Small Rifle primers do not appear to be a fit from reference material.

[m12lrs]

I'm confused. CCI 450 and CCI BR4 are small rifle primers. But the link posted shows the case using a Large Rifle Primer - Fed 210.

No experience with the 6.5 CM - but which does it have? Small Rifle primers do not appear to be a fit from reference material.

Most long range shooters have been forming creedmoor brass from lapua .308 palma brass small rifle primer

Now lapua is making 6.5 creedmoor brass with small rifle primers and the .60 flash hole

[65Whelen]

I can't find CCI 450. I have ~ 500 BR 4's.
How does H 4831 sound?
Sierra has 4831 listed with their 140g bullets

[Newsshooter]

Rifle is Savage 12 LRP.

H4350 is the most common powder for the CM. My LRP liked 41.9 on the original barrel, 42.6 on the current one, a friend is using the new Lapua brass with just over 43 grains, every barrel is a bit different. A friend started using RL16 with very good results at long distance as well. Always start low and work up your own load. I usually start about 41.5 and go up to about 43 or so. I'll usually find a couple nodes in that range.

[darkker]

Boy that's helpful. Well.... How about this, approach. As anyone can see on their powder bottles, lots can vary by 10%, so that is where my "painting by numbers" comment came from. Any particular persons loads may or may not be anywhere close to what someone else has for powder. This and as to what powders do or don't "Work" well in an application is covered in every manual you can buy, which tells you that if it is listed it will likely be as good a fit as most shooters can manage. So anyone's random suggestion, really wouldn't be any closer than any listed start load from a manual.

[bfm1851]

In a similar spot right now. Just starting load development for my new 6.5CM. Could not locate any H4350 but I could find RL17. Also found loads for RL15. As said above H4350 seems to be a favorite but other powders are showing good results. Use lighter bullets(120-129gr) and you see Varget showing up. Good luck and let us know your results.

[Rob01]

Lots of Creedmoor data here to look through. Basic is a powder in the H4350 burn rate and a primer that will work with it. I have always used Fed 210M/210 primers. I use only the 210 now as they shoot identical to the Ms but cost less.

http://forum.snipershide.com/forum/sniper%C2%92s-hide%C2%AE-advance-marksmanship-unit/sniper-s-hide-reloading-depot/89643-6-5-creedmoor

[65Whelen]

Well.... How about this, approach. As anyone can see on their powder bottles, lots can vary by 10%, so that is where my "painting by numbers" comment came from. Any particular persons loads may or may not be anywhere close to what someone else has for powder. This and as to what powders do or don't "Work" well in an application is covered in every manual you can buy, which tells you that if it is listed it will likely be as good a fit as most shooters can manage. So anyone's random suggestion, really wouldn't be any closer than any listed start load from a manual.

One of the reasons I come to a forum like this is to get real world experience, do I take it as gospel? No, but it's a reference to consider. Just as all the reloading manuals that corporate America puts out. The only problem with those, the last person who looks at them is their lawyer not a ballistician. So, regardless of where you get some reloading advice, start low and work up.

[darkker]

Just as all the reloading manuals that corporate America puts out. The only problem with those, the last person who looks at them is their lawyer not a ballistician. While a popular viewpoint, it honestly doesn't hold much in the way of facts. While not a "new" development, a good number of loading manuals are simply re-prints, or calculation-based. The calculations, such as is done for many powders in QuickLoad, is at best a poor guess. Limited bomb testing for A burning rate just doesn't fit a good many applications, and flat misses all of the interesting characteristics of a Progressive burning powder. Take someone like Speer, who actually did a bunch of their own pressure testing long ago, but published velocities from many factory barrels. The out-cry and "lawyer" talk exploded, but it was one of the more truthful manuals. Honest pressure testing happens in SAAMI minimum spec universal receivers and pressure barrels, which have VERY tightly controlled tollerances. Factory rifles are no where near that tight, and so at the same cartridge starting pressure will produce less velocity. Excepting for the now quite old A-Squared manual, NO ONE has ever listed lot numbers of components tested either; knowing that the lots can vary by 10% on the label, you shouldn't expect to produce the same results with the same pressures. Then we have the problem of the powder. None of the names we all know and love, build any powder; and they certainly don't design them, They also swap suppliers rather frequently. That is the reason why very few ever publish nominal VMD's or BD's, because they change. Did anyone here get a memo last fall when Hodgdon began buying the 8# kegs of IMR 4064 from Rhinemetal instead of General Dynamics??

Quite some time ago now, there was carefully kept reference lots of powder(typically kept underwater for RH stability) sent to the major players in SAAMI. All used their specialized equipment and calibrated copper crushers, but reported differences in pressure by 20-25,000 psi. All the gun rags of the day had a field day with it. Which is why with cartridges over 45,000 psi they don't use CUP anymore, it simply isn't accurate. Skip on over to Hodgdon's website and start looking through a good portion of that data.... Lot's of CUP stuff there for 60,000psi+ cartridges...

So are they "lawyered"? No, but If you truly want to prove it out one way or the other, you should consider buying a Pressure Trace II system and test for yourself. The full mean deal system will cost you about what a lower-end rifle costs. We have one, and have tested a good number of powders, bullets, and different factory rifles. Truly at this point, there really is only a very few reasons to use it, rather than just focusing on published velocity.
1) Progressive burning powders. You can achieve some fun stuff with some of the very progressive curve powders from General Dynamics.
2) Loading for a wildcat. If you want to know how close you are to a train passing by, you wouldn't use amount of damage to your car for that info. That same reason is why you shouldn't use "signs" in the case or primer.