Ramshot X-Terminator

[Marlin Junky]

Has anyone used X-Terminator as a reduced load powder in '06 size cases?

MJ

[yondering]

I can't be much help for reduced loads with that powder, but will chime in to say I've used it with excellent success in my .223 with light 40gr J-word bullets. Good accuracy, very precise metering, and velocities 150 fps faster than a comparable load with Benchmark, with no pressure signs. [smilie=w:

As a faster rifle powder, you may be on the right track for slightly reduced loads. Don't know if it's like H110 or other ball powders that shouldn't be reduced though?
I know that doesn't help you much, sorry.

[Marlin Junky]

I can't be much help for reduced loads with that powder, but will chime in to say I've used it with excellent success in my .223 with light 40gr J-word bullets. Good accuracy, very precise metering, and velocities 150 fps faster than a comparable load with Benchmark, with no pressure signs. [smilie=w:

As a faster rifle powder, you may be on the right track for slightly reduced loads. Don't know if it's like H110 or other ball powders that shouldn't be reduced though?
I know that doesn't help you much, sorry.

That's fine, any input is appreciated. I'm looking for an alternative to the more expensive powders that perform well at under 30K PSI and X-Terminator may be a worthwhile purchase. BTW, WC820 is an excellent reduced charge load for some applications but it would create too much pressure doing what I want it to do in the .350RM. However, 820 has worked great in the .350 with 200 grain boolits at up to 1900 fps (possibly even beyond - I can't speak from that experience). 820 also works great while launching heavy .30 caliber boolits to 1700 fps in the 30-30. The sphericals that you should shy away from in reduced charges are the heavily coated ones and #9 & WC820 do not fall into that category.

MJ

[Lloyd Smale]

the xterminator i have burns slightly faster then 335 and slightly slower then 2230. I would think you could use any data for 335 safely in your 06. Being that its ball powder i wouldnt go any lower then the lowest recomended charge for 335 though.

[Rocky Raab]

Agree with Lloyd; I don't like any spherical powder for reduced loads. They're designed for high-density loading and to me it just seems risky to use them in the diametrically opposite manner.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Well, I think this will be useful for you, so I'll share it, even though it's not a direct answer to your question. I came into a large supply of Ramshot TAC powder a short while ago, and because it looked to be in the right place on the burning rate chart (right around the 4895s), I e-mailed a lab-tech at Western powders about using it in the M-1 Garand. Naturally, I was concerned about getting the port pressure about right and also about the low-loading-density of it being a ball powder... Here's the response I got from the technician:


Anything heavier (than 150gr bullets) will result in loading densities of less than 80% at the maximum pressure load which means a 70% loading density at the START loads.

At such low loading densities the round will be extremely sensitive to the position of the powder.


Then he went on to recommend that I don't use TAC for 168gr and 172-175gr bullets, as the loading densities for the maximum loads would be around 79-78% of case volume, below their 80% cut-off, which would mean the starting loads would be WAY below the 80% level.

So, for your purposes, I would say check and see where you're at with your desired load compared to the 80% loading density. That would be what I do, if I were in your shoes.

[Marlin Junky]

Just last week (hot July day) I recorded a standard deviation of 17 fps for 20 rounds of .350RM fired with a 65% load of AA2200 while using SAECO 352 at 251 grains checked. This amounts to 37 grains of powder. The next time out with this combination I will fire 20 rounds with 38 grains and I bet the standard deviation will be even lower, while the load density will still be under 70%. I have recorded single digit standard deviations for 15 round strings using 16 to 17 grains of WC820 and AA#9 in the 30-30 with RCBS 30-180FN at near 200 grains checked. On the other hand, I own/used to own ball powders (surplus 2520, DP-68 and DP-74) that perform erratically (e.g., 200 fps spreads for 10 rounds) with anything but a near-full to full cartridge case. I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much the geometry of the grain that is responsible for the spherical powders' reputation, but the formulation and coating of some types of sphericals. How do we know which sphericals are OK to use in reduced charges? Start at the conventional wisdom minimum and work your way down while testing 15 to 20 round strings over the chronograph. When my percent deviation (StdDev / AveVel x 100) is below 1.0, I'm happy with the load's performance. My reduced charge loads of WC820 using heavy bullets in the 30-30 perform better than equivalent velocity loads of SR4759.

MJ

P.S. I almost forgot: My lowest ever percent deviations (in the .3% neighborhood) have been with approximately 1/3 charges of Scot 453 behind 200 grain bullets in the .358W. Scot 453 is technically a double base flattened spherical powder.