35 whelen, VV N540 - check my extrapolation for safety please

[sthwestvictoria]

I have been gifted one kilogram of Vihtavuori N550. The powder shortage is not as acute in Australia compared to the US but one does not want to look a gift horse in the mouth.

There is no data for the 35 Whelen Vihtavuori double base powder N550 on the Vihtavuori data sheets. There is 9.3x62mm data (case capacity 4.29cc) for N540 compared to the 35 Whelen (case capacity 4.12cc) but not N550.

For 250grain jacketed, from the Vihtavuori data 9.3x62mm, they suggest N540 53.4grains for 2300fps min, max 61.4grains for 2605fps

An Australian reloading book by Nick Harvey has data for N140 (the single base version of N540). The Nick Harvey book gives 53.0grains of N-140 for 2375fps

I would like to push 250grain Oven HT WW to 1900-2100fps in a 22inch 1:14 re-barrelled M70. I have a chronograph.

So I am undecided about using the N550. I might email VV and see if I can get some sense out of them.

ANybody have any experience?

[35 shooter]

I just ran some tests with imr 4350 in my 35 whelen with a 200 gr. boolit and like you, couldn't find the exact data for it in a manual. I did find some older info in a search here though. I started @ 50 gr. and worked up from there.
In the new Lee manual it shows n540 one number down on the burn rate chart from imr 4350 so your estimate looks good from that. Maybe consider starting a bit lower than 50gr. with a 250 gr boolit? Of course that's only a guess estimate.
If you believe Lee's theory's on powder reduction (which im have found to be safe with the powders i've used), i estimated imr 4350 safe for 34 or 35% reduction according to his
burn chart. Of course that's a reduction from from a max load for a jacketed bullet that matched the weight of the boolit i wanted to use.
Since n540 is one more number down on the burn chart it would fall in at about 35 to 36% reduction from max for a start load.
I don't have his manual with me, so this is from memory so it would be best to double check all this for yourself. I do know that start load i used almost filled the case to the start of the shoulder on my cases and actually should be around the speed your after with my 200 gr. but again that's with 4350.

BTW imr 4350 sure has worked out well in the 35 whelen after i worked up to about 2400 fps. It out shoots my old h 4895 loads that were very accurrate. I think i saw in post you made a while back that 4895 didn't work in your rifle? I was using 48 gr with my 200 gr. boolit. Anything more would open the groups.....Just my opinion but i think you came up with a safe start load. Although from the data your showing it may be a bit faster speed wise than your looking for @ 50 gr......just a guess and be careful...i'm always nevous when i pull the trigger for the first time on a load i had to guess at a bit! I wouldn't have posted this but since i had worked with powder that was slower than yours in the same caliber it sounds right.

[leftiye]

It would probly be better to guestimate between powders from published 35 W data than to interpolate both between powders and cartridges as with the 9.3, and the two VV powders. I would try to find someone with quickload to help me guess (timate).

BTW, low pressure loads of 4350 can blow up guns. It's where the original SEE theory and data came from. I know a guy who blew up the same gun twice trying to use minimum loads of 4350 with cast boolits. He gave me the action, and I'm making a Whelen out of it now. Yup, I'm crazy. I'll use 4350 too, just not minimum loads.

[swheeler]

I haven't done it, because I have no VVN550, but 45-50 should get you 1900-2100 with that 250 OHT boolit.

[swheeler]

It would probly be better to guestimate between powders from published 35 W data than to interpolate both between powders and cartridges as with the 9.3, and the two VV powders. I would try to find someone with quickload to help me guess (timate).

BTW, low pressure loads of 4350 can blow up guns. It's where the original SEE theory and data came from. I know a guy who blew up the same gun twice trying to use minimum loads of 4350 with cast boolits. He gave me the action, and I'm making a Whelen out of it now. Yup, I'm crazy. I'll use 4350 too, just not minimum loads.If he blew up the gun , what good is the action to you, makes NO sense at all????

[35 shooter]

Is Lee's powder reduction method unreliable then? Just asking cause that's that's the one i was referring to and the only source i use for reducing jacketed data for cast. According to the newest lee manual his method is conservititve? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but if anyone has used his method and had trouble with it i'd like to know for my own safety because i've used it to work up several loads with great results. I have no doubts some folks have gone too far with reductions and had bad things happen so i'm just asking has anyone had it happen with the Lee method?....Sorry for the off topic, but since it came up.

BTW I finally found actual data using imr 4350 in 35 whelen with 250 gr. jacketed bullets.
According to Hornady Vol. 2.....start load 55.6 gr. for2200 fps. Max load 59.9 gr. for2400 fps.....I started with 50 gr. and worked up with a 200 gr. boolit. So far 4350 is the most accurate powder i've tried in the whelen.
n540 is two powders down but only 1 burn no. down from imr 4350 on the Lee chart.

[leftiye]

If he blew up the gun , what good is the action to you, makes NO sense at all????

And here you are, a gunsmith. Think a while, Why would P.O. Ackley make that person a second rifle on that action (as was the case)?

I've got to admit, I put that in there just to make people confused, though it's all true, the action itself is only slightly damaged, the stock was exploded by escaping gas.

[swheeler]

And here you are, a gunsmith. Think a while, Why would P.O. Ackley make that person a second rifle on that action (as was the case)?

I've got to admit, I put that in there just to make people confused, though it's all true, the action itself is only slightly damaged, the stock was exploded by escaping gas.

I have a good idea who you got it from;) please set that AI chamber correctly this time, maybe start with a short chambered barrel or SET BACK. You know what they say about the third time, be careful!

[swheeler]

SWV a dacron filler will be your friend with that slow a powder and the velocities you want to achieve.

[Larry Gibson]

I believe it was reduced charges of milsurp 4831 in "over bore" cartridges like the 25-06 and 257 Weatherby with lighter weight bullets that originated the SEE phenomenon.

I do agree with; "It would probly be better to guestimate between powders from published 35 W data than to interpolate both between powders and cartridges as with the 9.3, and the two VV powders." There is just too much room for error there with an unknown powder.

If 4350 is used for such reduced loads then a Dacron filler is indeed "your friend". However, with the desired velocity level a bit faster and more reliable ignited powder such as 4895 or Varget may prove a better choice. I use a lot of 4350 with cast bullets but they are full throttle loads with close to or slightly over 100% load density. I the load density is not 90+% I would really suggest the Dacron filler.

Larry Gibson

[madsenshooter]

VV N550 has approximately the same burn rate as Alliant's RL19, Hodgdon's 100V, Ramshot's Hunter, Norma's N204, Bofur's RP4. I regularly use RL19, and a surplus powder alleged to be the same burn rate as Hunter in cast loads for my Krag, and get some pretty good results at around 68% of the case's full to the base of the neck capacity. I refuse to believe someone had a couple SEE events with cast using 4350. I still don't believe SEE is possible with cast period. SEE involves a bullet stopping for a short amount of time, with cast, it just don't believe it ever happens.

[swheeler]

VV N550 has approximately the same burn rate as Alliant's RL19, Hodgdon's 100V, Ramshot's Hunter, Norma's N204, Bofur's RP4. I regularly use RL19, and a surplus powder alleged to be the same burn rate as Hunter in cast loads for my Krag, and get some pretty good results at around 68% of the case's capacity. I refuse to believe someone had a couple SEE events with cast using 4350. I still don't believe SEE is possible with cast period. SEE involves a bullet stopping for a short amount of time, with cast, it just don't believe it ever happens.

I agree completely, I think this "blown up" gun was an improperly chambered rifle(read excessive headspace from reaming an improved chamber with no setback on barrel-you know oh just ream it to the existing neck/shoulder junction) then novice reloading that set the cartridge case up for a head seperation(just jam the bullet into the rifling it'll be ok, I tain't never heard of creatin' no false shoulder, what dat) , when it happened then OH MY MY SEE-SEE-SEE-THE SKY IS FALLING;) If You don't learn after the first time, you probably ain't going to learn ever!

[leftiye]

VV N550 has approximately the same burn rate as Alliant's RL19, Hodgdon's 100V, Ramshot's Hunter, Norma's N204, Bofur's RP4. I regularly use RL19, and a surplus powder alleged to be the same burn rate as Hunter in cast loads for my Krag, and get some pretty good results at around 68% of the case's full to the base of the neck capacity. I refuse to believe someone had a couple SEE events with cast using 4350. I still don't believe SEE is possible with cast period. SEE involves a bullet stopping for a short amount of time, with cast, it just don't believe it ever happens.

Sorry to violate your preconceptions. I would advise believing actual experience over what you want to believe>

[leftiye]

I agree completely, I think this "blown up" gun was an improperly chambered rifle(read excessive headspace from reaming an improved chamber with no setback on barrel-you know oh just ream it to the existing neck/shoulder junction) then novice reloading that set the cartridge case up for a head seperation(just jam the bullet into the rifling it'll be ok, I tain't never heard of creatin' no false shoulder, what dat) , when it happened then OH MY MY SEE-SEE-SEE-THE SKY IS FALLING;) If You don't learn after the first time, you probably ain't going to learn ever!

And that on what evidence? As I often tell my wife, imagination is part of problem solving, but it is not the part that counts. Again you can believe whatever you want, but when the rubber meets the road, pay attention to what happens in real time. How many Ackley builds built by Ackley had faulty chambers (he designed those cartridges remember)? And two in a row? Granted there were reloading problems, just not the ones you'd like to believe.

[Larry Gibson]

There is indeed a lot of difference between an SEE catastrophic failure and similar but usually a lot less damage done by improper headspace causing case separation, case failure or an overload. Many times those last 3 are indeed assumed to be SEE quite erroneously.

Having studied SEE for many years. I started back in the early '70s when an acquaintance had one in a custom built 257 Weatherby built on a M70 with a short throat for use with lighter weight varmint bullets. The 3rd shot of a 90 gr j bullet with a reduced load of H4831 was a "click" bang" and the 4th shot blew up the rifle...badly. Having chronographed many attempts at finding the cause and actually severely damaging a Mauser 3000 action with one I began to believe they were real. Since reading of the laboratory reproduction of the SEE event (Handloader article) and having measured the increasing psi my self since then it is well known now what causes SEE.

I have a hard time wrapping my brain around a similar SEE occurrence with cast bullets though. The reason is the cast bullet has a much less friction coefficient and tensile strength compared to a jacketed bullet. It takes very little psi to push a cast bullet down a barrel and that required psi is well below the necessary psi for an SEE. I just don't see a cast bullet getting stuck in the throat as do jacketed bullets during an SEE. Now a heavy cast bullet over too much fast burning powder can produce a similar result to an SEE but that is an over load not an SEE. Also a bore obstruction (other than the bullet being fired) also results in many similarities to an SEE. However, neither of those are SEE's even though the results may be very similar.

Larry Gibson

[swheeler]

There is indeed a lot of difference between an SEE catastrophic failure and similar but usually a lot less damage done by improper headspace causing case separation, case failure or an overload. Many times those last 3 are indeed assumed to be SEE quite erroneously.

Having studied SEE for many years. I started back in the early '70s when an acquaintance had one in a custom built 257 Weatherby built on a M70 with a short throat for use with lighter weight varmint bullets. The 3rd shot of a 90 gr j bullet with a reduced load of H4831 was a "click" bang" and the 4th shot blew up the rifle...badly. Having chronographed many attempts at finding the cause and actually severely damaging a Mauser 3000 action with one I began to believe they were real. Since reading of the laboratory reproduction of the SEE event (Handloader article) and having measured the increasing psi my self since then it is well known now what causes SEE.

I have a hard time wrapping my brain around a similar SEE occurrence with cast bullets though. The reason is the cast bullet has a much less friction coefficient and tensile strength compared to a jacketed bullet. It takes very little psi to push a cast bullet down a barrel and that required psi is well below the necessary psi for an SEE. I just don't see a cast bullet getting stuck in the throat as do jacketed bullets during an SEE. Now a heavy cast bullet over too much fast burning powder can produce a similar result to an SEE but that is an over load not an SEE. Also a bore obstruction (other than the bullet being fired) also results in many similarities to an SEE. However, neither of those are SEE's even though the results may be very similar.

Larry Gibson

Absolutely! And I would put money on case head seperation for the above mentioned rifle, making this prediction from reading posts by Leftiye on the gunsmithing forum where he and BR Shooter talk about how "they' ream AI chambers;(

[leftiye]

Read my lips - Parker O. Ackley chambered the gun in both cases. He's not Elmer, but he's a great gunsmith and horizon expander in his own right. And we were talking Ackley imporved in that other thread.

How I might chamber a rifle has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING! Basing your assumeptions (you know what those are, yes?)on the fact that you and I had a disagreement on another thread is fine, but it won't hold water here as it has nothing to do with this particular case. Especially as I haven't chambered any of the rifles you've been talking about. Even in that other thread. So, we're left with your imagination. Don't get hit by any schrapnel from any of your imaginary situations.

More like case failure from extreme pressure from under loaded rounds in a 7mm-06, and a .25-06 and yes, with cast boolits. I didn't ever see the gun, and case fragments, etc., so I'm not going to indulge you any further.

[swheeler]

Oh, OK don't get all bunched up;) I still have a hard time believing that a SEE occurred(TWICE WITH CAST BULLETS) and you can rebarrel the action again for the THIRD time. So lets just leave it at that, I'm from Missouri pard, the show me state:) It's all good!

[madsenshooter]

Wheeler, you beat me to the "show me". I was loaded down to the click, bang stage once. Not because of a small powder charge, but because of some junk Tula unleaded primers (ony 4800 to go). My "weak" Krag actions survived the ordeal. Leftiye, keep perpetuating the cast bullet SEE myth, keep all those folks away from the slow burning powders which work so well for me. I appreciate the help you're giving me during these times of short supply.

[leftiye]

Well, since I can't persuade you to try 15 (purely a guess) grains of 4350 in YOUR Krag, I guess there's no way to get you to believe either. Splitting hairs about was it a SEE or not is probly no where near learning anything. Was it an SEE or merely catastrophic case failure (is there a difference?)? Thing is, it did happen, and the facts are as presented.

[Larry Gibson]

Well excuse me for being rude but why in the h*ll would anyone even consider using 15 gr of a slow burning powder like 4350 in a 30-40 or 30-06 (whichever) either of which it is only 25% or a little over 30% load density?

15 gr is a considerable bit below any "minimum" load I've ever seen even with 220 gr cast bullets let alone jacketed bullets. It's not like there isn't a sufficient amount of proven load data for either cartridge and sufficient experience with really reduced loads that REQUIRE fast burning powders.

Since we don't have the story 1st hand or seen the bits and pieces of the damaged rifle or examined the unfired ammunition we have no idea of what happened. I'm also of the "show me" camp. If one is stupid enough to use a load like that then what else was or wasn't done? Again, excuse my rudeness, but really,....what can you say?

Larry Gibson

[swheeler]

Well, since I can't persuade you to try 15 (purely a guess) grains of 4350 in YOUR Krag, I guess there's no way to get you to believe either. Splitting hairs about was it a SEE or not is probly no where near learning anything. Was it an SEE or merely catastrophic case failure (is there a difference?)? Thing is, it did happen, and the facts are as presented.


You've got to be kiddin right? WOW

[swheeler]

Well excuse me for being rude but why in the h*ll would anyone even consider using 15 gr of a slow burning powder like 4350 in a 30-40 or 30-06 (whichever) either of which it is only 25% or a little over 30% load density?

15 gr is a considerable bit below any "minimum" load I've ever seen even with 220 gr cast bullets let alone jacketed bullets. It's not like there isn't a sufficient amount of proven load data for either cartridge and sufficient experience with really reduced loads that REQUIRE fast burning powders.

Since we don't have the story 1st hand or seen the bits and pieces of the damaged rifle or examined the unfired ammunition we have no idea of what happened. I'm also of the "show me" camp. If one is stupid enough to use a load like that then what else was or wasn't done? Again, excuse my rudeness, but really,....what can you say?

Larry Gibson


Larry I wouldn't waste my time with this, it's just toooooooooooooooo strange to be true:)

[leftiye]

You've got to be kiddin right? WOW

Yes, I was kidding - replying to Madsen shooter's sarcastic remark. I figgered that 15 grains would probly be about right to produce a SEE that he could investigate for himself. I guess I should have used the purple font, but I don't know how.

Something like that MAY have actually been the case with the gun in question, I don't know. Neither do you, you maybe should have thought of that, but you chose to blame it on a faulty chamber that you imagined that I cut (which was not the case). You make imaginations and then act as if they were truth.

[madsenshooter]

Only thing that'd likely happen is the bullet might not make it out the end of the 30" barrel, then again, it should, at about 1000fps and 13000psi chamber pressure. Since you were just guessing with 15gr how about 22gr behind a 200gr cast bullet? That'd give me around 1380fps @20,800psi. That is published data for .308 in Lee's book. I'd do that just to prove that Lee's load data is workable and that no SEE gremlin is going to come tear up my rifle. He checked with Hodgdon's ballistic gurus before publishing this data. Less than ideal, yes, but doable if I needed a close range plinking load and had no other powder or bullet. Just to add to the risk for all to see, I'd even do it with a 23BHN bullet and not use a lanyard.

[swheeler]

I guess it's up to SWV now if he wants to use VVN550, maybe we'll get a report from him.

[Blammer]

I doubt he comes back to this hijacked peeing contest... I wouldn't, and I won't anymore.

[sthwestvictoria]

I guess it's up to SWV now if he wants to use VVN550, maybe we'll get a report from him.

Well I have to confess that after I realised how slow the powder is and the lack of loading data often being for a reason and the preference of the Whelen for mid rate powders, I am going to use it in my .243 with jacketed loads for which there is data.

Sorry to waste peoples time however it is not so much due to SEE risk as believing the powder is just too slow to be a useful powder in the Whelen with that .358 open mouth. All data that I can find suggests using powders around Varget (AR2208) and faster.

[swheeler]

Give the 2208 a try and if it doesn't give the accuracy you want in your expected velocity range you always have the N550 to try. I figured 60 grs as usable case capacity so the starting load was 75% and approx 85% density for the 50 gr load, you'll be fine if you have to use it. I'm using 4320 now with a lighter bullet, sometimes a "softstart" just works mo better. Let us know how it pans out for you, and thanks. Scot

[45 2.1]

Here is data for the 9.3x62 with N550:

http://www.lapua.com/en/products/reloading/vihtavuori-reloading-data/relodata/5/87