AusVarmint

Following on from the leaders in the 17 Hornet field, I shamelessly stole their AR2207 loading data and ran some reloads up for myself.
I headed out to Little River today to try them out. The weather was plain atrocious .. winds were not that strong but gusting right to left, it rained intermittently and was generally not great for a small calibre. Still on, with the show.

I started will 11.0 grains of 2207 and went up in .1 grains until the max of 11.8. I had some 'failures' of the electronic scales that left me with 4 loaded rounds that I wasn't sure about so I made them foulers and put them to the side.

The accuracy node for my rifle comes in around 11/4 and 11.5 grains with groups around .7 of an inch (@100).



No 8 and 9 were a boo boo on my behalf. We had a small interruption to shoo some kangaroos off the range and I started shooting at the wrong target....

Some caveats:
the weather was foul and I did my best to wait until the wind had died down and it wasn't raining.
I am no bench shooter.
My scope is a FFP model so at 100 the cross hairs obscured the entire diamond. Upside was that if I couldn't see the diamond at all it was roughly centred.
My foulers shot a group the same as my best ( 11.4/5 ) known loads. As did the last of the factory ammo I had. Not sure what to make of the foulers....
Did I mention the weather?

I probably should redo the tests in better weather, or at least do it all again to validate the results. 11.0 - 11.3 were clearly worst so I don't know I would bother with them again. All my handloads shot lower than the factory so without a chrono to check, I am going to guess the velocities are down.

The primers all seemed to be flatter than I would have expected, even the lower loaded ones. The primer pockets were very tight when re priming, so tight I couldn't get the uniformer in to do it's thing. Maybe another reload cycle may fix that. Or they are crimped and I have to get rid of that....

Target number 3 on the left of the photo would be my choice of playing with.

Very little vertical spread.

Mick

Interesting thanks for putting it up. A mate down in Canberra has recently got a CZ sporter, he has his shooting pretty well, but uses 2205.

I was surprised to read you are using 2207

What velocity are you getting ? with the 20 grainers.

Great stuff there XA,

My testing has shown identical results to yours but in the savage 25, I have settled on 11.5 grains of AR2207 also as there was no real difference visible between 11.5 and 11.6. This charge gives some nice high load densities.

As for AR2205 there was no need to test any further.

I was only partially neck sizing my cases but after reading one of the ther posts have started full length again as I need to seat the projectiles past the resized neck area for magazine feeding. So may have been running into issues.

I'm still playing with the Win 296 but this was showing some nice groups last time out. But the load density is well down at around 8.6 grains.


All the best with the testing.


Flip

mick_762 wrote:Target number 3 on the left of the photo would be my choice of playing with.
Very little vertical spread.
Mick

Nah ... #5 ... vertically its in the same place as #4 and #6 giving you some leeway on both sides. I'd be fiddling there with seating depth.
Cheers...
Con
PS: Why the two colour primers? Different primers or a manufacturer's change?

Con wrote:

mick_762 wrote:Target number 3 on the left of the photo would be my choice of playing with.
Very little vertical spread.
Mick

Nah ... #5 ... vertically its in the same place as #4 and #6 giving you some leeway on both sides. I'd be fiddling there with seating depth.
Cheers...
Con
PS: Why the two colour primers? Different primers or a manufacturer's change?

Good pickup on the primers. I missed that.
The other good thing about posting on these forums, is you get a few different ideas, I like #3 - you like #5.

Its all a good learning curve, no matter how long you have been reloading.

Mick

Thanks for the feedback guys.
The primers were my not paying attention. I ran out about 3/4 of the way through repriming the batch and totally forgot to separate them. By the time I'd remembered, the deed was done. Funnily enough the 4 foulers I used at the beginning with 4 different loads and two different types of primers shot a great group (.75 of an inch ).
Between my sucking at shooting targets from a bench and the weather, a large degree of latitude has to be given to the results. Having said that, once all the cases are cleaned, checked for length and so on, I will do a few at 11.4-11.7 and try again. I'll make sure no primer changes this time No Chrony so no velocities... been meaning to get one for the last 20 years .. must do it one day.

I used 2207 after a lot of reading and following the exploits of Tilleyman ( not sure if he is on here ) who is doing a lot of load development for the 17HH. He's found that 2207 and AA1680 ( off the top of my head ) seem to be the winners. 2205 tended to be a little too fast. What works in a 22H doesn't necessarily work in the 17 due to the increased pressures.

The upside to the weather being foul today was few people at the range. Next time I go and the weather is good there will be a queue I reckon.

Good to read about others testing the 17 hornet.
I am surprised that you run 2207. ADI does only show 2207 for the17 (20gnVmax) hornet but show 2205 for the 17 Ackley. I have the CZ 527 classic and I did put them over the chrono and even with at a full case and compressed load I could only just get over 3100fps with the 20gn Vmax.
Started low with the 2205 and worked up. Settled wit 10.1 of 2205 for 3540 fps. Groups at 0.6" ay 100m.
I am unsure what the OP means when he said "2205 was too fast". That is why is shoot the .17.
I was after the velocity and was very disappointed with 2207. I have not tried any of the Winchester powders as I only use ADI powders. Nothing against Win powders but the ADI is easy to get and I have plenty of it. Seems to run well in this little rifle as well.
I also run a Sako .22K hornet and that chews through the 2205 as well. For my area there is nothing that these two rifles can not handle.

Bill

My 17 hornet likes 2205 and little gun. 10.2 grs of 2205 gives me an average of 0.5 moa and the Lil gun at 10 grs was around the same but higher velocity.

billsshed wrote:Good to read about others testing the 17 hornet. I have the CZ 527 classic and I did put them over the chrono and even with at a full case and compressed load I could only just get over 3100fps with the 20gn Vmax.

I also run a Sako .22K hornet and that chews through the 2205 as well. For my area there is nothing that these two rifles can not handle.

Bill

Right-o Bill, you have opened you account now - we need photos of these rifles! Especially that Sako!

Marcus

Win 296 is was ok max load I only got 3400 fps. My lil gun load runs a touch over 3700.

'Too fast' means the burn rate .. not the velocities !! If the powder burn rate is too fast you can run into pressure problems and so on. Some of the powders listed by the guys here have been tried in other people's rifles and shown to be erratic ... the caveat is that it is in other people's rifles and may well work fine in others. I also happened to have a partially used can of 2207 to try.
I am not after ultimate speed, rather the most accurate load.

[quote="Right-o Bill, you have opened you account now - we need photos of these rifles! Especially that Sako!

Marcus[/quote]

Sorry no pics. The 17 HH is a stock standard 527 classic, and the K Hornet is a Sako M78. The stock is not pretty as it works in rain sun and snow and hangs out the window of my shooting vehicle. I got it cheap as the mag was missing. Had to build a new mag out of stainless sheet and made it a five round mag while I was at it. Works like a treat.
Personally I prefer the 527 with its front locking lugs and big solid extractor. Without a doubt the CZ 17 HH shoots better than my older Sako .22 KHornet. Maybe I haven't found the right load yet.
On my property rifles must work in all weather. They are well looked after but do get the rough side of nature.

Bill