2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

Get or give advice on equipment, reloading and other technical issues.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
bad_primer
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:58 am
Location: ACT

2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#1 Postby bad_primer » Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:39 am

Hi everyone
Keen to get some advice on powders. I have a .280AI and I’m looking to play with the 180class projectiles out their for 7mm.

I have been using 168gn pills so far with both 2213SC and 2209. With those powders for the 168’s I’m going to go with 2209 hence forth due it delivering consistently less variation and spread in velocities, utilising less powder to get the same effect.

My question is whether anyone has any insight into whether the heavier pils in the 180gn class are better setter served with 2217 or 2213SC and does 2217 exhibit better consistency of velocity than 2213SC.

Thanks in advance

Simmo

BillB
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:30 am

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#2 Postby BillB » Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:36 am

I use 2213sc in an Ackerly 7x57 Mauser ,at 900yds with lab radar 31ft per sec difference all 10 shots were on the horizontal centerline near enough load 52.7grns
Have tried 2209 but 2213sc had tighter groups at 100 willbe doing a bit more development over the next few weeks after Bendigo

williada
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:37 am

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#3 Postby williada » Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:46 pm

What pill were you using Bill? The old 7 x 57 will be competitive with the reduced energy limits. The 2217 needs a full case being a slower powder to feed on itself to bring ES down further than 2213 in the narrower, long cases.

Then energy limits in bigger cases will govern 2217 on full bottle where very low ES can be achieved. Slower powders tend to be a bit dirtier if they are not efficiently burnt at peak pressure. Not a lot in this as all three powders are great in the 7mm range of chamberings.

Final selection between 2213 and 2217 depends what the barrel/bullets like with lower ES in relation to bore friction. Long barrels have a lower peak pressure with slower powders is what vI meant to say before but bore pressure, is less with barrel length and so is a major factor in clean ignition. The bore pressure for any given powder decreases with length.

The barrel length is not as critical with 2209 and you don't require a full case of powder to ignite it all efficiently with pressure because it is faster burning. The volume of gas produced is still effective and bore friction stability maybe the bonus. Faster burning powders may depending on harmonic length burn completely before resonant waves muddy the waters.

Consistency depends on the efficient burn. Each combo needs a sample. Federal Gold in my go to primer at the moment with current batches. The right primer combination is important. Narrow cases might require a warmer primer.

I have edited to include a useful link in relation to pressure and barrel length which might be more enlightening. Page two of the research mentions the plasma erosion from partially powder particles. nb the test being conducted with the same ammunition to demonstrate the relationship of pressure with length.

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/barr ... o-weapons/
Last edited by williada on Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.

ben_g
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 7:37 pm

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#4 Postby ben_g » Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:52 pm

A couple of club members are using RE23 in their 280AI’s and they go very well with 180’s

2209 should work as well, surely you wouldn’t want to go slower than 2213SC??

bruce moulds
Posts: 2622
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#5 Postby bruce moulds » Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:26 pm

long barrels do not reduce peak pressure.
long barrels allow better use of slower burning powders which might reduce pressure for the same velocity.
if you then add more powder and get more velocity, you can, if the case will hold enough, bring peak pressure up to equal the faster powder, but it will happen when the bullet is further up the barrel.
or you can run a heavier bullet.
years ago a guy in our club ran a 6.5/284 on 2217 when everyone else found 2209 mostly better.
the 2217 shot extremely well in his rifle, and the barrel was still going well after more than 2000 rounds, while all the 2209 users were getting 900 to 1200 shots barrel life.
the moral of the storey is you have to try it and see.
I know a guy who got best results in a saum with 2215.
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880
http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM

BillB
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:30 am

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#6 Postby BillB » Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:53 pm

Sorry forgot 168 berger match

williada
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:37 am

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#7 Postby williada » Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:19 pm

Bruce, I hope my edits clarify what I was trying to impart.

willow
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#8 Postby willow » Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:52 pm

I've run 2217 and 2213SC - 2217 gave better accuracy. 2209 spanked both of them for accuracy.

bruce moulds
Posts: 2622
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#9 Postby bruce moulds » Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:00 pm

williada,
your article is barely relevant to this discussion.
they are talking barrels from 5" to 24"
fclass barrels start at 24" for factory rifles and can go to over 32" for full custom rifles.
at our lengths, the pressure curves are well down at the muzzle (uncorking).
the lengths give us the option of raising that pressure with a slower burning powder, while possibly still having a lower peak pressure.
and we do not have to worry about blowing up a suppressor.
if the pressure reduction from using a slower burning powder is too great, the powder will not burn as thoroughly, hence less cleanly.
so a bigger case capacity allows more slow burning powder, which in turn brings the pressure up to a condition where the powder burns more cleanly.
unlike semi and full auto rifles, we are not governed by a requirement of a certain pressure at the gas port to make the action function.
an example of this is the old 308 ammo loaded for the fn slr.
it used ar2201 powder with a burning rate similar to imr4198, actually too fast for best ballistics with that round.
the primer starts the ignition of the powder, but the pressure and heat of what has started ignites the rest.
bore pressure at the muzzle will be less than peak, and the longer the barrel, the greater will be the difference for the same charge of the same powder with the same bullet.
however, peak pressure will still be the same.
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880

http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM

bad_primer
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:58 am
Location: ACT

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#10 Postby bad_primer » Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:23 pm

Thanks for your replies everyone.

In terms of the barrel I’m shooting out of its 30” with a 1:8 twist. I’m currently running the Fed Gold primers as I have a significant amount of them on hand and they seem to be pretty good.

The performance of 2213SC is promising, 58.2gn Over a 15shot string on the weekend I have and SD of around 19 but ES was in excess of 25-30; that’s one I’m trying to flatten out by trying different powders. Velocities were in 2820-2850 bracket. These were all loaded with and Auto trickler so variations in loads should be very low.

I’m keen to develop a load with the 180gn pil range, so will have a play with 2217 and go from there.
With the 280AI I’m thinking a starting load of about 58.5 and going up in .2 increments.

93E9DE68-E334-432B-9514-EEB7135C990E.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

bruce moulds
Posts: 2622
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#11 Postby bruce moulds » Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:39 pm

are those s.d. and e.s. figures set in stone?
as an aside you cold be looking for an s.d. of 10 or less.
this will usually translate to an e.s around 30 for that many shots.
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880

http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM

BRETT B
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:37 pm
Location: PERTH

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#12 Postby BRETT B » Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:43 pm

On paper 2213 should be more consistent but in my 7mm SAUM 2217 was more consistent and accurate. ES was almost as good as 2209 and it was very accurate!! Downside of 2217 was it did not like loads on the soft side, it needed to be at a decent operating pressure for all the powder to burn clean and achieve a good ES/SD. With the Saum that was a minimum of 2970 before it would burn clean enough and be consistent enough for High end competition. Any lower than that and the temperature of the day or ammo determined what speed it wanted to run at and it varied quite a bit. Also 60+ grains of powder started to be a handfull with regards to recoil management and it was hard to shoot well all day ..

If you can get it to pressure 2217 will work and can be very accurate!! It is very slow so I would go up in at least .3 increments.
BRETT BUNYAN F CLASS OPEN SHOOTER W.A.

GSells
Posts: 531
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#13 Postby GSells » Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:51 pm

bad_primer wrote:Thanks for your replies everyone.

In terms of the barrel I’m shooting out of its 30” with a 1:8 twist. I’m currently running the Fed Gold primers as I have a significant amount of them on hand and they seem to be pretty good.

The performance of 2213SC is promising, 58.2gn Over a 15shot string on the weekend I have and SD of around 19 but ES was in excess of 25-30; that’s one I’m trying to flatten out by trying different powders. Velocities were in 2820-2850 bracket. These were all loaded with and Auto trickler so variations in loads should be very low.

I’m keen to develop a load with the 180gn pil range, so will have a play with 2217 and go from there.
With the 280AI I’m thinking a starting load of about 58.5 and going up in .2 increments.

93E9DE68-E334-432B-9514-EEB7135C990E.jpeg

I’ll comment ( to help ), the slow load in my 280 ai for that fabled 58.9 (600 yds )at Qld Queens is or was : same Lilja 3 groove I started with (1000 round count ) , 9 twist , 10 thou jump, 180 Berger’s hybrids, 2209 53.3 gr and cci 200 or br 2 ‘s.
The real secret to get the most out of an 280 Ackley is to internal chamfer primer flash holes , with a Sinclair international primer chamfer tool and 7 mm pilot .
This with high standard reloading practices should see some insane low SD ‘s and extreme spreads .

I know mr Litz said not to bother with internal flash hole chamfers . But my real world testing in my experiences have been proving different. Especially in a long powder case such as the 280 Ackley.

I’ve tried 2225 in the Ackley and it’s probably a powder that could be used to push 180’s in a 9 twist barrel well into the 3000 feet per second area and the more adventurous with fed 210’s or mag 215’s maybe a bit winner ? Yep certainly found a load around 3010 FPS using 210’s that had a 10 FPS spread over 10 shots . But I abandoned it as I can’t contain the recoil at those speeds and the gear takes a hammering and does the harmonics are harder to control. But for the brave , there is a very fast load that maybe worth a crack . I’m certainly not chasing that at the moment. Maybe I’ll revisit when this barrel gets decommissioned.
Ok 2213 sc is such a great powder in my opinion. It is a little speed sensitive like 30-50 FPS between summer and winter which is a little worse than 2209 . It has worked well with br 2’s in summer . But in winter the es opened up to 15 -20 FPS from memory. Just before the Qld Queens I changed primers to fed 210’s ( standard gold medal , non magnum ) and that class of powder seem to love the slightly hotter charge and yielded another 10 FPS with the same 2213 sc charge of 60 gr flat for winter speed of 2918 FPS in summer with br2’s eg over 30 deg c 2950 FPS with 180 hybrids and 2970 with 180 ELD’s were achieved with some crazy low sd’s .
This is really the limit for the 280 ai I feel and slower and more accurate is better than raw horse power.
Barrel life looks like 200 rounds on when I cleaned and bore scoped with plenty life left and am confident with the use of the slow load , nice one hole round groups at the shorts to mids . And the fast load positive compensating 2213 sc will extend life well into the 2000 round mark . This will of course involve careful cleaning and pasting after every days shooting that’s is abrasives every 60-80 rounds patch only for hard carbon and bronze brush and patches with kg or boretech eliminator every 40 plus rounds for soft carbon duties . Seems to work for me . My opinion, I truly believe round count doesn’t determine if a barrel is past its life . It’s what the target and borescope says . Every barrel is an individual and every one of them has its own personality.

2213 sc so far just seems to be very reliable and efficient powder in the Ackley. But needs to be 59 gr in my rifle to burn efficiently. And speeds in the 2880 FPS 30” barrel would be “ shoot like stink “ across the corse load if ocw ( optimum charge weight ) can be achieved. I have had a slow load with 2213 sc at 2790 FPS can’t remember the weight . But hammered the x ring out to 600 yds but it wasn’t burning efficiently thus I moved to 2209 for the same speed .
I hope this helps a few people. The 280 ai is bit of a Ford Fpv Barra F 6 . In that it’s a real sleeper and a fine case if you are on a budget ( cases are cheap 30-06( 280 HI ) ) and with some serious load development can equal a Saum out to 2950 FPS .
These days with a few keyboard snipers around I prefer to keep tech details to myself. But am willing to put at risk to help others . So again hope this helps ?
Ps fast load used at Qld Queens 800 to 1000 yds was 9 twist Lilja, 60.0 gr 2213sc as mentioned above , fed gold medal and jammed for positive compensation , 180 Berger’s hybrids pointed .
This load is safe in my rifle .
Also this powder needs loading to the kernal and weighing primers also help .
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by GSells on Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GSells
Posts: 531
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#14 Postby GSells » Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:02 pm

BRETT B wrote:On paper 2213 should be more consistent but in my 7mm SAUM 2217 was more consistent and accurate. ES was almost as good as 2209 and it was very accurate!! Downside of 2217 was it did not like loads on the soft side, it needed to be at a decent operating pressure for all the powder to burn clean and achieve a good ES/SD. With the Saum that was a minimum of 2970 before it would burn clean enough and be consistent enough for High end competition. Any lower than that and the temperature of the day or ammo determined what speed it wanted to run at and it varied quite a bit. Also 60+ grains of powder started to be a handfull with regards to recoil management and it was hard to shoot well all day ..

If you can get it to pressure 2217 will work and can be very accurate!! It is very slow so I would go up in at least .3 increments.

Lol! What he said ! :lol:

GSells
Posts: 531
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: 2217 vs 2213SC which is a more consistent powder

#15 Postby GSells » Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:11 pm

Sorry , I didn’t ask the Question about 168’s . While I was testing 180’s I accidentally grabbed 168’s with the 60. Gr 2213 sc and wondered why I was getting another 20 FPS and still low extreme spreads.
I have never trialled them but if you could get them to work with the shorter length and less wind shear torque effect . One maybe on a winner for Belmont? I’ll leave that up to the more adventurous!!


Return to “Equipment & Technical”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests