TR140 QuickLoad

[Sim G]

N140 is my preferred powder in 7mm-08, with 168 SMKs. N140 is Rocking Horse Poop at the minute, but I have managed to acquire some “old stock” TR140!

I never used this when it was all the rage, but needs must! Load data is very scarce, even more so in my usage. So, can anyone shove the particulars through QuickLoad for me? I believe TR140 is also called RS50 according to research so far.

7mm-08, Sierra 168gn .284” Matchkings, Remington cases, CCI LR primers, loaded to 2.80”.

Thanks.

[dromia]

As well as Quickload data any respondents will need to show the original pressure tested data source for this load request.

[rox]

So, can anyone shove the particulars through QuickLoad for me? I believe TR140 is also called RS50 according to research so far.

You'll find data for N140 and RS50, as well as your chambering and bullet choice, built-in to Gordon's Reloading Tool (a free internal ballistics simulator, similar to QuickLoad).

I assume you've looked at the Reload Swiss load data site; while there isn't manufacturer data for the Sierra 168 with RS50, there is customer-supplied data for that bullet, and manufacturer data for the Sierra 175 for comparison.

..

[Sim G]

Thanks Rox. Might not be as good an “equivalent@ as I first thought…

[shoppe]

I have been using TR140 for many many years. I bought a large amount years ago and just using the last of it now. A few kgs to go.
I have found I need about 1 grain to 1.5 grain more than using VIT 140. That's in a 308 ftr rifle using lapua 155 scenars. When I started using it, I used data for VIT 140 and had ( have) no problems. My load is at the top end.
Also been using TR140 in my SGC speed master, ( 223) again loaded pretty much as VIT 140 data. Using 77 grain and 80 grain bullets.
Cheers
Shoppe

[Chapuis]

Thanks Rox. Might not be as good an “equivalent@ as I first thought…

Why don't you think it would be a good equivalent?

I've used a fair bit of it in the past and found it just as good as N140.

[Sim G]

The quoted velocities in the published data are a good 300fps slower than I’m getting.

[ukrifleman]

The quoted velocities in the published data are a good 300fps slower than I’m getting.

It is unlikely that you will match the results of the published load data as there are a number of variables to consider.

I assume that you put the rounds over a chronograph fired from your own rifle, whereas it is likely that the published data may well have been obtained using a universal receiver and whatever measuring tool they employed.
What primers did you use and were they the same as the test loads, was the powder from the same batch and were the loads all fired at the same altitude, ambient temperature and humidity as the published loads?

The point I am trying to make, is that published data is a guide and you will need to customise the load to suit your rifle until you get the results you are looking for.
Also remember that QuickLoad is more educated guesswork than hard data.
ukrifleman.

[Sim G]

My loads, through my rifle, despite not being the max N140 load, exceed the published max velocity by 87fps with an ES of only 19fps.

Initially the loads were shot over an old Chrony, a couple of years ago, the figures were confirmed over a Labradar.

I’ve been using this load for close to 18 years, the length of time I have owned the rifle, from new.

A search on this site will show my opinion of QuickLoad. A great toy, that can provide a theoretical jump off when exploring load combinations.

I never jumped on the TR140 when it hit the market. Couldn’t see the point as I didn’t need to save the few quid that the cheaper powder was constantly touted as. But, at the minute, I can’t get N140 locally. I paid 50 quid for two kilos of “old stock” and thought it might give an alternative until I get some N140. At the data seem so far, I’m not going to waste primers and bullets given their scarcity and cost now, on a powder that will not fill my needs.

It may prove useful in .223 with heavy bullets later, once the H322 runs out.