Printable View
As the title suggests, I'm interested to see if anyone has had some good load success for a 284 with Sierra 160gr TMKs?
I've been trying hornady 162ELDMs, but I cannot get any results which I would call decent enough to warrant sticking with them. My 7mm08 loves the 162 Eldm but not my 284!
I've got RL17 on hand to use and have a 8.5 twist 25.5 inch barrel.
Here's hoping someone has some info!
Thank you.
Hi Gerarado,
Have you tried the 162ELDM's with 2209 powder?
I have a new-to-me 284 Barnard actioned rifle that came with 162gr A-Max load data using 2209. Can't comment as to accuracy as have not fired that barrell as yet but it was apparently the OP's 1000yd load.
Hi... not as yet as there is none around in Chch. Hopefully all the different powders show up in the next few weeks. I've been told that RL17 and 2209 are similar in performance. I'll definately try it though. I'd be really interested in the load if you'd like to PM me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihmsakiwi
Rl17 definitely more high performance than 2209. I run 2209 and 162eldms in my 284 but think I will sell them and try another projectile. Have shot them out to 1000m but not right enough groups withing hunting distances for me
Let me know which choice you make... if I find any success with the TMK I'll let you know. It's hard to find load data for RL17, such as ADI provides.Quote:
Originally Posted by superdiver
Yep, 160TMKs go real well in 284’s and are very effective on deer. I run them with Superformance powder, but RL17 or 2209 would be fine.
Run AMAXs with RL17 at around 53gn safe in my rifle but very close to max pressure.
I run a 160tmk in my 284 with 51 grains of 2209 behind it. I get 2840fps out of a 22 inch barrel getting around moa grouping. Need to have a fiddle round with depths etc to see if I can tighten it up.
Do you think superformance is superior to RL17 or 2209?Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw
Yes, RL17 & Superformance are a step up over 2209, at least 50 fps in my experience. Some 284s “like” RL17 over Superformance and some the other way round. I’ve found Superformance more consistent in the 3 284s I’ve done load dev for, but if RL17 works it usually is slightly quicker
Some great tips here so thank you. I'll let you know how it comes togther.
Watching with interst
Am running my bullets at 3.26"~ but think I will play with seating depths to see if that tightens things up. Anyone else have any suggestions for seating depths?
Hi Superdiver, I may be interested in a part box of the 162ELDM's if you are going to go to another projectile?
I have a 284 barrell for my new-to-me F-class rifle which I haven't even fired yet. The load that came with it from the OP was for the discontinued A-max's.
Which projectile mate...? ELDM OR TMK?Quote:
Originally Posted by superdiver
ELDMsQuote:
Originally Posted by Gerardo
Hi. Have you tried Superformance with lighter projectiles like 140gn?Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw
Not TMKs, but I'm running 162 ELD-X in my .284 Win T3 with 2213SC. It's a mild load, but does around .6 MOA for a 5 shot group and knocks stuff over just fine.
No, only with 160 TMKs and 162 AMAXQuote:
Originally Posted by Kudu
A bit of an update. I worked up some loads I'd had some success with previously with the 162ELDMs. Once again, there was absolutely no consistency and nothing even worth talking about. You all know the gritted teeth and frustration that goes with that.
After a cool down period (of the barrel), and a few patches of hoppe's through the barrel, I fired off the 3 fowlers.
I then put the first ladder load down range with the 160TMK.
Through my ear protection I could hear the angels singing through my barrels harmonics. They all pretty much went into a slight ragged hole, with an SD of 9.
Obviously with a smile on the dial at this new found and immediate success, I fired the next few loads which opened up then closed again to a final 3 round coverleaf result. This load averaged at 2914 ft/s, with an ES of 5 and SD of 2. (3 rd group only at this stage, and no pressure signs). It was an emotional moment. I wept with the sheer joy only a handloader can know at such numbers, and I was just glad I'd worn my depends, as I might have pissed myself with excitement.
Hello Sierra 160gr TMK.
RL17, Lapua brass, Federal magnum primer, 160 tmk 10 thou off the lands. It's worth mentioning that most of the groups fired only went above 1 MOA a couple of times. So I think it's got really good potential.
It was coldish... 2 degrees. So I wonder if it would be so accurate when warmer.
The proof is always in backing it up, so I'll check back when I've fired 5 round confirmation groups... with hopeful success.
Get me an unopened bottle of 2206H, and I'll trade you an unopened bottle of 2209.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerardo
Sorry... No can do mate. All tapped out in Chch!Quote:
Originally Posted by 257weatherby
I'll be trying the 160tmk out very shortly in my 284.
Currently using the last of my 162Amax and H414....
I tried RL17 but went away because of supply issues, might be sorted now.....but Belmont is just down the road from me and they sell H414 repackaged cheaper than anywhere else.
Great news, watching with interest as I have new-to-me barrell in 284 and haven't yet bought any projectiles as yet as the load data that came with the barrell is the the noe redundant A-Max's. Looks like the TMK's may be a good place to start.
Hmm may have to try TMKs with 2209
Nathan Foster has written that performance on shooting game is on par with the AMAX. I've never fired an amax, so couldn't comment personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihmsakiwi
If that is a comparable product it would definitely be worth a go. Those amax/eldms are brutalQuote:
Originally Posted by Gerardo
I'm purely paper punching . F-Class rifle.
Where are you looking for 2206? Gunworks and Richard Wilhelm are still showing it in stock (online catalogue).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerardo