Saubier.com  



Go Back   Saubier.com > Saubier.com Forums > Small Caliber Load Data

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-24-2018, 09:39 PM
Mudgegonga Mudgegonga is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Yarra Valley, Australia
Posts: 50
Default 17 Rem using Rem 204 Brass

Whats your experience relative to Rem 17 brass. How much do I need to reduce loads due to smaller case capacity? What do I need to neck turn down to on a chamber with .20 neck?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-26-2018, 06:29 AM
RareBear RareBear is offline
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cardington, Ohio, USA, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 1,072
Default

I have purchased some 204 brass with the idea of forming 17 Remington to obtain thicker case necks but that is as far as I have gotten.

I have some 17 Remington brass and a 17 Remington chamber that currently yields a .200" outside diameter fired case neck. The loaded case necks measure .193" outside diameter. It looks like I "probably" won't have to neck turn. Maybe just a clean up cut.

I bet Kenny Pond would know the answer to your questions but alas, Kenny is long gone.
__________________
Any citizen accused of a crime is presumed innocent until bankrupted beyond all reasonable doubt.

In our country the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State. -- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Last edited by RareBear; 09-26-2018 at 06:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-27-2018, 04:28 AM
Silverfox Silverfox is offline
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NW North Dakota
Posts: 1,243
Default

I formed about 400+ of my WW .204 Ruger casings to .17 Remington and I definitely WOULD NOT DO THAT AGAIN!!! My advice would be to buy some Nosler .17 Rem brass. I turned the necks on the formed brass too. The brass was fine, but IMHO, the whole ordeal wasn't really worth all the work it required.
__________________
Catch ya L8R--Silverfox

NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-27-2018, 04:57 AM
RareBear RareBear is offline
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cardington, Ohio, USA, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 1,072
Default

Does the Nosler 17 Remington brass have a bit more neck thickness?
__________________
Any citizen accused of a crime is presumed innocent until bankrupted beyond all reasonable doubt.

In our country the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State. -- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-27-2018, 02:47 PM
Silverfox Silverfox is offline
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NW North Dakota
Posts: 1,243
Default

The Nosler .17 Rem brass, in my experience, had thicker neck walls than any of the .17 Remington factory brass I ever owned. The case capacity was a bit less than regular factory .17 Rem brass. I don't have my records with me where I'm at, so I can't give you the exact measurements of the neck wall thickness of the Nosler brass.
__________________
Catch ya L8R--Silverfox

NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-28-2018, 02:51 PM
Silverfox Silverfox is offline
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NW North Dakota
Posts: 1,243
Default

Mudgegonga--The neck on the chamber on the .17 Remington I formed .204 Ruger casings into .17 Remington for is .201". The neck thickness on this newly formed brass needed to be reduced to .0125" so the outside diameter of my loaded rounds would wind up at approximately .197" giving me .002" of space all around the outside of the loaded round’s neck. However, I found that the casings were work hardened enough so that when I ran the K&M Expandiron into the neck, it would spring back so much that the mandrel was too tight in the neck and would gall brass onto the mandrel. So, I annealed them all and then the expandiron worked great and they were easy to neck turn.

I have found that the resulting brass was outstanding. I also have to warn you that my brass formed out of WW .204 Ruger brass had about 2.3% less volume than a factory .17 Remington casing so DO NOT start out your load testing with loads anywhere close to maximum listed loads!!!

I sold all the casings I formed from .204 Ruger to .17 Remington and am using Nosler brass. The reamer I used to chamber my new stainless steel super match grade 1 in 9 twist PacNor barrel is the same one I used on the barrel I took off the rifle. It has a .201" neck diameter and the Nosler casings were all neck turned so the casing walls are .0125" thick. These casings have less case capacity than factory .17 Remington casings, so make sure you load down from recommended loads listed in the books.
__________________
Catch ya L8R--Silverfox

NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-28-2018, 10:15 PM
Mudgegonga Mudgegonga is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Yarra Valley, Australia
Posts: 50
Default

Thanks everyone. Whats the impact of reduced case capacity on velocity. Does it make the 17 Rem more efficient?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-29-2018, 02:40 PM
Silverfox Silverfox is offline
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NW North Dakota
Posts: 1,243
Default

Quote:
Whats the impact of reduced case capacity on velocity. Does it make the 17 Rem more efficient?
With both sets of casings (.204 Ruger formed to .17 Rem and the .17 Rem Noslers) I was getting higher velocities with lower charge rates than the data in the reload books showed--CONSIDERABLY HIGHER VELOCITIES!!! I was finding that I was getting near maximum velocities with loads a tiny bit above the starting load powder charge listed. You'll have to ask the experts on this board if that is more efficiency.
__________________
Catch ya L8R--Silverfox

NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-29-2018, 06:39 PM
JSH JSH is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Kansas US of A
Posts: 634
Default

I got the brass LeRoy worked up from 204. I have not gotten into it yet. Knowing it was done with a lot of time and care, I was keeping it back for a 17 Remington build.
The CZ I am test driving on the 17 Remington was fed standard Remington brass.

As mentioned above one needs to keep an eye on heavy/thicker brass. I had the same result with a 6TCU as LeRoy describes in his findings on the 17 brass made from 204. I used some virgin LC brass for the 6TCU.

I did sneak up on loads with(6TCU) H335. I never went far enough to run into pressure signs, got to a good speed and excellent accuracy and stopped. It was a SMALLER charge with same speed and accuracy for the most part. So I guess you could say that may have been more efficient. Something I don't get to hung up on myself.
Jeff
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.