6mm Lee Navy Load data
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
There are 2 loads at http://www.ammoguide.com/
Thanks.
6mm Lee Navy Data
From Sharpe's book:
65 gr. lead - 4.0 - Unique - .250" seating depth
95 gr. lead - 5.0 - Unique - .250" S/D
112 gr. SP - 10.0 - Unique - .229" S/D - 1380 fps - 22.5K PSI
112 gr. SP - 14.1 - Unique - .229 " S/D - 1730 fps - 37.0K PSI (At or near maximum)
112 gr. SP - 12.0 - 2400 - .229" S/D - 1400 fps - 20.5K PSI
112 gr. SP - 19.5 - 2400 - .229 S/D - 2020 fps - 37.0K PSI (At or near maximum)
112 gr SP - 27.0 - IMR4064 - .250" S/D - 2200 fps
112 gr SP - 32.5 - IMR4064 - .250" S/D - 2540 fps
Sharpe was unimpressed with the 112-gr. bullet in this cartridge. I believe it might have been too long for the very fast twist in this rifle. For other reduced loads, you may want to consider using .243 WCF or .244 (6mm) Remington data as a starting point and reducing them slightly. Per the Manual of Cartridge Conversions: Case volume of 6 mm Lee Navy: 3.25 cc's, .243 WCF: 3.42 cc's, 6mm Remington: 3.53 cc's.
Ackley's book had the same data as Sharpe.
Good luck and post your results.
From Sharpe's book:
65 gr. lead - 4.0 - Unique - .250" seating depth
95 gr. lead - 5.0 - Unique - .250" S/D
112 gr. SP - 10.0 - Unique - .229" S/D - 1380 fps - 22.5K PSI
112 gr. SP - 14.1 - Unique - .229 " S/D - 1730 fps - 37.0K PSI (At or near maximum)
112 gr. SP - 12.0 - 2400 - .229" S/D - 1400 fps - 20.5K PSI
112 gr. SP - 19.5 - 2400 - .229 S/D - 2020 fps - 37.0K PSI (At or near maximum)
112 gr SP - 27.0 - IMR4064 - .250" S/D - 2200 fps
112 gr SP - 32.5 - IMR4064 - .250" S/D - 2540 fps
Sharpe was unimpressed with the 112-gr. bullet in this cartridge. I believe it might have been too long for the very fast twist in this rifle. For other reduced loads, you may want to consider using .243 WCF or .244 (6mm) Remington data as a starting point and reducing them slightly. Per the Manual of Cartridge Conversions: Case volume of 6 mm Lee Navy: 3.25 cc's, .243 WCF: 3.42 cc's, 6mm Remington: 3.53 cc's.
Ackley's book had the same data as Sharpe.
Good luck and post your results.
Joined
·
988 Posts
IMR powders changed formula at some point in the postwar era, c. 1960s if memory serves. I wouldn't use Sharpe's data at least for IMR powders as it predates WW2, and I would want more up-to-date data on the chance the other powders have changed.
Longer bullets require a faster twist, not a slower one.
COTW does have hot loads, too hot for many of the cartridges listed. Learned that by starting with COTW reduced by 5% and finding flattened primers, etc. with several cartridges.
The 243 and 6mm Remington, though only slightly larger in capacity, are designed for pressures far in excess of what the 6mm Lee cartridge or rifles were designed for. Be very careful with that data. Starting loads listed in manuals may already be near or at max pressure for your 6mm Lee rifle.
It would be interesting to know exactly what happened to the Sarco employee at the range. All anything says is there was a "mishap".
COTW does have hot loads, too hot for many of the cartridges listed. Learned that by starting with COTW reduced by 5% and finding flattened primers, etc. with several cartridges.
The 243 and 6mm Remington, though only slightly larger in capacity, are designed for pressures far in excess of what the 6mm Lee cartridge or rifles were designed for. Be very careful with that data. Starting loads listed in manuals may already be near or at max pressure for your 6mm Lee rifle.
It would be interesting to know exactly what happened to the Sarco employee at the range. All anything says is there was a "mishap".
Joined
·
966 Posts
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE sARCO GUY?
I had one of these guns and ran my load a little bit milder than that. Actually, when mine were hot, the elector would break. Get ready to really go thru the ejectors. Would have hated to use that gun in battle
I had one of these guns and ran my load a little bit milder than that. Actually, when mine were hot, the elector would break. Get ready to really go thru the ejectors. Would have hated to use that gun in battle
Joined
·
2,477 Posts
There was a complete story about what happened on the CSP site last year by a doctor who happened to be there. CSP updated their sofware and it now only goes back to March of this year so I can't get it.
Anyway, the best I can recall is that the bolt or part of it flew back and penatrated his skull deeply killing him.
The doctor gave a excellent medical description of the injury.
The doctor said he looked at the data that was written on the powder and charge that was being used which was on bench along with unfired rds. He was using Unique powder, don't recall the grains but not a heavy load.
It was spectulated that apparently the round that exploded the receiver and caused the damage probably had a double charge in it. Also that was the 2nd shot and the case from the 1st shot was on the bench and it showed extremly hight pressure as I beleive the primer and the case were fused together. So a second shot should not have been fired as it indicated very dangerous high pressure. Possible the shooter didn't notice. Ray
Anyway, the best I can recall is that the bolt or part of it flew back and penatrated his skull deeply killing him.
The doctor gave a excellent medical description of the injury.
The doctor said he looked at the data that was written on the powder and charge that was being used which was on bench along with unfired rds. He was using Unique powder, don't recall the grains but not a heavy load.
It was spectulated that apparently the round that exploded the receiver and caused the damage probably had a double charge in it. Also that was the 2nd shot and the case from the 1st shot was on the bench and it showed extremly hight pressure as I beleive the primer and the case were fused together. So a second shot should not have been fired as it indicated very dangerous high pressure. Possible the shooter didn't notice. Ray
6mm Lee Data
OrdTech:
Not to get into a big argument, but I did say "reduced" loads; like those in the Speer Manual which call for SR4759, or other data using cast bullets in cases of like capacity.
Plain Old Dave:
I have successfully used Sharpe's data for IMR powders before and gotten good accuracy and no noticeable excessive pressure signs. I don't load to maximum pressures and have no desire to. I would think there would be very little variation in cannister-grade powders over the years; handloaders wouldn't buy powders that required reworking a pet load every time they opened a new can of powder and manufacturers wouldn't want the headache of trying to communicate new data every few years. I would agree that with this rifle and the relative lack of fresh data extreme caution is advisable.
OrdTech:
Not to get into a big argument, but I did say "reduced" loads; like those in the Speer Manual which call for SR4759, or other data using cast bullets in cases of like capacity.
Plain Old Dave:
I have successfully used Sharpe's data for IMR powders before and gotten good accuracy and no noticeable excessive pressure signs. I don't load to maximum pressures and have no desire to. I would think there would be very little variation in cannister-grade powders over the years; handloaders wouldn't buy powders that required reworking a pet load every time they opened a new can of powder and manufacturers wouldn't want the headache of trying to communicate new data every few years. I would agree that with this rifle and the relative lack of fresh data extreme caution is advisable.
Joined
·
27 Posts
6mm Lee Data
Dave-
It would be really helpful if you could supply any reference for the change in IMR powders.
In the WWII era and slightly later, when surplus powders were available, many loads were published for some of the military powders, especially 4895, with the lot numbers specified. These were not the cannister powders released for reloaders by DuPont. Of course there is the confusion caused by Hodgdon's surplus powders having the same numbers as some of the DuPont IMR powders. That confusion has mostly cleared by now.
Some of the reloading literature from the 1950s and 1960s simply list the numbers, like 4895, 4831, etc., without specifying whether the powders are from DuPont/IMR, Hodgdon, or other source. While this is confusing and potentially hazardous, it does not indicate that the DuPont/IMR cannister powders changed.
If 3031 and 4064 have changed in any systematic way since Sharpe wrote, I'd really like to know about it.
Many thanks.
--Bob
Dave-
It would be really helpful if you could supply any reference for the change in IMR powders.
In the WWII era and slightly later, when surplus powders were available, many loads were published for some of the military powders, especially 4895, with the lot numbers specified. These were not the cannister powders released for reloaders by DuPont. Of course there is the confusion caused by Hodgdon's surplus powders having the same numbers as some of the DuPont IMR powders. That confusion has mostly cleared by now.
Some of the reloading literature from the 1950s and 1960s simply list the numbers, like 4895, 4831, etc., without specifying whether the powders are from DuPont/IMR, Hodgdon, or other source. While this is confusing and potentially hazardous, it does not indicate that the DuPont/IMR cannister powders changed.
If 3031 and 4064 have changed in any systematic way since Sharpe wrote, I'd really like to know about it.
Many thanks.
--Bob
Joined
·
1,965 Posts
You may have a tough time finding .236 diameter bullets. For heavens sake, don't use 243 bullets. Look on abebooks.com for a copy of Phil Sharpe's old reloading maunal before doing any loading. I have the loading data, but will not provide it unless I am sure the correct bullets will be used.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!