I know this is a 2-year old thread, - but being an avid Rio hull reloader (lead) for Clay games for the last 4-5 years, and the fact that this thread comes up in Google, I thought I might chime in with some of my own thoughts and experiences.
Few thoughts to consider on C.L.'s old post (containing quoted text from Alliant's memo) ...
#1 It's complete chicanery for Alliant to state that the reason that they don't publish reload information using the Rio G-600 is because of "variance" (inter-lot or otherwise). This is the same company who has chosen to "group" (aka 'slash' as I call it) wads together in their published reloading recipes where the wad "groupings" don't even come close to each other in their published recipes performance wise. For example, Alliant publishes recipes that show: "12S3/DRF0" for the wad, whereas there is a problem with the Downrange DRF3 (12S3 clone) which causes off-sounders/bloopers, and SD's are in the hundreds. They do this for a lot of other Downrange wads as well.
It's debunk on Alliants part to cut a deal with Downrange to agree to "group" OEM wad data with Downrange clones on blind faith without testing the clone wad separately. Alliant doesn't do this for any other clone wad maker. Not that it matters (or even relevant here), but why doesn't Kevin from downrange publish his own testing data for all of his clone wads?
#3 As mentioned in this thread, Hodgdon does publish load data with the Rio G-600 primer (Clays recipes). If there were a problem with inter-lot variances with Rio primers, I would trust Hodgdon's word much more over Alliants (given situation #1 above).
#4 I do realize that Tom Armbrust published this article showing that the Rio had the highest EV (Extreme Variation) back in 2006: http://www.armbrust.acf2.org/bargainprimer.htm . But this is only one data point, and one particular recipe. Are there any other people, or testing labs who have done the same tests recently ? (And where is Tom's OEM to Downrange clone wad comparison tests ?)
#4 Unless something has changed in the last 4-5 years with the Rio G-600 primers, I've actually found that the Rio primers, although supposedly hotter, are actually more consistent (velocity wise) than some of the other overseas primers (Fiocchi 616) in my own personal chronograph tests. For example, I just got done chrongraphing yet more Rio loads last Sunday (which also have been sent off to Precision Reloading for pressure testing) and although a chronograph can't test pressure, or pressure "variance", it can check velocity, and velocity variance. Here is that data:
Loader: brand new 20-ga MEC 9000 w/ new dedicated AutoMate, no powder baffle.
Chronograph: ProCrono Digital
Location: Renton Fish and Game, Renton, Washington
Outside temperature: 58 degrees F
Date: 5/29/2011
Time: ~3:15PM
Gun (20-bore) Limited Edition Browning Citori Upland Game series (525) w/ Browning/Briely Midas ext, SKT chokes.
Gun (12-bore) 30-inch Browning Citori XS Skeet, Carlson SKT/SKT chokes
S1) (control) 10 shots, 20-ga Remington 7/8's oz Gun Club (4-box Walmart Value pak)
1265 H
1223 L
1239 Avg
42 ES
12 SD
...
...
S5) 10 shots, 1F 12-ga Rio blue, 1-oz #8, Gualandi GU-1225 wad, 18.7 gn Alliant e3, Fio 616
1314 H
1290 L
1300 Avg
24 ES
7 SD
S6) 10 shots, 1F 12-ga Rio blue, 1-oz #8, Gualandi GU-1225 wad, 18.7 gn Alliant e3, Rio G-600
1308 H
1294 L
1298 Avg
14 ES
4 SD
Granted, my above load may be hot and over pressure (that is why they are off at Precision getting pressure tested), but this test, along with all my other tests (using other powders like Hodgdon's Clays) indicates that when compared to the Fiocchi Fio 616 primer, loads using the Rio G-600 always yields lower ES and SD numbers. Of course, this may simply mean that the Fiocchi Fio 616 may just be worse than the Rio G-600. But when I get the actual pressure test data back for the above loads (plus all the other loads sent in), I'll be sure report back here on the reported pressure EV's. It is interesting to note that the Avg velocity is a tad lower for the Rio primer loads (at least for that particular recipe).
All primers react differently to different powders (and different amounts) in different loads, we all realize that. But that is why I sent a large sampling in to get pressure tested, - to hopefuly 'duplicate' the work that Tom Armbrust did in the article in the above link I posted. I don't believe that there is a "one size fits all" general rule of thumb that should be proliferated around the forums about the Rio G-600 primers without ample data to support the claim(s) either way.
Few thoughts to consider on C.L.'s old post (containing quoted text from Alliant's memo) ...
#1 It's complete chicanery for Alliant to state that the reason that they don't publish reload information using the Rio G-600 is because of "variance" (inter-lot or otherwise). This is the same company who has chosen to "group" (aka 'slash' as I call it) wads together in their published reloading recipes where the wad "groupings" don't even come close to each other in their published recipes performance wise. For example, Alliant publishes recipes that show: "12S3/DRF0" for the wad, whereas there is a problem with the Downrange DRF3 (12S3 clone) which causes off-sounders/bloopers, and SD's are in the hundreds. They do this for a lot of other Downrange wads as well.
It's debunk on Alliants part to cut a deal with Downrange to agree to "group" OEM wad data with Downrange clones on blind faith without testing the clone wad separately. Alliant doesn't do this for any other clone wad maker. Not that it matters (or even relevant here), but why doesn't Kevin from downrange publish his own testing data for all of his clone wads?
#3 As mentioned in this thread, Hodgdon does publish load data with the Rio G-600 primer (Clays recipes). If there were a problem with inter-lot variances with Rio primers, I would trust Hodgdon's word much more over Alliants (given situation #1 above).
#4 I do realize that Tom Armbrust published this article showing that the Rio had the highest EV (Extreme Variation) back in 2006: http://www.armbrust.acf2.org/bargainprimer.htm . But this is only one data point, and one particular recipe. Are there any other people, or testing labs who have done the same tests recently ? (And where is Tom's OEM to Downrange clone wad comparison tests ?)
#4 Unless something has changed in the last 4-5 years with the Rio G-600 primers, I've actually found that the Rio primers, although supposedly hotter, are actually more consistent (velocity wise) than some of the other overseas primers (Fiocchi 616) in my own personal chronograph tests. For example, I just got done chrongraphing yet more Rio loads last Sunday (which also have been sent off to Precision Reloading for pressure testing) and although a chronograph can't test pressure, or pressure "variance", it can check velocity, and velocity variance. Here is that data:
Loader: brand new 20-ga MEC 9000 w/ new dedicated AutoMate, no powder baffle.
Chronograph: ProCrono Digital
Location: Renton Fish and Game, Renton, Washington
Outside temperature: 58 degrees F
Date: 5/29/2011
Time: ~3:15PM
Gun (20-bore) Limited Edition Browning Citori Upland Game series (525) w/ Browning/Briely Midas ext, SKT chokes.
Gun (12-bore) 30-inch Browning Citori XS Skeet, Carlson SKT/SKT chokes
S1) (control) 10 shots, 20-ga Remington 7/8's oz Gun Club (4-box Walmart Value pak)
1265 H
1223 L
1239 Avg
42 ES
12 SD
...
...
S5) 10 shots, 1F 12-ga Rio blue, 1-oz #8, Gualandi GU-1225 wad, 18.7 gn Alliant e3, Fio 616
1314 H
1290 L
1300 Avg
24 ES
7 SD
S6) 10 shots, 1F 12-ga Rio blue, 1-oz #8, Gualandi GU-1225 wad, 18.7 gn Alliant e3, Rio G-600
1308 H
1294 L
1298 Avg
14 ES
4 SD
Granted, my above load may be hot and over pressure (that is why they are off at Precision getting pressure tested), but this test, along with all my other tests (using other powders like Hodgdon's Clays) indicates that when compared to the Fiocchi Fio 616 primer, loads using the Rio G-600 always yields lower ES and SD numbers. Of course, this may simply mean that the Fiocchi Fio 616 may just be worse than the Rio G-600. But when I get the actual pressure test data back for the above loads (plus all the other loads sent in), I'll be sure report back here on the reported pressure EV's. It is interesting to note that the Avg velocity is a tad lower for the Rio primer loads (at least for that particular recipe).
All primers react differently to different powders (and different amounts) in different loads, we all realize that. But that is why I sent a large sampling in to get pressure tested, - to hopefuly 'duplicate' the work that Tom Armbrust did in the article in the above link I posted. I don't believe that there is a "one size fits all" general rule of thumb that should be proliferated around the forums about the Rio G-600 primers without ample data to support the claim(s) either way.
