I am new to reloading. I was looking to start reloading for the 7mm-08. In looking at the Hodgdon No.27 manual, it lists max charge for the 139 Hornaday SP using H414 as 47gr. The Hornaday 5th edition book lists a max of 49.9gr using the 139gr bullet. Why such a large difference?

Here are some variables that can possibly account for the difference:

different cases (capacity)
Different primers (hot or cold)
Different lot numbers on the powders
Different gun (amount of freebore)
Different AOL

3 grains is not too bad, considering all thgse variables. I just ran into a full 11% spread between listed maximum charges in my Whelen on RL 15. HTH, Dutch.

FZY - Maybe this is just a personal thing, but I'm not real trusting of reloading books put out by powder companies. I had a friend RUIN a .41 magnum with a load from a Hogdon book a few years back. I'm sure Hogdon's load books are better now, but it forever left a bad taste in my mouth.

On the other hand I've never been led astray by Speer or Sierra books...and others I know swear by the Hornady book.

It's sort of a personal thing, I guess. My recommendation is have more than ONE book and compare each of them every time you load. If one has "suspicious data" for a cartridge, don't trust it. Use your common sense.

Glad to have you among the reloaders. It's a good hobby and adds some extra fun and satisfaction to hunting.

Modern load books, like "SPeer 12" and "Speer 13" are not as good as old load books like "Speer 7"1966 and "Lyman's 43rd" 1964.

The loads have been lawyered down.

Also, testing loads with case head measurements has given way to copper units of pressure from squishing copper pellets and psi from strain guages and pressure transducers. These methods introduce a great deal of error in amplitude and duration.

Clark,

I think you are trying to convince us that case head expansion measurements are a more accurate way of measuring both pressure amplitude and duration than Piezo or transducers?

That's a great statement if you want an engineer to spray coffee all over his keyboard in the morning....... JMO, Dutch.

Dutch,
Are you one of those engineers that camps out on a phase gain plotter trying to compensate a control loop?
I prefer to challenge the actual system with a maximum change and compensate until the response is critically damped [45 degrees phase margin]. Enough engineering talk.

If in a strong rifle, the effects of brass is the limiting factor, why would you measure the effects of pressure on a transducer, strain gauge, or copper pellet and then try to co relate those effects to the maximum pressure the brass can take?

There is also the problem of the time domain. In 357 mag, the max Bullseye load swells the case head, while the maximum H110 load flows the primer. That is because the flash hole acts as a delay line. The pressure peak is over with Bullseye before the gas can accelerate though the flash hole. What is the time an pressure criteria you would use for a rifle? How will you measure that? If you simply put a bandwidth limit on the storage scope, is that the same filer as the mass of the brass? You don't know, so you live with huge safety margins based on fear and ignorance.

No. I live with huge safety margins due to common sense, and rational cost/benefit analysis. To be brief, the cost of failure is near asymptotic towards infinity, while the benefit is near asymptotic towards 0.

The only thing that could possibly be gained by hot rodding is ego, and I've been told I don't need more than my current supply...... Dutch.

Common sense quantifies risks.
I have overloaded more than 30 calibers in many guns.
I don't have any scars from overloading.
I have lots of scars from my other hobbies.
I have not lost any friends from handloading overloads.
I have lost friends to hang gliding, ultra light aircraft, mountain climbing, scuba diving, motor cycle racing, and just driving a car.
I have idenified some "strong rifles" that are stronger than the brass.
I can work up loads until the bolt sticks.
I can do this all I want and the headspace never changes.
I can't hunt with a sticky bolt, and I even need safety margin to assure it will not happen when hunting.

It seems I was not the first person to figure all this out:

"There is a tremendous difference in the way different rifles handle
pressure and it is entirely possible that a riffle used in one test was
different in this respect than another one we used. We do not have a
pressure gun in our laboratory, because it is my opinion, backed up by
quite a few years of experience, as well as firing data from various
laboratories using pressure guns, that data received from this is
exceedingly unreliable. For a company such as Remington or Winchester
having same gun and operator comparable results to chick on the
production problems are no doubt sufficiently accurate for the purposes
for which they are used.
We use the head expansion method in determining the pressure at which
cartridge case was fired It is our belief that cartridge case is the
weakest link in the modern bolt action rifle. If the pressure at which
these cartridges cases are fired do not exceed the elastic limit of the
unsupported rim of the cartridge case, then we consider that the
pressure are entirely usable, regardless of what they might be. We fire
increased loads, increasing the charge by about a grain at a time,
checking the rim diameter of the cartridge case with sensitive measuring
instruments, before and an after firing. If any measurement increase in
the diameter of the rim of the case is noted, we consider that pressure
excessive and reduce the charge about 6% and list it a the maximum load
in our loading table. These is no reason why handloader cannot use this
dame procedure himself and determine whether or not the loads he is
using are safe and practical for use in his rifle."
Vernon D. Speer February 6, 1958 as printed in "Handbook for shooters
and reloaders vol. 1" P.O. Ackley 1962

My work up in 2001 gave nearly identical max loads per this system as was written in Speer load books in the early 60's.

Meanwhile, newer load books print differnt loads evey year based on measuring effects of pressure other than the effects of presssure of concern. That ain't common sense.

At least I get a chance to remain brief in this thread (a rare treat for all).

Much damage was done to property and injury was caused by following this philosophy. In essence, it involves loading to proof levels, and then backing off. Each time another load is worked up, back up to proof pressures we go. And again. And again. And kaboom.

No, that is not common sense. At all. Dutch.

If you know about a modern bolt action that will blow up a result of the same thing repeatedly, I will buy one and test it.
So far, there is no metal fatigue I have found, and when I read about metal fatigue in steel from less than yield stress, it takes cycles in the millions.

If you know something about steel that I don't I would like to know so I can find out about it.

[ 08-30-2002, 01:42: Message edited by: Clark ]

Clark, I think you're living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Just because you haven't blown yourself up yet doesn't prove squat...other than you've been lucky. I've SEEN a lot of guns that weren't so lucky...some of them very new weapons.

Have you ever heard that song, "Fools Rush In?"

I'm with Dutch on this one totally.
If you think your way is clever, keep it up and I hope your good luck holds.

The last time I went to the range, I shot some LC 308 brass necked down to .243.
40 gr IMR4895, 100 gr seated very long to let the lands seat the bullet. Notice how all three cases are the same load, and yet very tiny changes in bullet pinch [component variation] cause a great deal of difference in pressure effects on the brass. The rifle was a 1939 Turkish Mauser that I re barreled and trued the action., no change in headspace, even though I have not yet lapped the lugs.


I should say that because of the thick necks, the bolt was extremely hard to close ~100 pound and the end of the bolt handle.
The cartridge case on the right took about 20 hard raps of the bolt handle on the shooting bench to get open.
I was curious to find out the slope of the change in pressure signs to the change in bullet pinch. It appears to be very steep compared to the slope of change in pressure sign in the cases to the change in powder charge.

The reason for this experiment is that I was always impressed that I can shoot oversized bullets with no change in peak pressure, and bullet pinch caused huge changes in pressure. It was counter intuitive, until I considered the time domain. The bullet swaging into the bore is just a few thousand psi [I calculate] that does not occur concurrently with the peak pressure of the powder burn.
The bullet pinch causes a delay, which causes the pressure to go up faster, which causes the powder to burn at a faster rate which causes an increase in pressure.

Because I could find no published account of bullet pinch effects, I decided to measure it with a strong rifle. Earlier experiments had proved to me the strength of the Mauser action.

[ 08-30-2002, 03:21: Message edited by: Clark ]

Well, sometimes it is better to be lucky than to be smart.

Try that trick next time with a ball powder, and see if your luck holds......

Can I sell tickets for when you pull the trigger? Dutch.

Back on load books;
Modern load books based on pressure measurements are Hoaky.
Max loads from those books are pokey.

Clark, I can`t seem to follow your logic. You state that loads in todays books are "lawyer proofed". To me this says that the loads in the previous editions caused problems somewhere along the line for their developers. There is no other reason manufactures would spend time and money "lawyer proofing"
Chiding people for staying in a safe area instead of stepping into a area that "may be safe but people/property have been implied to have been hurt here" and claiming they have no reason to be leery because you haven`t, is`nt a responsible position to take with reguard to safe handloading.
Yes I have loaded to "old book charges" in some of my rifles with out problems. I also have damaged a M19 S&W about 20 years ago with a starting load in a book from a manufacture that now lists the load as max in its new manual.
Every gun is a law unto it`s self. Powder lots change, bullet geometry varies, to give a blanket statement that new data is "pokey" just isn`t true. The fact is new data should be safe, old data should be but hasn`t always been. My idea of load developement is to find a safe accurate load to hunt with, not hunt for the highest powder charge I can find listed to use as a load.
Sorry if I`ve offended, but I stand by my opinion.........Joe

When I say "lawyered down", I don't mean they have an attourney on staff that reads the load book and passes judgment. I mean that the whole society has become afraid of law suits.
The fear of law suits causes people to back away from what they could be proud of: the truth.

The fear of law suits is a force acting on the loads chosen for the load books. My logic is that some newer powders should make loads slightly faster, but fear of lawyers and the non repeatability and errors of pressure measurement have more that offset the new powders and moved the loads down.

How far down will the loads go?
357 mag max has gone below 38 Special:
"Speer 6" 1964 38 s&w special 160 gr soft point 11 gr 2400
"Speer 6" 1964 357 mag 160 gr soft point 15 gr 2400
Midway "Loadmap" 1999 357 mag Speer 160 gr soft point 10.9 gr 2400

What went wrong that Midway could get the max loads so far off and make
a useless load book?
They used an "Oehler System 83 and piezoelectric transducers, the latest
in industry standard equipment".

I have noticed that modern reloading books are constantly reducing the max loads. I tend to agree that the risk averse society/lawyered down loads are the reason.

I have also notice that now that nearly everyone has access to a chronograph, the factory claims for velocity are much more realistic. I have found that nearly all the old book velocities were over estimated.

This is not too surprising, considering that they had crude velocity measing equipment that was difficult to use.

Clark's photo just made his case..... Excessive bullet pinch (improper reloading-brass prep techniques) caused the problems. Not too much powder. Rifles are rarely "blown up" by loading too much of the proper powder. In fact, I would say never. There is always something else that causes the accident. Sure, you can blow a primer by overloading with one of powders on the faster side of the burning rate, and of course you can blow up a rifle by loading a case full of Bullseye. But that's just plain stupid. Try blowing up a Remington model 700 30-06 with H-4831, and a 180 grain Corelokt bullet..... Unless you do something really weird, like taking a rolling pin or mortar and pestle, and grinding the powder to dust to get more in the case, there's no way in hell you can get enough powder in that case to blow up that rifle. I'm not even sure you could get enough in to even flatten the primer.... No, there is a world of distance between working up loads with a standard powder until primers flatten and bolt lift gets stiff, and "blowing up a rifle"....... Grant.

Model70, I tend to agree with you that an overload of 4831 in an '06 case won't blow up a rifle. Usually.

One thing you learn the more you are involved with disasters, is that it is never just "one thing". Even Bullseye is safe: unless you make a mistake and double charge a case.

Most of us have made errors charging cases. Either double, none, or half in one and one and a half in the other. I've done it when a stick powder bridged in the measure. I caught it, but I won't say I will catch the next one.

The problem with living on the ragged edge is that anything will push you over. A little stick you chamber with your round, an unusually thick neck, some dirt in your barrel, an exceptionally hot primer, a case that gets hot by laying on the tranny or in the sun. Any one of a hundred known little things, and a thousand we don't know, and living on the ragged edge results in a ragged gun or ragged body.

So, we can live on the ragged edge. For what purpose? So we can make an '06 into a 300 Mag? Buy a 300 mag. Or even better, buy a real gun in something like a 460 WBY.

I repeat, there is no significant tangible benefit to hot rodding. There are significant, tangible costs (wear on equipment, cases) as well as a real, although perhaps hard to quantify, risk of personal injury. So, again, if not for ego, why would you want to go there? JMO, Dutch.

Dutch makes a very good point that gets ignored. That loading to the top pressure level makes no sense from a short or long term safety basis.

As mentioned sooner or later some variable will happen and then a blow up may occur.

To illustrate my point I had read about the velocities that some are getting from Reloader 22 in the 30/06's. So I bought some on a whim but I have not opened it. I got thinking that all I am going to end up with is a rifle that is close to a 300 mag and that's no big deal in itself. What with the variables in lot to lot with that series of powders and it being a double base it dawned on me that sooner or later the variables would go against me.

So I think that powder will sit there forever unopened.

All of you guys have forgotten more about the art of reloading than I'll ever know. And that, I suppose, is why I keep reading. I truly enjoy the banter. My compliments, Sirs. But, the most intriguing question to me, is what if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? GIG 'EM AGS......Jim

I can appreciate that older data may bring a load closer to its true potential but theres a flip side to this reasoning. Naturally the responsible publishers are going to err on the side of caution as protection against lawsiuts, but one very real reason for doing just that has already been mentioned, countless variables and the different responses to pressures from the endless variations of rifles.

I submit that publishers have been in contact with those who have experienced bad situations over many years and investegated and learned a lot about what makes things go boom! and that thus, the statement that older data is better is a lot of bunk. Everyone who knows anything knows that a lot of Ackleys data in V I and II is just plain hot. It may take one handloader a lifetime to find out why one of the bullet makers has reduced a particular load but that may be a good thing.

When I first joined this forum I was impressed with the amount of knowledge within and still am, but I began thinking that maybe going beyond the max loads listed might be ok if one is carefull about it, lots of other guys have seemed to. Then it struck me how stupid that notion was.

To the newcomers here, be carefull not to step in the bullshit!

I find myself in agreement with both Clark and Dutch.

Clark's side

Firstly, I completely agree with Clark on case head expansion, ejector marks etc. If you want to prove how imporant that is, go and anneal a case head (heat to red heat ) and then use Hornadys etc. starting load

These days brass is much softer than it use to be and I believe this is alo a liability issue because soft brass shows up pressure problems earlier. When pressure is low, increases in that pressure are not so dramatic as when pressure is high.

I think it was about 10 years or so ago when I spoke on the phone to a chap called Gail Root at Nosler. He was their ballistics person. At that time Noslers manual was showing very light loads but waht amounted to full velocity potential. On the other hand, Speers manual had the light loads but was showing the low velocities. Gail Root told me that he felt Speer would change and publish high velocities for light loads so as to remove (which Nosler had done) any temptation by the reloader to go higher.

Undoubtedly some things have changes since then with the Chrony chronograph, which also very often reads velocities to high. Some of us in Australia say that if you havea 30/06 and want a 300 Magnum, then sell the Ohler and get a Chrony.

Dutch's side

In recent times I have found myself drifting towars the bigger case while retaining the same ballistics. This gives me very wide loading parameters as in powder types etc. Some of this is related to soft brass. Remington bulk brass from Huntingtons is like soft plastic.

These days I am finding myself far more inclined towars the 375 Ultra and 416 Wby. I am very happy and have always been very happy with 375 H&H type ballistics. But to drivea 300 grain bullet at around 2500 to 2600, can almost be done with black powder in the Ultra and 416 Wby.

A mate of mine in Australia who is quite geared with 264 Winchester has just ordered Manson reamer to go 6.5 Ultra. But his objective is not really to exceeed max 264 performance but be able to equal that performamce with all sorts of powders and loads.

Mike

I wonder sometimes if we're trying to increase the velocity of bullets to better performance (by experimenting or using loads from older manuals), we're just kidding ourselves.
By this I mean we view the rifle as a tool. Unlike other tools not designed for a specific job, we don't get another rifle. In part, because they're more expensive than a hammer or screwdriver.

Interpreting what Mike said, it's better to go out and get another rifle to get the performance required. Whether it's for hunting or target use.
There's an innate desire in humans to experiment, so this problem will never go away. That said, qualified people are one thing, your avg reloader is another.
In my particular case, I have no need of hot rod ammunition. I hunt in the bush where shots are not far. For varminting, when extra horsepower is good in order to reach out farther, I purchased what I considered to be the correct cartridge. No attempt was made to improve the velocity of my old 222. Only bullet changes for improved terminal results at present ranges.
For target shooting, I never pushed the envelope simply because as a technician I learned long ago not to run something a full throttle for extended periods. It's hard on the equipment.

If I ever need a long range big game rifle, I'll get one. I won't try to make one of my existing rifles into something that it is not.

It's easier to load down a cartridge and change a bullet type, than it is to load it up.

Safe Shooting!
Steve Redgwell
303british.com

Mike, I believe that there is a difference in manufacturing between the "old style" long, narrow cases and the new "wide and short" cases.

When cases are drawn, they are annealed several times while they are being formed. They have to be annealed during the process to prevent cracking while drawing. The long cases are drawn longer (more often) and necked less. The shorter cases are drawn less, but necked more. I suspect they are softer in the head because of this basic difference in manufacturing of the brass. That's nothing but my personal suspiscion (sp), though. FWIW, Dutch.

Interesting about Speer's philosophy on case head expansion. I have a 270 that will not come close to digesting many of the maximum loads listed by Lyman, Nosler, Alliant or Lee data (supplied with dies). 60 gr of SC4831 and 130 gr bullet - a 270 standard load recognized by many sources - will expand the rim so bad that primers are too loose on the second reload (Win and Rem cases) = .003 to .005 head expansion compared to unfired - primers appear pretty flattened but not cratered. I also checked the head expansion on fired factory ammo = no expansion(so the guns O.K.) - and I thought Remington factory ammo would be fairly stiff - so for some reason I have to back off 2-3 gr from many of the maximum loads I've seen listed. I have now come to believe that what appears to be cautious lawyer oriented data is now just prudent data that allows for many of the variables that exist. Good Shooting and thanks Clark for the Speer input