I have noticed that in some Reloading Manuals suggested/recommended powders are given for heavier bullets and different powders are mentioned as better for lighter bullets. This is not done for every cartridge they list.

Anyone know why the Manuals are inconsistent in not providing the information ( powders recommended for both heavy bullets and lighter bullets)? I am guessing that it is because, for some cartridges, the same powders are recommended for all weights of bullets.

Is there a reference work that gives the recommedations for both heavy and light bullets for all cartridges, or at least, the more common/standard ones?

As a rule of thumb faster burning powders are more suitable for lighter bullets and vice versa.

But as always in reloading: Only testing it will make you wiser.

McFox- Understood, but it always seems I have to test several powders to get the best performance. But, then that's one of the challenges which gives satisfaction when you get it right.

But still, why the inconsistency by the manuals in providing powder recommendations for both light and heavy bullets?

That is why I use and compare many souses when loading a particular caliber that I don’t have “home grown” data for. There is no manual that list that gives a recommendations for both heavy and light bullets for all cartridges. I have always liked my old Lyman manual as it gives Accuracy loads and factory duplication loads with pressure.

Bill- I too use multiple manuals (Hornady, Speer, Barnes, Nosler, Lyman) for the reason that I use their bullets. That is what raised the issue.

Your answer about a reference source is not surprising as I have never come across one. Just thought I would ask.

Still, I wonder why, if they give the data for some cartridges, why they do not give it for all- or, at least provide a footnote or an explanation elsewhere.

olguy,
“Still, I wonder why, if they give the data for some cartridges, why they do not give it for all- or, at least provide a footnote or an explanation elsewhere.”

I would have to guess but it would seam that with today’s powder is very versatile and will work well with many bullet weights.
Back to my old Lyman book (45th Edition) looking at the 30-06 for example.
11 bullet weights from 4 different makers 110 to 220 gr. 7 different weights listed IMR 4350 in the list of accuracy loads 4 listed it in the factory duplication load data all 11 list IMR 4350 as viable powder.
I think you just have to study the data and pick a powder that gives good velocity with good load density and reasonable pressure.
I didn’t start this as a endorsement for IMR 4350 it is a powder I am failure with and have used it in 243 to.375 H&H. Yes there are other powders that work as well some perhaps slightly better.
There are so many other variables in loading you can stay busy for a long time trying them all. With this all said and done you should be able to look at the manual and decide what load what powder will work with what bullet. This also helpful in today’s market where your favorite powder isn’t available.
Bill

quote:

Originally posted by olguy:
Is there a reference work that gives the recommedations for both heavy and light bullets for all cartridges, or at least, the more common/standard ones?

Hey olguy, I may be reading your question incorrectly, but it looks like you are asking why the Manuals do not say "which" of the Powders listed for each Bullet Weight is the most Accurate?

If that is what you are asking, the reason is because which specific Powder happens to be the most Accurate in one rifle is not necessarily the most Accurate in all rifles using the exact same components. There is no such thing as a Universal Load which works the best in ALL rifles.

There are a few of the Manuals which indicate which Powder was the most accurate in their Test Barrel, but you might or might not have good luck with it in your rifle.
-----

If that is not your question, then I really do not understand your question. All the Powder and Bullet manufacturer Manuals list specific Powders which cover 10-15 different types for each Bullet Weight. Some Manuals list only those which provide the best Velocity for a range of Powders and do not list all of their Powder offerings.

IMR used to publish a FREE Load Guide which listed each Powder they made for nearly every Bullet Weight. It showed how some Powders were simply better suited for a specific Cartridge with a specific Bullet by the Velocity attainable plus Compressed Loads. I do not know if they still offer this Guide or not.

Best of luck to you.

Hot Core: You misinterpretd my question. My question relates to my previous comments about suggested powders for light and heavy bullets.
Ex: Hornady's 7th Ed. Handbook states, p. 507, "...IRM 4350 gave very good results with the light bullets, while RL-22 and IMR 7828 gave the best results with the heavier bullets."
I have seen such recommendations in print elsewhere.

Accuracy is not the only consideration, but it is a primary concern. I want the best hunting load I can develop. So I want flat trajectory, accuracy, terminal energy and bullet performance.

As for a Universal Load, yes, I am aware there is no such thing.

Barnes' Manual footnotes recommended loads. Nosler's Manual identifies most accurate load tested for all of its powders listed, as well as the most accurate powder tested. Lyman designates in bold type its potentially most accurate load. Of course these are all based on their test rifles and may or may not yield the same or good results in other rifles. But, they are starting points.

I look for the easiest way to get where I want to be. In the Hornady example above, I would start out with IMR 4350 for 150-165gr bullets. If I was not satisfied with the results I would try one (maybe more) of the other listed powders. For 180-220gr I would try RL 22 and/or IMR 7828. Again, if not satisfied I would try one of the other powders.

Go back and reread my initial post in conjuction with this one. Let me know if I am still not clear. I will try to explain further.

Appreciate your input- even if I was misunderstood. Maybe not your faultm, maybe mine as a writer. One of the great things about AR is how generous its members are in
sharing their knowledge, experience, insight and advice.

Is it possible that they did not find loads that were greatly better in some rounds. They might only comment on the the ones that were obviously better suited for those loadings.

I think if you`ll look the Sierra and Nosler books for a couple examples give the powder that performs best with each bullet wgt they make.
The recommendations for certain powders for a given weight bullet is usually derived from the test results in the lab the data was developed from. They normally list as "most accurate" or "best", the load that showed the least deviation in velocity. The load may or may not perform the same in your rifle and isn`t meant to be more then a suggestion of a load to start the reloader off with.

Olguy: I've been reloading for more than 40 years and own practically every manual published during that time. The recommendations in the manuals may be based in one manual on nothing more than the Standard Deviation of velocity a powder exhibits, but in another manual on actual fired groups. There is no "industry standard" on manual "recommendations" or footnotes as to potentially most accurate loads.

I find the "recommendations" not at all helpful and pay no attention to them. The recommendations are drawn from data that was derived from (1) a different lot of powder than you will have, (2) sometimes unspecified primers, (3) perhaps a different lot of bullets -- manufacturers do sometimes alter bullet profiles without any annoucement, and most importantly (4) will always be in a different gun than you are using. These variables all taken together make the recommendations meaningless. Each rifle is an individual and only behaves like another within rather wide parameters.

Reloading manuals provide, at best, broad guidelines. You have to work out the details yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by olguy:
Hot Core: You misinterpretd my question. My question relates to my previous comments about suggested powders for light and heavy bullets.
Ex: Hornady's 7th Ed. Handbook states, p. 507, "...IRM 4350 gave very good results with the light bullets, while RL-22 and IMR 7828 gave the best results with the heavier bullets." ...

Hey olguy, Maybe I understand this time.

Generally speaking, light Bullets in a specific Cartridge perform best with a slightly "Faster" Powder than the heavier Bullets. Or the opposite would be a heavy Bullet in aspecific Cartridge performs best with a slightly "Slower" Powder than the light Bullets.

In addition to this, there are some wierd things that occasionally happen with some specific Cartridges which cause "Burning Rates" to shift a bit from their norm. One Powde wich is listed on a Burn Rate Chart as Faster than another one, may actually act as if it is Slower in some Cartridges.

All that said, there are some Powders which work "so-so" with both the light and heavy Bullets in a specific Cartridge. But, there is always a Performance lag on one end or the other.
-----

You are correct in that there are some knowledgeable Reloaders on this Board. If I'm still not answering your question, perhaps one of them will jump in and sort it out.

But there are also some real fools here. Most of the time, someone corrects them. But you never know.

Anyway, I hope that helped. Best of luck to you.

quote:

why the inconsistency by the manuals in providing powder recommendations for both light and heavy bullets?

Some times there is no stand out difference. ??

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Olguy: I've been reloading for more than 40 years and own practically every manual published during that time. The recommendations in the manuals may be based in one manual on nothing more than the Standard Deviation of velocity a powder exhibits, but in another manual on actual fired groups. There is no "industry standard" on manual "recommendations" or footnotes as to potentially most accurate loads.

I find the "recommendations" not at all helpful and pay no attention to them. The recommendations are drawn from data that was derived from (1) a different lot of powder than you will have, (2) sometimes unspecified primers, (3) perhaps a different lot of bullets -- manufacturers do sometimes alter bullet profiles without any annoucement, and most importantly (4) will always be in a different gun than you are using. These variables all taken together make the recommendations meaningless. Each rifle is an individual and only behaves like another within rather wide parameters.

Reloading manuals provide, at best, broad guidelines. You have to work out the details yourself.

I've been reloading since 1968 & now use the nosler reloading guide , I found their loads are very accurate in my custom bedded,tuned and scoped Sako 30-06 L61R Finnbear & my Sako Finnsport in 300wm on Elk & Mule Deer .

Stnecreek/Hot Core: I like your explanations; some of which I had pretty much concluded. I think I agree, to an extent, about the value of recommendations. As an example: For the .270 Win., Jack O'Connor's pet load was , as I recall, a 130 gr bullet propelled by H 4831.

This load is very often touted as THE load for the .270. I have no doubt it worked superbly for O'Connor and very well for others. However, I have two .270's; one a Remington Mtn. Lt. S/S (700 action) and one a semi-custom M98 FN Mauser. They do not do well with H 4831, but both like IMR 4831. Go figure; not that much difference in burn rate. H 4831 is slightly slower, but I guess enough so to make the difference.

I have had other occasions too where the recommendations did not pan out. But, we have to start somewhere. So, I usually start with a recommendation. Thus, the reason for raising the issue. I agree that the manuals are guidlines and working out the details is what I have been doing; sometimes it gets mighty tedious.

Jim C,- No stand out difference; I like the way you say it. That is what I was trying to say in my opening post when I referred to "...the same powders are recommended for all weights of bullets."

So, if I get a good result with a heavy bullet, using powder X, should I use that same powder for lighter bullets? Then, if not acceptable result for lighter bullet, opt for a faster
powder?

Thanks to all for your replies. It was worth the discussion.