Gentlemen, I will be loading some 150GR Nosler E-tips soon but I have conflicting information from two different load sources. My dad's old Lee loading manual from 1960 or 70 something says the
max load of IMR 4064 is 48.5 grains (vel.2905fps), the Sierra bullet load site says it is 45.5 grains (vel.2900fps) for the same powder. "Does not compute" comes to mind here. If it worked in 1970 will it not work today? What's up?

Factor 2: 48.5grains nearly fills the case, this is a longer bullet, since there's no lead in it, so it will compress the powder more in order to keep the same OAL so won't that raise the pressure some? obviously I start low and work up but what am I missing?

Your years of experience will be appreciated.
Thanks, Barry

don't hold me to any of this but from what i understand you have a couple of things going on here.
first you are using a manual from 40-50 years ago. from what i understand over the years powders have been reformulated and that could be where you are getting some difference.

second i understand that alot of the newer loading manuals are on the conservative side as more poeple want to sue for anything and everything. so lawyers have forced the companies to be more conservative.

also is the load info in the old lee manual for a monometal bullet? or just for a generic 150g bullet? im not familiar with the e-tip i assume that its a monometal? that could have some bearing on it also.

again these are just things that i suspect from reading others posts on older reloading books. i have only recently started reloading in the passed 2 years so all of my manuals are new. good luck and be safe with whatever you decide to go with.

first off it's a lee manual and who knows which bullet they used.
lee just copies others data but don't give you all the information necessary to copy the load.
what primer did they use?
case?
bullet?
how long was the test bbl?
the min and max oal of the round?

Well, a few things cause discrepancy in data.

1) No idea what bullet the lee book is specifying

2) The sierras may be boattails and therefore assuming the same amount of bullet shank in the neck the more case capacity consumed by a boatail than a flat base.

The noslers are exceptionally long even for non lead. IIRC in the same weights noslers e-tips are even longer than barnes tsxs.

or you can go to the Hodgdon website;

http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp

they actually have e-tip data

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
first off it's a lee manual and who knows which bullet they used.
lee just copies others data but don't give you all the information necessary to copy the load.
what primer did they use?
case?
bullet?
how long was the test bbl?
the min and max oal of the round?

Lamar,
It only gives a generic 150gr bullet, none of those other factors are specified.
Barry

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Well, a few things cause discrepancy in data.

1) Know idea what bullet the lee is specifying

2) The sierra's may be boat tails and therefore assuming the same amount of bullet shank in the neck the more case capacity consume by a boatail than a flat base.

The noslers are exceptionally long even for non lead. IIRC in the same weights noslers e-tips are even longer than barnes tsxs.

or you can go to the Hodgdon website;

http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp

they actually have e-tip data

Mike, thanks for the Hodgdon link, those E-tip loads weren't in there the last time I looked at that site. That makes it easy.
Barry

The most accurate answer is that loading manuals today are put out by people that are very aware of litigation.

Even books by the same companies, Lyman/Hornady etc., show discrepencies in data from different time frames.

Loads that were listed as starting loads or acceptable loads are now considered maximum loads.

When ever I am working up a new load I try to look in the manual that makes the bullet, if possible. Then I check as many other manuals as I can. Then I start with the Lowest starting load listed, and work up slowly.

SAFETY FIRST.

When I started reloading I was given a very old hornady manuel and I worked up a lot of excellent loads based on the data in the book.

I now have the 7th edition and there is a good bit of difference, but I still feel safe with the near max loads from the old book even though they are a little over on the new book max, since they were worked up carefully and showed no signs of excessive pressure.

The data is different because different rifles were used with different barrel lengths, different bullets, primers, powders, measuring devices, different times and places, even the weather was different. Some of the data was developed using a universal receiver, other data in specific rifles specific to the caliber.

Reloading manual data is only good for the specific components/rifles used...that's the reason to start low and work up slow.

The data if for REFERENCE ONLY...not cast in stone.

How many times has it been said that each individual rifle has it's own likes and dislikes as to components and a load that shoots bugholes in mine might shoot a 6" pattern in yours.

Same with software programs...they are only predictive...if you want actual numbers you have to use a chrono and the individual rifle.

Luck

I tend to agree with the litigation remark but also, the companies have better testing equipment now than they did 50 years ago. Speer, I think it was, didn't even have pressure testing equipment. They used the same pressure signs to determine max loads that "Joe Reloader" did.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
I tend to agree with the litigation remark but also, the companies have better testing equipment now than they did 50 years ago. Speer, I think it was, didn't even have pressure testing equipment. They used the same pressure signs to determine max loads that "Joe Reloader" did.

Yes among other things! The old tale that "lawyer's write the manuals now" is pure BS. One of my friends helps develop the data and has done so for several manuals for his company --- pitch the old ones except when you need it for something like WMR for example..

All things considered wouldn't it be much better and safer to drop to the current starting loads and work up as we're supposed to do for the componants you are using? Jumping to the max load first might cause problems you don't want to have.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Reloading manual data is only good for the specific components/rifles used...that's the reason to start low and work up slow.

The data if for REFERENCE ONLY...not cast in stone.

Absolutely correct. Any 'reformulating' of established powders is irreliant, if it produces the same burn rate within normal lot to lot standards it's the same powder so far as we're concerned. NO powder maker would dare market any powder that doesn't match the standards of published data no matter how 'old' it may be. Nor is there any sane reason they should do so; if they wish to market a 'new' powder they simply give it a new name and put it out,same as always. I still have and continue to use manuals back to those I started with in '65 with complete safety ... because I know what the smell I'm doing. If we don't know what we're doing no manual can save us!

As Hoss suggests, no manual maker is going to 'lawyer up' or dumb down their listed loads. They tell us what they got in their guns using those loads, period. Any expert statements to the contrary is pure web BS; no component change of any kind can possibly make as big a difference to a book load as simply changing the firearm it's used in and we can't avoid that. That's why Lee's manuals don't and do not need to give any more specific info than they do.

No loading manual is 'gospel truth'. And they don't claim to be, that's why every one of them tell us to 'start low and slowly work up...etc." If we're going to 'work up' to listed max without regard to excess pressure signs we may as well go straight to the top charges to start with. ??

Bottom line, WE are responsible for our safety, not a book (or powder) of any age or any specific list of components or OAL, etc.

Never rely on a single manual. Some of them have typos. Instead use 4, 5 or 6 manuals and toss the outlier loads on both the high and low ends of the data.

Sorry to be blunt, but you need to learn the basics of reloading first. The FUNDMENTAL RULE is that any change in bullet or powder or brass can result in big changes in pressure & velocity. So you should NEVER use a published load and change just the bullet & expect it to be safe. ALWAYS start 5% below the published load & chronograph the ammo as you work up loads.

Your above question is wise and I hope you have not tried to use this load.

1. Please read the Layman manual - the early chapters and read them again.
2. Understand the variable of pressure & the rule of thumb formulae. For example - pressure is a result of powder burning in a cartridge with a specific bore diameter (expansion ratio) and pushing a particular bullet weight down a barrel. The minor variations in chamber & throat dimensions also affect pressure from rifle to rifle. Standard modern cartridges generate SAMI specified 60,000 to 65,000 PSI of pressure. Old CUP measurement cannot be converted to modern measurements.

From point 2 above you develop some simple rules.
2a. The smaller the case, the less powder required to achieve same pressure - so a 308 need less powder than 30'06 for same bullet

2b. The bigger the bore diameter the more powder required. For eample - if using 140 grain bullets, the 280 Rem will need more powder than a 270 Win to reach the same velocity or same pressure - assuming you are using same brand bullets, powder, primer & case capacity. Similarly the 308 will need more powder than a 7mm08 with 150 gr bullets to reach same velocity & pressure.

2c. To increase velocity by 10 % you will need about 10% more powder but the pressure will increase by 20%. If you are already near maximum, this increase in pressure could be even higher and the increase in velocity may be less. In other words, once you reach a top load, there is no benefit in increasing powder charge & it gets more risky.

2d. If you increase bullet weight by 10% then reduce powder by 10%

The above are just simple thumb rules that I have developed - but I always work up from 5% less to make sure that the load is safe. My above thumb rules are also supported by theory & maths, but I prefer to use thumb rules which I can rember and understand rather than maths formulae which mean little most of the time.

I would suggest that you just stick to the Lyman manual for a couple of years and become solid in your understanding before comparing and experimenting with various manuals.

Very old Powley rule for IMR LOG POWDERS...NOT BALL POWDERS...5/10...5% increase/decrease in velocity equals a 10% change in pressure...same principle used in software programs that use Powleys formulas.

In todays world this still works but due to the formulations of the newer powders the pressure/velocity relationship probably is different.

Doesn't matter what the bullet weight is. Change the bullet weight...OR ANY COMPONENT, doesn't matter what...and you drop back to a beginning load and chrono to see what effects the changes make.

Todays world also is populated by more information and informed people AND much better equipment all around.

Luck

Contact Nosler for data. Different bullets react differently. A non lead bullet is longer and doesn't fill the barrels (obturate) like a lead and copper bullet. Sierra is written with their bullets. Data that just says 150 grain is a ballpark, a jollow point boat tail, a round nose, and a full metal jacket all have different bearing surface and lengths.

Reference manuals are just that.. reference manuals...

the only true source of info, is YOUR rifle and a chronograph...

and the old adage.. Start low and work up...

Seafire is right!

Start safe and work up. You only need to load a single cartridge at each chosen charge as you come up and check for velocity (if your reloading is generally up to scratch).

Then you need a chronograph. If you don't measure things you simply don't know what's happening.

Buy one, borrow one, hire one....

I was reading in my old P.O Ackley’s Handbook and remember a section about cartridge pressures.

It was a quote from Mr. Hornady. The copper pressure gages were so inconsistent that Mr. Hornady was no longer using them. Instead they were measuring case head expansion.

I am of the opinion that today’s electronic pressure devices are the primary reason loading data is so different from thirty or forty years ago.


In so far as reloading manuals “only being a reference”, that is true, but they also are able to measure things that you the home reloader will never see over your chronograph or peering at your primers.

For example, I would take very seriously their advice on the suitability of powders in certain applications.

quote:

I am of the opinion that today’s electronic pressure devices are the primary reason loading data is so different from thirty or forty years ago.

and I agree with you.....excellent post!

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

I am of the opinion that today’s electronic pressure devices are the primary reason loading data is so different from thirty or forty years ago.

and I agree with you.....excellent post!

+1! These devices are much more precise and affordable than only some years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim C. <><:
As Hoss suggests, no manual maker is going to 'lawyer up' or dumb down their listed loads.

Well I can give you one example: Alliant used to list their own data, which, in my experience, proved to be quite accurate. Then, as recently as just a couple of years ago, they changed their data to exactly match what's published in the Speer manual, since they are both owned by the same company. And the data is quite different.

It seems to me that that must have been driven my the lawyers because otherwise the same legal entity would be recommending two different sets of data. And if that's not the case then the implication is that their prior data was inaccurate.

quote:

Originally posted by Wismon:

quote:

Originally posted by Jim C. <><:
As Hoss suggests, no manual maker is going to 'lawyer up' or dumb down their listed loads.

Well I can give you one example: Alliant used to list their own data, which, in my experience, proved to be quite accurate. Then, as recently as just a couple of years ago, they changed their data to exactly match what's published in the Speer manual, since they are both owned by the same company. And the data is quite different.

It seems to me that that must have been driven my the lawyers because otherwise the same legal entity would be recommending two different sets of data. And if that's not the case then the implication is that their prior data was inaccurate.

Cost saving measure.... As the data can be more finitely measured and quantified then the results can be more accurately represented in a loading manual which is just a guide anyway. I still know people who think that a 150 gr. .30 cal bullet is the same no matter who the bullet manufacturer is and that the data can be used interchangeably lol. Needless to say that is one of many reasons I will not fire anyone’s hand loads but mine.

I have 30 year old manuals still in boxes at home and still pull one out once in a while for some of the old powders I still have a lot of. Software has replaced manuals for me except for the Sierra which I still buy when they publish a new one.

quote:

Cost saving measure.... As the data can be more finitely measured and quantified then the results can be more accurately represented in a loading manual which is just a guide anyway. I still know people who think that a 150 gr. .30 cal bullet is the same no matter who the bullet manufacturer is and that the data can be used interchangeably lol. Needless to say that is one of many reasons I will not fire anyone’s hand loads but mine.

I have 30 year old manuals still in boxes at home and still pull one out once in a while for some of the old powders I still have a lot of. Software has replaced manuals for me except for the Sierra which I still buy when they publish a new one.

Sure, yeah, that's it. It was driven by their accountants who want less information available about their product so that people will use it...more?

It certainly wasn't because their lawyers pointed out to them that publishing two sets of conflicting data about how to use their product makes them vulnerable to lawsuits.

Nothing to see here, move along...

quote:

It seems to me that that must have been driven my the lawyers......Cost saving measure.... As the data can be more finitely measured and quantified then the results can be more accurately represented in a loading manual which is just a guide anyway.

You got it; just a common sense move. No lawyers are required for that!

quote:

You got it; just a common sense move. No lawyers are required for that!

So, Mr. ATK, holding company, as noted on pg. 214 of your Speer manual, 58.0 gr. of RL22 is the MAX load for a 130 gr. bullet of your manufacture in a 270 Win. Yet on pg. 49 of your Alliant manual you say that 60.0 gr. of the same powder is acceptable for the same bullet in the same caliber.

As the plantif's gun blew up with 59.0 gr. of that powder it seems clear that you sanctioned, indeed, encouraged, this overcharge by claiming it's safe in one book, yet admitting it's dangerous in another. In which of these concurrently-published guides were you lying? And after the brief recess we'll hear from your expert witness, Jim C., to explain how this is common sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Wismon:

quote:

You got it; just a common sense move. No lawyers are required for that!

So, Mr. ATK, holding company, as noted on pg. 214 of your Speer manual, 58.0 gr. of RL22 is the MAX load for a 130 gr. bullet of your manufacture in a 270 Win. Yet on pg. 49 of your Alliant manual you say that 60.0 gr. of the same powder is acceptable for the same bullet in the same caliber.

As the plantif's gun blew up with 59.0 gr. of that powder it seems clear that you sanctioned, indeed, encouraged, this overcharge by claiming it's safe in one book, yet admitting it's dangerous in another. In which of these concurrently-published guides were you lying? And after the brief recess we'll hear from your expert witness, Jim C., to explain how this is common sense.

If you will take the time to investigate you will most likely find that the testing for the 2 sets of data that you want to have a “smoking gun” for so to speak was developed using different equipment and components. Now do your research and then make another post.

You have a lot to learn about hand loading because it is different than reloading…

quote:

Originally posted by Boss Hoss:If you will take the time to investigate you will most likely find that the testing for the 2 sets of data that you want to have a “smoking gun” for so to speak was developed using different equipment and components. Now do your research and then make another post.

You have a lot to learn about hand loading because it is different than reloading…

Oh, you're right! One has a min. OAL of 3.24 and the other is 3.25! But since the bullet and the powder are the same and only one company lists components a jury would then have to be convinced that the .01" made the difference between life and death.

If someone can successfully sue a company for spilling hot coffee on her crotch it would be child's play for any street lawyer to get a huge wrongful death settlement from a company publishing conflicting data.

You have a lot to learn about litigation because it's different than spouting off pantloads...

Wismon....what part of DIFFERENT GUNS, DIFFERENT TIMES, DIFFERENT POWDER LOTS...ETC...DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT, didn't/don't you understand.

And WHY all the lawyer paranoia...THAT was started by all the greed and avarice and "sue'um till they die" BS...STARTED by even greedier LAWYERS to jerk the gullible around AND MAKE MONEY. It never changes.

What works safe in one gun can destroy another...this fact has been beaten to HE** all over this and many other forums...and nitpiking will NEVER change the bottom line...USE YOUR HEAD, BE SMART, START LOW AND WORK UP SLOW...and reloading manuals, software programs, checking your bellybutton fuzz or tea leaves ARE ONLY FOR REFERENCE AND SPECIFIC TO THE INDIVIDUAL RIFLES USED IN THE TESTING AND FOR THE SPECIFIC WAY OF TESTING...

EVERY type of specific test for pressure has issues...EVEN MEASURING BASES...you ever try to measure 0.0001"...and deduce just what the pressure WAS that caused that increase.

I can never understand when perfectly correct, simple and well supported and documented information is posted on forums, SOMEONE goes to great lengths to SUBVERT AND SPIN DOCTOR IT.

Maybe those crazies are right...a good, worldwide, population reduction is in order...let the survivors start over, if there are any.

Of course, if you were just trolling and stirring the pot...welllll

Luck

quote:

Originally posted by Wismon:

quote:

Originally posted by Boss Hoss:If you will take the time to investigate you will most likely find that the testing for the 2 sets of data that you want to have a “smoking gun” for so to speak was developed using different equipment and components. Now do your research and then make another post.

You have a lot to learn about hand loading because it is different than reloading…

Oh, you're right! One has a min. OAL of 3.24 and the other is 3.25! But since the bullet and the powder are the same and only one company lists components a jury would then have to be convinced that the .01" made the difference between life and death.

If someone can successfully sue a company for spilling hot coffee on her crotch it would be child's play for any street lawyer to get a huge wrongful death settlement from a company publishing conflicting data.

You have a lot to learn about litigation because it's different than spouting off pantloads...

Well now where should I start???? This is too easy and I could come down on you like Thor however, I feel like being benevolent because after all it is a holiday!

After reviewing your previous posts over the last few months it is very evident that you are a beginner in reloading (note I did not say hand loading) and it is not to say that you have not been doing this for many years you have just been stumbling around it the dark shall we say. Just to give a few specifics since you have no idea of what is being discussed here is what the “Opposing Counsel” might ask on the stand sending you home to chew on your own large cell squamous tissue might be some of the following:

Barrel Maker and type ie button, single point cut, hammer forged etc? How many grooves? Depth of the lands and grooves? Twist rate? What type of rifling? Primer type? Primer brand? Type of speed measurement device for the bullet (be careful here)? Type and brand of equipment used to measure pressures (this is a subject for many questions itself)? Was it calibrated properly? Atmospheric conditions corrected to?

We could go on here if you would like so just go back to reading the latest issue of whatever gun magazine and fantasize about solving the shooting industries problems lol if you are naive enough to think that COL was the only relevant issue to consider here.

FOOLBAR,

What PART of CAPITILIZING EVERY other WORD causes YOU TO think that THAT adds legitimacy to your argument? And WHAT OF repeating WORDS, WORDS, WORDS, do you think DOES the SAME? And what WITH the STRAWMAN .0001” fake argument? Did you even READ the POST? To reduce the VALUE to .0001” from .01” would STRENGTHEN my POSITION, not YOURS, BELLYBUTTON FUZZ EATER.


Employee Pig,

Lay down like the Thor? What a ridiculously self-absorbed statement. I think you meant bore or whore. And you’ve “read my posts over the past few months?” More likely handjobing yourself, which, I think, you refer to as “rejobbing.“ Otherwise you would know that the .01” was facetious, and, just like with FOOLBAR, by pointing it out you’re strengthening my position by pointing out how meaningless it is in the context of reloading but how such published data is pure gold for tort attorneys. As would be you on the witness stand for the defense, moron.

~~~

For my pointing out what ATK did, in fact, do, and posting a perfectly legitimate explanation for why they did so (and frankly, the only believable one), I get attacked by assholes such as the above. PURE sHiThEaDs.

quote:

Originally posted by Wismon:
FOOLBAR,

What PART of CAPITILIZING EVERY other WORD causes YOU TO think that THAT adds legitimacy to your argument? And WHAT OF repeating WORDS, WORDS, WORDS, do you think DOES the SAME? And what WITH the STRAWMAN .0001” fake argument? Did you even READ the POST? To reduce the VALUE to .0001” from .01” would STRENGTHEN my POSITION, not YOURS, BELLYBUTTON FUZZ EATER.


Employee Pig,

Lay down like the Thor? What a ridiculously self-absorbed statement. I think you meant bore or whore. And you’ve “read my posts over the past few months?” More likely handjobing yourself, which, I think, you refer to as “rejobbing.“ Otherwise you would know that the .01” was facetious, and, just like with FOOLBAR, by pointing it out you’re strengthening my position by pointing out how meaningless it is in the context of reloading but how such published data is pure gold for tort attorneys. As would be you on the witness stand for the defense, moron.

~~~

For my pointing out what ATK did, in fact, do, and posting a perfectly legitimate explanation for why they did so (and frankly, the only believable one), I get attacked by assholes such as the above. PURE sHiThEaDs.

Why get mad at the World Here???? You are the one who pulled down your pants to show you were transgender! By the way please do not think about me in the way you described above it makes me very uncomfortable! I am not gay so you will have to pick another associate to fulfill your fantasy---wow this guy has really gotten into the liquor cabinet or gotten off of his medication..

quote:

it is very evident that you are a beginner in reloading (note I did not say hand loading) and it is not to say that you have not been doing this for many years you have just been stumbling around it the dark shall we say

It's interesting that some people actually learn as they go while others only repeat the same motions as they go. I know some loaders who have 20 years of experience and one that has 1 year of experience he's repeated 20 times without learning a bit more; it shows up by his inability to grasp things like "common sense."

Hoss, a total lack of knowledge about who Thor is/was only shows the 'sucess' of modern education, that bit of ignorance is not his fault.

Jim--Honestly I actually feel sorry for him. Yes I had some fun at his expense but it was just too big of a target (kind of like a big piñata full of candy) to let go by without breaking it open only to find it was full of smelly stuff . I should have known by all of the flies circling when it went by that it was “full of it”..

quote:

Why get mad at the World Here????

Boss Butt Floss,

I’m not mad at the world; you are. I’m simply responding to posts matching the tone used towards me.

quote:

You are the one who pulled down your pants to show you were transgender! By the way please do not think about me in the way you described above it makes me very uncomfortable! I am not gay so you will have to pick another associate to fulfill your fantasy---wow this guy has really gotten into the liquor cabinet or gotten off of his medication..

Blah, blah, blah…

quote:

It's interesting that some people actually learn as they go while others only repeat the same motions as they go. I know some loaders who have 20 years of experience and one that has 1 year of experience he's repeated 20 times without learning a bit more; it shows up by his inability to grasp things like "common sense."

Hoss, a total lack of knowledge about who Thor is/was only shows the 'sucess' of modern education, that bit of ignorance is not his fault.

Jim Crackhead,

Au contraire, you are speaking of yourself. The appeal to “common sense”, as you are so wont to do, is the first and last refuge of the uneducated. And your reading compression is rather poor if you in anyway inferred that I don’t know who Thor “is”. He “is” a mythical god who never existed. Sort of like your higher education.

quote:

Jim--Honestly I actually feel sorry for him. Yes I had some fun at his expense but it was just too big of a target (kind of like a big piñata full of candy) to let go by without breaking it open only to find it was full of smelly stuff . I should have known by all of the flies circling when it went by that it was “full of it”..

Blah, blah, blah. Buttfloss continuing on with his infantile dribble in a misguided effort to save face or put a fig leaf around his extremities. Which, in his case, is to say the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Wismon:

quote:

Why get mad at the World Here????

Boss Butt Floss,

I’m not mad at the world; you are. I’m simply responding to posts matching the tone used towards me.

quote:

You are the one who pulled down your pants to show you were transgender! By the way please do not think about me in the way you described above it makes me very uncomfortable! I am not gay so you will have to pick another associate to fulfill your fantasy---wow this guy has really gotten into the liquor cabinet or gotten off of his medication..

Blah, blah, blah…

quote:

It's interesting that some people actually learn as they go while others only repeat the same motions as they go. I know some loaders who have 20 years of experience and one that has 1 year of experience he's repeated 20 times without learning a bit more; it shows up by his inability to grasp things like "common sense."

Hoss, a total lack of knowledge about who Thor is/was only shows the 'sucess' of modern education, that bit of ignorance is not his fault.

Jim Crackhead,

Au contraire, you are speaking of yourself. The appeal to “common sense”, as you are so wont to do, is the first and last refuge of the uneducated. And your reading compression is rather poor if you in anyway inferred that I don’t know who Thor “is”. He “is” a mythical god who never existed. Sort of like your higher education.

quote:

Jim--Honestly I actually feel sorry for him. Yes I had some fun at his expense but it was just too big of a target (kind of like a big piñata full of candy) to let go by without breaking it open only to find it was full of smelly stuff . I should have known by all of the flies circling when it went by that it was “full of it”..

Blah, blah, blah. Buttfloss continuing on with his infantile dribble in a misguided effort to save face or put a fig leaf around his extremities. Which, in his case, is to say the same thing.

You are too funny! You do try I will give you that much!

quote:

So, Mr. ATK, holding company, as noted on pg. 214 of your Speer manual, 58.0 gr. of RL22 is the MAX load for a 130 gr. bullet of your manufacture in a 270 Win. Yet on pg. 49 of your Alliant manual you say that 60.0 gr. of the same powder is acceptable for the same bullet in the same caliber

If you've never seen two guns of the same caliber show pressure signs 2 grains apart, you haven't done very much reloading. Heck, I can make the SAME GUN show pressure signs 2 grains different just by changing brass and primers.

I suggest you get yourself a chronograph, 5 or 6 manuals, and come back in 10 years after you've actually done some shooting.

Wismon, what's with all the name calling?? You're not at home, talking to your mommy.