I apologize, in doing a search on this subject, I did not find the previous question someone had raised about Sam Fadala publishing an article where he mentioned getting 2930 fps out of a 30/06 with a 180 grain bullet.

Alot of people responded negatively to that claim and went on about pressures etc. Having worked with H 4831 SC I assumed that was the powder that he was referring to as achieving the results.

Several weeks ago, I did pick up a 2004 Hodgdon Reloading pamphlet at a gun shop. I did not see anyone else post this so that is why I am bringing it to the groups attention.

Published in that manual it listed a load with a 180 grain Sierra bullet at a published velocity of 2930 fps and the pressures were under 50,000 psi which is the SAAMI specs on the 30/06.

So for those that need to see it in print exactly before they may believe it is possible without killing someone, there is your proof source.

Remember once upon a time, people thought the velocities possible with smokeless powder over black powder was going to kill someone also. And velocities over 2000 fps had to be dangerous.

Critics need to spend a little less time reading and memorizing things and think that makes them an expert and spend a little more time at the reload bench and testing at the range, before they claim their "expert" status.

cheers
seafire

M98, I have a problem/concern with this, in that you seem to be saying (correct me if I misunderstood) that as long as I have the same bullet, powder, and barrel length, I can keep adding powder until I reach published velocities.

IMHO, this is a VERY DANGEROUS course of action.

Now if you have the additional data from a pressure barrel (down, HOTCORE, down boy, no HPSG cracks ) this might be an acceptable risk, but relying on chrono data alone is neglecting too many other factors that might bite you in the rear end someday. I don't care how many barrels you have tested previously, it is always the next one that seems to get 'ya!

It is a missprint. This is all from my memory so somone can verify it for me. Look at the 2003 booklet, and compare it to the 2004 booklet. The powders, pressures, and velocities that are listed in the '03 book, are listed for a 165 grain bullet, BUT in the '04 book the SAME powders, pressures, and velocities are listed for a 180 grain bullet. Also, there is no listing in the '04 book for a 165 grain bullet. I can verify this when I get home, but someone with access to both books now can beat me to it. I think there is a safety issue here, someone should contact Hodgdon (sp) I am remembering this right

I don't question Raymond at all.

Now that is an example of shot placement being critical!
More people should get that concept down pat.

seafire

Bradley,

Once again, Pixey Dust is not an option our gunsmith's offer in Oregon. Must be strictly a Bozoman Montana thing, catering to the transplanted Californian market. A hot pink stock and a Pixey Dust barrel, I can see where that would appeal to a :"get back to nature guy" from San Fran.

However once again, I was only referencing the source of someone who had asked.

But I have seen where no one has taken the time to just pick up the phone and called Hodgdon if they questioned anything about this.

So I just picked up the cell phone and called them. Got someone instantly and they verified that the info WAS A MISPRINT! And that it applied to data off of the 165 grain load. Someone had already speculated this.

59 grains of H 4350 would yield a velocity of 2790 or so.

Of course a little testing on the chronograph would have also verified that information, which is a good reason to do one's own testing with one's own firearms to find out what is right for that firearm.

Good option for all instead of spouting off information out of a book.
Chronographs don't have misprints.

So that sort of puts that story to rest.

Good luck hunting this season with your Pixey Dust Barrel on the old 300 Mag.

cheers
seafire

Seafire, not sure what you're on about... never grew up in "San Francisco", unless you think leaving at age two in 1963 makes me a "transplant ). My parent's got us the heck out of there asap after a move from Billings. One thing I'm very sure of is you're one of at least two sociopath's on this thread and the other ain't me!

Daniel,

Thanks for doing those tests, your assistance in doing them and sharing them with others is a real help to all of us and you should receive the appropriate appreciation for sharing it.

I sincerely believe this forum should be for sharing information instead of some of the 'free for all' jihads, that those discussions work into.

We have too many guys who lerk in here, and look to just contradict every little item said by certain other people.

Although we don't see Jon A on here any more, he and I had a lot of difference of opinions. However as I asked him questions, he gave me the reasons on how and why he drew his conclusions. I still disagree with some of his views but I respect his opinions immensely. I miss his input on a wide variety of subjects deeply. It was disagreements that had a positive outcome to them.

Just because I thought Jon A was a little quick to sling slander and anger, still does not make me discount the wealth of knowledge and reason he brought to the forum.

I sure hope we see him around again, he is a good guy!

Cheers and Good shooting
seafire

Bingo! Hugh, I did take the time to contact them this morning and it IS a misprint.



Thanks for the comparison between the 2003 and the 2004 book.



I have noticed a lot of misprints in the Latest Barnes Manual.

Just seems like both sources would highlight that more on their websites, to make that information more publically known.



However, it will not hurt anything, all people will not get is the velocity they were expecting. ( which is why I rely on my $69.00 chronograph, cheap investment for a little truth.)



cheers

seafire

Denton,

Are the formulas you are talking about used in programs such as QuickLoad, Load from a Disk etc? They all estimate velocity from a given load, and from what I hear QL does quite well.

Turok