Why push a cartridge past specs. Not with standing some truely underloaded factory rounds. I guess maybe if I only owned on rifle I might want to push it to the max.

But If I want my hornet to preform like my 223 I'll shoot my 223, should the 223 preform like a 22-250.

I have found that it is a lot easier on my guns and my self to move up a cartridge or caliber then to push one to the max or over.

I wanted a bit more out of a 180 gr 30 cal then my 06 I brought a 300wm If I need more then that I well by a 300 rum ect ect.

I see a lot more down side to pushing over max then gain.

Your thoughts

Besides I get to buy a new rifle now and then.

Sounds like perfect logic to me.

I would say cause a reloader should know that a spec is a just a baseline and not a rule. Its what one man got in one rifle. A reloader has to be able to make the rules up for his guns. He uses the specs as a guide and starting place but thats about it.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
Sounds like perfect logic to me.

Me too. It's right on!! roger

I agree.

When I was in my 20's, I love to push loads to the max. Nowdays I tend to stay on the conservative side.

AD

bartsche at least we argree on something.

quote:

I wanted a bit more out of a 180 gr 30 cal then my 06 I brought a 300wm If I need more then that I well by a 300 rum ect ect.

And if I want a lightweight .30 caliber rifle with true "big game" performance I'll load my very handy lightweight M-70 Featherweight .30-06 to the velocities achievable at the pressures that are totally safe with the cartridge and the rifle. This has been discussed at length on several threads and it seems that the ability to achieve 2,700'/sec with RL22, 200 grain bullets and commonly loaded pressures (65,000 PSI) is not overloading anything. It's merely doing to the .30-06 the same as many of us would do to the 7 X 57 if we had a modern action and so chambered.

The key here is not the performance....it's the rifle. I can't get (or make) a .300 magnum as light and handy as this featherweight (same for Remington's mountain rifle in .280 and .30-06) and if I choose to load it to pressures factory loaded for the same brass and actions as the .270 ETC. I really don't see this as a violation of any safety rules of reloading either written or implied.

It's good that we voice our opinions such that new reloaders don't get the idea that reloading is a way to achieve .300 magnum performance with dad's old .30-30. Further I'd be remiss in suggesting that a new and experienced reloader should blindly venture off the charts of known and documented loads.

Among the rifles I love to hunt with is a M-70 featherweight in .257 Roberts. It's clearly not a big game caliber but is very useful on pronghorns and deer. I'd fully agree that "hot rodding" this rifle is of no purpose because I can get a .25-06 of the same weight and contour and improve the performance without pushing the envelope.

In general I agree with this thread/s premise but find that performance of the round is only part of the equation. There's more to life than bullet weight and velocity of that bullet.

I feel the same way about downloading for the most part. If one only has one rifle/pistol, then there is some merit to loading down or up. For the most part, if I want magnum speeds, I get a magnum.

Heck, I don't even own a magnum and I sure don't hot rod any loads. Nothing over book max for me. But I suppose it's just human nature for some folks to tweek the last bit of speed from a cartridge. I just wish they would wear black and yellow striped "DANGER ZONE" hats when they come to the range, so I can put some distance between us.

Elmo

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Why push a cartridge past specs. Not with standing some truely underloaded factory rounds. I guess maybe if I only owned on rifle I might want to push it to the max.

But If I want my hornet to preform like my 223 I'll shoot my 223, should the 223 preform like a 22-250.

I have found that it is a lot easier on my guns and my self to move up a cartridge or caliber then to push one to the max or over.

I wanted a bit more out of a 180 gr 30 cal then my 06 I brought a 300wm If I need more then that I well by a 300 rum ect ect.

I see a lot more down side to pushing over max then gain.

Your thoughts

Besides I get to buy a new rifle now and then.

ANYTHING that allows this!!

Here, here!
Why argue with an excuse to get new gun?!?

In some cases max or a bit will give one the best accuracy, contrary to common belief, in many cases I have found my best accuracy a grain or two over book max, but in most cases book max is not max in some rifles...

Other than that I agree with you completely..

most of my African loads are a couple of grains below max as the extra velocity does not off set the problems that come with hot but safe loads. Compaction, being a concern with me, extraction due to elevated heat from Idaho to Africa could tempt fate etc.

Right under your noses these guys are loading the old 06's 180 gr up to 2950!

There are two different worlds here. Many handloaders just fill them up and let them fly.

Not long after I started handloading I got a keg of Ball C and incorrect data. I blew primers bad on the 222 and 30-06 and that scared me. So while other have been blasting rockets from their guns all these years I have been playing it safe. Maybe too safe but in terms of the cosmos it won't matter a whit a hundred years from now.

On the other hand my favorite .224 is the Swift and 6.5 is the 264 so those are my right answers to performance.

Sound logic.

I tend to reload to whatever produces the best accuracy, and, concurring with Atkinson, sometimes that is over the published limits. Sometimes it's well under.

In some of my rifles the optimum accuracy load, which is what I tend to stick with, is quite mild. For others, like my .308, I have found that it won't shoot the bullets I want with the accuracy I desire until I am about 1.5gn over the puiblished limit. In the case of that rifle, I hope to find a milder load since it does quite a lot of target work.

I found the most accurate load for my 7mm-8, which I developed last winter in Canada was a very hefty load by the books, though I was shooting that in sub zero temperatures and would never consider to use those loads again back home where the temperatures may be as much as 55 or 60 deg. celcius higher.

Reloading is a dynamic science.

My approach has always been to find the max load for any given gun using the usual pressure signs and then to drop the charge about 1.5 to 2 gns.

The only time Im comfortable exceeding listed max loads is when I know that specs for a given cartridge were intended for a weaker action than what I have. But even then the usual signs still apply.

I don't like to "hot rod" as a normal procedure. I have loaded .38 Specials up a bit for a larger-frame .357 to make rounds that were "in between" and those worked beautifully.

Lately I have been loading WAY down to get more usefulness out of my .458 Win. The "C.E. Harris" load of 13 grains of Red Dot and a cast 405 grainer turned the big gun into a pussycat (recoil like a .22/250, crack like a 22 Mag). My groups are about 3/4" at 50 right now... but I wasn't really doing accuracy shooting, just popping them off at the target w/o breathing control or even caring about groups. Will load up some more and shoot for grouping in a few days.

The biggest thing I like about handloading is versatility - nice light loads for target work and heavier ones for hunting.

Contrary to you guys I love to hotrod my loads....
Just this afternoon, I took a 22 Hornet case, and necked it out to 30 caliber and then loading it with 10 grains of Blue Dot with a 200 grain bullet I was able to chronograph that at 3500 fps.....



The way some guys think that seafire thinks!

But 99% of his hunting loads are at 30/30 velocities regardless of caliber, and they are effective to 200 to 250 yds ( with a little knowledge of using your scopes features)....

I just like to know what the lower and upper limits of my rifles and the calibers they are chambered in are! I just work up and down a lot more than a lot of the guys that like to be arm chair critics....

I still don't think many need any calibers that were designed after 1925.... not many exist that something wouldn't do the same job before 1925...

cheers,
seafire

My philosophy is a bit different. I never set out with the hot-rod intent(excluding varmint rigs, because big 22s are intended to go fast) however, I will always make improvements where and when I can. I look upon it much like painting the house, one does not have to change the color, but they need the paint if they value their siding. If some never pushed the envelope and didn't think outside of the box, we wouldn't have the powder selection available today that we do.

Certain cartridges are already hot enough that hotrodding them wouldn't give enough improvement to make it worth while. However, other rounds that were originally chambered in weaker rifles are deliberately underloaded by the factories and publishers of loading manuals due to liability concerns. I've often wondered if those people who work up the data for the laoding manuals haven't gone beyond the standard pressure loads for rounds like the 7x57 Mauser and 30-06 for their own personal use? It seems to me that they have the perfect opportunity to do so. I really haven't hopped up my 30-06 loads all that much, but I have done some serious work with a Winchester M70 Featherweight in 7x57. Using W-760, I've gotten 140 gr. Nosler Ballistic tips and 140 gr. Sierra Pro-hunters to 2850 FPS in 100 degree weather. That's getting into the Hornady Light Magnum and Federal High Energy ball park. Accuracy was phenomenal at .375" with either bullet. While I saw no signs of pressure, I felt I was near a threshold that I maybe shouldn't cross and cut the charge back for a velocity of 2750 FPS. Accuracy was not quite as good at .75 to .80", but just how much accuracy do you need to shoot a deer?
It really is a shame that we cannot get proper pressure tested data for those underloaded cartridges when they are to be used in modern rifles.
Paul B.