The Speer data is laughable, the start and max loads do not even
overlap!
At least their chrono always measures velocity proportional to powder
charge.

I realize that this is a broad, general statement, and that "older" and "newer" are relative terms. Nonetheless, this seems to be a general trend.

When working up a new caliber, I check data from all sorts of sources. Libraries, online, and load manuals that I've accumulated all provide a data base that seems to be in conflict with itself.

If there is any consistent trend, it is that newer data is reduced from older data. -- Generally . . .

------------------
.223 Ackley Improved Wildcat Forum:
http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=223ackleyimproved

You need to own up and admit brain lock coupled with overuse of certain spirits. If some newby had followed your advice and got hurt YOU would be fully culpable. No different than yelling fire in a crowded place.

One of the major problems with the internet and forums is NO ONE IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS OR STATEMENTS. You can shoot off your face and no one knows who you are, where you live or even if you are who you say you are. You may be some damned mindless, idiot, gun hater trying to get someone hurt or some psychopathic liar out for kicks. You might think about that the next time you want to "stir the pot", but then again, WHO ARE YOU, ANYHOW?????

I don't want to know. Judging by your statements I don't want to get anywhere near you. Not only do you have a warped sense of reality, YOU'RE DANGEROUS TO BE AROUND.

Anyway, this load book fundamentalist reacts to one of my loads as "crazy and dangerous" until I produce a load Lyman load manual from the 50's that has that load in it. Then the load book fundamentalist says, "That's ok then!"

I know enough science to know this ain't science. This is human nature.

Notions like "Don't do anything I wouldn't do, and I wouldn't do anything."
are based on the assumption "I am smarter than you."

These ideas are coming from the id, not "Machinery's Handbook" and a calculator.

It is human nature to judge and condemn other's behavior based on an egotistical not a scientific point of view. A little science is just used as ammo in the struggle.

[This message has been edited by Clark (edited 04-27-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MAKATAK:
Gengis, are you a lawyer???From the sound of your reply's you are cat-scratching as fast as any lawyer/manual/manufacturer, etc. You made a damned stupid statement to begin with and now you are trying to qualify it by using the same books you started with.

You need to own up and admit brain lock coupled with overuse of certain spirits. If some newby had followed your advice and got hurt YOU would be fully culpable. No different than yelling fire in a crowded place.

One of the major problems with the internet and forums is NO ONE IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS OR STATEMENTS. You can shoot off your face and no one knows who you are, where you live or even if you are who you say you are. You may be some damned mindless, idiot, gun hater trying to get someone hurt or some psychopathic liar out for kicks. You might think about that the next time you want to "stir the pot", but then again, WHO ARE YOU, ANYHOW?????

I don't want to know. Judging by your statements I don't want to get anywhere near you. Not only do you have a warped sense of reality, YOU'RE DANGEROUS TO BE AROUND.

---

OK . . .

Hodgdon Data Manual #26 (1992) lists a maximum load for .223 Rem. as 26.2 gr. of H-335 w/ 45 gr. bullet.

P.O. Ackley, in 1966, lists the same caliber, the same bullet weight, the same powder -- 28 grs.

Same data manual lists a load for the 8mm Mauser at 2848 fps for a 150 gr. bullet in a 23" bbl. -- and that's the fastest load listed for ALL the powders.

Cheapo, Turk surplus ammo, 1944 headstamp, 155 gr. steel jacket bullet. I'm clocking these in a 29" bbl at a mean velocity of 2965 fps.

I'm not equivocating here. My position stands. I don't generally download published data -- not unless it's pushing the edge of the SAAMI spec. on pressure. AND, I don't pick just any ol' load out of any ol' data manual. In literary critical terms such a "reading" would constitute less than optimal texual performance. I'm inclined to bring an intertexual approach to the interpretation of data.

Current manuals fudge a great deal. SAAMI specifications provide an enormous margin of safety for operational pressures.

A "super hot" load from published data just might back out or flatten a primer, but it's NOT going to blow up in your face. Not unless you're shooting a POS with no structural/mechanical integrity. Or you just plain don't understand what you're doing when you're loading.
--------------------------

As regards the rhetorical climate in these posts, it would behoove to discren between disagreeing with a person's line of argument and asserting that the person himself is some sort of asshole.

I'm getting really tired of the pointless and unfounded ad hominem. (Look it up.)

------------------
.223 Ackley Improved Wildcat Forum:
http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=223ackleyimproved

[This message has been edited by Genghis (edited 04-28-2002).]

It really doesn't take much effort to load some start loads. Take my 6.5x55 max load 42gr start 10% below = 38gr. 3 rounds of each at 38,39 and check.

One thing that I would point out is not to take the 10% reduction as gospel. The VV book reccomends reduction of 15% where max loads only are shown!

[This message has been edited by 1894 (edited 04-29-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1894:
I would just point out that Genghis did not know appear to know what partial full length resizing or bumping the shoulder back meant. This did worry me somewhat as I thought these terms were in fairly wide usage.

It really doesn't take much effort to load some start loads. Take my 6.5x55 max load 42gr start 10% below = 38gr. 3 rounds of each at 38,39 and check.

One thing that I would point out is not to take the 10% reduction as gospel. The VV book reccomends reduction of 15% where max loads only are shown!

[This message has been edited by 1894 (edited 04-29-2002).]

---

I would point out that I know what these terms mean, but the user posting was unclear as to what he was doing. I wanted a clarificaiton -- with some quantitative data.

How much "bumping back" ???

He states that he's sort of neck sizing with a full-length die. Yeah, it can be done, but what's really going on with the case? How is he "bumping back the shoulder" when he's not full-length resizing the case?

I see a fair number of posts in here where users are asking for load data and then fail to mention what caliber they're reloading.

Trust me. I teach writing at the university. When I ask the writer for more information it's because the writer needs to provide more information.

------------------
.223 Ackley Improved Wildcat Forum:
http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=223ackleyimproved

Mostly this is with slow burning powders I have noticed, and you can't depend on it...also one must take into account misprints that show up. Nick Harveys Manual is full of those, Ackley list some mighty hot loads...Caution should prevail, but experienced reloaders should be able to seperate the two..

I do however, in many cases, start out at max and work up..in others I cut a grain or two and work up..there is no pat answer to this question to an experienced reloader, but such conversations can lead a inexperienced reloader or a complete dork to disaster..

Fortunatly, I personally have never seen a rifle blow up with a regular slight overload, I have seen stuck bolts; gas spew; extractors go; primer pockets big enough to stike a crayola in; seperated cases; split cases; and all means of such agrivation. All this speaks well for our arms manufactures.

The blow ups that I have seen all came from really dumb stuff, not carelessness just plain dumb things like not emptying the powder measure when you were loading 38 specials with Bullseye and then a day or two later you droped 58 grs of that into grandads old 30-06, thats your favorite 4831 load you know... things get lively then....

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

What has been missed here is the obvious: Increasing your loads past the safe level for any particular firearm does two things. It jacks the pressure past any limit of sanity, sometimes double or triple; and it will gain little, if any, velocity or energy over a safe load.

The guys at the bullet companies have been loading and testing much longer than I have. Also, don't forget that a lot of these loads are fired in pressure barrels. Moreover, each and every gun is different. What is safe in mine might destroy yours.

So, your xxxxx super magnum load developes about 50-60 fps over my old plodding .30-06. SO WHAT? Trust me, whatever you shoot will NOT know the difference.

Unless you like blowing up guns, visiting hospitals, and taxing your insurance coverage, DON'T LOAD TO THE MAX. I have quite a few guns, and I have NEVER put a max load in any of them. They work fine, too.

------------------
Happiness is a 200 yard bughole.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Powderman:
Guys, I'm by no means a ballistician, but why is everyone fighting for the right to blow up your guns?

What has been missed here is the obvious: Increasing your loads past the safe level for any particular firearm does two things. It jacks the pressure past any limit of sanity, sometimes double or triple; and it will gain little, if any, velocity or energy over a safe load.

The guys at the bullet companies have been loading and testing much longer than I have. Also, don't forget that a lot of these loads are fired in pressure barrels. Moreover, each and every gun is different. What is safe in mine might destroy yours.

So, your xxxxx super magnum load developes about 50-60 fps over my old plodding .30-06. SO WHAT? Trust me, whatever you shoot will NOT know the difference.

Unless you like blowing up guns, visiting hospitals, and taxing your insurance coverage, DON'T LOAD TO THE MAX. I have quite a few guns, and I have NEVER put a max load in any of them. They work fine, too.

---

PO Ackley talks about "bore capacity." Ballisticians talk about bore capacity.

Bore capacity is the point at which increases in load provide little by way of increases in velocity. Some carefully loaded increments and a good chronograph will tell you where your bore capacity lies for YOUR GUN and YOUR COMPONENTS.

It's NOT about "getting a few extra fps" out of a load. It's about developing load data for YOUR GUN.

Hodgdon Data Manual #26 (1992) -- it's the one I have that's bound and not electronic media which is why I quote it a lot -- this manual lists .223 Rem. loads for 45 gr. bullets at a max velocity of about 3559 fps.

We're developing a load for .223 Ackley Improved. There are some posts on the internet, but there ain't no published data for this caliber. I expect the bore capacity for this caliber will push a 45 gr. bullet about 3900 fps. or faster. That's a 10% increase in velocity.

Why do we care? Because there are no published data manuals for this caliber. We're developing the data. Some people fly airplanes. Some people fly-fish. I like to fly bullets.

------------------
.223 Ackley Improved Wildcat Forum:
http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=223ackleyimproved

quote:

---

Originally posted by Genghis:

He states that he's sort of neck sizing with a full-length die. Yeah, it can be done, but what's really going on with the case? How is he "bumping back the shoulder" when he's not full-length resizing the case?

---

Genghis,

Hope we can keep this civil. I really do have some concerns over your inability to see that using a full length sizing die set up so that there is a very small clearance between the shell holder and the die can size the neck and partialy size the shoulder in effect 'bumping' back the shoulder. This precise method is indeed described in the Speer manual.

I would like to impart an example of why your approach to reloading is so dangerous. Last year I e mailed Vihtavuori re N160 loads for the 120gr ballistic tip in 6.5x55 which they didn't have published data for. They replied that I should start at 46gr. Seeing as the max data for the 120gr bullet in the manual was 48.4gr I chose to ignore that and started at 43gr. By 45gr I was past the velocity listed. The 46gr 'start load' showed pressure with poor accuracy and huge SD. This was in cold weather - I'm willing to bet that in hot weather I would have had a stuck bolt or similar.

I ask you again what is the problem of loading 10 more rounds in increasing steps?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MAKATAK:
You're still blowing smoke and using the manuals to defend your ignoble, ignominious and I might add, ignorant, original statement. You can do whatever stupidity you want for yourself, for whatever reason you deem appropriate but when you make statements that could cause the uninformed a problem you are way out of line. If you are really a professor at a university you make a good example of why tenure should be abolished. I spent too many years collecting my degrees and listening to the crap from people who needed to be fired but couldn't be to put much credence in your attempts at proving your case.

---

You need to fuck yourself.

Is that clear and direct enough?

All I have got this week is:

"Any case expands to "fill" the chamber. When it stays expanded you are exceeding the elastic limit.
If you load until the cases stick you are not "ministering experimental science", rather you are giving an example of Darwin's law in action.
Good Luck!"