Jacketed spire point (not soft point), boat tail.
I find lots of load data both online and in reloading books for a 140gr projectile, but none for 139gr, except for soft point or spire point flat base. Okay to use the 140gr spire point boat tail data for the 139gr spire point boat tail projectile?

Check the Hornady data, otherwise start at the bottom and work up

Yes.

Absolutely okay.

Usual rules apply re: working up.

yep.

the interlock in the 7mm is one of the best combo's out there, no matter which tail it has on it.

quote:

Originally posted by Alamo308:
Jacketed spire point (not soft point), boat tail.
I find lots of load data both online and in reloading books for a 140gr projectile, but none for 139gr, except for soft point or spire point flat base. Okay to use the 140gr spire point boat tail data for the 139gr spire point boat tail projectile?

Exactly what bullet are you requiring data for? The Hornady Spire Point bullets were older versions of the Soft Point Interlock bullets that have been on the market for many years now.

I loaded for both the 7mm-08 and 7x57 back in the early '80s using Hornady 139gr Spire Points which were flat based, boat-tail versions were not made then and were not listed in the 3rd edition of Hornady's Handbook of Cartridge Reloading that I had then and still have now. This handbook lists loads for the 7x57 with the 139gr Spire Point bullet.

As an aside, the first few packets of Remington factory ammunition I purchased for my 7mm-08 was loaded with the Hornady 139gr Spire Point as Remington apparently had not produced enough of their own 140gr Corelokt bullets to load for their new 7mm-08.
Believe it or not this early 7mm-08 ammunition chronographed at 2964fps from my Ruger M77 MK1 22" barrel, exactly 100fps faster than the Remington factory specification for their new cartridge.
This exceptional performance was confirmed by writer/hunter Bob Bell who double checked with another chronograph when he came across this high velocity in the early Remington ammunition while trialing the performance of the cartridge with different barrel lengths.

Interesting you ask that question. The older 139 grain spire soft point was one of the best 7mm bullets ever. I have a SAKO Mannlicher carbine that shoots them into tiny groups. They I built a Mannlicher action into a 7x57 Mauser using a good quality Shilen barrel. Well the 139 soft points didn't shoot well out if it, but when I switched to the 139 boatails it shot 1/4 inch groups. Then I tried the boatails in the SAKO and it didn't like them at all. Go figure.

One grain of bullet weight is far overshadowed by myriad other factors when it comes to hand loading ammo. That is one factor to ignore.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
One grain of bullet weight is far overshadowed by myriad other factors when it comes to hand loading ammo. That is one factor to ignore.

Agree on that statement, just call them 140gr and load accordingly.
Don't know why Hornady produces bullet weights that are not rounded up or down to simple 5's or 10's of grains i.e. why have 139gr, 154gr and 162 grain. Just about as bad as RWS 401gr bullets for the 404 Jeffery although that's at least explainable with the conversion of metric grams to imperial grains.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
One grain of bullet weight is far overshadowed by myriad other factors when it comes to hand loading ammo. That is one factor to ignore.

^^^^^^^
This

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
One grain of bullet weight is far overshadowed by myriad other factors when it comes to hand loading ammo. That is one factor to ignore.

Agree on that statement, just call them 140gr and load accordingly.
Don't know why Hornady produces bullet weights that are not rounded up or down to simple 5's or 10's of grains i.e. why have 139gr, 154gr and 162 grain. Just about as bad as RWS 401gr bullets for the 404 Jeffery although that's at least explainable with the conversion of metric grams to imperial grains.

I talked to one of the Hornady engineers and he told me that what they would do is design the jacket for the kind of expansion/performance that they wanted and then designed the shape for the best ballistics for that jacket. Then they just added the lead to fill it. So whatever amount if lead it took to fil that jacket was rounded to the next whole grain and became that bullet's weight.

Ive hunted with them in several of my 7x57s over the years, 1x9 and 1x10 twist guns, used 140 data and the 139 gr. Hornady..all the same as loads and performance on game was the same or as good as any other 130 to 140 grs..Your good to go in any direction as the are basically the same..even the POI in each case as I recall..

I recall that I have several thousand of those solid spitzer Hornadys in 139 gr I think, that Id love to sell at a cheap price. Any takers?

7X57 load data is always conservative. Even the Lyman manual with pressure tested loads are conservative.

Comparing the loads for 7mm08 and 7X57 gives a good idea for starting loads.

Each rifle will obviously prefer different bullets and powders.

It is safe to load 7X57 140 gr bullets to 2900 fps with medium & slow burning powders

I get great results with the Hornady 139 gr & 154 gr interlocks in my 7mm08. Very accurate and I've taken deer out to 300 meters.

quote:

Originally posted by Alamo308:
Jacketed spire point (not soft point), boat tail.
I find lots of load data both online and in reloading books for a 140gr projectile, but none for 139gr, except for soft point or spire point flat base. Okay to use the 140gr spire point boat tail data for the 139gr spire point boat tail projectile?

https://hodgdonreloading.com has one load for the 139 grain bullet. Just use the 140 grain data.

Like Craig said, the 7x57 data is conservative, so work up to max for your gun. The starting loads for my 7x57 in a Ruger No. 1 are just below the listed Max loads and I worked up from there.

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
One grain of bullet weight is far overshadowed by myriad other factors when it comes to hand loading ammo. That is one factor to ignore.

Agree on that statement, just call them 140gr and load accordingly.
Don't know why Hornady produces bullet weights that are not rounded up or down to simple 5's or 10's of grains i.e. why have 139gr, 154gr and 162 grain. Just about as bad as RWS 401gr bullets for the 404 Jeffery although that's at least explainable with the conversion of metric grams to imperial grains.

I talked to one of the Hornady engineers and he told me that what they would do is design the jacket for the kind of expansion/performance that they wanted and then designed the shape for the best ballistics for that jacket. Then they just added the lead to fill it. So whatever amount if lead it took to fil that jacket was rounded to the next whole grain and became that bullet's weight.

Thank you, I always wondered about the odd weights.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
One grain of bullet weight is far overshadowed by myriad other factors when it comes to hand loading ammo. That is one factor to ignore.

I disagree!
If the same jacket is used, then yes the one grain difference is far overshadowed.
If a different thickness of jacket is used, then the jacket thickness/toughness far overshadows the one grain weight difference.

I had an interesting experience with small lots of custom VLD bullets. Rather than just assume equivalent load data from common sources for the similar bullet weights, I researched the custom maker and I managed to get load data from him via email. When I saw how different the data was from the two weights, which were actually very close to each other, I queried him as to why. The jackets were purchased from different makers and the slightly heavier bullet was made with a thicker and tougher jacket.
Had I been unable to get load data from the maker, I would likely have used a "medium (not minimum!)" load from a similar weight bullet from other makers. Medium because minimum and maximum loads are near where the load developer experienced pressure issues. I like to use the highest minimum and lowest maximum from at least three sources to determine the min and max and then calculate the medium load before I round it to the nearest half grain as a starting load. Then I might just load a very few to start so I could check for pressure signs.

Due to the guns out there in 7x57 the factories mostly underload the 7x57 a good deal. Therefore its up to the reloader to find a max load, a good start is with H414 (www760)..SAme for the 8x57 in a good Mauser..beware of mod 95, 96, and some single shots that are more suitable at-40,000 PSI

When I was loading for both the 7x57 and 7mm-08 I just used one extra grain of same powder with same bullet in the 7x57 as I used in the 7mm-08 which gave me the same performance for both cartridges.

Using the 145gr Speer SP bullet and IMR4320 powder I achieved average velocities of 2864fps for both cartridges and same velocity for the Hornady 139gr SpPt using IMR4064 in both.

Any load for the 7mm-08 will be safe in the slightly larger volume 7x57 case in M98 actions or modern derivatives of it.

ONe grain? huh!!

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
ONe grain? huh!!

Not sure what you mean with the 'grunt' Ray but I'm meaning if using say 44.0grs 4320 powder in the 7mm-08 use 45.0grs 4320 (one extra grain) in the 7x57 with the same bullet.

I've been seeing references to 139, 154 and 162-grain 7mm bullets for 60 years and suspect they relate to the original metric weights. As one who sometimes uses bullets to check the set-up of my powder scales, rounding up the numbers would not work for me.