Because heavier bullets usually fly flater because they are more aerodynamic you often get near the same "flatness" out of 180's as 150's. The 300 wby is definately at it's best with 180 grain bullets. Also slow powder (my favorite is 7828) and others like RE22 and 25. You can do a search here and find other posts on the 300 wby.--it is a truly awsome cartridge.

I think that is why this website is going to be successful.

Check you're P.M. private messages

1) 357 mag max has gone below 38 Special:
"Speer 6" 1964 38 s&w special 160 gr. soft point 11 gr. 2400
"Speer 6" 1964 357 mag 160 gr. soft point 15 gr. 2400
Midway "Loadmap" 1999 357 mag Speer 160 gr. soft point 10.9 gr. 2400


What went wrong that Midway could get the max loads so far off and make a useless load book with 357 mag loads wimpier than published 38 special load?
They used an "Oehler System 83 and piezoelectric transducers, the latest in industry standard equipment".

2) There seems to be a roller coaster of 44 mag loads with Speer, the start and max load do not overlap:

"Speer 3" 1959 44mag 240 gr JSP--------23.0 gr 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 6" 1964 44mag 240 gr JSP--------23.0 gr 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 7" 1966 44mag 240 gr JSP--------23.0 gr 2400 1564 fps
"Speer 8" 1970 44mag 240 gr JSP--------24.0 gr 2400 1574 fps
"Speer 9" 1974 44mag 240 gr JSP--------19.5 gr 2400 1344 fps
"Speer 10" 1979 44mag 240 gr JSP&MSP 22.2 gr 2400 1392 fps.
"Speer 11" 1987 44mag 240 gr JSP&MSP 22.2 gr 2400 1452 fps
"Speer 12" 1994 44mag 240 gr JSP&MSP 17.7 gr 2400 1271 fps
"Speer 13" 1998 44mag 240 gr JSP&MSP 21.0 gr 2400 1434 fps

3) "Speer 12" and "Speer 13"
a) Start velocities calculated from a bogus formula.
b) Loads are listed in a hierarchy of velocities, but are not taken at the same pressure. The pressure is not given, other than all are less than SAAMI max.

4) Load books [like Sierra] say that the CZ52 pistol is stronger than the Tokarev or C96 Mauser pistols.
This is wrong. The CZ52 has a cut on the bottom of the barrel for the rollers to fit inside, that compromises the strength of the chamber, causing it to split with slight overloads. No other semi auto pistol I have tested is weaker than the brass. The error traces to a 1970 US army publication made without testing. Contacting publishers of load books and magazines will not result in a retraction. Once is is in the gun culture mythology, facts do not matter.

What do I do as a rational person in a world with bogus load books?
1) I use the powder manufacturer's free data for loading guns weaker than the brass.
2) I make my own loads for guns stronger than the brass by reducing 6% from any brass growth in extractor groove or sticky bolt.
3) In semi auto pistols, I make my own loads. I look for case bulge in work up, and reduce 6% from case bulge. [except CZ52 that is weaker than the brass]
--
A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

Thanks for the .44 info. I am working on my Ruger superblackhawk loads as well as the Weatherby. I guess I will be investing in a chronometer. I have not worked up to case bulge, as I am a whimp when it comes to pushing the limits. I do however, notice the difference in recoil and note it, as well as vibration through the gun handle (whatever that indicates, I don't know, but it scares me when my pistol feels like a bell ringing)

I do think that accuracy for any individual is based not just on the gun & load, but on the recoil and feel, and the person's reaction to that recoil and feel. I can shoot my .50 CAL flintlock and hit a bowling pin 8 out of 10 times at 100 yards with plain ole round balls, but I could not shoot my .308 win for a very long time.

As far as the reloading data, I am playing with algebra to see similarities with published results, to see a common denominator between muzzle velocity, pressures, and powder measurement. If anyone wants to see what I have done so far, just send me a private message, and I will send you the spreadsheet.

PS - lovely signature Clark.

You have to realize how much guns can differ due to differences in barrels,chamber dimensions etc.I have seen the same load fired in two rifles with identical length barrels with the resulting velocities varying by over 100fps.This testing was done at the same time using the same chronograph so it was not different conditions or chronograph that was responsible.Since the companies producing the manual use only one rifle which can change from one edition of the manual to the next you must expect a fair bit of variation to be present.Manuals are a great guide but do not expect your results to duplicate the manual results.To do so is not being realistic.

I have always been a nerd that studies charts of numbers for patterns, for metals, electronic components, heavenly bodies, etc.
When I started loading, I got a Rockchucker kit that came with "Speer 12".
I studied that book very hard to try to divine principals of loading.
I was angry when I finally figured out that the loads in that book were not just based on the science of handloading, but had other noise in the system.

--
A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

I have pushed 2 91/30's:
1) 45/70 w/ .452" barrel, 56 gr Re7, 230 gr Montana Gold FMJ, ok, kicks like a mule. 25kspi Quickload, 2384 fps Quickload

2) 91/30 Russian 7.62x54R S&B brass Reloaded with neck sized cases, 180 Sierra .311" spire, CCI 200, 2.843" OAL, and IMR4895 powder shooting 3 shot groups:
40 gr 2.7"
41 gr 2"
42 gr 2.25"
43 gr >4"
44 gr 1.2"
45 gr 2.9"
46 gr 1.4"
47 gr >4"
48 gr 2.5"
49 gr 3.3"
50 gr 2.5" w/ sticky bolt 66kpsi Quickload

Two weeks ago I got a .4" 3 shot that turned into a 1.2" 5 shot group at 100 m with 47 gr IMR4895 in an M39, 2750 fps chrono, and copper fouling from a dozen shots to sight in and shoot a group, THAT copper is STILL not out after Sweets, Butch's, Hoppe's, Shooter's Choice, Flitz, brushes, 50 patches, etc. I am about ready to give up on military barrels

I think that this is turning into an academic discussion, but that isn't bad. I just know that there is a mathematical equation somewhere that relates pressures to powder and velocity. Size and coefficient fits in somewhere. By the way, how did they come up with the ballistic coefficient for a bullet?

>but had other noise in the system.<

That is not noise, it is an opportunity for discussion.
Hope that helps.

I noticed this phenomenon for the first time just the other day. Normally I will grab one of my manuals and develope a load from the first book I pick up. I recently accuired a 373 H&H and decided to use 4895 for my first loadings. As I looked in one, then the other manuals ( a total of four manuals), I was seeing what I thought was a large variation book to book. Sometimes as much as four grains at any particular progression of the load such as starting or max. What to do??? Simply pick one and see how it performs and hope for the best. I will tell you that I really started thinking about these variances. But without lab conditions for my rifle, brass, powder, etc. I concluded there was really nothing to do but choose a published load and run with it. I believe most of us handloaders have no choice but accept the data in a particular book. If it doesn't produce acceptable results, go to another book since no definitive answer is available.

Ron ----- Stubblejumper said it best. All the books tell you is how that particular test rifle performed with that particular load that day. Tomorrow that same rifle may perform differently with the same load. You have to shoot your rifle several times and get an average that you can depend on. Your rifle is an individual and it will perform only as it can. Read all the books on a new load, start safely down the ladder, draw your own conclusions about your rifle. An Equation or Norm can only be drawn by you about your rifle. The other shooters rifle is his problem, you can only talk to him or read about his results and determine where you and your rifle fit in to the picture. That may sound clear as mud, but it is my experience. Good shooting.

BC comes from actual firing of a 1" cannon, with a fairly standard shape and weight of projectle and MV (for that era and gun). This "bullet" was assigned a value of 1.000.
The time of flight to various ranges was recorded, along with the meteralogical conditions at the time of the test.
Repeat firing under different Met conditions allowed the engineers to calulate the change in weather effects on ballistics.
Bullet designs that show a lower velocity loss (than the "standard bullet") have a value above 1, while those that slow down more have a BC of less than 1.

Ron,

These conflicts really struck home when I graduated from Hodgdon manual #26 to 27

My load for my 7 mm rem mag was a max book load of 72.5 grains H1000 under a Nosler 175 grain Partition @ 2949 FPS (mine crono'ed @ 2911 FPS) for 55,000 CUP, the minimum load in the book was 69 grains H-1000 for 2812 FPS and 49,800 CUP.

Along came data manual #27, and here's where Hodgdon went with the 175 grain H-1000 data:

Max Load 64.5 grains 2692 FPS @50,400 CUP
Min load 61.0 grains 2566 FPS @ 45,000 CUP

The difference in manuals #26 to #27 was if you were using #26's minimum load, you were now 4.5 grains over #27 maximum!!!

Wow the power must have really changed, h-1000 must be really faster right? Wrong......

7mm Weatherby data 175 grains

#26 max H1000 75.0 grains @ 2946 FPS no CUP listed
#27 Max H1000 74.7 grains @ 3022 FPS & 54,000 CUP

So the powder hadn't changed, they just dropped the 7mm mag max by a full 5000 CUP.

Guess that's in deference to all those old 7mm Rem mags out there. Of course the 7mm Weatherby is even older, but I guess they are immune from age.

After that I had alot less use for reloading manuals. I now use quickload and 35 years of experience rather than useless lawyer written manuals.

Of course we now have the new 7mm Wissem (WSM) and 7mm Shamum (SAUM) that are loaded to a full 55,000 CUP. And of course their velocities both exceed the old 7mm mag.

Powder makers helping out ammo and rifle builders. Who would have thunk it.?

Regards,

Bob

Ron, I think you are thinking of the Powley equation.

Shadow

These reloading manuals get more ridiculous all the time. All loading data like this does is get people used to running 3 grains over the listed maximum, and eventually you'll have a problem. I'd sure like to shoot a 7Mag loaded to 7x57 power levels, double the recoil, and 15 grains more powder. They'd be far safer to list real max. loads, force people to learn to identify pressure signals, than list these bogus loads and get you used to loading over max. It pisses me off too to see the boost up their new short mags and try to get people to believe that by some magic, they go faster than the old 7mm Rem Mag. In two years the 7WSM etc., will be loaded 150-200 fps slower than the current factory loads, you can bet on it, once the hype is over. They did the same thing with the .270 Win. and .243 factory loads. It's rare to see a factory .243 now that will actually chronograph over 2800 with 100-grain bullets, in the mid 70's they would go 3000 fps with factory loads out of a 22 in. barrel.

I think Neco is the only place to buy Quickload in the US.
http://www.neconos.com/details3.htm

In regards to CUP versus PSI, I was sure to make sure that I was using the correct unit of measurement.

What is the Prowley equation? Please post it.

In regards to the software, CAD and any other software that is CALCULATING loads is using an equation. What equations are they using? I am very good at physics, and with the equation, I can work wonders using the existing data.

software that uses published results is simply pulling data from a database or dataset. We can find them most anywhere, adn that is where the conflict is. I think a starting point would be better to find (not easier) from a known mathematical equiation. Anyone??????????

I actually don't have the Powley equation to post.

If you know the case volume of the cartridge, the temperature of the powder, the temperature of the chamber, the exact characteristics of the powder, the mass of the bullet, the length of the freebore, the diameter of the bullet, the dimensions of the chamber, the engraving force needed to form the bullet, and probably one or two other variables, you can predict chamber pressure and muzzle velocity fairly well. Getting all the input variables is a fairly major chore.

Powley has a series of articles running in Varmint Hunter, showing how to derive chamber pressure from muzzle velocity.

My solution was to get a PressureTrace, which lets you read pressure vs time. The careful home experimenter can actually produce measurements more repeatable than most published data.

Fact is, published data isn't all that reliable. The fact that most of still have both our eyes and all of our fingers is testament to conservative firearm design, rather than good measurement systems.

Denton posted

"If you know the case volume of the cartridge, the temperature of the powder, the temperature of the chamber, the exact characteristics of the powder, the mass of the bullet, the length of the freebore, the diameter of the bullet, the dimensions of the chamber, the engraving force needed to form the bullet, and probably one or two other variables, you can predict chamber pressure and muzzle velocity fairly well. Getting all the input variables is a fairly major chore."


You would probably also need to know the smoothness of the barrel and the co-efficient of friction of both the barrel and the bullet, air density,humidity etc.All in all this sounds like a lot of variables some of which would be constantly changing with atmospheric conditions.The result would leave a lot of room for error which makes one question just how accurate that this calculation could realistically be.

For equations, look here: http://www.fabriquescientific.com/

One question Ron, how would your equasion handle a 10% lot to lot variance in the powder?. I've seen 270fps change in velocity by only changing the lot # of the powder. Both loads were chroned on the same day.

For Tailgunner,

I am not looking for precision, just a guide that can be customized by mathematics for a specific weapon, with specific variables. The more variables, the more precise. Most of us just want to know approx how fast will a bullet travel using XXX powder and XXX bullet through My Rifle with a XX barrel. I think that this equation will do better than the lawyersitics tables......

Ron

Boy, you guys know your stuff..... I guess I was seeing what I wanted to see. (Ask your wives, they will tell you about this phenomenon with men seing what they want to or not want to see) It was 65000 PSI - and 53000 CUP respectively. I don't wear glasses, and I never see that thing that my wife wants me to find, even when it is "right over there" I will make sure I pay attention to detail from now on.

Curly, you da man! I have any reloading questions I will get a hold of you!