Found the Barnes and Nosler book velocites to be 100 fps faster than my rifles at max loads. My rifles are 1-2" shorter than the test barrel lenght. Why the discrepancy? or is that just how accurate they are?

Your barrel might be rougher, your bore might be larger, your throut might be longer etc. etc..

The velocities that you find in the books should be seen as something you might acheive but not always. Don't try and go past the powder charges they list in order to match velocities - you'll run at higher pressures if you do.............................DJ

Heck I've had twin rifles be more than 100fps different. Different barrels, different length, differnet case, different chamber all will impact. Is it a rifle or pressure barrel set up? Depending on the cartridge you can lose 24-50FPS per inch of length.

I never lose any sleep over book velocity compared to mine.

Book velocity is just like book pressure, and max loads, only valid in the test platform used.

quote:

Originally posted by Wayfaring Stranger:
Found the Barnes and Nosler book velocites to be 100 fps faster than my rifles at max loads.

That has also been my experience. It is rare I match book velocity - certainly using loads from the Nosler manual.

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by Ol` Joe:
Book velocity is just like book pressure, and max loads, only valid in the test platform used.

Not true. Don't think that you are not going to get higher pressures if you exceed max loads...............DJ

Every rifle is different. Don't believe everything you read.

Way Faring Stranger & mho +1

My experience with Barnes 210 grain .338 TSX & RL-15 too.

I also had problems replicating the velocities claimed with Hornady 225 grain bullets and various powders. The best I could get, before pressure signs made themselves known, was circa 2600 fps.

The above refers to a .338-06 with a 24.5 inch barrel.

I suspect a lot has to do with differences between universal receivers and pressure test barels versus an actual hunting rifle and elevation. If the tests were done at 4- 6000 feet Rockies USA against 150 - 200 ft above sea level England, then, it would explain a lot (to me, anyway)

.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The reason "book loads" give higher velocities to actual loads is because book load data is not true real time shot data, most if not all are derived from mathematical data which overestimate velocity and understimate pressure dependent on the emprical formula used.

I believe this to be completely false. Some manuals (Lyman, hogden annual manual etc.) actually list the pressures they get. I think that most if not all current manuals actually shoot and pressure test the loads they are now printing.........................DJ

I would agree with djp.

Considering how rabid America has become in the hunt for "free money" via the court systems, it would be foolhardy to publish any load information without hard data to back it.

This topic has been done a number of times before, but yes there are manuals out there that are optimistic on their speeds and some are optimistic with certain brands of powders.

Nosler thinks that Alliant powders push bullets much faster in some calibers and bullet weights than Alliant thinks their own powders do. My chrony readings agree much more with Alliant's data. However when you point this out there are always a few around here who swear they can get their rifles to perform just like Nosler thinks they can. One discourteous S.O.B. even had the nerve to suggest that my low mileage rifle was "shot out".

Check you loads against the powder mfg's data and against other bullet makers data for the same cartridge and bullet weight.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The reason "book loads" give higher velocities to actual loads is because book load data is not true real time shot data, most if not all are derived from mathematical data which overestimate velocity and understimate pressure dependent on the emprical formula used.

.

quote:

The reason "book loads" give higher velocities to actual loads is because book load data is not true real time shot data, most if not all are derived from mathematical data which overestimate velocity and understimate pressure dependent on the emprical formula used.

Don't know about only being emprical formulas but my old Hornady talks taking raw data "samples" then simply drawing curves and forcasting future velocities. That Hornady states for example all IMR powders curves are parallel. Which in todays world that would equate to an emprical formula. Looking at teh data Alf posted curves are not a stright line nor parallel for those IMR powders.

Heck is the velocity in the book at the chrono or adjusted for disatnce in front of the barrel? Heck maybe only 10fps but all the little stuff adds up.

Yes I believe there is actual data in the book but I also believe some of it is calculated. How much of each I have no clue.

.

Gentlemen ----- Alf is correct about at least one of the Manuals, the Swift people had a notice within the last year that their info is derived from data "not shot" but, calculated from various resources. I would dare say more than than one uses this method, and perhaps others would on parts of their manuals. The old Lyman manual that gave factory duplication and accuracy loads was one of my favorites, they no longer do that. The smart reloader whould consult all available information from the powder internet sites, bullet manufacturers manuals, and your old reloading teacher. I had two of the teachers, both now in the happy hunting grounds, fortunately they have kept from blowing up any rifles. Good shooting.

Alf, Here's a quote from Speer's reloading manual #14 p400 on the 7mm Remington Magnum.

"Seldom will either handloads or factory ammunition match nominal factory ballistics in a sporting rifle and there is a great deal of velocity variation among sporters in this caliber. Rifles in the Speer lab's collection posted velocities varying from 400ft/sec under to 300ft/sec over those posted by the SAAMI pressure barrel with the same ammo. Because of this, we have departed from our usual policy of showing velocities from a sporter................."

I would glean several things from this. One, in seeming contrast to your original post they do actual shoot rifles and pressure barrels to obtain thier data. But perhaps what you were originally trying to convey and what we might have misinterpeted is that the data presented in manuals isn't the exact readings they got off of a single pressure barrel or rifle, it can be the averaging of several different firing sessions.

What they didn't say in the above paragraph was whether or not the rounds that were 300fps higher were still within normal pressure ranges.

Maybe you can restate your original premise. It seems clear that the manufactures don't just use a formula or program to obtain their data, they actually shoot lot's of rounds to obtain their data. But also it's clear that some of the data isn't just the average of a 10 shot string in a pressure barrel..................DJ

quote:

DJpaintles:

Do you believe that the numbers printed in a load manual are asbolute for the "test barrels" the loads were supposedly shot in?

ALF, yeah, he does. Harmless error tho.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

quote:

Originally posted by Ol` Joe:
Book velocity is just like book pressure, and max loads, only valid in the test platform used.

Not true. Don't think that you are not going to get higher pressures if you exceed max loads...............DJ

You are right if you`re refering to the fact pressure in a given barrel will be higher with "X+" grains of powder then with the max of "X" grains. I disagree though if you think all factory barrels with the loose tolerances most have, will always excede the max pressures that were recorded in a lab test barrel with a slight raise in charge, or even match that pressure only when at the max charge level.
Powder has a tolerance in burn rate that can vary the pressure a lab finds fom lot to lot. The max today may be, and often is different then yesterdays, just look at data in a few manuals from the same lab. Speers data today is different from 10 yr ago.
I don`t suggest going over the book max. I do believe the pressure I get in my rifle is likely not the same as the lab got when they developed the data. If Speer found their 180 gr SP in a `06 with XX grains of powder give 60K psi and I load "XX-1.0"gr will I always be at a lower psi then the 60K the lab found?
Could I possibly be at or over the same 60K psi with 1 gr less?

NO I don't particularly beleive in absolutes. I think you should check as many different good sources as you can. I usually make a chart of all the manuals and data sources I can find. Usually maximum loads will be very close to the same in most of them and I'll discount any high or low values that seem off from the pack.

What I've seen is a continued idea among a lot of reloaders that the book maximums don't really apply to them and so they just continue to stuff powder into cases until they can't get the bolt open without a 2x4 or they pop primers. They then back off a grain or so and call it good. When such loads are tested they usually in up in the 70-75K range and sometimes up to 80Kpsi.
If one particular manual has a maximum load thats below several others I don't have a problem with working up the max load listed in the other manuals. I think it's dangerous to start going several grains over listed maximums just because you aren't getting "pressure signs".

I would have to say I put a lot more faith into 4 or 5 ballistics labratory's that have shot hundreds of rounds in a given caliber using several rifles and pressure barrels than I do in some individual who thinks his loads are safe just because his bolt isn't sticky yet.........................DJ

I get slower speeds also. However the Hornady book seems to give me a closer FPS than my Nosler book.

I have a 7 Rem Mag Weatherby SBGM these have a 24" Krieger barrel. I am shooting 63 grn R22 and a 160 grn Nos Accubond. Book says 3058 with a 24" tube...I get 2846.

I have a box of Hornady Light Mag 139 grn SST in 7-08. The box says 3000 fps and I get 2980 from my 22" Kimber 84M. Thats what I like "truth"

If you look at most test platforms, they are often 26" bbls. Depending on what cartriodge, youcan easily see 40fps less/inch of bbl. So 100fps diff woul dbe within reason. I find the Speer #14 pretty clsoe to what I get w/ my chronograph. Nosler seems a bit faster & Hornady a bit slower. Throw in every rifle being different, the only thing yo ucan use the manual for is a guide. You will only know y chronographing your own loads.

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

quote:

Originally posted by Wayfaring Stranger:
Found the Barnes and Nosler book velocites to be 100 fps faster than my rifles at max loads.

That has also been my experience. It is rare I match book velocity - certainly using loads from the Nosler manual.

- mike

Nosler appears to take the view that 'optimistic' load data will result in more bullet sales. I've never come close to nosler velocities except with 7x57 that appears to be on the safe side for older mausers.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
... there is a great deal of velocity variation among sporters in this caliber. Rifles in the Speer lab's collection posted velocities varying from 400ft/sec under to 300ft/sec over those posted by the SAAMI pressure barrel with the same ammo. ...DJ

Hey DJ, The SAAMI Pressure Barrels are the Calibrated Standard, and your quote shows some rifles showed Velocities "Slower" and "Faster" than the Calibrated Standard(basically what I said in our last discussion). With that being the situation(I agree with), how is it that you do not believe in both "Slow" and "Fast" barrels?

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:
Nosler appears to take the view that 'optimistic' load data will result in more bullet sales.

You know, I have always suspected something like this - although it is probably very hard to prove....

To me, reloading data is sometimes a bit like ballistic coefficients. What should be objective numbers end up as sales arguments....

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
... there is a great deal of velocity variation among sporters in this caliber. Rifles in the Speer lab's collection posted velocities varying from 400ft/sec under to 300ft/sec over those posted by the SAAMI pressure barrel with the same ammo. ...DJ

Hey DJ, The SAAMI Pressure Barrels are the Calibrated Standard, and your quote shows some rifles showed Velocities "Slower" and "Faster" than the Calibrated Standard(basically what I said in our last discussion). With that being the situation(I agree with), how is it that you do not believe in both "Slow" and "Fast" barrels?

They did NOT say whether they did so at higher or lower pressures so such conclusions can't be made based on what they said................DJ

You guys should realy GET A ROOM.

A couple of questons: Are you using the same brass and primer as in the manual? Seating depth? If you're seating the bullet out farther, load density will be less and you'll get less pressure and less velocity unless (and I don't recommend this) your bullet is touching the lands. I like a tenth of an inch "0.10" freebore as a general rule in a hunting rifle.

Hope this helps,



Chuck

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
You guys should realy GET A ROOM.

Uh Earth to Thorn, This is the "Accurate Reloading.com Forum" in the "Reloading" sections. WTH do you expect? We talk back and forth about reloading issues.................DJ

You two "talk" like my mom and dad used to....the didn't talk they disagreed about the same thing all the time
....like you two do.

If it's all "supposed to be fun" why are you yelling and cussing?

Yelling and Cussing, LOL.

HC and I disagree and have discussed this point a lot but I think for both of us it's a pretty good natured thing. He's a very knowledgable reloader and has really helped a lot of new reloaders here on this forum. I respect his point of veiw though I do disagree with him on point or two now and then. I think he'd say the same about me. Trust me it's something we both enjoy and occasionally learn from.....................DJ

Same-E-Same as what DJ just said.

Mr. Ted, You can jump in and give a perspective to the Slow/Fast Barrel question if you desire. And anyone else that wants to.

So Ted, do you think Speer intentionally put information in the Manual at something different from SAAMI Max Pressure just so they could claim some barrels were Slow and some Fast compared to the SAAMI Standard? Or do you think my buddy DJ has trapped himself and is trying his best to avoid reality? Perhaps all my "heros" larry, teanScum, tomek, seafire, alf and jackfish could help us out!

Reloading is very interesting because there are so many different perspectives which work. some poorly, some so-so and some great. As long as it is Safe, it should be fine with about everyone on the Board, unless they just want to talk about it. But when something is posted that has the potential to be Un-Safe, it is the responsibility of those who know better to mention it. Then let the folks choose who knows what they are talking about.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

You guys are too easy.

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
You guys are too easy.

Sooooo, by not responding to the question it means you got upset because you do not know what we were discussing. I understand.

I know you think you understood what I said, what you don't know is that I didn't say what I meant!

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I know you think you understood what I said, what you don't know is that I didn't say what I meant!

I completely disagree with that. I just went back to see what you posted in the thread and:
1. I feel sure that I understand what you posted near the beginning.
2. I think you did post what you meant.
3. And I totally AGREE with what you posted.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I know you think you understood what I said, what you don't know is that I didn't say what I meant!

I completely disagree with that. I just went back to see what you posted in the thread and:
1. I feel sure that I understand what you posted near the beginning.
2. I think you did post what you meant.
3. And I totally AGREE with what you posted.

You're getting way too easy lately.....

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
You guys are too easy.

Sooooo, by not responding to the question it means you got upset because you do not know what we were discussing. I understand.

I never get upset here Hot Core, and I don't even come close to understanding what you and dj are talking about....
but don't you and dj argue this same point often?